SSPX Info, updates and interviews

[WFS5801]

I would say that the fact you think Bishop Fellay is considering “turning on Archbishop Lefebvre” shows that you are a very confused person.

An excerpt from an address given by Archbishop Lefebvre to his priests in Econe, Switzerland on September 6, 1990.

A FALSE CHARITY

And we must not waver for one moment either in not being with those who are in the process of betraying us. Some people are always admiring the grass in the neighbor’s field. Instead of looking to their friends, to the Church’s defenders, to those fighting on the battlefield, they look to our enemies on the other side. “After all, we must be charitable, we must be kind, we must not be divisive, after all, they are celebrating the Tridentine Mass, they are not as bad as everyone says” —but THEY ARE BETRAYING US —betraying us! They are shaking hands with the Church’s destroyers. They are shaking hands with people holding modernist and liberal ideas condemned by the Church. So they are doing the devil’s work.

Thus those who were with us and were working with us for the rights of Our Lord, for the salvation of souls, are now saying, “So long as they grant us the old Mass, we can shake hands with Rome, no problem.” But we are seeing how it works out. They are in an impossible situation. Impossible. One cannot both shake hands with modernists and keep following Tradition. Not possible. Not possible. Now, stay in touch with them to bring them back, to convert them to Tradition, yes, if you like, that’s the right kind of ecumenism! But give the impression that after all one almost regrets any break, that one likes talking to them? No way! These are people who call us corpse-like Traditionalists, they are saying that we are as rigid as corpses, ours is not a living Tradition, we are glum-faced, ours is a glum Tradition! Unbelievable! Unimaginable! What kind of relations can you have with people like that?

I currently attend an FSSP church, with two great priests. So for some (I guess) I’m already a traitor to Tradition. I don’t know the answers but it weighs on me. What I do know is that Modernism and Tradition are not the same thing. And I know that Pope St. Pius X clearly wrote about the dangers of Modernism in his Pascendi.

 

[WFS5801]

What you want Youtube clips? Do you seriously think there was ZERO abuses during Mass at, say, 1902?

I asked for examples, not YouTube clips.

 

[WFS5801]

It is very likely that there were zero abuses at the very great majority of masses in 1902. What abuses did occur were very minor and, most likely unintentional.

Obviously I can not go back in time and prove this assertion, but the whole culture and the way priests were trained demanded complete obedience to the rubrics.

Priests were taught that they sinned gravely by willfully departing from the rubrics and they believed it.

Yep. But you’re mistaken on one point, it’s not up to you to prove there weren’t abuses, it’s up to Melchior_ to prove there were. (And, as for me, I wasn’t even asking for proof, just examples of these alleged abuses.)

 

[WFS5801]

Care to give quantifiable evidence that doesn’t involve extreme examples culled from Youtube?

You’ve already admitted there are (at least) some abuses in the Modern Church, what you haven’t provided is any evidence that abuses existed or were acceptable in the pre-Vatican II Church.

 

[giuseppeTO]

And, apparently, the OF Mass is “big” enough to include clown masses, charismatic masses and Easter Bunny masses as well.

What happens, after the SSPX bows to the Vatican II dictates and a new Pope decides that the Traditional Latin Mass (aka the “EF”) is no longer needed? That the “OF” is just as “efficacious” as the Traditional Latin Mass? They have no choice but to comply as they have cut their former argument off at the knees.

And, if (lots of “ifs” here) Bishop Fellay signs this agreement and it contains what most think it will contain (which is just a “starting point” of the negotiations, according to the Vatican), what was the whole point of the SSPX in the first place?

And where does this agreement leave the laymen? Since a prelature only applies to priests and bishops, can the Bishop (the local Bishop) force his newly reintegrated flock to attend “OF” masses, whether they want to, or not? After all, local bishops are still nixing Traditional Latin masses, even though the Pope said they must provide them.

Still, I think this is needless worry. Bp Fellay, priests, and laity will not in the future be forced to act against faith or morals any more than they currently do.

 

[WFS5801]

Still, I think this is needless worry. Bp Fellay, priests, and laity will not in the future be forced to act against faith or morals any more than they currently do.

Thanks for the response. At this point everything is pretty much supposition anyhow.

 

[Melchior_1]

You’ve already admitted there are (at least) some abuses in the Modern Church, what you haven’t provided is any evidence that abuses existed or were acceptable in the pre-Vatican II Church.

I’ve admitted there has been abuses throughout the entirety of the history of the Church, including pre-1962.

Seems like someone made a thread here about it awhile ago though, regarding stuff in the middle ages.

The catch here is that one can easily say “yes, there has been some abuses over 1962 years”, because the odds are in favor of that being the case. But to say that the Mass pre-1962 NEVER had ANY abuses EVER is a large stretch, and I’d love to see proof from you that liturgical abuse only started in 1960whatever.

 

[freshwind]

And does the SSPX now accept Vatican II teachings?

I think, if I have followed all of these discussions and understand them (which I am definitely open to correction) that the SSPX and our Holy Father agree on the point that people have misused/misinterpreted some of the teachings of VII.

The Holy Father has referred to the “reform of the reform” many times, and seems to be open to honest dialogue on the results of VII (the spirit of VII if you will).

He has stated that VII has to be interpreted with an eye and understanding of Tradition, it is not a break, but a re-examination of sorts.

It seems that Bishop Fellay is open to honest dialogue with the Holy See, and by his letter he seems to understand the Primacy quite well, and as Br. JR has pointed out many times, he alone as superior carries the burden for this decision.
It is quite easy for us armchair theologians and apologists to make statements but all I know is I am responsible for my own soul and that is quite a challenge from day to day.

I cannot imagine the weight that the good Bishop carries, and even more so the Holy Father … as many have said, let’s banter about it but our opinions mean nothing…but folks, our prayers mean A LOT!!!

cheers all, I have learned a great deal through these discussions and look forward to the regularization…God bless our Holy Father and the Bishop as they work to bring this to fruition.

 

[JReducation]

What does that even mean? The SSPX is home. The SSPX was never in schism, and is fully Catholic, and thus in communion with the Catholic Church.

The term “home” is being used in a different way here. It means to come into full communion with the Holy See. No matter what we say, the Holy See does not recognize the SSPX as being in full communion with Peter, hence the phrase, “They have no canonical place in the Church.” The nuance there is a legal one that often escapes people, but it has not escaped the bishops of the SSPX. The nuance is that they are Catholics, bu they have no rights. They may as well be Orthodox.

The Society does not consider Pope Benedict a “traditionalist”, but rather a “conservative” because he is still a powerful advocate of Vatican II. They have a point: he was even a “liberal” periti during the Second Vatican Council, working with Hans Kung and others. I’m not trying to smear our beloved Pope, simply pointing out the facts.

Pope Benedict gave an answer to this question last year. He said, “Don’t blame me. I did not elect myself. The cardinals elected me. As for me, I am who I am and am not going to be anyone else.”

In the case of the pope, we either take him as he is or leave the Church, because we can’t change him or fire him.

Contradiction. In both cases they were given their authority by Christ Jesus through apostolic succession.

Apostolic succession comes from Christ. Authority comes from the Church. Just because one is ordained does not mean that one has authority to exercise the ministry. Only the ordinary can grant that authority. That has been the tradition for 2,000 years.

Also, a lot of traditionalists don’t pray Divine Mercy.

I’ve never understood why not.

Indeed, but this deal does not affect being in Communion with the Church. This deal is simply a deal to make the Society regular again.

The use of that word is a slap on the face to every other Traditionalist institute who felt that being in full communion with the Apostolic See was no simple matter and they were willing to take the risk to come into full communion.

Secondly, we must pay attention to the subtle words that have been used. The Apostolic See told the SSPX that if it refused the Preamble, it would lead to schism and laid the moral responsibility on the shoulders of Bishop Fellay.

They’re won’t go into schism because they walk. They will go into schism, because the pope can jettison them out. There are two ways of going into schism. The second is rarely used, but has been used. The way that it’s done is that the faithful are told that if they support this group, they too are in schism and may not receive the sacraments from the Catholic Church until they reconcile with the Church’s authorities.

Then we have to pay attention to what Bishop Fellay said. I’m summarizing into one statement. But three times in the last week he has said that the pope wants this to happen now. This was not his choice to make it happen now. It was the pope’s choice. He tells the bishops that they have no reason to disobey, because the pope is not asking them to violate the commandments.

Without giving away too much, the bishop is saying that he was given only two choices, “now or never”. What the bishop is saying is consistent with the message that was on the cover sheet of the preamble.

The SSPX do recognize the authority of the Papacy, they are **just **disobedient.

There is no such thing as being “just” disobedient to the pope. When you disobey the pope, you had better have a moral reason to justify it. Disagreement is not a moral reason. The only valid reasons is that he’s asking you to break a commandment or he’s commanding something that he has no right to demand. For example, the government has not right to command you to invade an innocent country. But it does have the right to command that you serve in the armed forces.

Only 1 of the 4 Bishops want this preamble. Many of the SSPX clergy would ask: is it worth having a huge schism within the Society just because one of the Bishops wants to accept the preamble and become ‘regular’ again?

The good of the Church is more important than the good of any institute. This sounds like “protect the society at all costs, because the society can rebuild the Church if it falls apart.” No it cannot and no the Church will not fall apart without the Society. Most likely, the Society will survive this process of reconciliation, even if it’s with some different faces and some changes.

 

[JReducation]

Using the terminology ‘conciliar’ does not imply they are part of another Church or religion. It simply refers to the post-Vatican II heirachy of the Church, obviously along with the attitudes of many in that heirachy. Hostile to tradition and embracing to novelty. Not all of them, but many.

On Pentecost Sunday I will be installed as the superior general of my community. I will become part of the 'post-Vatican II hierarchy by default, because we’re past Vatican II. That does not make me a threat to the Church as you describe the “conciliar hierarchy”. It’s very offensive, because we know that when Traditionalists use the term, they don’t mean anything nice.

There’s a difference though. There’s a difference between the Society of St. Pius X and the many other Societies, orders, congregations in the Church. The Society teach the traditional faith, celebrate the traditional sacraments, preach traditional doctrine and offer the traditional Mass. The whole reason the SSPX is despised and in the spotlight is because of this, because of their refusal to conform with the novelty after Vatican II.

This is an assumption that Franciscans, Augustinians, Dominicans, Salesians, Carmelites, Benedictines, Passionists, Vincentians and others are unfaithful to orthodoxy or to tradition. Have you considered the fact that these other folks have their own traditions that are part of the Church’s tradition? Have you considered the implications of the statement that you have made? You have just written off more than two million men.

Indeed we are the Catholic Church, but the Society is in the spotlight.

Today. 200 or so years ago it was the Jesuits. Tomorrow it will be someone else.

Keep the faith.

I.F.

never lost it.

You’re talking about how the Pope and the College of Cardinals have a specific trap awaiting the SSPX which will destroy them. I’m sorry, but that’s more than sympathetic, that’s conspiratorial. And dangerously close to a line you probably don’t want to cross.

That borders on an accusation, which is not a nice thing to do to someone who has not hurt anyone.

And, apparently, the OF Mass is “big” enough to include clown masses, charismatic masses and Easter Bunny masses as well.

Aside from youtube, is there anywhere else that you see this every Sunday? I have never seen one of these. I know they have happened, because they’re on youtube. However, it seems to be the same three or four celebrations that are played over and over again.

My point is that we cannot blame the form, for what happened in some isolated cases.

What happens, after the SSPX bows to the Vatican II dictates and a new Pope decides that the Traditional Latin Mass (aka the “EF”) is no longer needed?

 

[JReducation]

Since a prelature only applies to priests and bishops, can the Bishop (the local Bishop) force his newly reintegrated flock to attend “OF” masses, whether they want to, or not?

As explained above, they were never outside of his jurisdiction or reach. It’s just that the bishops never wanted to exercise that kind of authority over a group of people. As far as what mass one attends, Canon Law says that a Catholic can attend any mass in any one of the Latin forms, which are several including the EF and in every rite within the Catholic Church, which are about 10.

After all, local bishops are still nixing Traditional Latin masses, even though the Pope said they must provide them.

The pope did not say that they must provide them. The pope said that they must listen to the request and try to provide them. He also said that they are the final liturgical authority in the diocese and that the EF cannot cause division in a parish or problems to a parish, such as scheduling or leaving the parish short one priest.

The pope would never say that the bishops MUST do this, because the pope knows that bishops cannot force any priest to celebrate the EF. If the pool is small, he can’t hold the bishop accountable for that.

Unfortunately, St. Pius V told us that “EF” form of the mass was to celebrated in perpetuity.

St. Pius’ statement does not bind his successors, because he’s not defining dogma. The only laws the bind popes are divine law found in nature and divine law found in revelation. Other than that, popes are bound by dogmas, not disciplines.

But even with the fullest reconciliation they may not be able to hear confessions, even by your own admissions (I think). In that sense, some may never be able to “come home.” Seems like a meaningless expression these days, IMO.

Let’s get one thing clear here. Priests do not have an automatic right to celebrate any sacrament. A priest shares in the priesthood of his bishop who shares in the priesthood of the Apostles all the way back to Christ, etc.

Confession has to do with faculties. The current law is that any priest who is not a diocesan priest doe snot have faculties until the local bishop grants them. This is not for the SSPX alone. This is for Dominicans, Trappists, Salesians, etc. Is there a reason that we want the SSPX to have something that no one else has, "universal jurisdiction’? It sounds like people are asking for this and not realizing how unfair they’re being to thousands of priests who are not diocesan priests. We must never forget that fairness is a two-way street. Otherwise we hurt each other without realizing it. That’s not what reconciliation is about. It’s about healing.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Lupe_Lu]

I strongly disagree with the statement that I emphasized with bold font. It would be easier in the short term but it would not be better.

So, your point is that those who DO NOT love Christ and His Chruch and who are operating from a self-serving private agenda are beneficial and performing a service for SSPX and the Holy Roman Catholic Church?

 

[Melchior_1]

That borders on an accusation, which is not a nice thing to do to someone who has not hurt anyone.

Touche, Brother.

 

[Lupe_Lu]

Just as in any group, there are people in SSPX who are acting from good motives; by this I mean, people who sincerely love Christ and His Church. When the Society reconciles with the Church, they will be very happy, and they will follow Bishop Fellay and reaffirm their loyalty and obedience to the Holy Father.

Then there are people in SSPX whose motivation for belonging to the Society is mixed, or more self-serving.

These are the ones who will split off and try to start their own religion.

Obviously, both the SSPX and the Church of Rome will be much better off without them.

The unification can only be a good thing for everyone.

I hope it happens soon.

 

[Megan7]

I know the ending victory, I’m talking about the present. Also, just to clear it up, I don’t attend the SSPX. I attend the FSSP. I just have friends who attend SSPX and I sympathise with the Society.

What does that even mean? The SSPX is home. The SSPX was never in schism, and is fully Catholic, and thus in communion with the Catholic Church.

That is simply denialism. There are monsters under the bed. The Church is in a total mess, and it isn’t going to get better for a long, long time yet. All because of modernism. There are still modernist Bishops who hate tradition and try their absolute hardest to suppress the traditional Mass and sacraments, and teachings. The Society does not consider Pope Benedict a “traditionalist”, but rather a “conservative” because he is still a powerful advocate of Vatican II. They have a point: he was even a “liberal” periti during the Second Vatican Council, working with Hans Kung and others. I’m not trying to smear our beloved Pope, simply pointing out the facts.

Again, some confusion. The SSPX is fully Catholic and in communion with the Church.

Contradiction. In both cases they were given their authority by Christ Jesus through apostolic succession.

For goodness sake. Firstly, I don’t know the motives of Bishop Fellay in this current debacle because I haven’t kept up to date with his letters and sermons. The SSPX will give reasons for their disobedience.

Also, a lot of traditionalists don’t pray DIVINE MERCY. Just thought I’d point that out!

The SSPX always were home. They are fully Catholic, were never in schism, and were always in communion with the Church.

Through the Hearts of Jesus and Mary,

I.F.

Hi,

Could you please explain why traditionalists do NOT pray the Divine Mercy?

Why?

I would like to understand.

Thank you,

PAX,

Megan

 

[choliks]

Hi,

Could you please explain why traditionalists do NOT pray the Divine Mercy?

Why?

I would like to understand.

Thank you,

PAX,

Megan

Hi Megan,

If you want to read on discussions about Traditionalists and the Divine Mercy… you might want to read thru this…

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=664793&highlight=divine+mercy

peace.

 

[ImmaculataFides]

Hi guiseppe, nice to hear from you.

I disagree that this doctrinal preamble will cause a huge schism.

Firstly, we do not know what it says so it is mere speculation that it is unacceptable.

Secondly, even though the three bishops urged (in a private communication) that Bp Fellay not sign it, they stopped short of saying they would disassociate themselves from Bp Fellay if he were to sign it.

You could be correct, and I could be wrong. I’m not sure. I’m just anxious. After reading your thoughts, and reading the letter of the three Bishops to Bp. Fellay again, you could indeed be right. You are right, none of them threaten disassociation. Perhaps I need to rely more on what the Bishops are saying than the SSPX faithful. Thanks for pointing that out.

Thirdly, what would your opinion be if the bishops (at least two of them anyway) issued a public letter stating their support for whatever Bp Fellay agrees to?

I would support them of course. I put my trust in the Bishops and Christ. My opinion on the doctrinal preamble is worth nothing, and won’t help anyone.

I think it is almost cowardly to worry that someone may request or force anyone, clergy or layperson alike, to act against or morals sometime in the future. In other words, drawing the SSPX into a trap. It will always be our obligation to adhere to the same faith and morals that we adhere to today. We have never been worried about the consequences of adhering to the faith in the past, so why now? Perhaps the Society will be more effective in rejuvenating the faith operating within the hierarchy as opposed to outside of it.

Very true, but I was not worried about the consequences of adhering to the faith. My concerns are with possible schism within the Society. I don’t want to see, regardless of likelihood, the SSPX split into different groups, because if they turn into numerous groups their influence as being the bastion of traditionalism and critique of modern influences will be threatened.

If Bp Fellay were merely interested in being regularized, he could have joined the FSSP or one of the other regularized groups a long time ago. I think his letter to the three bishops speaks volumes about our obligation, at some level, to trust that Christ will give us all the tools to do His will. Christ will eventually bring salvation to His Church through His Vicar and that is a fact. To refuse to work with His Vicar in the restoration of the Church would be to admit that Christ has somehow abandoned His Vicar.

Of course, and I trust Bp. Fellay. I agree with everything you said here. I’m only anxious about a possible split in the Society, as outlined above.

God Bless and keep you guiseppe,

Keep the faith.

I.F.

 

[ImmaculataFides]

Hi,

Could you please explain why traditionalists do NOT pray the Divine Mercy?

Why?

I would like to understand.

Thank you,

PAX,

Megan

Hi Megan.

You could probably do a quick Google search to get a better answer than from myself. I’ll just quote an article from “Angelus” which was posted on another forum:

**The Angelus
June 2010

Questions and Answers
by Fr. Peter R. Scott **

What are we to think of the Divine Mercy devotion?

Many people have certainly received graces from the devotion to Divine Mercy propagated by St. Faustina, and her personal piety was certainly most exemplary. However, this does not necessarily mean that this devotion is from God. It is true that Pope John Paul II promoted this devotion, that it was through his efforts that the prohibition was lifted on April 15, 1978, and that he even introduced a feast of Divine Mercy into the Novus Ordo. However, the fact that good and pious people receive graces and that Sister Faustina was pious do not necessarily means that it is from heaven. In fact, it was not only not approved before Vatican II. It was condemned, and this despite the fact that the prayers themselves of the chaplet of Divine Mercy are orthodox.

Condemned by the Holy Office

There were two decrees from Rome on this question, both of the time of Pope John XXIII. The Supreme Congregation of the Holy Office, in a plenary meeting held on November 19, 1958, made the following decisions:

The supernatural nature of the revelations made to Sister Faustina is not evident.

No feast of Divine Mercy is to be instituted.

It is forbidden to divulge images and writings that propagate this devotion under the form received by Sister Faustina.

The second decree of the Holy Office was on March 6, 1959, in which the following was established:

The diffusion of images and writings promoting the devotion to Divine Mercy under the form proposed by the same Sister Faustina was forbidden.

The prudence of the bishops is to judge as to the removal of the aforesaid images that are already displayed for public honor.

What was it about this devotion that prevented the Holy Office from acknowledging its divine origin? The decrees do not say, but it seems that the reason lies in the fact that there is so much emphasis on God’s mercy as to exclude His justice. Our sins and the gravity of the offense that they inflict on God is pushed aside as being of little consequence. That is why the aspect of reparation for sin is omitted or obscured.

The true image of God’s mercy is the Sacred Heart of Jesus, pierced with a lance, crowned with thorns, dripping precious blood. The Sacred Heart calls for a devotion of reparation, as the popes have always requested. However, this is not the case with the Divine Mercy devotion. The image has no heart. It is a Sacred Heart without a heart, without reparation, without the price of our sins being clearly evident. It is this that makes the devotion very incomplete and makes us suspicious of its supernatural origin, regardless of Sister Faustina’s own good intentions and personal holiness. This absence of the need for reparation for sins is manifest in the strange promise of freedom from all the temporal punishment due to sin for those who observe the 3:00 p.m. Low Sunday devotions. How could such a devotion be more powerful and better than a plenary indulgence, applying the extraordinary treasury of the merits of the saints? How could it not require as a condition that we perform a penitential work of our own? How could it not require the detachment from even venial sin that is necessary to obtain a plenary indulgence?

…

Fr. Peter Scott was ordained by Archbishop Lefebvre in 1988.
After assignments as seminary professor, US District Superior, and Rector of Holy Cross Seminary in Goulburn, Australia,
he is presently Headmaster of Our Lady of Mount Carmel Academy in Wilmot, Ontario, Canada.

There’s more, but it’s over the limit for a single post!

Also, please keep in mind that I said a lot: not all traditionalists don’t pray it. I personally pray it.

God Bless and keep you,

Keep the faith,

I.F.

 

[ImmaculataFides]

Yet we can say this about several times within Church history, the Form of Mass is hardly the reason.

“For now?” Nice defeatist attitude there.

He’s got a point. If he gives you an example off of YouTube it is quickly dismissed. If he was to record the local Novus Ordo offering with a cam corder and post it up here, it would be dismissed as “That’s only one parish, you can’t generalize!”

 

[TrueLight]

I want to point out one thing.

I support Bishop Fellay in moving towards reconciliation, not that my opinion matters. From what I’ve seen of the Bishop, I like him very much.

But let’s not develop amnesia though. He is not singing the same tune that he has always sung. Maybe he assessed the situation and is choosing the best option for the Society.

But all one has to do is watch some of his old sermons on video to see what I mean.