SSPX regularization and Fatima

SSPX - FatimaAs most readers are by now well aware, a letter sent by Cardinal Muller to Bishop Bernard Fellay, with the approval of Francis, has been made public.

In it, Cardinal Muller states in part:

“In relation to this [regularization], with the approbation of the Sovereign Pontiff, I judged it necessary to submit to the Ordinary Session of our Congregation (which met on May 10 last) the text of the doctrinal Declaration which was transmitted to you during the meeting of June 13 2016, as the necessary condition in view of the full re-establishment of communion. Here are the unanimous decisions of all the members of our Dicastery in this regard:”

Let’s stop here for just a moment.

The points that follow in Cardinal Muller’s letter appear (from my reading) to be little more than a recap of the Declaration that was presented to Bishop Fellay on June 13, 2016 (the 99th anniversary to the day of Our Lady’s second appearance at Fatima, but more on that later).

Cardinal Muller went on to state (or perhaps better said, restate) the three “necessary conditions” Rome has put in place for the Society’s regularization:

1) It is necessary to require the adhesion of the members of the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X to the new formula of the Professio Fidei dating from 1988 (c.f. annexe). Consequently, it is not sufficient to ask them to express the Professio Fidei of 1962.

2) The new text of the doctrinal Declaration must contain a paragraph in which the signatories declare in an explicit manner their acceptance of the teachings of the Second Vatican Council and those of the post-conciliar period, by granting to said doctrinal affirmations the degree of adhesion which is due to them.

3) The members of the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X must recognize not only the validity, but also the legitimacy of the Rite of the Holy Mass and of the Sacraments, according to the liturgical books promulgated after the Second Vatican Council.”

In reading this letter, I do not get any sense whatsoever that these “unanimous decisions” of the CDF members amount to a modification of the Declaration. On the contrary, it seems rather obvious they are simply a reiteration of the requirements that were presented to Bishop Fellay over one year ago.

So, what exactly prompted the letter?

It appears evident that Bishop Fellay responded to the Declaration with some sort of counter proposal.

At the very least, we can deduce from item #1 in Cardinal Muller’s letter that Bishop Fellay agreed to make the 1962 Profession of Faith rather than the 1988 Profession (as apparently required according to the Declaration), to which the CDF responded, “it is not sufficient.”

(I will address the Profession of Faith in more detail in a future post.)

With regard to item #2, the wholesale embrace of Vatican Council II is impossible.

So too is the requirement set forth in item #3 with respect to affirming the “legitimacy” of the Novus Ordo Missae.

An entry on the SSPX website provides the reason:

“A law is legitimate only when it is duly promulgated by the lawfully constituted authority. But to this condition must be added another of supreme importance and essential to make it a law: it must be for the common good. And precisely on this score, the Novus Ordo Missae (NOM) is most defective as was attested at the time of its promulgation by no less than Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci [the ‘Ottaviani Intervention]…’”

Cardinal Muller’s letter doesn’t provide any further substantial insight into Bishop Fellay’s response, but it does tell us that, short of an about face on Rome’s part, the discussions are effectively over.

The reason is simple:

Neither the Second Vatican Council nor the Novus Ordo Missae can be reconciled with tradition and, as such, each one poses a grave danger to the faithful.

The witness of the past five decades testifies to this truth with impeccable clarity for those with eyes to see.

Among so-called “traditionalists” no one disagrees.

This brings me back to the message given by Our Lady at Fatima where she warned us about precisely these things; Vatican II and the Novus Ordo Missae – “a bad council and a bad Mass.”

Again, among so-called “traditionalists” (aka Catholics) no one disagrees.

So why, pray tell, do we now find so-called “Fatimists” swooning over prelates who staunchly defend the supposed goodness of both the Council and the new Mass?

I suppose the answer to this was given by Our Lady as well; diabolical disorientation.

Thankfully, the Blessed Virgin also gave us the remedy.

On June 13, 1917 – 99 years before the aforementioned “doctrinal Declaration” was transmitted to Bishop Fellay, Our Lady said to little Lucia:

“[Jesus ] wants to establish in the world devotion to my Immaculate Heart. I promise salvation to those who embrace it, and those souls will be loved by God, like flowers placed by me to adorn His throne … Don’t lose heart. I will never forsake you. My Immaculate Heart will be your refuge and the way that will lead you to God.”

Let us renew our consecration to the Immaculate Heart of the Blessed Virgin Mary, begging her on behalf of ourselves and others to gather us therein; to protect us from all forms of deception; to grant us the grace to recognize half-truths and errors and the fortitude to condemn them for the poison that they are regardless of their source.

aka 2017-2

Latest Comments

  1. VCR July 4, 2017
  2. Tom A July 4, 2017
  3. In caritas July 4, 2017
  4. In caritas July 4, 2017
  5. maryiloveher July 4, 2017
  6. my2cents July 4, 2017
  7. Caimbeul July 5, 2017
  8. Rushintuit July 5, 2017
  9. Caimbeul July 6, 2017
  10. my2cents July 6, 2017
  11. Esteban July 11, 2017
  12. Esteban July 11, 2017