A plea to the SSPX and SSPXers

[Iohannes]

Ecclesia Dei has basically become irrelevant:
-How many bishops are actually generously allowing the faithful to attend the Traditonal Mass, (one sunday a month is not generous)
-The Actions of the Holy See does not live up to the letter of Ecclesia Dei
-Disobiedence does always not make one a schismatic.
-Bishop Rangel is a valid Bishop.
-It is also possible Rome has changed their minds on this matter

Questions needed to be asked:
-How come the Holy see did not punish the Society of Saint John Vianney for their “schism”?
-How come the Holy See did not invalidate their Marriages and confessions?
-How come the Holy See recongized a “schismatic” bishop to be a valid bishop of the Catholic Church in Light of Ecclesia Dei?

 

[Iohannes]

As for why the SSPX are a little cautious, read here:

latinmassmagazine.com/articles/articles_1999_FA_Woods.html

 

[bear06]

Iohannes:

Ecclesia Dei has basically become irrelevant:

Using this logic, most of the Church teachings have become irrelevent. Disobedience and schism are two different things. I disobey Church teachings from time to time (more often then I care to admit! , that’s why I go to confession. I’m guessing most of us here do this. However, I don’t say that the teachings of the Church are not true or that the Church and the Holy Father do not have the authority to make these teachings in Faith and Morals. Basically, I submit to the Church teachings as authority but I’m not always good at following them.

I don’t believe the ordaining of the schismatic bishops was ever considered invalid. It was always considered illicit and a schismatic act for those involved.

 

[mtr01]

Iohannes:

Here look at this:
sspx.org/chapels.htm
Then check if in their diocese if they have an indult, there is high probality that they will have an indult.

Talking about no facts, you never bring facts but only assertions to your arguments.

This response may be a little late, but for what it’s worth, we have 2 indult masses in the Archdiocese. There isn’t one SSPX chapel in the state.

 

[Iohannes]

mtr01:

This response may be a little late, but for what it’s worth, we have 2 indult masses in the Archdiocese. There isn’t one SSPX chapel in the state.

I have already said there are exceptions to this.

 

[Iohannes]

bear06:

Using this logic, most of the Church teachings have become irrelevent. Disobedience and schism are two different things. I disobey Church teachings from time to time (more often then I care to admit! , that’s why I go to confession. I’m guessing most of us here do this. However, I don’t say that the teachings of the Church are not true or that the Church and the Holy Father do not have the authority to make these teachings in Faith and Morals. Basically, I submit to the Church teachings as authority but I’m not always good at following them.

I don’t believe the ordaining of the schismatic bishops was ever considered invalid. It was always considered illicit and a schismatic act for those involved.

The last time I heard, Ecclesia Dei was not pronounced Ex Cathedra.

Again, why has not the Bishops been generous in allowing the Traditional Mass?

 

[bear06]

-How come the Holy See did not invalidate their Marriages and confessions?

I asked my canon lawyer friend ( a traditionalist in union with Rome) what happened to the marriages and confessions presided over by the SSJV after they were regularized and this was his response.

"The marriages were sanated by decree of the Holy Father, that is, retroactively made valid. Marriages after the reconciliation of the SSJV would be presumed valid by the Church.

The same goes for confessions heard by the SSJV after their reconciliation. As for previous, presumably invalid, confessions; if the SSJV subsequently confess in good faith, these would
be wiped out by the priest’s absolution now that the priest has faculties."

I looked up the word sanate and here’s what I found.
“‘Sanate’ is a term used in Canon Law meaning ‘to rectify’, ‘to remove the invalidity of.’”

So, it’s not that the marriages and confessions of the SSJV were valid in the beginning. It’s that the invalidity of them was removed after the regularization. The Church has a long history of doing this.

 

[Iohannes]

bear06:

I asked my canon lawyer friend ( a traditionalist in union with Rome) what happened to the marriages and confessions presided over by the SSJV after they were regularized and this was his response.

"The marriages were sanated by decree of the Holy Father, that is, retroactively made valid. Marriages after the reconciliation of the SSJV would be presumed valid by the Church.

The same goes for confessions heard by the SSJV after their reconciliation. As for previous, presumably invalid, confessions; if the SSJV subsequently confess in good faith, these would
be wiped out by the priest’s absolution now that the priest has faculties."

I looked up the word sanate and here’s what I found.
“‘Sanate’ is a term used in Canon Law meaning ‘to rectify’, ‘to remove the invalidity of.’”

So, it’s not that the marriages and confessions of the SSJV were valid in the beginning. It’s that the invalidity of them was removed after the regularization. The Church has a long history of doing this.

So what, that guy was saying is that the marriages and confessions were invalid until the regularization?
It does not make sense, it is almost like saying there was an actual marriage until the annulment.

Campos by the way did not renounce anything at all. They basically held the same position when Bishop Rangel took over from Bishop Castro de Mayer.

Anyways, in when Rome talks with the SSPX, validity of marriage and confessions has not been brought up.

 

[bear06]

Iohannes:

So what, that guy was saying is that the marriages and confessions were invalid until the regularization?
It does not make sense, it is almost like saying there was an actual marriage until the annulment.

Campos by the way did not renounce anything at all. They basically held the same position when Bishop Rangel took over from Bishop Castro de Mayer.

Anyways, in when Rome talks with the SSPX, validity of marriage and confessions has not been brought up.

It may make no sense to you but it does make sense to the Church and has made sense to the before SSPX existed. Rome doesn’t have to bring up the SSPX and the validity of marriage and confession. They do not have faculties extended to them by the local bishops. All priests need these to perform marriages and confessions. The only time they have emergency faculties is for confession when their is a danger of death.

Here’s what I’m saying probably explained better by a priest:
"You have to make some distinctions.

First, there is a difference between illicitly ordained and invalidly ordained. Illicit means that he could be (sacramentally) validly ordained, but he was done so outside of the law of the Church. In that case, he would be a priest but he would have no right to function as a priest in the Church. Therefore, he would be “suspended” from exercising Holy Orders in the Church. That means that he would say Mass validly but ilicitly. He would, however, give absolution for sins invalidly (it wouldn’t count or work or be effectively) because the Church says that a priest must be both validly ordained and also have faculties (permission from the Church) to absolve validly.

The second issue is mentioned above. Some sacraments require that either the proper form be followed (and that includes a minister who is recognized by the Church or the priest must have the faculty (permission) to adminster the sacrament. Thus, a priest who is illicitly ordained (but validly) cannot witness marriages: the proper form is not used since he is not an official witness for the Church and thus that marriage would be invalid) and he cannot absolve penitents from sins validly (except in the case of danger of death). He can, however, consecrate the Eucharist validly, though he does so illicitly (against the law).

Priests of the SSPX are, at present, “suspended” from exercising Holy Orders in the Church. That means that Mass is valid (it is really Mass) but they do not validly absolve sins (confess them if you want, but their absolution is invalid and the sins not sacramentally forgiven) and the marriages they witness are sacramentally invalid because they are not official ministers/witnesses for the Church (the marriages would be invalid due to lack of proper form). "

If Campos didn’t do anything differently then why do the SSPX and rad-Trads have such a problem with it. I believe they refer to it
as the Campos Compromise. I believe you’re correct when you say they didn’t renounce anything. What they did was submit to the authority of the Holy Father.

In their own words, here’s their beef:
"Remember, that when Campos sold out to the “indult,” it had to take the “Vatican II Oath” that comes from the 1984 “Indult” Quattuor abhinc annos, which prescribes:

That it be made publicly clear beyond all ambiguity that such priests and their respective faithful in no way share the positions of those who call into question the legitimacy and doctrine exactitude of the Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1970. "

 

[catholicbudgie]

As I see it, there is two related, but separate issues. Whether a Latin mass is acceptable, and whether or not the SSPX are correct in their views of the heretical nature of Vatican II and all the Popes thereafter.

Sorry, I’ve read the threads and guys I think you’re missing the wood for the trees here. If you want to argue over the usage of a Latin mass then go for it, just don’t confuse it with the SSPX issue.

Granted, I’m a long way from the states so maybe I don’t have a full handle on the issue. A well known actor who directed a certain movie recently, and who has had a long relationship with Australia happens to uphold the SSPX position. While I disagree with him on his view of canonical authority, I can also praise God for the good work he has done with that movie, as well as his involvement on issues such as abortion, embryonic stem cell research etc. Which just happen to dovetail nicely with the position of the Roman Catholic Church.

The point is I disagree on one thing, but because of that one thing I don’t write off everything else he does.

Regarding the Traditional Latin Mass - there is no controversy here in the Melbourne Archdioesce regarding this, none at all. I know of at least three churches here that offer a Latin Mass - there may be more. One church even goes the whole way with Gregorian chant and everything. It is a wonderful, joyous, holy thing to be a part of.

One of those churches happens to be my local - St Francis de Sales. They hold several masses on Sunday. One of them is Latin, the rest are not. There is no them and us - any parishoner can go to any mass. Sometimes I do, if I’ve had a hard week at work and I want it to just was over me.

However, if I’m feeling more vibrant, I’ll go to a charismatic mass and sing my lungs out - loving every minute! Or, I get together with a few friends and we hit a local vernacular mass.

I’m blessed by choice - why argue if a Latin Mass is right, or wrong? I see posters decending into a sort of “catholic fundamentalism” where they’re right and the other guy is wrong. Why not just enjoy ALL the riches the church offers us?

For the record, I am not a devotee of SSPX. I am a convert who’s reason for joining was because of Vatican II, not in spite of it. I converted because I saw the ultimate hypocritical nature of the Protestant church I was attending. They called themselves loving Chritians but disavowed anything Catholic, to the point of hatred.against Rome.

This is my ultimate point: some, not all of the posts are throwing daggers at each other, becoming less and less Christian as you do so. How can these people, regardless of whether they’re SSPX or RCC, call themselves true christians if all you’re doing is shooting down he who opposes you?

 

[pnewton]

Iohannes:

Ecclesia Dei has basically become irrelevant

One who feels free to make such a bold statement will never be convinced of anything. Once personal opinions override Church proclamation anything is possible.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Iohannes:

The last time I heard, Ecclesia Dei was not pronounced Ex Cathedra.
Again, why has not the Bishops been generous in allowing the Traditional Mass?

Your definition of generous. What is generous? Who decides what is generous?

I think a weekly (and Holy Days) Trad Latin Mass is being very generous.

pnewton:

Ecclesia Dei has basically become irrelevant

One who feels free to make such a bold statement will never be convinced of anything. Once personal opinions override Church proclamation anything is possible.

These two statements by Iohannes sums it all up.

Iohannes has raised himself/herself (sorry but I do not know your gender) as the authority over the Church just as the SSPX has.

Isn’t this one of the main things that protestants do?

 

[GregUK]

hi everyone…

i don’t approve of the sspx. we should do as the pope instructs - so just because someone does not go to the tridentine mass as often as they would like because they do not want to go to a schismatic church does not mean they do not love the old mass - thats replying to something said way back at the begining of this thread by a mr albert or something - no offence meant, i can’t remember his name.

i love the tridentine mass - but i love the essence of the mass more so i refuse to go into schism. no matter wether the new mass is often horrid to be present at and turns us off - it is still the holy sacrifice, whethere reverently or obviously offered or not.
and please don’t anyone believe that a new rite mass cannot be offered respectfully or an old rite mass cannot be offered disrespectfully - both are very possible indeed in my experience - i wonder how shocked some traditionalists would be if they witnessed a 20 minute low mass - that would make you more sick perhaps than a reverent novus ordo.

a quick idea from an English writer (C.S Lewis) - ‘don’t make religion your god, make God your religion’
this way, i think we shall all get to heaven quicker!
God bless everyone…
Greg Morrison

 

[MeaCulpa]

I offer this with few comments other than to remember this is one side of a story regarding the possible reconciliation of the SSPX and Rome and to note that Bishop Fellay states that there is just one big issue preventing this union. That issue is that every priest who so desires be allowed to celebrate the Mass in accordance with the 1962 issue.

I also felt that he misrepresented the FFSP as being a minority and that it is losing its credability every day - I find this not to be true.

I apologize for the long post in advance but I don’t have a URL for this so must post the entire interview. Discussion is invited.

      An Interview with Bishop Bernard Fellay SSPX, Conducted for
      "The Latin Mass" Magazine by Alessandro Zangrando

    By Bishop Bernard Fellay

           /The Latin Mass: Your Excellency, you and your, fellow bishops
    of the Society of St. Pius X have asked that the Vatican
    officially acknowledge that every priest of the Roman Rite is
    entitled to offer the traditional Latin Mass. An ordinary
    observer might wonder why Church authorities would hesitate at
    such a request. After all, what does the Church stand to lose by
    liberating the Old Mass?/

    /Bishop Bernard Fellay:/ If we remember that the Old Rite has
    never been abrogated, a statement that was confirmed in 1986 by
    a commission of nine cardinals, a statement that has been
    restated to us by Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos (“Basically the Pope
    does agree that the old rite has never been abrogated”), a
    statement repeated by Cardinal Medina who, assures his readers
    that he has nowhere found that this Mass has been prohibited, we
    must conclude that the main thing the Church would lose by
    giving the freedom of the Mass would be the injustice that has
    been imposed by a silent tyranny for 35 years over the whole
    Latin Rite. The odious way of pressurising the faithful and
    especially Priests who want to make use of their strict right to
    celebrate the Mass according to the old rite would be partly
    lost also. The tranquillity of a false peace, this pretended
    peace of a unity of rite (the New Mass) which is supposedly
    reigning today, could also be partly lost. But for my part, I
    have absolutely no doubt that the freedom of the Mass would be a
    welcome challenge to the “creativity” in which the progressives
    find themselves needing (to) engage so often in order to keep
    their faithful coming to Mass every Sunday.

    Continued

 

[MeaCulpa]

The Church has nothing to lose but so much to gain by

    reintroducing the Tridentine Mass on a grand scale and whoever
    really loves the Church and souls should not hesitate one minute
    before granting it. We even find voices in the Vatican who
    understand that the Church will not get out of the present
    crisis before going back to the Tridentine Mass. So many Priests
    would find their priestly identity when at last put in contact
    with the Mass.

    /TLM: Is it true, as some allege, that the widespread return of
    the old Mass could put pastoral unity in danger?/

    /BBF:/ Before speaking of pastoral unity, we should speak of
    unity in itself. The Tridentine Mass had so many components that
    were secure guardians of unity; all these elements have been put
    aside in the New Mass, thereby leaving open the possibility of a
    huge mess. The openings towards freedom in the New Mass are so
    numerous: look for example, at in-culturation, at the
    innovations left to the various Bishops’ Conferences, and so on,
    not to mention the enormous blow to unity caused by the
    introduction of the vernacular. Doubtless, the liberation of the
    Tridentine Mass would change things and cause problems for the
    New Mass, a poor Mass that would be totally (outweighed)
    outclassed by its (ancestor) predecessor. But, frankly speaking,
    where is the true danger against unity?

    /TLM: What is your assessment of the current Vatican attitude
    toward Tradition?/

    /BBF: / Regarding the efforts of Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos, I
    have no doubt that His Eminence has put his whole heart into
    trying to provide a measure of relief and some breathing room
    for the faithful and Priests desiring to keep or to turn back to
    the traditional liturgy. We certainly have to be thankful for
    this engagement on his part. It is highly probable that Cardinal
    Castrillon Hoyos has taken some hints from the other side,
    especially in the Vatican. I have never considered the problem
    the Society is facing as a personal problem. Nevertheless, we
    see a constant will to give the upper hand to the Vatican
    reforms and to the New Mass in particular, sometimes just in
    statements to the effect that the celebration of the Old Mass is
    only a concession from the Holy Father, that Rome cannot force
    the Bishops on these liturgical matters, that there should be
    peace between the rites (liturgical rites). All this leads to
    the conclusion that Tradition remains an exception in the Church
    and that the general and universal law that shall remain the
    norm is that of the New Mass and the post-conciliar reforms.

 

[MeaCulpa]

Tradition thus occupies a very precarious status. The present

    state of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter (FSSP) is one of
    the best illustrations of the fruits of the Ecclesia Dei
    Commission given under Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos. They were
    behead by the dismissal of Father Bisig, who tried to keep his
    society's exclusive commitment to the Old Mass. The FSSP is now
    led by a minority ready to engage in almost any liturgical
    compromise and is losing more credibility every day. As the FSSP
    has articulated no clear stance regarding the current crisis in
    the Church and seems not to possess the possibility of having
    one, there is an enormous potential for a split amongst the
    members themselves.

    /TLM: What do you think is the present Vatican assessment of the
    Society of St. Pius X? /

    /BBF:/ “Disobedient, rebellious, arrogant, narrow-minded,
    extreme, if not extremist” most probably the Vatican hierarchy
    considers that this type of behaviour, attributed to us, is the
    cause of our problems with Rome. We are certainly considered to
    be a source of disturbance, despite the fact that certain good
    aspects or some good fruits of our work have now been recognised
    by these same authorities. Indeed it is very difficult to know
    what Rome really thinks of us, because Rome is itself divided.
    You may even find official contradictory statements about us.
    This confusing situation is another reason for us to avoid a
    rush to any kind of diplomatic or ambiguous agreement in which
    any or all of the participants possess uncertainties regarding
    positions.

    /TLM: Does Rome consider the Society to be in schism?/

    /BBF:/ I can confirm that despite the fact that certain official
    declarations issued by the Vatican may lead by their wording to
    the conclusion that we are schismatic, nevertheless, in our
    conversations Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos has actually stated that
    we are neither schismatics nor heretics and that the whole
    matter is one of regularising a canonical situation. There are
    several arguments of great importance that confirm (sustain)
    this position. In practice, Rome has never dealt with us as if
    we were real schismatics. For example, when a Catholic who has
    left the Church and received ordination outside the Church
    returns to her fold, Church authorities do not allow such a
    Priest to exercise in the Catholic Church the orders he received
    outside the Church. This is a general practice of the Catholic
    Church. But when some of our Priests leave us and go to Rome,
    Rome receives them and allows them to exercise their priesthood
    fully.

 

[MeaCulpa]

When Campos was regularised, there was no word of schism in any

    of the official documents and for years Campos was in the same
    situation as we ourselves are still in now. We have never been
    approached by the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of
    Christian Unity; ecumenical dialogue has never been proposed to
    us. Recently, a Catholic prelate visited us. He was so surprised
    when he heard our congregation pray for the Pope during
    Benediction that he told us “in fact it seems you pray more for
    the Pope than the Romans do.”

    /   TLM: After four years of dialogue, you have not yet reached an         agreement with the Holy See. We know that the position of the
    SSPX is that, before any talk of an “agreement” it is necessary
    that the traditional Mass be “freed”: specifically, that every
    Priest who so desires must be given the freedom to offer the
    Mass of St. Pius V. At the moment, this idea does not seem
    feasible. So, will the SSPX close the door to any further
    conversation with the Holy See or will they suggest another
    proposal?/

    /BBF:/ First of all, I would like to state that the freedom for
    the Mass is not an impossible hypothesis. What would be
    impossible would be to require all Priests of the Catholic
    Church to celebrate the Tridentine Mass tomorrow. But to leave
    it open, simply to recognise a Rite that has never been lost, is
    not impossible; it is a simple requirement of justice. We could
    ask more; we do not. We certainly expect such a freedom to
    generate a growing movement towards a return to the Tridentine
    Mass and Tradition.

    Later on, we will even request from Rome that they stand in
    favour of the old against the new. Perhaps we should do so even
    now, but then we might be accused of requesting something
    impossible. So if Rome tells us they cannot, shall we continue
    the dialogue or just stop it ? Should we look for other solutions?

    What should be understood here is that the whole situation we
    are facing is not just a question of the Mass; much more is at
    stake and all other proposals we might bring forth will always
    have as a purpose to help get out of this terrible, devastating
    crisis. We are not introducing a false dialectic; the reality of
    the Church today is one of a fight for life or death. One day,
    we will have to say to Rome:

    “You have to make a choice – either you keep your Tradition
    alive or you die.” But I think history will demonstrate this by
    itself, indeed it already does. I like to say that we are not
    the problem; we might instead be the sign that there is a
    problem. Just for one second, forget about the Society of St.
    Pius X; let us suppose it does not exist. Tell me whether things
    go better for the whole Church ? We are in the middle of an
    enormous fight and this fight is about whether or not we shall
    keep the Catholic Faith and all that it entails. So the purpose
    of our discussions and of our efforts, will always be to try to
    find a way to strengthen the good and to weaken the bad forces
    that paralyse the supernatural life of the Church. By saying so,
    we do not pretend to take the place of the Pope, but while we do
    want to remain in our place, it is not forbidden at times to
    remind the boss of his duties. That said, I do believe that we
    shall see significant progress towards a reconciliation as long
    as we do not see a clear and determined will on the part of the
    Head of the Church to terminate this state of crisis. Finally,
    what we ask for are simply clear expressions of his will.

 

[MeaCulpa]

TLM Do we see a clear will to suppress liturgical abuses in
the recent document from the Vatican about the Holy Eucharist?

    BBF To apply 1/2 of the necessary remedy to a sick person
    will never heal him completely. Half measures arn't 
    sufficient. Once again, we are in battle for life or death. This
    document is guilty of human respect – afraid of offending
    progressive sensibilities and it is not accompanied by a
    determined will to see  measures it promulgates respected.
    The result is a new loss of the authority of the Roman Curia.
    Nobody cares. It is the sorrowful reality. Nobody cares and who
    shall be punished? The Americans say that this instruction is
    only to Europe. In Europe, the French say: everything is fine
    here; the Belgians: nothing new; the Swiss: these laws are
    universal and we are concerned only by the particular, so we
    shall continue to do as we always have done. So please, I do not
    say that the Vatican does nothing. I just try to look for the
    real fruits and I do not see them.

    TLM: How do you respond to those who say that all you do is
    criticise and that you recognise no good in Rome? 

    BBF Many of our statements may lead to the conclusion that
    we are never happy, that we do not want to recognise anything
    good in Rome. But this is not true. We do understand that the
    situation in which Rome finds herself is a very touchy, delicate
    and difficult one. The danger of a split within the Church is
    enormous and terribly real – and we speak not about ourselves
    here but about the progressive forces. In fact, it is more than
    a danger. It is already a reality. Fifteen years ago, Cardinal
    Gagnon was already speaking of the material schism of North
    America and the will of Rome to avoid provoking a formal schism.
    The cracks are all over the place and what remains of the unity
    of the Church more and more involves only superficial elements.
    What should be the strength of unity has become completely
    slackened.

    Look at the unity of faith, the unity of teaching. Go from one
    church to the other, from one diocese to the other, from one
    country to the other and listen to the sermons, to the homilies,
    look at the catechism that is taught and tell me where is the
    unity. We are wondering how such a situation can be resolved
    without the blood of the martyrs. (And) If the Church recovers
    without it, it will be one of the greatest miracles in all its
    history. I am certain that several among the Roman authorities
    are aware of that situation and they try to do their us in the
    Vatican and would like us to enter into an agreement, are people
    who have goodwill towards us. But what they request from us is a
    statement according to which the New Mass is valid, the Council
    is a true council of the Catholic Church, etc. These statements
    are not wrong in themselves; they are just terribly misleading.
    Imagine a soup that contains a drop of poison. We refuse to
    drink it. Rome insists and tells us: let us make peace, but you
    must at least recognise that it is a soup and we answer, we know
    that it is a soup, but we do not care, because it is poisoned.
    (And) If we recognise that it is a soup, you may draw the
    conclusion tomorrow that we nevertheless have to eat it and that
    is precisely what we do not want to do. We do not want any
    misleading compromise. We do not care about what the
    progressives think about us. We want to please God and be
    faithful to the faith of our baptism. We do want to obey the
    Church, but of course with a true obedience that is going to
    lead us to Heaven and not to Hell.

 

[bear06]

GregUK:

hi everyone…

i don’t approve of the sspx. we should do as the pope instructs - so just because someone does not go to the tridentine mass as often as they would like because they do not want to go to a schismatic church does not mean they do not love the old mass - thats replying to something said way back at the begining of this thread by a mr albert or something - no offence meant, i can’t remember his name.

i love the tridentine mass - but i love the essence of the mass more so i refuse to go into schism. no matter wether the new mass is often horrid to be present at and turns us off - it is still the holy sacrifice, whethere reverently or obviously offered or not.
and please don’t anyone believe that a new rite mass cannot be offered respectfully or an old rite mass cannot be offered disrespectfully - both are very possible indeed in my experience - i wonder how shocked some traditionalists would be if they witnessed a 20 minute low mass - that would make you more sick perhaps than a reverent novus ordo.

a quick idea from an English writer (C.S Lewis) - ‘don’t make religion your god, make God your religion’
this way, i think we shall all get to heaven quicker!
God bless everyone…
Greg Morrison

Just so everyone knows, I have nooooooooooooooooo problem with the Tridentine Mass and think it should be allowed generally. I do have a problem with historical innacuracies with Vatican II and anything that goes against the authority of the Pope on teachings of Faith and Morals.

 

[MeaCulpa]

/TLM: Your Excellency, because you travel much throughout the

    world, you have the benefit of a privileged perspective on the
    situation in the Church. Do you, find any movement towards
    Tradition and if so, in which countries? /

    /BBF: / These last years have witnessed an increasing movement
    towards Tradition. Even we are surprised by the importance of
    this movement, which especially involves young Priests and
    seminarians. Over the past few years, many Priests in many
    countries have grown closer to us and even expressed their
    desire to learn and to celebrate the Old Mass with or without
    the permission of their Ordinaries. More recently we see now
    several Bishops prudently inclining and taking steps towards the
    same attitude in favour of the Tradition of the Catholic Church.
    I do see this movement of return everywhere in the world.
    Certainly some countries have a stronger leaning than others,
    but we cannot see a special rule in it. A special mention may be
    given to the United States, but Italy could give us a great
    surprise in the near future, as could African countries, where
    the expectation for Tradition is great.