Disastrous Pontificate Persists – Yet No Sense of Urgency From “Opponents”…editor
A friend rang me last night to say he’d attended a Summorum Pontificum Traditional Mass and found himself chatting afterwards with a couple who were not husband and wife, but “partners” … My friend was downhearted, dispirited that even the better priests seem to be willing to tolerate such scandals.
Then this from The American Conservative: “The president of the German Bishops’ Conference has declared that, in his view, Catholic priests can conduct blessing ceremonies for homosexual couples.”
The list of scandalous words and actions from this current shocking pope, or tolerated by him, grows day and daily. Too much to list here – and anyway, would, more likely than not, be out of date before I press the “publish” button on this page.
There is no lack of evidence that Pope Francis is a danger to Catholic Faith and Morals. Quite the reverse – there’s an abundance of evidence. Even as I type this, a report has come in questioning the pope’s integrity – would he blatantly impart falsehoods, we have to ask? Click here to answer that for yourself.
The question is, why are the supposedly concerned bishops who allegedly oppose him remaining silent – such as Cardinal Burke and the Captain and Crew of the Lifeboat SSPX? Why no sense of urgency? Why have they all gone to ground?
It’s one thing to pick one’s fights, but not to fight at all? Take a few minutes to view the short video in the News section of the Dici website here. Who, on this earth, would ever imagine that the Church is suffering the worst crisis ever in its entire history, watching that broadcast? Lovely reports, sure, but there’s been nothing about any attempt to fight as members of the Church Militant, under our banner as Soldiers of Christ, in any of the recent videos posted on Dici in January, which I’ve viewed with surprise and disappointment. This latest one, linked above, dated 2nd February, is no different. Plenty of devotional content, suggesting the danger of becoming so heavenly minded that we’re no earthly use.
What should the supposed opponents of this dreadful pontificate be doing, in addition to prayer. Concrete action, surely – but what, precisely?
Blatantly imparting falsehoods used to be known as LYING…..and as a child I was told that a lie was a SIN, a black mark on your soul and you would go to the Bad Fire !
The problem we have here is that even pre-conciliar theology manuals had no real guidance on what to do when a pope turned out to be a lying scheister with a doubtful grip on reality who was prepared to discuss and tolerate any heresy or form of deviancy that one could care to imagine.
We are facing the moment which “evolutionary psychology” would depict as the encounter of the primitive group of apes with the biggest snake they have ever seen and no known means to kill it or make it go away. They stand there watching and gibbering, keeping their distance, but they just don’t know what to do so they are frozen in a state of bewildered fascination.
What is needed is for one brave individual to go out there and crush its head – metaphorically-speaking, of course.
Well, Bishop Fellay said early on in this pontificate that Francis was an “outright modernist”. He should have kept saying it, every time there was another shocker, but he seems to have gone quiet, and the same can be said for Cardinal Burke and Bishop Schneider. I wonder if it’s just battle fatigue and they can’t be bothered any more. Just as well they didn’t make marriage vows, LOL!
I agree, Bishop Fellay should just have kept right on calling Francis an “outright modernist” every time he spouted an error. That would have consoled us, if nothing else. Pope Francis can’t take criticism, by all accounts, but I’d hate to think the Bishop (Fellay or any other bishop) was keeping silent to appease him.
primitive group of apes with the biggest snake they have ever seen and no known means to kill it or make it go away. They stand there watching and gibbering, keeping their distance, but they just don’t know what to do so they are frozen in a state of bewildered fascination.
A tremendous analogy!
While Francis is a disaster for the Church, he has accordingly been the darling of the secular media for his ceaseless work to undermine orthodoxy and his frequent attacks on faithful Catholics.
However, I wonder if his honeymoon with the media is finally over, as this story highlights that Cardinal O’Malley and Francis have contradicted each other regarding sex abuse (pederasty) in Chile. If the facts are true, then it seems Francis has lied that no Chilean victim has ever come forward to complain about a domestic cover-up – when, according to O’Malley, he personally handed an 8 page victim’s letter on the subject to Francis in 2015.
Of course, the media do not care a jot about victims of abuse and only use their plight as a vehicle for attacking the Church. And so I can only assume this article is a warning shot at Francis for not wrecking things fast enough.
Apparently both Francis and O’Malley are both now blanking calls for clarification.
Thank you for posting that Daily Mail version of the report which I linked in the introduction – link in full posted here for ease of reference
The photos in the Daily Mail report are devastating proof of the dishonesty at work here.
Unlike St Miguel, I’ve trained myself not to accuse anyone of lying (not even the Pope! Priceless!) because – unless he has had the truth pointed out to him and persists with the falsehood – we can never be certain that he has deliberately lied, as opposed to stating something that is not true – a falsehood.
I know, I know…I have the makings of a top defence lawyer, if not a High Court Judge… 😀
Dear Madame Editor,
Here’s what the (US) National Review posted:
The last sentence says it all.
In Christ the King,
Here is a very typical, if unwitting (I’m not sure) muddying of the waters. Here’s why the majority of contemporary Catholics are confused and many do not see anything wrong with Papa Francis.
Bishop John Keenan of Paisley calls for support for a Rosary on the Coast in the UK, to help our countries of the UK to end secularism blah blah. That is the enemy conjured up to fight – secularism, not the Enemy Within…
As if the world in the first century wasn’t secular! As if the world inhabited by Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs and Protestants of every hue, isn’t secular. One despairs… On really does…
Remember, Bishop John Keenan, on his appointment as Bishop of Paisley, stated that he wanted to “bring Pope Francis’ vision” to Paisley. In other words, he’s never going to support a Rosary crusade (or a Catholic Truth conference) designed to tackle the crisis in the Church. The secular world is a much easier, softer and more popular target, despite his long face and studiously serious demeanour as he speaks to the camera. Doesn’t seem to realise that if the Church were in her proper state of good health, there may not be any need for a Rosary on the Coast for that intention. So, here, in this short video, as in the Bishop’s welcome to Nicola Sturgeon to speak to Catholic teachers and priests (which he sees as a “milestone”), we find yet another example of the Blind leading the Blind. I rest my case…
If His Lordship wants to bring Pope Francis vision to Paisley, shouldn’t he be wearing blinders? Or at least, sunglasses with rainbow frames….
Spot on, again! If we can find some of those rainbow sunglasses, we’ll send them as a gift to Bishop Keenan. I remember a photo of a bishop — from Latin America, I think? – wearing them, so the craze might well catch on…
Here you go:
That’s the one!
I don’t see the point in opposing the “secular world” when every move made by Rome is one of embracing and conforming to the “secular world”.
This is just one more example of the cognitive dissonance which is infecting the Church and which is rendering her obsolete and irrelevant. The fight against secularism, if it is to be fought at all, must begin within the Church herself otherwise we are reduced to men from La Mancha tilting at windmills.
Well said. I do wonder about Bishop Keenan.
There he is in the video bemoaning the “ever more draconian political encroaches into ordinary people’s lives” while elsewhere (his Facebook page) welcoming the Chief Architect of the Named Person Scheme (described in the Supreme Court in London as more typical of the kind of system that would operate in a tyrannical dictatorship than an alleged democracy), Nicola Sturgeon to deliver the annual Cardinal Winning address to Catholic educators. She is manifestly one of the those responsible for “draconian political encroaches into ordinary people’s lives” through, I repeat, the sinister Named Person Scheme, designed to oversee (and intrude into, where deemed necessary) ordinary family life. So, what is going through Bishop Keenan’s mind when he speaks of these “draconian political encroaches into ordinary people’s lives”?
Why doesn’t he see the contradictions in his own words?
What’s “courageous” about organising a public rosary?
It’s not so long since Catholic Truth led a public rosary outside the Cambuslang church where the priest was encouraging LGBT people – nobody said that was courageous!
Good point. In fact, certain of those groups of faithful who have long been shy of criticising the hierarchy, especially the modern popes, have made an industry out of organising public rosaries. That’s not a criticism – good for them for undertaking such an important apostolate – but, having participated in a few myself, I’ve never thought that “courage” was necessary. However, I’m willing to concede that for some people, it may well be a courageous act.
I couldn’t agree more. Bishop Keenan also said he wanted to be very “light of foot” as he got to know the diocese. Paisley needs a sledgehammer, not a light foot!
this is a very typical mentality all over the place, going in on tip-toe if you’re a manager, for example, sounding out situations etc, all to avoid giving the impression that you are someone in charge. I think it’s counter-productive because I’ve witnessed situations where a manager can’t later on get control of her staff. Setting out the stall, used to be the fashion for managers and I think it’s much better. A new bishop going in “light foot” only makes him vulnerable to being influenced in the wrong way and gives the impression that he is weak and won’t make changes that are necessary.
Did you see the credit at the end of the Bishop Keenan video, thanking the World Apostolate of Fatima? I seem to remember we had a discussion thread on them a while back, as they are not at all kosher on Fatima.
Yes, I did see that, but if my memory is correct, the WAF merely helped provide some graphics. Anyway, the point of posting the video was simply to show the way those regarded as the “good” bishops just don’t get it. They talk about fixing the secular world with no mention of fixing the terrible pontificate of Francis the First (and we hope, Last…)
True or False Pope? describes very clearly what the hierarchy should be doing – i.e. calling a Council to try this Pope on charges of heresy (and corruption) – but are not. There are probably several reasons for this: spinelessness, faithlessness, fear of losing their comfy benefices, perhaps some false concept of “prudence”…..
Or even, like that Fr. Weinandy we discussed not long ago, who, after he had made his devastating letter to the Pope public, said that he had been waiting for a sign from Heaven to act. As if we haven’t had signs on a daily basis! Earth to hierarchy…no, make that: Heaven to hierarchy….come in, hierarchy!
One can only hope there is something developing out of the public eye that will soon appear, but I’m not holding my breath.
I wish I was a person of influence rather than an indignant old schlepp typing on a keyboard, because if I was I would be raising Holy Hell around the globe, 24/7, about the betrayal of the Chinese faithful by this Judas Pope. Luckily for you, Francis, I’m a nobody, so count your blessings while you’re counting your illegal slush fund euros from George Soros.
As for the SSPX, perhaps they have grown a little too comfortable and xenophobic themselves, and overripe in their perennial status of “Church Irregular,” and have forgotten what it means to be “Church Militant.” Prayer without action doesn’t cut it, boys.
Brilliant comment. Just brilliant. I laughed out loud at this nugget:
“Or even, like that Fr. Weinandy we discussed not long ago, who, after he had made his devastating letter to the Pope public, said that he had been waiting for a sign from Heaven to act. As if we haven’t had signs on a daily basis! Earth to hierarchy…no, make that: Heaven to hierarchy….come in, hierarchy!”
Hilarious! As for “signs on a daily basis” – spot on!
Only one correction: you are definitely NOT a “nobody”; you’re a CTS Catholic Truth Somebody (with bells on!)
And my prayerful wish is that we can stir a few thousand more “nobodies” just like you to fight the battle. An army of “nobodies” like you, RCA Victor – just think about it. The Enemy wouldn’t stand a chance!
The fact that there is no leadership at all anywhere in the Church just confirms the statement by Cardinal Ciappi that “In the Third Secret it is revealed that the crisis in the Church begins at the top”.
Fatima is the answer, of course, in terms of prayer and spreading the Message of Fatima, especially keeping up pressure for the Consecration of Russia.
After that, the bishops around the world need to pressure the Pope to behave appropriately and they all ought to refuse to accept the heresy in Amoris Laetitia and say so publicly. That would be to show leadership, IMHO.
Absolutely correct. What we are witnessing IS the diabolical disorientation foretold in the Fatima apparitions, and that is precisely what those bishops who are aware of the truth about this Church crisis should be saying, in season and out of season. Instead, it’s as if Fatima is done and dusted.
I found a quote from Bishop Fellay yesterday in which he said that the SSPX had to stop attacking so much! This plays right into the hands of the Resistance! I do wish he would speak out more!
This was allegedly said by Bishop Fellay at an address to priests at Winona in February 2015. However, I can’t find any record of this online.
Well, if it were quoted by a priest, presumably not hostile to the Bishop or the Society, I’d consider that reliable – if depressing – evidence.
That sort of mentality (stop attacking so much, stop criticising – which we get here at Catholic Truth, a lot) reveals an inability to distinguish key concepts.
To say: “Pope Francis is outrageously badly behaved, saying dreadful things and appearing to change Church teaching on both Faith and Morals, and is thus causing immense scandal” is not “attacking” Pope Francis. It is nothing more than a perfectly legitimate observation.
To dance around with words to create an impression of “charity” for whatever purpose, is false and if there’s one thing worse than fake news, it’s fake charity.
If that quote really does come from the Bishop, then it’s alarming, to say the least, and, as you say, plays right into the hands of the daft Resistance-to-nothing brigade.
Superb! This is becoming a habit – excellent, insightful comments from you. I hope you’re
notangling for my job!
Listen, I mean it. You can name your salary. I call mine Di Coke… 😀
Let’s see….how about we just round off infinity for my new salary?
I am 77 years old, attended Catholic school and was taught by the elderly nuns that mine would be the generation that sees the Great Apostasy as foretold to us, and it seems so. I only attend the Traditional Catholic Mass because to lose the Faith you suffer the loss of your soul.
I understand the desire for the SSPX Bishops to speak out to condemn Francis, but could they be a Catch 22 situation?
Given how ill-informed the typical Catholic is – and how overly-trusting they are in the hierarchy – might not many people make the erroneous conclusion that criticism of Francis must be bad, if the SSPX is leading the effort?
After all look how most Catholics (even commentators) will sit back in silence while the German Bishops propose (e.g.) allowing people to marry farm animals, yet will quickly put the boot into the ‘schismatic’ SSPX for suggesting that the laws of the Church are followed.
Could it be that +Fellay is pursuing a strategy of letting prelates like +Schneider take the lead in criticism, in an effort to show that concern is legitimate, non-controversial and mainstream?
Sure, the response from mainstream prelates is typically muted (if it exists at all) but at least the Kazakh bishops are trying.
Imo the hierarchy is too politicised and rather than just speaking out frankly, I fear there will be various groups – akin to the St Gallen mafia – horse trading behind the scenes, as regards what to do post-Francis. Of course this isn’t good enough, but its how they work sadly. I think there is a misplaced confidence that everything will work out when a half-decent Pope replaces Francis, but as far as I can see we will likely either get the dreadful (e.g. Tagle) or the mediocre (e.g. Parolin).
Most Catholics do not realise there is a crisis in the Church, or that Francis is a terrible Pope causing chaos. Nor are they particularly interested, because for most modern Catholics, their faith is just 45 minutes on a Sunday. And most modern Bishops are more concerned about where to host the next tea and scones with the Protestant Vicarettes, than with speaking out about the governance of the Church.
Gabriel, I absolutely agree with you. In my opinion ambition for personal preference lies at the root of the episcopal silence. These men just do not want to rock the boat and jeopardise their own progression through the ranks of the hierarchy. And at the root of that must be worldliness and a lack of any real truly Catholic faith. Our curate said sadly to me that in his opinion all bishops lose their spines as soon as they are appointed. I think he hits the nail on the head but it is very worrying and as you say most one hour a week Catholics neither know nor care.
I hope the SSPX is not falling into the “Romanita” trap, but I believe their primary duty is to defend and preserve the Faith, not to worry about how various people of weak (or non-existent) faith might react to said defense. That would be like a politician taking a poll before deciding on what he knows is the right course of action for his country.
If Bp. Fellay is indeed pursuing that strategy, I’d have to say that he is placing his bets on lame horses. So far none of those horses has advanced more than a few paces beyond the starting gate before they stopped running.
Meanwhile, though, it seems Cardinal Zen is getting more and more blunt about the China scandal. Perhaps he will soon be more vocal about the larger problem, i.e. this corrupt pontificate: http://magister.blogautore.espresso.repubblica.it/2018/02/06/zen-the-vatican-secretary-of-state-is-wrong/
Regarding Cardinal Zen – wow – you were not wrong that he is getting more blunt.
Calling Cardinal Parolin of being a “man of little faith” certainly isn’t mincing his words!
I tend to agree with what you say about “lame horses” – I increasingly think Cardinals Burke and Brandmuller have made fools of themselves by not following through on the dubia and allowing themselves to fade into the background.
The Kazakh bishops initiative has a slow trickle of support, I think up to 10 prelates now, but including several retired Bishops. Notably, neither Burke or Brandmuller are among the signatories.
I’m not sure about this analogy, but if this is the Passion of the Church, then this prophecy from Isaiah 53:7 comes to mind:
He was offered because it was his own will, and he opened not his mouth: he shall be led as a sheep to the slaughter, and shall be dumb as a lamb before his shearer, and he shall not open his mouth.
In other words, during His Passion, Our Lord opened not his mouth in His own defense; neither did any of His disciples – in fact, they all fled, and Peter denied Him. Is this perhaps analogous to the silence of the hierarchy in the midst of the Church’s Passion, and the denial of the Church by Peter’s successor?
Interesting also who is not silent: the faithful. Perhaps we are the women of Jerusalem, who wept as Our Lord passed by on the way to Calvary, and were powerless to stop His execution.
Just to add something to my previous statement about the duty of the SSPX to defend and preserve the Faith: if you don’t defend the Faith, you can’t preserve it.
Correct. It’s like those who say that the SSPX priests were set up first of all for the sanctification of priests, since that had gone in the modernist seminaries, but my reply is always that it is not possible for anyone to gain sanctity without having (active) concern for the salvation of other souls as well as our own. Indeed, that is at the heart, even of the enclosed religious Orders!
One thing that I notice is that some sites regarded as traditional – such as Lifesitenews – refer to Pope John Paul II as “Saint”. That is despite them reporting on Pope Francis’s errors. I always think that if you recognise Pope Francis’s errors you should realise that the popes immediately before him, paved the way, so how can any of them be canonised saints? Francis’ pontificate is definitely disastrous but so was John Paul II’s. Why do so many Catholics fail to see that?
I agree – all of these post Vatican 2 popes were disastrous. Francis is just the worst of a bad bunch.
I’m also puzzled that Cardinal Burke has gone silent. After saying he would publicly correct Francis, he’s disappeared. It really is depressing to see such inaction at the very top. No wonder the priests are keeping schtum.
So has they SSPX “gone to ground”? Has Bishop Fellay “gone silent,” as the Editor and a number of her commenters seem to believe?
As someone who has written and published arguments in defense of the Society since the 1980s, I am obliged to take exception to this argument. There has been no change in the stance or the polemics of the SSPX. Period. (Full stop.) The Society continues to combat liberalism on several fronts, most frequently in its periodicals published in each district. There are often events in which Society clergy and laity take part by which they oppose the liberalism in the Church or in the state, according to their own abilities (eg., attendance at pro-life events, especially on the anniversary here in America of Roe v. Wade; Mass and Rosary procession to counteract actual Satanic rituals taking place in certain locations; etc.).
But apparently this is not enough, not according to this argument. Bishop Fellay should be “more outspoken.” Well, there is the monthly Letter to Friends & Benefactors in which the good bishop usually exposes the latest nonsense and refutes it (not in DICI videos), as well as normally giving some good news about vocations, pilgrimages, Rosary Crusades, etc. These issues are often taken up by the various districts in their own monthly Letters as well (http://sspx.org/en/publications/newsletters/fr-wegner-2017-review-sspx-stands-firm). We should not forget also those countless books published and republished on every aspect of the Catholic faith to educate the faithful and instruct the ignorant, as well as those works continuously in print by Archbishop Lefebvre, Michael Davies, Bishop Fellay, Fr. Schmidberger, and many others which have exposed the errors of liberalism and modernism.
Are we to suppose that these monthly Letters and books are insufficient? What exactly are we to expect Bishop Fellay to do? Issue an ultimatum? Declare the Holy See vacant? Challenge the pope to a duel? Summon a General Council to judge whether the pope has fallen into heresy? Basically, he would have to do something wild in order to really do more than he is already doing. “Drop the hammer” indeed! So you would perhaps prefer the rants of Bishop Williamson (“blown about by every wind of doctrine”: by politics, by false private revelations, by rumors and by pride) to the completely Catholic manner in which Bishop Fellay conducts himself? Bishop Fellay can do none of these things, as they are not proper to his duty of state.
Bishop Fellay is doing exactly what he was elected Superior General to do. He is opposing liberalism in Rome while also maintaining what relations can be salvaged from the mess—not at all acting as if the Society wants to be aloof, “xenophobic” or “separate” from the rest of the Church. But his primary purpose, and indeed the real reason for the whole Society of St. Pius X, is to continue to do what the Church has always done. This means all the sacraments and rites of the Church available to the faithful as much as possible, and ever more and more increasing in those places the SSPX has a foothold, while expanding and confirming the Catholic life where the Society has been long established. As Bishop Fellay has said:
“Thus, we have no other plans for the Society of St. Pius X, for you, dear faithful, except to continue what Holy Church has always done, whatever may happen. The way of truth which has made saints in every age will always remain the sure path to Heaven, the path of the Gospels, in imitation of Our Lord and Our Lady. We use the means shown to us by Heaven, with the certainty that we cannot do any better”
I should also add that I live in the heart of the United States district, in Saint Mary’s, Kansas. I do not like someone else “characterizing” my attitude toward Rome or anything else. I have been part of this, the largest SSPX parish in our country, since 1987. We are now about 4000 souls, more or less. The overwhelming attitude here is seen in our chapel vestibule, and is not unlike that found in any of the vestibules in our churches and chapels throughout the SSPX. There are usually three portraits displayed: one of Archbishop Lefebvre, one of St. Pius X, and one of the current pope. This has always been the case here in Saint Mary’s. And this should underline our “attitude” very well. We are Traditionalist Roman Catholics who assist at Mass and support the Society. But we are, and have always been, part of the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church, in communion with the See of Peter. This is the only attitude I have ever heard from Society faithful in the USA.
So, dear Editor, I believe there is plenty the SSPX continues to do to address the present state of crisis in the Church, from the Superior General down to the local parish. I do not at all think Bishop Fellay or the SSPX has “gone silent.”
Thank you for you staunch defence of the Society. You make some very interesting points.
However, Bishop Fellay himself said that he was not being more outspoken because – at that time – the four “dubia” cardinals were doing that and it is better coming from “mainstream” bishops (so to speak). The problem is, Cardinal Burke et al – of dubia fame – have gone silent.
It’s great that Bishop Fellay is writing his letter to benefactors etc but not a lot of diocesan Catholics read those! Thus, the silence is deafening in terms of authoritative objections to Pope Francis in his regular shocking statements, which the majority of Catholics don’t realise ARE shocking. Nobody with episcopal authority is saying that the pope is speaking/behaving in a shocking way.
On the Dici website, announcing the News videos, we read: “Information and analysis on the life of the Church”.
Well, it’s nice to read about the devotional news and various interesting reports included ordinations etc. but those videos remind me of the so-called Catholic newspapers here – nobody would guess that there is a massive crisis in the Church. And that is plain wrong. In the four or so videos which I viewed, there was no mention, in any way, of the dire state of the Church let alone analysis of it.
You are blessed to have 4,000 people attending your District. I’m not sure of the figures for the UK district, but here in Glasgow, we have only around 100 attending our Sunday Mass. By now, the chapel congregation should be spilling out into the street.
This thread was sparked by a conversation I had with an elderly gentleman who has attended the Society chapel for many years, and only attends a SP Mass on occasion out of necessity, but is disappointed that there is no-one, including the Society Superior, speaking out about this pope on a regular basis. As a result, he believes, gradually, bit by bit, his errors, especially those in Amoris Laetitia, are being normalised to the extent that “partners” feel confident in attending even a traditional Latin Mass and openly announcing their domestic arrangements.
I agree with you that we are all Catholics who support the Holy See
All the more reason to expect public defence of the Faith from the Society Superior(s) to reach the wider world – not in the spirit of Bishop Williamson but in the spirit of Bishop Fellay who was the first, if I recall, to describe Pope Francis for what he is – “we have before us, an outright modernist”.
Bishop Fellay is to be commended for that – I would simply urge him to keep saying it, in season and out of season, because that “outright modernism” is spreading and has taken root all over the place, with ordinary, un-catechised Catholics, thinking of it as “progress”. .
Your indignant defense of the SSPX – replete with exaggerations, distortions and logical fallacies – has unfortunately provided more evidence that the Society is content to remain in its ivory tower for the foreseeable future. Permit me to elaborate:
1. “The Society continues to combat liberalism on several fronts, most frequently in its periodicals published in each district…etc.” No one is denying that the Society combats liberalism, but the question is “how.” There are two problems with its current method: first, its internal organs of communication, all of which you cite, are read mostly by its own priests and laity, not by the world and Church beyond. I believe that’s called “preaching to the choir.” A choir, moreover, which is already well-informed, in my experience. Second, and even more important, we are no longer just dealing with a generic “liberalism” being disseminated incrementally, as in the boiled frog syndrome. The crisis in the Church has now morphed into a full-blown frontal assault by a power-hungry banana republic madman, who wields his unrestrained power in the form of a wrecking ball aimed at whatever was left standing in the Church after 50+ years of Conciliar hell. C. Ferrara, just the other day, called this development a “quantum leap,” and he is right.
2. I cannot help but compare the business-as-usual approach of the SSPX to the words and actions of Cardinal Zen, who is now publicly and fearlessly confronting and denouncing the betrayal of the Chinese faithful and those who are implementing it. Meanwhile, regarding the larger and more fundamental problem, which is this Pope, all we have are 10 bishops, most of whom are “Emeritus,” signing a “Declaration of Immutable Truths” in defense of marriage. Are you going to claim that this is “leadership”? No, “leadership” would be doing what Cardinal Zen is doing and has been doing, but in this case, calling a Council to try this Pope on the charge of heresy.
3. So please revise your perspective on what is being called for on this thread: we are calling for – no, we are begging for – leadership to oppose a madman. Leadership which has not appeared in the “mainstream,” but which could be provided by the three bishops of the SSPX, if they chose. Granted, this would certainly be a new form of behavior for them and for the Society, but writing articles in internal organs is futile when faced with such a threat. Yes, as you protest, that approach is “insufficient,” in my opinion.
(As for your paragraph which begins “Are we to suppose…”, your sarcastic statements are foolish and do not help your argument. No one is asking Bp. Fellay to call a Council, or to do any of the other outlandish things you mockingly suggest. What we are asking for is leadership, in the model of Cardinal Zen.)
“I cannot help but compare the business-as-usual approach of the SSPX to the words and actions of Cardinal Zen, who is now publicly and fearlessly confronting and denouncing the betrayal of the Chinese faithful and those who are implementing it.”
I couldn’t agree more. Very well said.
As you suggest, preaching to the choir is pointless – we need everyone who is in a position to do so, to speak out exactly in the way that Cardinal Zen has done, God bless him.
I can’t help wondering if the silence from Bishop Fellay is because he is afraid of speaking out as being seen as working with Rome by the “Resistance” people and others likely to join them, however perverse such an interpretation would be. He’s maybe keeping in the background until all of that settles down, who knows.
One thing is for sure, nobody can be silent now, as this crisis is getting worse all the time.
When the Arian heresy was at its height it was the laity who kept faithful to the Pope despite the bishops. But it w2as a unit3ed laity. I have just watched Michael Voris criticising on a video some SSPX members and these members coming back to defend themselves by attacking Voris. Now why should organisations which should be fighting the commons enemy opposing one another. I think it is true to say that the Devil is in the detail. . A disunited laity cannot defeat the enemy. Now I know and had sympathy with the3 SSPX as they tried to reunite with Rome but were dismissed by the heretics in Rome, but we need strong opposition. I have a Catholic priest in my mainstream parish now and with a group of other people are trying to start devotion to fMary. I write in my blog about things Catholic and I no longer argue about the what I say are smaller issues, I am now onto the Authority of the Church. It is Authority the mainstream lacks and as long as plrie3sts can sneer at the authority of the Church we do not have a hope of getting anywhere. New thinking is called for.. Although in a minority there are good bishops but who want to restore the Church but they need to know that if they stick their necks out they will not find their heads being cut off. If there is a SSPX in an area where there is an independent bishop they should hold talks with him and find out how without compromising their Tridentine Mass they can serve that diocese. I have been to Latin Masses run by the Latin Mass Society but they fail to educate the people of the parish they visit on the Latin Mass and they sing Gregorian chant at every Mass which is not what happened in the Pre Vatican Church. We all need an overall and we should remember that the Devil is in the detail of dissenting Church.
As an additional response to Gandalfolorin, and others who are satisfied with the current SSPX approach to this nightmare, I would like to point out two things:
First, Abp. Lefebvre certainly did not hesitate to condemn the Modernists and defend the Faith in his 1974 “Declaration.” He wrote it and fired it off to Rome – i.e. he followed the “Cardinal Zen model.” And that Apostolic Visitor scandal to which he reacted is dwarfed by the present situation.
Second, there are priests in the Society who have attempted to follow this model – public confrontation — but they have been punished for it! The “9 Paris Deans” incident last summer comes to mind, most recently, over the Pope’s new marriage arrangement. From which I conclude that public confrontation is verboten in the SSPX, but I would be happy to be proved wrong.
PS: I repeat and re-iterate: citing in-house means of communication is not proving me wrong. Quite the opposite.
I’ve not heard of the “9 Paris Deans” incident last summer, so will need to read up on that – if you have a link, thank you – if not, I’ll Google later.
Correction: it was 7 Deans and 3 others.
I couldn’t believe my eyes when I read this from Brietbart,
“The chancellor of the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences has heaped high and unexpected praise on China, insisting that the atheistic communist regime has created the best model for living out Catholic social teaching today.
After visiting Beijing for the first time some months ago, Argentinean Bishop Marcelo Sánchez Sorondo reportedly returned to the Vatican full of enthusiasm for the Asian country, and this week he told a journalist that “at this moment, the Chinese are the ones implementing Catholic social teaching best.”
If the Pope won’t speak out to correct a top cardinal for promoting Communism, what can be done? the situation is pure scandal, at every turn.
Editor & Co.,
In response to your comments and those of other commenters, I make the following points:
1. I have to first thank the Editor for her kindness in thanking me for my defense of the Society. I looked in vain for such kindness in other comments.
Bishop Fellay has not been silent. Far from it. He has, if you recall, signed just last summer the very public Correctio Filialis made by clergy and laity regarding Amoris Laetitia and its horrible “doctrinizing” by the pope in having in published in the Acta. This public statement was very pointed in its criticism of the pope’s attempt to change doctrine in an underhanded “pastoral” fashion. http://fsspx.news/en/search/dici/correction%20filialis (See also: http://fsspx.news/en/content/23941.) And we know that the Filial Correction was heard in Rome: http://fsspx.news/en/search/dici/correction%20filialis.
Bishop Fellay has been speaking out regularly over the years, and very pointedly since the election of Pope Francis. Bishop Fellay preached publicly and recommended the published writings of two Society priests that criticized in depth Amoris Laetitia: http://fsspx.news/en/content/23919. And many other such public statements can be referenced.
By the way, the 4000 figure was for Saint Mary’s, not for the US District. I would venture to say the US District may number somewhere around 20,000 or more, but I have no way to verify this.
2. “Preaching to the choir…” Well, in point of fact, to publish anything is to make it public, so it is not just meant for the “choir.” You may maintain as vehemently as you wish that the Society’s publications are read mainly by Society faithful all you like, but the fact remains that they are very clearly public documents available to all who seek to know the truth. This is even more true today, in the age of the Internet, than it was, for example, in 1974, when His Grace answered the statements of the Visitors to Econe.
When His Grace the Archbishop responded to the Vatican regarding those Visitors, he wrote a private letter to the appropriate Vatican authority. He did not write to the media and invite the press in for a conference. It was only after the Society’s publications later carried the letter, and that it was subsequently picked up by the Remnant, the Maryfaithful and other publications that it became known to the faithful insofar as it was possible for it to become known. Do you seriously think L’Osservatore Romano carried that letter? Or that the diocesan newspapers carried such a letter? Today we do not have this much of a lull between iterations of a document. When Bishop Fellay preaches a sermon or writes a statement, it is of course immediately picked up by the Vatican on the Internet, as well as it is published in Society circles across the globe.
Nothing really has changed. Bishop Fellay is doing exactly what the Archbishop did. You may say, “But he isn’t doing anything like what the Archbishop did.” But the truth is, How do you know? Anything that is right now being done by Bishop Fellay in private will not necessarily be known in public for some time. This is simply the nature of relations between a bishop and the pope. We the laity cannot expect to know everything just as it happens. Normally when there is any real development, Bishop Fellay is in the habit of making a tour and giving conferences on the latest news so that he informs us in a timely manner. These conferences are then published in more than one media. But we can hardly expect Bishop Fellay to tell us everything daily or even weekly, just as it is occurring.
3. It is not Bishop Fellay’s prerogative to call any council for any reason, especially for trying the pope on charges of heresy. Oh but Cardinal Zen is publicly remonstrating with the pope over the Chinese problem! Good for Cardinal Zen. And good for any of them who finally have stood up and done their Catholic duty. But Bishop Fellay and the Society have been doing their duty for 50 years. And if I may make so bold, it is probably on account of the stand taken by the SSPX for 50 years and more that Cardinal Zen can hope to be heard at all today.
So if you want a council called to try the pope, you will have to pray more and offer more sacrifices. Calling a council is the work of cardinals, not of bishops. We must encourage all the “conservative” cardinals to become more Traditional, and in so doing, we will find they re-discover their duties and make public their Catholic objections to what the pope is doing.
4. “The 9 Paris Deans…” The nine Deans in question, if I recall accurately, in reacting to rumors spread by people working for the “resistance,” published statements that should better have been sent privately to Menzingen as questions, so that they could have obtained the answers they sought. Instead they went immediately public with the suspicions they had, in the same manner that the “resistance” has acted from the beginning. This is not just a matter of some priests questioning privately what the Society should do when the pope, through the cardinal, gave this new directive on marriages of the Society’s faithful. It is that these Deans acted publicly as if their suspicions were all proven to be true already. And so scandal was further sown among the faithful that might have been avoided.
The nonsense argument of these Deans was answered rather thoroughly by the Society’s official publication. I link to it here for your benefit: http://fsspx.news/en/marriages-clarifications/30476. It deserves to be read carefully, so please do not skim over it too hastily. It is very detailed, and gives the lie to all the accusations that the nine Deans had too hastily published.
5. As to my use of sarcasm: I deliberately used hyperbole so that my readers immediately should notice the ridiculous nature of the argument being leveled here against Bishop Fellay. I am very sorry that the Editor and other commenters do not agree with me on this, but I must insist. It would be one thing if Bishop Fellay were obviously leading us into the Novus Ordo. Then you would be justified in publicly calling for him to change course. But as things stand right now, it is rather like the laity are backseat drivers trying to tell the Bishop how to drive the Society and his position in the Church as a whole. This is inappropriate in the extreme and, in the case of Bishop Fellay, it is completely uncalled for, as he has been zealously fulfilling his duty toward the Church and the faithful for decades.
6. The line of argument broached in this thread sounds to me entirely too much like the false reasoning of the “resistance.” I know it is not the intention of the Editor or her commenters to give this impression, and I know this mindset is far from any of them. Nevertheless, the argument in itself tends in that direction, and in some details, e.g., like bringing up the “9 Paris Deans,” it bears far too striking of a resemblance to “resistance” fallacious arguments. In such a serious matter as this, we are obliged in conscience to not only BE correct in our public discourse, but to SEEM to be correct inasfar as it is possible to do so.
Firstly, your latest post went into our SPAM file – possibly because there are five links in it, and I believe that is the trigger for SPAM. Worry not, I now check all the folders regularly, so I release them as soon as I see them.
To briefly answer your latest comment. I don’t think you need worry about “kindness” from other bloggers, as you (kindly!) thank me for my kind comments about your defence of the Society. We tend to be robust here, in our comments, as you know, but that doesn’t mean that the others lack kindness. Indeed, that’s the first time I’ve been accused of being kind! So, be assured, most of the bloggers here are Society supporters and do not mean to be unkind in any of the debate on this or any other subject. The spirit of this thread is one of constructive criticism, be assured.
Another misunderstanding appears to have arisen: none of us is arguing that Bishop Fellay has done nothing, never spoken out or anything like that. As your latest post demonstrates, he has very often made known his concerns about this dreadful pontificate.
Neither should this thread be interpreted as “the laity being backseat drivers trying to tell the Bishop how to drive the Society….” That is not our intention. However, in our times, confused Catholics wakening up to the situation and learning (some, perhaps, for the first time) about the “Lifeboat SSPX” would, more likely than not, head for the official website of the Society – Dici. I’ve just paid a visit, seconds ago, and there is no way in the world that any of them would sense any crisis in the Church from the homepage. Check it out here http://fsspx.news/en
We are not damning the Society or intending to do it harm or be unnecessarily critical of Bishop Fellay. But, just as we may criticise the Pope himself when necessary (because we are not a cult – only cult leaders are above criticism) so we may express our concerns and our desire to see Bishop Fellay speak out specifically about this dreadful pontificate much more often, using the public means at his disposal. The official website of the Society, under the heading already there “information and analysis of the life of the Church” currently has no mention of Pope Francis’ in terms of the damage he is doing to the Church. There is a lot of material on that homepage. Nothing about Pope Francis is surprising, to say the least.
At a time when a deafening silence has fallen over the episcopate (except for those bishops/cardinals pushing for evil changes such as “blessings” for homosexual unions!) it would be wonderful if Bishop Fellay’s profile were raised and his was a voice to be reckoned with, in season and out of season. That’s really all we are saying here.
You are correct in that when something is published, wherever, it is “out there” and that is good. That is why Catholic Truth is hated by so many bishops and priests, here in Scotland. Just the fact that our decidedly un-glossy newsletter gets into some hands, albeit a minority of the Catholic population, displeases them. But on those occasions when we’ve been quoted in newspapers or appeared on TV/radio, bringing ever more people to our website, that infuriates them more, and journalists (and, indeed, one policeman!) have told me that Church spokesmen have indicated that they are desperate not to give us any publicity.
The principle is the same. The more wide the publicity net, in terms of Bishop Fellay’s “fightback” on behalf of the Society, the better. Some of us wonder that he appears to have chosen not to widen his publicity net while allowing for the fact that he knows more than we do and there may be good reason for his decision; still, we cannot help wishing that he would, without apology, call out this Pope’s scandalous words and behaviour on a regular basis using means, such as the secular press, which might lead the interested/curious to find his publications addressed to “the choir”!
Hope this clarifies things – we are in no way of the same mind as the daft “resistance-to-nothing” bunch. Not remotely – and thankfully, you realise that, so this concluding remark is merely by way of stressing the fact.
Thank you for your responses. To reiterate my central point: the nature of the beast has changed with this pontificate, but I don’t see any comparable change in the Society’s method of responding, with the one exception you cite, i.e. Bp Fellay’s signing of the Correctio – to which I say “Bravo – now give us more of the same!” As for the SSPX being given the credit for Cardinal Zen’s confrontations, that is a bit of a stretch, to say the least.
1. Yes, the Society’s few published criticisms of Amoris have been pointed, but once again, merely indirect criticisms of the source of that heretical thinking. And publishing defenses of the Faith in internal organs does not magically translate into public criticisms or confrontations, so your response to the charge of “preaching to the choir” is highly evasive. Your response reminded me of our local Archdiocese’s half-hearted attempts to evangelize and/or call back lapsed Catholics some years ago. The name of their campaign was “Catholics: Our Door is Open!” In other words, “The effort is all on you, faithful – we’re here sitting in our office chairs just waiting for you to stop by.” Some evangelization!
2. As for the 1974 Declaration, you proved my point: Abp. Lefebvre’s criticism was aimed directly at the source of the trouble, i.e. the Vatican Dicastery that had sent the modernist Apostolic Visitors. Have any of the Society’s responses to this pontificate been aimed directly at the source of the trouble, namely, this Pope? You will say, no doubt, that Bp. Fellay’s signature on the Correctio is so aimed, to which I respond with the obvious question: was that a Society document? Did they help to write it?
3. Thank you for your clarification of the “9 French Deans” situation. I was not aware that they had reacted to “resistance” rumors.
4. Your characterization of SSPX laity as “backseat drivers” begs the question: is the SSPX leadership impervious to the concerns of its laity? Have they returned to the old “pray, pay and obey” state to which Editor refers? (BTW, in my experience, the emphasis for the past few years has been on “pay.”) I agree with you, though, that we will not know, nor do we have the right to know, what Bp Fellay is doing in private, until it becomes public.
5. You will recall the memorable scene in the Gospels where Our Lord drove the money-changers out of the Temple. Note: he did not call His disciples together and patiently explain to them what was wrong with what he saw. He took action. Now before you grace us with more sarcasm regarding this analogy, I am bringing this up because I sincerely hope that Bp. Fellay will attend and play a significant role in this mysterious April 7th conference in Rome, allegedly called to address the “current crisis of division in the Church”: https://www.catholicfamilynews.org/blog/2018/2/8/breaking-date-revealed-for-historic-conference-in-rome
Hopefully, he has been invited. If not, shame on the organizers. If he has been invited but will not attend or send a representative, then it looks like it’s back to preaching to the choir.
With Gandalf’s permission, I would like to simplify this argument (which is not an accusation against Bp. Fellay, but an urgent request to switch tactics) with two questions:
1. Has the ongoing SSPX strategy and method of correcting liberalism managed to slow down the runaway Francis Freight Train at all? I am not aware that it has, but if you are, please share your evidence.
2. Has this same strategy caused or inspired any Cardinals or Bishops to confront this Pope? I am not aware of any prelate having cited an SSPX position as motivation for speaking out, but if you are, once again, evidence, please.
(I should also point out, as I did much earlier in this thread, that it really doesn’t matter what I am requesting, or what I think about the SSPX methods, since I am a nobody. However, that lack of influential status does not stop me from perceiving that the SSPX strategy is not working against Francis. I suppose, though, that there is always the possibility they are preparing a nuclear bomb response beyond the public eye, in which case I congratulate them for keeping such a good secret.)
I think you make a good point when you argue that the “ongoing SSPX strategy” is not halting or slowing down this pontiff’s “runaway train”.
Neither did Cardinal Burke’s threat of a public correction make the slightest difference. This pope just ignores his critics. Maybe that is why they’ve all decided to keep a low profile.
That is, however, I agree, a tactical error. Giving in to a bully is always a mistake. And from all accounts, embodied in the title of the book Dictator Pope, Francis is a bully.
Answering your second question (which I know is addressed to Gandalf but I can’t resist!) it is, I suspect, the lack of strong leadership that has encouraged the few concerned Bishops/Cardinals in their silence, whether their inaction is caused by fear of confronting the issues or simple apathy.
That’s my tuppence worth, for now. We’re several hours ahead of Gandalf and your good self, so I’m heading for my much needed beauty sleep… say nothing!
Your closing line reminds me of an old Andy Capp cartoon. He watches two rather unattractive women coming out of a “Health and Beauty Club,” and then remarks, “Those must be two of the healthy ones!”
Sorry to say, I’d be in the “healthy” category as well (….as the beauty category! Kidding! Read this without the parenthesis!)
Editor & Co.,
I accept that you and your commenters are not “resistance” sympathizers. But I also think this whole argument smells bad, and it is a curious way, to say the least, of showing one’s loyalty to the SSPX.
1. Once again, I must insist that Bishop Fellay has done and is doing his utmost to lead souls to the truth in his position of Superior General. I respectfully must disagree with those who would say Cardinal Zen’s ability to be heard in this noisy climate is not in large measure due to the work of the SSPX. It is absolutely due to the Society that anybody is Traditional at this point in time. Who stood up almost alone at the Council after seeing the very schema he had organized to be the focus of the Council trashed by the liberals? Who organized the Traditional bishops into a voting bloc so that the liberals would at least be opposed during the Council? Who voted against the most liberal of the documents of Vatican II and refused to sign them? Who continued his work after the Council? Who founded the SSPX, when virtually nowhere else (except tiny Campos which hardly anyone knew about) to continue to ordain priests for Tradition? Whose Society has continued this work since its founding, without interruption, despite setbacks from traitors of all colors who tried to sabotage the work? We all know the answer is Archbishop Lefebvre, and his Society of St. Pius X. It is no stretch at all to understand Cardinal Zen would have no hearers at all—since plainly Rome is not listening—if Archbishop Lefebvre had not begun the work, and if Bishop Fellay were not continuing the work.
2. My answer to the charge of “preaching to the choir” is hardly evasive. Do I need to point out that it is due to Bishop Fellay and the Society that most of the Traditional Mass locations in France are SSPX? Do I need to point out that in the US District, close to our district house, we have a place specifically set aside and specially funded by donations from the faithful for the training of Novus Ordo priests (and presumably, bishops also) in the Traditional Roman Rite of Mass and the sacraments? This is exactly the outcome the Archbishop foresaw many years ago. He repeatedly asked the Holy See to give permission for the “experiment of Tradition,” because he knew that, once the Traditional Mass was allowed again, and once priests started to come back to it and preach the faith which that Mass embodies, the tide would turn and the faith would reassert itself. This is what is happening around the world, I believe. But you would not be able to tell this from the noise of the liberal media and the “numbers” that are always given of attendance at Novus Ordo parishes. Well with the average age of priests in France at 85, the US average cannot be far behind, at least regarding native priests. It is only those Orders and dioceses which cling to something smacking of Tradition that continue to attract vocations, as the rest are dying very noticeably. Whenever anybody thinks of coming to Tradition, they immediately think of the SSPX—not the FSSP, not the ICR or anybody else. So again, Bishop Fellay is doing his job and his profile is out there.
3. The Society did not need to originate the Correctio Filialis, since the Society had been arguing with Rome over the last two decades since the Holy Year pilgrimage to Rome, as well as making very public statements regarding the very matter contained in the Correction. It was sufficient that Bishop Fellay sign it in order to show that this is still the position of the Society. So he signed it, and that is that.
This hardly proves your point. I was drawing a contrast between the manner of making public statements in 1974 as opposed to today. Whenever something was aimed directly at the Society from Rome, the Society has responded directly to Rome—in that, there is no difference between then and now. But regarding other statements, whereas the Archbishop would have to call a press conference, Bishop Fellay merely needs to publish an interview or a formal statement and it is immediately carried everywhere. And he has done this sufficiently to make the SSPX position clear as crystal to anyone with eyes to see.
4. No, Bishop Fellay is no more “impervious to the concerns of the laity” than was the Archbishop. Whenever I have written to Bishop Fellay about an issue, he has kindly responded. I am mindful, however, to not try to tell him what he ought to be doing. Whether the issue was the crisis in the Church or a request for prayers, he has always been good about being concerned and answering as his time allowed. I have no experience to match yours where the main emphasis is to “pay.”
5. This also holds for attendance at non-Society conferences. One of our prominent priests or one of the bishops is usually invited and does attend.
6. “Is the Society’s strategy working on the present pope?” Really, is this a question you want to pose? Let’s ask it in historical context then: Has the Society’s position EVER affected a change in Rome? Not in the way you are implying. There never has been an obvious movement of cardinals or bishops who’ve changed their tune as a result of the Archbishop’s stand, and that is true of the present Society as well. But when the Archbishop was alive, he often talked about cardinals and bishops who quietly, secretly came to him and told him they were in complete agreement with him but were afraid to make a public stand. Likewise, a number of similar prelates have made such statements to Bishop Fellay over the years. With this difference, however: The number of those becoming bold enough to speak publicly has increased in proportion to the crisis having worsened in the present pontificate. This was to be expected. But this change would never have occurred if the Society had not taken its dogged and constant position and kept it without flinching. Have we converted the pope? No, we haven’t. Do not suppose Our Lady will obtain that grace without her requests being fulfilled. But the Society has done its part.
Editor, I can’t believe nobody has called you kind before! Well, I hope I shall not be the last.
” It is absolutely due to the Society that anybody is Traditional at this point in time. “
As for the rest – well, there are a number of experiences which you recount that are the very opposite of what I, personally, and/or others have experienced. And I think it is unjust to equate constructive criticism with lack of loyalty. This is precisely what we, at Catholic Truth, are accused of by modernists who consider that our criticism of bishops and successive modern (and modernist) popes show us to be disloyal. Criticism should not equate with disloyalty, ever. Nobody, nothing is perfect, none of us is above criticism. The idea that we cannot criticise priests or bishops smacks, not of loyalty, but of clericalism – a major problem in the Church before Vatican II, and it remains so, I’m sorry to say, within the Society today.
Your experiences are all very positive, and that is great, but I know of people who have written to Bishop Fellay (and other SSPX superiors) – NOT to complain about anything (in fact, the very opposite), but have not received as much as an acknowledgement. So, with that one example, I’m going to have to sign off except to say this: that the gentleman who sparked this debate is an SSPX supporter, and has been for many years. I will pass on your arguments but I know that his response will be a continued despair. He is an ordinary Catholic in the (SSPX) pew (concerned about his novus ordo attending relatives and friends in their pews), who scours the so-called Catholic (and secular) press over here week after week, in the hope of seeing a headline message from the Society but never does. I take all of your points, well made, but I also see that for those who are NOT informed, who rely on the mainstream news outlets, there is no evidence (for them) of any fightback. That’s all I’m saying. The gentleman to whom I refer does not have internet access, he is elderly, an avid reader. That’s the way he gathers his news.
Anyway, we’re not going to agree on the publicity issue but we do, at least, agree on the main thing – that we have the Society to thank for the fact that the traditional Faith is still to be found in the midst of this worst-ever crisis to hit the Church. I have no doubt that that is because Archbishop Lefebvre was the God-sent prelate to whom Our Lady referred at Quito. For which, thank you, Lord!
1. This blog is not about “loyalty to the SSPX,” and especially not blind loyalty to the SSPX, a trait which you abundantly evidence. This blog is about exposing, discussing and analyzing the crisis in the Church, and what might be done about it in this latest phase. In other words, it is about thinking with the sensus fidelium, not about regurgitating a party line.
2. As for the SSPX being given credit for Cardinal Zen’s outspoken posture, where did you get the idea that Cardinal Zen was traditional? Evidence, please – otherwise please do not indulge in this specious linking. And as further evidence that this linking is entirely specious, please name one Society leader who has spoken to Rome the way Cardinal Zen has spoken to Rome.
As for the rest of that paragraph, you are clearly living in the past. No one here is denying Abp. Lefebvre’s achievements, and no one is denying Bp. Fellay’s either. I, for one, am requesting a more aggressive tactic against an aggressive Marxist thug, as opposed to the gentlemanly tactic used against a gentlemanly Pope tainted with Modernism.
3. Your response to “preaching to the choir” remains evasive, since you are still spouting irrelevant SSPX statistics. Apparently you still do not understand the difference between in-house communication, which may occasionally trickle down to the outside world, and genuinely public addresses to the world at large. And do you really think that SSPX participation in tiny traditionalist conferences is “speaking to the outside world”?
4. “Has the Society’s position EVER affected a change in Rome? Not in the way you are implying.” Wrong. The concessions made by Pope Benedict were a direct result of negotiations with the Society leadership.
5. “The number of those becoming bold enough to speak publicly has increased in proportion to the crisis having worsened in the present pontificate.” If you are speaking of prelates, that is, the voices who really matter, wrong again. And once again, to attribute the voices of these precious few prelates (10 out of 5,000!! – a proportional increase? Seriously?) to the SSPX is absurd, in my opinion, since only Bishop Schneider has spoken of his admiration for them. In fact, Cardinal Burke recently spoke against the SSPX, a development which we decried on this blog.
I have only one more thing to say about this: if there are some secret plans developing beyond the public eye to confront this hideous Pope , so much the better. If not, then the Passion of the Church will continue unabated, with no one to defend Our Lord’s Mystical Body.
I have been very supportive of the SSPX, however it is far from perfect. I have seen a weakening in recent times. I will give an example.
Tonight I received an email update from the SSPX in the UK. He included a promotional link to Bishop John Keenan’s video about the “Rosary on the Coast” – which was produced by the “World Fatima Apostolate”, one of the false friends of Fatima which claims the Consecration of Russia has been done.
The SSPX really need to sort themselves out. I think it’s right for the SSPX to speak to Rome. However, If Bishop Fellay means it when he says the SSPX must be accepted “as they are” then he needs to ensure there are no compromises. Unfortunately, I’m seeing evidence of compromising!
I got the same email.
How do you know that the “World Fatima Apostolate” was involved in the Bishop Keenan video?
From what I can see its Sancta Familia Media who made the video? I can’t see any reference to Fatima at all on the video page, or on Sancta Familia Media’s own linked page.
(Apologies if I am missing something obvious!)
In any case, surely the SSPX email is only expressing support for the Rosary initiative and not whoever is responsible for producing a video promoting it?
At the end of the video it states that it’s made by the World Fatima Apostolate.
For me the issue with Bishop Keenan’s video, and, I have to say, the entire “Rosary On The Coast” is that, like the World Fatima Apostolate, they neglect the key part of the Fatima message. They seek world peace on their own terms, without the Consecration of Russia.
The SSPX should not, in my opinion, be supporting or promoting this.
I agree. It’s disappointing that the Society is publicising something from Paisley when the Bishop, John Keenan, said openly that he wanted to bring Pope Francis’s vision to that diocese.
My guess is that they are following this modern idea of highlighting what unites rather than divides us, which is never helpful, IMHO, because it seems always to lead to a watering down of the truth.
Thanks for your reply. My original post was based on clicking the relevant link to see who had posted it, having now watched the video I see the reference you are talking about.
But I think it is just an acknowledgement for the use of images – another source of images is also acknowledged.
That said, I would agree with you that the reference is concerning given their coverage of Fatima is not accurate. This could lead to confusion among the faithful.
Presumably the district superior has felt the worth of the rosary initiative outweighs the problematic reference to this particular group. However I am sure a way could have been found to give the rosary initiative publicity without giving any form of mention to the erroneous Fatima group.
Right enough, having grown up in the novus ordo Church myself, I can confidently state that most of them would not know the Message of Fatima from Fatima Whitbread MBE.
I think this is maybe an error of judgement rather than a sign of SSPX compromise, but you are certainly right to resent encountering mention of this group from an SSPX link.
As Bishop Fellay and the SSPX have been part of this discussion, I thought it apt to post this here:
One Peter Five has published a new interview with +Fellay, which was conducted this month based on questions sent to him at the close of 2017. The interview regards Fatima and the Church crisis.
The bit most pertinent to this thread is probably:
Interviewer: In light of the seemingly growing apostasy from the Catholic Faith within the Catholic Church, could you tell us at the end of this interview how you see your own mission and the SSPX’s mission and specific role?
Bishop Fellay: We could say, that the Society of St Pius X, by Divine Providence, not by our own merits, represents the past of the Church, what we call Tradition. This cannot be erased from the Catholic Church or Catholic life. So our mission is to remember this. We are not simply a monument to the past; we are a living witness of Tradition in the Church, which is above all the changes and moods of the modern world. The Faith remains our mission, specifically by reviving the Christian spirit, especially for the priests of the Catholic Church. Our specific role is to help restore the priesthood, in all its purity, to the Church. Every aspect of Christian life and even of the Church follows by consequence from this principle. If you want to help restore the Church, one must start with the priesthood.
I hear this argument all the time, that the Society’s aim was always the sanctification of its priests, as if that means they need not engage in apostolic work. But none of us can be sanctified alone. And we are all baptised and confirmed before we make married or religious vows or are ordained. Our duty to be Soldiers of Christ is a permanent duty. Thus, priests, responsible, of course, for administering the sacraments, cannot use that priestly work as an excuse not to engage in the apostolate. Certainly, Archbishop Lefebvre didn’t make that excuse. And when we asked for the support of our then serving priests to help us at a Fatima event, they accepted, so lest there be any misunderstanding about that extract from the Bishop’s interview, I thought I would throw in my tuppence worth again, for good measure 😀
PS – I’m also interested that One Peter Five had the privilege of an interview with Bishop Fellay, given that their blog administrator (Steve something) went out of his way to distance himself from the Society at a time when I used to read that blog. Indeed, it was because of his ambivalent attitude to the Society that I stopped visiting! I wonder what would happen if I asked for an interview with the Bishop to publish in Catholic Truth? I’m not going to risk finding out!
Disastrous Pontificate?….just found this on the REMNANT today.
Before Editor puts down her chocolates and whips out her rolling pin on you, just wanted to say: “Buyer Beware! Hilary White at work!”
Yes, as you say RCA Victor, Caveat Emptor..!…Anyway the comments attached at the bottom of the article are worth a read too.
Wonder if this is the only Disastrous Papacy???…..MIchael Matt latest, hot off the press.
Some more salvos appearing against Francis – regarding his record on abuse and the closely linked homosexuality – which are even more devastating in that come from sources normally guilty of papolatry (Catholic Herald) or those normally restricted in speech due to being part of the Diocesan structure (Fr Ray Blake):
Fr Blake asks “Dare we join the dots?” and gives a run down of Francis’ dismal record on abuse and his obvious toleration of sexual deviancy. The piece ends with a picture of Francis kissing a young boy. The suggestion is obviously that Francis himself is a homosexual, even a pederast who looks out for his own.
(I’m amused to think of Cardinal Nichols’ reaction to the above article).
The Catholic Herald also examines the Pope’s record on abuse, and concludes:
” Pope Francis is not only part of the problem, but that he is the problem.”
I’m surprised that Fr Ray Blake has taken this line. more than hinting that Pope Francis is a homosexual. He doesn’t say that, but from the piece and accompanying photographs, that is the obvious conclusion to draw. This is not something anyone can know for certain and so Fr Ray Blake has strayed into dangerous territory. One commentator said that he has enlarged the photo of the child and the kiss was on the child’s cheek, not on the lips. Doesn’t look right, nevertheless, I agree. And in this day and age, better to avoid such possible misinterpretation.
I don’t recall Fr Ray Blake being hard-hitting about the previous modernist popes, from John XXIII through to Benedict XVI, but, like others, as you say, he has overcome his papolatry to speak out about the errors of Francis, albeit possibly falling into another error in so doing; some Catholics just cannot get it into their heads that it is possible to have a bad pope, now, as in ages past, and so they have to look for something “other” [than weak or lost Faith, spiritual blindness] to explain it and what better than moral deviancy?
Whether or not Francis is of homosexual inclination, we do not know, certainly not for certain, and it is, in any case, irrelevant now. If he IS of that inclination and knew so at the time of his application to seminary, he should not have been admitted and not ordained to the priesthood. Now, however, we have to leave that aside and focus on the execution of his pontificate. No, I didn’t say that, I say execution of his pontificate!
And yes, I’ve noted for a while now that there are some pieces in the Catholic Herald (at least online – I do not read the hard copy any longer) that are recognising the “Francis Factor” in the decline of the Church. Took their time about it, and still not wholly there, but certainly an improvement. Six years into this pontificate they are realising that Pope Francis IS the problem. Some of us realised that when he walked out onto the balcony after his election in 2013.
Most of the bairns are down with this spewey bug so I haven’t time to check if someone else has posted this Guardian article. So even Pope Francis’ left wing fan club are waking up to his shenanigans, even if they have somewhat got the wrong end of the stick!
Someone did post that news, but not the same link, so thank you for that.
Now, back to those weans before we call Social Services!
I would like to use this thread to call out the blogger Louie Verrecchio, who, in his latest piece linked on another site, has conjured up a “crisis” within the SSPX because – wait for it – he has not received any answers from SSPX leadership to his emails regarding That’s Amoris. Apparently he thinks that a person of his importance deserves immediate attention to his concerns, and failing that, decided to discern a tempest in his teapot. I also called him out on his blog, the link to which I will not post, since he is a disgrace and a hot-headed egomaniac.
Judging from his rubbish, he’s been reading “Resistance-to-Nothing” literature, since his piece makes about as much sense as their rot, and displays the same arrogance.
God save us from these people.
You aroused my curiosity with your remarks about Louie V, so despite my own dislike of that site, I have just paid a visit and read the “biretta” article and the one below that, dated 12 Feb about Bishop Fellay. I was stunned to find that his anger is directed at the Bishop because he has broken with past practice by not answering all of Louie’s communications! Gimme a break! Some folk (naming no names) don’t EVER get a reply from Bishop Fellay! I once found myself engaged in email correspondence with a very helpful priest close to the Bishop, who relayed my messages (nothing exciting and a couple of years ago, now) and then relayed the Bishop’s replies back to me, but a direct line? Maybe I’ll try writing under a pseudonym… Louise Verily might do the trick… 😀
Phew! Louie does have a few bees in his bonnet… You truly couldn’t make it up. He’s gunning for the SSPX now, albeit slipping in, here and there, the fact that he has “friends” in high places there (I paraphrase) and that at a meeting with some “top brass” (again, I paraphrase) he was told off for something and “in humility” (quoting, not paraphrasing) he accepted the criticism.
“In humility”? Elementary spiritual stuff: the minute we think we’re humble, we can lodge a very safe bet at the nearest bookies’ – we’re not! In recognition that he was in the wrong, or that those correcting him had the right to do so, fine; but “in humility”? Classic.
It’s clear from these latest writings that he is desperate to justify his position (that the pope is not the pope) and since the SSPX won’t agree with him, it has to be chucked out with the bath-water. Here’s an excellent comment from one of Louie’s bloggers who is not in his adoring fan-club: he/she says it all, so I’ll finish with this…
“Louie, in some perverse way, you should actually be grateful the Church is in as confused a state as she is today, because if there ever does come a time in history, when the Church does return to anywhere near the state she enjoyed during the [reign] of St Pope Pius X, life will not be good for you, as you are a very confused man.
Yes, you’re bright enough to figure things out, and you certainly possess as much book knowledge on the Catholic faith as most. But it has become increasingly clear to me over the past few years that I’ve been reading you, that notwithstanding your often informative insight into tiers of the faith, you have also been drifting to a state where the only religion that will quench your thirst is “Louie’s religion”. Anyone or anything that fails to meet your understanding of [this] is to be rejected. The Catholic Church will not be an exception.
The SSPX, which openly confesses that their mission is simply to hold onto and profess that true teachings of the Catholic Church, has not fallen in line with your thinking––either on this pope or on Amoris Laetitia. Moreover, they won’t even respond to your letters. How dare they snub you [you] no doubt ask. Quite clearly, there is only one response that is worthy of that behavior in your mind and that’s to throw them overboard.
Aside from the fact that such action is simply petulant and disrespectful toward the only organization in existence that professes to offer and promote the true teachings of the Catholic Church that the Modernist leaders in Rome have long abandoned, it is sad. It is sad because you have more talent than you’re demonstrating. You will do as you wish, I’m sure, but my suggestion is that you take a break. Take a week or so to make a retreat and clear out some of that “Louie’s religion” from your head. You’ll be much better off and so will your readers.” End.
That’s quite a reply from that commenter, though not so sure the Church under the reign of St. Pius X was all that rosy, judging from the war he waged against the Modernists.
Yes, I think the key to the whole problem is humility, or lack thereof. I’m also reminded, once again, of Our Lord’s warning about the future: “Iniquity will abound, and charity will grow cold.”
Good thing L.V. isn’t a lawyer – he would apparently try every case without a judge or a jury, and hand down sentences himself!
Comments are closed.