You’re not going to believe this…
The latest public statement made by the Society of St. Pius X – a communiqué issued at the conclusion of their recent four day meeting of the major superiors – is garnering criticism from the resisters.
In other news, Francis just issued his “universal prayer intention” for July and it has nothing whatsoever to do with Jesus Christ.
Seriously, if Bishop Bernard Fellay quoted a portion of the Bible verbatim, some of these folks would find a reason to accuse him of impropriety.
The communiqué is concise enough to publish here in its fullness:
The purpose of the Society of Saint Pius X is chiefly the formation of priests, the essential condition for the renewal of the Church and for the restoration.
- In the great and painful confusion that currently reigns in the Church, the proclamation of Catholic doctrine requires the denunciation of errors that have made their way into it and are unfortunately encouraged by a large number of pastors, including the Pope himself.
- The Society of Saint Pius X, in the present state of grave necessity which gives it the right and duty to administer spiritual aid to the souls that turn to it, does not seek primarily a canonical recognition, to which it has a right as a Catholic work. It has only one desire: faithfully to bring the light of the bi-millennial Tradition which shows the only route to follow in this age of darkness in which the cult of man replaces the worship of God, in society as in the Church.
- The “restoration of all things in Christ” intended by Saint Pius X, following Saint Paul (cf. Ep.h 1:10), cannot happen without the support of a Pope who concretely favors the return to Sacred Tradition. While waiting for that blessed day, the Society of Saint Pius X intends to redouble its efforts to establish and to spread, with the means that Divine Providence gives to it, the social reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ.
- The Society of Saint Pius X prays and does penance for the Pope, that he might have the strength to proclaim Catholic faith and morals in their entirety. In this way he will hasten the triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary that we earnestly desire as we approach the centennial of the apparitions in Fatima.
In less than 300 words, this statement seems to sum matters up about as well as anyone could have possibly expected – it articulates the Society’s purpose; the necessity of denouncing errors, even those of the pope; calling attention to humanism’s usurpation of divine worship; the Social Kingship of Christ; the need for prayer and penance…
There’s not much here to criticize.
Unless, of course, one’s default position with respect to the SSPX is to complain and accuse; like a certain Fr. Girouard (don’t feel bad, I never heard of him until now either), a “resisting” priest whose letter of response crossed my Facebook page whining that the “communiqué doesn’t reveal any practical resolution.”
Apparently, Father didn’t pay very close attention.
As the communiqué suggests, the resolution to the present crisis isn’t going to be the fruit of some clever strategy formulated on the part of mere men. Rather, it will only be realized at such time as the triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary occurs – the requirements of which were given by Our Lady at Fatima, and the hastening of which is addressed in the communiqué.
As for more “practical” matters, the communiqué has plenty to offer. (See list above.)
And then there’s the resisters’ favorite topic; the matter of the Society’s canonical recognition…
How many more ways does Bishop Fellay have to say it?
“The Society does not seek primarily a canonical recognition.”
“If we’re put in a choice between keeping the faith or making their compromise, it’s clear: I’m not going to compromise.”
Can we please put to rest all of the calumnies claiming that Bishop Fellay is interested in negotiating the terms of a surrender at the cost of tradition?
Now let’s talk about what the communiqué does not say.
Some commentators are suggesting that the Society has stated that it will reject any and all offers of canonical regularization unless it comes from “a Pope who concretely favors the return to Sacred Tradition.” (See communiqué item #3.)
Father Z, for instance, wrote, “This sounds as if they won’t agree to any kind of unity until this or a future Pope behaves in the way they determine is acceptable. Peter must conform to their expectations.”
No, the communiqué simply says that “a Pope who concretely favors the return to Sacred Tradition” is going to be necessary in order “to restore all things in Christ.”
It also says that the Society will use “the means that Divine Providence gives to it” to spread “the social reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ.”
As I read it, this statement does not preclude the possibility that these “means” just might include a unilateral action on the part of Rome granting canonical recognition.
The question has been asked (and it is a fair one) how the highly suspect validity of the conclave that gifted the Church with the human wrecking ball known as Francesco factors into the matter.
As I’ve written in the past, in order to maintain a proper perspective, it’s important to recognize that “canonical recognition” does not directly speak of a given group’s relationship with the pope (much less an alleged pope); rather, it speaks of its relationship with the Church, aka Eternal Rome.
In the present case, canonical recognition amounts to formal acknowledgement of that which is already objectively true – the SSPX is entirely Catholic.
As the communiqué suggests, the Society is due this canonical recognition by right as a matter of justice. Whether or not that acknowledgement ever comes, however, the fact remains – the SSPX is entirely Catholic.
The reason this recognition matters so much is that souls are at stake.
The faithful deserve to know the objective truth about the Society’s relationship with the Church; so they may have no reservations about receiving the spiritual aid that the SSPX administers unto their salvation.
If canonical regularization without compromise should come from some action prompted by the blasphemous Argentinian heretic in white, so be it.
But, he’s a blasphemous heretic!
You bet he is, but think of it this way:
If a tornado is heading for your house, does it really matter whether that crucial bit of information reaches you and your loved ones via a state-of-the-art HD TV or a beat up old AM radio that barely functions?
No, of course not. What matters is that the information is made known so you can save yours and your family’s lives.
In the present case, what matters is that the Catholicity of the SSPX be made widely known so souls can seek refuge therein in order to save their eternal lives.
(NOTE: The risks and rewards of canonical recognition have been discussed at length elsewhere on the blog. I don’t wish to rehash them in their entirety. At present, we are discussing the impact Benedict’s whimsical designs for the Petrine Office, and Francis highly questionable validity, may have on the matter.)
It is my belief that the Society will accept that recognition; even if it comes from a Pope who does not concretely favor a return to tradition, provided, of course, that adequate measures are put in place for its protection moving forward.
It is also my belief that the Society should accept such recognition.
Again, at the end of the day, all that this would mean is that the objective truth of the Society’s Catholicity is being formally acknowledged and made more widely known.
Indeed, an argument can be made that acceptance of a “papal” act unilaterally recognizing the Society, even without any compromise on its part, might in some way lend legitimacy to the alleged pontificate of Francis (about which I have made my own thoughts clear).
I don’t dismiss these concerns. I think they are entirely valid.
That said, let’s be clear:
The confusion that exists in our day with respect to the present state of the Petrine ministry has nothing to do with the Society’s canonical status; something it is owed by right as a matter of justice.
Perpetuating the injustice toward the SSPX wherein the objective truth about its relationship with Eternal Rome (the Church) is left unacknowledged will do absolutely nothing to remove the confusion that exists concerning the papacy.
Furthermore, if the SSPX was to reject unilateral canonical recognition because the pope (or alleged pope) is a scoundrel, it would only serve to further deprive souls of the aid needed to attain to Heaven.
Look, I get it… There are many moving parts that are contributing to the present ecclesial crisis, thus giving rise to confusion and disagreement.
It seems to me that the task of discerning what is best in any situation is always made easier when we recall that the mission that was given to the Church by Our Lord involves the salvation of souls.
That’s the crux of the matter.
Forget all the “what ifs…” No matter what may come in the future, it is clear that the SSPX has a duty to respond by continuing to defend the true Faith; just as it has from its inception.
In the present case, one need only ask what impact the canonical regularization of the SSPX will have on the salvation of souls; will it be positive or negative?
I’ve stated my opinion. What’s yours?
The SSPX is the bank vault of Tradition. If they did nothing more than that, it would be a stupendous miracle. Who can doubt that the SSPX would have run away from Rome years ago without the direct involvement of the Holy Ghost.
“If a tornado is heading for your house, does it really matter whether that crucial bit of information reaches you and your loved ones via a state-of-the-art HD TV or a beat up old AM radio that barely functions?
No, of course not. What matters is that the information is made known so you can save yours and your family’s lives.”
Clear as a bell, Louie!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Jewel of the west
On eastern coast
Our Mother’s boast
The proud are scattered
In conceits of their heart
Blind to Melchisedech’s
Priests thou art
Jewel of the west
On eastern coast
Our Mother’s boast
A light to the Revelation
Of faithful Gentiles
Angels sing canticles
Jewel of the west
On eastern coast
Our Mother’s boast
Root of Jesse
Gate of morn
The skulkers scorn
Jewel of the west
On eastern coast
Our Mother’s boast
And we your daughters
Comely and fair
A terrible army
Birthing His heir
Jewel of the west
On eastern coast
Our Mother’s boast
For our sons’ inheritance
Roman men toil —
A Cathedral of cassocks
The Catholic priesthood all Royal!
“In the present case, one need only ask what impact the canonical regularization of the SSPX will have on the salvation of souls; will it be positive or negative?”
The function of the SSPX is to preserve, promote and defend the Deposit of Faith given to the Apostles by Our Lord Jesus Christ in a visible Church founded on the Rock of Peter. Under Francis and all the post conciliar popes, the Modernist church, is founded on sand. The SSPX is now the Rock until the conversion of Rome. Bishop Fellay’s loyality is to Christ and Christ alone, regardless of resisters and dissenters. Let us pray for the “restoration of all things in Christ”.
Francis HAS made it easy for Satan to use him as a “human wrecking-ball” as you so aptly described him, which at times makes the battering of the Church by V2 and the conciliar popes, look like child’s play. The serious matter of his leading more and more souls into confusion about sin and its consequences, (leaving “many” on the road to hell) makes the truths which the SSPX strives to preserve, shine brightly in this darkness, as it always has in dark times.
Based on its past and present divisions from within, I’m still not sure whether the SSPX can weather this storm, but I find Bishop Fellay to be a striking figure in all this, who inspires much hope.
I don’t agree with the resistance that Archbishop Lefebvre would absolutely not accept an “as is” recognition from Rome. He was against collaborating with modernist Rome and the principle he held was this one:
“The official link with modernist Rome is nothing against the preservation of the Faith!”
He even considered these two options in 1988:
“Thus, a moral problem is posed for all of us.
Must we run the risk of contacts with this modernist atmosphere in the hope of converting some souls, and with the hope of fortifying ourselves beforehand with the grace of God and the virtue of prudence, and thus remain legally united to Rome according to the letter, as we are in reality and in spirit?
Or must we, before all else, preserve the traditional family to maintain its cohesion and vigor in the Faith and in grace, considering that the purely formal tie with modernist Rome cannot be as important as the protection of this family, representing those who remain faithful to the Catholic Church?
What do God and the Holy Trinity, and Our Lady of Fatima ask of us in response to this question?
It is clear that four bishops will fortify us better than just one. The decision must be taken within 48 hours.
Reflect. Pray. Please give me your opinion, even in writing if you wish, and it will be my duty, with the help of the Holy Ghost, and Our Lady the Queen, to make a decision.” (end)
Through prayer and humility (he asked everyone for their opinion) he decided that God wanted him to protect Tradition until a future Pope was trustworthy. When the Pope wants to recognize the SSPX based on the Faith, on Doctrine, then Rome will be trustworthy enough.
The Archbishop was always cautious, knowing that one of the main goals of the Freemasons is to destroy the Church Militant by any means that would cause them to lose Sanctifying Grace:
“Above all, if there is an arrangement [with Rome], we will be overcome by the quantity of the world: Now that you have Tradition and have been recognized by Rome, we are going to come to you. There are many who are going to keep their modern and liberal spirit, but who would like to come to us because they they would like to assist at a traditional ceremony from time to time, to have contact with the traditionalists. And that is going to be very dangerous for our world. If we are invaded by that world, what is going to become of Tradition? Little by little, there is going to be a type of osmosis which is going to produce a type of consensus … quite gently, quite slowly they will end up no longer seeing the distinction between liberalism and Tradition. It is very dangerous.” (Abp. Lefebvre, Flavigny, 11 June 1988, Fideliter, no.. 68, p.23.)
Archbishop Guido Pozzo, the Vatican’s point-man for regularizing the Society of St. Pius X, has reaffirmed that the Society is continuing dialogue with the Holy See.
If Bishop Fellay wants to consider joining up with the conciliar church (which isn’t the true Church), then that’s his choice. It won’t be the true Church that he’ll be joining forces with. The True Church is eclipsed, and a newchurch, complete with new dogmas, liturgy, beliefs, and practices are now in it’s place. No, Archbishop Lefebvre most certainly would NOT reconcile in such a situation that Rome is in today, which is even far worse than when the Archbishop was alive. I can only imagine what the Archbishop would have to say about Pope Francis. No doubt, it would be far more forceful, realistic, and Catholic that what Bp. Fellay occasionally says regarding the current pontiff and the situation in Rome.
It’s quite naïve and folly to think that an uber-modernist Pope is going to allow the SSPX, if ‘canonically regularized,’ to speak out against Rome’s many, many errors, and also against the modernists beloved council. Exactly how will the SSPX help the greater newchurch to realize its many errors when it won’t be allowed to speak out against them?
The SSPX is not the rock or the Hierarchy, but yes they have the Tradition and thank God for them.
If Rome won’t let the SSPX speak out against heresy and error then the SSPX will not regularize or stay regularized. Archbishop Lefebvre would probably say things in a more forceful way, but big deal.
Also ABL thought the councillor church was a liberal/modernist movement within the Church. The SSPX has always worked under the assumtuon that the Bishops are true Bishops…..even if half of them are homos/heretical. I would recommend to you the book True or False Pope? if you ever want to read a good refutation of sedevecantism.
If the SSPX is NOT the Rock, then we must come to the realization that the Holy, Roman Catholic Church, as established by Christ– the visible church on earth–is resting on sand. I find it difficult to accept this possibility because, as we all know, Christ, the Invisible Head, is still in command. Our Lord cannot be the Head of the Visible Church which has a foundation of sand. The only rocks in the Vatican at the present time are the ones in Bergoglio’s head.
Open Letter to Cardinal Gantin
Prefect of the Congregation
July 6, 1988
Ecône, July 6, 1988
Gathered around our Superior General, the Superiors of the Districts, Seminaries and autonomous houses of the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X think it good to respectfully express to you the following reflections.
You thought it good, by your letter of July 1st, to inform Their Excellencies Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer, and the four Bishops whom they consecrated on June 30, at Ecône, of the excommunication latæ sententiæ.We let you judge for yourself the value of such a declaration, coming from an authority who, in its exercise, breaks with all its predecessors down to Pope Pius XII, in worship, teaching and government of the Church.
As for us, we are in full communion with all the Popes and Bishops before the Second Vatican Council, celebrating precisely the Mass which they codified and celebrated, teaching the Catechism which they drew up, standing up against the errors which they have many times condemned in their encyclicals and pastoral letters. We let you judge on which side the rupture is to be found. We are extremely saddened by the blindness of spirit and the hardening of heart of the Roman authorities.
On the other hand, we have never wished to belong to this system which calls itself the Conciliar Church, and defines itself with the Novus Ordo Missæ, an ecumenism which leads to indifferentism and the laicization of all society. Yes, we have no part, nullam partem habemus, with the pantheon of the religions of Assisi; our own excommunication by a decree of Your Eminence or of another Roman Congregation would only be the irrefutable proof of this. We ask for nothing better than to be declared out of communion with this adulterous spirit which has been blowing in the Church for the last 25 years; we ask for nothing better than to be declared outside of this impious communion of the ungodly. We believe in the One God, Our Lord Jesus Christ, with the Father and the Holy Ghost, and we will always remain faithful to His unique Spouse, the One Holy Catholic Apostolic and Roman Church.
To be publicly associated with this sanction which is inflicted upon the six Catholic Bishops, Defenders of the Faith in its integrity and wholeness, would be for us a mark of honor and a sign of orthodoxy before the faithful. They have indeed a strict right to know that the priests who serve them are not in communion with a counterfeit church, promoting evolution, pentecostalism and syncretism. In union with these faithful, we make ours the words of the Prophet: “Præparate corda vestra Domino et servite Illi soli: et liberabit vos de manibus inimicorum vestrorum. Convertimini ad Eum in toto corde vestro, et auferte deos alienos de medio vestri–Open your hearts to the Lord and serve Him only: and He will free you from the hands of your enemies. With all your heart return to Him, and take away from your midst any strange gods” (I Kings 7:3).#
Confident in the protection of Her who has crushed all the heresies in the world, we assure Your Eminence of our dedication to Him Who is the only Way of salvation.
Fr. Franz Schmidberger, Superior General
Fr. Paul Aulagnier, District Superior, France
Fr. Franz-Josef Maessen, District Superior, Germany
Fr. Edward Black, District Superior, Great Britain
Fr. Anthony Esposito, District Superior of Italy
Fr. François Laisney, District Superior, United States
Fr. Jacques Emily, District Superior of Canada
Fr. Jean Michel Faure, District Superior of Mexico
Fr. Gerard Hogan, District Superior of Australasia
Fr. Alain Lorans, Superior, Seminary of Ecône
Fr. Jean Paul André, Superior, Seminary of France
Fr. Paul Natterer, Superior, Seminary of Germany
Fr. Andrès Morello, Superior, Seminary of Argentina
Fr. William Welsh, Superior, Seminary of Australia
Fr. Michel Simoulin, Rector, St. Pius X University
Fr. Patrice Laroche, Vice-Rector, Seminary of Ecône
Fr. Philippe François, Superior, Belgium
Fr. Roland de Mérode, Superior, Netherlands
Fr. Georg Pflüger, Superior, Austria
Fr. Guillaume Devillers, Superior, Spain
Fr. Philippe Pazat, Superior, Portugal
Fr. Daniel Couture, Superior, Ireland
Fr. Patrick Groche, Superior, Gabon
Fr. Frank Peek, Superior, Southern Africa
I’m not a sedevacantist. A believe what Archbishop Lefebvre believed and taught. He was not a sedevacantist. Perhaps you should study his many books. He would never have sought a regularization in such a situation as Rome is in today. Never.
A lot of us (and by “us” I mean those who already attend Society chapels) would love to state our opinion, Louie. Thing is, when we do, and when our opinions aren’t completely and utterly 100% behind every talking point that comes from current SSPX leadership, we are ostracized, labeled “resisters” or attacked in other ways. Many times, our concerns and questions are simply not answered, but when we persist doors are slammed in our face. It reminds me of how neocons treated me when I was seeking answers to some pretty basic questions about John Paul II. So it’s quite unfair to kick sand in the eyes of someone then say to them “what is it you see?” and act as if its a fair fight.
I don’t see anything dire just because the SSPX is keeping a line of communication open with Rome. It’s like a loving son staying in touch with an abusive father, hoping for a reconciliation. The fact that the SSPX has resisted the temptation to go into schism is proof enough for me of Divine guidance.
Archbishop Lefebvre usually went to Rome when he was summoned. But not to seek regularization. It was his hope that Rome would finally comes to its senses and return to the True Faith. It didn’t happen, of course, in his lifetime; therefore, the SSPX was not ever ‘regularized.’ It is Rome that needs to be reconciled with the Catholic Faith, so the analogy of a loving son staying in touch with an abusive father and hoping for reconciliation doesn’t work. As of now, Rome is occupied by a sect that is not attached to the Faith of All Time, but rather to something else.
Here is part of the sermon from Archbishop Lefebvre’s Requiem Mass. I believe it was given by the Superior General at that time (1991):
“He, in fact, formed a small elite to be at the disposition of the Holy See and the bishops. It must be added, nevertheless, that this elite is to be at their disposition while at the same time is to be excluded every compromise and concession with respect to the errors of Vatican Council II and the reforms which have come from them. For as long as the spirit of destruction blows through the chanceries and Roman Congregations no harmonization or agreement will be possible. We want to work for the construction of the Church and not for its demolition. The newspapers say that Rome was waiting for the Archbishop’s repentance right till the end. But for what can a man be repentant who did his duty right to the end by preserving and giving to the Church the means which are absolutely necessary for holiness? Was it not a good work to give her Catholic pastors, when she is occupied by mercenaries, thieves and criminals? “For which of these good works do you stone me?” (Jn. 10:32).
At this time we beseech Rome and the bishops: abandon this deadly ecumenism, the laicization of society and the protestantization of divine worship. Return to the healthy tradition of the Church. Even if you seal with a thousand decrees and excommunications the tomb you have dug for the true Holy Mass, for the Catechism of the Council of Trent, and for Jesus Christ’s title of Universal King, life will arise even from the closed tomb. “Jerusalem, convert to the Lord your God.” An essential sign of such a conversion and such a turnabout would be that once Archbishop Lefebvre’s tomb has been closed, the official opening of a process to investigate the heroicity of his virtues. We, his sons, are the privileged witnesses of his merits, of the force of his faith, of his burning love for God and for his neighbor, of his resignation to the will of God, of his humility and his meekness, of his life of prayer, of his hatred for sin and his horror for error. Nobody drew near to him without leaving improved. His holiness shone and he was the instrument in creating it around him. One day an old priest, a critical observer of today’s events, said to me: “Archbishop Lefebvre is charity.”
Archbishop Lefebvre said the SSPX was in the Church but was not the Church. They themselves admit they only have supplied jurisdiction. You need to disinguish between the person of the Pope and the office. Despite how horable these Popesand Bishops are, they are the Hierarchy. The Church is suffering a crusivction like our Lord. The difference is that we know the Church will not die.
Mary, thank you for posting these communications from the SSPX of old; the one from Econe on July 6, 1988 (six days after the episcopal consecration of the four bishops for the SSPX), and Archbishop Lefebvre’s sermon for the requiem Mass from 1991. They clearly show what the Archbishop thought about modernist Rome. I hope that others here will read and seriously consider the contents of both. God bless you!
Agreed!! Thank God for the SSPX which is “holding the fort down”—so to speak.
“In the present case, canonical recognition amounts to formal acknowledgement of that which is already objectively true – the SSPX is entirely Catholic. “
That’s not the full picture.
First, the SSPX is the Catholic party in all of this. The Roman’s of today have left the Church (perhaps not formally, but at least in practice) and follow the teachings of a false religion called Conciliarism. They have formed a structure around these false teachings, (or rather hijacked the Catholic structures) and have become what is commonly known today (even by themselves) as the Conciliar Church. The SSPX needs no formal acknowledgement from a non-Catholic institution so recognition by the Conciliar Church, objectively, means nothing. Subjectively, there is some benefit to the average pew sitter for the SSPX to be labelled publicly as Catholic, but if that public acknowledgement obscures the difference between the Catholic attitude of the SSPX and the heretical attitude of the Conciliar Church, then there is a grave disadvantage as the focus of attention is drawn away from the real battle. I believe that in this case the negative outweighs the positive as it puts the honour of the church and Christ the King behind the perceived benefit to King’s subjects.
The Pope on the other hand, assuming his validity, remains the leader of the Catholic Church, even if he is practising the false religion of Conciliarism. So in that respect, his recognition does objectively count for something, even if it still has the gave disadvantage of blurring the battle front. So in that case, my opinion would be that the benefit outweighs the negative… your analogy of HD TVs and old radios holds good. But it would not be something that requires acceptance… the SSPX would just carry on. Yet if the current occupier of the chair of peter is an anti-pope, the objective advantage disappears. In my opinion the question of the validity of the pope is vital to the validity of any recognition and needs to be addressed.
Secondly, the current lack of formal acknowledgement provides a barrier, a clear demarcation, between Catholicism, and Conciliarism. It was +Lefebvre’s suspension in ’76 for adhering to the TLM and rejecting V2, that identified him to my father and his friends as being trustworthy and gave them the confidence to write to ABL requesting young priests to support our ageing heroic campaigners. It is that barrier that still provides the confidence we need to have in the SSPX that it is not going to be infected with the errors of Concilarism. If the barrier disappears, so does our confidence.
Thirdy, with the barrier removed, by default we will be in a state of relationship… with conciliarism. Sure, if the Pope does this to us unilaterally, without any prompting on our part, there is no fault. But, after 5 years of negotiations, can the SSPX honestly claim that there has not been some solicitation on their part?
Furthermore, such a situation can not be maintained indefinitely without some form of structure governing the relationship. So once again, sooner or later, we will face the prospect of a formal agreement to accept a canonical structure. If that structure is anything like the personal prelature +Fellay was prepared to accept in 2012, it will be a disaster for the SSPX and tradition. Bishop Fellay’s 2012 preamble and the prospect of a personal prelature, are the Achilles heel of any argument in favour of an agreement.
At present, the good of souls who can’t yet make the jump to the SSPX is provided for by the good Lord with the many Ecclesia Dei communities. To say that Catholics need the SSPX to save their souls is to say that the SSPX has a monopoly on Grace, which is preposterous. God provides sufficient Grace to everyone. An agreement like a personal prelature would not provide a solution to those who can’t get to Ecclesia Dei churches because these, barring the odd exception, are usually found where there is an SSPX presence and they aren’t found where there are bishops hostile to Tradition. A prelature would not give the SSPX a right to set up shop without the local ordinary’s permission. If you have a bad bishop- it’ll be tough luck. A prelature would severely restrict the work of the SSPX not aid it.
In conclusion, I prefer to take +Fellay at face value. He has abandoned seeking an agreement. There is no agreement now, and there will be none until we have a CATHOLIC pope because, short of Divine intervention, only a Pope can sort this ugly mess out. I pray +Fellay remains steadfast in this renewed conviction which is none other than the legacy of his founder.
My analogy may not work for a sede, but it works in the real world.
Paraphrasing the SSPX leaders in ’88 (HT to Mary I Love her):
[We] have indeed a strict right to know that the priests who serve [us] are not in communion with a counterfeit church, promoting evolution, pentecostalism and syncretism. … we make ours the words of the Prophet: “…Open your hearts to the Lord and serve Him only: and He will free you from the hands of your enemies. With all your heart return to Him, and take away from your midst any strange gods” (I Kings 7:3).
The SSPX face a Hobson’s choice: make a full break and earn the commendation of a few surly Internet commenters (who can aptly be dismissed with the phrase: “With friends like these, who needs enemies?”) or continue to achieve the place that belongs to them by right. They have made the right call, allowing them to continue their mission while not failing into the obscurity of “Pope” Michael or the “Palmarian” Church. Besides, one must not underestimate the deceptive nature of the evil clown known as Jorge Mario Bergoglio. He is a true disciple of his gay Lodge master, “Blessed” Paul VI. Thank God for the SSPX!
Your not alone.
I commented to my paster on how relieved I was that +Fellay had changed his mind and he broke into a big smile and also revealed how relieved he was. Seems he felt free at last to speak his mind.
Keep praying for our priests and +Fellay to remain strong. But if they do falter and look back again, you just keep strong for them.
Absolutely positive. Many unknowing catholics, and there are many, would get a chance of returning to the one true faith.
And even if canonical regularization would be granted during the current papacy: all the better.
Undoubtedly Abp. Lefebvre would not seek any “regularization” today.
As for sedevacantism – he said many, many things that supported the sedevacantist position (incl. specifically stating that it is well possible that we will one day have to say that Paul VI, JPII, etc were not true popes – this he repeated a number of times over the years, incl. in a recorded speech/conference in the US in the 80s – it is available online). He also said numerous times that VII was a heretical and schismatic council; that the Conciliar Church is NOT the Catholic Church; that all those who adhere to this New Church (incl. popes, bishops, priests, etc) have therefore separated themselves from the Catholic Church; that he (Abp. Lefebvre) had no intention to belong to the Conciliar Church which is not the Catholic Church; that the pope (JPII) is diffusing a false new religion, etc etc etc. He also repeatedly questioned the validity of the NO rites and sacraments. (Btw, Bp. de Castro Mayer believed the seat was vacant, and Abp. Lefebvre was well aware of this – and had no problem with, already by the time of the episcopal consecrations.)
Now, if Abp. Lefebvre said and believed all this back in the 1970s and 1980s, I have little doubt about what he would say and believe about Bergoglio et al if he was still alive.
Sadly I have little (if any) confidence in Bp. Fellay, who reminds me more of a politician than a defender of the Faith. And there are many in the SSPX (not just Bp. Fellay) who yearn to be officially recognized (as preposterous as it is to want to be recognized by an apostate church).
As long as the Society doesn’t betray the good God and the true Faith, He will continue to protect it. The day they decide to compromise (i.e. choose convenience, prestige, status, etc over Truth) will be the beginning of the end.
As Paul M well says – if anyone wants to go to the traditional Mass but is hesitant to go to the SSPX, there are the Ecclesia Dei communities. Just as I don’t see scores of Novus Ordo people going to them, I quite doubt they will go to the SSPX (even if it is “reconciled” with the apostates in Rome).
Then why haven’t they already gone to the various Ecclesia Dei institutes?? If they had wanted to return to the one true faith, they have had plenty of options, for many years and even decades.
George, a bit ironic that you refer to “surly internet commenters” and consider those who are quite legitimately concerned about certain developments to be pretty much enemies, but don’t hesitate to call the man you (I assume) believe to be Pope an “evil clown”!
Any Catholic throughout the ages would be utterly horrified if anyone had dared to refer to the Roman Pontiff in such terms. (Heck, even if you didn’t believe he was a true Pope, it would still be very uncharitable.)
Yes, I know there is a certain blogger who habitually refers to his “Pope” in these terms – but that doesn’t make it any less indefensible and un-Catholic.
Who is this Holy Prelate, so loved by God? I sometimes wonder where he is right now. Is he born yet? He’s got to come from somewhere, and it’s probably a sacred place, since he’s so special to God. Can anyone out there suggest where possibly he may come from?
I think the results would be positive, even though further persecution would be the inevitable consequence. If it occurs however, it will only be in God’s time and by His design.
In the meantime, please engage as many as possible in the priest crusade: http://sspxusa.org/pcp/
Correct, clear and concise.
“The Society does not seek primarily a canonical recognition.”
The word “primarily” causes confusion and should be eliminated. No seeking canonical recognition is needed. Rome has to come back to Christ and SSPX needs to stay with Christ.
Archbishop Lefebvre interview 1989:
“Question: What do you think of the instruction of Cardinal Ratzinger setting up the Oath of Fidelity which includes a Profession of Faith?
Archbishop Lefebvre: Firstly, there is the Credo which poses no problems. The Credo has remained intact. And, so the first and second sections raise no difficulties either. They are well-known things from a theological point of view. It is the third section which is very bad. What it means in practice is lining up on what the bishops of the world today think. In the preamble, besides, it is clearly indicated that this third section has been added because of the spirit of the Council. It refers to the Council and the so-called Magisterium of today, which, of course, is the Magisterium of the followers of the Council.
As it stands this formula is dangerous. It demonstrates clearly the spirit of these people with whom it is impossible to come to an agreement. It is absolutely ridiculous and false, as certain people have done, to present this Oath of Fidelity as a renewal of the Anti-Modernist Oath suppressed in the wake of the Council. All the poison is in this third section which seems to have been made expressly in order to oblige those who have rallied to Rome to sign this profession of Faith and to state their full agreement with the bishops. It is as if in the times of Arianism one had said, “Now you are in agreement with everything that all the Arian bishops think.”
No, I am not exaggerating. It is clearly expressed in the introduction. It is sheer trickery. One may ask oneself if in Rome they didn’t mean in this way to correct the text of the  protocol. Although that protocol is not satisfactory to us, it still seems too much in our favour in Article III of the Doctrinal Declaration because it does not sufficiently express the need to submit to the Council.
And so, I think now they are regaining lost ground. They are no doubt going to have these texts signed by the seminarians of the Fraternity of St. Peter before their ordination and by the priests of the Fraternity, who will then find themselves in the obligation of making an official act of joining the Conciliar Church.
Differently from in the protocol, in these new texts there is a submission to the Council and all the conciliar bishops. That is their spirit and no one will change them.”