SSPX Response to Traditionis Custodes – No!editor
To read the Letter from the Superior General of the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX) in light of the publication of the motu proprio Traditionis Custodes click here
Pope Defrocks Theodore McCarrick, Ex-Cardinal Accused of Sexual Abuse Theodore E. McCarrick,... read more
“Catholic Answers” is an organization made up of lay apologists whose... read more
Not too many people are taking seriously the World Economic Forum... read more
Humza Yousaf, who is running to be the next First Minister... read more
Editor writes... As with all Feast Day threads, discuss any relevant issues,... read more
Do you agree with the commentators who believe that Vatican permission... read more
Award-winning American author Dan Graham’s article Words That Count first appeared... read more
For the third time, the above video has been removed on... read more
Part of the Catholic Truth series, Thinking Through Catholic Truth –... read more
It appears that a children’s book titled Dear Pope Francis [was]... read more
I am caught between Pius X and Francis. I also say ‘no’. I say no to choosing further schism which I feel is desirable only by Satan. We need to unite. For me schism will come only when the Real Presence is denied. Until then I believe all Masses are valid. I know that the ancient rites are the most beautiful and faithful and closest to tradition but I say no to the idea that the Novus Ordo and the 16 documents of Vatican ll are heretical. I know that the abuse of some progressives in its wake was heretical and that the Marxists hold sway today but I say no to the idea that from Paul Vl onwards we have had bad popes incapable of being true shepherds.Vatican Il did not ban TLM but not enough was done to protect those faithful to it. Benedict tried to redress the damage. I don’t know enough about Canon law, but this Motu Propio is invalid, I think. Still, it’s too soon for schism. I pray every day for the conversion of Francis and the resurrection of the Church. I will now add a petition to God that there will be true bishops who will protect the Latin Mass. It’s heaven on earth.
I think Athanasius has more than answered the key point in your comment – which I like for it’s honesty, by the way – and I would only add that the recent popes prior to Francis have all caused immense scandal in one way or another. The interfaith Assisi events alone are enough to earn them the epithet “bad popes”. Nobody would think a schoolteacher who gave self-evidently bad example to pupils was a “good teacher” – they may be very nice people, but that’s different (and less important, obviously) than being a professionally good teacher. Same goes for popes. If they accept the papal office, where their obligation is to preach the undiluted Faith to the world, and then stand in line with non-Catholic leaders and leaders of pagan religions, then they are effectively saying that Catholicism is but one religion among many – no big deal. That is very far from preaching “the narrow path” of which Our Lord spoke. He gave Peter the keys of the Kingdom for a reason.
Thus, nice men or not, the popes prior to (and including Francis) are not good popes because such attitudes and actions are opposed to the very essence of the papal office, which has its roots in the Gospel.
I think that perhaps you misunderstand the position of the SSPX re the Mass and the documents of Vatican II. The talk of schism was the Vatican’s version of fake news to keep the faithful away from Tradition. There was never an act of schism on the part of Archbishop Lefebvre, which has since been tacitly and quietly admitted by not a few senior prelates. What the Archbishop done in 1988, when he consecrated 4 bishops without papal permission, was allowed for in Canon Law in cases where genuine necessity arises. Indeed, a bishop who consecrates other bishops for such a reason, even if he were honestly mistaken about a crisis, is not punished under Canon Law. So no one who knew the teaching of the Church ever believed that Archbishop Lefebvre was a schismatic. He served the Church faithfully for 60 years as priest and bishop and was named by Pius XII “the best of my Apostolic Delegates” Archbishop Vigano has recently stated that in his opinion Archbishop Lefebvre will one day be declared a Doctor of the Church. I agree with him.
As for the SSPX position on the New Mass, it has always been that the New Mass can be valid – i.e. when celebrated with the correct matter, form and intention – but is at all times illicit by the very nature of its construction. It is an entirely new rite that did not emanate from old older rites but rather copied from the Protestant meal service invented by the apostate Archbishop Cranmer in 16th century Reformation Britain. Its chief architect confirmed this publicly in 1974 when he announced “the new liturgy is a conquest of the Catholic Church”. And so it has proved with its destructive spirit. Archbishop Lefebvre called it “poisonous” to Catholic spirituality, a certain way to have your faith diminished over time, which is exactly what has happened to most who attend it.
The SSPX has never called the documents of Vatican II “heretical” either – that’s another untruth told about the SSPX to make it appear schismatic. There are certainly two documents that could be said to border on heresy but the rest are just dangerous by reason of what Michael Davies called the “time bombs” hidden behind their ambiguous wording.
Now, just to come back to the New Mass. I had to attend my aunt’s funeral recently in a Modernist parish and I can tell you without any doubt that the Mass was certainly not valid. The priest used a host for the consecration the size of a dinner plate, which is forbidden, and I could tell by his manner of offering that he didn’t have the mind of the Church when consecrating. He could not wait to rush everyone through that Mass, not even bothering to incense or bless the coffin. And of course no black vestments or altar servers – it was horrendous. That’s the problem with the New Mass and the new ecclesiology – what do the priests believe the Mass is? A lot of them certainly don’t believe it’s the sacrifice of Calvary being offered in perpetuity to God the Father. I would never return to that Mass, not even if the ancient Mass of the saints and martyrs was taken from me. I also know priests who have resolved never to celebrate it again, as the late Bishop Salvadore Lazo did when he discovered the treasure of the true Latin Mass.
As regards the motu Proprio of Francis – it is a clearly hateful document written with vengeance against those faithful to the true Mass and doctrine of the Church. Disobeying this Pope when he abuses the power of his office in this way is not “schism”, as you appear to believe, it is our Catholic duty attested to by many saints and theologians who have written and spoken of such circumstances in the past. We have no business judging a Pope but we do have a right and duty to refuse obedience when he commands a wicked thing. Besides that, obedience to God is more important than obedience to men when making a choice between the faith of our fathers and the Modernist innovations of power abusing prelates.
Great response from Fr. Pagliarani, straight to the point – no compromise. It was refreshing to see the SSPX make this firm declaration against an abusive Pope.
I was greatly edified by Fr. Pagliarani’s letter, but I also wondered where he’s been hiding all this passionate eloquence since he was elected. This document should be a source of great strength and encouragement to all Catholics committed to Tradition.
The priest was instructed to read this letter this week. He assured us that the Latin Mass will never disappear from the face of the earth!
This was the first time I attended the Traditional Latin Mass having been raised in the Novus Ordo. I would go every week but it is very far away. I am thinking of going once a month regularly. I’m researching about St. Pius V who instituted the mass of the Council of Trent and reigned during Battle of Lepanto. Presently I have an idea that the Church could benefit from a “Vatican III” or another council like Trent to reinstate the Tridentine Mass. Also I am hoping for the cardinals and bishops to produce a document describing all the major Protestant sects, Eastern Orthodox Church, Judaism, etc. explaining when they were founded, why they disagree with Catholicism, what they need to do to unify with the Church and the Pope. The hierarchy should formalize and propagate this information, which the learned already know, to the lay people in simple language for evangelization. It will help people learn about Catholicism in the process of discussing with neighbors, community, and in teaching others while the parishes are revived by a return to Tradition. So-called interfaith dialogue on formal levels achieves nothing since religious leaders will not renounce their creeds or compromise with others. The Catholic Church shouldn’t become more like the world in a vain attempt to growth, i.e. Novus Ordo. Let us pray that the Church may be one as the Trinity is one.
While they’re at it the pope and the hierarchy would also Consecrate Russia exactly as prescribed by Our Lady…
Absolutely correct – until that happens, the world (and the Church) will not be put to rights, so to speak. The diabolical disorientation of which we were warned in the Fatima apparitions, will continue.
I tried to post a tweet from Fr Ray Blake, but it doesn’t seem to have worked.
“If the Pope in Trad Cust is right, then BXVI,s hermeneutic of continuity is wrong, therefore VII and the NO brought in something new which is incompatible with what preceded it, therefore he is saying the FSSPX are right we have a new religion”
Which is I think an accurate summing up.
Of course, I doubt Francis meant to imply this, but intellectual pygmies always catch themselves out in the end.
Excellent tweet from Fr Ray Blake. Thanks for posting it.
Fr. Ray Blake sums it up perfectly in a short concise paragraph – absolutely spot on analysis.
(I also posted this on the older “back firing” thread:)
A statement from Bishop Rob Mutsaerts (Aux Bishop of Hertogenbosch in the Netherlands).
Its a pretty brutal response to Francis and his action regarding the traditional mass. Its very surprising it comes from a Bishop in the Netherlands of all places. Its very pleasant reading.
(Would that the useless mouths of the Scottish Episcopate managed to say something too – ha!)
I agree with you that Bishop Mutsaerts has given a brutal response to Pope Francis and his action regarding the traditional mass. And maybe unexpected considering that he is a Bishop in the Netherlands.
Also, I agree too with Athanasius that Fr pagliarani, SSPX, made a point – no compromise too.
Pope Francis needs our prayers and sacrifices made on his behalf.
Francis also needs to see our unified and public respectful disobedience to his evil command. I have a feeling this will backfire on him – the ancient Mass of the Church, the true liturgy of the saints and martyrs will expand under this persecution. Francis has made the greatest mistake of his Pontificate and may God have mercy on this merciless Pope. It is always a very bad sign for an individual’s eternal destination when they display public hatred for the Mass of ages.
I suppose it’s too early to tell what effect this declaration of war will have on societies such as the FSSP, ICK, etc., but it appears that the onus is once again on the SSPX to be the last lifeboat standing in the battle to preserve Tradition. Father P’s letter sounds like a reinvigorated resolve to do just that, after years of silence.
Thank goodness the SSPX Superior has spoken out. I was beginning to wonder if they had given up the right.
As this thread pertains to the SSPX:
The SSPX news service is premiering “Archbishop Lefebvre – a documentary” (a full film) on YouTube in (at the time of writing) 13 hours.
This will be an excellent resource and making it freely available on YouTube is an excellent idea at this very time.
Everyone should spread news of this film far and wide, as there will be lots of people looking for information, inspiration and leadership at this time in the Church.
I’ll look out for that documentary. I hope they don’t make the same mistake that Bishop Tissier made in his biography of the Archbishop by suggesting that he signed all the documents of the Council. We know from the Archbishop’s own repeated testimony that he refused to sign two of those documents, namely, Dignitatus Humanae and Lumen Gentium.
The insistence of the Archbishop in this regard, right up to his death in 1991, was somewhat undermined when Bishop Tissier checked the Vatican archives and found the Archbishop’s signature on both documents. The general conclusion was that Archbishop Lefebvre had, in older age, forgotten that he had signed the two documents in question, even though he always maintained that what he actually signed were the standard attendance sheets required of all the Fathers of the Council whenever they congregated in the various Sessions to vote.
Interestingly, I came across a private conversation Archbishop Lefebvre had with Pope Paul VI in 1976, during which the Pope angrily accused the Archbishop of personal attacks against him, the Council and the unity of the Church. The Pope had even come to believe that Archbishop Lefebvre was making his newly ordained priests take and oath against him. It is suspected that this particular calumny was whispered into the ear of the Pope by Cardinal Villot. It was, of course, utterly false and malicious. The Pope was shocked when Archbishop Lefebvre vehemently denied such an outrage and asked him who had told him such a wicked lie.
Nevertheless, when Archbishop Lefebvre raised the subject of the aforesaid documents DH and LG, pointing out to Paul VI how they directly contradict the teaching of his predecessors and threaten the Faith, Paul VI refused to discuss the theology underpinning them, insisting instead, as he had done throughout the conversation, or rather the dressing down, on absolute submission to Vatican II and the reform. He refused the Archbishop’s appeal to allow Traditional priests, religious and faithful their place in Vatican II’s new “pluralist” Church. There was to be room for all manner of diversity but NOT for Tradition.
The transcript was written by Cardinal Benelli, substitute for the Secretariat of State at the time, whose accurate dictation of the unfolding conversation between the Pope and the Archbishop reveals this very telling statement of Paul VI, which appears to back the Archbishop’s determined insistence that he refused to sign two of the Conciliar documents:
“But do you realize what you are doing? Are you aware that you are going directly against the Church, the Pope, the Council? How can you claim the right to judge the Council? A Council, after all, whose acts for the most part were signed by you.” Upon which, the sovereign pontiff began to wrap up the audience.
The exchange as recorded by Cardinal Benelli can be read here: https://fsspx.news/en/content/38774
Now, while I can understand Bishop Tissier’s inclusion in his biography of what he actually saw with his own eyes in the Vatican archives, I do think he perhaps failed to weigh the possibility of forgery. To forge the Archbishop’s name on those two documents would go a long way in discrediting the Archbishop’s sincerity, or at the very least suggest senility in his old age. When we consider the wickedness of these high prelates of Modernism towards Traditional Catholics – and we have the example of Cardinal Villot actually telling the Pope a wicked lie about Archbishop Lefebvre on the supposed oath he made his newly ordained take against Paul VI, it’s not to great a stretch to see a master forger being assigned the duty of putting the Archbishop’s signature on those two documents.
I believe what the Archbishop said over many years. I do not believe what those documents now show since his death. As Sherlock Homes once stated: “When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”
Hurrah for the SSPX speaking out at last.
However, it looks like an awful lot of bishops are not going to obey Francis on this, so they may not get many new recruits after all.
This is a great thread – I’ve enjoyed reading it although I don’t think many of the bishops will try to take the Mass away now that there has been an immediate backlash from the people and now this very strong statement from the SSPX. I think Francis has shot himself in the foot with this stupid motu proprio.
In this Sunday Sermon from South Saint Paul, Father traces the history of the Tridentine Mass.
Another episcopal ally!
Cardinal Brandmüller is one of the cardinals who we placed great hopes on for doing something serious about this pope. They mention the dubia in that article, in fact. He’s not been heard of since until this and all that is saying is that it’s a bad law.
He also makes a comment about being polite about objecting. I just wish we could have an “episcopal ally” who would speak forcefully, angrily even, rather than this tiptoe “nice” approach, which is getting us nowhere.
From Michael Matt at Remnant TV:
It looks like we are following the road of those who suffered for the faith. Examples such as – The Christeros in Mexico. among so many others in the past who were attacked and died for the Catholic Faith. How will we now take up the Cross and follow in their footsteps?
As this thread pertains to the SSPX:
Has anyone read the latest district newsletter (?) there were some notable points in it:
– the SSPX is closing down its Portsmouth Chapel. The reasons given are low attendance in that locale and growing demands on Priests elsewhere. This point jumped out at me, as last year my family and I would have visited this Chapel when on holiday, had covid restrictions not ruined it for us! At least the local diocese has ample provision of the traditional Mass, though for how long (thanks to Francis) I don’t know.
This is the second SSPX Chapel in southern England to close in recent times, which is concerning; but I suspect it is just about rearranging things to draw the maximum benefit from Priests’ efforts.
– the SSPX is building a brand new Chapel at its Berkshire school, at a cost of £2 million. (They already owned the land). Half the cost was funded by the sale of another building and the remainder by donations. This is necessary as the current Chapel is deemed too small and insufficiently beautiful – issues familiar to people who attend the Glasgow Chapel!
This effort is notable, as it will be the first Church built for the traditional liturgy in the UK for over half a century!
Archbishop Thomas Gullickson (of the USA) has commented on the situation in his personal blog.
He was due to celebrate a Pontificate Mass at a shrine in Washington DC, which – after the motu proprio – was immediately cancelled by the local ordinary: miserable toad Cardinal Wilton Gregory – a prominent henchman of serial abuser Theodore McCarrick.
Some parts I appreciated were:
I wonder why some are so taken up with trying to “scatter the sheep”: Quare fremuerunt gentes… Why would anyone pretending to be of Christ’s Church lash out at the lambs?
What has brought on this violence today in the Church? It is the same deep-seated hatred of the Apostolic Faith which was at work back in the 1960-70’s and which still perdures among an ever diminishing old guard and their clueless recruits. They seem to have imbibed that same hatred, which “wreckovated” churches and burned books and vestments, with no respect for the devotion of a generation now mostly gone to their eternal reward.
Comments are closed.