FSSP and Protocol 1411/99

  • Thread starter Thread starter ProVobis
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
This article is ten years old.

I tried to find clarification on this but could not.
Simply put, in Protocol 1411/99 the Vatican has ordered that any priest, even one belonging to an institute enjoying the privilege of using the 1962 Roman Missal, may freely celebrate or concelebrate Mass using the revised Missal of 1970 with no impediment whatever, the will of their superiors notwithstanding. But the Vatican went further, mandating that FSSP priests must say the new Mass or concelebrate under some conditions.
Under what conditions?

BTW - This is a link to the FSSP website.

fssp.org/en/index.htm

One more thing. Isn’t it just a tad uncharitable of this author, Thomas Woods, Jr., to call someone a “Semi-traditionalists”? It just strikes me of an attitude of “I am better than you.” In reflection of the Golden Rule, I wonder if Mr. Woods would mind being called a semi-journalist or a semi- catholic.
 
Talk about digging up a decade-old controversy…yawn :whistle:
I prefer to give ProVobis the benefit of the doubt on this. I think, and I stand ready to be corrected, that he started this rather than derail another thread.
 
I was “inspired” to bring this up after reading all the comments under other threads implying everything was honky-dorey with the FSSP.

Has anything really changed since 2000 with the FSSP except that we have a new Pope? I know we want to sweep this under the rug but the situation up in Calgary does leave a big question mark as to whether this order is totally solid. Don’t get me wrong, I do attend FSSP Masses and think their priests are holy but to use them as an example of how the traditional movement needs to go, especially in relation to the SSPX, is a little troubling for me. I like to hear opinions and thanks, pnewton, for giving me the benefit of the doubt.
 
What in the world does the recent situation in Calgary–which, BTW, was resolved within a matter of weeks, and you can bet that someone from Rome made a phone call or sent an e-mail to the bishop there–have to do with the protocol 1499 controversy? How is the FSSP “not solid”? These are huge leaps of logic.
 
Talk about digging up a decade-old controversy…yawn :whistle:
Ten years is such a long time, for sure. Yet SSPX attackers go back and rehash 1988 over and over. And they haven’t consecrated any more bishops since then.
 
I was “inspired” to bring this up after reading all the comments under other threads implying everything was honky-dorey with the FSSP.
I had insder’s knowledge of the earlier posts and read between the lines.

I have two thoughts. First, that no group with in the Church, from the diocese, to the religious, the Jesuits or the Curia, has everything smooth all the time. Human sin sees to that.

Second, that no plan (or compromise) can anticipate every contingency. If there is a lesson, it is not that one can not trust Rome and must remain apart from the Holy See, but rather that a better way to quickly address these unforeseeable incidents needs to be in place. I think in the instance of Calgary, that was addressed rather quickly.

In defense of the bishop, emergencies do arise and require extraordinary measures. Was this such a case? I surely thing not. However, he would not be the first and only leader to be suckered in by the media on all the H1N1 hype into making imprudent decisions.
 
Second, that no plan (or compromise) can anticipate every contingency. If there is a lesson, it is not that one can not trust Rome and must remain apart from the Holy See, but rather that a better way to quickly address these unforeseeable incidents needs to be in place. I think in the instance of Calgary, that was addressed rather quickly.

In defense of the bishop, emergencies do arise and require extraordinary measures. Was this such a case? I surely thing not. However, he would not be the first and only leader to be suckered in by the media on all the H1N1 hype into making imprudent decisions.
Thanks for your reply.

I agree with your assessment but I wonder if there wasn’t a deeper issue than just the flu that was involved here. Are the FSSP fair game now that they are in “full communion” with the Church? Cancelling even one Mass or agreeing to such cancellation is a serious issue. I doubt if I’d be driving long distances to any Mass, EF or OF, if it were skipped, even for one Sunday. Was it the bishop’s strategy to undermine the seemingly vulnerable FSSP, seeing the H1N1 as great opportunity to do so?
 
This touches on one of the reasons I personally believe both the SSPX and FSSP are positively willed by God.

During the pontificates of Paul VI and John Paul II, Traditional Catholics were persecuted and the old Mass was unjustly suppressed by the hierarchy, who led everyone to believe that it had been abrogated. The hierarchy did all they could to put an end to the old Mass and the old (read true) faith. In my opinion, if it wasn’t for the SSPX the hierarchy would have crushed the FSSP in no time flat. There are examples of Seminarians leaving the SSPX to found Rome-approved Seminaries. Many promises were made to the Seminarians to get them to leave the SSPX, only to have the Mass, Cassock and everything else taken away one at a time. The one Seminary I am thinking of was called Mater Ecclesia. They lasted a very short time before it was shut down by Rome. One of the seminarians wrote to the SSPX and told them how they were being persecuted. He said “I hate to say it, but you were right and I was wrong. I expect the Seminary to be closed down by the end of the year”. It was closed two months later.

During the Pontificates of Paul VI and John Paul II, I believe God used the SSPX to keep the hierarchy in check, in order to allow the FSSP and other Traditional Orders in normal relations with Rome to flourish. If it wasn’t for the SSPX, I think these Orders would have been crushed quickly. But with the SSPX there, Rome knew that if these Orders were crushed, the Priests would go to the SSPX.

With the death of John Paul II and the election of our new Pope, things are gradually changing for the better. Pope Benedict admitted that the old Mass was never abrogated after all, which is exactly what the SSPX and other Traditionalists said the entire time (and were ridiculed for), and now the Pope has lifted the lifted the “excommunications” of the SSPX Bishops. Now God is using the SSPX as his instrument to bring clarity to the apparent errors in the documents of Vatican II. I have no doubt that the current talks with the SSPX will result in many “clarification” of the Vatican II documents, probably similar to the “clarifications” Rome issued to address the errors in the Joint Declaration with the Lutherans. Another interesting thing is that somehow the Traditionalists spotted these errors in the Joint Declaration, even before Rome issued the “clarification” where it stated that certain parts were “not acceptable”. Interestingly, John Paul II, who praised the Joint Declaration, didn’t catch these obvious errors (which were almost word for word contrary to what the Council of Trent taught), yet the SSPX and other Traditionalists spotted them right away, and even warned Catholics not to be misled by them. It is interesting that it is the job of the Pope to guard and protect the faith, yet John Paul II the Great praised this document that contained numerous errors - errors that were later “clarified” by Rome.

IF a Pope fail in his duty, God will not abandon his people. He will always raise up a defender of the faith, and a faithful remnant to preserve the truth. Now you can rest assured that the devil will stir up absolute HATRED for these faithful, but in the end they will be shown to have been right. During the Arian crisis, for example, when the faith was being threatened and abandoned by the Bishops; and when the Pope himself appeared to be wavering in the faith, God raised up St. Athanasius. How was St. Athanasius treated? He was condemned by a council of 300 Bishops; banned from his diocese 5 times; spent 17 years in exile; and, like the SSPX Bishops, he was “excommunicated” by the Pope. The devil stirred up so much HATRED for St. Athanasius that the saying was “Athanasius against the world”. Today he is known as St. Athanasius, Defender of the Faith.

We are in an unusual situation today, which is virtually identical to what transpired during the Arian crisis. Today, as in those days, God has raised up a faithful remnant; and today, as in those days, these faithful remnant are HATED.

And that, my friends, is why there is so much HATRED for the SSPX. Notice how the SSPX is the one group you can call names. The Protestants are our “brethren”, the Orthodox are our Sister Church, the Jews are our “elder brothers in the faith”, the Muslims “together with us worship on merciful God”, and the Buddhist have “found a way to nirvana”, yet the SSPX are heretics and schismatics who must be avoided at all costs. Every false religion is praised for any “truth” it happens to have, yet the faithful remnant who have kept the faith “whole and inviolate”, are HATED.

And let me not be heard as saying the SSPX are the only faithful remnant. All of the Traditional Orders, and Traditional Catholics, who have kept the faith “whole and inviolate” are being used by God in this crisis; but it is primarily the SSPX who is HATED, since God is using them in a special way.
 
👍
This touches on one of the reasons I personally believe both the SSPX and FSSP are positively willed by God.

During the pontificates of Paul VI and John Paul II, Traditional Catholics were persecuted and the old Mass was unjustly suppressed by the hierarchy, who led everyone to believe that it had been abrogated. The hierarchy did all they could to put an end to the old Mass and the old (read true) faith. In my opinion, if it wasn’t for the SSPX the hierarchy would have crushed the FSSP in no time flat. There are examples of Seminarians leaving the SSPX to found Rome-approved Seminaries. Many promises were made to the Seminarians to get them to leave the SSPX, only to have the Mass, Cassock and everything else taken away one at a time. The one Seminary I am thinking of was called Mater Ecclesia. They lasted a very short time before it was shut down by Rome. One of the seminarians wrote to the SSPX and told them how they were being persecuted. He said “I hate to say it, but you were right and I was wrong. I expect the Seminary to be closed down by the end of the year”. It was closed two months later.

During the Pontificates of Paul VI and John Paul II, I believe God used the SSPX to keep the hierarchy in check, in order to allow the FSSP and other Traditional Orders in normal relations with Rome to flourish. If it wasn’t for the SSPX, I think these Orders would have been crushed quickly. But with the SSPX there, Rome knew that if these Orders were crushed, the Priests would go to the SSPX.

With the death of John Paul II and the election of our new Pope, things are gradually changing for the better. Pope Benedict admitted that the old Mass was never abrogated after all, which is exactly what the SSPX and other Traditionalists said the entire time (and were ridiculed for), and now the Pope has lifted the lifted the “excommunications” of the SSPX Bishops. Now God is using the SSPX as his instrument to bring clarity to the apparent errors in the documents of Vatican II. I have no doubt that the current talks with the SSPX will result in many “clarification” of the Vatican II documents, probably similar to the “clarifications” Rome issued to address the errors in the Joint Declaration with the Lutherans. Another interesting thing is that somehow the Traditionalists spotted these errors in the Joint Declaration, even before Rome issued the “clarification” where it stated that certain parts were “not acceptable”. Interestingly, John Paul II, who praised the Joint Declaration, didn’t catch these obvious errors (which were almost word for word contrary to what the Council of Trent taught), yet the SSPX and other Traditionalists spotted them right away, and even warned Catholics not to be misled by them. It is interesting that it is the job of the Pope to guard and protect the faith, yet John Paul II the Great praised this document that contained numerous errors - errors that were later “clarified” by Rome.

IF a Pope fail in his duty, God will not abandon his people. He will always raise up a defender of the faith, and a faithful remnant to preserve the truth. Now you can rest assured that the devil will stir up absolute HATRED for these faithful, but in the end they will be shown to have been right. During the Arian crisis, for example, when the faith was being threatened and abandoned by the Bishops; and when the Pope himself appeared to be wavering in the faith, God raised up St. Athanasius. How was St. Athanasius treated? He was condemned by a council of 300 Bishops; banned from his diocese 5 times; spent 17 years in exile; and, like the SSPX Bishops, he was “excommunicated” by the Pope. The devil stirred up so much HATRED for St. Athanasius that the saying was “Athanasius against the world”. Today he is known as St. Athanasius, Defender of the Faith.

We are in an unusual situation today, which is virtually identical to what transpired during the Arian crisis. Today, as in those days, God has raised up a faithful remnant; and today, as in those days, these faithful remnant are HATED.

And that, my friends, is why there is so much HATRED for the SSPX. Notice how the SSPX is the one group you can call names. The Protestants are our “brethren”, the Orthodox are our Sister Church, the Jews are our “elder brothers in the faith”, the Muslims “together with us worship on merciful God”, and the Buddhist have “found a way to nirvana”, yet the SSPX are heretics and schismatics who must be avoided at all costs. Every false religion is praised for any “truth” it happens to have, yet the faithful remnant who have kept the faith “whole and inviolate”, are HATED.

And let me not be heard as saying the SSPX are the only faithful remnant. All of the Traditional Orders, and Traditional Catholics, who have kept the faith “whole and inviolate” are being used by God in this crisis; but it is primarily the SSPX who is HATED, since God is using them in a special way.
 
Excellent post. Thank you so much Ultima Ratio.
This touches on one of the reasons I personally believe both the SSPX and FSSP are positively willed by God.

During the pontificates of Paul VI and John Paul II, Traditional Catholics were persecuted and the old Mass was unjustly suppressed by the hierarchy, who led everyone to believe that it had been abrogated. The hierarchy did all they could to put an end to the old Mass and the old (read true) faith. In my opinion, if it wasn’t for the SSPX the hierarchy would have crushed the FSSP in no time flat. There are examples of Seminarians leaving the SSPX to found Rome-approved Seminaries. Many promises were made to the Seminarians to get them to leave the SSPX, only to have the Mass, Cassock and everything else taken away one at a time. The one Seminary I am thinking of was called Mater Ecclesia. They lasted a very short time before it was shut down by Rome. One of the seminarians wrote to the SSPX and told them how they were being persecuted. He said “I hate to say it, but you were right and I was wrong. I expect the Seminary to be closed down by the end of the year”. It was closed two months later.

During the Pontificates of Paul VI and John Paul II, I believe God used the SSPX to keep the hierarchy in check, in order to allow the FSSP and other Traditional Orders in normal relations with Rome to flourish. If it wasn’t for the SSPX, I think these Orders would have been crushed quickly. But with the SSPX there, Rome knew that if these Orders were crushed, the Priests would go to the SSPX.

With the death of John Paul II and the election of our new Pope, things are gradually changing for the better. Pope Benedict admitted that the old Mass was never abrogated after all, which is exactly what the SSPX and other Traditionalists said the entire time (and were ridiculed for), and now the Pope has lifted the lifted the “excommunications” of the SSPX Bishops. Now God is using the SSPX as his instrument to bring clarity to the apparent errors in the documents of Vatican II. I have no doubt that the current talks with the SSPX will result in many “clarification” of the Vatican II documents, probably similar to the “clarifications” Rome issued to address the errors in the Joint Declaration with the Lutherans. Another interesting thing is that somehow the Traditionalists spotted these errors in the Joint Declaration, even before Rome issued the “clarification” where it stated that certain parts were “not acceptable”. Interestingly, John Paul II, who praised the Joint Declaration, didn’t catch these obvious errors (which were almost word for word contrary to what the Council of Trent taught), yet the SSPX and other Traditionalists spotted them right away, and even warned Catholics not to be misled by them. It is interesting that it is the job of the Pope to guard and protect the faith, yet John Paul II the Great praised this document that contained numerous errors - errors that were later “clarified” by Rome.

IF a Pope fail in his duty, God will not abandon his people. He will always raise up a defender of the faith, and a faithful remnant to preserve the truth. Now you can rest assured that the devil will stir up absolute HATRED for these faithful, but in the end they will be shown to have been right. During the Arian crisis, for example, when the faith was being threatened and abandoned by the Bishops; and when the Pope himself appeared to be wavering in the faith, God raised up St. Athanasius. How was St. Athanasius treated? He was condemned by a council of 300 Bishops; banned from his diocese 5 times; spent 17 years in exile; and, like the SSPX Bishops, he was “excommunicated” by the Pope. The devil stirred up so much HATRED for St. Athanasius that the saying was “Athanasius against the world”. Today he is known as St. Athanasius, Defender of the Faith.

We are in an unusual situation today, which is virtually identical to what transpired during the Arian crisis. Today, as in those days, God has raised up a faithful remnant; and today, as in those days, these faithful remnant are HATED.

And that, my friends, is why there is so much HATRED for the SSPX. Notice how the SSPX is the one group you can call names. The Protestants are our “brethren”, the Orthodox are our Sister Church, the Jews are our “elder brothers in the faith”, the Muslims “together with us worship on merciful God”, and the Buddhist have “found a way to nirvana”, yet the SSPX are heretics and schismatics who must be avoided at all costs. Every false religion is praised for any “truth” it happens to have, yet the faithful remnant who have kept the faith “whole and inviolate”, are HATED.

And let me not be heard as saying the SSPX are the only faithful remnant. All of the Traditional Orders, and Traditional Catholics, who have kept the faith “whole and inviolate” are being used by God in this crisis; but it is primarily the SSPX who is HATED, since God is using them in a special way.
 
Thanks for your reply.

I agree with your assessment but I wonder if there wasn’t a deeper issue than just the flu that was involved here. Are the FSSP fair game now that they are in “full communion” with the Church? Cancelling even one Mass or agreeing to such cancellation is a serious issue. I doubt if I’d be driving long distances to any Mass, EF or OF, if it were skipped, even for one Sunday. Was it the bishop’s strategy to undermine the seemingly vulnerable FSSP, seeing the H1N1 as great opportunity to do so?
I do not know. I do know many civil authorities over-reacted, so it is conceivable that this would have happened in the Church too. I guess in a vacuum of evidence for ill-motives, assuming the best motives is the most prudent and charitable course.
 
This touches on one of the reasons I personally believe both the SSPX and FSSP are positively willed by God.

During the pontificates of Paul VI and John Paul II, Traditional Catholics were persecuted and the old Mass was unjustly suppressed by the hierarchy, who led everyone to believe that it had been abrogated. The hierarchy did all they could to put an end to the old Mass and the old (read true) faith. In my opinion, if it wasn’t for the SSPX the hierarchy would have crushed the FSSP in no time flat. There are examples of Seminarians leaving the SSPX to found Rome-approved Seminaries. Many promises were made to the Seminarians to get them to leave the SSPX, only to have the Mass, Cassock and everything else taken away one at a time. The one Seminary I am thinking of was called Mater Ecclesia. They lasted a very short time before it was shut down by Rome. One of the seminarians wrote to the SSPX and told them how they were being persecuted. He said “I hate to say it, but you were right and I was wrong. I expect the Seminary to be closed down by the end of the year”. It was closed two months later.

During the Pontificates of Paul VI and John Paul II, I believe God used the SSPX to keep the hierarchy in check, in order to allow the FSSP and other Traditional Orders in normal relations with Rome to flourish. If it wasn’t for the SSPX, I think these Orders would have been crushed quickly. But with the SSPX there, Rome knew that if these Orders were crushed, the Priests would go to the SSPX.

With the death of John Paul II and the election of our new Pope, things are gradually changing for the better. Pope Benedict admitted that the old Mass was never abrogated after all, which is exactly what the SSPX and other Traditionalists said the entire time (and were ridiculed for), and now the Pope has lifted the lifted the “excommunications” of the SSPX Bishops. Now God is using the SSPX as his instrument to bring clarity to the apparent errors in the documents of Vatican II. I have no doubt that the current talks with the SSPX will result in many “clarification” of the Vatican II documents, probably similar to the “clarifications” Rome issued to address the errors in the Joint Declaration with the Lutherans. Another interesting thing is that somehow the Traditionalists spotted these errors in the Joint Declaration, even before Rome issued the “clarification” where it stated that certain parts were “not acceptable”. Interestingly, John Paul II, who praised the Joint Declaration, didn’t catch these obvious errors (which were almost word for word contrary to what the Council of Trent taught), yet the SSPX and other Traditionalists spotted them right away, and even warned Catholics not to be misled by them. It is interesting that it is the job of the Pope to guard and protect the faith, yet John Paul II the Great praised this document that contained numerous errors - errors that were later “clarified” by Rome.

IF a Pope fail in his duty, God will not abandon his people. He will always raise up a defender of the faith, and a faithful remnant to preserve the truth. Now you can rest assured that the devil will stir up absolute HATRED for these faithful, but in the end they will be shown to have been right. During the Arian crisis, for example, when the faith was being threatened and abandoned by the Bishops; and when the Pope himself appeared to be wavering in the faith, God raised up St. Athanasius. How was St. Athanasius treated? He was condemned by a council of 300 Bishops; banned from his diocese 5 times; spent 17 years in exile; and, like the SSPX Bishops, he was “excommunicated” by the Pope. The devil stirred up so much HATRED for St. Athanasius that the saying was “Athanasius against the world”. Today he is known as St. Athanasius, Defender of the Faith.

We are in an unusual situation today, which is virtually identical to what transpired during the Arian crisis. Today, as in those days, God has raised up a faithful remnant; and today, as in those days, these faithful remnant are HATED.

And that, my friends, is why there is so much HATRED for the SSPX. Notice how the SSPX is the one group you can call names. The Protestants are our “brethren”, the Orthodox are our Sister Church, the Jews are our “elder brothers in the faith”, the Muslims “together with us worship on merciful God”, and the Buddhist have “found a way to nirvana”, yet the SSPX are heretics and schismatics who must be avoided at all costs. Every false religion is praised for any “truth” it happens to have, yet the faithful remnant who have kept the faith “whole and inviolate”, are HATED.

And let me not be heard as saying the SSPX are the only faithful remnant. All of the Traditional Orders, and Traditional Catholics, who have kept the faith “whole and inviolate” are being used by God in this crisis; but it is primarily the SSPX who is HATED, since God is using them in a special way.
Great post 👍
 
The hierarchy did all they could to put an end to the old Mass and the old (read true) faith.
“There is no ‘pre-’ or ‘post-’ Conciliar Church. There is but one, unique Church that walks the path toward the Lord…”

Is it your suggestion that the practices of the Church today are somehow NOT part of the “true” faith?
 
  • Is it your suggestion that the practices of the Church today are somehow NOT part of the “true” faith?*
Your question is someone vague since you seem to indicate that faith and practice are one and the same. While they are related, they are not identical.

But to answer your question, the best example I can give of a change in a practice that directly touches upon the faith is that of allowing non-Catholics to receive communion in the Catholic Church.

The non-Catholics I am specifically referring to are those sect that deny the Primacy of the Roman Pontif, and 13 dogmatic councils of the Church. Since simply denying one dogma constitutes heresy, it is clear that any sect that denies 13 Councils qualifies as a heretical sect over and over again; yet these sects, known as the Othodox, are allowed to receive communion in the Catholic Church.

This practice is exactly contrary to all that the Church has ever taught on the subject of intercommunion, and runs the risk of causing the Catholics to become indifferent. Some may go so far as to consider it acceptable for a group to reject dogmatic councils without falling into heresy.

There are other examples of high ranking Churchmen giving communion to known Protestants, who were personal friends of the one who gave them communion.

So, this would be an example of a practice that is contrary to what the Church has always taught. And it should be further stated this allowance, at least with respect to the Orthodox, is not limited to cases of emergency only.
 
This touches on one of the reasons I personally believe both the SSPX and FSSP are positively willed by God.


With the death of John Paul II and the election of our new Pope, things are gradually changing for the better. Pope Benedict admitted that the old Mass was never abrogated after all, which is exactly what the SSPX and other Traditionalists said the entire time (and were ridiculed for), and now the Pope has lifted the lifted the “excommunications” of the SSPX Bishops. Now God is using the SSPX as his instrument to bring clarity to the apparent errors in the documents of Vatican II. I have no doubt that the current talks with the SSPX will result in many “clarification” of the Vatican II documents, probably similar to the “clarifications” Rome issued to address the errors in the Joint Declaration with the Lutherans. Another interesting thing is that somehow the Traditionalists spotted these errors in the Joint Declaration, even before Rome issued the “clarification” where it stated that certain parts were “not acceptable”. Interestingly, John Paul II, who praised the Joint Declaration, didn’t catch these obvious errors (which were almost word for word contrary to what the Council of Trent taught), yet the SSPX and other Traditionalists spotted them right away, and even warned Catholics not to be misled by them. It is interesting that it is the job of the Pope to guard and protect the faith, yet John Paul II the Great praised this document that contained numerous errors - errors that were later “clarified” by Rome.

IF a Pope fail in his duty, God will not abandon his people. He will always raise up a defender of the faith, and a faithful remnant to preserve the truth. Now you can rest assured that the devil will stir up absolute HATRED for these faithful, but in the end they will be shown to have been right. During the Arian crisis, for example, when the faith was being threatened and abandoned by the Bishops; and when the Pope himself appeared to be wavering in the faith, God raised up St. Athanasius. How was St. Athanasius treated? He was condemned by a council of 300 Bishops; banned from his diocese 5 times; spent 17 years in exile; and, like the SSPX Bishops, he was “excommunicated” by the Pope. The devil stirred up so much HATRED for St. Athanasius that the saying was “Athanasius against the world”. Today he is known as St. Athanasius, Defender of the Faith.

We are in an unusual situation today, which is virtually identical to what transpired during the Arian crisis. Today, as in those days, God has raised up a faithful remnant; and today, as in those days, these faithful remnant are HATED.

And that, my friends, is why there is so much HATRED for the SSPX. Notice how the SSPX is the one group you can call names. The Protestants are our “brethren”, the Orthodox are our Sister Church, the Jews are our “elder brothers in the faith”, the Muslims “together with us worship on merciful God”, and the Buddhist have “found a way to nirvana”, yet the SSPX are heretics and schismatics who must be avoided at all costs. Every false religion is praised for any “truth” it happens to have, yet the faithful remnant who have kept the faith “whole and inviolate”, are HATED.

And let me not be heard as saying the SSPX are the only faithful remnant. All of the Traditional Orders, and Traditional Catholics, who have kept the faith “whole and inviolate” are being used by God in this crisis; but it is primarily the SSPX who is HATED, since God is using them in a special way.
Excellent post. Thank you, Ultima Ratio. As Archbp. Lefebvre stated, “We will adhere to the Faith without bitterness, without compromise”. Remember that Pope Benedict himself got a taste of what the traditionalists had been enduring for decades, with the heavy dose of vitriol when he ‘dared’ to offer the lifting of the decree of excommunication as a step towards resolving the SSPX issue:
Some groups, on the other hand, openly accused the Pope of wanting to turn back the clock to before the Council: as a result, an avalanche of protests was unleashed, whose bitterness laid bare wounds deeper than those of the present moment.
I was saddened by the fact that even Catholics who, after all, might have had a better knowledge of the situation, thought they had to attack me with open hostility.
That the quiet gesture of extending a hand gave rise to a huge uproar, and thus became exactly the opposite of a gesture of reconciliation, is a fact which we must accept. But I ask now: Was it, and is it, truly wrong in this case to meet half-way the brother who ‘has something against you’ and to seek reconciliation?
And should we not admit that some unpleasant things have also emerged in Church circles? At times one gets the impression that our society needs to have at least one group to which no tolerance may be shown; which one can easily attack and hate. And should someone dare to approach them - in this case the Pope - he too loses any right to tolerance; he too can be treated hatefully, without misgiving or restraint.
 
I had insder’s knowledge of the earlier posts and read between the lines.

I have two thoughts. First, that no group with in the Church, from the diocese, to the religious, the Jesuits or the Curia, has everything smooth all the time. Human sin sees to that.

Second, that no plan (or compromise) can anticipate every contingency. If there is a lesson, it is not that one can not trust Rome and must remain apart from the Holy See, but rather that a better way to quickly address these unforeseeable incidents needs to be in place. I think in the instance of Calgary, that was addressed rather quickly.

In defense of the bishop, emergencies do arise and require extraordinary measures. Was this such a case? I surely thing not. However, he would not be the first and only leader to be suckered in by the media on all the H1N1 hype into making imprudent decisions.
If it were anyone other than Bishop Henry, I might suspect ulterior motives but he seems to be one of the most orthodox bishops out there. I sincerely believe that he was motivated by fear for his flock when he made his decision.

It really surprised me since our bishop had more or less said that Communion under both species was too important to discontinue and suggested that it be left to the communicant to decide for him/herself whether to receive from the chalice or not during that time. Our pastor made his decision to discontinue offering the Cup and to discontinue the Sign of Peace based on advice that our local hospital gave to all the Churches in our town at a Ministerial Meeting. Communion on the tongue wasn’t forbidden but it was suggested that those very few who receive COTT receive last – unfortunately that didn’t protect the choir members, they always receive after everyone else.
 
Our pastor made his decision to discontinue offering the Cup and to discontinue the Sign of Peace based on advice that our local hospital gave to all the Churches in our town at a Ministerial Meeting.
It makes me wonder why the local hospital didn’t advise everyone to stay at home during the epidemic altogether. Still a risk no matter how you cut it.
 
It makes me wonder why the local hospital didn’t advise everyone to stay at home during the epidemic altogether. Still a risk no matter how you cut it.
Fair enough.

I have to admit I misspoke: the Sign of Peace wasn’t discontinued in my parish, it was changed to a bow from a handshake. Even though we’ve returned to Communion from the Cup, the bow might be here to stay as I’ve noticed no great rush on anyone’s part to return to the handshake. I prefer the bow, it’s less disruptive.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top