Once upon a time, there was a neighborhood with a very large old house flanked on either side by smaller, newer dwellings.
Pete, the owner of the big house, has always insisted that no one may enter without his express permission. Reasonable though this may be, the neighbor on Pete’s left, Mike, has always just dismissed out of hand the very idea that Pete has the authority to make any such demands. Naturally, this has ever been the source of a very serious division between Mike’s family and the household of Pete.
The neighbor to the right, Marc, on the other hand, has never questioned Pete’s authority in the matter. In fact, so intimate has their relationship and mutual esteem been over the years, that Marc has always considered himself Pete’s son, and Pete, Marc’s father.
One day, however, while Pete was away, Marc noticed that smoke was pouring from the windows of Pete’s house. The matter appeared rather serious, and so Marc made contact with Pete to seek his permission to enter the dwelling, so he might protect it from damage.
Pete answered, “I’ll grant the permission you seek, Marc, but not right now.”
Over time the situation grew more pressing, but Pete’s answer remained unchanged.
When the smoke eventually gave way to flames, Marc, deeply troubled, sat on the front porch of Pete’s house to contemplate how best to respond. Just then, much to his horror, he heard the cries of Pete’s children, his own “brothers” and “sisters,” apparently trapped inside!
Fearing they might perish, Marc made the decision to enter Pete’s home, for he judged that saving the lives of the little ones was of supreme importance; taking precedence over the need to acquire permission.
When Pete found out what Marc had done, he resented the implication that he was failing to protect his own children, and he immediately began treating Marc as if he were an outsider. Pete seemed to forget the many years of loyal service that Marc had rendered to him, as a true son, during which he sacrificed much for the good of Pete’s family.
In time, Pete eventually came to treat Marc as though he and his household were even less deserving of esteem than Mike. In fact, word now has it that Pete is planning to make changes in the way he runs his household, and believe it or not, he even told his children that he intends to seek the advice of Mike, the neighbor who has ever disregarded him, in how he should do so!
Too farfetched to be true? Not entirely.
Now, even though analogies are never quite perfect, the story above illustrates (as if it’s not entirely obvious already) certain aspects of the relationship between the Church, such as it is currently governed by Pope Francis (Pete), the Society of St. Pius X (Marc), and the schismatic Orthodox Churches (Mike).
With this in mind, let’s take a closer look at the SSPX established by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.
For many an undernourished and ill-informed Catholic, Archbishop Lefebvre is primarily viewed as a villain for daring to consecrate four bishops in 1988 without the permission of Pope John Paul II.
As the analogy above suggests, the Archbishop fully recognized the pope’s legitimate authority in the matter, but ultimately his decision to consecrate without papal permission was dictated by what he considered necessity for the salvation of souls, which incidentally is what Canon Law calls “the supreme law of the Church,” the same that can, at times, justify disobeying legitimate authority.
Whether or not Archbishop Lefebvre is to be commended, condemned, or anything in between, for his actions is a question that has already been settled by the Just Judge before whom His Excellency stood immediately upon death. Pope Benedict XVI, for his part, has spoken for the Church in the matter by lifting the excommunication from the four living bishops who took part in the consecration.
Beyond the consecrations, the Society itself is looked upon with scorn today by both neo-conservatives and leftists alike for some combination of its attachment to the traditional liturgy, its rejection of the Novus Ordo Missae as detrimental to the faithful, as well as for its resistance to certain of the propositions set forth in the documents of the Second Vatican Council (like collegiality, religious liberty and ecumenism).
With regard to the sacred liturgy, Summorum Pontificum, in addition to “liberating” the traditional Mass from the utterly scandalous restraints placed upon it by Paul VI and John Paul II, essentially neuters the pseudo-urgency fabricated by modernists relative to the Society’s opinion of the Novus Ordo.
Why on earth, one wonders, is it so important for this one priestly society, the majority of whose members would willingly die a martyr’s death to defend the authentic Faith, to applaud the supposed merits of a 40 year old rite that Cardinal Ratzinger aptly described as “a banal on the spot fabrication,” even as the world is littered with “full communion” Catholic parishes that are home to countless liturgical nightmares week in and week out?
The answer; it’s only important in the eyes of men with a broader agenda and those too stupid to know any better.
As for the Council, there isn’t a Catholic theologian worth a felt “Jesus love me” banner that will deny that the same conciliar propositions that trouble the SSPX are indeed in desperate need of further examination and explanation. None of the questionable texts are reasonably considered by any credible person to be the stuff of infallible teaching.
In any case, this brings us to “Pete,” he who in the present day is none other than Time Magazine “Person of the Year,” Pope Francis, the Bishop of Rome who has a warm embrace for pretty much everyone, except of course for “triumphalistic restorationists” like the SSPX.
In his Apostolic Exhortation, Evagangelii Gaudium, the same of which Cardinal Burke said, “I haven’t quite figured out in my mind exactly how to describe it,” Pope Francis said:
“…in the dialogue with our Orthodox brothers and sisters, we Catholics have the opportunity to learn more about the meaning of episcopal collegiality and their experience of synodality.”
In other words, in calculating how best to dilute the papacy’s God-given authority, Pope Francis thinks it a grand idea to take a place at the knee of “Mike,” to avail himself of the wisdom of a people who have ever thumbed their nose at his venerable Office, rejecting the constitution of the Church as Our Blessed Lord established it.
Imagine?
No, the analogy with which I opened isn’t perfect, but its greatest deficiency lies not so much in over-simplifying a complicated situation, but in failing to adequately convey the immense gravity of the tragedy that has befallen the Household of God.
Correction: Four bishops were consecrated and saw their alleged excommunications removed.
Otherwise a very apt analogy.
First I want to thank you Louie for accepting me as a friend. Before I decided to get on Facebook Julie Caire Jacob would forward me many of your articles. I’m a senior,senior citizen who really didin’t want to do this but nevertheless, here I am. I want to thank you for your great analogy. We are in great trouble, and growing and living much of my younger years when the Church was right, it took me until just 5 years ago to rebel. This is because I was taught “the Church was always right “. After fighting battles for most of those agonizing years, (slow learner, but a fighter). I realized I couldn’t win alone and began to attend the SSPX chapel. THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT I GREW UP WITH IN THE 30’s AND 40’s. Although I find that many of the young and some of the older did not learn much of what I learned even in grammar school from the good nuns, I’m a retired school teacher, but teachers never retire, at least that is what my husband told me. Teachers always need continual education and I love reading what all of you wonderfully educated young Catholics,chosen by God, pass on to all who have ears to hear.
Sorry this is so long, but I do love to talk, even if I have to type. Nothing seems to deter my preaching,
Mike saw that Pete burned down his own house and so Mike ain’t about to seriously consider letting Pete get a liturgical lien on his mortgage.
Under the law you have perfectly described the “defence of necessity”. You are hereafter admitted to the Bar, Thomas More.
I appreciate reading something balanced in regard to the SSPX, thanks for writing it. The SSPX has been on my mind lately and I decided to read more about them instead of listening to the slander. i found myself in sympathy with them.
God bless, you Louie, for this slice of life in the Church as nobody ever used to know it.
–
p.s. keep teaching Bubbles, the disinformation about the Faith, the little shop of horrors that hippie bishops bring to their parishes needs a POV that saw things when they weren’t skewed. God Bless.
–
P.s ‘In the beginning, Francis recognizes the “programmatic” nature of this exhortation for his pontificate: “I want to emphasize that what I am trying to express here has a programmatic significance and important consequences.” (#25) Which brings some Vatican specialists to say that this is in reality an encyclical.’
http://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/evangelii-gaudium-some-observations-2909
sneaky sneaky sneaky – psycho-warfare.
Thank you, Nordic. Correction made. 🙂
Yep….
Nell, I am going through the same thing.
Louie, I just listened to your CD “My Father in the Mirror”. I can imagine how hard it must be for you to write an article like this. You made a career out of teaching Catholic faithful about Vatican II and now you have to start all over. I feel much the same way. I just realized tonight that the New Catechism of John Paul II is not the trustworthy guidebook that I once that it was — precisely because it is “the ripest and the most complete fruit of the conciliar teaching”. And I learned this at the SSPX website in an article titled “Is the New Catechism Catholic?”:
http://sspx.org/en/new-catechism-catholic
I’m sure you can easily guess the answer to that question.
Mr. Verrecchio, this is simply well done on your part. Thank you for giving me much to think about.
The salvation for souls is always a positive thing–and it would be considered an act of mercy to save souls first above all.
Please, keep writing. We are with you.
Archbishop Lefebvre, gentle yet sound Catholic shepherd and soldier, pray for us.
Dear Bubbles, I agree with dear Saluto, keep teaching and talking. You and I share the same experience in many ways.
Except , I am a convert. But my father was a Catholic — and when I was abandoned with a newborn and younger children, I knew the only way to raise them alone was to convert to Catholicism.
I thought I could just go to a priest, and soon be received. But I had no idea of the disaster which I was about to encounter– “RCIA” protestantism & paganism wrapped up in a faux Catholic package, no more recognizable Holy Sacrifice in the Mass, nothing to return/convert to? Thanks be to God my Dad brought me with him to the Mass of all time late ’40’s-early ’50’s, because of this I knew what to seek.
You young people here, may the kind of peace that only Jesus Christ can give be to you.
Bl. Jacinta, pray for us.
Dear Michael Leon-thank you for identifying a huge problem which distresses me entirely -the subtle harmful -hidden infusion {over decades}– of modernism into —writings which one can find even within what used to be reliable Catholic writings/resources / publishing houses. For my catechism classes, I now use only SSPX publications, Angelus press and the Catechism of the Council of Trent.
One of my {now grown of course,} sons just ordered for us the new documentary on Archbishop Lefebvre’s life from Angelus Press. IMO you courageous young Catholic men & women would find it an excellent treatment to exbound on what Mr. V. briefly addresses here.
….this blog is a bastion for those who believe in the immutable truths of the Holy Roman Catholic Church Thankyou Mr V , as well as all the commenters who frequent here, I`m always edified and uplifted.
Thank you Louie, your heart is seeking ‘truth’, which is a grace from God.
The SSPX is also a gift from God to ALL Catholics who “Remember the Head and the Body to which you belong”……St. Leo……. who love God, love His Church, His Truth, who want to worship God in most holy way….a Divine Design….. on their knees, in thanksgiving, in repentance, with hearts set on fire, in ‘holy hope’ for ‘eternal salvation’…….preaching the Gospel to the poor, to the blind and deaf, as was commanded by Christ the King……….till the end of time.
Our Lord wants souls to be saved, and this is what the holy Church always preached, how the faithful lived and how it is their God given ‘right’ how they worship……..an ancient holy Tradition……. Catholics who protect, defend and promote the ‘rights of Jesus Christ and of His Church, the rights of the souls redeemed by the blood of Jesus Christ! In every century faithful Catholics understood this ‘simple’ truth.
All Catholics ought to acknowledge this truth: One God in Three Persons – Father, Son, Holy Ghost! Our Lord Jesus Christ is God; this is central truth of our faith; the Divinity of Our Lord, divine origin of His one Church or the Queenship of the Blessed Virgin Mary or the Primacy of Peter or the Real Presence of Jesus in the Holy Eucharist…….or any other tenet of Catholic belief.. Only then, we will serve Our Lord as God, and NOT as a mere man….Miserere! Only then, there will be an abundant conversion to TRUTH!
…….Father Frederick Faber, said that…….’where there is no hatred of heresy there is no holiness’. This is the Catholic Spirit!
…..my emphasis……’where there is no holiness, there’s no ‘fear of God!’…….this is crystal clear today in the ‘church of Men’.
What all sincere Catholics desire, is just to be simply Catholics….nothing more, but surely nothing less…..Ave Maria!
Speaking of the SSPX, Fr Chazal recently said in a sermon that he met with visionary Sister Agnes of Akita and apparently she was thrown out of the convent for being faithful to tradition (apparently she received the stigmata so she couldn’t receive communion in the hand). Fr Chazal apparently offered mass for the nun (who now wears a full traditional habit) and Sr Agnes said of the Tridentine mass, “this is the true mass”. Thought it really interesting since I had always wondered what the good nun had been up to since the apparitions, I thought it might interest other readers, this section of the sermon starts around the 21:55 mark.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmGRymMjy7Y
I also posted the video on my twitter account, @StLouisMontfort
Humanly speaking……if, it was not for the ‘lone’ Soldier of Christ, Archbishop Lefebvre with handful of faithful who stood up against the spirit of the ‘raging fires from hell’…..These same Catholics who for decades resisted the ‘revolution’ in the holy Church……from the rooftops, in persecution…….reminded those who have ‘eyes’ to SEE, those who have ears to HEAR TRUTH……of heresy, errors, scandals, blasphemy……..without compromise, without fearing ‘men’…….rather fearing the Just God! For this fearless faith they were (are) despised, mocked, an outcast for the ‘cowards! For this fearless faith…….in every century faithful willed martyrdom.
If, it was not for these faithful Catholics……..by today, us Catholics would have been totally converted into ‘the church of men’, BECAUSE of the silence and cowardice of the ‘shepherds’………ever sooooo slowly cooked like the frog……….today, we would be Protestant Catholics……..Modernists on our way to HELL!
May God Bless the Society of Saint Pius the X……..!!! Who follow in the ‘sacred footsteps’ of the Royal Way of the Cross! This must be the ‘golden path’ for all Catholics to follow…….there’s no other entrance to Heaven. So teaches the universal Church, so the Christian faithful universally believed……
Jesus, Mary, St. Joseph we love You, save us, lest we perish!
Saint Michael the Glorious Archangel, Ora Pro Nobis!
In fairness I should nuance my earlier comment about the application of the “defence of necessity”. The defence is invoked to characterize a state of mind based on presumed facts and the good faith of the one who ‘broke the law’ in carrying out whatever actions were taken.
It does not necessarily mean, however, that the presumed facts were ultimately proven true, i.e. I believe I hear shouts for help coming from my neighbours home; I try the door; it’s locked; I kick it in; and, there was nobody home. My ears were playing a trick on me. I have acted in good faith but based on a faulty premise.
JMJ
It is important to note that the supposed “excommunications” were “lifted” not only for the 4 SSPX bishops but also were lifted for the heroic Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop Castro Mayer.
See how in this article: http://remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2010-1031-mccall-fellay.htm
At the Angelus conference, Bishop Fellay also drew our attention to a related indication found in the wording of the Vatican decree nullifying the decree of SSPX excommunication. The final paragraphs of this decree reads:
On the basis of the powers expressly granted to me by the Holy Father Benedict XVI, by virtue of the present Decree I remit the penalty of excommunication latae sententiae incurred by Bishops Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta, and declared by this Congregation on July 1988. At the same time I declare that, as of today’s date, the Decree issued at that time no longer has juridical effect. (Emp. added)
Bishop Fellay pointed out what should have been obvious to us all. Notwithstanding the fact that the first sentence mentions only four of the six bishops subject to the former decree, the final sentence clearly states that the former decree “no longer has juridical effect.” That means the former decree ceases to legally exist.
If the decree claiming Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop de Castro Mayer are excommunicated latae sententiae has no juridical effect, the declaration with respect to them has been withdrawn as well. To avoid this obvious conclusion, the language needed merely to say “with respect to these four bishops only,” the former decree has no juridical effect; or “except as regards Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop de Castro Mayer” the former decree has no juridical effect.
I must admit that I felt rather stupid for not having noticed at the time what was clearly but subtly accomplished by this clever wording. The declared excommunication latae sententiae against Archbishop Lefebvre and his trusted ally in 1988 was removed without mentioning either of them by name. To do so would likely have elicited another episcopal rebellion.
Excellent analogy! Thank you Mr. Verrecchio. I’m going to forward this to many people.
Please join the sspx’s new rosary crusade
Heresy is not the only great sin that separates us from the Church. Schism, as St. Thomas Aquinas reminded us, is one of the worst of sins because it is a sin against supernatural charity, which binds us Catholics as one in the true Church. But schism is often understood only in one of its species: when a subject refuses communion with a legitimate superior or vice versa. However, the sin of schism also consists when a legitimate superior maliciously intends the destruction or transmogrification of the whole Church. In such a case, he is in schism with the whole Church, which must no only resist him, but fight against him. He loses his office in virtue of his schism.
It seems, therefore, a necessary conclusion, that if any bishop or pope intends to implement V2 by means of destroying the Church or transforming it into a masonic world wide religion, he is much more in real schism that even the greek orthodox.
Bergoglio by his statements and expressed intentions has spoken heresy and is flirting with schism from the whole Church.
Only correction in this analogy I would make, Louie, is in your placing trads in another house ‘next door.’
You’re falling prey to modernist ideology by doing this: as though we were somehow ‘outside’ the Church.
Pete’s house is our house too, dammit. I hate to use their phraesology, but “We Are Church!”
Now, it’s true that they may have relegated us to the basement; and we have had to partially finish it ourselves using leftovers and rejected furniture from upstairs, but we are still part of the household.
“Right on Leo!” as the hippie freaks would say.
Halina: It’s always a pleasure reading your posts. Bog zaplac!
WE ARE the foundation, the ‘heart’ of that household, build on the ‘Rock’……
S. Armaticus…….”Bogu Niech będą Dzięki!”…..
Rosary Crusade (January 1, 2014 to June 8, 2014)
From the letter of US District Superior Father Rostand…
A Rosary Crusade is a spiritual expedition or campaign to obtain special blessings and graces from God. Here are the goals:
To implore from the Immaculate Heart of Mary a special protection for the traditional apostolate;
For the return to Tradition within the Church;
For the triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary by the consecration of Russia.
In addition to saying the rosaries we are invited to special generosity, for example:
Prayer and penance as asked for at Fatima;
Sanctification through the duty of state;
A spirit of sacrifice in union with the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
I believe St. Athanasius was excommunicated…or at least tossed out by several bishops…so Archbishop LeFebvre has good company. Louie- Please speak with Michael Voris about Pope Francis’ modernist two step i.e. speaking the truths in prepared homilies while spewing heresy when he is speaking otherwise. MV can’t accuse the neo-cons of avoiding the hard truths when he is avoiding them himself. The reason the world is thrilled with Pope Francis is b/c of what Pope Francis has said and done…nothing else. If he had been a true, faithful Pope the world would hate him like they hated Christ…there would be no fodder for the media to jump on. Maybe a new season of “A Conversation With?” God bless~
….from SSPX, please read “Keeping calm amid the storm”…….
……The post-conciliar storm continues to threaten the Barque of Peter — the Catholic Church — perhaps even worsening in its intensity……….
……..Yes, Michael Voris still needs much convincing…….the house is burning, but he refuses to seek shelter in the basement…..the safest place, were he can hope to save himself.
MMC – ditto about MV. Thank you.
Great analogy. However, many of the children are not screaming for help—they’re roasting marshmellows! For 50 years, the Catholic faithful have become lost sheep following wolves in shepherd’s clothing.
Thank God for Marc (SSPX)who will lead the way for those willing to listen.
Lord, have mercy! Thanks, Louie!
“scandalous restraints” upon the TLM. That’s a perfect expression. How offensive that the faithful would need special permission just to worship in the way our ancestors did for centuries!
Catholic at Rome said:
‘But schism is often understood only in one of its species: when a subject refuses communion with a legitimate superior or vice versa. However, the sin of schism also consists when a legitimate superior maliciously intends the destruction or transmogrification of the whole Church. In such a case, he is in schism with the whole Church, which must not only resist him, but fight against him. He loses his office in virtue of his schism…[Bergoglio] is much more in real schism that even the greek orthodox.’
–
Thanks for this plain understanding. If we don’t abandon the Real Church of Christ and His Saints which anyone with half a brain knows is the Church that was before Vii and has been kept safe and sound in the dedicated hands of the SSPX, then God won’t abandon us. Evil can be incredibly banal, ‘nice’, smiling, but always plotting, always hating to worship God Almighty.
p.s. Did you notice the horns on Bergoglio’s head on the Time’s minion of the year cover?
From reading the posts above, it is obvious that we are all cognizant of what is at stake in this battle with the modernists. Furthermore, we know what we need to do individually so that the following words of St Paul will come to pass: “tradidi quoed et accepi”. Christians, man your battle stations!
And since the season for celebrating the birth of Our Saviour is upon us, I would like to “pass on” this link to the Mundabor site for our viewing pleasure.
http://mundabor.wordpress.com/2013/12/20/o-holy-night/
Lyrics translated by John Sullivan Dwight:
O holy night! The stars are brightly shining,
It is the night of our dear Saviour’s birth.
Long lay the world in sin and error pining,
‘Til He appear’d and the soul felt its worth.
A thrill of hope the weary world rejoices,
For yonder breaks a new and glorious morn.
Fall on your knees! O hear the angel voices!
O night divine, O night when Christ was born;
O night divine, O night, O night Divine.
Led by the light of Faith serenely beaming,
With glowing hearts by His cradle we stand.
So led by light of a star sweetly gleaming,
Here come the wise men from Orient land.
The King of Kings lay thus in lowly manger;
In all our trials born to be our friend.
He knows our need, our weakness is no stranger,
Behold your King! Before Him lowly bend!
Behold your King, Before Him lowly bend!
Truly He taught us to love one another;
His law is love and His gospel is peace.
Chains shall He break for the slave is our brother;
And in His name all oppression shall cease.
Sweet hymns of joy in grateful chorus raise we,
Let all within us praise His holy name.
Christ is the Lord! O praise His Name forever,
His power and glory evermore proclaim.
His power and glory evermore proclaim.
On an aside, I and all the Armaticii will be praying for Michael Voris this holiday season.
St. Michael Archangle, ora pro nobis
Archbishop Lefebvre, ora pro nobis
I believe that Marcel Lefebvre is a saint.
Certainly, he never mocked the Holy Father or used intemperate speech.
Clare, happy Christmas, but you don’t need to be reading this site if it upsets. for me the cuurent Bishop of Rome, his choice, has had so much guff come out of his mouth or off his pen, that now when it seems ‘kosher’, it’s like the boy who cried wolf, forgive some people just see him as a con man with an anti-Christ agenda – only God Really knows but if even St Paul or an Angel speaketh with forked tongue, St Paul says, don’t believe him. Pope’s are not God, they, ideally, should be the best representative of God on earth, but God doesn’t contradict Himself, and Mr Bergoglio contradicts God.
God bless.
this should put a smile on:
http://linenonthehedgerow.blogspot.co.nz/2013/12/mumming-and-case-of-peas.html
p.s. God bless S.Armaticus for the mundabor link. for someone in the middle of novus ordo nowhere, where the homilies include (and this isn’t the worst), ‘the kingdom of God can be found in a rubbish dump’, with no qualification, this is heaven on earth.
“Merry Christmas”
….Two thousand years ago, the world was touched by a miracle,
…..May that same silent miracle that changed history forever, bless you!
….May the Christmas story always remind you of God’s bounteous love for you and yours!
…..May the Christ Child, His Blessed Mother, and St. Joseph bless us all, to persevere in our love for His Truth!
Happy and Healthy New Year!
In Christo et Maria,
Halina
My question is …since the Orthodox have preserved the ancient Faith and Traditions and they have means to obtain perfection through the Divine Liturgy, devotions and sacraments (think John of San Francisco, who’s body lies incorrupt), then why is that not a viable option? I have not heard a satisfactory answer yet. Only “well ..they are schismatics”. If I were searching for the early Church then Orthodoxy who appear to be the closest resemblance.VI & VII seems to validate all the concerns I’ve heard from Orthodox, in that, the Pope has the power, without any challenge, to change anything he desires. Especially the Liturgy. Which is exactly what frightens the Orthodox and the SSPX.
James said::… since the Orthodox have preserved the ancient Faith and Traditions and they have means to obtain perfection through the Divine Liturgy, devotions and sacraments…then why is that not a viable option?”
The short answer is: preserving an anciet Faith and Tradition isn’t the point of the excersize. What I think becomes apparent from observing all the experimentation and novelty over the last 50 years is that the moderinsts are trying to create something that never was, but can’t come out and say so. So they cloak their novelty in some supposed ancient rites and traditions that never were. A good example of this “cleverness” is the bathing in the cosmos by the satanic witches of the LCWR.
PS If I am just stating the obvious above, and I am just being thick, excuse me.
S.Armaticus, thanks for the reply. Perhaps I am thick and don’t understand your reply. I was asking why Eastern Orthodoxy is out of the question as an option to the modernist post concilliar RCC?
What I was trying to say is that the modernist is after something new, something fresh, something that can correspond to the modern man. The past? Well, the past is dead. And listening to Bergoglio, he doesn’t appear too far away from Zarathustra.
I absolutely love your blog, Louis. Your labor of love for Christ and his True Church must assuredly be doing much good for many souls. God bless.
OMT. And as for Bergoglio’s strange “affinity” toward Eastern Orthodoxy, I suspect that it’s the same affinity that the modernists have for the SSPX. They “admire” the SSPX so much that they created the FSSP to stalk and eventually crush them. And when that didn’t work, they tried to lure the SSPX back into the fold. And now that thats failed, they are back to raging against those darned Pelagians with their liturgical certitute and their legalistic rosary counting ideology and what not. In this above scenario, it is the Greek who should beware of “Romans bearing gifts”.
“Certainly, he never mocked the Holy Father or used intemperate speech.”
Dear Claire. You may not be aware of what he said but he has a LONG list of nasty judgements about the Pope and the Sacraments – from calling the Pope the AntiChrist to calling the Sacraments bastard sacraments and saying the Hierarchy had spiritual AIDS, etc
At times, he went on and on and on and, sometimes, in the very same month, he would direct charity and calumny towards the Holy See.
Don’t forget, because He chose it as his own Missal (after saying the N.O. even inside St Peter’s) everyone identifies the 1962 Roman Missal as the Mass of all times but it was a transitional Missal – but that opens up a large can of liturgical worms 🙂
Recommended reading:
“I Accuse the Council ! ” —
by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre
timely message: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KzdHoUQaQuY
James, the answer to your question, in a nutshell, is the Eastern Orthodox, deny the following dogma (defined at the First Vatican Council). They started in
schism and are now in heresy:
Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irredeemable.
So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema.
Armaticus……very good point…….
http://eponymousflower.blogspot.com/2013/12/lies-i-was-cheated-pope-francis-daring.html?showComment=1387706605954#c8714082735524584217
Well Pope Francis strikes again. blasphemy imo against Our Lady.
Becca: Thanks for the link. With respect to Bergoglio commiting blasphemy, I think this assessment might be too uncharitable. I’m beginning to suspect that there is another explanation for Bergoglio’s “unorthodoxy”. Me thinks that the present bishop of Rome is lacking the mental capacity to function properly in an environment grounded in objective reality. I would even go further and ask the question: Is Bergoglio a crank? Almost everything the man said over the last nine months seems to point in that general direction. And I think it is something that the college of Cardinals should look into. As soon as possible!
Well that’s why I added in my opinion, I was not trying to say it is definite or anything…but if he is THAT immature in his faith, that he has to project his own insecurities onto Our Lady we are in HUGE trouble. Maybe this is why he said Our Lord was ‘pretending’ to be angry. I mean, is he just revealing his own character, his own trouble with faith with this stuff? It is troubling! I hope it is not out of malice, I really do. But on its face, saying that Our Lady could ever think God is a liar is beyond the pale.
Dear Linda. Even though he and his followers denied it for a score of years, he signed the very Documents he later repudiated.
So, when was he acting with full integrity – when he signed the Documents or repudiated them?
Lefevbre would not keep his word. He agreed with his Bishop to open his seminary on an experimental basis then refused to close it when ordered to do so; he negotiated an agreement with Rome, signed it,and then welshed on that deal.
By his actions he showed he ws not a man of his word.
Look, he was an infinitely holier man than me but being blind to his faults and calling him a Saint is not the way to stand-up for truth.
Ask your own self if Mr. V. would create a schism?
Lefevbre did and he arrogated authority to his own self even establishing his own putative authoritative tribunals that decided marriage trials.
He established a petit ecclesia that significantly weakened the Traditional cause.
Saint Augustine taught that there is no excuse for a schism whereas Lefevbre publicly confessed the idea of a schism seemed ever more attractive to him.
Pleasse stop promoting him as a Saint or an example to follow
S.Armaticus said:
“They “admire” the SSPX so much that they created the FSSP to stalk and eventually crush them.”
DO
A
LITTLE
DANCE
Do a little dance
Make a little mess
Put down that rite
Put down that rite!
Do a Bishop prance
Feign a humble stance
It’s out a sight
It’s out a sight!
Franciscan babes
Pull it together
You didn’t do
What you should do
The Latin rite
Is used to tether
St. Pius the Tenth’s
Point of view
(Chorus)
The other guys
Say Latin Mass
Same way
Same kind
But always near
Society’s brass
To come to them
If change of mind
(Chorus)
A rival good
To God’s own good
By every Chapel
Of St. Pius
Where we plan
As well we should
To lure away
And then they’ll try us
(Chorus)
So Franciscan babes
You’ll have to go
You don’t obey
Our church of people
Our plans entice
Shrink men to mice
Then shut you down
Obeying sheeple…
Do a little dance
Make a little mess
Put down that rite
Put down that rite!
Do a Bishop prance
Feign a humble stance
It’s out a sight
It’s out a sight!
Dear Long Skirts. You now how much I admire your poetry and I am generally favorably inclined to what you write but those who stay in Communion with the Pope and stand-up for the fullness of Tradition are masculine warriors whereas those who flee are epicene mice.
In this tale of mice and men, the sspx are the epicene mice and the FSSP are the real masculine men.
And as for the Franciscan Fathers, they have imitated Christ in their acceptance of unjust punishment; that is, they are real men, and I am sure they are offering-up their sufferings for what was done to the Master will surely be done to His disciples and their offerings will be acceptable to God because they remain faithful but if you think what the sspx does represents either Tradition or is acceptable to Our LOrd and Saviour then I think you require some more time to reconsider the actions of the real masculine Saints who suffered unjust treatment by His Church – in its human membership – without running oft.
THe SSPX is reminiscent of those who fled the draft for Canada and then donned the fatigues and mocked those who answered the Draft. The draft dodging traitors had the option to go to jail or to declare their own selves COs but they wanted to have their cake and eat it to.
THe SPX is quite similar to the draft dodging traitors in that they fled the battle field and now they don their Fiddlebacks and mock those who maintain communion; that is, they get to have their Eucharist and eat it to all the while boasting that they are obedient when such obedience is just; that is they only submit to their ill-ordered will.
It is their will be done…
Mr. V. is doing a great, faithful, and masculine act and so let’s consider canning the praise for the traitors to Tradition.
Thanks Long Skirts.
On a similar topic, I am not Spartacus said: “Please stop promoting him (Archbishop Lefebvre) as a Saint or an example to follow”. I always wonder what can possibly motivate someone (who by all appearance writes like a big C Catholic) to make such a statement. It reminds me of the Bugs Bunny cartoon in which Elmer Fudd finally corners Bugs up in a tree. Elmer is standing next to the trunk and Bugs is out on the limb. Elmer starts sawing the branch, and when he finishes, instead of the branch falling, the tree crashes. Everytime I read about the SSPX and the FSSP in the same article/post, this cartoon comes to mind.
I am not Spartacus: It would appear that “we have met the enemy, and it is us”.
I Am Not Spartacus: You said: “…but those who stay in Communion with the Pope and stand-up for the fullness of Tradition are masculine warriors whereas those who flee are epicene mice. In this tale of mice and men, the sspx are the epicene mice and the FSSP are the real masculine men.”
Ecclesial marginalization is not for wimps. If you were a priest, you would know that. But like too many laity, you are very facile making judgments upon priests.
Dear Sean-well said.
Dear I am not S.–of course there is no way you could possibly know this, but although I am not an expert on the SSPX, I am an expert on the FSSP for highly personal reasons which I care not to go into here.
What I will say here is- the latter, over these decades,, has caused me to dive much further into the former.
That said, you dear I am not S., and anyone who has not already listened to this, I recommend the following audio-recorded prior to the most recent halt of talks between Rome & SSPX –wherein Mr. V. is also featured:
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/up-close/2012/04/17/the-sspx-and-rome
Beyond that, it is necessary {for anyone,} to understand that the SSPX is not in schism, and I would just make a personal suggestion to anyone who is reacting to that needs to become much more educated on the SSPX before attempting to even have a conversation on topic.
Spartacus,
If you understood the definition of “calumny” and, more importantly, understood the crisis of the faith we are living in, caused by the modernist “reforms” of the council, you would speak differently.
Latest newsletter from Bishop Williamson concerning the SSPX Resistance!
*************************
Number CCCXXXV (335)
14 December 2013
FATHER RIOULT II
Let me quote Fr Olivier Rioult from his October 6 interview in Paris (cf. EC 333) on another question, much disputed within today’s Catholic Resistance – the question of organization. Fr Rioult was asked whether he thought it was possible to set up a new worldwide organization, or would he rather opt for some kind of free association such as has grouped together sedevacantists for a number of years ? Here is his answer, this time in his very own words:–
“In the months to come I may be setting up a broad kind of association based on friendship with other Catholics in the Resistance, whether or not they are sedevacantists, sedevacantism being for me an opinion. But the situation is not ripe here and now for such an association. In any case whatever is Catholic is ours. So any Catholics ready to operate as Catholics and to resist the modernism reigning supreme within the Church, we will work with. Therefore yes, to a broad kind of association sharing the same common good: the Faith and worship of the Catholic Church, the defence of the Faith. Having this same common good can create friendship amongst all our groups.
“I think that the closer we come to the end times, the more Catholics will have to be anarchists, not in principle but in practice. By which I mean, they will have to be against all the powers that be, because these will all have been neutralized, undermined or subverted, operating contrary to the natural order. Hence, in practice, Catholics will have to stand up to them all, in Church or State… because they will all be twisted out of shape, under Masonic influence… serving in any case the Prince of this world. So I think it will be very difficult to create any more worldwide structures. The French Dominican priest, Fr Roger Calmel, had a clear view of things. As far back as 1970 he said that the natural leaders in any given place will have to make their ministry shine out in that one place, being tied by bonds of no more than friendship to the leaders in any other place.
“In 1970, in the French periodical “Itineraires” (#149), he wrote: “The fight for the Faith will have to be fought by little groups refusing to enter into any structured or universal organizations. Within these various groups, such as a small school, a humble convent, a prayer group, a gathering of Christian families or the organizing of a pilgrimage, the authority is real and accepted by everybody… All that is needed is for each Catholic to reach as far as his grace and authority will carry him in the little sphere which is certainly his to lead, and which he will take charge of without having over him any grand administrative structures to make him do so’. ”
If Fr. Calmel wrote that in 1970 for the circumstances of 1970, one might say either that he was seeing too far ahead, or that Archbishop Lefebvre proved by organizing the Society of St Pius X what could still be done in 1970. But I do think that Fr. Calmel was right in the long run. One might say, watching what happened to the Society last year, that it was bound to run into the sand. Archbishop Lefebvre, like Pope St Pius X, conducted a marvelous rearguard action, but one notes how much less the Archbishop could achieve, coming70 years later than the Pope, and now we are 40 years on from the Archbishop. In a world marching to its ruin the realization of Fr. Calmel’s prophecy could not be indefinitely delayed.
Dear readers, if we wish to stay with Our Lord, we have no choice but to gird our loins. In my opinion, Fr Calmel and Fr Rioult are right. Mother of God, Help of Christians, help !
Kyrie eleison.
Contact Us:
Please write to the applicable email address from among the following with your questions, comments, or concerns:
letters@dinoscopus.org
– for comments to the author about a particular issue of Eleison Comments.
info@dinoscopus.org
– for general questions or comments.
admin@dinoscopus.org
– to resolve technical concerns or problems.
editorial@dinoscopus.org
– for back issues of Eleison Comments.
Donate
While Eleison Comments is provided free of charge, there are administrative and technical costs associated with making it available to subscribers worldwide and with operating this site. Contributions to offset these costs are appreciated, and may be made via the button below or by contacting:
donate@dinoscopus.org
© 2011-2013 Richard N. Williamson. All Rights Reserved.
A non-exclusive license to print out, forward by email, and/or post this article to the Internet is granted to users who wish to do so provided that no changes are made to the content so reproduced or distributed, to include the retention of this notice with any and all reproductions of content as authorized hereby. Aside from this limited, non-exclusive license, no portion of this article may be reproduced in any other form or by any other electronic or mechanical means without permission in writing from the publisher, except by a reviewer who may quote brief passages in a review, or except in cases where rights to content reproduced herein are retained by its original author(s) or other rights holder(s), and further reproduction is subject to permission otherwise granted thereby.
CraigV, why would the Eastern Orthodox want to come into union with a Church that altered just about every aspect of their faith, including the Liturgy? A Church that tolerates homosexual bishops? A Church that claims Jews and Muslims worship the one true God? A Church that is disintegrating, and every amount of heresy running rampant… And on and on and on…
And all of the above was made possible by the declaration of 1870. Supreme power of the Pope over ALL of Christendom.
To them it must look like a graceless dying branch that cut itself off.
The benefit of the Papacy is what, again?
The difference between the SSPX and Orthodox is that the SSPX Don’t believe Rome has the authority or power to force these things on them, based on Tradition. The Orthodox believe, yes.. it does. It declared it for ITSELF. And that is why they want no part, until they repent of their novelties. Good luck convincing them the 1870 dogma is not a novelty. Because they witness the fruits.
CraigV, p.s. I used to defend the Papacy against Orthodox who argued that the Papacy pulled a power grab in 1870, like a dictator. Today, I can no longer defend the argument after such tyranny against Tradition we’ve seen with the FFI. Unless you believe destruction of Tradition is the will of God and His means is His vicar. Otherwise, due to the dogma of 1870, there is no way to stop it.
Perhaps you can help ease my mind.
Spartacus……..Why are you gnashing your teeth against Archbishop Lefebvre? Is he the cause of your blindness?
Calm your heart, you will soon rejoice……… the canonization of John XXIII and John Paul II are closer than you think. You will be able to pray for their intercession to help you overcome your hatred of the SSPX, or, they might have other ideas for you……..The ‘likes’ of you are legions………Ave Maria!
Our Lady of Fatima, ora pro nobis!
St. Michael the Archangel, ora pro nobis!
Ah, confusion reigns as the Pope who calls himself the Bishop of Rome says Our Lord “pretended” and Our Lady may have thought God lied to her. He will not ‘judge’ the homosexual nor purge the ‘gay lobby’ but rather is bringing in more consultants sympathetic to the gay agenda and demoting and deposing ‘conservative’ prelates. He allows the demolition of the faithful order for ‘cryptic’ reasons when there was no heresy, no crime and no sin to charge them with other than their very faithfulness. He does NOT want the remnant faithful anywhere near him. All this is very obvious and public. The acts speak for themselves.
Many faithful Catholics, including Michael Voris, are doing the mental gymnastics to put the best possible face on what is happening. They do not want to think negatively muchless speak negatively of the man in the Petrine office because they love the Church and know they are also to love the Vicar of Christ, which the Pope is.
The remnant faithful are between a rock and a hard place. They have eyes to see what is happening the direction being taken by Rome. The reshuffling going on in Rome is not in any way a ‘reform’ but rather an entrenching of the same things that have caused shipwreck and the loss of literally millions of souls to the faith over the past decades. And now, so sadly, we are seeing more of the same. The new appointees will appoint those like them.
The SSPX can offer a valid Mass but there are no faculties for confession, etc. They do not have the authority to state differently. I do have friends that have gone to the Greek Orthodox because of the very sad condition of “CINO” parishes. In all honesty, I cannot embrace the Orthodox or the SSPX. I can, however, embrace the FSSP or the Byzantine Rite, etc.
The Holy Father is causing great confusion. He calls himself humble! He wants a “mess’ and I think he is getting it too. The Church is a mess. It has been for 50 years but saying that will get you crushed. The ‘witch hunt’ is not for witches but rather for the remnant faithful. Our parents and grandparents who were strong Catholics have known this and the heartbreak that follows. Now it is our turn.
Still, obedience brings the grace. Those who know the truths of the faith must do their level best to embrace the corporal and spiritual works of mercy and live the life we know we are called to live, and be lights as best we can in our darkening world. Let us double down on our reception of the Sacraments and seek personal holiness which is ever the counter to evil.
We still know that the Church will last until the end of time. She may come limping to the finish line but we know in the end Our Lady’s Immaculate Heart will triumph.
I Am Not Sparticus, as the mother of a large family I HAD to follow the Priests who were willing to daily, lay down their lives for my children to help save their souls by confecting the Mass, daily, and especially opening schools. They have also built Retreat Houses, Convents & Monasteries and on and on an on…that’s not “dodging” that’s staying in the vineyards and working to save souls AND speak the Truth about the evil within Holy Mother’s Breast as ugly and painful as it is.
I love all True Catholic Priests and pray for them but it’s the SSPX feeding us the WHOLE Faith, daily, His Bread.
Abp. Lefebvre set out to form traditional priests because no one else was willing to do the job, the Church was in free fall, and in his judgment nothing could change without good priests. That was in 1970.”
THE
LITTLE
CATHOLIC
HEN
Who’ll say Mass
Assumption Feast?
No longer done
Said parish priest.
Who will baptize
Little one?
More important
In-i-ti-a-tion.
The Catholic Faith
Please teach my child?
Not I, said nun born-
To-be-wild.
Who will help
Teach catechism?
Don’t call it that
It sounds like schism.
Who will hear
My child confess?
We’re all forgiven
More-or-less.
Who will give
The angels’ Bread?
Extra-ministers
Sue and Fred.
Confirm my teens
Their souls they’re losing?
That must be done
Of their own choosing.
So little mother
Walked away
Hating to
Look bold.
Never orphaned
Clung to Cross
Deposit- Faith
Her gold.
Then up above
On mountain top
A man in white
He stood.
Just one more Bishop
Who’ll try to stop…
Disorient
What’s good.
But Bishop lifted
Up her Cross
His sons helped
Bear the weight.
And Pilgrims in
Progressive lands
Continued in
Grace-state.
They handed down
What they were taught
Vocations now
They flourish
And others old
Who loved new-thought
Had only crust
To nourish.
But little mother
Saw their tears
Starving for
What’s true…
Come in, come in,
We’ve waited years…
His Bread’s, in memory,
For you!!!
Are the SSPX Confessions Valid?
Chris Jackson POSTED: 5/13/13
REMNANT COLUMNIST
______________________
Spartacus
We live in extremely confusing times. IMO the worst crises the Church has ever faced. I have attended SSPX, FSSP , Indult , CMRI masses. I refuse to get into shooting at other Trads. That being said a few things to consider
1. If it wasn’t for SSPX we would not have access to the Catholic Faith. Period . End of story. The FSSP, Indult would not exist. There wouldn’t even be the tiny opposition to the modernists in the Church right now.
2. SSPX is not in Schism. This was said multiple times by The Vatican over the years.
3. According to the teachings of the Modernist Popes ( notable JP2, Benedict, Francis) The Orthodox , Protestants, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Pagans, Homosexuals, Atheists are all OK. But SSPX is bad because of Jurisdiction??? You have got to be joking !!!
4. A Pope got us into this mess, It will take a Holy Pope to get us out. Until then it is “:Every man for himself”
James the Less:
None of the damage to the Church has been done by infallible proclamation. As defined at Vatican 1, the protection of infallibility is limited in scope. The problem lies in the gross exaggeration of it…papalotry.
Given the present state of things, when will the EO come back? They won’t. Not until we clean house, or more realistically, when the Good Lord cleans house. Per various approved messages from Our Lady, said house cleaning may involve fire falling from Heaven, half ruined cities, slain bishops in white, and the blood of martyrs flowing in the streets.
Hunker down my friend.
Long Skirts, I have just become a fan.
I Am Not Spartacus? You are not as knowledgeable as I once thought.
S. Armaticus said: Me thinks that the present bishop of Rome is lacking the mental capacity to function properly in an environment grounded in objective reality.
Methinks so too.
CDF Prefect Müller: “Lefebvrians are de facto schismatic”, Liberation Theology founder “has always been orthodox”
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2013/12/cdf-prefect-muller-lefebvrians-are-de.html
–
May I add Mr Muller to the, ‘ lacking the mental capacity to function properly in an environment grounded in objective reality’ list?
p.s. the ‘talk amongs yourselves’, nomination for quote of the day: ‘ Vatican II, an imminence work, unlike every other Council issued no Canons hence every word got Canonised’. Fr Ray Blake.
http://marymagdalen.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/a-new-ultramontanism.html
James, you do realise that the Orthodox permit contraception, divorce and abortion? What was that about them having “preserved the ancient faith and traditions” again?
For those of you who claim that Lefebvre is a latter-day Saint and/or a crypto-Athanasius, please post for us the proof that Saint Athanasius consecrated Bishops against the specific warning of the Pope not to do so?
That schism is proximate to heresy is, again, manifesting itself as a truth for those who succor Lefebvre think that if Lefebvre did not create a schism then the Catholic Church would ceased to have existed; that is, y’all have accepted the absurdity that Jesus blessed a schism against His own Church so as to save His Church which is just another way of saying that His kingdom could only be maintained by Jesus dividing it against Himself.
Dear Catholic at Rome. Please name names; which of our legitimate Popes is it that you accuse of being schismatic?
Every Pope since Pius XII?
Dear Catholic at Rome
AD APOSTOLORUM PRINCIPIS
40. And when We later addressed to you the letter Ad Sinarum gentem, We again referred to this teaching in these words: “The power of jurisdiction which is conferred directly by divine right on the Supreme Pontiff comes to bishops by that same right, but only through the successor of Peter, to whom not only the faithful but also all bishops are bound to be constantly subject and to adhere both by the reverence of obedience and by the bond of unity.”
41. Acts requiring the power of Holy Orders which are performed by ecclesiastics of this kind, though they are valid as long as the consecration conferred on them was valid, are yet gravely illicit, that is, criminal and sacrilegious.
Now, according to Catholic Tradition, the acts of the SSPX – Masses and all of the Sacraments they dispense – are criminal and sacrilegious
So, in order to defend the SSPX you are required to excise much of Catholic Tradition; and, frankly, I don’t think that is too wise.
That is to write, the gravely illicit, criminal and sacrilegious acts of the sspx get a pass while the Church in its decisions concerning tradition can be opposed and resisted and accused of perfidy, malign intent, destroying tradition, blah, blah, damnable blah.
Your double standard is absurd.
It is ironic that Martin Luther was once more Catholic than those who succor the sspx:
In a letter written by him in 1519 to the then reigning Pontiff Leo X. and quoted in the History of the Reformation by that partisan Merle D’Aubigne, he says,; “That the Roman Church is more honored by God than all others is not to be doubted. St.Peter and St. Paul, forty-six popes, some hundreds of thousands of martyrs, have laid down their lives in its communion, having overcome hell and the world ;so that the eyes of God rest on the Roman Church with special favor. Though nowadays everything is in a wretched state, it is no ground for separating from the Church. On the contrary, the worse things are going, the more should we hold close to her, for it is not by separating from the Church we can make her better. We must not separate from God on account of any work of the devil, nor cease to have fellowship with the children of God who are still abiding in the pale of Rome on account of the multitude of the ungodly. There is no sin, no amount of evil, which should be permitted to dissolve the bond of charity or break the bond of unity of the body. For love can do all things and nothing is difficult to those who are united.”
Lefebvre and his schism were not content with just contravening he whom he called the antichrist, Pope Blessed John Paul II; no, he also contravened the Council of Trent
Session 7, “No bishop is permitted under any pretext or privilege whatsoever to exercise episcopal functions in the diocese of another bishop, without the permission of the Ordinary of the place and with regard to persons subordinate to the same Ordinary. If any bishop does otherwise, he will be lawfully suspended from his episcopal functions . . .”
The SSPX and those who succor it sound like the AmericanGeneral during Vietnam who claimed he had to destroy a village to save it
As an aside, what will the SSPX do when Pope Blessed John Paul II is formally raised to the altars?
They will act as sappers undermining infallibility for no absurdity is beyond them
Dear “I am not Spartacus”, brother in Christ,
To sum it up with as few words as possible, it is the counterfeit church of conciliarism that is in schism with the Mystical Body of Christ, not the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. For, it is indeed a true and diabolical counterfeit, with many resemblances to the One True Faith. Remember Galatians 1:8, “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be anatema.” As Arch. Lefebvre put it very succinctly to Paul VI: “You force upon us to choose between you or two thousand years of Christian teaching and tradition.” Arch, Lefebvre clearly chose the latter, and I will not be mad enough to reject church tradition either.
“If anyone rejects any written or unwritten tradition of the church, let him be anathema.” 2nd council of Nicea, 787 AD
Can you seriously claim with a straight face that JP II’s Assisi abominations were not a rejection of church tradition?
Dear Edu and others who succor the schismatic, Lefebvre, hear his words on the occasion of his schismatic consecreation of Bishops:
“Veritas quotes from the sermon delivered by Lefebvre when he ordained 13 men on 29 June 1976, first, this significant sentence: “There is only one Word, the Word of the Holy Ghost.” Then, “…For Our Lord Jesus Christ is Priest for eternity…because the divinity of the Word of God was infused into the humanity which He assumed.” In the following paragraph: “…this grace of the divinity itself descending into a humanity which is Our Lord Jesus Christ…The humanity of Our Lord Jesus was penetrated by the divinity of the Word of God, and thus He was made Priest. He was made Mediator between God and men.”
http://strojieletters.tripod.com/Econe/
PIUS
THE
TENTH
PATCH
Brer bishops
Brer priests
And brer people of god
Love the new Rite
Think the old Rite is odd.
Brer mother of ten cried,
“The old’s tried and trued.”
Brer people of god cried,
“Chill out
Take a lude.”
Brer priest said,
“Ms. Brer have a coke
Serve with me
And together we’ll create
A two Rite harmony!”
With these words
Brer mother got sick
And threw up
So brer priest urged her, “Go!
If you can’t drink our cup.”
“So you’re urgin’ I go?”
And her head she did scratch,
“Jus’ please don’t throw me
In no Pius the
Tenth Patch!!”
But brer priest
Flung brer mother
Out the door shut the latch
And forced her to land
In a Pius the Tenth Patch.
So mostly the
New Rite is given the nod
By brer bishops
Brer priests
And brer people of god.
But high on a hill
Brer mother of ten
Is singin’ and kickin’
Her heels
Up again…
“I was born and raised
In a Pius the Tenth Patch
Known as the Catholic Church
And there still ain’t
No match!!!”
MERRY, MERRY CHRISTMAS to all and continue praying for our Pope, all priests & religious and Holy Mother Church!! Never stop!!!!
Apostolorum Principis;
No one may legitimately confer episcopal consecration unless in advance the particular papal authorization is in [the consecrating bishop’s] possession. Through this criminal act there is carried out a most serious attack on the unity of the Church Itself. Therefore, for such a consecration performed against divine and human law, there is established the penalty of excommunication .
A possible slogan for the SSPX; Criminals for Christ
MEMORABLE QUOTES
“The fort is betrayed even of them that should have defended it.”
——— St. John Fisher, Bishop and Martyr
Let us regard the tradition of the Church also as worthy of belief.
Is it a tradition? Seek no further!
——— St. John Chrysostom
“Those therefore who after the manner of wicked heretics dare to set aside Ecclesiastical Traditions,
and to invent any kind of novelty, or to reject any of those things entrusted to the Church,
or who wrongfully and outrageously devise the destruction of any of those Traditions enshrined
in the Catholic Church, are to be punished thus:
IF THEY ARE BISHOPS, WE ORDER THEM TO BE DEPOSED;
BUT IF THEY ARE MONKS OR LAY PERSONS, WE COMMAND THEM
TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE COMMUNITY.”
——— Second Council of Nicaea 787 A.D.
Character is not revealed when life shows its best side, but when it shows its worst.
Ven. Fulton J. Sheen,
Thoughts for Daily Living, p. 81
“To recoil before an enemy, or to keep silence when from all sides such clamors are raised against truth,
is the part of a man either devoid of character or who entertains doubt as to the truth of what he professes to believe.
In both cases such mode of behaving is base and is insulting to God, and both are incompatible with the salvation of mankind.”
Pope Leo XIII, Sapientiae Christianae
“They knew only too well the intimate bond that unites faith with worship, the law of belief with the law of prayer,
and so, under the pretext of restoring the order of the liturgy to its primitive form, they corrupted it in many respects
to adapt it to the errors of the Innovators.”
Pope Leo XIII, Apostolicae Curae
“It is better that the truth be known than that scandal be covered up.”
St. Augustine
“Not to oppose error is to approve it; and not to defend truth is to suppress it; and indeed to neglect to confound evil men,
when we can do it, is no less a sin than to encourage them.”
Pope St. Felix III
“When all this is considered there is good reason to fear lest this great perversity may be as it were a foretaste,
and perhaps the beginning of those evils which are reserved for the last days; and that there may be already in the world
the “Son of Perdition” of whom the Apostle speaks (II. Thess. ii., 3). Such, in truth, is the audacity and the wrath employed
everywhere in persecuting religion, in combating the dogmas of the faith, in brazen effort to uproot and destroy all relations
between man and the Divinity! While, on the other hand, and this according to the same apostle is the distinguishing mark of Antichrist,
man has with infinite temerity put himself in the place of God, raising himself above all that is called God; in such wise that although
he cannot utterly extinguish in himself all knowledge of God, he has contemned God’s majesty and, as it were, made of the universe
a temple wherein he himself is to be adored. ‘He sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself as if he were God’ ” (II. Thess. ii., 2).
Pope St. Pius X, E Supremi
“If the faith is in imminent peril, prelates ought to be accused by their subjects, even in public.”
St. Thomas Aquinas
“The greatest obstacle in the apostolate of the Church is the timidity or rather the cowardice of the faithful.”
Pope St. Pius X
“When lies have been accepted for some time, the truth always astounds with an air of novelty.”
St. Clement of Alexandria
From the Stigmatist, Julie Jahenny:
On November 27, 1902 and May 10, 1904, Our Lord and Our Lady announced the conspiracy to invent the “New Mass”:
“I give you a WARNING. The disciples who are not of My Gospel are now working hard to remake according to their ideas and under the influence of the enemy of souls a MASS that contains words that are ODIOUS in My sight. When the fatal hour arrives when the faith of my priests is put to the test, it will be (these texts) that will be celebrated in this SECOND period … The FIRST period is (the one) of my priesthood which exists since Me. The SECOND is (the one) of the persecution when the ENEMIES of the Faith and of Holy Religion (will impose their formulas) in the book of the second celebration … These infamous spirits are those who crucified Me and are awaiting the kingdom of THE NEW MESSIAH.”
…..With the forthcoming canonization of Pope John Paul II in April, many will desire to learn more about the life of one of the greatest Popes to have ever walked this earth……from a Polish admirer living in the USA……
“If the world hate you, know ye that it hath hated Me before you. If you had been of the world, the world would love its own: but because you are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.”
Under John Paul’s pontificate, the post-Conciliar Church’s new attitude toward the Jews was made even more explicit in the 1985 Notes for a Correct Presentation of Jews and Judaism in the preaching and Catechesis of the Catholic Church,” issued by the Vatican Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews. This Vatican document was approved by John Paul II who “ratified it as being in line with own thinking…”[14]
The Vatican text reads:
Attentive to the same God who has spoken, hanging on the same word, we have to witness to one same memory and one common hope in Him who is the master of history. We must also accept our responsibility to prepare the world for the coming of the Messiah by working together for social justice, respect for the rights of persons and nations and for social and international reconciliation… To this we are driven, Jews and Christians, by the command to love our neighbor, by a common hope for the Kingdom of God and by the great heritage of the Prophets. Transmitted soon enough by catechesis, such a conception would teach young Christians in a practical way to cooperate with Jews, going beyond simple dialogue.[15]
Thus in this 1985 document, the Vatican – with Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger as Head of the CDF – is officially inviting Catholics to cooperate with Jews to prepare for the coming of the Messiah………. (WHO, then is JESUS CHRIST?)………”BE GONE SATAN!”
Eternal rest grant unto Pope John Paul II, O Lord, and let perpetual light shine upon him.
May his soul and all the souls of the faithful departed, through the mercy of God, rest in peace. Amen.
Mortalium Animos against the SSPX
Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors
This constant hateful attack on the SSPX, can only come from the ‘diabolical disorientation’………
Spartacus, why don’t you treat yourself and go to the coming soon, SSPX retreat……..You will learn to love God above all, and love your neighbour………simply put it, you will love being a Catholic.
Merry Christmas! Love and Peace to you and all you love!
Me thinks someone over at the FSSP is having a bad day. 🙂
And while we are on the subject of schism, this just in on the Rorate Caeli website:
“Franciscans of the Immaculate part 2, from our very well-informed source
Friars who signed petition told by Volpi they were “outside the Church”
Threatened to deny them Sacraments if they didn’t sign retractions”
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2013/12/franciscans-of-immaculate-part-2-from.html
Another group of schismatics identified. Wonder if the good Father Volpi checked under his bed lately?
Complete paranoia.
I am not Spartacus. I don’t wish to start a spitting match. But you really need to go back and read the entire corpus on the question of disobeying Popes, and not just cherry pick those that seem to support your position. The situation is FAR more complicated than you purport to be the case.
I have no problem with you being an unfailing supporter of the FSSP. They have stepped up their attacks on the SSPX. That’s probably because their original founders left +Lefebvre due to the excommunications imposed after his episcopal consecrations. After those excommunications were lifted, it removed the foundational reasons as to why the original FSSP founders had left in the first place. Before that action, the positions of +Lefebvre were their positions. It’s a rather sticky wicket, wot?
BTW: I don’t see how FSSP priests who still collect for the notorious CHD of the USCCB qualify as “Catholic warriors.”
At any rate, I wish you Peace and Grace during this Holy Season.
Vigilant said: “you do realise that the Orthodox permit contraception, divorce and abortion? ” Pretty sure you could find Catholic Priests and prelates that permit all that too. Those in glass houses….
They are going against our doctrine though James the Lesser. You can’t say the same for the Eastern Orthodox. Do they even have doctrine past 1066? Oh yeah, the, we permit divorce and remarriage, contraception and abortion doctrine.
THe SSPX and those who succor it will not have The Church as their Mother so they do not have God as their Father.. Unbeknownst to the vast majority of those who succored the schismatic Lefebvre, he, in secret, was estanlishing his petite ecclesia which y’all now support ad the true Church.
Y’all have cooperated in trying to divide His KIngdom and y’all arertrying to set Christ against Himself.
Well, y’all may be ignorant but the devious Lefebvre was not. He and Fellay kept lying to you- Fellay does it to this day – telling you he was only upholding Tradition whereas it was the case he was establishing his petit ecclesia in opposition to the Catholic Church Jesus established.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
TUESDAY, 21 DECEMBER 2010
THE “CANONICAL” TRIBUNALS OF THE SSPX
Cover page of the special edition of the review Sodalitium for January 2001, no 51, dedicated to the dossier on the “Canonical Commission of the Society of Saint Pius X”. In the foreground: Mgr Tissier de Mallerais, one of the four bishops consecrated by Mgr Lefebvre in 1988 and the president of this commission. In the background can be made out his coat of arms, adorned with the lily of France and the Sacred Heart. Superimposed: the seal of the Apostolic Tribunal of the Roman Rota.
In epigraph, a phrase which seems to fall from the lips of the young bishop: “It is true that our verdicts replace the verdicts of the Roman Rota”, as simply as that!
Sodalitium no 51, French edition, in pdf format
MGR LEFEBVRE’S SECRET
An atomic bomb has just gone off in our Catholic society, triggering a seismic shock of incalculable magnitude, capable of disorienting minds and disturbing souls well beyond the boundaries of our traditionalism, even to shaking the pillars of Saint Peter’s. We felt its first tremors when we read number 50 of Sodalitium, June-July 2000. The editor announced that the Institute of Our Lady of Good Counsel was putting together «not without a profound sadness, a voluminous dossier on the “canonical tribunals” of the Society of Saint Pius X.» What was it about? The rest of the editorial was going to tell us:
Since 1991, from the lifetime of Mgr Lefebvre, the Society of Saint Pius X has arrogated over its members (and potentially over all Catholics) the “power to bind and to unbind”, usurping the exclusive powers of the Holy See. A tribunal which sits in the General House of the Society in Switzerland grants dispensations from marriage impediments (which would render the union invalid), annuls marriages, grants exemptions from religious vows, lifts ecclesiastical censures, including excommunications (…). It does so in a wholly invalid manner, thereby placing men’s souls in an inextricable situation: the vows it unbinds are not unbound, the marriages it annuls are not annulled, and those which are celebrated after its “declaration” of nullity are invalid, as are those that have been celebrated with its non-existent “dispensation”.
Not without some cruelty the author describes this “tribunal” as an “operetta-style Roman curia”, a “parallel Holy See”. The Abbé Michel Simoulin, former Rector of the University Institute of Saint Pius X in Paris, former Director of the Seminary at Econe, and currently the Superior of the Italian District of the Saint Pius X Society, attempted to deny this in his monthly newsletter Roma felix for November 2000:
Dear faithful,
I do not know what is going on, but for some time now a number of friends of the Society have been asking me questions about the so-called “tribunals” established by the Society to dissolve marriages, religious vows, etc. It seems that certain people are sowing doubts and ill-feeling by making out that the Society has thereby usurped the powers of the Pope and the Roman Curia: which if true would involve the Society declaring that it no longer believes the Pope to possesses the primacy of jurisdiction, effectively behaving as though the See were vacant.
And yet, last 8 August in Saint Peter’s Basilica, Mgr Fellay forcefully repeated his invitation to us to pray for the Vicar of Christ, the successor of Peter. This pilgrimage was an open proclamation of our fidelity to the See of Peter, and I do not see why anyone should doubt this.
When people speak about “tribunals” instituted by the Society, I am sorry to have to say that these are the product of a somewhat disordered imagination. Mgr Lefebvre had in fact asked for commissions to be instituted, composed of learned priests and experts in moral theology and canon law, in order to respond to requests made by priests, religious and the faithful. Given that we often cannot trust the answers given by the diocesans tribunals, everyone can now submit their problems and their cases of conscience to these commissions, whose members, once the case has been examined, give a response which is nothing more than an opinion or a recommendation, never a declaratory verdict having the force of law! The commissions are in no way a permanent organisation; they simply meet from time to time when requests are made by those who feel dissatisfied with the responses given by the dioceses. That is all.
He is wasting his breath! The dossier published in December in number 51 of Sodalitium leaves none of this weak defence standing. It is divided into two parts, as indicated in the editorial:
In the first part certain internal documents of the Society of Saint Pius X are published (documents which are therefore unavailable to the public and even to the faithful of the Society); these concern the creation, in 1991, of a canonical Commission invested with vast powers of jurisdiction, the Canonical Commission of Saint Charles Borromeo. To replace the authority of the Pope and the Holy See, the Society has instituted, as you will read, veritable ecclesiastical tribunals authorised – by the very same authorities of the Society – to grant dispensations, to annul marriages, etc. The publication of these documents will perhaps be regarded as an unacceptable indiscretion; however we felt authorised to disclose them, firstly because the faithful have the right to know of the existence of these tribunals to which they must have recourse and which can judge them, and secondly because they will thus be in a position to evaluate in all objectivity the reasoning behind them.
It is therefore to these same authorities of the Society that we will now hand over, by publishing for example what Mgr Tissier de Mallerais wrote to defend and justify the existence of these tribunals.
The second part of this file consists of a critical study of these documents.
The author of the second part is Father Francesco Ricossa, the editor of the review, well known to our readers and friends for the sincere praise that his scholarly works appear to us to deserve, and also, it should be said, for the sharp polemics that have taken place between us (cf. English CRC no 269, Aug-Sept 1994; no 274, February-March 1995; no 309, May 1998, p. 32; no 310, June 1998, p. 27-30). Today, once again, we will not be stinting in our praise for the work carried out by Father Ricossa for this special edition, the repercussions of which in every way will be considerable. It is a bomb in the Roman Church. It cannot be handled without precautions. That is why I could think of no better way of utilising this immensely important document than that of reproducing it as exactly as possible, despite omitting several passages, particularly the “notes”, which will be of particular interest to specialists.
As usual, we are given some rough treatment in this article: I am proud of it. On the battlefield of the great controversy agitating our Catholic world, this hostility is an expeditious way of confronting the other part directly. What is at stake is the future of the various schools of thought and of the great movements that will result among the Catholic elites. Some of these have retained the tradition of dogmas, rites and laws, while others invent novelties; parties form, divide and multiply… all this for the praise of God’s glory and the salvation of souls.
Should one follow Mgr Lefebvre or take what appears to be the more secure path, that of Roman discipline? Or perhaps other intermediate paths? To clarify our religion, Father Ricossa arranges the combat of the leaders on which our fate will depend. But how can we make a battle of it when it is a question of recovering the holiness and unity of our Catholic communion under the banner of the Immaculate and the standard of Christ Our Lord, our universal Saviour and our King?
We leave Don Ricossa to initiate us into the mysteries of this red-hot dossier:
For some time now we have been receiving a small Peruvian bulletin entitled Resistencia catolica and edited by one of the Saint Pius X Society faithful, Mr Julio Vargas Prada.
It was with astonishment that we read in this bulletin (no 187, Nov-Dec 1999) a denunciation of the creation by the Society of Saint Pius X of veritable canonical tribunals. The Peruvian Vargas Prada and the Brazilian Orlando Fedeli, both of whom had at the time supported Mgr Lefebvre in his decision to consecrate bishops, now see in these tribunals, the existence of which they had discovered through an allusion made in the Society’s Argentinian review Jesus Christus (no 43, Jan-Feb 1996, p. 17), a concrete danger of schism.
It was essential to check the veracity of the facts. We finally came into possession of two documents of an exceptional gravity: Ordinances concerning the powers and faculties enjoyed by the members of the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X, dated 1997, and certain documents of the Society published in Cor unum, n. 61, October 1998, p. 33-46, which seek to justify these innovations .
– Cor unum is the internal bulletin of the Society of Saint Pius X, reserved only to its own members, and we have published these documents without any authorisation to do so by the review. But it appears to us to be a matter of duty to proceed with their publication. According to the texts in question, the faithful of the Society of Saint Pius X, religious and priests affiliated with it, and potentially all Catholics, are “subject” to these tribunals of which they have no knowledge and to their judges. These unwitting subjects have the right to know about the existence of a tribunal of this kind, about its judges and its doctrinal justifications: a semi-secret tribunal is, in our opinion, incompatible with Catholic morals, not to speak of natural morality.
THE ORDINANCES
The first document in question is a small volume of 79 pages entitled “Ordinances concerning the powers and faculties enjoyed by the members of the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X”, promulgated in 1997 by the Superior General of the Society, Mgr Bernard Fellay, to replace a similar collection of “Ordinances” published on the authority of Mgr Lefebvre in 1980.
This imitation “Code of Canon Law” was accompanied by a letter written by Mgr Fellay to the members of the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X, and preceded by “preliminaries” which explain its principle and basis.
Dear colleagues,
Mgr Lefebvre, considering the needs of our apostolate, so similar to those of the missions in Africa, gave us in 1980 a collection of faculties similar to those used for many decades in mission lands.
Over the last fifteen years, certain circumstances have changed, as for example the possibility of having a more frequent episcopal visitation, or, on the contrary, the quasi-impossibility of having recourse to Rome to obtain dispensations or equitable judgements on marriage. Hence the justification for this renewed edition of the Ordinances.
These new ordinances come into effect on 18 May 1997, on the feast of Pentecost.
Given on the feast of the Presentation of Jesus in the Temple, 2 February 1997.
Bernard Fellay, Superior General
PRELIMINARIES
OBJECT OF THE LAW
– The end and object of ecclesiastical laws, and a fortiori of powers and faculties, is none other than what concerns the worship of God and the salvation of souls (cf. Leo XIII, Encyclical Immortale Dei, cf. Prümmer, vol. 1, n. 181).
– The New Code of Canon Law promulgated on 25 January 1983, pervaded by ecumenism and personalism, seriously sins against the very purpose of the law. Therefore in principle we follow the Code of 1917 (with the modifications subsequently introduced).
However, in practice and on certain precise points, we can accept anything in the New Code which corresponds to a homogeneous development, to a better adaptation to circumstances, to a useful simplification. Generally speaking we also accept that which we cannot refuse without misaligning ourselves with the officially received legislation where the validity of acts is concerned. And in this latter case, we reinforce our discipline to bring it closer to that of the Code of 1917 (cf. Cor unum, n. 41, p. 11-13).
SUPPLIED JURISDICTION
– Canon law provides for certain cases where the Church makes up for the priest’s lack of jurisdiction: “the Church supplies jurisdiction not as a personal benefit, but for the bonum animarum commune [the common good of souls]” (Cappello, 1, n. 252). The Church expressly supplies jurisdiction in three cases: the danger of death (can. 882), common error (can. 209) and positive probable doubt whether of law or of fact (can. 209) (cf. Noldin, III, n. 346-347; Cappello, I, n. 254-258).
– Owing to the fact that the hierarchy (cf. can. 108 § 3) has in large part distanced itself from the Catholic faith, generally speaking the faithful are unable to receive spiritual aid from it without endangering their faith. There can be no doubt, therefore, that the Church generously extends to the faithful what she grants in danger of death and in other cases of emergency, and that for this reason, owing to the analogia iuris [analogy of law] (can. 20) and the æquitas canonica [canonical equity], she makes up for the lack of jurisdiction of faithful priests (cf. can. 209, 2261…) when they are unjustly deprived of the jurisdiction they would have in normal times either by right (e.g. novus ordo, can. 967 § 2), or by delegation.
– Characteristics of this supplied jurisdiction.
( 1) It has more of a personal than a territorial character; (2) it is not habitual but is exercised “per modum actus” [on a temporary basis] (cf. Cappello, I, n. 252); (3) it depends on the needs of the faithful, taking into account the law of necessity (cf. Conférence aux Cercles de la Tradition, Paris, 10 March 1991); but (4) it exists even in cases where there is in fact no strict necessity; for there is a presumption of common danger and therefore an analogy with can. 21, permitted by can. 20, and as there will generally exist a probable doubt regarding faith, jurisdiction will be supplied in accordance with can. 209.
– Those who possess supplied jurisdiction.
These include all bishops and all priests faithful to tradition (even the excommunicated, cf. can. 2261, when that term is used as an argument “ad hominem”), for the licit or valid exercise of acts of the episcopal or sacerdotal ministry.
– Hierarchy in supplied jurisdiction.
Absolutely speaking, with regard to the faithful, simple priests have no less supplied power than a prior or district superior. But as a matter of practicality, in order to preserve the hierarchical dimension that belongs to the spirit of the Church and to assign more serious cases to superior authority, certain powers are reserved to the higher ranks as they are in the normal hierarchy, in accordance with the following rules:
* Priors and priests in charge of chapels are equivalent to private priests, such as military chaplains.
* District Superiors, seminaries and independent houses as well as the Superior General and his assistants, although in theory they only have jurisdiction over their subjects (priests, seminarians, brothers, oblates and members of their household), are equivalent to military Ordinaries, with regard to the faithful whose priests have the care of souls (sic).
* The bishops of the Society, though deprived of any territorial jurisdiction, nevertheless possess the suppletory jurisdiction necessary to exercise the powers attached to the episcopal order and certain acts of ordinary episcopal jurisdiction.
CANONICAL COMMISSION.
BISHOP RESPONSIBLE FOR THOSE IN RELIGIOUS LIFE.
These two authorities were created in 1991 to continue after his death the office that Mgr Lefebvre had fulfilled in a suppletory manner in this area from 1970 to 1991. It was Monseigneur who provided for and specified the role of these authorities in his letter of 15 January 1991 to the Superior General:
[This text will be found below.]
DELEGATED POWERS AND FACULTIES.
– Powers previously delegated by the Holy See.
For some time, and most recently in 1950 and 1960, the S. C. of Propaganda have granted local ordinaries in mission lands wide-ranging faculties called “decennial faculties”, in particular the faculty of delegating several of their powers to priests in their territory.
In 1961, Mgr Lefebvre, the then archbishop of Dakar, promoted the application of these faculties in a small booklet which even then bore the title “Ordinances, etc.” The text of the decennial faculties of 1950 and their application can be found in the book Vingt-cinq ans de pastorale missionaire by Father Gréco (1958), prefaced by Monseigneur and specially recommended by him.
On 30 November 1963, in his Apostolic Letter Pastorale munus, Pope Paul VI granted somewhat similar faculties to all residential bishops.
– Mgr Lefebvre, as the Bishop and Superior General of the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X, although no longer a local Ordinary as he was in Dakar, considered himself to possess a supplied jurisdiction permitting him, in the interests of the faithful, to grant his priests similar faculties. He promulgated these on 1 May 1980 in his Ordinances for the use of the Society, following the formula facultatum decennalium of 1960.
– The present edition of the ordinances takes up the former text but subdivides it in a more developed manner, taking into account the existence of auxiliary bishops in the Society.
– There have also been added powers and faculties relating to marriage certificates (cf. Cor Unum, n. 42, p. 44-56), dispensations from vows and the lifting of censures, along with useful precisions regarding cases where there is a danger of death and cases of emergency.
– The faculties granted to priests are not only for priests who are members of the Society, but for all priests who reside for a prolonged period of time in our houses (…).
There follow eight chapters dealing with fasting and abstinence, the obligations of the clergy, certain particular obligations, delegations of powers and indulgences, marriage impediments, transgressions and sanctions. Father Ricossa omits the first four chapters and passes straight on to what strictly concerns the most alarming subject: «Chapter V. Marriage impediments. Powers of dispensation in ordinary cases.» He publishes this chapter in its entirety. It is a laborious mixture of the old and the new canon law, the relative proportions of each being determined by «Mgr Lefebvre’s experience». But by what authority do they do this? That is the whole question.
Before we go on to examine this matrimonial legislation, it is only too apparent that these “Ordinances”, from their very first version of 1980, constitute a usurpation of the powers of jurisdiction reserved to the Pope. Father Ricossa’s demonstration of this is inexorable: Mgr Lefebvre, being no longer a mission territory “Ordinary” at the time, but a bishop without jurisdiction, that is without any pastoral power over souls, could not possibly delegate to anyone a power which he himself no longer possessed. Thus all confirmations and marriages celebrated by priests of his Society were, beyond a shadow of doubt, invalid!
And what can we say of the bishops consecrated by Mgr Lefebvre in 1988 against the wishes of the Pope? They did not enjoy any power of jurisdiction either. Nevertheless, they went ahead and usurped it by invoking a “provision” of the Church in accordance with the maxim “Ecclesia supplet” [the Church supplies], but extending it well beyond the cases envisaged by canon law. Two documents, taken from Cor unum, the internal bulletin of the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X, no 61 (October 1998), reveal how Mgr Lefebvre and his successors proceeded.
The first document is a letter from Mgr Lefebvre, dated 15 January 1991, to the Superior General of the time.
Econe, 15 January 1991.
Dear Father Schmidberger,
Many thanks for your good wishes and your prayers on the feast of Saint Marcel […].
As for the problem of the Commissions supplying to a certain extent for the shortcomings of the Roman Congregations which are directed by prelates imbued with the revolutionary principles of the Council, it seems to me that we should start very modestly, acting on needs as they arise, and that we should offer this institution as a service to help priests in their ministry and to solve difficult cases for nuns, or to provide authorisations that require a supplied episcopal power.
Rome is not only failing in her duty, but is making judgements according to false principles, as in the case of mixed marriages, marriage annulments!…
For the moment, I would advise that an initial, specifically canonical Commission be set up with a president, ideally a bishop, two advisers and a secretary. It could be named after a canonist saint: the Commission of Saint Pius V, or Saint Bellarmine, or Saint Charles Borromeo, and to it would be sent consultations and requests.
The secretary will examine the cases, present them and submit them to the judgement or at least the study of three judges, who will meet every three months or more frequently at the request of the president and study and answer the cases.
This Commission will be appointed by the General Council, but it may call upon a Dominican or a well known expert either in a permanent capacity as a counsellor or on an occasional basis.
This would be a first step and experience will show what is appropriate in the future.
The Commission would give an account of its work to the General Council one or twice a year.
This Commission should be announced in a letter communicated to all priests of Tradition who remain Catholic and to all societies of Tradition, both men and women.
THERE IS NO OBJECTION TO THE FAITHFUL KNOWING OF THE EXISTENCE OF THIS COMMISSION [my emphasis].
“As long as the present Roman authorities are imbued with ecumenism and modernism, as long as their decisions and the New Code of Canon Law are influenced by these false principles, it will be necessary to establish substitute authorities, faithfully keeping the Catholic principles of Catholic Tradition and Catholic Law. This is the only way of remaining faithful to Our Lord Jesus Christ, to the Apostles and to the deposit of faith transmitted to their successors who remained faithful until Vatican II.”
Some examples of cases to be submitted:
– mixed marriages – dispensations
– marriage annulments
– lifting of excommunication in the external forum
* for those who take part in abortion, either physically or legally
* or for other reasons.
– dispensations from religious vows
– authorisation for exorcisms
– consultations.
The choice of the permanent secretary residing at the General House is significant, even though he has no powers of decision.
Hoping that I may still be of use to you in these responses, yours very devotedly in Jesus and Mary.
Marcel Lefebvre
The second document allows us to see just how far, in only seven years, things had progressed along the path opened up by Mgr Lefebvre. We owe this text to the intervention of Mgr Tissier at a canonical session held at Econe on 24 August 1998. It permits Father Ricossa to accuse the Abbé Simoulin of lying in the editorial published in the review Roma felix. In the passage that we quoted above, the Abbé Simoulin denies:
1o that the Society of Saint Pius X has set up “tribunals”;
2o that the commissions instituted by the Society return “a declaratory verdict having the force of law”. They are simply meant to be consultative bodies which give “nothing more than an opinion or a recommendation”;
3o that these commissions have “thereby usurped the powers of the Pope and the Roman Curia”.
«These three denials are lies», affirms Father Ricossa. As proof of this, we have the statements made by Mgr Tissier de Mallerais. What the Abbé Simoulin calls «so-called tribunals» are the explicit object of Mgr Tissier’s intervention on that same 24 August 1998. In fact Mgr Tissier jumps straight into the question of their legitimacy and status in relation to the ecclesiastical tribunals which he calls “novus ordo” tribunals, “modernist” tribunals, “official” tribunals.
LEGITIMACY AND STATUS
OF OUR MATRIMONIAL TRIBUNALS
Status questionis ( (sic) [state of the question]sic) [state of the question]
Annulments granted by the “Novus Ordo” ecclesiastical tribunals are often dubious. Do we have the right to make up for them by means of tribunals operating from within the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X?
Monsignor Lefebvre had foreseen the creation of a Canonical Commission, particularly to resolve matrimonial cases following a first judgement given by the District Superior. The authority of our founder suffices for us to accept these legal proceedings in the same way that we accepted the episcopal consecrations of 1988.
But that does not dispense us from attempting to provide a doctrinal justification for the existence and operation of our matrimonial tribunals.
We will see that the main reason, as was the case with the episcopal consecrations, is the case of necessity of the traditional faithful.
I. THE NEW MATRIMONIAL LEGISLATION
1. New definition of marriage:
a) Object of matrimonial consent: This is no longer strictly defined as “jus in corpus, perpetuum et exclusivum in ordine ad actus per se aptos ad prolis generationem” [a perpetual and exclusive right over the body ordered to acts which are of themselves suitable for the procreation of children] (can. 1081 § 2), but vaguely described as “mutua traditio et acceptatio viri et mulieris ad constituendum matrimonium” [a mutual giving and accepting of man and woman for the purpose of establishing a marriage] (New Code, can. 1057 § 2). The object of the consent is thus improperly extended to aspects of marriage which, although integral to it, are nonetheless secondary, namely the “totius vitae consortium” [partnership of their whole life] (New Code, canon 1055).
b) Inversion of the two ends of marriage. The Code of 1917 says: “finis primarius, procreatio et educatio prolis; finis secundarius: mutuum adjutorium et remedium concupiscentiae” [the primary end is the procreation and raising of children; the secondary end is mutual assistance and a remedy for concupiscence] (can. 1013, § 1). The New Code says: “…ad bonum conjugum atque prolis generationem et educationem” [to the well-being of the spouses and to the procreation and upbringing of children] (can. 1055, § 1).
Consequently, according to the new legislation, the community of life becomes a part – indeed the principal part – of the object of matrimonial consent, and with it the interpersonal relationship between the spouses, that is their cohabitation, good understanding and mutual development.
Now, according to the traditional conception, all this lies outside the object of the matrimonial contract, as Pius XII reaffirmed against the innovators in 1944 by having inscribed in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis a verdict of the Sacred Roman Rota [AAS 36 (1944), 172-200], which recalls the hierarchy of the two ends of marriage and reminds us that “the sharing of domicile, bed and board does not belong to the essence of marriage” even though it pertains to the integrity of the conjugal life (cf. Les Enseignements Pontificaux, Le mariage, Solesmes, Desclée, 1960, appendix n. 24-29).
2. New defects of consent render marriage invalid:
It is obvious that if the “bonum conjugum” [the well-being of the spouses] and the “totius vitæ consortium” [partnership of their whole life] form part of the object of the matrimonial contract, then any defects which, ab initio, render the common life of the spouses impossible – and no longer solely the surrender of the jus ad corpus [right to the body] – will render the matrimonial contract null and void. Whence the introduction in the new legislation of new impediments to the marriage contract.
Of course, the Church can always, by positive provisions, add new impediments to marriage, but these should be 1o positive provisions and not a change in the nature of things, and consequently of the essence of marriage; 2o provisions which determine impediments with such a degree of precision that it is easy to make judgements on their presence without fear of abuse. However, that is certainly not the case here; there has been a change in the essence of marriage and the door lies open to every abuse, as we will see.
* New Code, can. 1095, n. 2: “Sunt incapaces matrimonii contrahendi: (…) 2° qui laborant gravi defectu discretionis judicii circa jura et officia matrimonialia essentialia mutuo tradenda et acceptanda” [The following are incapable of contracting marriage: (…) 2o those who suffer from a grave lack of discretionary judgement concerning the essential matrimonial rights and obligations to be mutually given and accepted].
Traditionally, the only things that render marriage null on the level of the understanding are:
Ignorance of the fact that marriage is “a permanent partnership between a man and a woman ordered to the procreation of children” (can. 1082 § 1); and such ignorance is not presumed after puberty.
Error concerning “the unity or indissolubility or sacramental dignity of marriage”, if such error determines the will (New Code, can. 1099, codifying traditional jurisprudence).
That summarises everything very clearly. But this “defectus discretionis judicii” [lack of discretionary judgement], this immaturity of judgement, implies that personal fulfilment – or rather interpersonal fulfilment – is an essential obligation of marriage, whereas it is in fact something that lies outside the traditional object of the matrimonial contract and concerns the subjective aspect of the matrimonial bond. Admittedly, the growing lack of maturity in young people often renders marriage unviable and imprudent, but to establish an incapacity on the grounds of a lack of maturity is to invoke a personalist, subjective conception of the marriage contract and to open the door to abuses. Only a stricter impediment of age would serve as an objective remedy…
* New Code, can. 1095, n. 3: “sunt incapaces (…) 3o qui ob causas naturæ psychicæ obligationes matrimonii essentiales assumere non valent” [the following are incapable (…) 3o those who, on account of causes of a psychological nature, are unable to assume the essential obligations of marriage].
Traditionally the Church recognises only physical inability: impotentia [impotence] (can. 1068 § 1) which makes it impossible to render the “jus in corpus in ordine ad actus per se aptos…” [right over the body ordered to acts which are of themselves suitable…] (can. 1081 § 2). The only mental incapacity is amentia vel dementia [amentia or dementia], which render the subject radically incapable of contracting (cf. can. 1081 § 1 “inter personas jure habiles” [between legally fit parties]).
Certainly, cases of mental unbalance due to the erosion of family life are frequent today, and it is these that make permanent unions so precarious. But who will determine what degree of unbalance makes such a union radically impossible? John Paul II himself had to remind canonists that such psychic disorders must be “a serious form of anomaly which (…) must substantially undermine the capacity of understanding and/or willing of the contracting party” (Address to the Roman Rota, 5 February 1987, AAS 79 (1987), 1457).
Nevertheless, in the way it is formulated, canon 1095, n. 3, leaves the door wide open to abuses.
* New Code, can. 1098 : “Qui matrimonium init deceptus dolo, ad obtinendum consensum patrato, circa aliquam alterius partis qualitatem, quæ suapte natura consortium vitæ conjugalis graviter perturbare potest, invalide contrahit.” [A person contracts invalidly who enters marriage inveigled by deceit perpetrated in order to secure consent, concerning some quality of the other party which of its very nature can seriously disrupt the partnership of conjugal life.]
Before the New Code, fraud was never admitted as matter for annulment; and this was to protect the permanence of the marriage bond.
But authors accept that the Church could introduce it (by a provision of positive law). This would be less illegitimate where the fraud jeopardizes the primary end of marriage e.g. fraud concerning sterility of one of the spouses; and this is what the New Code does: sterilitas, non dirimit, sed dolus circa sterilitatem [sterility does not invalidate, but fraud concerning sterility does] (cf. can. 1084 § 3). But canon 1098 is much too broad: fraud concerning drunkenness, drug addiction, nay even irascibility are supposedly causes for annulment! We see here the conciliar personalist inspiration of this new canon. And to reformulate it in a Catholic sense is no business of ours.
3. Practical consequences
a) 80% of annulments granted by novus ordo tribunals are granted in virtue of canon 1095! and they are therefore invalid judgements since they are based on a regulation that is incapable of regulating. Some commentators even speak of “Catholic divorce”, so easy is it to obtain such judgements.
b) In cases where the grounds for annulments are serious but difficult to prove, the tribunal opts for canon 1095 of the New Code as an easy solution.
The objection could be made: Yes, but since in fact the marriage in these cases is actually invalid, why not take advantage of the verdict of nullity even if it is not correct? To this we must answer: in order to certify someone’s state of freedom (enabling them to remarry), a valid judgement is necessary, not a private assessment supported by an invalid judgement.
II – SITUATION OF THE FAITHFUL
1. The faithful do not have the right to go to novus ordo tribunals, for that would be to run a great risk of receiving an invalid annulment, of remarrying in good faith and living in sin, in canonical concubinage!
2. They may not, in an attempt to remarry, take it upon themselves to judge the nullity of their own marriages, nor may they content themselves with the private assessment of a priest friend: that would be to open the door to subjectivism and disorder, exposing the marriage bond to contempt and augmenting the evil.
3. They have the right in justice to be sure of the validity of the sacrament received a second time and therefore of the validity of the declaration of nullity, and to be protected against personalist errors which invalidate these verdicts. Who then will render them justice?
4. Faithful priests and bishops are duty bound to defend and protect the marriage bond imperilled by the new legislation. How will they fulfil this duty?
To summarise: the faithful, not finding anyone to turn to, are in a state of necessity, and faithful priests and bishops have a duty to come to their aid.
In this situation, the faithful bishops (Dom Licinio in Campos) and our Canonical Commission founded according to the general principles of law which govern the life of the Church, possess supplied powers to judge matrimonial cases.
III – DOCTRINAL BASIS OF OUR SUPPLETORY POWERS
1. Can. 20 (New Code, can. 19): If a particular case is not expressly provided for by law, it must be resolved by taking the norm “a legibus latis in similibus; generalibus juris principiis cum aequitate canonica servatis; jurisprudentia et praxi Curiae Romanae; communi constantique doctorum sentential” [from laws enacted in similar cases; from the general principles of law observed with canonical equity; from the jurisprudence and practice of the Roman Curia; and from the common and constant opinion of learned authors]. (Wernz-Vidal: “jus ergo suppletorium est jus applicandum in particularibus casibus, cum circa illud non habeatur in codice prescriptum quod peculiari illi casui sit applicandum” [therefore a suppletory law is a law to be applied in particular cases, when the rule to be applied in an extraordinary case is not found in the law]. n. 180)
2. Application – three things are involved:
a) Parallel situations, i.e. the practice of the analogia legalis [analogy of law] (Wernz-Vidal n. 181):
“per quam juris dispositio pro aliis casibus applicatur simili de quo lex non disponit” [through which the provision of the law for other cases is applied in a similar way to what the law does not provide for].
Here the parallel situation is the case when it is impossible to have recourse to the bishop to grant a dispensation for a diriment impediment of ecclesiastical law: in the “danger of death” or “quando omnia sunt parata ad nuptias” [when everything is ready for the wedding], the parish priest or confessor may grant a dispensation (can. 1044-1045). This means the Church gives them, by supply, jurisdiction ad casum [for the particular case].
b) jurisprudence of the Roman Curia: A response from the Commission for the Interpretation of the Code, dated 29 July 1942 (AAS 34, 241), allows the provision of can. 1045 to be extended to the case of urgent necessity where there is “periculum in mora” [danger in delay] (cf. can. 81).
c) epikeia and the opinion of doctors regarding canons 1043 sq., but which also applies elsewhere:
Cappello, Tractatus, De Sacramentis, III, n. 199: “Si finis legis cesset contrarie pro communitate, i.e. si damnum commune inde sequatur, lex non urget, quia merito censetur suspendi ex benigna mentis legislatoris interpretatione.” [If the end of the law would be detrimental to the community, i.e. if damage to society would ensue from it, the law does not oblige, because it is rightly thought to be suspended in accordance with a benign interpretation of the mind of the legislator.]) Now, this is the case with the obligation to have recourse to modernist tribunals. But though this obligation should cease, the obligation to have recourse to some tribunal remains!
3. From the conjunction of these elements, we conclude that our canonical commission, in view of the current impossibility of having recourse to the official tribunals, has the power to judge matrimonial cases. (Were it not for the fact that the Holy See is as modernist as the tribunals, one might say that it had given us this power as a matter of canonical equity).
It is even more serious to dispense from a diriment impediment (which changes the condition of the person, making him capable rather than incapable of contracting marriage ) than it is to declare a marriage invalid (which does not change the condition of the person, but merely notes a state of affairs that has existed ab initio); it is a declarative power of jurisdiction only. So if supplied jurisdiction gives us the power to grant dispensations, then a fortiori it must also give us the power to judge.
4. The institution of marriage tribunals within the sphere of Tradition is especially justified by the fact:
a) that their authority will be more easily accepted than that of private opinion,
b) that they will remove the necessity of nullifying doubtful or contrary private opinions,
c) that judges and legal proceedings are needed in order to proceed prudently according to the spirit and letter of the law,
d) that in the current situation of necessity, the individual priest receives supplied jurisdiction for what a priest can normally do by himself and not for what he cannot normally do. But judging matrimonial cases is not normally done by a priest but by the bishop or the authorities he has delegated.
In all this the rule “as much as needed but no more” applies: the Church supplies jurisdiction on behalf of the faithful inasmuch as it is necessary and no more than is necessary.
IV. EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT OF JUDGING MATRIMONIAL CASES
(by our Canonical Commission and the priests designated by it)
As we have said, our jurisdiction in these cases is a supplied jurisdiction. Its properties are as follows:
1. It is not habitual, but is only exercised ad casum per modum actus [case by case, on a temporary basis]. Consequently we do not have standing tribunals, nor are their members appointed by the Canonical Commission ad universas causas [for cases in general], but rather ad hoc [for a particular case] every time; even though, for reasons of practicality, the judges and the defenders of the bond are always the same; for competent persons are needed.
2. It is not territorial, but personal.
3. It depends on the needs of the faithful, that is it lasts as long as the state of common need lasts, even if per impossibile [supposing the impossible] an official tribunal judging in accordance with traditional norms could be found.
4. It is a true jurisdiction and not an exemption from the law and from the obligation imposed on the faithful to obtain a verdict. Therefore, we have the power and the duty of handing down true verdicts which have potestatem ligandi vet solvendi [the power of binding and loosing]. Our verdicts therefore have an obligatory character. The proximate reason for this is that we must be able to tell the faithful what they must observe, quod debent “servare”.
Our verdicts are not mere private opinions, for such opinions are insufficient where the common good is at stake; and the common good is at stake in every case where the matrimonial bond is in dispute. To resolve doubts, authority in the external forum is necessary.
5. This jurisdiction does not usurp any of the powers the Pope has of divine right.
It is true that our verdicts of the third instance replace the verdicts of the Roman Rota, which acts in the Pope’s name as a tribunal of the third instance. But this is not a usurpation of the Pope’s divinely endowed authority, for the reservation of this third instance to the Pope is merely a matter of ecclesiastical law!
6. Finally our verdicts, like all our acts of supplied jurisdiction, and like the episcopal consecrations of 1988, 1991, etc., will ultimately need to be confirmed by the Holy See.
PRACTICAL RULES CONCERNING MARRIAGE ANNULMENTS
Pastoral charity aims at the sanctification of souls: prima lex salus animarum [the salvation of souls is the highest law]; but pastoral prudence does not impose unbearable burdens on souls. (cf. Mt 23.4).
Consequently the pastor seeks to put souls in a position of truth regarding God’s laws and the validity of marriage, but he will sometimes prefer to leave souls in good faith if they err in good faith about their matrimonial situation, when it is to be feared that they would refuse to regularise it and would thus live in bad faith.
On the other hand marriage annulments given by official tribunals (which may be called “novus ordo” verdicts) cannot be considered either as ipso facto null and void or as valid without examination. Whence ensue the following rules:
1. A novus ordo verdict can neither be accepted nor rejected a priori. Its validity depends on the criteria used. It must therefore be examined in jure.
2. The priest must never advise anyone to go to a novus ordo tribunal, lest this give rise to an invalid declaration based in jure on the erroneous or dubious criteria of the New Code.
3. If the person has not remarried, but still has doubts over or contests the validity of the first marriage or informs us that the annulment case has been submitted to the novus ordo tribunal or that the said tribunal has given an executory verdict of nullity, the priest must warn him/her that novus ordo annulments are not sufficient proof of nullity of marriage and that he/she cannot remarry until they have submitted their case to the examination of our Canonical Commission.
4. If the person, after a novus ordo annulment, has already remarried, the priest will leave him/her in good faith if he/she is in good faith. To this end:
1o he will never publicly speak of novus ordo annulments,
2o he will never interrogate the faithful on this matter,
3o if asked by a person who has only a negative doubt, the priest will reassure him/her.
5. If a remarried person has a positive doubt concerning a novus ordo annulment, the priest must help him/her resolve the doubt. To this end he will:
1o warn the person of the possibility of an invalid novus ordo annulment;
2o explain that, for this reason and in accordance with our practice, the case has to be presented to the Canonical Commission.
6. In order to present cases for the examination of the canonical office, the priest will:
1o present a summary explanation of the case;
2o communicate, where applicable, the novus ordo verdict or at least the tribunal document that indicates the caput nullitatis [the grounds of nullity];
3o transmit the details of the case (and the final novus ordo verdict) to the canonical office who will send the priest the questionnaire that will be used to establish the introductory libellus of the case;
4o but he will not take sides in the matter, either for or against.
7. The case can only be introduced if the party concerned agrees to be morally bound by the decision. That is why the priest will ask him/her to swear to and sign the following promise:
————————————————————————————————————-
I the undersigned ……………… at the time of submitting the case of my marriage with ……………… to the Canonical Commission of the SSPX promise:
1o (if such is the case) not to attempt any marriage or any civil union before the definitive verdict.
2o to conform myself to the verdict of the tribunal and consequently, if it is negative, not to remarry, or (if such is the case) no longer to consider my second partner as my spouse.
3o not to approach an official ecclesiastical tribunal to have it examine or judge my case.
All this I promise and swear on the Holy Gospels upon which I set my hand.
Dated …………………… At ……………………
Signature
(delete where not applicable)
————————————————————————————————————-
8. For as long as the tribunal designated by the Canonical Commission has not returned an executory verdict of “declaration de nullitate matrimonii” [declaration of nullity of marriage], the marriage contracted after a novus ordo annulment (if such be the case) is presumed valid and, consequently, the spouses of the second marriage may ask for and render their marital dues, and the sacraments may not be refused them.
9. But once the annulment proceedings have commenced in our tribunal, then should the party involved, having been warned not to remarry before our final verdict permits, remarry or contract a civil union, the sacraments must be denied them and, depending on the judgement of the superior who has convened the tribunal, the procedure may be suspended.
One has only to compare this text of Mgr Tissier with the editorial of Abbé Simoulin cited above (p. 19) to see that the latter is not telling the truth on any of the three points highlighted by Father Ricossa: 1o on the existence of the “tribunals” instituted by the Society of Saint Pius X, 2o on the nature of the responses given by these tribunals, and 3o on the usurpation of power resulting from them.
1o «Every time the Abbé Simoulin speaks of the tribunals of the Society to deny their existence», writes Father Ricossa, «he writes “tribunals” with quotation marks, and he uses the adjective “so-called” to characterise them as a figment of our imagination.» However, Mgr Tissier «himself on at least twelve occasions used the words tribunal and tribunals, without putting quotation marks around them, in reference to the Commission which he chairs and in opposition to the tribunals of John Paul II, which are defined as “novus ordo” tribunals, “modernist” tribunals, “official” tribunals.»
2o As for maintaining that the canonical commissions of the Society provide for cases submitted to them «nothing more than an opinion or a recommendation, never a declaratory verdict having the force of law», this is certainly not the language of a canon lawyer! As Father Ricossa points out: «A verdict is never a law, but the application of a law.» A detail in itself highly revealing of the truly bizarre character of this improvised “magistrature”. And yet the members of these commissions believe themselves to be invested with «true jurisdiction», as can be seen in point IV 4 of Mgr Tissier’s exposition. And as can be seen even more clearly in the fact that the faithful of the Society who have recourse to the Canonical Commission make a sworn “promise” in which they pledge to conform “to the verdict of the tribunal”… of the Society!
3o From the first two points derives the third: there can be no doubt that «the Society seeks to replace and supply “the powers of the Pope and the Roman Curia”». Mgr Lefebvre himself wrote in his letter of 15 January quoted above (p. 22) that the Commissions were to supply «to a certain extent for the shortcomings of the Roman Congregations». And Mgr Tissier in his turn does not hesitate to declare: «It is true that our verdicts of the third instance replace the verdicts of the Roman Rota, which acts in the Pope’s name as a tribunal of the third instance.»
So true is this that the faithful of the Society undertake, by the formulary reproduced in our inset (p. 25), not to approach «an official ecclesiastical tribunal to have it examine or judge their cases». To make such a pledge, observes Father Ricossa, «implies the negation of the primacy of the Pope’s jurisdiction, which belongs to him by divine right».
The battle for Tradition within Holy Mother Church has different battle fronts. The sooner everyone in the FSSP, the ICKSP , other traditional regularized groups and the SSPX realize this the better. Divide and conquer is being employed against us. Together
we stand, divided we fall and all that.
I dare say there are potential allies to come in Novus Ordo land. Pope Francis I suspect will force a division in the church between souls who have a flicker of the Faith still in them and those prepared to accept blatant modernism. Some, not all by any means, will be forced to acknowledge that those darned traditionalists were right all along.
If we think it’s bad thus far, I would bet money that “we ain’t seen nuthin yet” is a gross understatement.
Pope Pius IX: Quanta Cura §5
“We cannot pass over in silence the audacity of those who, not enduring sound doctrine, contend that ‘without sin and without any sacrifice of the Catholic profession assent and obedience may be refused to those judgments and decrees of the Apostolic See, whose object is declared to concern the Church’s general good and her rights and discipline, so only it does not touch the dogmata of faith and morals.’ But no one can be found not clearly and distinctly to see and understand how grievously this is opposed to the Catholic dogma of the full power given from God by Christ our Lord Himself to the Roman Pontiff of feeding, ruling and guiding the Universal Church.”
Vatican 1:
“Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the church throughout the world.” (Session 4, Chapter 3, n 2)
Pope St. Pius X: Allocution of May 10, 1909
“Do not allow yourselves to be deceived by the cunning statements of those who persistently claim to wish to be with the Church, to love the Church, to fight so that people do not leave Her…But judge them by their works. If they despise the shepherds of the Church and even the Pope, if they attempt all means of evading their authority in order to elude their directives and judgments…, then about which Church do these men mean to speak? Certainly not about that established on the foundations of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus Himself as the cornerstone
Archbishop Lefebvre acted to preserve the traditional Mass from destruction.
‘Isn’t this Liturgy of John XXIII the one in which you priests were trained and ordained at Ecône?’
The answer is no. We received no appreciable liturgical training whatever at Ecône, and until the September of 1976 the Mass was that of the early years of Paul VI. (Indeed, concelebration was permitted in our first statutes.) The celebrant sat on the side and listened to readings, or himself performed them at lecterns facing the people. The only reason the readings were done in Latin and not in French, we were told, is that the seminary is an international one! (Interestingly enough, the Ordinances of the Society, signed by Archbishop Lefebvre and currently in force, allow for the reading of the Epistle and the Gospel in the vernacular – without reading them first in Latin.)
“It would be difficult to say what liturgy was followed at Ecône, because the rubrics were a mishmash of different elements, one priest saying Mass somewhat differently from the next. No one set of rubrics was systematically observed or taught. As a matter of fact, no rubrics were taught at all.
“The best I can say is that over the years a certain eclectic blend of rubrics developed based on the double principle of
what the Archbishop liked, and what one did in France.
“These rubrics range rather freely from the Liturgy of St. Pius X to that of Paul VI in 1968. It is simply the ‘Rite of Ecône,’ a law unto itself…
“As for our seminary training, we were never taught how to celebrate Mass. Preparation for this rather important part of the priestly life was to be seen to in our spare time and on our own. The majority of the seminarians there seem never to have applied themselves to a rigid or systematic study of the rubrics, as may be seen from the way in which they celebrate Mass today …
Bishop Dolan
“…Lefebvre himself used the ‘mass’ of Paul VI in St. Peter’s Basilica at the altar-tomb of his ‘patron’ Pope St. Pius X, because, he said, by celebrating the traditional Mass he would give scandal. He used the ‘mass’ of Paul VI even at Econe, and was finally persuaded by his staff priests that It was inconsistent with his ‘aim’ to train priests for the traditional Mass….
“…So this ‘mass’ of Paul VI, they tell me, is what Lefebvre celebrated at the tomb of St. Pius V, at Econe until talked out of it, and when in hospital at Bogota (concelebration with Aulagnier)…
James, there is one major difference: Any prelates within the Catholic Church who accept divorce, abortion, or contraception are in direct opposition to the teachings of the Church. This is not the case in the Orthodox Church where there is not even any consistent teaching.
Who said these things, Luther (A) or Lefebvre (B)?
Answer – both (A) and ( B)
MARTIN, “These [church laws] hold good only so long as they are not injurious to Christianity and the laws of God. Therefore, if the Pope deserves punishment, these laws cease to bind us, since Christendom would suffer.”
MARCEL, “In the Church there is no law or jurisdiction which can impose on a Christian a diminution of his faith. All the faithful can and should resist whatever interferes with their faith…. If they are forced with an order putting their faith in danger of corruption, there is an overriding duty to disobey.”
MARTIN, “The Church of Rome, formerly the most holy of all churches, has become . . . the very kingdom of sin, death and hell; so that not even the Antichrist, if he were to come, could desire any addition to its wickedness.”
MARCEL, in his Aug. 29, 1987. letter to the four bishops-to-be, “The See of Peter and posts of authority in Rome being occupied by Antichrists, the destruction of the Kingdom of Our Lord is being rapidly carried out even within His Mystical Body here below.”
Maybe we should throw-in with Martin; at least he wrote some nice hymns.
Craig V: I actually take heart in the Bergoglio papacy. For anyone who has a semblance of the true Faith left in them, this papacy must be a real eye opener. “Fool me once, same on you. Fool me twice shame on me.” comes to mind. The cardinals elected a real nut case onto the throne of St. Peter. Now they are watching in horror as this tragedy unfolds. And when this nightmare ends, I’ll bet they won’t repeat this anytime soon. But in the mean time, the battle lines are drawn, and we can now identify the enemies of the Deposit of Faith given to the Apostles by our Saviour and passed on through the generations to us worthless wretches. I wholeheartedly concur that we all need to stick together, however, the forces of evil have their “Volpi’s” amongst us. I for one, am not distracted from the real fight, and it doesn’t look like any of the usual commentators on this site are either. A big Deo gratias.
And while we are on the subject, interesting post on Rorate Caeli, informing that their site has 3x the traffic that it had one year ago. This is heartening since one can infer that other N.O. Faithful are realizing that there is something wrong with the movie that they are watching. And that the movie will not have a happy ending with respect to their souls. I’m thinking.. a combination of the “Francis Effect” and “God works in mysterious ways” is at work here.
As for us Faithful, all we need to do is pray, and have many kids. And God will take care of the rest.
Michael Archangel,ora pro nobis
Archbishop Lefebvre, ora pro nobis
…..GOD of Heaven, GOD of Earth, GOD of Angels, GOD of Archangels, GOD of Patriarchs, GOD of Prophets, GOD of Apostles, GOD of Martyrs, GOD of Confessors, GOD of Virgins, GOD who has power to give life after death and rest after work, because there is no other GOD than Thee and there can be no other, Thou art the Creator of all things, visible and invisible, of whose Reign there shall be no end. We humbly prostrate ourselves before Thy Glorious Majesty and we beseech Thee to deliver us by Thy Power from all the tyranny of the infernal spirits, from theirs snares, their lies and their FURIOUS wickedness; deign, O’ Lord, to grant us Thy powerful protection and to keep us safe and sound. We beseech Thee through Jesus Christ Our Lord, Amen.
….from the snares of the devil……Deliver us O’ Lord.
Grant that Thy Church may serve Thee in secure liberty…..We beseech Thee, hear us.
Deign to crush down the enemies of the Holy Church……We beseech Thee, hear us.
St. Michael the Archangel, defends in the day of battle……….
Dear S. Armaticus,
True indeed.
Archbishop Lefebvre, pray for us.
Bl. Zelie Martin , blessed of heroic motherhood, pray for us.
Dear Craig V. Lefebvre was the original divider and his schism has annealed into a cult of personality which has become an inflexible ideology impenetrable by reason, logic, or appeals to Tradition and such an ideology is like a psychotic delusion in that it sometimes gainsays reality and at other times absorbs the reality into its ideology where it is sifted and twisted into intellectual incomprehensibility.
Those who succor the schism have absolutely no intention of ever going back into Communion with Rome – the only time they would accept the SSPX going back to Rome is to accept Rome’s submission to them.
For those who have eyes to see, the vast majority of those who succor the SSPX have concluded that the SSPX is the true Church and the Catholic Church is an apostate faux Church that they must stay out of because of its multiform and manifest impurities.
Just read the words in here of those who succor the schism. Suffused in their declarations is the aroma of freshly-baked Donatism.
Preaching of an alliance with a schism against the Church Jesus established falls deaf on my ears.
Mr. V. is showing the way forward – and he is following in the faithful footsteps of Amerio, Mattei, Gherardini, etc etc – trads who have not severed the Bonds of Unity or destroyed Tradition in order to save Tradition.
Spartacus: Dohhhhhh. 🙂
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2013-11-17T23:55:00Z
Not Spartacus — Voluminous quotations shorn of context may make you feel good, but it adds nothing to the discussion.
You mention Gherardini: I guess you missed his laudatory praise of the SSPX? Here’s a taste: “However, I am profoundly convinced that it is just for this reason that we must thank the Fraternity: in the context of a secularization which has now reached the frontiers of a post-Christian era—an era which does not hide its antipathy for them—they have held and still hold high the torch of Faith and Tradition.”
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2010/10/msgr-brunero-gherardini-on-sspx.html
But don’t let facts get in your way.
Spartacus
I just find it ironic that all the doctrine & Ecclesiastical Laws you are citing have all been rejected by the Vatican II Popes !!!
According to them everyone is ok, its only the SSPX that is bad? The Orthodox are not in Schism but the SSPX are??
In sane times I would have your back, but you need to see the situation as it actually is.
Dear Spartacus, brother in Christ,
I doubt there are many people, if any, on this site, who actually believe that the SSPX is the “true Church”. I don’t care if you call yourself SSPX, FSSP, Institute of Christ the King, CMRI or whatever, we’re all catholic and members of the Mystical Body of Christ as far as I’m concerned as long as we hold fast to the teaching and traditions of Holy Mother Church. The hard truth however is that we DO have a problem with MANY bishops and cardinals apostasizing from the true faith and teaching an adulterated, heretical version of the “catholic faith”, hence the term “conciliar church” (a term by the way, that was coined by the Vatican post V II). All of this has been predicted in sacred scripture and in approved Marian apparitions.
My friend, we will be stronger united in the fight against the Adversary; “divide and conquer” has been the classic tactic since antiquity used to weaken and finally overcome the enemy.
“I am not Spartacus”….
You need to take a tranquilizer and stop posting to the thread, arguments against others here, who have never denied the truths contained in the quotes you posted…
You are obviously flipping out over your morally and intellectually impossible position, which holds that just if a man is pope that he cannot be a sinner or in error. Whereas St. Alphonsus dei Liguori in his Theologia Moralis, the work that won him the title of Doctor of the Church, says, “who can be ignorant of the fact that the Roman pontiff can be obnoxious on account of his errors”!
You fail to distinguish the differing levels of authority and authenticity in any papal pronouncement.
You also ignore the expressed intensions and teachings of Bergoglio, before and after his apparent election to the Apostolic See.
Its pretty obvious to anyone who has formally studied theology, that Bergoglio dissents gravely from the Magisterium of Christ, and gives all the appearances of pertinacity. But his malice is undeniable by anyone with common sense. And the malice is sufficient reason to refuse him communion, because, as I said above, by it he excludes himself from the communion of the Church, by intending to make of Her what Christ never intended.
Dear Catholic at Rome. There is no need for modern medicine as the tiresome claims of the schismatics are a virtual narcotic. Posting neglected excerpts from Tradition is my way of symbolically taking a cold shower of ecclesiastical reality to keep my own self awake.
Attempted physician, heal thyself.
O, and when you get a chance, post for us where it is your delusional thinking you think you received the competence and/or authority to declare that Pope Francis has excommunicated himself.
O, and as it is the case you use your keyboard as a flame-thrower in your imaginary field of tiny straw men, post for me one a word where I wrote that a Pope can not be a sinner or in error.
From the Douay Catechism:
Q. Who, I beseech you, are those who are not to be accounted members of the Church?
A. All such as are not in the unity of the church, by a most firm belief of her doctrine, and due obedience to her pastors; as Jews, Turks, Heretics, &c.
Q. Why may not Heretics and Schismatics justly claim to be in the Unity of the Church and Members of Christ’s body?
A. Because Catholics can show to each sect of Heretics and Schismatics the time they began; the date of their separation from the Church: the name of the person or persons of their sect who first separated themselves, and the cause of their condemnation; whilst the Catholic Church always was from the beginning.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The petit ecclesia of lefebvre began on June 30, 1988 due to his consecration of Bishops against the express warning not to do so by Pope Blessed John Paul II and for which actions he and the four were excommunicated
Dear Armaticus. How do you interpret that link as being a “dohhh” for IANS?
For the very fidelity to the entire tradition of the Church that this prelate had taught them, which calls for fidelity to the successor of Peter, faith on the promises of Christ to his Church There where Peter is, there is the Church. Animated by this faith, our founders made an act of obedience and hope. They turned, as the papal message says, with confidence towards the successor of Peter, and they were not let down in this confidence, because to that small band of ten priests the conditions foreseen in the protocol of agreement of May 5, 1988, were guaranteed, offering the faithful attached to the Missal of 1962 and to the Latin traditions the possibility of living their faith in the full communion of the Church.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
That is, what I have been writing agrees with that
All of these arguments must take place amongst faithful Catholics who have maintained the Bonds of Unity and those questions, complaints, arguments etc must ultimately be decided by the Pope, not some guy name with the S/N, Catholic in Rome ,or anybody else, least of all a schismatic; or, do you imagine that The Third Person of The Blessed Trinity, The Holy Ghost worked with Lefebvre to create a schism to save Tradition?
It is one think to confess the truth that God can bring good out of evil but it is entirely heterodox to claim that God willed or Blessed a schism.
Even Msgr Gherardini, leaves these matters up to the Pope after he says that V2 was a legitimate council and that the rupture I am always blathering on about is not possible.
It is my personal opinion that what we have is a rupture but that is not what Msgr Gherardini says:
http://opuscula.blogspot.com/2010/08/msgr-gherardini-on-vatican-ii.html
Not Spartacus, given that the law of non-contradiction is a foundational principle of philosophy and logic, I suggest you take a deep breath and calmly go back and re-examine the evidence. There are too many violations of this principle in your posts here to numerate.
You’re attempt to pull out snippets of Vatican One, the very council that infallibly condemned the notion that dogma can change, and the very council that defined the limited scope of papal infallibility, and the very council that the pope’s chosen cardinal leader just said Vatican Two REVERSED, to try to condemn Archbishop LeFevre, is patently laughable.
You either do not know what schism is, or don’t care. Or you’re nuts. I don’t know which. All of the above perhaps.
That you can say Mr. Vericcio is on the right track, that he’s doing it right while LeFebvre is an evil schismatic who did it wrong…in the same thread where you have 20+ posts arguing against Mr. Verriccio’s article that explains why the sspx position is reasonable, logical and Catholic…well, it appears to me not a little bit disingenuous. And a little cooky.
Dear Craig. V. The most charitable position for you to take is to ascribe insanity to me; that leaves you free to ignore all of the violations of Tradition and it renders me morally innocent the crime of opposing the schism of Lefebvre
. The position of the SSPX is similar to the position of the Donatists a few years ago.
The sppx is is in partial communion with the Church but it is not in full communion with the Church just like the partial communion of the Donatists with the Church that Saint Augustine addressed in his time
And, like the Donatists, the sppx identifies great sinners in the Church as a reason to remain out of full communion with the Church; that is, both schism were/are suffused with idea of Purity.
Well, Tradition has always acknowledged that there is both the wheat of sanctity and diabolical darnel within the church and there has never been a time when the Church was pure in its human element but to what advantage is it for an order (sspx) to refuse full communion with the Church ?
There is not one individual who can identify in Tradition the idea that a schism preserves Tradition.
The SSPX dispenses the invalid sacraments of Marriage and Confession and the ironic consequence of the refusal of the sspx to accept full communion with the Church Jesus established is that when the Pope finally does formally declare they are in schism, it is only then that the sspx sacraments will become valid – just like the sacraments of the schismatic so-called Orthodox Churches.
It may just turn out to be the case that the tradition the sspx is preserving is the tradition of the eastern churches which refuses full communion with the Pope.
Craig V
Spartacus is not a kook or disingenuous, He seems like a Faithful Catholic who, like the rest of us, is trying to make it through this murky swamp the Church finds itself in.
We are in new territory. What happens when you have a council that speaks in ambiguous language , and introduces novelties that had previously been condemned, followed up by successive Popes going on 60 years, who constantly push heretical, decadent, doctrines. Appoint Homosexual Heretics as Bishops, who in turn ordain 50-60 % Homo – Heretical Priests, destroy all the teaching orders,Grade schools, colleges, Indexes, come up with a Mass that is more Protestant than Catholic.?
We were told that this could not happen, but guess what it has. Now what? Do we blindly follow the Modern Popes into the New World Order Religion and let the Faith just die? Do we defy these Popes and let the condemnations that Spartacus list here fall on us?? These are not easy choices to be taken lightly, it seems we will either be kicked in the butt or punched in the face.
Spartacus, you first claim the sspx is schismatic, then claim they are in “partial communion” a nebulous post v2 novel term that means…something I’m sure, but what in regards to salvation remains a mystery. Then take it upon yourself to proclaim their sacraments of confession and matrimony are invalid (not only illicit, but invalid as well), something Holy Mother Church has never said. Canon law, the present state of emergency and supplied jurisdiction… and historical facts…say otherwise. No sspx group being reconciled “officially” with the Vatican has been ordered to re-confess or have their marriages convalidated.
Ah, but then you finally admit that no pope has ever proclaimed them in actual schism. Perhaps a retraction is in order.
Btw, I’m not sure you’ve heard, but Pope Benedict XVI lifted/declared null and void the prvious alleged excommunication. So any and all attacks against the faithfull of the sspx will have to be done without recourse to said document.
Craig V said:
“The battle for Tradition within Holy Mother Church has different battle fronts. The sooner everyone in the FSSP, the ICKSP , other traditional regularized groups and the SSPX realize this the better. Divide and conquer is being employed against us. Together we stand, divided we fall and all that.
I dare say there are potential allies to come in Novus Ordo land.”
Posted again because, it needs to be stated again and again until people start to get it.
And there are allies already in Novus Ordo land. I am one.
ANOTHER
NEW
FORT
Such names they call us
That’s not what we are
We are Roman Catholics
At the front of the war.
Some just go AWOL
Others defect
Copying our stance
Then say we’re a sect.
A lot like in England
Saint John Fisher’s day
When his brothers said, “yes”,
This Saint replied, “nay”,
All alone in the For
St. John Fisher stood
Preserving, defending
For the whole, all that’s good.
Not just for himself,
Those attached to what’s old,
Or reformers, reforming
Pretending they’re bold.
We’re simply preserving,
Once again, the True Fort,
While those with new orders
Relinquish support.
And with promises made
To men hungry for power,
They mock, stand and point
At us in the tower.
Hoping for all
An ecumenical democracy,
When in fact their new fort
Is a catastrophic kleptocracy
Long Skirts said:
“Hoping for all
An ecumenical democracy,
When in fact their new fort
Is a catastrophic kleptocracy”
You are beginning to read Francis through Marx, which is THE proper hermeneutic for reading modernists. All I can can say is “You go, girl!”
Spartacus: You asked: ” Dear Armaticus. How do you interpret that link as being a “dohhh” for IANS?” Well, for starters, here is what the Fr. Vincent Ribeton, superior of the French District of the Fraternity of Saint Peter, in the Mass for the 25th anniversary of the FSSP (Saint-Sulpice, Paris) said and I quote: “Even in his decision to consecrate four bishops, Abp. Lefebvre always refused to be considered the head of an autocephalous church.” So who is one to believer, you or the good Fr. Ribeton? And since we have traveled down this path, I would just like to remind you of the ancient Roman legal maxim which states “falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus”. I am trying to be charitable.
Craig V: “partial communion” – according to Mr Muller, in the Pope Emeritus era this means, ‘de facto shcism’; which must mean ‘partial communion’, which means…in ‘light’ of some recent papal suggestions on matters of Faith we believed were fixed (Christ doesn’t pretend, the Virgin Mary never lied), who can say?
http://marymagdalen.blogspot.co.uk/
And there is this:
http://wdtprs.com/blog/2013/12/warning-tradition-a-danger-to-your-children/
Do you know what your children are doing?
Robert Recchia: yep. NO land might seem like a sink-hole…but some of us are still grasping at that life-line.
Merry Christmas, or Holy Christmas, all.
s.armaticus: do you know where the tango is?
http://linenonthehedgerow.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/one-question3-possible-answers.html
Saluto: Unfortunately, I do.
“I am not spartacus”,
I debating many a protestant, I find that you mimic their argumentational tactis:
1) cite quotes in response to arguments, but never address the heart of the argument
2) change the topic
3) respond to questions never asked
4) when all else false, use ad hominems…I see you used n. 4 first of all against me…so…
Dear Craig “Ah, but then you finally admit that no pope has ever proclaimed them in actual schism. ”
+++++++++++++++++++++++
In itself, this act was one of disobedience to the Roman Pontiff in a very grave matter and of supreme importance for the unity of the church, such as is the ordination of bishops whereby the apostolic succession is sacramentally perpetuated. Hence such disobedience – which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy – constitutes a schismatic act” (Ecclesia Dei Adflicta, 3).
“It is impossible to remain faithful to the Tradition while breaking the ecclesial bond with him to whom, in the person of the Apostle Peter, Christ himself entrusted the ministry of unity in his Church” (Ecclesia Dei Adflicta, 4).
“In the present circumstances I wish especially to make an appeal both solemn and heartfelt, paternal and fraternal, to all those who until now have been linked in various ways to the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre, that they may fulfill the grave duty of remaining united to the Vicar of Christ in the unity of the Catholic Church, and of ceasing their support in any way for that movement. Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism is a grave offense against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church’s law” (Ecclesia Dei Adflicta 5:C).
“…the movement led by Lefebvre has separated itself by a clean break with the Church. A Christian never can, or should, take pleasure in a rupture. Even though it is absolutely certain the fault cannot be attributed to the Holy See. Thus we will be able to offer a place within the Church to those who are seeking and demanding it, and succeed in destroying all reason for schism. We can make such schism pointless by renewing the interior realities of the Church….If once again we succeed in pointing out and living the fullness of the Catholic religion with regard to these points, we may hope that the schism of Lefebvre will not be of long duration” (Speech to the Bishops of Chile, July 13, 1988).
Dear Catholic in Rome. I am quite experienced dealing with those who will not admit error but who just plow ahead making additional charges.
That is an irksome diversionary tactic – but it is quite common.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
I’ll try again
O, and as it is the case you use your keyboard as a flame-thrower in your imaginary field of tiny straw men, post for me one a word where I wrote that a Pope can not be a sinner or in erro
Dear Armaticus. Did you even read the piece. They REFUSED to throw-in with the schism
“…they had received everything from Abp. Marcel Lefebvre, and because they loved him like a father. For the very fidelity to the entire tradition of the Church that this prelate had taught them, which calls for fidelity to the successor of Peter, faith on the promises of Christ to his Church: Thou art Peter and on this rock I will build my Church; and also for this spirit of Romanitas learned from Abp. Lefebvre, who had himself received it from his years of seminary in
Rome, under the direction of the Reverend Father Le Floch, our founders could not see themselves joining the consecration of bishops against the will of the successor of Peter.”
++++++++++++++++++++++
That is, the Faithful students of Lefebvre followed the will of Jesus Christ and not the will of Marcel. They listened to Jesus who advises them to hear the good their teachers teach them but they refused to follow them down the path to perdition.
+++++++++++++++
Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to his disciples, Saying: The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses. All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not; for they say, and do no
504553011688
la
Warmest greetings for a very merry and blessed Christmas to you and your dear ones Mr. Verrecchio!
Thank you for all that you do – your blog a lovely place to come to!
Barbara
It is generally well-known that during V2 Lefebvre argued in favor of Catholic Tradition in the matter of Jurisdiction and Ministry – the classic axiom, No Jurisdiction, No Ministry -but such things are dropped down The Angelus Memory Hole in their agitprop in support of a schism.
That aside, there is a valid idea about full and partial communion, despite the claims of The Remnant’s, Chris Ferrara, who calls it gnostic twaddle;
http://opuscula.blogspot.com/2011/02/full-communion-vs-partial-communion.html
http://opuscula.blogspot.com/2011/02/full-communion-vs-partial-communion.html
THE
MORNING
OF
CHRISTMAS EVE
It is the morn
Of Christmas Eve,
Scrambled eggs I cook.
Advent, Sunday,
Fourth and last
Most fasting now forsook.
The birds outside
Are singing carols
Pitched soprano-high.
Above the frost
Below the blue,
Their midnight moment nigh.
Then beasts will speak
In whispers low,
When Emmanuel did come,
How they could talk
And pray an hour…
While man was struck quite dumb.
As one of Irish-Injun Heritage, I fully engage in any argument but I oft times do so to excess. To Mr. V. I apologise for using up so much bandwidth on his site.
Besides, me against seven ain’t a fair fight; they never had a chance
Not Spartacus, you aren’t being consistent. You wrote earlier “when the pope finally does declare the sspx to be in schism”, then get all defensive when called out on it and throw up a post trying to make it appear as if he already had.
And quoting from a dead letter as your evidence.
From Pope Benedict XVI’s decree which renders your evidence, eh, worthless…
“On the basis of the powers expressly granted to me by the Holy Father Benedict XVI, and by virtue of this decree, I remit the sentence of excommunication ‘latae sententiae” declared by this congregation on 1 July 1988 against Bishops Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta. [b]At the same time I declare that, as of today’s date, the decree then issued is devoid of juridical effect.”[/b]
Dear friends here, a Blessed Nativity to you all, who give me courage and encouragement.
Thank you Long -Skirts, for your frequent offerings this week
Please ,gentle people, say one Ave for my four adult children if you think of it.
Dear Mr.V., ever my mentor, God love you.
de Maria numquam satis-St. Louis de Montfort
Spartacus……..’Besides, me against seven ain’t a fair fight; they never had a chance’.
…..PRIDE is the ‘most dangerous’ of sins, because it blinds our understanding…………day after day, in a spiritual self-delusion, imagining our acts to be good and virtuous when certain habits actually may be vicious….
The only way to get the better of pride, is to practice humility…….humble man realized that he is proud…..
A Blessed and Graced Christmas to all of You!
Sean
“I am not Spartacus”
Showers are not like thinking or debating. If posting long extraneous quotes to this thread is something you do for an intellectual cold shower, I’d suggest that you cool your hot key board addicted fingers and take a real cold shower.
To all the others on this thread, I wish a blessed Christmas, the wonderful feast of the Incarnate Eternal Truth, who never changes, and who willed that His Church and His Teaching never change, and who offers salvation to only those who accept both.
Hey Spartacus,
Please write me at ChurchMilitant.TV. We can help each other make the case against support, encouragement or participation in the SSPX.
Louie doesn’t seem to recognize the irony in his analogy, that both neighbors are not members of “Pete’s” household. The SSPX are a bit like a wife who discerns that her husband is no longer worthy to be her husband so, for the sake of herself and their children, leaves him and, maybe, finds a different husband who will be better for herself and their children. Or, if she doesn’t leave him, remains “faithful” but attacks him relentlessly so that her children know that they shouldn’t respect him. In either case, such a wife contributes to the destruction of her family, either from inside or outside the family structure.
Write me at terrycarroll@churchmilitant.tv
Dear Terry Carroll.
In making the two statements beginning with, “The SSPX are a bit like,”——- you say more negative about yourself and churchmilitant tv, than anything negative you could possibly say about the Society of St. Pius X. Further, you show yourself {yourselves,} to be highly ignorant about the Priestly Fraternity .
You could have stopped before making that “a bit like declaration.” then perhaps you would have maintained a certain level of Catholic charity in your comment.
You ought to be ashamed of yourself {yourselves.} I, for one, am ashamed and very sorry I ever supported you.
Oh, Terry, Terry how foolishly you have exposed yourself ……..you have acted on a very negative impulse, sorry for you and for Church Militant. I will let this circulate among my friends…….who have also blindly supported you all.
We have a saying in Poland……’God does not act ‘hastily’, but very ‘justly’ in His time!’
CraigV, the latest news out of Russia is that abortion advertising is now illegal and soon the procedure itself may be. Also learning Orthodox Christianity in school is now mandatory. Odd times indeed. Merry Christmas!
“The SSPX are a bit like a wife who discerns that her husband is no longer worthy to be her husband so, for the sake of herself and their children, leaves him and, maybe, finds a different husband who will be better for herself and their children. Or, if she doesn’t leave him, remains “faithful” but attacks him relentlessly so that her children know that they shouldn’t respect him.”
Actually, Terry, you’re not too far off the mark. A wife may legitimately separate from a chronically abusive husband, always in hopes of reconciliation. She may also need to protect her children from him, and that may entail warning them about their father’s ways until he finally sobers up.
James the Less: a Merry Christmas too my friend. And to everyone else here (even I am not Spartacus, you knucklehead), Especially to those with the challenge and cross of being surrounded by family and friends who are unknowing victims of the age and simply have no clue and ridicule you and the faith in their ignorance. Take heart. Seems this always gets more difficult this time of year.
They know not what they do.The Good Lord sees all. And you are not alone.
“CDF prefect says SSPX in schism, suspended from sacraments” (23 Dec. 2013) — http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=20046
Merry Christmas to one and all!
Disobedience does not equal schism. The SSPX may be disobedient, but they are not schismatic. Disobedience is the rejection of authority only in particular instances; schism is the rejection of the authority itself, as authority. The one can sometimes be perfectly legitimate; the other not.
Fr. Brian Harrison has some very good insight into the difference between disobedience and schism in this article:
http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Main%20Remnant%20Site%202011/Copy%20of%20Remnant%20Web/Archives/archive-disobedience_schism.htm
Dear Mr. Carroll.
Every day this situation is allowed to continue the worse it is for Holy Mother Church. Because this situation has dragged-on for so long, it is becoming an increasingly accepted idea within that putatively most faithful cadre of Catholics (Trads) that a schism is necessary to preserve Tradition – and that is an idea that is directly from the intellect of Satan who, it must be admitted, is being wildly successful exploiting the Pride of the SSPX and those who succor it.
Because it has been allowed to anneal to a near titanium-strength schism, it is clear that a Japanese woman named, Midori, will be elected Pope before the SSPX comes home; and, having succored this schism, on what consistent ground does the soi traditionalist stand if he decides to criticise other schisms – ancient, current, or future?
I only returned to this thread to answer Mr Carroll’s kind invitation to contact him – which I have done.
IANS:
You repeat the accusation over and over that the SSPX is schism. Here is what Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos said regarding the SSPX and schism:
http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/mershon/070410
Now, what has changed since that statement that would confirm your accusation ?
Curious Catholics want to know.
Lefebvre said there were many in Rome who hated the society with a “diabolical hatred” whilst other religions/sects who are removed from Catholicism are tolerated far greater.
“Every day this situation is allowed to continue the worse it is for Holy Mother Church.”
Spartacus the problem as many above have said and what you avoid like the plague is the abandonment of the Faith by leading churchmen themselves which the SSPX simply want Rome to return to. Fellay was very keen for reconciliation providing his priests could criticize a few elements of VII and the Cranmer like NO Mass put together with the assistance of Protestants who don’t believe in the Mass, which has ultimately decimated attendance but the Vatican couldn’t accept this. Lefebvre himself witnessed the persecution of traditionalist priests and was unfairly persecuted himself well before ’88. He simply wanted to pass on the Faith unhindered. The current situation with the FFI and the general persecution of trad priests which I have witnessed myself will show there was/is a state of emergency to preserve the Faith.
” that a schism is necessary to preserve Tradition – and that is an idea that is directly from the intellect of Satan ”
The schism from the authentic faith has happened from the highest levels since the 1960 onward from the “inside”. This is a most unique situation we are in with the possible exception of St Athanasius’ time. Athanasius himself continued to say Mass and give confession despite his “excommunication” demonstrating some excommunications are ultimately unjust, null and void.
Terry Carroll I would be very disappointed if ChurchMilitant TV put together a program that condemns the SSPX especially if all factors aren’t well considered. I understand the SSPX are small and don’t provide a great revenue stream so I am hoping this is not a motivating factor as they may be an easier target. The virtual silence of ChurchMilitant on some of Francis’ is disappointing.
Terry Carroll,
What should the wife do if the husband is putting the souls of her children in danger of being lost? I have to sit through the most horrific NO masses where the priest in homilies literally tells everyone that it’s ok for people to live together before marriage and the Church must change its teaching and be sure to take the opinion Poll the Bishop of Rome is going to have so you can let them know. Is this dangerous? Is this abuse? What should a wife do? Where in the Church can she turn? She can’t find a parish anywhere where a proper Mass is said. What does she do?
I love Michael Voris but I’m sorry his head is in the Sand regarding the Bishop of Rome. Can he really believe The Bishop of Rome is NOT a modernist but simply a Pope with a quirky style? He can’t just read the Pope’s prepared comments in which he sounds Orthodox but then ignore his interviews in which he sounds heretical. This is done with a purpose to sow confusion. I’ve been an avid supporter of Church Militant but I want truth not whitewashing.
Not Spartacus: Can’t stop laughing about the solicitation for help from Mr. Carroll. Is it correct to assume that you modernists need a “tag team” effort to fight the SSPX? And and on an aside, I commend you for at least possess some sort of a semblance of “truth in advertising”, because you definitely are “NOT SPARTACUS”.
God bless you and I will keep you in my prayers.
Archbishop Lefebvre, ora pro nobis
(especially for the stubborn ones)
People just want to be Catholic. Not everyone has access to a diocesan tlm, fssp or ICK, so the sspx is their only choice.