(Catholic Herald) Pope Francis has approved new provisions that make it possible for
marriages celebrated by Society of St Pius X (SSPX) priests to be
recognised as valid.
In a letter approved by Pope Francis, Cardinal Gerhard Müller wrote:
“Following the same pastoral outlook which seeks to reassure the
conscience of the faithful, despite the objective persistence of the
canonical irregularity in which for the time being the Society of St
Pius X finds itself, the Holy Father, following a proposal by the
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the Pontifical
Commission, Ecclesia Dei, has decided to authorise Local Ordinaries the
possibility to grant faculties for the celebration of marriages of
faithful who follow the pastoral activity of the Society...” (continued)
Link:
Showing posts with label SSPX. Show all posts
Showing posts with label SSPX. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 4, 2017
Monday, March 20, 2017
Pope Forging Ahead With SSPX Reunification
Abp. Pozzo of Ecclesia Dei: "canonical recognition of the SSPX will soon be achieved"
by Trey Elmore • ChurchMilitant.comROME (ChurchMilitant.com) - The head of the pontifical commission in charge of overseeing talks between Rome and the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) is saying Pope Francis is forging ahead with re-unification. And a respected Vatican journalist seems to be confirming the imminent reunion.
In an interview published Friday, Abp. Guido Pozzo, secretary of the Ecclesia Dei Commission, discussed the ongoing talks between the Vatican and the SSPX, noting that the Holy Father is urging a positive and constructive attitude in dialogue.
"Today, we can say that the approach has progressed, and one can be confident that canonical recognition of the SSPX will soon be achieved in the legal form of a personal prelature," he explained.
Marco Tosatti, writing on his blog Monday, seems to be confirming Pozzo's indications that reunion may be near.
"Reliable sources claim that the Society of St. Pius X and the Vatican are just a step away from an agreement," he wrote. "In fact, according to some, only the signatures remain; and they're waiting for Bp. Fellay to give the finishing touches on the SSPX's internal situation and reaching out toward the big step: the total and official return, as a personal prelature, of Lefebvre [and his followers] to Rome..." (continued)
Link:
Monday, November 21, 2016
Pope extends Jubilee mandate on abortion, SSPX confession
.-
Although the Jubilee of Mercy has ended, Pope Francis has decided that
some of the novelties he applied to the Church during the Holy Year will
continue.
He is allowing all priests to absolve the sin of abortion from here on out, while SSPX priests will be able to continue hearing confessions validly...
The Pope announced his decision in his new Apostolic Letter “Misericordia et Misera,” meaning “Mercy with Misery.” Published Nov. 21, the letter was signed by the Pope Nov. 20 during Mass for the close of the Jubilee of Mercy.
In the letter, Pope Francis said that “the Sacrament of Reconciliation must regain its central place in the Christian life.”
“Given this need, lest any obstacle arise between the request for reconciliation and God’s forgiveness, I henceforth grant to all priests, in virtue of their ministry, the faculty to absolve those who have committed the sin of procured abortion,” the letter read...
He noted how during the Jubilee, he allowed “that those faithful who, for various reasons, attend churches officiated by the priests of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X, can validly and licitly receive the sacramental absolution of their sins.”
“For the pastoral benefit of these faithful, and trusting in the good will of their priests to strive with God’s help for the recovery of full communion in the Catholic Church, I have personally decided to extend this faculty beyond the Jubilee Year, until further provisions are made, lest anyone ever be deprived of the sacramental sign of reconciliation through the Church’s pardon...” (continued)
Link:
He is allowing all priests to absolve the sin of abortion from here on out, while SSPX priests will be able to continue hearing confessions validly...
The Pope announced his decision in his new Apostolic Letter “Misericordia et Misera,” meaning “Mercy with Misery.” Published Nov. 21, the letter was signed by the Pope Nov. 20 during Mass for the close of the Jubilee of Mercy.
In the letter, Pope Francis said that “the Sacrament of Reconciliation must regain its central place in the Christian life.”
“Given this need, lest any obstacle arise between the request for reconciliation and God’s forgiveness, I henceforth grant to all priests, in virtue of their ministry, the faculty to absolve those who have committed the sin of procured abortion,” the letter read...
He noted how during the Jubilee, he allowed “that those faithful who, for various reasons, attend churches officiated by the priests of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X, can validly and licitly receive the sacramental absolution of their sins.”
“For the pastoral benefit of these faithful, and trusting in the good will of their priests to strive with God’s help for the recovery of full communion in the Catholic Church, I have personally decided to extend this faculty beyond the Jubilee Year, until further provisions are made, lest anyone ever be deprived of the sacramental sign of reconciliation through the Church’s pardon...” (continued)
Link:
Sunday, November 20, 2016
Could Pope Francis reconcile SSPX Tomorrow?
Update 11/21/16: Pope extends Jubilee mandate on abortion, SSPX confession
From Fr. John Zuhlsdorf:
Link:
Related:
From Fr. John Zuhlsdorf:
I, as many others, have over the last couple weeks wondered whether or not Pope Francis would extend beyond the Year of Mercy the opportunity for penitents to seek out priests of the SSPX for sacramental confession and valid absolution. There have been rumors – rumors – to that effect but nothing concrete.
That was an opportunity extended during the Year of Mercy.
The Year of Mercy is now over.
That opportunity for confession, as far as I know, is now over as well.
Hope springs eternal.
Today, however, I see a different of story, which is even better than the mere chance to go to confession (as great as that is).
Today I read at the German site Katholisches that Pope Francis may – may – regularize the SSPX in the structure of a Personal Prelature, similar to Opus Dei. He may – may – do this on Monday. That’s tomorrow... (continued)
Link:
Related:
Tuesday, September 1, 2015
POPE FRANCIS FOR YEAR OF MERCY GRANTS THAT SSPX PRIESTS CAN VALIDLY ABSOLVE!
From Father Z:
Link:
Huge news. This was under embargo till noon, Rome time, which must be honored. [UPDATE: The Bollettino is now available HERE]
The Year of Mercy begins 8 December 2015 until 20 November 2016.
It is about to be announced that the Holy Father has sent a letter to Archbishop Rino Fisichella, President of the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of the New Evangelization about the upcoming Extraordinary Year of Mercy... (continued)
Link:
Wednesday, July 1, 2015
SSPX Bp. Fellay: “we are on the eve of important events that we cannot yet define”
From SSPX.org via WDTPRS:
Link:
Where is the Society today? What are its strong points and its weak points? What future do you foresee for it?
I see a peaceful future. It is a work that has been entrusted to the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary; all we have to do is remain faithful to their will. This Church is the Church of Our Lord Jesus Christ, who remains her head and will not allow her to be destroyed.
The Society’s weaknesses? The risk of separation is serious. Look at the caricature of Tradition that calls itself the “Resistance”, for example: it is a non-Catholic spirit that is almost sectarian. We wish to have nothing to do with it; it is a movement that is withdrawn into itself, with people who think that they are the only good and just men on earth: that is not Catholic. It is an objective, but relative danger. Most of the Society is healthy and will not fall into these illusions. This encourages us to rely upon supernatural means. God will show us what He wants of us; He will speak through circumstances.
The strong points? The living fidelity that bears fruit and shows the world today that the Catholic life, even with all its requirements, is possible. But—another weak point—we are men of our times, and it would be a dream to pretend that we are immunized against the influence of the modern world. To be more precise, we must avoid the caricature of wishing for a Church without wrinkles or stains here below: that is not what the good Lord promised us on this earth. That is not what the “Holy Church” means; it means that she is capable of sanctifying using the means given by Our Lord: the sacraments, the Faith, discipline, religious life, the life of prayer... (continued)
Link:
Saturday, May 2, 2015
Abp. Marcel Lefevbre, St. Athanasius Of Our Time???
Related:
- QUAERITUR: Why are SSPX Masses valid, but not marriages or absolutions?
- Again about validity of absolutions by SSPX priests
- QUAERITUR: validity of SSPX marriage
- ASK FATHER: Valid absolution from Orthodox priest, but not from SSPX priest?
- Lou Verrechio's Latest
- On the SSPX
- Archbishop Müller on the SSPX and His Controversial Writings
- Pope's Brother Says SSPX Issues and Vatican Leaks Troubled Pope Benedict XVI
- Interview with Fr. Faure (soon to be Consecrated by Bishop Williamson)
- Confirmed: Bishop Williamson is set to be expelled from the SSPX by Bishop Fellay
- Bishop Fellay’s “Conditions”
- Cardinal Burke Urges Catholics to Pray for the Reconciliation of the SSPX
Wednesday, March 18, 2015
Interview with Fr. Faure (soon to be Consecrated by Bishop Williamson)
The following interview with Father Jean-Michel Faure is from
Translated by Michael cruzadoparalaverdad@gmail.com
How about a little history to begin, Father, how did you get to know Tradition and Archbishop Lefebvre?
In 1968, while in Argentina, I visited the Archbishop of Paraná, who told me: "Do you want to defend Tradition? In the Council I defended Tradition together with a brave Bishop, a friend of mine, Archbishop Lefebvre." It was the first time I had heard of Archbishop Lefebvre. I went to look for Archbishop Lefebvre in Switzerland in 1972, and during Holy Week was went I first met him there.
Where were you born? Why were you living in South America?
I was born in Algeria and my family, after the independence, acquired a plot of land in Argentina, close to Paraná. My family was deported from Algeria because the French government seceded power to the militant Moslems that committed horrendous massacres during the course of the process of the independence. My grandparents, parents and uncles worked in agriculture there since 1830.
Returning to the story, how your apostolate in the Society come about?
Archbishop Lefebvre ordained me in 1977 in Econe, and 15 days later I went with him on a trip through the southern United States, Mexico (where the government refused our entry), Colombia, Chile, and Argentina. The Archbishop put me in charge of starting an apostolate in this region. During the first year 2 Argentinian priests helped me and the following year another Spanish priest (of the Society). After this the South American district of the United States was formed as was my position and responsibility and I began to preach retreats as far north as Mexico. The first year there were 12 vocations that were put in the Priory of Buenos Aires that was in a large enough house. Following this, around 1980, the seminary in La Reja (Buenos Aires) was built, where Archbishop Lefebvre put me as rector. I stayed there until 1985, when I was named superior of the District of Mexico. That was when they built the churches in Mexico City and Guadalajara. I looked after the country and its distinct places together with Frs. Calderon, Angles, and Tam. Later I was in France for some years. After all of this I was named as professor of history in the Seminary in Argentina and I was there until the expulsion of Bishop Williamson from Argentina (2009).
Did Archbishop Lefebvre confide in you?
Archbishop Lefebvre gave me free access to his mail and correspondence and he put me in charge of certain records. He had a certain kind of trust for me: in 1977 in Albano he asked me what I thought about consecrations. In this opportunity he confided in me that "they are waiting for me" (the rector in Econe and the professors). They would suggest accepting the New Mass and the Council in order to preserve the Tridentine Mass. They said to him: " now we are confronted with Rome. If we conserve the Mass (Traditional) we must accept the Council." They tried to persuade the Archbishop to retire in a beautiful house in Germany, but he told them that they were free to leave if they wanted to. He got rid of them.
Is it true that Archbishop Lefebvre asked you to accept being consecrated a bishop?
In 1986, while on a visit to Econe, he called me aside after a meal and asked me if I would accept being consecrated a bishop. Knowing what happened, I suppose I must accept.
Then you did not accept?
I told him that it seemed to me that Bishop De Galerreta would be the most adequate.
Can you summarize what happened in 2012?
In that year we were very close to an accord and it failed at the last moment, probably, because of the issue with Bishop Williamson. The deal failed because of that matter and the letter of the three bishops. Both of these caused the deal to fail.
It is said that the key to the ad intra strategy of Bishop Fellay is the backside of the General Chapter. Can you tell us something about this?
The General Chapter was very well prepared by Bishop Fellay and the they (the accordistas) accomplished their objectives. That was when I had understood what Archbishop Lefebvre and his friends felt like in the Second Vatican Council. Bishop Fellay had taken the decision of a policy of getting close to Rome and he had fixed it in order to have the the general support of the Chapter in expelling Bishop Williamson, who was the only one capable of obstructing this policy.
According to your judgement, what should be the conditions required to make a deal with Rome?
Archbishop Lefebvre told us that while there were no real changes in Rome a deal would be impossible, because these people were not loyal, and one cannot intend to change one's superiors. It is the cat that chases the mouse and not the mouse that chases the cat. A deal would be equal to handing over oneself to the modernists, and consequently, it must be absolutely refused. It is impossible. We must wait for God's intervention.
Can you tell us what you think the visits of evaluation of various modernist prelates to the Seminaries of the Society? Is it true that once Archbishop Lefebvre received some prelates? What is the difference now?
It dealt with exceptional visits during which Cardinal Gagnon never had the possibility of defending the Council, while on the other hand now it deals with the first steps of a reintegration (of the Society) into the conciliar church.
What do you think about an eventual unilateral recognition on the part of Rome to the Society?
It is a trick.
Between the 2006 chapter and the crisis started in 2012 certain changes are observed and attitudes of the authorities of the Society Of St. Pius x in respect to Rome? What is the reason for this change?
It is the decision of this appears to be reintegrated into the conciliar church. Since 1994 or 1995 there were some context with GREC that were significant steps towards a reconciliation, like what had been seen with the ambassador Perol (represents tatie of France in Italy) who is the inventor of the lifting of the excommunications (2009) and the Motu Proprio (2007). That must have had another relative act of recognizing the Council.
What would Archbishop Lefebvre do in the current situation?
He would follow in the line that he indicated to us after the consecrations, doing away completely with the possibility of a deal.
If in the future you were invited to go to Rome and speak with the pope would you go? What would you say?
First, I would consult with all of my friends in the resistance. I would go with Bishop Williamson and the other excellent priests that accept the combat of the resistance with much valor. And I would keep all of our friends well-informed with all transparency.
Bishop Fellay has said that the Society is in agreement with 95% of the Second Vatican Council. What do you think of this?
Archbishop Lefebvre answered that all of the Council is invaded by a subjectivist spirit that is not Catholic.
Is Francis, being an effective devastation of the Church and objective destroyer of the Faith, a true pope?
In my opinion, it cannot be said that Francis is worse than Paul VI, who was who put the Church on the wrong course, and so we must conserve the attitude that was the same of Archbishop Lefebvre, a prudential attitude that excluded sedevacantism. Archbishop Lefebvre always refused to ordain a seminarian that was sedevacantist. And that was the policy in the SSPX until his death. So don't let it be said that the Archbishop did this or said that.
What is the state of the process of your expulsion from the Society?
The last news that I had heard was by chance a second warning in an email. After tomorrow, therefore, the Society of St. Pius X will again have 4 bishops! They better throw me out quickly. Deo gratias!
This decision of consecrating a bishop must've been thought about and meditated during much time. Just like Archbishop Lefebvre, you, Bishop Williamson and the priests of the resistance have not wanted to collaborate in the destruction of the Church. It is for conserving the faith intact that they have persecuted you all, condemning you all and calumniating you all many times. Your episcopal consecration could run the risk of resulting in an alleged excommunication. What were the principal reasons for bringing about this consecration?
The main reason is that that we cannot leave the resistance without bishops. Just like Archbishop Lefebvre said, Catholic bishops are indispensable for the conservation of the true doctrine and faith and the sacraments.
Archbishop Lefebvre thought of you in the consecration of bishop and now Bishop Williamson is finalizing this wish. What will be your main concern?
Maintaining the strength of the work of Archbishop Lefebvre and the way that he had went, without deviating too much to the right or to the left.
Where will your place of residence be?
In France where we have been thinking about opening a seminary close to the Dominicans of Avrille.
Would you like to say any words to the priests and faithful that are still under the structure of the society but that are not satisfied with the liberal ways in the last years?
That they return to read into meditate upon the texts of their founder.
Can you explain to us the essential of your coat of arms?
In the sensual is the lamb of apocalypse and Alpha and the Omega the lamb of god that takes away the sins of the world announced by Isaiah. The hearts are symbols of the Vendeé martyrs and the revolution and the flor de lis is the emblem of Catholic France. The motto, ipsa cónteret (she will crush you) is taken from the Vulgate, Genesis 3, 15 where God promises the victory of the Virgin Mary against the dragon.
Is there anything more you would like to add?
We conserve Faith, Hope, and Charity. There is nothing to doubt and we must beg of God and Our Lady that we are maintained in these virtues.
Father, we greatly thank God, His Most Holy Mother, and Saint Joseph protector of the Church for this great grace. We ask of God that he may protect and conserve you. We thank you for having accepted this tremendous position and Bishop Williamson for consecrating you as one of the successors of the Apostles. Deo Gratias!
Link:
Related:
Translated by Michael cruzadoparalaverdad@gmail.com
How about a little history to begin, Father, how did you get to know Tradition and Archbishop Lefebvre?
In 1968, while in Argentina, I visited the Archbishop of Paraná, who told me: "Do you want to defend Tradition? In the Council I defended Tradition together with a brave Bishop, a friend of mine, Archbishop Lefebvre." It was the first time I had heard of Archbishop Lefebvre. I went to look for Archbishop Lefebvre in Switzerland in 1972, and during Holy Week was went I first met him there.
Where were you born? Why were you living in South America?
I was born in Algeria and my family, after the independence, acquired a plot of land in Argentina, close to Paraná. My family was deported from Algeria because the French government seceded power to the militant Moslems that committed horrendous massacres during the course of the process of the independence. My grandparents, parents and uncles worked in agriculture there since 1830.
Returning to the story, how your apostolate in the Society come about?
Archbishop Lefebvre ordained me in 1977 in Econe, and 15 days later I went with him on a trip through the southern United States, Mexico (where the government refused our entry), Colombia, Chile, and Argentina. The Archbishop put me in charge of starting an apostolate in this region. During the first year 2 Argentinian priests helped me and the following year another Spanish priest (of the Society). After this the South American district of the United States was formed as was my position and responsibility and I began to preach retreats as far north as Mexico. The first year there were 12 vocations that were put in the Priory of Buenos Aires that was in a large enough house. Following this, around 1980, the seminary in La Reja (Buenos Aires) was built, where Archbishop Lefebvre put me as rector. I stayed there until 1985, when I was named superior of the District of Mexico. That was when they built the churches in Mexico City and Guadalajara. I looked after the country and its distinct places together with Frs. Calderon, Angles, and Tam. Later I was in France for some years. After all of this I was named as professor of history in the Seminary in Argentina and I was there until the expulsion of Bishop Williamson from Argentina (2009).
Did Archbishop Lefebvre confide in you?
Archbishop Lefebvre gave me free access to his mail and correspondence and he put me in charge of certain records. He had a certain kind of trust for me: in 1977 in Albano he asked me what I thought about consecrations. In this opportunity he confided in me that "they are waiting for me" (the rector in Econe and the professors). They would suggest accepting the New Mass and the Council in order to preserve the Tridentine Mass. They said to him: " now we are confronted with Rome. If we conserve the Mass (Traditional) we must accept the Council." They tried to persuade the Archbishop to retire in a beautiful house in Germany, but he told them that they were free to leave if they wanted to. He got rid of them.
Is it true that Archbishop Lefebvre asked you to accept being consecrated a bishop?
In 1986, while on a visit to Econe, he called me aside after a meal and asked me if I would accept being consecrated a bishop. Knowing what happened, I suppose I must accept.
Then you did not accept?
I told him that it seemed to me that Bishop De Galerreta would be the most adequate.
Can you summarize what happened in 2012?
In that year we were very close to an accord and it failed at the last moment, probably, because of the issue with Bishop Williamson. The deal failed because of that matter and the letter of the three bishops. Both of these caused the deal to fail.
It is said that the key to the ad intra strategy of Bishop Fellay is the backside of the General Chapter. Can you tell us something about this?
The General Chapter was very well prepared by Bishop Fellay and the they (the accordistas) accomplished their objectives. That was when I had understood what Archbishop Lefebvre and his friends felt like in the Second Vatican Council. Bishop Fellay had taken the decision of a policy of getting close to Rome and he had fixed it in order to have the the general support of the Chapter in expelling Bishop Williamson, who was the only one capable of obstructing this policy.
According to your judgement, what should be the conditions required to make a deal with Rome?
Archbishop Lefebvre told us that while there were no real changes in Rome a deal would be impossible, because these people were not loyal, and one cannot intend to change one's superiors. It is the cat that chases the mouse and not the mouse that chases the cat. A deal would be equal to handing over oneself to the modernists, and consequently, it must be absolutely refused. It is impossible. We must wait for God's intervention.
Can you tell us what you think the visits of evaluation of various modernist prelates to the Seminaries of the Society? Is it true that once Archbishop Lefebvre received some prelates? What is the difference now?
It dealt with exceptional visits during which Cardinal Gagnon never had the possibility of defending the Council, while on the other hand now it deals with the first steps of a reintegration (of the Society) into the conciliar church.
What do you think about an eventual unilateral recognition on the part of Rome to the Society?
It is a trick.
Between the 2006 chapter and the crisis started in 2012 certain changes are observed and attitudes of the authorities of the Society Of St. Pius x in respect to Rome? What is the reason for this change?
It is the decision of this appears to be reintegrated into the conciliar church. Since 1994 or 1995 there were some context with GREC that were significant steps towards a reconciliation, like what had been seen with the ambassador Perol (represents tatie of France in Italy) who is the inventor of the lifting of the excommunications (2009) and the Motu Proprio (2007). That must have had another relative act of recognizing the Council.
What would Archbishop Lefebvre do in the current situation?
He would follow in the line that he indicated to us after the consecrations, doing away completely with the possibility of a deal.
If in the future you were invited to go to Rome and speak with the pope would you go? What would you say?
First, I would consult with all of my friends in the resistance. I would go with Bishop Williamson and the other excellent priests that accept the combat of the resistance with much valor. And I would keep all of our friends well-informed with all transparency.
Bishop Fellay has said that the Society is in agreement with 95% of the Second Vatican Council. What do you think of this?
Archbishop Lefebvre answered that all of the Council is invaded by a subjectivist spirit that is not Catholic.
Is Francis, being an effective devastation of the Church and objective destroyer of the Faith, a true pope?
In my opinion, it cannot be said that Francis is worse than Paul VI, who was who put the Church on the wrong course, and so we must conserve the attitude that was the same of Archbishop Lefebvre, a prudential attitude that excluded sedevacantism. Archbishop Lefebvre always refused to ordain a seminarian that was sedevacantist. And that was the policy in the SSPX until his death. So don't let it be said that the Archbishop did this or said that.
What is the state of the process of your expulsion from the Society?
The last news that I had heard was by chance a second warning in an email. After tomorrow, therefore, the Society of St. Pius X will again have 4 bishops! They better throw me out quickly. Deo gratias!
This decision of consecrating a bishop must've been thought about and meditated during much time. Just like Archbishop Lefebvre, you, Bishop Williamson and the priests of the resistance have not wanted to collaborate in the destruction of the Church. It is for conserving the faith intact that they have persecuted you all, condemning you all and calumniating you all many times. Your episcopal consecration could run the risk of resulting in an alleged excommunication. What were the principal reasons for bringing about this consecration?
The main reason is that that we cannot leave the resistance without bishops. Just like Archbishop Lefebvre said, Catholic bishops are indispensable for the conservation of the true doctrine and faith and the sacraments.
Archbishop Lefebvre thought of you in the consecration of bishop and now Bishop Williamson is finalizing this wish. What will be your main concern?
Maintaining the strength of the work of Archbishop Lefebvre and the way that he had went, without deviating too much to the right or to the left.
Where will your place of residence be?
In France where we have been thinking about opening a seminary close to the Dominicans of Avrille.
Would you like to say any words to the priests and faithful that are still under the structure of the society but that are not satisfied with the liberal ways in the last years?
That they return to read into meditate upon the texts of their founder.
Can you explain to us the essential of your coat of arms?
In the sensual is the lamb of apocalypse and Alpha and the Omega the lamb of god that takes away the sins of the world announced by Isaiah. The hearts are symbols of the Vendeé martyrs and the revolution and the flor de lis is the emblem of Catholic France. The motto, ipsa cónteret (she will crush you) is taken from the Vulgate, Genesis 3, 15 where God promises the victory of the Virgin Mary against the dragon.
Is there anything more you would like to add?
We conserve Faith, Hope, and Charity. There is nothing to doubt and we must beg of God and Our Lady that we are maintained in these virtues.
Father, we greatly thank God, His Most Holy Mother, and Saint Joseph protector of the Church for this great grace. We ask of God that he may protect and conserve you. We thank you for having accepted this tremendous position and Bishop Williamson for consecrating you as one of the successors of the Apostles. Deo Gratias!
Link:
Related:
Tuesday, May 13, 2014
About a “meeting” between the Pope and Bishop Fellay
(DICI) On May 10, 2014, the English-speaking blog Rorate Caeli published
under the pseudonym “Adfero”, some “exclusive information” whose sources
could not be – according to him – disclosed. This “exclusive
information”, spread by the media, revealed that Bishop Bernard Fellay,
Superior General of the Society of St. Pius X, met with Pope Francis. On
May 11, the Roman agency I.Media published that Bp. Fellay’s two
assistants, Fr. Niklaus Pfluger and Fr. Marc-Alain Nély, had attended
the Pope’s private Mass.
Fathers Pfluger and Nely have never attended the Pope’s private Mass, and journalists who claim otherwise would have a hard time to indicate the day of the alleged assistance. Here are the facts:
On December 13, 2013, Bishop Fellay and his assistants went to Rome for an informal meeting at the request of the Ecclesia Dei Commission. Following this interview, the Secretary of the Commission, Archbishop Guido Pozzo, invited his counterparts for lunch at St. Martha House’s dining room where they were joined by Archbishop Augustine Di Noia, Assistant Secretary of the Congregation of the Faith. It is in this large refectory that the Pope takes his daily meals, away from other guests.
Archbishop Pozzo insisted on introducing Bishop Fellay to the pope while the latter was leaving the refectory. There was a brief exchange where Pope Francis said to Bishop Fellay, according to the usual polite formula, “I’m very glad to meet you.” To this, Bishop Fellay answered that he was praying a lot, and the pope asked him to pray for him. Such was the “meeting” that lasted a few seconds.
In the interview he gave to Le Rocher (April-May 2014), Bishop Fellay answered the following question: Has Rome made an official approach to renew contact with you since the election of Pope Francis? – “Rome made a ‘non-official’ approach to renew contact with us, but nothing more, and I have not asked for an audience as I did after Benedict XVI’s election. For me, things at present are very simple: we stay as we are. Some concluded from my close contact with Rome in 2012 that I regard the necessity of a canonical recognition as a supreme principle. Preserving the Faith and our traditional Catholic identity is essential and remains our first principle.”
(Source: SSPX/MG – DICI 05/12/14)
Link:
Related:
Fathers Pfluger and Nely have never attended the Pope’s private Mass, and journalists who claim otherwise would have a hard time to indicate the day of the alleged assistance. Here are the facts:
On December 13, 2013, Bishop Fellay and his assistants went to Rome for an informal meeting at the request of the Ecclesia Dei Commission. Following this interview, the Secretary of the Commission, Archbishop Guido Pozzo, invited his counterparts for lunch at St. Martha House’s dining room where they were joined by Archbishop Augustine Di Noia, Assistant Secretary of the Congregation of the Faith. It is in this large refectory that the Pope takes his daily meals, away from other guests.
Archbishop Pozzo insisted on introducing Bishop Fellay to the pope while the latter was leaving the refectory. There was a brief exchange where Pope Francis said to Bishop Fellay, according to the usual polite formula, “I’m very glad to meet you.” To this, Bishop Fellay answered that he was praying a lot, and the pope asked him to pray for him. Such was the “meeting” that lasted a few seconds.
In the interview he gave to Le Rocher (April-May 2014), Bishop Fellay answered the following question: Has Rome made an official approach to renew contact with you since the election of Pope Francis? – “Rome made a ‘non-official’ approach to renew contact with us, but nothing more, and I have not asked for an audience as I did after Benedict XVI’s election. For me, things at present are very simple: we stay as we are. Some concluded from my close contact with Rome in 2012 that I regard the necessity of a canonical recognition as a supreme principle. Preserving the Faith and our traditional Catholic identity is essential and remains our first principle.”
(Source: SSPX/MG – DICI 05/12/14)
Link:
Related:
Friday, September 20, 2013
Why are SSPX Masses valid, but not marriages or absolutions?
By Father John Zuhlsdorf
(WDTPRS) ....The priests of the SSPX are validly ordained. They celebrate Mass illicitly but validly. In normal situations they do not validly absolve, because they lack faculties to absolve (because faculties are necessary – in addition to valid ordination – to absolve validly). They cannot act as proper witnesses to marriages, because they are not recognized as such by the Church. A proper witness is require by the Church for the form of marriage.
How to sort this out? Let’s try it this way.
Not all sacraments are juridic acts, and not all juridic acts are sacraments but, as in the classic Venn Diagram, some sacraments are juridic acts.
For example, baptism is both a juridic act, and a sacrament. A juridic effect is intended (incorporation into the Church). Formalities are observed. The person, capable in law, manifests his intention to baptize (he uses the proper matter and form). The Church, in her clemency and her desire that no one be denied baptism, extends jurisdiction to confer baptism to “any person who has the requisite intention” (can. 861§2). So, while bishops, priests, and deacons are the ordinary ministers of baptism, anyone – even an unbaptized person – is capable in law of baptizing validly.
Confirmation, Marriage, Penance, and Holy Orders are the other sacraments which are simultaneously juridic acts. Reception of these sacraments changes a person’s juridic status in the Church. The Church is more restrictive about who can administer these four sacraments. Anointing of the Sick and Holy Communion/Eucharist are not juridic acts. Reception of these sacraments does not change a person’s juridic status in the Church.
Absolution of sins after Confession is a juridic act. The priest, the confessor, acts in persona Christi and judges the penitent. Remember that the confessional has the aspect of a tribunal. The confessor/judge absolves and lifts the sin from the penitent. Confessors also at times lift censures. As a juridic act, it can only be done by someone capable in law. The Church has restricted this, not because the Church wants to make penance less available to people, but rather in order to ensure that the faithful are getting the best possible pastoral care and that they remain within the fold of the Church. Thus, the Church gives faculties, permission, jurisdiction, to act in this way, to use his priestly abilities in a performing a sacramental act which is also a juridical act.
With marriage, there’s an added wrinkle. The ministers of the sacrament of marriage are the parties who get married. The spouses are the ministers of the sacrament of matrimony. Therefore, for a valid marriage to be effected, they are required to be “capable in law”. For example, a couple of thirteen year-olds are not capable of marriage. Someone already married is not capable of marriage. Other capabilities are more relational. For example, Sempronius may be capable of marriage, but he is not capable of marrying his sister, Caia. Neither is Sempronius capable of marrying Titus). For Catholics, an additional burden must be met. For a Catholic to marry validly, he or she must marry before an authorized witness, usually a bishop, priest, or deacon.
The priest or deacon or bishop who officiates at a Catholic wedding is there, necessarily, as the Church’s official witness to ensure that the proper form is followed, etc. The Church tightly restricts the ability of clergy to officiate at weddings. Priests who have the ordinary faculty, the jurisdiction, the permission from the Church, to witness marriages, are limited to doing so within the territory of the parish where they are the pastor, the parish priest. If they go outside their territory, they need the express permission of the pastor in whose territory they are witnessing a marriage. If they don’t have that permission, the marriage would be invalid because it would lack one of the essential requirements for marriage. The pastor of the parish (or the bishop, the vicar general, or an episcopal vicar with jurisdiction in the area) can delegate to another priest the jurisdiction, the faculty, to witness the marriage. He should do so in writing. If the delegation cannot be proven, the marriage might well be invalid!... (continued)
Link:
Related:
Wednesday, February 13, 2013
Pope's Brother Says SSPX Issues and Vatican Leaks Troubled Pope Benedict XVI
By Carlo Angerer and Ian Johnston, NBC News
Pope Benedict XVI was troubled by "some great challenges" during his time in office -- including allegations of corruption within the church that were illegally exposed by his former butler and his relationship with a controversial Catholic brotherhood -- the pontiff’s brother said Tuesday.
Speaking to reporters in Germany, Georg Ratzinger said the pope was “doing relatively well” and his announcement Monday that he was going to stand down had not had an effect on his health.
On Monday, Benedict, 85, explained his resignation, saying that the papacy required “strength of mind and body” and his had deteriorated in recent months. On Tuesday, the Vatican acknowledged for the first time that the pope has had a pacemaker for years and that its battery was replaced a few months ago in secret, Reuters reported.“But you notice that the aging process impacts body and soul, and especially on his strength," Ratzinger said Tuesday. "And he thinks that with a reduced workload he couldn't carry on this great responsibility, that a younger person is needed to capture the problems of today's time and who has the power to do what has to be done.”
'Indiscretions'
Ratzinger said the pope’s time in office had “created great challenges for him,” highlighting two particular issues that concerned his brother.
"Within the church a lot of things happened, which brought up troubles, for example the relationship to the Pius Brotherhood or the irregularities within the Vatican, where the butler had let known indiscretions,” he said.
“These were emotional years, but with God's help and his own commitment, I think he mastered it rather well,” he added.
Ratzinger did not specify the pope’s issues with the Pius Brotherhood, or Society of St. Pius X as the group is formally known.
But in late December, Bishop Bernard Fellay, head of the group, described Jews as “the enemies of the church” to widespread condemnation from within and outside the Catholic Church. Jesuit Father Federico Lombardi, the Vatican spokesman, reportedly said it was “absolutely unacceptable, impossible to define Jews as enemies of the church.”
In October, the pope’s former butler Paolo Gabriele was given an 18-month prison sentence in the so-called “Vatileaks” case, after he was found guilty of stealing thousands of Vatican documents -- including some of Benedict’s private papers and letters alleging corruption within the church -- while working for the pontiff.
Some of papers were leaked to the media and, in court, Gabriele said he acted out of concern for the church and the pope. The pope pardoned Gabriele just before Christmas.
On a brighter note, Ratzinger said foreign trips had also been “important” to the pope, enabling him “to have a pastoral impact, to find friends and to create understanding for the message of the Gospel.”
Link:
Related:
Thursday, October 18, 2012
Confirmed: Bishop Williamson is set to be expelled from the SSPX by Bishop Fellay
From Stephen Heiner, Bishop Williamson's former newsletter editor:
Link:It is confirmed that Bishop Fellay has ordered Bishop Williamson to shut down dinoscopus.org, end Eleison Comments, make "public apology" for the harm he has caused to the SSPX and the Church by publishing Eleison Comments, and commit to making "reparation" for the remainder of his days. Failure to comply with these conditions (interestingly, there is no parsing of "required" and "desirable") in toto would result in his expulsion on or around one week from today's date: the 23rd of October, 2012...
Related:
- Bishop Williamson to be Expelled from SSPX?
- Splitters: A few priests form the Society of St. Pius X of the Strict Observance
- Another hurtful article by Nicole Winfield of AP about the SSPX
- Archbishop Müller on the SSPX and His Controversial Writings
- Bishop Fellay’s “Conditions”
- On the SSPX
- Bishop Williamson Silenced by SSPX
Saturday, October 13, 2012
Bishop Williamson to be Expelled from SSPX?
: According to the blog Avec l'Immaculée which cites the forum Un évêque s'est levé!, allegedly Bishop Williamson was sent a letter by Bishop Fellay who informed Bishop Williamson that he had ten days to shut down his web site and apologize for causing "confusion among priests and faithful of the SSPX" by "criticizing decisions of the chapter." The source indicates that if Bishop Williamson refuses, he will be "permanently excluded from the SSPX." (Google translation.) The tenth day is tomorrow, October 14th.
Link:
Related:
Friday, October 5, 2012
Archbishop Müller on the SSPX and His Controversial Writings
By EDWARD PENTIN
(National Catholic Register) In the second part of this interview with Archbishop Gerhard Ludwig Müller (Part 1 can be read here), the new CDF prefect discusses the latest on efforts to bring the Society of St. Pius X back into full communion with the Church, the current situation regarding the Leadership Conference of Women Religious, and responds to what some saw as controversies over some of his previous writings on the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary and on the Eucharist.
What stage have we reached in the dialogue between the Vatican and the Society of St. Pius X?
I wouldn’t call it a dialogue between two Church partners. This was a
brotherly colloquium to overcome difficulties with an authentic
interpretation of Catholic doctrine. This authentic interpretation is
guaranteed by the Pope. The SSPX must accept the Holy Father, the Pope,
as the visible head of the Church. They have a great respect for
Tradition. They must, therefore, accept the position of the Pope as
stated in the First Vatican Council. They must also accept the doctrinal
pronouncements made since the Second Vatican Council, which have been
authorized officially by the Pope.
Part of the problem is that, after 30 or more years of separation from the Church, some groups or persons can be very closed in their own dynamic, in their own groups, and very fixed on these points. I believe that these questions will be resolved in the long term.
Is it possible for reconciliation with Bishop Richard Williamson within the society?
Williamson is a separate problem to this reconciliation process. It is
simply unacceptable that a Christian or even more a bishop — of course
he is not a Catholic bishop, as a bishop is only Catholic when he is in
full communion with the Pope, the Successor of Peter, which Williamson
is not — denies all that the Nazis had done against the Jewish people,
their exterminations. How is it possible to be so cold-hearted about
this? It is absolutely unacceptable, but this is a separate problem.
They [SSPX] need to accept the complete doctrine of the Catholic Church: the confession of faith, the Creed, and also accept the magisterium of the Pope as it is authentically interpreted. That is necessary. They also need to accept some forms of development in the liturgy. The Holy Father recognized the perennial validity of the extraordinary form of the liturgy, but they also must accept that the new ordinary form of the liturgy, developed after the Council, is valid and legitimate.
Some argue the Second Vatican Council was merely pastoral and, therefore, not binding. How do you respond to this?
The problem here is the interpretation of the word “pastoral.” All
councils are pastoral, in that they are concerned with the work of the
Church — but this does not mean that they are merely “poetic” and
therefore not binding. Vatican II is an official ecumenical council, and
all that was said in the Council is therefore binding for everyone, but
at different levels. We have dogmatic constitutions, and you are
certainly obliged to accept them if you are Catholic. Dei Verbum discusses
divine Revelation; it speaks about the Trinitarian God revealing
himself and about the Incarnation as fundamental teaching. These are not
only pastoral teachings — they are basic elements of our Catholic
faith.
Some practical elements contained in the various documents could be changed, but the body of the doctrine of the Council is binding for everyone.
In view of all this, are you nevertheless confident and optimistic there will be reconciliation with the Society of St. Pius X?
I’m always confident in our faith and optimistic. We have to pray for goodwill and for unity in the Church. The SSPX is not the only breakaway group in the Church. There are worse ones on the opposite side, too. These movements are worse because they are often denying essentials of Christianity. We must work for unity, and so it is also my task to invite all to come back into full communion with the Catholic Church, which is led by the supreme shepherd, the pope — who is the Vicar of Christ.
If they do come back, what positive aspects could they bring to the Church?
They could underline what Tradition is, but they also must become broader in their perspective, because the apostolic Tradition of the Church is not only about a few elements. The Tradition of the Church is large and wide. On the other hand, there must also be a renewal in the celebration of the liturgy, because we have had a lot of abuses of the liturgy, which have damaged the faith of many people.
Could they perhaps help correct some of the abuses?
That is not their task, but ours. One extreme cannot be the equivalent of the other. The extremes must be corrected by the center... (continued)
(National Catholic Register) In the second part of this interview with Archbishop Gerhard Ludwig Müller (Part 1 can be read here), the new CDF prefect discusses the latest on efforts to bring the Society of St. Pius X back into full communion with the Church, the current situation regarding the Leadership Conference of Women Religious, and responds to what some saw as controversies over some of his previous writings on the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary and on the Eucharist.
What stage have we reached in the dialogue between the Vatican and the Society of St. Pius X?
Part of the problem is that, after 30 or more years of separation from the Church, some groups or persons can be very closed in their own dynamic, in their own groups, and very fixed on these points. I believe that these questions will be resolved in the long term.
Is it possible for reconciliation with Bishop Richard Williamson within the society?
They [SSPX] need to accept the complete doctrine of the Catholic Church: the confession of faith, the Creed, and also accept the magisterium of the Pope as it is authentically interpreted. That is necessary. They also need to accept some forms of development in the liturgy. The Holy Father recognized the perennial validity of the extraordinary form of the liturgy, but they also must accept that the new ordinary form of the liturgy, developed after the Council, is valid and legitimate.
Some argue the Second Vatican Council was merely pastoral and, therefore, not binding. How do you respond to this?
Some practical elements contained in the various documents could be changed, but the body of the doctrine of the Council is binding for everyone.
In view of all this, are you nevertheless confident and optimistic there will be reconciliation with the Society of St. Pius X?
I’m always confident in our faith and optimistic. We have to pray for goodwill and for unity in the Church. The SSPX is not the only breakaway group in the Church. There are worse ones on the opposite side, too. These movements are worse because they are often denying essentials of Christianity. We must work for unity, and so it is also my task to invite all to come back into full communion with the Catholic Church, which is led by the supreme shepherd, the pope — who is the Vicar of Christ.
If they do come back, what positive aspects could they bring to the Church?
They could underline what Tradition is, but they also must become broader in their perspective, because the apostolic Tradition of the Church is not only about a few elements. The Tradition of the Church is large and wide. On the other hand, there must also be a renewal in the celebration of the liturgy, because we have had a lot of abuses of the liturgy, which have damaged the faith of many people.
Could they perhaps help correct some of the abuses?
That is not their task, but ours. One extreme cannot be the equivalent of the other. The extremes must be corrected by the center... (continued)
Tuesday, September 18, 2012
Bishop Fellay’s “Conditions”
While the Holy See waits for a response from the Lefebvrians, it is prepared to discuss pastoral and disciplinary questions but not doctrinal ones
Andrea Tornielli
(La Stampa / Vatican Insider) The letter which the Superior of the Society of
St. Pius X, Bishop Bernard Fellay, sent in response to the doctrinal
preamble presented to him in the Vatican last 13 June, has not yet
reached Rome. “The ball is clearly in the Fraternity’s court,” Vatican
spokesman Fr. Federico Lombardi had said this after the meeting.
Everyone was aware that it was unlikely a response would have been sent
before the Lefebvrian General Chapter held at the beginning of July. And
even though over three months have gone by since the doctrinal document
was handed to the Fraternity, the Holy See seems to be in no rush at
all.
Following the meeting on 13 June, the Pope chose a new leader for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei” (the Vatican body responsible for dialogue with the Society of St. Pius X): Archbishop Ludwig Müller replaced resigning cardinal William Levada as Prefect, while Archbishop Joseph Augustine Di Noia was appointed Vice-President of the “Ecclesia Dei” Commission. So the figures Fellay will be exchanging views with will not be the same as those he met with three months ago.
The Holy See is well aware of how delicate the situation within the Society of St. Pius X is: it knows about the group that opposes an agreement with Rome, just as it knows about the (not so small) group of priests that does not want to suffer the consequences of the extreme choices of some. There is disquiet in some Lefebvrian districts in Latin America and Bishop Richard Williamson who is awaiting sentence is already on a collision course with Fellay. It is highly unlikely the Vatican will ask the Society of St. Pius X for a response to the preamble before October.
Readers may recall that last June, Fellay received a draft proposal for the canonical normalisation in the relationship of the Society of St. Pius X and the Holy See, by making the Fraternity a personal prelature. He received this in addition to the doctrinal preamble prepared by the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith and approved by the Pope, containing some modifications proposed by the Lefebvrian Superior himself, some of which he did not fully agree with.
Vatican Insider has learnt that Fellay’s much anticipated response should still be interlocutory and contain certain conditions. If these involve requests that are to do with pastoral matters or discipline, the Holy See is willing to take these into consideration. Some conditions were discussed following the July chapter. The first three were considered “absolute” and were to do with the “freedom to correct the promoters of the errors or the innovations of modernism, liberalism, and Vatican II and its aftermath.” The second condition involved the “exclusive use of the Liturgy of 1962,” whilst the third requires “the guarantee of at least one bishop.” Other less binding conditions included the possibility of having a separate ecclesiastical court of the first instance and the exemption of the houses of the Society of St. Pius X from the diocesan bishops.
Agreement can be reached on most points and the Holy See is prepared to discuss these and incorporate changes in the draft about the future canonical normalisation of the Society of St. Pius X. What are not subject to discussion are the doctrinal issues outlined in the preamble. Lefebvrians are required to accept the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum. Therefore, although they will be allowed to celebrate mass using the old Missal (an extraordinary form of the Roman Rite), they will still have to recognise that the ordinary form was introduced as a result of the post-Conciliar reform, whose validity and lawfulness is unquestionable.
Link:
Wednesday, July 25, 2012
SSPX Bishop Williamson: "Bishop Fellay and his gang"
Related Links:
- The SSPX’s “sine quibus non” conditions
- QUAERITUR: How many priests are in the SSPX?
- UPHELD: Williamson exclusion maintained by SSPX General Chapter
- Proposal and Counter-Proposals for Pope Benedict and the SSPX
- VATICAN: COMMUNIQUE CONCERNING PRIESTLY SOCIETY OF ST. PIUS X
- Society of St. Pius X General Chapter Statement
- On the SSPX
- Card. Burke on the SSPX (video)
- Cardinal Burke Urges Catholics to Pray for the Reconciliation of the SSPX
- Monsignor Nicola Bux's letter to Bishop Fellay and the Priests of the SSPX
Friday, July 20, 2012
Proposal and Counter-Proposals for Pope Benedict and the SSPX
From Father John Zuhlsdorf at What Does The Prayer Really Say?:
I was sent a link to an article in The Remnant on the SSPX situation. The article contains the following statements:
Instead of harassing Bishop Fellay to sign a doctrinal preamble, the Vatican should require every superior, university president and ordinary to sign the above quoted statement to remain in office. I sense there would be quite a few vacancies as a result!First, the Holy See is hardly “harassing” Bp. Fellay to sign the Doctrinal Preamble. But I do like the idea proposed.
If the SSPX has to make some sort of Adhesio Fidei, then let’s have everyone make one if they have some office or position in the Church or her institutions!
I remember when I was in seminary in 80′s and the Holy See determined that seminary faculty would have to take an oath which involved little more than the Creed, one prof, a rather unstable and less than intelligent heretic actually burst into tears in front of our class and raved about “the Kremlin on the Tiber”. Thanks be to God, those days are pretty much over now.
Another statement:
If Benedict XVI really wants to foster restoration of the Church from the post-Conciliar crisis he should simply accept the SSPX’s beautiful declaration of Faith and unilaterally declare the Society in communion with the Church and on his own authority grant to them jurisdiction directly from himself throughout the world to continue their work. That may sound impossible but recall that the Society has just offered up a twelve-million rosary crusade for the Church. Nothing is impossible for God and He can refuse no request of His Blessed Mother.Of course it is not impossible. The Supreme Pontiff has complete and universal jurisdiction. I, too, would rejoice if the Pope simply did that and resolved the situation. But he isn’t going to do that. Pope’s don’t submit to renegades. For all of their solid doctrinal statements and their zeal for souls, they don’t obey the Roman Pontiff whose authority they say they uphold.
What I would like to see, and I think Benedict would like to see, a demonstration that the bishops and priests of the SSPX will actually submit to his authority and obey him and those to whom he gives his own authority in the Roman Congregations and work with local bishops who are tasked with the pastoral governance of dioceses.
Here’s my proposal. Let’s set all the Preambles and Declarations aside for a moment. For the beginning of the Year of Faith, let the SSPX, the whole shootin’ match, gather en masse in Rome. Let them ask for an audience with the Holy Father. Let them – one by one – kneel before the Pope. With their folded hands between Holy Father’s hands as if at an ordination, let each one of them promise to obey him and his successors.
I’ll be that would do it.
Of course on my planet, they would then go in solemn procession into the Basilica of St. Peter, with the Roman Pontiff raised on the sedia gestatoria, and celebrate Pontifical Mass, the SSPXers serving, their choir showing the Sistina how its done, etc.
“But Father! But Father!” some might be saying. “Kneel down? Grovel! Never!”
When I worked in an office of the Holy See I heard stories from the old timers about how when the Pope’s secretary would phone, saying that the Pope was coming on the line, they would kneel down just to take his phone call. I remember watching how, during an audience with John Paul II, the great Msgr. Luigi de Magistris knelt down the moment the Pope entered the room and would not rise until the Pope raised him.
Yes. Kneel down before the Vicar of Christ and promise to obey him. I would.Link:
As a matter of fact, I did.
Related:
- VATICAN: COMMUNIQUE CONCERNING PRIESTLY SOCIETY OF ST. PIUS X
- Society of St. Pius X General Chapter Statement
- On the SSPX
- Card. Burke on the SSPX (video)
- Cardinal Burke Urges Catholics to Pray for the Reconciliation of the SSPX
- Monsignor Nicola Bux's letter to Bishop Fellay and the Priests of the SSPX
Monday, July 2, 2012
On the SSPX
By Ann Barnhardt at Barnhardt.biz:
I get lots of questions, and hate mail, about
this, and in the spirit of getting things wrapped-up and saying
everything I have on my little list to say while I can, here's my screed
on the SSPX.
The Society of Saint Pius the Tenth (SSPX) is a group of traditionalist Catholics who broke away from Rome in 1970 after Vatican II when they were told by evil Marxist infiltrators inside the Church that they were forbidden from saying the Tridentine Latin Mass. They were led by an Archbishop named Marcel Lefebvre, hence the term "Lefebvrists" sometimes used to describe those in the SSPX.
The legalisms are EXTREMELY confusing, but as I understand it, Vatican II never actually forbade the saying of the Tridentine Mass. That was all a lie by the Marxist-homosexualist infiltrators. But, instead of hanging around and fighting the good fight, the SSPX took off on its own.
There have been steps toward reconciliation over the last 40 years, and as I understand it, SSPX Masses are indeed valid, but they are still not in full communion with the Church.
I totally sympathize with them - I can't imagine the fury and heartbreak that so many felt in 1970 as the Mass was literally eviscerated before their eyes and turned into a Protestant off-Broadway performance vehicle for homosexual priests and nuns, specifically designed to degrade the Church from the inside-out and ultimately destroy it by turning it into a neo-pagan Marxist-homosexualist cult.
But apparently ol' Annibale Bugnini and his masonic cohorts didn't take Christ Almighty seriously:
"Thou art Peter (Cephah) and upon this rock (cephah) I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."
You ain't gonna win, boys. And that goes for the uber-right contingent every bit as much as the Marxist-homosexualist infiltrators. The gates of hell will not prevail against the Church, and Peter is the Rock upon which Christ built, and builds, His Church.
It does not get any clearer than that. Any argument or confusion on this point is a direct result of satanic-inspired heresy aimed at destroying the Church by tearing it into utter chaos (40,000 protestant sects in the U.S. alone, all gleefully ratifying mortal sin, and counting!), ripping people away from the Eucharist, and ultimately resulting in people being lost eternally to hell. Period. You don't agree? You don't like that? You want to be your own pope? You want to "vote" on what the Truth is? Wow. I SOOOOOO don't care what you "want", "like", "feel" or "believe." I care about what the Truth is, and scripture makes it crystal, crystal clear on this point for anyone who isn't blinded by their own pride.
So, think of the SSPX as Protestants, but on the other side of the spectrum.
Today, the head of the SSPX is a bishop named Bernard Fellay, and he is working very hard to try to get the SSPX fully reconciled to Rome and thus 100% back inside the Barque of Peter. Everything I have read and listened to from Fellay seems extremely sensible, faithful and sincere. He fully comprehends that he is a shepherd and that he needs to get his flock back into the Church, and he is trying very hard to get that done before the manure hits the spinning airfoils.
The other three SSPX bishops? Not so much. The nutty wing of the SSPX is led by a bishop named Williamson. Williamson is nuts. Just stone-cold bonkers. He is a vicious anti-Semite (and there is a considerable problem with this inside the SSPX), holocaust denier, and naturally flowing from that evil and insanity, Williamson is a 9/11 truther. Like I said, the dude is nuts. Once you know that information, you know everything you need to know about Williamson and his wing.
Now you might think that all the traddy Catholics *lurv* me and that I have bunches and bunches of "friends." Oh, you'd be dead wrong. Most of the traddy Catholics hate me too, because people like me just can't win for losing. They send me lovely emails telling me how much they hate me on a fairly regular basis. They also send me Williamson propaganda. So, I have a pretty solid dossier of evidence on this point.
Would you like to hear what they tell me? Sure you would.
A. If you are 35 and unmarried, you must be a lesbian. We hate you.
(And all this time I thought it was a combination of my shrewish personality, dull wit and acrid body odor. Huh.)
B. You're a convert. We hate converts. We hate you.
(The Blessed Virgin Mary, the first Convert to Christianity, was unavailable for comment. Her press secretary simply referred all inquiries on this topic to the First Joyful Mystery, the Annunciation. Oh, and the Great Commission of her Son.)
C. You speak to Jews. We hate you.
(If your stupid asses don't even understand Catholicism, how do you expect the Jews today to understand it, much less convert to it? Maybe if you learned your faith, understood how every aspect of the Church and the Mass is a perfected fulfillment of Judaism, and could then EXPLAIN that to people, you might actually win some converts. Oh, but I forgot. You hate converts.)
D. You're ugly. Your hair is ugly. You have horse teeth and bug eyes. We hate you.
(Are you sure THAT isn't the reason I'm not married? Because I'm so freakishly physically repellant? Just sayin'.)
And, finally, my personal favorite:
E. You prophesy before men UNVEILED. We hate you.
(Okay, I can't win here. If I say to myself, "Ahem, I am going to PROPHESY now," and put on a veil to make a video or give a talk, then I'm a delusional, megalomaniacal nutcase. If I don't, some kooky dude sends me emails telling me that I'm going to hell for my failure to accessorize. Dude, throw me a bone. Seriously.)
That's all good for a chuckle, but let me explain with an analogy what these people's error is, and it isn't just them. It is the error of any schismatic.
Let's say your wife was diagnosed with cancer. Would you suddenly hate your wife? Would you argue that you didn't marry a body riddled with cancer, and therefore she was no longer the person you married, and then leave her in a smug huff?
Would you hate your wife's body, and thus hate your wife? No. You would love your wife and her body, perhaps even more than before, when you saw her under attack from the cancer. You would want to fight the cancer - chemotherapy, radiation, surgery - anything to get rid of the cancer and bring your wife back to full health and vigor.
This is exactly the situation in the Church today. The Church has cancer. Bad. Fully metastasized, all over-type cancer. It is called Marxist-homosexualism, and the cancer was first observed and diagnosed 45 years ago. Sadly, instead of clinging to the Bride of Christ and fighting the cancer, some people abandoned Her, claiming that the cancer WAS her body, instead of just an invading infection. Others left out of indifference. Others stayed and embraced the cancer as a "good thing" and "progress". A tiny, tiny contingent stayed, held Her hand, and have lovingly administered as much medicinal therapy to her as they possibly could.
The Williamson wing of the SSPX hates the Bride of Christ and will never rejoin her no matter what, because they are too prideful and dim to make the distinction between the Body and the cancer. They want a new wife, one of their own making, and "cancer free." And that is what they will get, but they will quickly find out that their new bride isn't really a bride at all, but just another cheap whore. A true and loving Bride with a bad case of cancer beats a whore in her prime.
So, Fellay needs to get back into the Church ASAP, and let the chips fall where they may with the SSPXers. Even if it is just Fellay and one other person coming back into the Church, it will be worth it for that ONE person, and Fellay will have done his job as a shepherd. Our Lord made clear that men will be sifted. People will have to choose. Wheat or chaff? Sheep or goats? This is one of those "siftings."
Get back in the Barque of Peter, Bishop Fellay and all SSPXers of good will, of which there are many. Because the gates of hell and its cancer WILL NOT PREVAIL. There is going to be a miraculous cure, and your Bride wants you there to share in the joy of the healing, which is explicitly guaranteed by Our Lord Himself.
Link:
I get lots of questions, and hate mail, about
this, and in the spirit of getting things wrapped-up and saying
everything I have on my little list to say while I can, here's my screed
on the SSPX.The Society of Saint Pius the Tenth (SSPX) is a group of traditionalist Catholics who broke away from Rome in 1970 after Vatican II when they were told by evil Marxist infiltrators inside the Church that they were forbidden from saying the Tridentine Latin Mass. They were led by an Archbishop named Marcel Lefebvre, hence the term "Lefebvrists" sometimes used to describe those in the SSPX.
The legalisms are EXTREMELY confusing, but as I understand it, Vatican II never actually forbade the saying of the Tridentine Mass. That was all a lie by the Marxist-homosexualist infiltrators. But, instead of hanging around and fighting the good fight, the SSPX took off on its own.
There have been steps toward reconciliation over the last 40 years, and as I understand it, SSPX Masses are indeed valid, but they are still not in full communion with the Church.
I totally sympathize with them - I can't imagine the fury and heartbreak that so many felt in 1970 as the Mass was literally eviscerated before their eyes and turned into a Protestant off-Broadway performance vehicle for homosexual priests and nuns, specifically designed to degrade the Church from the inside-out and ultimately destroy it by turning it into a neo-pagan Marxist-homosexualist cult.
But apparently ol' Annibale Bugnini and his masonic cohorts didn't take Christ Almighty seriously:
"Thou art Peter (Cephah) and upon this rock (cephah) I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."
You ain't gonna win, boys. And that goes for the uber-right contingent every bit as much as the Marxist-homosexualist infiltrators. The gates of hell will not prevail against the Church, and Peter is the Rock upon which Christ built, and builds, His Church.
It does not get any clearer than that. Any argument or confusion on this point is a direct result of satanic-inspired heresy aimed at destroying the Church by tearing it into utter chaos (40,000 protestant sects in the U.S. alone, all gleefully ratifying mortal sin, and counting!), ripping people away from the Eucharist, and ultimately resulting in people being lost eternally to hell. Period. You don't agree? You don't like that? You want to be your own pope? You want to "vote" on what the Truth is? Wow. I SOOOOOO don't care what you "want", "like", "feel" or "believe." I care about what the Truth is, and scripture makes it crystal, crystal clear on this point for anyone who isn't blinded by their own pride.
So, think of the SSPX as Protestants, but on the other side of the spectrum.
Today, the head of the SSPX is a bishop named Bernard Fellay, and he is working very hard to try to get the SSPX fully reconciled to Rome and thus 100% back inside the Barque of Peter. Everything I have read and listened to from Fellay seems extremely sensible, faithful and sincere. He fully comprehends that he is a shepherd and that he needs to get his flock back into the Church, and he is trying very hard to get that done before the manure hits the spinning airfoils.
The other three SSPX bishops? Not so much. The nutty wing of the SSPX is led by a bishop named Williamson. Williamson is nuts. Just stone-cold bonkers. He is a vicious anti-Semite (and there is a considerable problem with this inside the SSPX), holocaust denier, and naturally flowing from that evil and insanity, Williamson is a 9/11 truther. Like I said, the dude is nuts. Once you know that information, you know everything you need to know about Williamson and his wing.
Now you might think that all the traddy Catholics *lurv* me and that I have bunches and bunches of "friends." Oh, you'd be dead wrong. Most of the traddy Catholics hate me too, because people like me just can't win for losing. They send me lovely emails telling me how much they hate me on a fairly regular basis. They also send me Williamson propaganda. So, I have a pretty solid dossier of evidence on this point.
Would you like to hear what they tell me? Sure you would.
A. If you are 35 and unmarried, you must be a lesbian. We hate you.
(And all this time I thought it was a combination of my shrewish personality, dull wit and acrid body odor. Huh.)
B. You're a convert. We hate converts. We hate you.
(The Blessed Virgin Mary, the first Convert to Christianity, was unavailable for comment. Her press secretary simply referred all inquiries on this topic to the First Joyful Mystery, the Annunciation. Oh, and the Great Commission of her Son.)
C. You speak to Jews. We hate you.
(If your stupid asses don't even understand Catholicism, how do you expect the Jews today to understand it, much less convert to it? Maybe if you learned your faith, understood how every aspect of the Church and the Mass is a perfected fulfillment of Judaism, and could then EXPLAIN that to people, you might actually win some converts. Oh, but I forgot. You hate converts.)
D. You're ugly. Your hair is ugly. You have horse teeth and bug eyes. We hate you.
(Are you sure THAT isn't the reason I'm not married? Because I'm so freakishly physically repellant? Just sayin'.)
And, finally, my personal favorite:
E. You prophesy before men UNVEILED. We hate you.
(Okay, I can't win here. If I say to myself, "Ahem, I am going to PROPHESY now," and put on a veil to make a video or give a talk, then I'm a delusional, megalomaniacal nutcase. If I don't, some kooky dude sends me emails telling me that I'm going to hell for my failure to accessorize. Dude, throw me a bone. Seriously.)
That's all good for a chuckle, but let me explain with an analogy what these people's error is, and it isn't just them. It is the error of any schismatic.
Let's say your wife was diagnosed with cancer. Would you suddenly hate your wife? Would you argue that you didn't marry a body riddled with cancer, and therefore she was no longer the person you married, and then leave her in a smug huff?
Would you hate your wife's body, and thus hate your wife? No. You would love your wife and her body, perhaps even more than before, when you saw her under attack from the cancer. You would want to fight the cancer - chemotherapy, radiation, surgery - anything to get rid of the cancer and bring your wife back to full health and vigor.
This is exactly the situation in the Church today. The Church has cancer. Bad. Fully metastasized, all over-type cancer. It is called Marxist-homosexualism, and the cancer was first observed and diagnosed 45 years ago. Sadly, instead of clinging to the Bride of Christ and fighting the cancer, some people abandoned Her, claiming that the cancer WAS her body, instead of just an invading infection. Others left out of indifference. Others stayed and embraced the cancer as a "good thing" and "progress". A tiny, tiny contingent stayed, held Her hand, and have lovingly administered as much medicinal therapy to her as they possibly could.
The Williamson wing of the SSPX hates the Bride of Christ and will never rejoin her no matter what, because they are too prideful and dim to make the distinction between the Body and the cancer. They want a new wife, one of their own making, and "cancer free." And that is what they will get, but they will quickly find out that their new bride isn't really a bride at all, but just another cheap whore. A true and loving Bride with a bad case of cancer beats a whore in her prime.
So, Fellay needs to get back into the Church ASAP, and let the chips fall where they may with the SSPXers. Even if it is just Fellay and one other person coming back into the Church, it will be worth it for that ONE person, and Fellay will have done his job as a shepherd. Our Lord made clear that men will be sifted. People will have to choose. Wheat or chaff? Sheep or goats? This is one of those "siftings."
Get back in the Barque of Peter, Bishop Fellay and all SSPXers of good will, of which there are many. Because the gates of hell and its cancer WILL NOT PREVAIL. There is going to be a miraculous cure, and your Bride wants you there to share in the joy of the healing, which is explicitly guaranteed by Our Lord Himself.
Link:
Wednesday, June 13, 2012
SSPX
Updates via RORATE CÆLI:
[1930 Rome time - Update] "Vatican meeting w/ +Fellay reported over after 2.5 hours. He went other direction to avoid press. No word yet on if anything resolved." (Catholic News Service Twitter feed)
[1950 Rome time - Update] "The response of Benedict XVI to the 'Lefebvrists' not to be known before the weekend." "Bp. Fellay will have some days to put his signature on the text" (SSPX spokesman Fr. Lorans, to Agence France Presse - LB2S Twitter feed (La Croix religion journalist) Lorans added that "it will be a week-10 days before further moves, today was just a step in the process" (A.Speciale Twitter feed)
Link:
[1930 Rome time - Update] "Vatican meeting w/ +Fellay reported over after 2.5 hours. He went other direction to avoid press. No word yet on if anything resolved." (Catholic News Service Twitter feed)
[1950 Rome time - Update] "The response of Benedict XVI to the 'Lefebvrists' not to be known before the weekend." "Bp. Fellay will have some days to put his signature on the text" (SSPX spokesman Fr. Lorans, to Agence France Presse - LB2S Twitter feed (La Croix religion journalist) Lorans added that "it will be a week-10 days before further moves, today was just a step in the process" (A.Speciale Twitter feed)
Link:
Saturday, May 26, 2012
SSPX Unification Postponed?
At The Eponymous Flower, a report from Kreuz.net:
(kreuz.net) Pope Benedict XVI. will only take care of the dossier
"Society of St. Pius" in summer vacation -- therefore after the High
Feast of St. Peter and Paul.
This is what Europe's largest Catholic internet site 'kreuz.net' has learned from Vatican circles.
Because of the current difficult inner-Church situation that is involved with the reconciliation with the SSPX must be immediately managed before there can be a unification.
Till now observers originally thought that the Vatican would have made known the reconciliation between the Holy See and the Society of St. Pius X on Pentecost.
Links:
(kreuz.net) Pope Benedict XVI. will only take care of the dossier
"Society of St. Pius" in summer vacation -- therefore after the High
Feast of St. Peter and Paul.This is what Europe's largest Catholic internet site 'kreuz.net' has learned from Vatican circles.
Because of the current difficult inner-Church situation that is involved with the reconciliation with the SSPX must be immediately managed before there can be a unification.
Till now observers originally thought that the Vatican would have made known the reconciliation between the Holy See and the Society of St. Pius X on Pentecost.
Links:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)