SSPX: More Ordinations & More Vatican Talks – Connected?
On December 20, 2014, Ember Saturday in Advent, His Excellency Bishop Bernard Fellay ordained three new priests at Our Lady co-redemptrix Seminary of La Reja (Argentina). 
The SSPX General Superior also conferred the diaconate to a 5th year Argentinian seminarian.
The new priests are: Rev. Fathers Felipe de Echazu (Argentina), Fernando Mönckeberg (Chile) and Santiago Villanueva (Argentina). Click here to see slide-show.
Comment
The above news of yet more SSPX ordinations together with the meeting on December 5, 2014, between Cardinal Walter Brandmüller, president emeritus of the Pontifical Committee for Historical Sciences, and Bishop Bernard Fellay, superior general of the Priestly Society of St. Pius X, might lead one to the conclusion that there is reason to hope that the Vatican authorities are recognising the importance of the Society and wish to bring it “within the walls” asap – if not sooner… Comments invited.
Comments (76)
Surely, the wrong question!
Should +Fellay [and ourselves] trust Franciscus and his nest of vipers? The more appropriate question, with an obvious answer.
That is not even to consider the issues of the German & Continental Hierarchies/Conferences, not to mention those in the UK.
Msgr. Lefebvre’s wisdom is confirmed, day-by-day.
All that said, the “Traditional” orders and individual clergy must come together for mutual comfort and survival.
I disagree, I think it’s a fair question to ask and I, for one, do think there is a connection between the obvious growing success of the SSPX and the Vatican’s desire to keep the lines of communication open with them. They wouldn’t be bothering if the SSPX was failing. It’s obvious that Bishop Fellay doesn’t trust the Pope – he called him an “outright modernist” so he knows who he is dealing with.
I don’t think the “traditional” orders will come together with the SSPX as they don’t want to be tainted by association, IMHO.
MM:
You avoid my question – should +Fellay trust Franciscus, not to mention the plethora of Bishops’ Conferences which are Modernist to the core? No one is denying the growth of SSPX, – but in the UK?
When Fr. Black was Superior in the UK, there was cordial relations with diocesan clergy and I understand that is also the situation, where applicable, in the Asiatic/Australasian areas and also with FSSP there.
What of the attack by Franciscus of FFI? Do you really want to embrace Rome as it is now being constituted. My God, even the diocesan clergy and some bishops are even speaking-out against what is emanating from the lips and actions of Franciscus. There is an awakening recognition of de facto schism within Mother Church.
For the record, I generally hear Mass at my local parish church, because I trust implicitly the PP.
Sixupman,
The argument, implicit in your question, that the SSPX should have nothing to do with “modernist Rome” is one which always reminds me of the “we mustn’t talk to terrorists” mantra.
If there is one person/group we need to talk to, big time, it’s terrorists, murderers, wrong doers of every hue – otherwise, we are complicit in their crimes. We have to persuade them, teach them, why their behaviour is evil. “Society” already does communicate with evil-doers, via the penal system, so the high-handed and essentially daft position of not talking to the “bad guys” is quite a novelty in itself. If the SSPX took up that position with regard to the Vatican, it would make no sense.
God gave us the Society for the purpose of helping us through this crisis in the Church. It is a ludicrous position to hold that the Superior General should refuse to discuss with the Vatican – because the Vatican/Pope need to be corrected and that’s clearly the work of the Society. Of course, if they don’t do it, God will provide another source of correction to enable the powers that be to see the error of their ways. Silence is definitely not an option. Silence, in fact, connotes consent.
I note your implicit trust in your PP who, I presume, therefore, does not permit lay people to distribute Holy Communion, does not give Communion in the hand, and offers the old rite Mass every Sunday for the benefit of parishioners like yourself who prefer to attend the ancient Mass rather than the new Mass. I can see no other reason to trust him, implicitly or otherwise. My views on diocesan priests who go along with the current scandals, liturgical included, for the sake of peace and quiet, are on the record, and don’t make for pretty reading.
Madam Editor,
I did not raise the issue of dialogue with +++Brandmuller, the issue is the “question”. As is clear, I am in favour of dialogue, but at every level of Mother Church and that includes parish level.
When I lived in the South West, I attended an SSPX every Sunday and Holyday. Eventually, I had to resort to public transport – involving leaving home at 11:00 hours and returning at circa 19:00 hours. So please do not preach to me where and when It is proper to hear Mass. On another occasion, I walked an 8 mile round trip come hail, rain or snow, as a penance, every Sunday to hear an NOM – because I would not miss Mass.
If the local PP was not who he is, I would likely never set foot in the local parish church.
Madam, as I have stated, Mother Church is in, de facto, schism – as voiced by more than one cardinal – clearly, if on, as I might put it, our side of the divide, is to be further split that would be a disaster.
I trust +Fellay’s common sense in this matter.
Lastly, I live with my great imperfections every hour of the day, but one of them is not the trust who I have placed in an 88 year old parish priest.
Sixupman,
I’m a bit confused – what is the “question” you refer to?
Sixupman,
I did not even mention where you attend Mass, let alone “preach to you when and where it is proper to attend Mass.” I asked you specific questions about your PP in the context of your statement that you have “implicit trust” in him, hoping to learn that he has refused to participate in the liturgical abuses which I listed in my reply to you at 10.32 and that he took advantage of Summorum Pontificum to offer the TLM in your parish, but the only reason you give for your “implicit trust” is that he is 88 years of age. Me, I’m not into all this ageism, racism, you name it 😀 PC. That’s moi 😀
Nonetheless, the imputation is there: that it is wrong for me to hear Mass where such practices, referred to, are prevalent. Or that I, or anyone else, is a lesser Catholic for so doing. You are not in a position to know of my personal circumstances and general judgements are odious. Stop digging!
As it happens, my PP and another, of my acquaintance, have been victimised by their respective bishops for their Traditional stances.
Is it the policy of this blog that all diocesan clergy are quasi heretics and quislings, it was certainly not the view of the sainted Msgr. Lefabvre. But let us have a vote on that position also.
Sixupman,
I find your position puzzling. You say you trust your PP but don’t want to say why. You want to defend going to the novus ordo, and yet you say that “There is an awakening recognition of de facto schism within Mother Church” . Didn’t that schism emanate from the novus ordo?
For the record, I can’t see anything on this blog that says that “all diocesan clergy are quasi heretics and quislings.” I think the general opinion (that makes sense to me BTW), is that if all these traditional leaning priests and people really do exist, why are they keeping their heads down? We know that they sometimes get stick from their bishops and others but so what? Is that a reason to stay silent? Surely the martyrs is their and our model for just this sort of situation?
I trust the PP in question because I have found him to be an holy priest of great wisdom. I can also tell you, from experience, that not all SSPX clergy are saints, they are just human and err like the rest of us.
I have no knowledge whether you are male or female, cleric or lay. But criticism of clerics not taking upon themselves the cloak of martyrdom – are you so brave? What form of martyrdom are you prepared adopt? It is easy to criticise others.
Further, are the Traditional priests, in question, to abandon their flocks to crass Modernism, or, are they to protect them and fight from the inside, gradually leading them back to sanity?
Sixupman
The clearest sign that a priest is holy and has great wisdom is that he forbids lay people from handling the Blessed Sacrament. If you have such a priest then your parish is truly blessed.
It is beyond my comprehension that any truly holy priest with divine wisdom could ever permit the illicit and abusive practice of Communion in the hand in his parish. For me, then, this is the true acid test of priestly holiness and wisdom. The Church was once full of only this kind of priest!
I have no time for Communion in the hand, et al.
That said, you are merely confirming that the general/official view of this blog is that all diocesan clergy are quasi heretics and quislings.
But answer this: would you do a deal with Franciscus? Bendict XVI, yes. Franciscus no way! But let us have an unequivocal answer from yourgoodself.
As stated, I accept +Fellay will deploy commonsense.
Sixupman
I made no such accusation against today’s parish priests. I merely highlighted the fact that, good willed as they may be, the majority fall far short of what once constituted priestly holiness and wisdom.
There are many good willed parish priests around at present, especially younger ones, but they are sadly lacking something that the pre-Vatican II priests had. This is not surprising given that most have been saturated in Modernism from infancy. It takes a very special kind of priest, exceptionally informed and dedicated, to stand up and be counted for Tradition today.
As regards your question about deals, it is far too simplistic.
First of all, the mission of the SSPX is to see full Tradition restored to the Church. So for Bishop Fellay to be able to agree terms of “reconciliation” with Rome, regardless of who the Pope is, there would have to be a certain union of minds, so to speak, between him and his interlocutors.
There are very serious theological and doctrinal questions to be aired regarding the liturgy and some of the documents of Vatican II before deals can be spoken of. If, however, the SSPX was promised absolute immunity from persecution by liberal bishops, something that neither your PP nor John Kearney’s are guaranteed, then yes, I would welcome such a turn of events as very positive and embrace it fully, even under Pope Francis.
No unequivocal answer then. So you would do a deal with Franciscus – if the terms were right. Naivete indeed.
+Fellay is on record that he does not want a diocesan status. The alternative is a non-diocesan status – independent.
Exactly the same status as FFI and look were it has got them.
Sixupman
So, what would be your suggestion for the SSPX? Are you saying that it should count all as lost so long as Francis is Pope?
BTW, the FFI was not wholly independent. It was a subsidiary of the larger liberal Franciscan Order, and as such was always vulnerable to persecution and closure. A personal prelature for the SSPX would not carry the same risks.
I would wait until the passing of Franciscus. Of course we might then get one of the disreputable Germans. But you are prepared to deal with Franciscus, whose very election is being questioned, as to validity, by serious and respected analysts. You too should stop digging.
I qualified my comment re the status of SSPX by referring to infiltration prior to Rome action against them.
PS
Whilst I never have had any time for +Williamson, but I happened to read, through an indirect link, his view on the current SSPX – Rome situation and for once in his life he might be right.
Sixupman,
My sincere apologies. I did not mean to “dig” – you are free to attend Mass wherever you wish and to implicitly trust any priest you wish to trust. I was simply interested to know why you felt so strongly about your priest but that’s your business and I do not mean to intrude.
No, it is not the policy of this blog that all diocesan clergy are quasi heretics and quislings. I’ve just lost count of the number of times diocesan Catholics have debated with me about the state of the Church in our times, and always, at some stage in the conversation, someone points out that if things were as bad as I/we say, Father X, Y or Z, invariably holy, orthodox, faithful priests, would be telling them, not Catholic Truth. So, I tend to think it would help if those who have “traditional leanings” were to “come out” of the closet, so to speak.
But then, who am I to judge?
This seems a bit different from what I’ve read before on this blog, where we are all encouraged to attend the traditional Mass especially at the SSPX churches. If we are free to choose any Mass, I think most of us would choose the local parish, it’s much easier than hunting for an SSPX place. Was that a slip of the pen, editor, or is there a change in attitude towards the novus ordo now on the blog?
MM,
Nothing has changed on this blog re. the Mass. We are always perfectly clear, so I apologise if my hasty response to Sixupman gave the wrong impression.
We’ve said over and over again that – once informed and armed with the facts about the genesis of the novus ordo – Catholics are (self-evidently) objectively obliged to avoid it. I haven’t time to go into all the usual details but they are well covered on this blog and in our newsletter.
However, once Catholics ARE informed and armed with the facts, there is nothing we can (or should do) to force the issue. They are physically (if not morally) free to choose where to attend Mass.
Sixupman has been a reader of Catholic Truth for a long time now, and he blogs, occasionally with us but also on other sites.
So, there is no question that he is informed. He knows as much as thee or me about the history of the new Mass and if he chooses to attend it, for whatever reason, that is between him and his conscience. We, at Catholic Truth, have no authority over him.
I hope that clarifies my previous statement somewhat.
What a comfort for you to all know that you are Catholics superior to the likes of Sixupman. Entirely based upon assumptions of your own making and not on facts. It is a good job I possess a wider view of what is actually taking place in Catholicism, or I would feel hurt.
As I have said “hole digging”.
This is a reply to Sixupman at 11.04 as there is no reply button at his post.
Nobody is saying anyone here is “superior” to you or to any other Catholics but the traditional Mass is superior to the novus ordo, which is why we should all attend it if at all possible.
Making ad hominem attacks instead of discussing the topic, is a mistake, IMHO. Nobody has said anything unkind or rude to you or said they were superior to you, so I can’t understand why you are so angry.
“Dig” as digging a hole for yourself.
No apologies required.
How come? I don’t see how by asking a simple question the editor dug any hole for herself.
Editor,
I agree totally. Well said. So far, the only people talking to the Vatican are the liberals and they are being heard. The Society must talk.
If +Fellay and +++Brandmuller are hatching-up a Traditional” get-together, for a post-Franciscus de tente, I agree. But what accord can be achieved with Franciscus, do you think? None, I would say.
FSSP & ICKSP are, generally, protected by various diocesan bishops – who want something from them. Basically, to get them to take-over iconic churches seen as liabilities, certainly in the case of Lancaster diocese. Shrewsbury, I would place more faith in their bishop.
But consider FFI and relate the same to SSPX. Both structures ex diocesan, all it would need with a fifth-column injected into SSPX and it would go the same way as FFI. As an SSPX canon lawyer, with actual Rome experience, told me some years ago: once in, they would chew you up and spit you out.
The game is changing. We even have voiced authoritative opinions as to the irregularity of the election of Franciscus and have, essentially, two popes extant. Where in Tradition do we have the concept of Primus Emeritus – an absolute nonsense. Are the Sedevacantist’s dream to actually materialise? The questions are endless! Old paradigms no longer apply!
Sixupman,
I don’t mean to upbraid you, but I find your comments regarding the FSSP and ICKSP as uncharitable, misguided and dare I say, cynical. Your comment suggesting that the only reason Churches are given to the FSSP and ICKSP is to prevent the Diocese worrying about them is cynical. The ICKSP was brought in to Preston and the Wirral to renovate the Church and rejuvenate parish life, which had been in decline for so many years, with dwindling congregation sizes and no vocations. The ICKSP has had immense success, with congregations in these two locations increasing to a size of several hundred in a short time, with many people travelling long distances. Likewise, the ICKSP has a reputation for liturgical excellence and renewing parishes. The Bishops of Lancaster and Shrewsbury must be praised for their long-sightedness, for looking at the long term for these two beautiful and yes, iconic, Churches. The Dioceses might not have been able to afford them, so they used their gumption, and prevailed upon the ICKSP to take the burden. So what!!! What would you rather have?? Would you rather see these Churches become Mosques or sold to the holy rollers?
Gerragrip!!!
Yet another ill-informed comment. You have no knowledge whatsoever of my relationship with ICKSP and I have no intention of disclosing the same. I have no relationship FSSP, but have heard Mass at the St. Mary Magdalen at Penwortham.
If you read what I have said, you will note that I have given you a factual history of the Preston Church: the diocese attempted to sell the building – indeed they have disposed of the valuable library attached thereto; they refused to let FSSP have the church [previous bishop], with the incomer left with a liability on his hands. ICKSP, therefore a godsend. Where is the criticism of ICKSP there.
Regarding the Wirral Church, prior to the present bishop, it was closed down. Again ICKSP to the rescue.
The incumbents of both Portsmouth & Shrewsbury stand alone from the rest of the E&W Bisbops’ Conference and are to be highly commended for that stance.
With the “resignation” of BBXVI, E&W bishops are attempting to break-up Traditional parishes: two known to me, one in the South and one in Liverpool – leaving adherents isolated. Indeed, there may be more to come.
I can see this is kick Sixupman month. It is just a pity that the criticisms have little or no foundation in fact.
Sixupman
You are being disingenuous. You have brought the criticism on yourself with your bizarre stance , unjust comments and quarrelsome disposition.
I apologise for intervening in your cosy club. But again, you know nothing about me, or my relationship with Catholic Truth for that matter.
Re-read and analyse the whole prior to commenting. There are those who like to dish it out, but cannot take it.
As I have said “weasel words”.
Sixupman
Again I’m utterly baffled. You criticise us, very unjustly, for being a cosy club, but that’s exactly what you want the SSPX to be!
I’m sorry but I do not have the time or inclination to carry on indulging your quarrelsome nature. If you actually attended a traditional parish you might not be so confused and incoherent.
God bless.
Again ill-informed! Read what I have said, which is exactly the opposite of SSPX being a cosy club. I have suggested they form alliances with other Traditional clergy and Orders. But not with Franciscus, which you seem to support.
You need to get out into the wider Traditional world.
Sixupman,
“…you know nothing about me, or my relationship with Catholic Truth for that matter.”
Allow me to explain to the others that you have always – for as long as I can remember – been a staunch supporter of Catholic Truth. I have always greatly valued your support in its every aspect.
That’s why I am puzzled and dismayed at the way you appear to be picking up comments in a way that is not intended by the authors.
Let’s put it all down to some sort of misunderstanding which has gone off the rails 😀
That can happen so easily, so if you would allow me to suggest that we all just start again, ignoring what has happened through some degree of misunderstanding and we can get our discussions back on track.
Honestly, everyone, Sixupman is an excellent member of our broader CT team – in fact, he’s well on his way to getting to the top of the pay scale and only missed getting his Christmas bonus by a hair’s breadth!
Without reading over everything again, I suspect we got off on the wrong foot when you thought we were looking down on Catholics who attend the NO – but as someone who attended it myself for 20 years when I lived in England, when I could have, with a bit of effort, travelled to the TLM in another nearby city, I really can’t go about the place looking down on anybody for that (or any other) reason.
So, please, let’s leave it there, Sixupman, and put all this unpleasantness down to a genuine misunderstanding – you can even blame me. Everyone else does, so why not you! 😀
Sixupman
I think you mean Pope Francis. I dislike this habit of calling the Pope by his first name, even if it is in Latin 😉
Are you a convert to the Faith? You are displaying a strange attitude towards the Holy Father.
This is a reply to Petrus @ 8.47pm as there is no reply button at that post.
Editor has asked us to not continue the unpleasantness with Sixupman so I think you need to stop stirring which is what your post @8.47.pm seems to be doing. Editor suggests we start afresh, and I think it is a good idea as it’s not charitable to keep niggling.
Fidelis,
I am not stirring at all. I think it’s an important point. I must say it’s very uncharitable to attempt to assign motive.
I do dislike it when someone comes on and says “Editor has said we’ve to stop so I think you should “. It always reminds me of how little children behave when they are arguing.
Editor,
Please don’t smack me!!! 😉
Ed, re your reply to Sixupman.
I always remember Margaret Thatcher announcing on TV that we must refer to Bin Laden as a freedom fighter, not a terrorist. Maybe she didn`t wish Bin to be given the same title that she (should have) had, especially in Argentina.
I agree, like you, that you must always have dialogue with terrorists but the only problem is that the real terrorists, like Britain and America, have to be brought to their knees before they start talking to those they are terrorising.
Since you have brought up the T word, I wonder if you would mind, when you have the time, to check back on your reply to me on the 21 December thread at 9.08 pm when I was wrongly accused of using the same word for no apparent reason. It was regarding my answer to CCs post at 8.52 pm.
I was a bit “annoyed” (interpret that as you wish) to be scolded for something of which I was completely innocent. I accept that you may have read CCs post in a hurry but If I was ever in that type of situation I would certainly re-read an article before I made false accusations.
Meanwhile, a Happy New Year and enjoy CCs future “pearls of wisdom.”
.
Frankier,
I have now re-read the post from CC and apologise profusely for my mistake in not noticing that he did, in fact, use the word “terrorist” at the end of his very lengthy post. It’s a pity that you didn’t simply quote the sentence which I’d missed which would have allowed me to apologise profusely at the time, but I am not trying to shift the blame. It was inexcusable of me to have made that mistake and I just cannot apologise enough. I did not mean to make any “false accusations” – it was an honest mistake.
Unfortunately, due to various circumstances which are outwith my control, I just do not have the time to read everything twice at the present time and if I don’t comment on the blog, I start to receive emails and texts from kind readers hoping I am all right, so I try my best to keep on top of everything. I don’t mean to make excuses. I was totally in the wrong to have made that mistake. I think I was really more keen to demonstrate to CC the fact that, at the end of my speed reading of his comment, I didn’t really think his post WAS full of “pearls of wisdom” but maybe that escaped your notice because you were so (understandably) annoyed at my mistake. The word “terrorist” is actually there. I didn’t notice it. I sincerely apologise.
I had no intention of causing you any annoyance so please accept my sincere apologise and best wishes for a very happy new year.
God bless.
Ed
I don`t accept your apology. No way!
Naw. I`m only joking, it is fully accepted and I understand.
I also appreciate the fact that you don`t wish to debate too much on that issue but CC, God bless him, will need to realise that people like myself of Irish extraction are descended from so called “terrorists” who fought for the freedom to allow them to practice their Catholic Faith, among other things.
Anyway, no hard feelings.
Ed
I forgot to mention that that I was too late to mention it at the time.
Sixupman,
I think the question you pose is premature. Let us wait and see what these discussions lead to, if anything, before getting into the heavier stuff of whether or not Francis can be trusted. It may be that Pope Francis is not the one driving these new discussions!
Talking to Rome is always, always, always to be encouraged, if only for the benefit of the doctrinal clarity that the SSPX will bring to the post-conciliar table.
My intervention was in relation to the question.
The other aspects merely arising from the response to that intervention.
But with whom, exactly, is +Fellay negotiating/discussing: +++Brandmuller as a proxy for Franciscus, or, +++Brandmuller, purely as CDF?
I do mean to be funny, but please stop calling the Pope ‘Franciscus’. Obviously, his name in Latin is Franciscus, but unless you are going to write all of your posts entirely in Latin, please call the Pope by his English name. I’m not victimising you, but its very annoying.
God bless dear friend!
OMG a pedant!
Is OMG really appropriate on a Catholic blog?
Pardon me good sir, that should say ‘I don’t mean…’. Anyway, I’m sorry you have taken umbrage, but I meant no offence.
@SIXUPMAN Hear, hear!
I voted no because I don’t believe the Vatican is “keen” to regularise the SSPX (far to the opposite in fact). It may, however, feel it is politic to do so. I hope and pray that such is the case.
I think the Vatican is keen to “regularise” the SSPX so they can muzzle them. Just like what happened to the “reconciled” Redemptorists in Orkney. Yes, dialogue is good but capitulation is not!
I agree with Helen’s sentiments. As a Traditional Catholic it makes me very sad that most modern Catholics do not appear to be aware of and care about the really important matters of faith. They seem completely unaware that a believing Catholic views “the world” (mammon) in a completely different light to those who do not have the Catholic faith. I think that recognition from Rome would be a good thing, and hopefully would lead to more faithful coming to the Society (because they would no longer be “schismatics”), but I hope that + Fellay will be careful not to compromise any article of the Catholic faith in talks with Rome. The very reason that Catholics would attend the TLM would be because they do not wish to attend a liturgy that is to a greater or lesser degree modernist in character.
I voted yes because I believe that Rome wants to bring the sspx eventually under its jurisdiction. At the moment it’s as if there two different religions modern Rome & traditional Catholics and the gap is forever widening.
I remember a sermon by a sspx bishop who likened the society as a pilot lamp to keep the faith going for when Rome eventually regains the faith.
Rome in my opinion wants to snuff out the pilot lamp and bring the sspx in under any conditions the society would ask for then over time slowly try and change them.
But i do agree with Athanasius that they cannot refuse to talk to Rome even if they do seem to talk a different language.
Again I have to say the unpopular things members of the SSPX do not want to hear. The vast majority of mainstream Catholics do not even know the SSPX exist. We have the SSPX in Highclere about 15 miles from my parish but perhaps only myself and about 6 others know it is there. The good fight must be fought from within the Church. We have a good bishop in Portsmouth who would accommodate therm and indeed by joining mainstream they would be allowed to practice the Catholic Faith as they are and continue as they are. You cannot change everytihing overnight so you set targets. At the moment in my parish it is Catechesis we know if we get that right then other things can follow. If we ask for a facility at the altar for the older people to kneel we will do so knowing that experience shows 75 per cent of people eventually kneel. We have to be cunning like the serpent. If the only condition of the SSPX is that everything must change immediately then you are dreaming. Sorry again for causing anger but this is the reality though I know you all work very hard and have great faith.
Exactly!
John Kearney
Despite hysterical rhetoric to the contrary, the SSPX has always fought the fight for the Faith from within the Church. Who could be more “in full communion” with the Church and the Papacy than those who have changed nothing of the Faith handed down unaltered for two thousand years?
It is precisely those who have altered the Faith in so destructive a way and brought the Church to her knees who are not in full communion, including those who go along with the destruction for fear of liberal persecution.
The times I’ve heard Catholics talk about fighting from within the liberal establishment, trying to excuse what is just false obedience to abusive authority.
You speak, John Kearney, about making little steps forward in your parish with Catechesis and perhaps a place for older people to kneel for Holy Communion, etc. What, are you mad? You should be demanding these basics of the Catholic religion for all and calling for the eviction of any priest who dares not comply. This is your right and duty before God and souls depend on it. Why are you pandering to liberal priests for wee concessions here and their in things that are yours by right? Get yourself off to a Traditional Mass chapel and stop pretending that what you’re fighting for the Faith from within your liberal parish. One does not fight for the Faith cap in hand to liberals!
I think what John Kearney means is that it will have to be put back in the same
sly way (if sly is the right word) that it was demolished. It certainly won`t happen without small steps.
You couldn`t sculpt a statue with a JCB.
To “get yourself off to a traditional Mass chapel” couldn`t be more simple if there was one around every corner, however ………………….
Another purveyor of ‘home truths’!
I was beginning to think I was isolated.
With all due respect to Sixupman, I think parts of this discussion have been the most bizarre thing I’ve ever read. We have someone who attends the New Massacre praising Bishop Williamson and urging Bishop Fellay not to talk to modernist Rome! Truly I have seen it all.
Of course we must talk to the Vatican authorities. Where is our charity? The SSPX does not exist to provide a private members club. It exists to be of service to the Church.
When is the penny going to drop that Bishop Fellay is not daft? He knows what he is doing and is truly of the same spirit as Archbishop Lefebvre. We’ve seen this jumping the gun time and time again. Let’s just wait and see what happens.
Petrus,
I agree with your every word – Sixupman’s posts have amazed me, too. How anyone can be impressed with Bishop Williamson is just beyond belief. Before he was expelled from the SSPX he showed himself to be completely arrogant and disobedient towards his legitimate Superior. Having been a convert who has never known what it is like to be a Catholic in normal times, I think he was a dreadful choice for bishop. However, when this was pointed out before, someone (I think it was Athanasius) pointed out that Our Lord had chosen Judas so we can’t really blame Archbishop Lefebvre for having chosen + Williamson! LOL!
He caused the unrest that led to the rebels splitting from the SSPX and now he’s trying to say he’s not the leader. I’ve no time for him, sorry.
Please do not put words into my mouth – you have no knowledge of mycritical exchanges with +Williamson, further, I stated I have never had any time for +Williamson. But he has commented upon the Franciscus situation and as I stated, for once he appears to have been correct in his assessment. Twisting my words demeans you.
Sixupman,
I appreciate, as I’m sure all other bloggers do, that you are not pro-Bishop Williamson. However, I would caution against quoting even his more reasonable remarks since they always proceed from a mindset that is anti-Roman.
Bishop Williamson has never known what it’s like to be subject to the Pope’s authority – his Anglican upbringing having been distinctly anti-Papal. I think he still suffers a bit of a hangover from that early formation of thought and therefore finds it much easier than his contemporary cradle Catholics to be excessively suspicious and dismissive of the Pope and the hierarchy to the point of formal schism. His temperament also inclines him to harsh judgment, which doesn’t help matters one little bit. My personal experience is that his followers are likewise very harsh and cultish in their judgments and behaviour. Tragic, but there it is.
Post Falls situation was the result of the +Williamson approach and some of the adherents are still within The Society and having status. He created a following where he was a sort of demagogue.
Sixupman,
I can’t disagree with your Post Falls analysis, although I think that particular influence is now fading very fast.
I pray that it is so. I was in church at Preston, all those years ago, when an ashen-faced priest disclosed that Fr. John Rizzo had been called back to America. No explanation given. Fr. Rizzo was well respected whilst at Preston and his subsequent treatment, by the +Williamson clique, was a blot on the reputation of SSPX.
Interestingly, now in the Far East and Australasia [with FSSP], he has cordial relations with the SSPX contingent out there.
Athanasius,
you rightly state in your reply to John Kearney (Jan, 7, 7:51 pm): “Who could be more “in full communion” with the Church and the Papacy than those who have changed nothing of the Faith handed down unaltered for two thousand years?”
Therefore, Bp. Williamson must have had ample opportunity – having been a member of the Society for many years – to internalize the meaning of being subject to papal authority.
By stating, as you do here, that “Bishop Williamson has never known what it’s like to be subject to the Pope’s authority”, you seem to contradict your previous statement. This creates – no doubt, unintentionally – the false impression that the SSPX as such does not submit to the authority of the Pope.
Considering your remarks in their entirety, I think that what you were trying to convey is that Bp. Williamson’s anti-Roman early upbringing prevented him to fully grasp the meaning of being subject to the Roman Pontiff.
JoannesRomanus,
Thank you for being good enough to clarify what I meant to say re Bishop Williamson. I was of course speaking of Bishop Williamson as an individual, not in relation to the SSPX, although I can see now that some might make a wrong association between the two by the way I worded my comments. Well spotted!
Have Bishops Fellay and De Galarreta ever known Catholicism in its normal time? They were only born in 1956 and 1957 respectively, and thus were only children when the Modernists wrought their destruction/
CC,
The difference with those two bishops is that they were born into Catholic families which presumably understood and conveyed to them the absolute necessity of love for, and loyalty to, the Petrine See. The point is that early formation can be crucial to later life attitudes.
See my response to Fidelis re +Williamson. Clearly you think I require to be shriven for attending an NOM – yet you have no knowledge of my personal circumstances – as I have stated a large number of subscribers count themselves superior to mere
pew fodder like myself.
I have never denigrated +Fellay and have rested upon his commonsense prevailing.
It appears you are all prepared to deal with Franciscus, but not forge alliances with national Traditional clergy and Traditional Orders, to be prepared for that which might follow Franciscus, and remain on the appropriate side within the de facto schism currently developing within Mother Church.
What about the quislings who take the ‘SSPX shilling’ yet support +Williamson – even among the clergy, yet you will still defer to them.
This blog, over the years, has adopted the mantle of a community of mutual satisfaction and self-congratulation – Post Falls Catholicism comes to Scotland.
Sixupman,
Your remarks about this blog and its contributors are extremely unjust and unkind, not at all like you. Post Falls has not come to Scotland, I assure you of that. But I will say in all honesty that I’ve noticed a distinct hardening in your position over the last few days, and dare I say no little evidence of a developing persecution complex. I’ve seen this kind of thing develop in people before and I caution you to resist it vigorously.
I should point out that in Scotland the SSPX has forged relations with Traditional-leaning clergy, which, as far as I know, continue in mutual charity and respect. I think you have it all wrong.
Sixupman
I don’t consider myself superior to you, or to anyone. I applaud the fact that you have retained your Catholic faith under extremely trying circumstances, and without the regular consolation of attending a Traditional Mass. Not too many people have managed to do that, and it reflects so well on your love and loyalty for the Faith. I think there is room for a two-pronged attack on the enemies of Truth, and if there are people who attend the NO who still hold in their hearts to Tradition and work quietly to influence others, then I say God bless them and reward their patience.
We all seek the restoration of sanity and Truth, and the last thing we need to do is to fall out with each other – even when we provoke and are provoked by our beleaguered little band of faithful. Only Satan can win in that scenario.
God bless.
~Therese~
Thank you, but not the general trend here.
I think the Vatican is keen to regularise the Society. Otherwise, I don’t think either party would waste their time with “show talks”. Increasingly, Catholic bloggers (including clergy) are saying the Church needs what the SSPX has to offer. Fr Z, who is very popular globally among conservative Catholics, (“NeoCons”), has stated this openly.
Increasingly, the writing is on the wall for the post-conciliar Church – notably in France where already predictions are being made openly as to when Catholicism will over-take Roman Protestantism in the coming decades (in terms of number of priests etc). The Post-Conciliar Church will go over a cliff in the coming decade or two. Again to use France as an example, it has 14,000 diocesan priests – over half of whom are older than 75.
I think these trends are what is starting to make tradition more palatable to certain powers that be. I noted with the Cardinal Brandmuller meeting, the stated aim was (paraphrasing) “to make the hierarchy more aware of the works of tradition” – which suggests to me that previously the hierarchy was somewhat ignorant about the SSPX, or at least had a blase attitude towards it. I note further meetings are scheduled at two additional SSPX seminaries.
It interesting to look back to the start of the issues between the Vatican and SSPX and note how – in only a few decades – the Vatican has had to continually roll back / soften its stance, while the SSPX have remained unflinching. The fruits of this SSPX steadfastness have included the rescinding of the excommunication of its Bishops and also – for the wider Church – Summorum Pontificum.
Ultimately, the fruit will be the regularisation of the Society, on terms acceptable to Bishop Fellay and compatible with tradition. I hope this time arrives sooner, rather than later. I think that the Vatican has entered a “face saving” phase, where it is preparing the ground for regularisation without losing too much face wrt its previously hardline / unfair position.
Gabriel Syme,
I agree entirely. Maybe the Francis Pontificate, and particularly that infamous Synod, has obliged a few in the hierarchy to finally open their eyes! At any rate, the discussions will continue until a resolution favourable to the SSPX, and ultimately for the good of the Church, is reached.
Sixupman,
I’m not really sure what you expect from the bloggers here. You attend the New Mass because your circumstances mean you can’t attend the true Mass. Fine. I don’t think you will find anyone here criticising you for that. You attend a modern parish and submit to a modern priest, albeit a well meaning priest, whom you describe as very Holy (I don’t know if you have answered the questions on whether he permits liturgical abuses, but that would be interesting). Fine. Again, this is your choice and you won’t find anyone overly criticising you for this.
However, you also appear unwilling to submit to the Pope and even appear unwilling to deal with him. How on earth do you think The Church will get back to its senses if the very organisation God has given to rescue it, the SSPX, won’t even speak to the Supreme Pontiff? When the Pope asks for talks, the SSPX, like all loyal sons, must speak.
On one hand, you accuse the bloggers here of being some sort of inclusive clique, but then go on to suggest that that is what the SSPX should be and we shouldn’t deal with “Franciscus”. I don’t see any real logic here.
You appear quick to take offence and your accusations are manifestly unjust. Many of the Catholic Truth bloggers support Traditional diocesan priests and attend the Traditional Mass celebrated by such priests. As Athanasius has said, the SSPX in Scotland have been very helpful towards traditional leaning clergy.
Gabriel makes some excellent points too. Look at the softening of the Vatican position over the years. This has only been possible because the SSPX has engaged in discussions, without compromising. The logical consequence of this will be the regularisation of the SSPX on its own terms.
Again, I find it hard to see what your issue is. My understanding of the role of the SSPX (and Catholic Truth) is to cling unceasingly to Tradition, resist modern errors and be of service to others – which will ultimately allow them to do likewise. To resist without charity only leads to bitterness.
I’m not going to hold my breath over this meeting and I do not believe that it will lead to any further ‘improvements’ regarding the SSPX and its canonical position. Under the Franciscan Pontificate, which is, to use Bishop Fellay’s words, ‘100% Modernist’, there will be no ‘faculties’ granted, nor Diocesan incardinations and most definitely not a personal prelature vis a vis Opus Dei. Likewise, Cardinal Brandmuller is not really a major figure, and never has been. In his role in the Holy See, he was only President of the Pontifical Committee for Historical Sciences, and was elevated to the Sacred College in 2010, when he was over 80, so has never voted in a conclave. He has however celebrated Mass in the Traditional Rite. I would say its positive, but its nothing to write home about. If it was Cardinal Ranjith, then maybe we could start rubbing our hands.
I think we’ve more or less run out of steam on this subject, so I’ll close the thread now with thanks to all who contributed to the topic.
Comments are closed.