Word is spreading like wildfire that Bishop Bernard Fellay, Superior General of the Society of St. Pius X, met with Pope Francis on April 1st at his residence at Domus Santae Martae.
According to an SSPX news release:
[The meeting] lasted 40 minutes and took place under a cordial atmosphere. After the meeting, it was decided that the current exchanges would continue. The canonical status of the Society was not directly addressed, Pope Francis and Bishop Fellay having determined that these exchanges ought to continue without haste.
Details, as expected, are few, but Rorate Caeli is reporting:
“We have learned that it was a very positive meeting.” [Emphasis their own]
No doubt, any news of a very positive meeting between Bishop Fellay and Pope Francis will elicit a very negative reaction from two groups in particular; the liberals and the “resisters.”
Let’s begin by talking about the latter first…
Look, I appreciate all of the passionate responses to the post Resistant to what?
In all of them, however, I didn’t find one, single, solitary thing that would justifying the calumnies that are being leveled against Bishop Fellay as cited therein.
As I said, one can charitably debate the wisdom of certain prudential decisions (e.g., the wording of the proposed doctrinal declaration, the dangers such a document may have invited if ratified, the best way to protect and propagate the treasures of the Church moving forward, etc.), but accusing Bishop Fellay of harboring nefarious motives, as Bishop Williamson has, is simply beyond the pale.
Is it really so difficult to follow after the example of Pope St. Pius X in leaving out of consideration the internal disposition of soul of which God alone is the judge?
That out of the way, let’s talk about the liberals; i.e., those who treat the Council, not only as if it is “an integral part of the tradition of the Church” (the condition for regularization set by Benedict XVI in 2012 and the same that Bishop Fellay rejected), but the “super dogma” that supersedes everything prior.
Setting aside for the moment the valid concerns that all of us have with respect to the Society’s protection, the question is, why do the liberals fear the canonical regularization of the SSPX so much?
The answer should be obvious; it is because “regularizing” the SSPX by granting it ordinary jurisdiction is essentially admitting that Archbishop Lefebvre’s positions, the same held by the Society today, on such things as Vatican II – in particular, ecumenism, relations with the Jews, religious liberty, collegiality – and even the rejection of the Novus Ordo, are entirely legitimate.
In other words, it is as if the pope himself is conceding that there is nothing whatsoever about adhering to these positions that would place one in schism, or otherwise impair their communion with the Church.
This is obvious enough to most readers of this space, but it’s no small concession just the same!
Many “resisters” take the irrational position that Rome must convert entirely to tradition before the SSPX can even enter into discussions with the Vatican apparatus, much less “accept” any regular canonical status.
To embrace such a claim is tantamount to insisting that those religious orders and other groups that are officially recognized in the Church have ever had a duty to renounce their canonical standing and their regular jurisdiction whenever they may have perceived that the preponderance of the hierarchy has fallen into error.
Martin Luther would probably agree with this manner of thinking, but Archbishop Lefebvre never made such a claim, nor did he ever act to withdraw from Rome prior to being censured.
If he had believed as much, the Archbishop wouldn’t have had any discussions with Rome himself. Clearly the hierarchy in 1988 was thoroughly hostile to tradition, and even more hostile to the Traditional Latin Mass than it is today, and yet he obviously still recognized jurisdiction as something to be valued.
It seems where many “resisters” err in large degree is in losing sight of exactly who primarily benefits from the Society’s regularization.
HINT: It’s not the Society.
SSPX bishops, priests and faithful (as well as those in agreement with them) already see the Roman apostasy for what it is. They already strive to embrace tradition in its fullness; they already recognize the validity of the Mass and the Sacraments as offered in Society chapels, and they are already quite clear about the dangers associated with the Council and the Novus Ordo Missae.
For such persons as these, canonical regularization does little or nothing either to enhance, or to endanger, their faith. (We’ll have more to say on potential dangers momentarily.)
Rather, the primary beneficiaries of the Society’s regularization, should it come to pass, will be the “confused Catholics” to whom Archbishop Lefebvre wrote his famous open letter, and for whom he had great concern.
In other words, it is the sincere yet confused Catholic who today finds himself unduly influenced by the arguments of Council-worshipping “full communion” profiteers, both in the hierarchy and in Catholic media, who for far too long have gotten away with making baseless claims about the SSPX in an effort to discredit them; furthering their careers and building their burgeoning franchises by exploiting the naiveté of those innocent souls who wish only to remain obedient to Holy Mother Church.
It may also be the case that some among those who benefit from denigrating the Society today are themselves genuinely confused, but either way, once the Society is regularized, we will know for certain.
The Roman “stamp of approval” that comes with regularization of the SSPX will also greatly benefit what we might call “anonymous sons of Archbishop Lefebvre,” those priests and bishops who fully agree with the Society’s positions, and yet, rightly or wrongly, feel compelled to hide in the shadows for fear of repercussion.
This brings me to potential dangers.
As Bishop Alfonse de Galarreta recently said:
“So you are going to tell me: ‘In these cases [of regularization] there is a risk!’ – Yes, of course. In life there are many risks; in war there are even more. We are at war. So it will be as God wishes. But I have trust in Providence; I have complete trust in the love of Our Lord Jesus Christ for His Holy Church.
If anyone thinks for a moment that the Society can do God’s will, in service to the Church Militant for the good of souls, without inviting risk, he deceives himself.
There will be many concerns that will require careful attention if and when a process of regularization begins in earnest; among them will be the conditions for incardinating diocesan clergy, the freedom to open new priories, chapels, and schools without interference, the ability to preach openly about the Council’s errors and the deficiencies of the new Mass, etc.
It remains to be seen how these details will be addressed, and all talk about an approaching “sell out” or a “doctrinal compromise” is pure speculation that in no way justifies hurling invectives at Bishop Fellay or any other individual priest or bishop in the Society’s leadership.
Moving on, let’s remain very clear about what concerns us most in this matter and why.
According to Archbishop Lefebvre, the Society’s raison d’etre and its motivation for persevering in tradition are simple:
“We are persuaded that we can render no greater service to the Holy Catholic Church, to the Sovereign Pontiff and to posterity.” (cf 1974 Declaration)
In other words, the Archbishop’s primary concern wasn’t so much for the preservation of the Society, per se, but rather the good of the Church and the salvation of souls.
In my humble opinion, one would be hard pressed to demonstrate that the status quo best serves that cause, but please feel free to argue otherwise if you wish. As always, I genuinely appreciate all of your contributions to these discussions.
Sorry you don’t understand how it could be nefarious to say one is fighting N Vietnamese while actually negotiating w/him, but it only shows how far you yourself are compromised, i.e. I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised to find out there is money in your wallet from SSPX (same w/all your good buds MM, CF, S&S, etc.).
It’s interesting that Neo-trads see this as a wonderful opportunity for the Society. Bishop Fellay may regularize with the (supposedly) greatest Pope of modern times. A Pope that the world loves. What could possibly go wrong? Especially given that Pope Francis is such a great, honest, charitable, mature, magnanimous, and of course devout Catholic. Nothing to worry about, right?
The SSPX can’t be touched at this time since they are not in full communion. Once they’re “in,” however, they will be suppressed. It may take place slowly. I don’t actually see a lot of mainstream Catholics or bishops worrying about the SSPX being admitted to full communion. They know that Pope Francis won’t allow Modernism to be compromised by a group of trads (SSPX) who love the Old Mass. They will be neutralized, and even some Neo-trads are probably okay with that.
I am more concerned about this. Neither side has apparently changed positions on any teaching that caused the creation of the SSPX. If this is the case, then the reuniting undermines Archbishop Lefebvre rather than justifies his actions. The only change is that we seem to have a Pope who considers every person, by virtue of their creation, somehow united to the Church.
Guess we’ll just have to wait and see where this all goes, although it should be interesting when April 8 rolls arround and the Exhortation is released. If it’s as bad as we are all being warned that it is perhaps that will be just the ticket to speed things up for the SSPX to be regularized… I’m sure Rome will be thrilled to hear what Bishop Fellay has to say concerning the possible debauchery in the document. I honestly can’t comprehend Francis where the SSPX is concerned…..seems a little shady to say the least.
I, for one, trust Bishop Fellay’s judgement. He knows fully the dangers of placing the Society under the full control of this Vatican. He will not allow his flock to be scattered by the apostates in Rome.
He can see from the experience of the FFI, and others, how Rome has become the destroyer of the Faith.
We must pray for Bishop Fellay.
If this comes to pass Im assuming there would be no more new SSPX bishops.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjlWYp1qQLA
Well, that is very charitable. You disagree with him which means there is a strong possibility of him having taken a bribe or donations that would influence him to be “compromised”.
Throughout history there have been many evil prelates, but the saints were always under them as long as they did not have to accept their evil. Yet, those saints resisted them and fought against them, at least spiritually through prayer.
I CHALLENGE ANYONE to give one quote of a saint or theologian that says if the Pope is bad enough then you MUST refuse any and all canonical regularity. Never mind; don’t wast your time, because it is a complete novelty to refuse canonical regularity solely because it comes from an evil prelate, especially if in doing so, you do not compromise doctrine and are free to speak the truth. The reason the SSPX is not regularized is because they will not compromise doctrine and demand the freedom to speak the truth. Otherwise they and Lefebvre would have regularized in a heartbeat. And remember, the sign of heresy is novelty. The “resistance” has no saints or theologians to back up their claim that you cannot have any regularization whatsoever with an evil hierarchy. So, their claim is unsupported and probably false. Sedevecantism is this novel doctrine’s logical conclusion. The truth is always consistent. You may not have to be subject to a Pope’s evil wish or erroneous doctrines. However, if you are not subject to the Roman Pontiff when doing so is not evil then are you Catholic or acting in a Catholic way?
Well, to be fair: The current Roman Pontiff has not been subject to tradition nor his predecessors teachings.
Alas, it will be nice to have the extraordinary form as an officially optional rite in Church.
🙂
GMU, that’s very good little video of an audio clip of Archbishop Lefebvre, which shows what his views really were. Bishop Fellay, though he may be sincere, doesn’t ever state the views that Archbishop Lefebvre did, at least not anymore. But there is a former SSPX bishop who still maintains the views of ABL, but he won’t be taken seriously either.
No one could deny that the Church is facing a crisis. But that’s nothing new. If we’ve learned anything from the past two thousand years, it’s that the Church is always facing a crisis, why?, because of ‘sin’, and the treachery of its own members (just read some of the comments). Over and over again, the doubters have been predicting the end of the Church, only to witness a sudden burst of Christian energy. St. Paul has warned us; ‘We are afflicted in every way, but not crushed; perplexed, but not driven to despair; persecuted, but not forsaken; struck down, but not destroyed; always carrying in the body the death of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may also be made visible in our bodies.” (2 Corinthians 4:8-10). This is true of the whole Church, as is of every individual Christian. The pagan Roman Empire is long gone, but the world (especially, the enemy within) still persecutes the Church and the faithful.
The only possible way to follow the ‘Royal Way of The Cross’ (as all faithful ought to, especially, the consecrated), is to be ‘within’ the holy Church, facing the enemy face to face, not with the ‘sword’, but rather, in patience with His Truth, holy Tradition, in fearless faith. Not hiding behind faceless articles on internet, striking malice with their tongues, and with waving their fists, sowing confusion and disunity, worse yet, causing the loss of faith and the loss of souls for eternity of so many…….Miserere! Only cowards, who obey their own authority, who love those who love them, are fearing the persecution, fearing to suffer for God, for the holy Church, even in obedience, of those that are their enemies, forgetting that ‘roses are only gathered from among thorns.’ Tertullian’s maxim: “The blood of the martyrs is seed”…..the seed is the Church. Martyrdom is not only of blood (there’s always martyrdom, such as denying self, suffering for ‘truth’ in imitation of Jesus), which every Christian (especially, the consecrated) must be ready to embrace at all cost.
The Church is the kingdom of heaven, and until the end of time, Jesus tells us, it is sown with wheat and weeds (St. Matthew 13:24,30). Here’s St. Augustine’s comment on this passage: “While the devil is bound, the saints reign with Christ during the time between His first and second coming. For the Church could not now be called His kingdom or ‘the kingdom of heaven’ unless His saints were even now reigning with Him……And it is from the Church that the reapers shall gather the tares which He allowed to grow alongside the wheat until the harvest, as He explains: “the harvest is the close of the age, and the reapers are angels. Just as the weeds are gathered and burned with fire, so will it be at the close of the age. The Son of man will send His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all causes of sin and all evildoers” (St. Matthew 13:3,41). Can He mean that they are gathered out of the future kingdom in which there are no offenses? Of course not. Then they must be gathered out of His present kingdom, the Church……..So the Church even now is the kingdom of Christ and the kingdom of heaven. Even now His saints reign with Him, though in a different way than they will reign in the hereafter. And, though the tares grown alongside the wheat in the Church, they do not reign with Him……In short, they reign with Him who are so in His kingdom that they themselves are His kingdom” (City of God).
…from ‘UNAM SANCTAM’ Bull of Pope Boniface VIII, Nov. 18, 1302
+ ‘Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.’ + Amen.
MERCI
MARCEL
Alone like Jesu
In Him believed –
Merci Marcel
For souls you grieved
Every step
The Catholic way –
Merci Marcel
For Bishop Fellay
Hated scourged
Calumny-crowned –
Merci Marcel
Your son is sound
And imitating
The Good Shepherd our King –
Merci Marcel
Te Deum ring!!!
True, but we do not have to imitate his disobedience of good laws and doctrine given by the Church.
Since Quo Primum has never been rovoked, the Traditional Catholic Mass has always been an option. Pope Benedict XVI has confirmed this.
Cardinal Journet, regarding the age old teaching of the Church claimed: “As far as the axiom ‘where the pope is, there is the Church” goes, this holds true when the Pope behaves like a pope and head of the Church; if this is not the case, neither the Church is in him nor he in the Church.”
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2016/03/socci-pope-who-wants-to-put-himself-in.html
“ought to continue WITHOUT HASTE.” I think this was a very revealing statement. What’s the rush? We are not ready or willing to unite with Rome. Rome is no longer (aka) Catholic. Am I reading too much into this? Your thoughts are appreciated–Thank you!
When Bp Fellay does officially sit down with Francis the SSPX just better hope that Tim Sebastian isnt part of Francis’ vetting team….because we all saw how easily Bp Fellay caved into Tim the first time around.
Here are some strong quotes of Archbishop Lefebvre:
“With that I think that I have said what I wanted to say to you, and given you a certain line of conduct in the present events, which perhaps are going to go even faster. There will be possibly other manifestations of putting the brakes on by the Vatican; and it is very, very dangerous for us to “rally” ourselves now. No rallying, no rallying to the liberals; no rallying to the ecclesiastics who are governing in the Church now and who are liberals; there is no rallying to these people. From the moment when we rally ourselves, this rallying will be the acceptance of the liberal principles. We cannot do this, even if certain appeasements are given us on the Mass of St. Pius V – certain satisfactions, certain recognitions, certain incardinations, which could even be offered to you eventually.
But as long as one is dealing with people who have made this agreement with the Devil, with liberal ideas, we cannot have any confidence. They will string us along little by little; they will try to catch us in their traps, as long as they have not let go of these false ideas. So, from my point of view, it is not a question of doing whatever one can. Those who would have a tendency to want to accept that will end up being recycled.”
Conference of Archbishop Lefebvre to the priests of the District of France 13 December 1984
We cannot,” said Archbishop Lefebvre in the following September to the Econe seminarians, “lend a hand to the demolishers of the Church who in their other hand grasp a hammer to do the demolishing! We must get clear what we are after: either we truly wish to build up the Church or we wish to demolish it. If we side with the demolishers, if we rest ourselves on their authority, then by that very fact we also approve, indirectly if not explicitly, of their destruction of the Church. We cannot say that everything is resolved between us. That would be deplorable.” And, alluding to those who have thrown in the towel, contenting themselves with profit-taking from Archbishop Lefebvre’s umpteenth sacrifice, he goes on to say, “We suffer from being abandoned by all those who have grown tired of finding themselves for so long in a situation delicate, difficult, hard and painful. But we must not grow tired, because what is at stake is not our selves, it is the Faith, Tradition, the continuity and growth of the Church. Therefore we do not have the right to say, ‘I am tired of struggling, now I wish to submit to authority,’ when that authority is not defending the Faith” (and is working to demolish it).”
+Lefebvre
“That is why what can look like a concession is in reality merely a maneuver to separate us from the largest number of faithful possible. This is the perspective in which they seem to be always giving a little more and even going very far. We must absolutely convince our faithful that it is no more than a maneuver, that it is dangerous to put oneself into the hands of Conciliar bishops and Modernist Rome. It is the greatest danger threatening our people. If we have struggled for twenty years to avoid the Conciliar errors, it was not in order, now, to put ourselves in the hands of those professing these errors.”
Joseph Ratzinger gave in: “Let us find a practical solution.” … How did Marcel Lefebvre not jump for joy? Rome was giving in! But his penetrating faith went to the very heart of the Cardinal’s rejection of doctrine. He said to himself: “So, must Jesus no longer reign? Is Jesus no longer God? Rome has lost the Faith. Rome is in apostasy. We can no longer trust this lot!” To the Cardinal, he said:
“Eminence, even if you give us everything – a bishop, some autonomy from the bishops, the 1962 liturgy, allow us to continue our seminaries – we cannot work together because we are going in different directions. You are working to dechristianize society and the Church, and we are working to Christianize them.
“For us, our Lord Jesus Christ is everything. He is our life. The Church is our Lord Jesus Christ; the priest is another Christ; the Mass is the triumph of Jesus Christ on the cross; in our seminaries everything tends toward the reign of our Lord Jesus Christ. But you! You are doing the opposite: you have just wanted to prove to me that our Lord Jesus Christ cannot, and must not, reign over society.”
Recounting this incident, the Archbishop described the Cardinal’s attitude: “Motionless, he looked at me, his eyes expressionless, as if I had just suggested something incomprehensible or unheard of.” Then Ratzinger tried to argue that “the Church can still say whatever she wants to the State,” while Lefebvre, the intuitive master of Catholic metaphysics, did not lose sight of the true end of human societies: the Reign of Christ. Fr. de Tinguy hit the nail on the head when he said of Marcel Lefebvre: “His faith defies those who love theological quibbles.”
pp. 547-548 Marcel Lefebvre by Bp. Tissier de Mallerais
“We are not up against a little thing. It is not enough for them to tell us: “You may say the old Mass, but you have to accept it [the Council].” No, it is not only that [the Mass] which divides us, it’s doctrine. That’s clear. That is what is so serious about Dom Gerard’s [choice], and that’s what did him in. Dom Gerard never saw anything but the liturgy and monastic life. He does not see clearly the theological problems with the Council, with religious freedom. He does not see the malice of these errors.”
“No,” he would say in 1976, “I shall not give the Church’s destroyers an easy conscience by handing over to them what belongs only to God, to the Faithful, to the Church of all time. This is what makes our situation with the Vatican appear deadlocked. But it is only an appearance. The time will come when the Church will triumph as she has always done… What are a few years, or few tens of years, compared with eternity? As I said to you a little while ago, all we need do is wait.”
“And truth is not made by numbers; numbers to not make truth. Even if I am alone, and even if all my seminarians leave me, even if I am abandoned by the whole of public opinion, it is all the same to me. I am attached to my catechism, attached to my Credo, attached to the Tradition which sanctified all the saints in heaven. I am not concerned about others – the do as they wish; but I want to save my soul. Public opinion I know too well: It was public opinion that condemned our Lord after acclaiming Him a few days before. First Palm Sunday, then Good Friday. We know that. Public opinion is not to be trusted at all. Today it is for me, tomorrow it is against me. What matters is fidelity to our faith. We should have that conviction and stay calm.”
Some strong Bishop Tissier de Mallerais quotes:
Bishop T.: It is true that the SSPX is a “stumbling block” for those who resist the truth (cf. 1 Petr 2, 8) and this is good for the Church. If we were “reinstated”, we would, by that very fact, stop being a thorn in the side of the conciliar church, a living reproach to the loss of faith in Jesus Christ, His divinity, in His kingdom.
R.: But, Excellency, you wrote with your two colleagues a letter to H.E. Bp. Fellay to refuse a purely practical agreement with Benedict XVI. What are the reasons for this refusal?
Bp. T.: The publication of our letter is due to an indiscretion for which we are not responsible. We refuse a purely practical agreement because the doctrinal question is fundamental. Faith comes before legality. We cannot accept a legalization without the problem of the faith being solved. To submit ourselves now unconditionally to the higher authority imbibed with Modernism would be to expose ourselves to have to disobey. And what is the good in that? Abp. Lefebvre said since 1984: “one does not place oneself under an authority when that authority has all the powers to demolish us.” And I believe that that is wise. I would like us to produce a text that, renouncing to diplomatic subterfuges, clearly affirms our faith and, consequently, our rejection of the conciliar errors. This proclamation would have the advantage, first, of saying the truth openly to Pope Benedict XVI, who is the first to have the right to the truth, and second to restore the unity of the Catholics of Tradition arround a combative and unequivocal profession of faith.”
R.: Some believe that the statute of personal prelature proposed to you will provide sufficient guarantee to you concerning all danger of abandoning the combat for the faith.
Bp. T.: That is incorrect. According to the project of prelature, we would not be free to create new priories without the permission of the local bishops and, additionally, all our recent foundations would have to be confirmed by these same bishops. It would thus mean subjugating us quite unnecessarily to an overall Modernist episcopate.
R.: Could you detail for us this problem of faith that you wish to see resolved in the first place?
Bp. T.: Certainly. It is, as Abp. Lefebvre used to say, the attempt by the Vatican II Council of conciliating the doctrine of the faith with the liberal errors. It was Benedict XVI himself who said it, in his interview with Vittorio Messori in November 1984, by declaring: “the problem of the 1960s (and therefore of the Council) was the acquisition of the most matured values of two centuries of Liberal culture. They are the values that, while originating outside the Church, may find their place, once purified and corrected, in her vision of the world. And it is what was done.” That is the work of the council: an impossible conciliation. “What conciliation can there be between light and darkness?”, the Apostle says, “what agreement between Christ and Belial?” (2 Cor 6, 15). The emblematic manifestation of this conciliation is the Declaration on Religious Freedom. In the place of the truth of Christ and of his social kingdom over the nations, the Council places the human person, his conscience and his liberty. It is the famous “change of paradigm” admitted by Cardinal Colombo in the 1980s. The worship of the man who becomes God in the place of the worship of the God who became man (cf. Paul VI, address on the closing of the Council, December 7, 1965). It is a new religion that is not the Catholic religion. We do not want any compromise with this religion, any risk of corruption, not even any appearance of conciliation, and it is this appearance that our so-called “regularization” would give us. May the Immaculate Heart of Mary, Immaculate in her faith, guard us in the Catholic faith. ”
“When the crisis started to come to an end, after twenty or thirty years, St. Basil considered that the heretics were beginning to convert. If only we could say that the Conciliarists are beginning to convert – but that’s simply not true, not one, neither in Rome nor in the dioceses, none of them are converting. Anyway, St. Basil seeing that the pneumatomachians, as they were called, were beginning to convert and were returning to the Catholic faith decided not to shock them; he couldn’t say the Holy Ghost is God because they wouldn’t have hesitated to say that. So, he used a gentler expression. That is to say, the Holy Ghost is to be “adored with the Father and the Son.” He receives the same glory as the Father and the Son. We have to adore the Holy Ghost like the Father and the Son and we give the same glory to the Holy Ghost as to the Father and the Son. A “gentler expression” but which expresses the Catholic Faith. Unambiguous.”
“If we have to adore the Holy Ghost it’s because he’s God; if we have to give the same glory to the Holy Ghost as to the Father and the Son it’s because he is God. So, St. Basil didn’t use ambiguous expressions with those who wanted to return to the Church. He demanded that they profess the entire Catholic Faith but using a gentler way of saying it. He was prudent, very good, but only in professing the true faith. He was not willing to sign ambiguous texts, dear faithful. That’s what we must do today. We must refuse ambiguous texts, continue to condemn error and to correctly profess the Catholic Faith. When the Conciliarists come back, one day, in twenty five years, repenting of the council, when they see the ongoing catastrophes, the empty seminaries, the churches in ruins, apostasy everywhere, immorality everywhere, then they will repent deeply. When they do, when they begin to come back, full of repentance we can use “gentle” expressions to help them. But not now! The crisis is in full swing, now we have to be firm and condemn the errors of the council, especially the denial of Christ the King, the refusal of Christ the King.
That, dear faithful, is our plan of action. There’s no point in deceiving ourselves, there’s no way the crisis is almost over, the crisis is far from being over, the fight is going to last a long time and so we need to get organised, to last out and to continue to profess the whole Catholic Faith in full confidence in the power of Our Lord Jesus Christ.”
What exactly is a “neo-Trad”? I know of no Trad who thinks that Pope Francis is the greatest Pope of modern times. In fact, quite the opposite. As far as a potential suppression after regularization, in case you’ve forgotten what Apb. Lefebvre did after “the Vatican” attempted to suppress his Society, he ignored them and kept right on going.
Bishop Tissier de Mallerais quotes above from 2012.
I think the real puzzle is this: why would the “dark forces behind the throne” block Pope Benedict from regularizing the Society, yet allow Pope Francis to do it?
I think the answer might have something to do with the nature of Modernism. That is, Pope Benedict, Modernist though he is, wanted something doctrinal, something written in stone. Major taboo for Modernists! Pope Francis, however, if he does indeed proceed with regularization, will do it like he does everything else: informally, off-the cuff, and by-passing all regular channels of authority, just as he did with this “Year of Mercy” declaration. And that method, perhaps, will be allowed to pass through. Perhaps.
I also wonder whether Pope Benedict has been pressuring Francis and strategizing with him behind the scenes to get this done. Whatever the real story is, it is one hell of a paradox for a Marxist-Peronist Pope to welcome his spiritual enemy into his camp.
“Traditional” Catholics are not in disobedience with any “goods” laws. If by “Good” laws you mean Church doctrine. Not so much on “bad” doctrine.
More over, by tradition and Church teaching we are to:
Pope St. Felix III: “Not to oppose error. Not to oppose error is to approve it; and not to defend truth is to suppress it..”
“Although it clearly follows from the circumstances that the Pope can err at times, and command things which must not be done, that we are not to be simply obedient to him in all things, that does not show that he must not be obeyed by all when his commands are good. To know in what cases he is to be obeyed and in what not, it is said in the Acts of the Apostles: ‘One ought to obey God rather than man’; therefore, were the Pope to command anything against Holy Scripture, or the articles of faith, or the truth of the Sacraments, or the commands of the natural or divine law, he ought not to be obeyed, but in such commands, to be passed over.” (Summa de Ecclesia, Juan Cardinal De Torquemada.
“If a future pope teaches anything contrary to the Catholic Faith, do not follow him.”-Ven. Pope Pius IX
Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ.” -St. Athanasious.
Francisco Suarez S.J. († 1617), said likewise:
“If the pope gives an order contrary to right customs, he should not be obeyed; if he attempts to do something manifestly opposed to justice and the common good, it will be lawful to resist him; if he attacks by force, by force he can be repelled, with a moderation appropriate to a just defense.” (De Fide, Disp. X, Sec. VI, N. 16)
Quite so. Quite so.
Bishop Alfonse de Galarreta made this point in 2011:
“How then does this not go against the defense and public confession of faith, against the public need to protect
the faithful and the Church? In this regard, if we make a purely practical agreement we are, in the present circumstances, already engaging in duplicity and ambiguity. The very fact is a public testimony and a message:
we cannot be in “full communion” with the authorities who remain modernists.
We cannot ignore the context either, that is to say, events and constant teachings in the life of the Church today:
repeated visits to Protestant churches and synagogues, beatification (soon to be canonized) of John Paul II,
Assisi III, preaching religious liberty time and time again, and a long etcetera. Moreover, if we make an
agreement we will lose freedom of speech, we must mute our public criticism of the facts, the authorities and
even some texts of the Council and the post-conciliar magisterium. To understand and illustrate the points
I and II, just look what happened with all the ralliers (those who were won over or those who rejoined ) from
the Fraternity of St. Peter to the Institute of Good Shepherd: They are inevitably confronted with the choice to
surrender or betray their commitments … and this is the first thing that happens.”
As Fr. John Corrigan says:
SL = SSPX soft-liner. HL = SSPX hard-liner.
SL Outside the Church is not where we should be!
HL Who left the Church? Vatican II! Not we!
SL Once in the Church, we could do so much more!
HL If we detested error, as before.
SL Why should we stop detesting error, pray?
HL Because we would be joining in their fray.
SL We need to live within the Church’s law.
HL Not if it is not serving God any more.
SL The Catholic Church is visible. We’re not there.
HL The Church is holy. Do we see that? Where?
SL But things have changed since the Archbishop’s day.
HL The modernists still hold exclusive sway.
SL What Rome now offers, he would have approved.
HL Never, once Benedict to Assisi moved!
SL The SSPX stands strong, need fear no fall.
HL Let all who stand fear falling, says St. Paul.
SL But our Superiors have grace of state.
HL Did leading churchmen never prevaricate?
SL Our leaders to the SSPX belong!
HL And does that mean they never can do wrong?
SL But, Pre-condition One, Rome freed the Mass.
HL And left in place the “bastard rite”, so crass.
SL Rome also lifted the ban on bishops four.
HL But did that make them more free than before?
SL Yet Benedict is calling for our aid.
HL To make Truth prosper, or to help it fade?
SL Of harming Truth, how can the Pope be accused?
HL His modernist mind is hopelessly confused.
SL Yet truly, Benedict wants us all back in.
HL As a modernist, yes, but modernism is a sin.
SL Then do you still believe that he is Pope?
HL Yes, but we must for his conversion hope.
SL What can you mean by, “As a modernist, yes”?
HL Our true Faith he can only harm, not bless.
SL Our welfare is his genuine concern.
HL Not our true welfare, if our true Faith he spurn.
SL A lack of supernatural spirit you show!
HL If woe I say there is, where there is woe?
SL Not everything in the Church is gloomy, dark!
HL Where do you see of true revival a spark?
SL A movement towards Tradition is under way!
HL While fully in control the modernists stay?
SL Then is the official Church still God’s own Church?
HL Yes, it’s the churchmen left us in the lurch.
SL But surely Pope and Rome have both meant well.
HL So? – “Good intentions pave the way to Hell.”
SL But evils worse that Vatican Two can be.
HL The Archbishop – remember? – called it World War III.
SL You’re harsh. Your attitude to schism will lead.
HL Better than undermine the entire creed!
SL Not all the Church authorities are bad.
HL The good ones have no power. It’s very sad.
SL Priests should not say, authority is untrue.
HL But bishops were the cause of Vatican II!
SL Still, Catholic instincts seek their Catholic home.
HL Today, for Catholics, that’s no longer Rome.
SL Then where is the Church? Just in Tradition? Where?
HL “One, holy, catholic, apostolic” – there.
SL You want to solve this problem overnight!
HL No, just that a start be made to set it right.
SL We trust in God. We trust in his Sacred Heart.
HL Bravo! But humans too must play their part.
SL That part is not for us just to complain.
HL Tradcats work hard, Tradition to maintain.
SL If we went in with Rome, we could turn back.
HL No. More and more we’d follow in Rome’s track.
SL Why stop the Romans making restitution?
HL Because they’re set upon our destitution.
SL Back in the mainstream Church we’d set to work!
HL Rather we’d lose our way in all their murk.
SL But we are strong, with bishops one and three.
HL Alas, the three with the one do not agree.
SL We’re firm in the Faith. Modernists are no threat!
HL We’d easily slide. You want to take a bet?
SL Strong in the Faith, we can afford to agree!
HL But that Faith says, from heretics to flee.
SL But Gott mit uns! We are the SSPX!
HL Not if we choose to ignore all prudent checks.
SL Were we approved, Romans would learn from us!
HL O Heavens, no! They’d throw us under the bus.
SL Were we approved, the earth of Rome could quake.
HL But not before to pieces we would shake.
SL Our leader has graces of state. We must obey.
HL Was Paul the Sixth given graces to betray?
SL Rome is now weak, meaning, we could stay strong.
HL For right, Rome’s feeble. Mighty it is for wrong.
SL So what’s the answer, if you’re always right?
How can the Church be rescued from its plight?
HL The Church belongs to God. In his good time
We’ll see his answer, stunning and sublime.
Till then we grieve, and thirst for right, and trust.
That which we cannot cure, endure we must.
From error and the erring stay away,
Even while for their immortal souls we pray.
And tell God’s truth, however few will hear –
As close as the nearest door, his help is near.
http://www.acountrypriest.com/tag/bishop-williamson/
“please feel free to argue otherwise if you wish.” Thankyou for that Louie thats what i like about you. First thing id like to say is that i beleive you are 100% genuine and you are trying to do your best in these terrible times in the church. Up until a few weeks ago or there abouts, I always thought of you as a “independent” traditional (aka) catholic ie no real tie or lean towards a certain group. I imagined that you took all things catholic that you agreed with from all different groups. I must at this point say it is very generous of you to allow people to comment on your blog to post things that in quite afew cases you probably do not agree with , myself defiantly included and i thank you for that. Since the post of the interview of bishop fellay by tim sebastian its seem pretty clear to me that you place yourself in the SSPX group. In my opinion not a bad position to place 1 self as long as we dont treat the group we belong too (if thats the case) as the only truth there is and dont really want to look to much into any issues raised against such a group. What i mean is there are people who comment here who attend new mass , indult mass’s , ffsp , icksp , sspx , sspx resistence and sedvacantist mass’s. I imagine most fall into 1 of these groups. I think we have to be carefull though not to treat the group we belong too if this be the case as the winning side similar to a football team which we support even if they do things we dont think is the right move we can fall into backing them anyway. My point is since you yourself watched the interview with tim sebastian i was expecting to hear some positive critisms of his actions as plenty faithful would see how the archbishops successor reacted under pressure during a interview. Now your latest blog reads to me as a defense of bishop fellay having a meeting with francis of which good may come. ?? Unlike your fair criticisms of cardinal burke and bishop sneider you have drawn the line at bishop fellay ie no positive criticisms coming his way but novus ordo groups have received due criticism as also bishop williamson a couple of posts ago, and i beleive forgive me if im wrong you dont take to much from the sedevacantists either. That only leaves the sspx and bishop fellay that you seem to see no errors. Im not saying the whole truth belongs in 1 of the above groups quite the opposite but all to different degrees have something positive barring the local liberal novus ordo. I myself wont be tied to a particular group in the sense that 1 of them has all the answers and everybody else has it wrong. I beleive there are errors in all groups. At this point i must say this is most true for the icksp which is 1 of the places i attend mass also ffsp sspx and resistence which already has some internal divisions taking place. If someone distinguishes themself as a sedevacantist then the same issue arrises is it the extreme diamond brothers ? . Bishop kelly ? bishop sanborn ?or 1 of the other sede groups.that have got it all right as God wants it. I personally listen to most of what they all have to say and feel as though i cannot fully commit to 1 particular group because there are valid arugments made against all in my opinon. So if i was to give myself to 1 particular group i would as most do find myself defending certain errors etc right to the end beleiving my group is GODS favourite haha. I really like your blog and i do appreciate your allowing of comments that you personally dont agree which i commend you for. My only bit of advice not that im worthy of giving you any but pride wins out on this 1, would be if it be Gods will stay independent of all groups and i beleive it will make your blog a place of all traditional (aka catholics) to come and hopefully grow more in faith. Not to leave out the lukewarm of which i myself have been for the majority of my life.
I agree with you. I think you may misunderstand me. I am saying that just because the Pope fails to follow Tradition does not give us an excuse to be disobedient to him if he gives a good law or teaches the truth. For instance, it would be wrong for the SSPX to refuse to be recognized or regularized as they are if they did not have to compromise and had sufficient safeguards and freedom to preach the truth. I agree close to 100% with the SSPX doctrinally speaking. I cannot even think of anything in particular at the present that I disagree with them in. Except maybe, I tend to have more of pessimistic veiw of Pope Francis than Bishop Felley does. Then again who really knows with him.
Yes Bishop Fellay implied in his last interview that dark powers above stopped Pope Benedict from “regularizing” the SSPX.
Why not Pope Francis?
“Eminence, even if you give us everything – a bishop, some autonomy from the bishops, the 1962 liturgy, allow us to continue our seminaries – we cannot work together because we are going in different directions. You are working to dechristianize society and the Church, and we are working to Christianize them.”
Then a year latter (if I remember correctly) he talked with Rome about an agreement. Even after he ripped up the protocol to an agreement, he said he was happy to sign it and there was nothing that was necessarily doctrinally wrong with it. However, he ripped it up because it did not give his society the proper freedom it needed to survive. I think there were three Roman authorities on a commission of five that would have decided what they could or could not due. In other words no more new chapels, schools, ect as long as they were under the agreement. We should read both the strong and “weak” statements of Lefebvre and examine his actions to know his views as a whole on this subject.
“To embrace such a claim is tantamount to insisting that those religious orders and other groups that are officially recognized in the Church have ever had a duty to renounce their canonical standing and their regular jurisdiction whenever they may have perceived that the preponderance of the hierarchy has fallen into error” I am not sure other religious order need to renounce their canonical standing, all they need to do is follow SSPX and be faithful to Christ and their canonical status would be taken away from them. I think Francis is using new tactics to support the idea he proposed that is “truth is not objective and absolute” so one world religion can become reality.
Pope Benedict and Pope Francis don’t have any real autonomous authority. The Jesuit Order are the power brokers in the Vatican. The FSSP was founded for the sole purpose of sabotaging the SSPX. The Jesuits will continue to protect the credibility of the FSSP, who continue to broadcast “the problems” of the SSPX. There will be no deal.
Unless…
Nice poem, but I CHALLENGE ANYONE to give one quote of a saint or theologian that says if the Pope is bad enough then you MUST refuse any and all canonical regularity….read my post at the top if you have not already and wish to do so. St. Augustine says the good do not have to fear being in communion with the wicked in refuting the Donatist heresy. Granted, he was not talking specifically about canonical regularity. But that may be more to the SSPX’s advantage. He expected the good to be united and under the same Bishop as the wicked or under the same wicked bishop. It would also include those material heretics, but not formal heretics. St. Thomas says that those whose canonical regularity is taken away from them unjustly have not sinned, but not to even desire canonical regularity is schismatic.
A-C-T,
Yeah, I thought the poem was just fun. I’m not in accord with HL’s position. I’m much more aligned with yours. Keep on thinkin’ critically.
Perhaps it wasn’t any “dark forces behind the throne,” but rather Pope Benedict himself who threw a wrench into the gears. I think that he was expected to “deliver up” the SSPX through a deal, but knowing what might happen to the SSPX if they regularized, he had remorse and intentionally put up a barrier. Just my opinion.
“They have the churches, but you have the Faith.”
~St Athanasius to his flock.
Would you consider yourself a follower of the Archbishop’s “weak” statements, while the rest of us follow his strong statements?
He was very consistent in my opinion. I think that if the Vatican had agreed to recognize the SSPX “as is” he would have accepted. He would not be ambiguous nor would he agree to soften his fight for the Faith in anyway.
…the Pope consecrates Russia…
It’s the same dance with the devil danced on Cuba and in China. Christ pushed at the same table with the ones who crucify Him over and over again.
Imagine a Church that had brokered a deal with the Roman emperor to stop the persecutions in exchange for some nice sacrifice in honor of Caesar each year! WE DON’T COME FROM THAT. We never broker deals with the “other side”. And a SSPX dancing arm in arm with an apostate and heretic pontiff and his imps dressed as cardinals and priests…. no good will come out of it. Christ has been kicked out, the politicians have taken the stage. May God have mercy. His mercy, not that of Bergoglio.
Will the Pope Consecrate Russia before or after he celebrates the Protestant Reformation in October?
I put quotes on “weak” because those statements of Levbvre when said in a similar by Felley are dreamed weak by the “resistance”. I would say as regards this issue I follow the whole of what Lefebvre said and did. He called John Paul II Anti-Christ for what he did at Assisi yet still recognized him as Pope and treated him as such.
Not sure where you are coming from, but I would say the “resistance” has misinterpreted some of his words in a similar way Protestants interpret the Scriptures. If your interpretation of a man’s words directly contradict other words, then either your interpretation is wrong or that man holds two contradictory statements. I would say the same goes for a man’s actions. If a man contradicts himself through both word and deed in important matters then why hold him up as an example? But if you know the man is good and consistent then isn’t it more likely that you do not understand his first statements and shouldn’t you try to reconcile his words and actions, especially if he has never said he changed his position on that subject?
Unless there are saboteurs within the SSPX admin staff who will go ahead with the deal..
(This is based on your premise Rushintoit).
Maybe not, but the SSPX bishops are still quite young.
On the other hand, with jurisdiction, the SSPX can ask local ordinaries to perform confirmations at SSPX chapels, etc. This will take a large burden off the existing bishops. It will also allow the more traditional minded bishops and cardinals to get closer to the Society. This can only be a good thing.
.
And even if the SSPX are treated like the FSSP (still no bishop as promised, after 28 years), the precident has been set. 🙂
The simple answer is that Francis is a loose canon.
.
He does whatever he wants. He encounters problems when he needs to write a longer document. Then he is forced to come under the “theological structuring” facility of Card. Muller. But as far as his “off the cuff magisterium”, Franicis does what he wants. And the document then get drawn up afterwords.
I am not taking the SSPX announcement as good news.
.
If the news was “good”, Francis would have just made one of his impormptu “off the cuff magisterium” things and given the SSPX jurisdiction outright, which he could have done. And then let the Ecclesia Dei sort out the paperwork.
.
However, if we read that: “The canonical status of the Society was not directly addressed, Pope Francis and Bishop Fellay having determined that these exchanges ought to continue without haste.”, means that it will be a drawn out process.
.
This announcement will also bring the arch-nemisis of the SSPX, one Card. Muller and his novel “theological structuring” facilities into the picture. All in all, a drawn out process.
.
As for Francis, I think he is making a tactical play using the SSPX. He is dangling the “recognition” carrot as a ploy for the sheep, showing that even the SSPX “can expect his mercy”, while never giving it to them outright. However, the German heretical bishops will no doubt use the “new” facilites in the new AE at their leisure.
.
Clever ploy, but a bit too transparent if you ask me.
“…But if one does not know the source of errors, of what destroys societies, souls and the Church, we would be incompetent shepherds …it is an absolute requirement to study liberalism and to understand it well, and I believe that many of those that left us ‘to rejoin Rome’ so-say, did not understand what liberalism is and how Roman authorities since the Council are infested with these errors. If they had understood it, they would have fled it and would have stayed with us. This is serious, because by coming close to these authorities, one is necessarily contaminated. They represent the authority and we are subordinates … they impose on us their principles … so long as they do not rid themselves of these errors of liberalism, there is no way one can find an agreement with them, it is just not possible.”
+Lefebvre, 1988
Of course Bishop Fellay would be right to accept an invitation from Rome for SSPX to be canonically regularised.
As long as there is no compromise or departure from the objectives of the Society to remain faithful to pre-conciliar expressions of the Faith. That they will be free from diocesan control. That no Society priest will be involved in anyway with the disastrous Novus Ordo, and so on.
If those are the terms of any regularisation it would be quite wrong for Bishop Fellay to resist.
I would see it as a move likely to bear much fruit with a great increase in vocations of traditional Priests and for the increase in Grace leading to eventual restoration of the True Faith in Rome.
May the Modernists find out that God can be a ‘God of surprises’ in ways they least expect!
I think they should regularize and trust in God’s providence. For better or worse, catholics are bound to work within the hierarchy of the Church. Maybe the pope does think that he can totally suppress the SSPX once they are under his thumb but truly, that’s his responsibility before God and he will have to answer for it assuming God allows him to do it. I would draw the line at having anything liturgical to do in the Novus Ordo.
The promised chastisement is infinitely more likely than the Consecration for October. The SSPX are the heroes that have kept the gates of Hell from a victory. If there are traitors in the SSPX, that is all the more reason to expect the chastisement.
Can’t imagine that working, personally:-)
I DO NOT read Fr. Z’s blog, but someone sent this to me.
–
http://wdtprs.com/blog/2016/04/pope-francis-to-expand-concelebration-into-the-tridentine-mass/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+wdtprs%2FDhFa+%28Fr.+Z%27s+Blog+-+What+Does+The+Prayer+Really+Say%3F%29
—–
So, does this have anything to do with this SSPX regularization?
Are all traditionals (aka Catholics) to come under one “tent
…..”tent” only to change the Mass?
(Sorry about the accidental breakup in this post.)
I believe that would be an April fools article.
You should visit it some day. He has his own Fr Z store where you can buy outrageously priced items like a “Zed Head” tee shirt. Seriously, that guy is a money-hungry clown; you arent missing anything important by not reading his blog.
I don’t see how an action on the side of the pope to regularize the Society could be construed as undermining the Archbishop. He spoke with Rome, just as his spiritual sons do. Okay, so let’s say regularization happens and the Vatican makes demands of the Society. What then? Well, they were “excommunicated” once, it will continue to mean nothing. The Society will continue as it always has. However, if no such demands are forthcoming, can’t you see the tremendous possibility for those Catholics who have not attended the Mass of All Times through fear? I know many people whose only available Latin Mass is offered by the Society, but they don’t attend for fear of sinning. Regularization would clear the obstacles for many such people.
It’s really hard to do research on the resistance. I think I’ve found one of their main objections. It seems the SSPX has often called the Novus Ordo “the conciliar church” because Roman authorities referred to it in this way. However some of the SSPX believe that although the conciliar church is not a church it is a gnostic sect or religion. It seems that there is an arguement over this and one of the Society theologians wrote that by “conciliar church” one should mean a movement within the Church. Here is a quote from a resistance priest from Canada:
“Recently, it was asked of us to accept the theory that the term “conciliar Church” does not mean a separate institution of the Catholic Church, but rather a “movement” within it (cf. Fr.Gleize in DICI: http://www.dici.org/en/documents/can-one-speak-of-the-conciliar-church/). The logical consequence of this theory would be that the traditionalist movement should return to the formal structure of the Church, to fight from within the conciliar “movement” and thus help Tradition triumph. It is why we often hear SSPX authorities say that the Society must “help the Catholic Church to reclaim her Tradition.” Now, on one hand, the Catholic Church, without her Tradition, could not exist, it would no longer be the Catholic Church. Furthermore, one can no longer speak of a mere “movement” when the liberal and Masonic ideas of Vatican II have been “institutionalised” by reforms covering all aspects of Church life: Liturgy, Catechism, Ritual, Bible, Ecclesiastical Tribunals, Higher Education, Magisterium and, above all, Canon Law. We are confronted with a structure, an institution which is different to the Catholic Church. If it weren’t the case, we would be members! But it is not us who have left the Catholic Church, they have, even if they managed to take control of the official structure. Concerning the role of the Pope in all this, it has to be admitted that therein lies a mystery, a mystery of iniquity. Nonetheless, it stands that we are in the presence of two separate institutions: The Catholic Church founded by Our Lord and the conciliar Church, instigated, let there be no doubt, by Lucifer.”
More Archbishop Lefebvre quotes:
“Supposing that Rome calls for a renewed dialogue, then, I will put in conditions and ask: Do you agree with the great encyclicals of all the popes who preceded you? Do you agree with Quanta Cura of Pius IX, Quas primas of Pius XI, Humani Generis of Pius XII. Are you in full communion with these popes and their teachings? Do you still accept the entire Anti-Modernist Oath? Are you in favour of the social reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ? If you do not accept the doctrine of your predecessors, it is useless to talk! As long as you do not accept the correction of the Council, in consideration of the doctrine of these popes, your predecessors, no dialogue is possible. It is useless.” (Fideliter Nr. 70)
C: Contacts with Rome are not broken. It even appears that talks could resume this fall. Can you talk about that?
ABL: These are fabrications. If ever there were a willingness from Rome to resume discus-sions, this time, I will be the one to set down the conditions.
As Cardinal Oddi said, “Archbishop Lefebvre is in a strong position.” That is why I will de-mand that the discussions concern doctrinal points. They have to stop with their ecumenism, they have to bring back the true meaning of the Mass, restore the true definition of the Church, bring back the Catholic meaning of collegiality, and so on.
I expect from them a Catholic, and not a liberal, definition of religious liberty. They must accept the encyclical Quas Primas on Christ the King, and the Syllabus (Pius IX). They must accept all this, because this is from now on the condition determining all new discussions between us and them.
C: In conclusion, after all the events of this summer, what advice do you give your faithful?
ABL: The only goal that the faithful must have in front of them is the universal reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ over individuals, families, cities; there is no other religion that can remain under this reign.
If it happens that I teach you something other than this, do not listen to me. As Saint Paul says: “If an angel from heaven or myself would teach you a doctrine contrary to what I taught you before, do not follow me, let me be anathema.” The good Catholic sense of our faithful has made it that 90% – and still more, I think – continue to follow us.
Interview by Eric Bertinat (Interview published in “Controverses” No 0, September 1988)
“Let us not set foot in the opposing camp, because we would thus be giving the enemy a proof of our weakness, which the enemy would try to interpret as a sign of weakness and a mark of complicity!”
—St. Pius X
Is St. Pius X refering to a bad hierarchy? Probally not. Context may help. We must remain in the same Church with evil people, with the weeds. And if we have an evil Pope we still must obey as long as we do not obey his evil commands. Canonical regularity with an evil Pope is not in and of itself wrong. In fact it is very good as long as you do not compromise.
I would also draw a line and not accept Vatican II without reserve since it was only pastoral and not infallible.
@TWN. That is a downright nasty accusation you have made. Shame on you.
(That was a quote from St. Pius X used by Bishop Tissier de Mallerais in Documentation Catholique, No.1969, Oct. 1988.)
Of course if the SSPX can be recognized by the Vatican with no compromise, no ambiguity, no muzzling of the Truth and no harm to the Faith that’s good. That’s just. However the opposing camp is modernist and so no stepping foot in that camp to get regularization and no sliding into it after regularization.
You commit the grave sin of calumny. What you say is patently untrue; you must at the least be aware that you could be wrong, because you are wrong. But “Resistance” Stormtroopers and sedes never seem to worry at all about their own personal sins – something very untraditional indeed.
Haydock Commentary, Galatians 2:
“Ver. 11. But when Cephas, &c.[1] In most Greek copies, we read Petrus, both here and ver. 13. Nor are there any sufficient, nor even probable grounds to judge, that Cephas here mentioned was different from Peter, the prince of the apostles, as one or two later authors would make us believe. Among those who fancied Cephas different from Peter, not one can be named in the first ages[centuries], except Clemens of Alexandria, whose works were rejected as apocryphal by Pope Gelasius. The next author is Dorotheus of Tyre, in his Catalogue of the seventy-two disciples, in the fourth or fifth age[century], and after him the like, or same catalogue, in the seventh age[century], in the Chronicle, called of Alexandria, neither of which are of any authority with the learned, so many evident faults and falsehoods being found in both. St. Jerome indeed on this place says, there were some (though he does not think fit to name them) who were of that opinion; but at the same time St. Jerome ridicules and rejects it as groundless. Now as to authors that make Cephas the same with St. Peter, the prince of the apostles, we have what may be called the unexceptionable and unanimous consent of the ancient fathers and doctors of the Catholic Church, as of Tertullian, who calls this management of St. Peter, a fault of conversation, not of preaching or doctrine. Of St. Cyprian, of Origen, of the great doctors, St. Jerome, St. Augustine, St. Chrysostom, St. Gregory the Great, of St. Cyril of Alexandria, of Theodoret, Pope Gelasius, Pelagius the second, St. Anselm, St. Thomas Aquinas. In later ages, of Bellarmine, Baronius, Binius, Spondan, of Salmeron, Estius, Gagneius, Tirinus, Menochius, Alex Natalis, and a great many more: so that Cornelius a Lapide on this place says, that the Church neither knows, nor celebrates any other Cephas but St. Peter. Tertullian and most interpreters take notice, that St. Peter’s fault was only a lesser or venial sin in his conduct and conversation. Did not St. Paul on several occasions do the like, as what is here laid to St. Peter’s charge? that is, practise the Jewish ceremonies: did not he circumcise Timothy after this, an. 52[A.D. 52]? did he not shave his head in Cenchrea, an. 54? did he not by the advice of St. James (an. 58.) purify himself with the Jews in the temple, not to offend them? St. Jerome, and also St. Chrysostom,[2] give another exposition of this passage. They looked upon all this to have been done by a contrivance and a collusion betwixt these two apostles, who had agreed beforehand that St. Peter should let himself be reprehended by St. Paul, (for this they take to be signified by the Greek text) and not that St. Peter was reprehensible;[3] so that the Jews seeing St. Peter publicly blamed, and not justifying himself, might for the future eat with the Gentiles. But St. Augustine vigorously opposed this exposition of St. Jerome, as less consistent with a Christian and apostolical sincerity, and with the text in this chapter, where it is called a dissimulation, and that Cephas or Peter walked not uprightly to the truth of the gospel. After a long dispute betwixt these two doctors, St. Jerome seems to have retracted his opinion, and the opinion of St. Augustine is commonly followed, that St. Peter was guilty of a venial fault of imprudence. In the mean time, no Catholic denies but that the head of the Church may be guilty even of great sins. What we have to admire, is the humility of St. Peter on this occasion, as St. Cyprian observes,[4] who took the reprehension so mildly, without alleging the primacy, which our Lord had given him. Baronius held that St. Peter did not sin at all, which may be true, if we look upon his intention only, which was to give no offence to the Jewish converts; but if we examine the fact, he can scarce be excused from a venial indiscretion. (Witham) — I withstood, &c. The fault that is here noted in the conduct of St. Peter, was only a certain imprudence, in withdrawing himself from the table of the Gentiles, for fear of giving offence to the Jewish converts: but this in such circumstances, when his so doing might be of ill consequence to the Gentiles, who might be induced thereby to think themselves obliged to conform to the Jewish way of living, to the prejudice of their Christian liberty. Neither was St. Paul’s reprehending him any argument against his supremacy; for is such cases an inferior may, and sometimes ought, with respect, to admonish his superior. (Challoner)”
Turns out St Peter didn’t teach false doctrine. St. Paul was resisting his sinful conduct.
Bishop Fellay 2003 interview:
“A lesson can be drawn from this: when one puts oneself, willingly and with an unguarded attitude, into an environment completely different and even contrary to one’s own principles, one ends up supporting the opposing principles. At Campos it took less than a year to arrive at this point. What the Fraternity of St. Peter did in ten years, they managed in just one.
In their seminary they are obliged, by Rome, to give courses on Vatican II and to bring in professors from outside of their administration.
However, the Ferrari was just too beautiful, and they didn’t want to check that the wheels were securely fixed.”
Bishop Fellay 2003 interview:
Fr. Lorans: You have been reproached, however, for not being a “good player”; Campos has obtained the Tridentine Mass, a certain freedom – wouldn’t you like that for the Society?
Bishop Fellay: Would you sit in a car, even a beautiful Ferrari, if the wheels weren’t screwed on? Would you drive such a car? I certainly wouldn’t.
Fr. Lorans: What are the missing bolts?
Bishop Fellay: Actualization, in the sense of this Tradition being made actual.This canonical formula of Campos, in theory, is splendid. It is its actualization which poses serious problems; the fundamental problem is this – I am simplifying a little: we have two opposing camps who are at war; at a given moment, one of the camps proposes peace. Rome made a peace proposal, thus: “Let’s not consider the doctrinal problems, it is too complicated for the moment, let’s move towards a practical solution.” In other words, they leave the problem aside and behave as if it doesn’t exist. This they called a solution – and Campos accepted it.
In concrete terms what are the implications? We have two opposing groups, who suddenly unite and become one. Inevitably, one will dominate the other. The stronger will dominate, and since there is a movement of submission to Rome, it is Rome who dominates, it is the present day Church.This Church is governed by principles, by a powerful group which drives the Church in a very precise direction. This direction is the immense fuzziness, otherwise known as the spirit of Vatican II. To make such an agreement, as they have, implies that they have placed themselves in the movement of Vatican II, in this floodtide which is moving the conciliar Church.
Bishop Fellay 2003:
Bishop Fellay: Serenely; the Good Lord is true and He is eternal. Those who put themselves in God’s hand are never disappointed, even if it costs. The Good Lord is worth it, whatever the cost. The Society? It is solid. I see very marginal, but dangerous, attempts to make us believe that it would be so easy to make an agreement with Rome, and that everything will be fine. It’s a delusion, it’s living outside of the reality of the Church. I can’t tell you how many times this year, I have heard seminarians and priests come and say to us: “I’ve tried everything, and I said to myself: anything but the Society of St. Pius X, but there’s only you left.” How many times I have heard that! Priests come to see me and say: “I have come to you because, in the diocese, I can no longer in conscience live my life as a Catholic priest, they won’t allow me to.” That is the reality of the Church.
We also have contact with prelates who certainly say the New Mass, but who say to us: “Stand your ground! You are our only hope!”
So we simply carry on as usual…
These comments of Bishop Fellay don’t seem to exactly match more current comments he’s made in my opinion.
How do you know the FSSP wasn’t offered a bishop? Who would it be? The FSSP is a true Fraternity and doesn’t need a bishop without jurisdiction and there have been no shortage of bishops or Cardinals able and willing to do what they need.
Going forward, imagine Bishop Fellay stepping down from Superior General of SSPX (part of the protocol is that the bishop would not be Superior General) and either having a position on Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei… or better yet made an ordinary of a diocese with real jurisdiction.
Imagine the SSPX bishops as archbishops of Sion and Paris with Bp. Tissier de Mallerais or Galarreta jointly chairing PCED with Fr. Berg or Bisig (also elevated to the episcopate).
The ideal scenario for the regularization of SSPX is in the dioceses as much as the Curia. Many a diocese could use solid formed orthodox priests. This would probably require them to abandon any chapel where they cannot reach an agreement with the Ordinary: after all, for all the relations with the Holy Father, either the Ordinary, orthodox or not, IS a bishop or he isn’t. If he is, then the presence of the SSPX violates many of the laws of the Church since Trent.
An article from the Dominicans of Avrille provides a rebuttal to Fr. Gleize’s thesis. The Dominicans (who are part of the Resistance) use part of a study done by Bp. Tissier de Mallerais (though it’s difficult to tell which exactly are Bp. de Mallerais’ quotes in the article):
http://www.dominicansavrille.us/is-there-a-conciliar-church/
From the article:
“Is there a conciliar church?
A study done by Bp. Tissier de Mallerais
This study was first published in French in the tri-monthly review of the Dominicans of Avrille, le Sel de la Terre n85 (Summer 2013).
It reflects Archbishop Lefebvre’s true way of thinking concerning the mystery of a Pope presiding over the destruction of the Church: the Pope remains the Pope, but he is the head of two churches, the Catholic Church, of which he was elected the head, and another society, the “conciliar church,” which has its dogmas, its liturgy, its new institutions, etc. The conciliar church is not the Catholic church, but a counterfeit “church.” We must separate ourselves from it id we want to keep the Catholic faith.
Ever since the authorities of the Society of St. Pius X have been getting closer to conciliar Rome in the hopes of obtaining a canonical recognition, their language has changed. A new thesis contrived by a theology professor named Fr. Gleize maintains that there’s no conciliar church in the sense of an organized society; the current crisis is rather an “illness” affecting the men of the Church, and the Church presently at Rome is the Catholic Church. This is what Bp. Fellay says, for example, in his ordination sermon of La Reja on Dec. 20, 2014:
“The problem of jurisdiction shows the importance of being recognized canonically […]. The official Church; it is the Catholic Church, period.”
To affirm that the official Church is the Catholic Church – something Archbishop Lefebvre never did – leads one to look for an official recognition, because one cannot remain outside of the Catholic Church. With his new manner of speaking, this is exactly what Bishop Fellay is trying to persuade the priests and faithful to do, and that puts Tradition in grave danger.”
to be continued…
From the Dominicans of Avrille, A study by Bp. Tissier de Mallerais, continued:
http://www.dominicansavrille.us/is-there-a-conciliar-church/
“This article by Bishop Tissier de Mallerais is therefore of crucial importance if we want to preserve ourselves from the confusion caused by the new language coming from Menzingen.
It is of interest to note that Bishop Fellay reproached the Dominicans of Avrille for having published this study of Bp. Tissier de Mallerais. Likewise, Fr. Rostand (at that time district superior of the U.S.) had the Letter to Friends and Benefactors of the Dominicans of Avrille of September 2013 removed from the press tables of all SSPX chapels, precisely because it contained an article treating this same subject.
The Article of Bishop Tissier de Mallerais
The article of this text does not engage the responsibility of Bishop Tissier de Mallerais with regard to the presentation above, and to any other texts on this site (thus ends the introduction by the Dominicans, and what follows are the words of Bishop de Mallerais):
By Bishop Tissier de Mallerais:
“Does there exist a conciliar church, a constituted society which is distinct from the Catholic Church, differring from it, if not in its members, then at least by its goals? And if this is the case, what is its relation to the Catholic Church? These are the questions confronting every Catholic conscience since the 25th of June 1976, the day Deputy Secretary of State of Paul Vl, Giovani Benelli, used this expression in a letter written on behalf of the Pope to Archbishop Lefebvre:
“[If the seminarians of Econe] are of goodwill and seriously prepared for a priestly ministry in true fidelity to the conciliar Church, we will take it upon ourselves to find the best solution for them.”
Many studies have appeared in the Sel de la Terre on the subject since then. Let us formulate a new status quaestionis to respond to this.”
to be continued…..
http://www.dominicansavrille.us/is-there-a-conciliar-church/
Is there a conciliar church? By Bishop Ttissier de Mallerais, continued:
An attempt to define the conciliar church
“Let us try first of all to define the two churches in question, by their four causes according to Aristotle. A society is a moral being, of the [philosophical] category of relation. Relations create the link between its members. We can distinguish:
–The material cause: These are the persons united to each other within the society. We will say that in the case of the Catholic Church, as in the conciliar church, these are the baptized.
–The efficient cause is the is the head of the society: for the Catholic Church, Our Lord Jesus Christ, its founder, and the Popes who are his vicars, and for the conciliar church, the Popes of the Council, therefore the same Popes; in such a way that the same hierarchy seems to govern the two Churches.
The final cause, which is the cause of causes, the common good sought by its members: in the case of the Catholic Church, the good sought is eternal salvation; in the case of the conciliar church, it is more or less principally the unity of the human race. “The Church,” says the Council, “is in Christ as the sacrament, or, of you will, the sign and the means to attain the intimate union with God and the unity of the human race.”
–The formal cause is the union of minds and wills of its members seeking the common good. In the Catholic Church, by the profession of the same Catholic faith, the practices of the same divine worship and the submission to the same pastors and therefore to the laws they make, that is canon law. In the conciliar church, it is by acceptance of the teachings of the Council and the magisterium which comes from it, and by the practice of the new liturgy and obedience to the new canon law.”
Since the essay by Bishop Tissier de Mallerais is so lengthy, I’ll skip ahead a bit. Scroll to about halfway down the article page to find this.
http://www.dominicansavrille.us/is-there-a-conciliar-church/
Is there a conciliar church, by Bp. Tissier de Mallerais, continued:
Should we deduce two materially distinct churches, one Catholic, and one conciliar?
From what has been said, it is good to draw two conclusions concerning the relationship between the two churches.
Firstly, the conciliar church is not materially separate from the Catholic church. It does not exist independently from the Catholic Church. There is a distinction certainly between them, a formal one, without an absolute material distinction. The hierarchy of the conciliar church coincides almost exactly with the hierarchy of the Catholic Church. Just a one can say (with a pinch of salt) that liberalism is a Catholic heresy, in the sense that it was born in the bosom of the Catholic Church and only exists and develops by “feeding off” the Catholic Church, so that one can say that the conciliar church is born of the corruption of the Catholic church and it cannot exist but by living off this corruption, as a parasite lives depending on an organism, sucking the substance of its host to construct its own substance. There is a sort of transfer of substance, I would dare to say, from one to the other, in a metaphorical sense obviously and not in a philosophical sense. To become conciliar, there is no need to separate oneself from the catholic church, it is sufficient to allow oneself to become corrupted by the conciliar poison and to let one’s substance become absorbed by the conciliar parasite. It is sufficient to practice the Mass of the new religion and to adhere, formally or materially to the liberal ecumenism which gives it tis form”
It is only reasonable to deduce that Pope Francis would want control of the SSPX to destroy them as they have generally upheld the doctrine of the Faith. It is terrible that the SSPX has been so quiet about so many of the numerous, public, objectively-heretical statements and false assertions of the Pope, e.g., the ones on marriage.
Perhaps you don’t understand his second statement?
Abp Lefebvre gives the answer himself at the end of his journey through the labyrinth of Roman discussions : No agreement with Rome until Rome converts. And he was quite clear that any contact he had with Rome (from 88 on) would be strictly for the purpose of demanding concilier Rome’s return to the Faith, their submission to Christ the King.
Holy though he was, Abp Lefebvre did not have an angelic nature. Therefore he, like all of us, was subject to modifications of viewpoints over time as he tried to get to the root of the issue. If you want to understand him best, take the latter statements, like those he left in his Spiritual Journey (aka last will and testament) as your guide. It is those statements Bp Fellay appears to disregard.
Paul M is right about Archbishop Lefebvre. He judged from post 1986 facts that the Pope could not be morally reached.
I think an addendum to my comment is necessary. I don’t mean to imply that Abp Lefebvre lacked consistency around principles. But rather, his assessment of the intentions of Conciliar Rome was a work in progress- progressing toward a final conclusion which you can read in his post ’88 works & interviews, especially ‘Spiritual journey’. I grew up through the 80’s with this battle of Abp L. as a backdrop. We all loved the Pope, hoped and prayed for his conversion. We really hoped that Rome was moving towards allowing ‘the experiment of Tradition’, but it was becoming clearer all the time that all that C Ratzinger wanted was our integration with V2. This is why I say Abp.L modified his view points. He would say no way one day, then entertain the possibility on another day, not because he changed, but because he thought/hoped Rome might be.
Has Rome changed now? One perhaps could be excused for beginning to think that with Pope Benedict. But what 2012 showed us was that the leopard hadn’t changed his spots. Pope Benedict still saw the integration of the SSPX with V2 as the end goal. If that is the case with Pope Benedict, how much less to be trusted is Pope Francis. At least Pope Benedict’s idea of V2 was a ‘hermeneutic of continuity’. Francis’ idea is a ‘hermeneutic of absolute chaos’.
Not only is Bp Fellay entertaining the possibility of getting in the Ferrari with Francis, but it’s a Ferrari with no brakes at all, and heading at breakneck speed towards a lamppost… utter suicide.
It’s true that Archbishop Lefebvre never changed his principles. It’s his insistence that all actions in the crisis be based on the defense of the Faith that kept everyone on the right path. Too many of those who based their judgements on just obtaining the Traditional litury or having Rome’s approval, etc. compromised.
“Our true believers—those who understand the problem—feared the steps I took with Rome. They told me it was dangerous and that I was wasting my time. Yes, of course, I hoped until the last minute that Rome has to show a little bit of loyalty. One cannot blame me for not doing the maximum. So now, to those who say to me, you must agree with Rome, I can safely say that I went even farther than I should have gone!” (Abp. Lefebrve, 1990, Fideliter, No. 79, p. 11).
Here are a few extracts from Archbishop Lefebvre’s work titled, “Satan’s Master Stroke,” written on Oct. 13, 1974:
“Satan’s master stroke will therefore be to spread the revolutionary principles introduced into the Church by the authority of the Church itself, placing this authority in a situation of incoherence and permanent contradiction; so long as this ambiguity has not been dispersed, disasters will multiply within the Church […]. We must acknowledge that the trick has been played and that Satan’s lie has been masterfully utilized. The Church will destroy herself through obedience […]. You must obey! Whom or what must we obey? We don’t know exactly. Woe to the man who does not consent. He thereby earns the right to be trampled underfoot, to be calumniated, to be deprived of everything which allowed him to live. He is a heretic and schismatic; let him die -that is all he deserves.”
“Satan has really succeeded in pulling off a master stroke: he is succeeding in having those who keep the Catholic faith condemned by the very people who should be defending and propagating it […]. Satan reigns through ambiguity and incoherence, which are his means of combat, and which deceive men of little faith. Satan’s master stroke, by which he is bringing the auto-destruction of the Church, is therefore to use obedience in order to destroy the faith.”
http://www.dominicansavrille.us/satans-master-stroke-2/
I love reading Archbishop Lefebvre. He’s taught me a lot about what’s going on. I can easily understand him. I don’t understand Bishop Fellay sometimes so here’s a quote from his recent interview with a question for anyone who knows:
“For me, these discussions, or more precisely this easier aspect of the discussions is important. For one of the problems is mistrust. Certainly we have this mistrust. And I think that we can also say that Rome certainly has it in relation to us. And as long as this mistrust prevails, the natural tendency is to take whatever is said the wrong way or to assume the worst possible scenario when solutions are suggested. And as long as we are in this mindset of mistrust, we will not make very much progress. It is necessary to arrive at some minimal trust, a climate of serenity, in order to eliminate these a priori accusations. I think that this is still the mindset in which we find ourselves, in which Rome finds herself. And it takes time. Both sides need to come around to appreciating persons and their intentions correctly, so as to get beyond all that. I think that this will take time.
This also requires acts that display good will and not the intention to destroy us. Now we still have this idea in the back of our minds, it is a rather widespread attitude: “If they want us, it is because they want to stifle us, and eventually to destroy us, to absorb us totally, to disintegrate us.” That is not an integration, that is disintegration! Obviously, as long as this idea prevails, we can’t expect anything.”
He says, “as long as this idea prevails” but the “idea” that he just defined is “a widespread
attitude that they want to destroy us, etc.” so does he mean that Traditional Catholics have to trust Rome? Or what?
According to Archbishop Lefebvre the reason we don’t trust the Vatican is because the devil is trying to destroy the Church using the hierarchy.
“…The bishops say what they want, contradicting each other. There are no official, clear calls to order, nor even calls to any party line at all one way or another. A few years ago there was still a line. It was the modernist line. It was the infamous spirit of Vatican II. Today we see profound disagreement between the bishops and even in Rome on these questions. And which line will triumph, which line will prevail? For the moment, I do not see the answer…”
What does Bishop Fellay mean? I know some “kind of conservative” Bishops, a few, have kind of objected to some of the Pope’s most radical ideas, but modernism and the spirit of Vatican II have been dropped as official party lines?
This doesn’t make any sense to me. I’ve read a lot of news since Pope Francis has been elected and the party line is open modernism like Archbishop Maradiaga advocates. So huh?
Pope will extend beyond Year of Mercy(for an indefinite time) the power of hearing confessions given to SSPX priests.
Rorate-Caeli linked
http://tradinews.blogspot.mx/2016/04/le-salon-beige-fsspx-le-pape-etendra-la.html