SSPX Update - Redux

[Alfonsus]

Allow me to play Devil’s advocate.

The keys to bind Heaven and Earth mean that the Pope can make an infallible proclamation ex Cathedra Petri. But as we know this does not make him infallible in all matters; e.g. Pope John XII’s belief that the Beatific Vision happens at the Last Judgment and not upon bodily death. He never gave that as an official Papal decree de Petri and thus it was never binding to Catholics.

Just the same, since no Holy Father since Vatican II has proclaimed that there is no state of emergency ex cathedra, the Society of St. Pius X could argue that the Pope is in error on this matter. They could see themselves as a modern day Savonarola resisting the corruption of the Borgia Popes.

I, myself, do not think their opinion has merit, but there is perhaps some validity in the opinion that just because Pope Benedict XVI has authoritatively said that there is no crisis of faith which would permit the consecration of more bishops, it does not necessarily mean that the Levebrite bishops must accept this as-is.

By your logic, then except some ex-cathedra statements, all other things are non-binding.
What are the other things? Everything in the canon law and liturgical rubrics for instance.

Since ex-cathedra statement only apply in faith and moral, other area which talk about governance and rubrics will never ever be within this ex-cathedra umbrella.

So, should bishops stay in their diocese per the law? Well, not ex-cathedra, I think your bishop can go to Hawaii and build a residence there and the Pope can do nothing about it.

And your parish priest… you want him available when needed, right? Too bad, being pastoral is only a suggestion under the law. So he can on vacation every day except on sunday just for Mass, if his mood allows him. There was never an ex-cathedra statement saying his leave days are limited.
Should I fast on Friday? It is a nice discipline, but my turkey is far more yummy. No problem here, not an ex-cathedra statement.

How about mass vestments? Oh yeah, the priest can choose to wear bishop mitre and pontificals, wear his alb over the chasuble and gird himself with his stole. But these rubrics regarding vestments are not ex-cathedra. Why people get upset for non-binding rules?

How about Mass? I guess we can dispense the discipline, and use whatever bread and wine, change the Mass structure with more role play as long the priest is the one consecrate the bread and wine.

If you ready to believe that only ex-cathedra pronouncements are binding, then it is illogical to support the SSPX cause at all. All those clown masses (real or not) are as good as traditional mass. Why? Because every other part of it are, as you said, non-binding.
Then why complain?

You see how disastrous your position really are?

 

[Melchior_1]

I think EphelDuath was just being contrary for the sake of having a discussion, he doesn’t strike me as the kind of guy who would deny the Successor of Peter having the keys.

 

[curlycool89]

Could it be that there is a difference between “emergency” and “state of emergency”?

In short, a random policeman cannot declare that the right of speech is suspended just because he thinks that Seimas or President should have declared a state of emergency. And it doesn’t matter if he is right to think so.

Furthermore, not every “emergency” results in “state of emergency”. For example, a fire in a house does count as an “emergency”, but it is unlikely that “state of emergency” is going to be declared because of that.

Couldn’t it make sense if something like that was true in the Church as well?

I think you’ve hit the distinction on the head here.

What the SSPX is appealing to is a legal procedure contained in legal language. What that means is that when the law talks about an “emergency”, it’s not speaking about a subjective emotions-driven everyone-throw-your-hands-up emergency, but a legal state of emergency. When it comes to legal procedures or states, it is up to the relavant authority to decide what constitutes such a state and to declare it when they feel it is necessary.

It’s like the famous DEFCON 1 in the US. If some rogue state were to launch a nuclear ICBM at somewhere, that would constitute the necessary conditions for a state of DEFCON 1, but it’s not DEFCON 1 until the President declares that the militar is to go to DEFCON 1. Some general in Germany or the captain of an aircraft carrier in the Pacific can’t just decide on their own that it’s DEFCON 1 and act as if it is until they have received orders to do so by their superiors.

It’s the same here. The Pope has vested in him the executive and judicial authority of the Church, and so he is the only authority capable of declaring such a legal state of emergency. The SSPX can jump and scream all they want about how it looks like an emergency, but that doesn’t mean anything until the Pope says so.

Something to consider is that when people say “they have emergency jurisdiction” they place themselves in square opposition to the Chief Canon Lawyer, the Pope himself. You are denying the Pope, denying his authority, denying Matthew 16, denying that he has the keys, denying he has the power to bind and loose. I’m sorry, but that is a very modernist outlook to have.

In fact, I would say that you could trace it right back to the modern period, back to Descartes himself (who is sometimes said to be the father of modern philosophy). Descartes only trusted things that he himself could understand in his own head and eschewed anything that anyone else said if he couldn’t prove it. Every person who says that they can interpret things for themselves is saying the exact same thing.

That is one thing that we as mainstream Catholics have that neither Protestants nor the SSPX understand: authority is external to me. Jesus is the foundation, and He gave the authority to Peter and his successors. Period. End of Statement. Saying “that’s not good enough for me because of x, y, and z” is not being Catholic, it’s being Cartesian. Which, by definition, makes you a modernist because it’s the defining idea of the modern period.

I am not quoting this to prove a thesis that there is a universal, worldwide State of Emergency (or State of Necessity); but if I personally had had a family in Arizona at the time, I would have sent my child for Confirmation from an SSPX bishop with a clear conscience.

This incident was obviously liturgically illicit, one act of disobedience (to liturgical norms) does not justify another (taking them to an illegal confirmation). This is essentially trying to use a Tu quoque fallacy as justification, and as the word fallacy implies it is a logically invalid argument.

Disagree. The Law is an objective thing. The Pope can amend the law, but he cannot contradict the fact of the existing law.

Your understanding of Canon Law is seriously lacking here.

Here’s what’s what: The Pope is the Supreme Court. And the President. And the Prime Minister. Canon Law is Positive (man-made) law, not divine law, so if the Pope says that the law says X, it says X. Canon Law is not Natural Law nor Eternal Law nor Divine Law.

So to counter the school that disobeys and refuses the authority of the Pope, you will let them be taught by…a group that disobeys and refuses the authority of the Pope?

And here’s again where we really bring to light the reality of the tu quoque fallacy.

So if you look at all the headlines recently concerning Los Angeles, you would say that this is not an emergency situation. Doesn’t emergency denote an unexpected occurrence?

An emergency situation, as is written in Canon Law and appealed to by the SSPX, is a legal state declared by the person with authority to say such things (ie. the Pope). It is separate from any perceived or emotional situation that we would label and emergency. Not all emergencies are states of emergency.

Here’s what the dictionary says:

The Vatican’s Canonical term “emergency” does not need to follow what a dictionary says. Dictionaries do not have authority over the Pope.

So, the important point of this whole post: Learn what legal language means. Legal terms (as contained in legal codes, such as the Code of Canon law) have specific meanings that can and are different than coloquial uses of such terms. In Canada and the US, all legislative documents usually start with a definition section to define certain terms in specific ways that are different than modern (heh) everyday usage.

Just because a word means something in everyday english does not mean it means the same thing in legal terms.

 

[JReducation]

In speaking about the Pontiff and the law one must keep in mind some very important theological and practical points.

1. The Law Giver is Christ, not the pope.
2. Christ places the law in the heart of the pope (St. Boniface V).
3. All Church law comes from the heart of Peter, placed there by Christ.
4. Other than Christ, no one else has the authority to interpret law, to apply law, to dispense with law, to bypass law or to abrogate law except Peter.

There is no contradiction when Peter says, “The law does not apply to you.” He has the authority to do so. This is what St. Boniface mad very clear during his pontificate and has remained the tradition in the Church every since.

I must add that St. Boniface did not pull this out of his mitre. He was reflecting on law from the time of the early popes.

 

[numealinesimpet]

Now wait one cotton-pickin minute. In the seventies I had long hair, a guitar, and I actually played Kumbaya at Mass. Does that make me…?

(As an aside, a few years ago my son was growing his hair “long” and asked my wife, “Why hasn’t dad said anything about my hair?”. She just looked at him and said, “His was much longer. You have a ways to go” I guess it’s no fun to rebel if your dad wins. )

Now you mention it, I too had shoulder-length hair, sang kumbaya and played the uilleann pipes at folk Masses. At present I still believe fervently in the good old extra-liturgical songs they sang in the carefree Ages of Faith: for example this gem sung around the British Isles, in English and Irish, in alehouses and the like (just imagine trying to sing this in a public house now):

The Seven Joys of Mary

The first good joy that Mary had, it was the joy of one,

To see her own son Jesus Christ, when He was first her son;
(All) When He was first her son, good men, and happy may we be-e-e-e-e (raise tankards)…

Pra-a-a-aise Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, for all eternity.
The next good joy that Mary had, it was the joy of two,

To see her own son Jesus Christ, a-making the lame to go:

(All) * A-making the lame to go, good men, and happy may we be-e-e-e-e (raise tankards)…

Pra-a-a-aise Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, for all eternity.*
The next good joy that Mary had, it was the joy of three,

To see her own son Jesus Christ, a-making the blind to see;

(All) * A–making the blind to see, good men, and happy may we be-e-e-e-e (raise tankards)…

Pra-a-a-aise Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, for all eternity.*
The next good joy that Mary had, it was the joy of four,

To see her own son Jesus Christ, a-reading the Bible o’er;

(All) * A-reading the Bible o’er, good men, and happy may we be-e-e-e-e (raise tankards)…

Pra-a-a-aise Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, for all eternity.*
The next good joy that Mary had, it was the joy of five,

To see her own son Jesus Christ, a-raising the dead to life;

(All) A-raising the dead to life, good men, and happy may we be-e-e-e-e (raise tankards)…

Pra-a-a-aise Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, for all eternity.
The next good joy that Mary had, it was the joy of six,

To see her own son Jesus Christ, upon the crucifix;

(All) Upon the crucifix, good men, and happy may we be-e-e-e-e (raise tankards)…

Pra-a-a-aise Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, for all eternity.
The last good joy that Mary had, it was the joy of seven,

To see her own son Jesus Christ, ascending into Heaven;

(All) * Ascending into Heaven, good men, and happy may we be-e-e-e-e (raise tankards)…
Pra-a-a-aise Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, for all eternity.*

Author unknown. Traditional Christmas carol, sung around the British Isles in English and Irish
sites.google.com/site/catholictopics/the-seven-joys-of-mary
(Notice the archaic pronunciation of ‘two’ with all three letters sounded, and rhyming with ‘Joe’; and the archaic meaning of ‘go’ as ‘proceed in any direction’.)
Note also the theological point that the Crucifixion was counted as one of her Joys.

And there’s this Harvest song from Merrie England:
We’ll drink to the downfall of tyrants,
We’ll drink to Christ Our Lord:
We’ll drink to the Twelve Apostles
Who preached His Holy Word;
We’ll drink to the Saints and Martyrs
In the dismal days of yo-o-o-ore (raise tankards);
And whenever our tankards are empty We will drink to one saint more…
(All) And whenever our tankards are empty We will drink to one saint more!

(etc for several verses)…

In fact, in the history of the Church there has always been a tension between the Liturgy, which is the official and public prayer of the Church, and popular piety, notably hymns. The Rubrics of the Traditional Roman (Gregorian) Rite (1962) give a hierarchy of what may be done. there is the Solemn Mass, with priest, deacon and subdeacon, Sung Mass - Missa cantata with one priest (introduced by Pope S. Pius X to allow wider use of the Gregorian chant)… Hymns may be sung before or after Mass, but not during Mass (the 1962 version might allow a Latin hymn during the Offertory; I’m not sure); if sung, both the invariable parts must be sung both (Kyrie etc) and the Proper (Introit for the day). Pope S. Pius X said, ‘Do not pray at the Mass: pray the Mass’; and one could equally say, in the mind of the Church ‘Do not sing at the Mass: sing the Mass’. The “Ideal” is the full Gregorian chant from the 2000-page Liber Usualis, but if the choir are not up to it (and the ‘Gradual’ before the Gospel was always a virtuoso piece, probably never sung by more than two cantors) … one may substitute one of the 8 psalm-tones plus the 9th ‘Tonus peregrinus’ - the Wandering tone - believed to be named either because it has two ‘intonation’ notes, or because it ‘wandered’ into the repertoire from Outside Rome) … or if that too is beyond the choir, they may be monotoned. But they are not supposed to be omitted. Then there is the Missa Lecta, Low Mass, which is not supposed to contain hymns during the actual Mass. Likewise, in the Divine Office the hymns to Our Lady are sung after the Office proper, not halfway through - because the Liturgy is the prayer of the Mystical Body of Christ, addressed to God the Father, and prayers directly to Our Lady or the saints are not appropriate.

As I was saying, I personally now believe it is a mistake to introduce these more popular songs and musical instruments into the Mass, although that has not stopped me from organising such things in school when it has been my professional duty…

 

[numealinesimpet]

The SSPX currently has no position within the Church. Hopefully the will reconcile and this will change.

No, I didn’t mean the SSPX, whose position is precisely what is being argued. There are those within the mainstream who are resisting the innovations which have been imposed de facto, but not de jure.

 

[numealinesimpet]

I want to clarify something, less I get accused of imputing motives (again). When someone reasons backwards from a position he wishes to arrive at, he does not always do so consciously, though he might. A wide receiver who foot barely falls out of bounds may jump up and scream that he was in bounds, lying to make his point, or his perceptive may based on his desire to be in bounds and he honestly thinks he was. This is why refs are impartial (in theory) and science is blind (in theory).

That’s what I meant by ‘imputing motives’. I do not believe that Bp Fellay and the others are reasoning backwards from a predetermined position. They are following to its conclusion what I believe to be correct theology. It is appropriate to examine this theology, and to compare it with other takes on the issue. That, I presume, is the purpose of this forum. To say that one is reasoning backwards from a predetermined position would be improper - I could (but do not) say the same about anybody who rejected the SSPX position - or who disagreed with anything else I said. But this is not helpful. It is very important to focus on what is actually said, written and done. As Bp Fellay pointed out, these three things do not always match up.

 

[numealinesimpet]

The SSPX are teaching you and your children to disrespect authority,

No, Julia Mae, to understand the true limits of authority. See the quote from S. Thomas in the Summa Theologica:

Aquinas: Whether it is Lawful to obey one’s Superior in All Things?
St. Thomas Aquinas, in II-II-104, deals with the topic of Obedience in his usual exhaustive fashion.

The full text can be found on the web, e.g. at kensmen.com/catholic/summa22104.html
… When St Thomas speaks of “subjects” and “superiors” he refers to anyone under authority, not only those in Religious Orders.

Whether subjects are bound to obey their superiors in all things?

Objection 1. It seems that subjects are bound to obey their superiors in all things.
But on the other hand [sed contra], It is written (Acts 5:29): “We ought to obey God rather than men.” Now sometimes the things commanded by a superior are against God. Therefore superiors are not to be obeyed in all things.

I answer that … there are two reasons, for which a subject may not be bound to obey his superior in all things.
First on account of the command of a higher power. For as a gloss says on Rm. 13:2, “They that resist [Vulg.: ‘He that resisteth’] the power, resist the ordinance of God” (cf. St. Augustine, De Verb. Dom. viii). “If a commissioner issue an order, are you to comply, if it is contrary to the bidding of the proconsul? Again if the proconsul command one thing, and the emperor another, will you hesitate, to disregard the former and serve the latter? Therefore if the emperor commands one thing and God another, you must disregard the former and obey God.”

Frequently, the ‘directives’ from the diocesan office, or from one’s parish priest, contradict official Vatican teaching. If that is not the case where you live, you are fortunate. More often, however, the Directives are so open to interpretation that certain directives are clearly taking advantage, to attempt to mandate what had previously been forbidden. In India last year, school children were doing a liturgical dance during Mass dressed as Hindu deities.

Secondly, a subject is not bound to obey his superior if the latter command him to do something wherein he is not subject to him. For Seneca says (De Beneficiis iii): “It is wrong to suppose that slavery falls upon the whole man: for the better part of him is excepted.” His body is subjected and assigned to his master but his soul is his own. Consequently in matters touching the internal movement of the will man is not bound to obey his fellow-man, but God alone.
… servants are not bound to obey their masters, nor children their parents, in the question of contracting marriage or of remaining in the state of virginity or the like. But in matters concerning the disposal of actions and human affairs, a subject is bound to obey his superior within the sphere of his authority; for instance a soldier must obey his general in matters relating to war, a servant his master in matters touching the execution of the duties of his service, a son his father in matters relating to the conduct of his life and the care of the household; and so forth.

… stand in judgment of your superiors and take matters into your own hands when you think your judgement should replace that of those God placed in charge.

No again, Julia Mae. S. Robert Bellarmine lived during the vigorous Catholic counter-Reformation of the 16th Century (see e.g. sites.google.com/site/catholictopics/history/annals-of-the-centuries) when the authority of the pope was being openly derided. He wrote, “We may oppose the Pope at necessity, even to force of arms: but we may not judge him, as this belongs to the Office of a Superior”. In point of fact, I do not believe that we are disobeying any actual directive of the Pope. When one goes behind the actual practice, the ‘changes’ our generation have lived through are hardly ever actually binding. The SSPX follows this rule also. For example, they have adopted the 1962 Missal, to the fury of the sedevacs, on the stated grounds that this revision contained no danger to the Faith and that it was within the Pope’s authority to command this revision. Notice that the 1962 (which Pope Benedict has called the ‘Gregorian Missal’) was never actually suppressed, even though most people were told this for 40 years.

Is that what you want your children to learn? Because regardless of what Dogmas are presented to them, this is what they are learning.
You have a Catechism that the Church has provided

Yes - and which is not being taught in any diocesan school that I know of. Who decided this? Certainly not the Pope and not, to my knowldge, the bishops themselves. Unfortunately, there are innumerable cases where the laity have pointed this out respectfully to their parish priest or bishop (as Vatican II stated is our right, even duty - even publicly), with no change in the practice at schools.

… so that you can look up all sorts of issues with your children and learn the true Faith. You have a computer where you can see what your Pope, speaking to you now in this time wants you to know.

I can also see what he does not say; and I can see what all the previous popes have written, notably on New Advent website, not to mention the Vatican’s own website.

 

[Dee_S]

St Robert Bellarmine wrote in the 16th century, “Let the legislator speak clearly if he wishes to be obeyed”.
** pnewton**, if I am not mistaken, I detect in your posting an imputation of motives to Bp Fellay to which I do not subscribe. *** He is either a liar or is relating what has happened.***

(my bold)
Take an *objective *look at these “conditions” - I don’t think they would have arisen if there were no grounds at all.

Conditions resulting from the 4 june 2008 meeting between Dario Card. Castrillon Hoyos and Bishop Bernard Fellay:

1. A commitment to a proportioned response to the generosity of the Pope.

2. A commitment to avoid any public speech which does not respect the person of the Holy Father and which can be negative for ecclesial charity.**
**
3. A commitment to avoid the pretense of a Magisterium superior to the Holy Father and to not put forward the Fraternity [SSPX] in opposition to the Church.**
**
4. A commitment to demonstrate the will to behave honestly in full ecclesial charity and in respect to the authority of the Vicar of Christ.**
**
5. A commitment to respect the date – fixed at the end of the month of June – to respond positively. This will be a required and necessary condition for the immediate preparation for adhesion to have full communion.

 

[Dee_S]

Bp Fellay has made definite statements here which will be very surprising to some. To repeat, either he is telling the truth or he is not. It is not a question of viewpoints. If I say that a car drove into my front garden, either it did or it didn’t. There is no family argument here. If Bp Fellay attributes these statements to a Cardinal, either the Cardinal really said that or he didn’t. If Bp Fellay is telling the truth, we need to mark what he says. I am passing these things on only to encourage a wider appreciation of the real situation, which is (I beieve) as Bp Fellay depicts is - because I don’t believe he is lying.

He’s doing something - that may be difficult to define, but we can rest assured that the Vatican knows what it is doing and can trust the Holy Father implicitly.

Recent news (posted earlier) is that the SSPX/Bishop Fellay et al have been told by the Vatican **to stop publicaly criticizing the Pope **and involving the laity & the world at large, as if it were a political campaign.

Given the “conditions” as posted above - would you say they are respecting them - or not?

 

[Dee_S]

Archbishop Di Noia urges SSPX to take new attitude in unity talks

“VATICAN CITY (CNS) – The traditionalist Society of St. Pius X will have a future only if it returns to full communion with the Vatican and ** stops publicly criticizing the teaching of the pope**, said the Vatican official responsible for relations with traditionalist Catholics.”

“Surely the time has come to abandon the harsh and counterproductive rhetoric that has emerged over the past years,” U.S. Archbishop J. Augustine Di Noia, vice president of the Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei,” wrote to members of the SSPX in an Advent letter."

“While Archbishop Di Noia said in the letter that the Vatican’s relations with the SSPX “remain open and hopeful,” he also said **the Vatican would not and could not continue forever to remain silent when SSPX leaders misrepresent what is taking place in the discussions **or publicly reject positions still supposedly being discussed with the Vatican.”
catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1300258.htm

 

[numealinesimpet]

(my bold)
Take an *objective *look at these “conditions” - I don’t think they would have arisen if there were no grounds at all.

Conditions resulting from the 4 june 2008 meeting between Dario Card. Castrillon Hoyos and Bishop Bernard Fellay:…]
4. A commitment to demonstrate the will to behave honestly in full ecclesial charity and in respect to the authority of the Vicar of Christ.**
**
5. A commitment to respect the date – fixed at the end of the month of June – to respond positively. This will be a required and necessary condition for the immediate preparation for adhesion to have full communion.

Here is part of what Bp Fellay has written on this topic:

sspx.org/superior_generals_news/sup_gen_ltr_73.pdf
Menzingen, October 23, 2008, on the feast of St. Anthony Mary Claret

• Bernard Fellay
  Superior General
  Dear Friends and Benefactors,
  In this letter, I would have liked to give you first of all some news about the internal life of the Society. However, current events in the Church at large and especially concerning the developments in favor of Tradition compel us to dwell longer upon these topics of a more external nature, because of their importance. Once again it seems to us necessary to tackle this subject, so as to express as clearly as possible something which might have caused some concern at the beginning of the summer.

As the media related in a rather surprising manner, I must say, we did receive an ultimatum from Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos. But the thing is rather complex and needs to be clarified in order to be well understood. A glance back at recent past events will help us to grasp things a little more clearly.
…
From the beginning when Rome approached us and proposed some solutions, that is, at the beginning of 2001, we clearly stated that the manner in which Church authorities were treating the problems raised by those who desired to attempt the experience of Tradition with Rome did not inspire confidence in us. Logically we had to expect to be treated in like manner once the issue of our relationship with Rome would have been settled. Since that time, and in order to protect ourselves, we have been asking for concrete actions which would unequivocally show Rome’s intentions towards us: the traditional Mass for all priests, and the withdrawal of the decree of excommunication. These two measures were not sought directly in view of gaining some advantage for ourselves, but to re-instill into the Mystical Body a breath of traditional life, and thus, indirectly, help to bring about a sound rapprochement between the Society and Rome.

The first responses were hardly engaging and were rather a confirmation of our misgivings: [we were told] it was not possible to grant freedom for the Mass, because, in spite of the realization that the Mass had never been abrogated, some bishops and faithful thought it might be repudiation of Paul VI and of the liturgical reform… As for the excommunication, it would be lifted at the time of the agreement.
In spite of this demurrer, we did not cut the slender thread of fairly difficult relations, aware as we were that what is at stake far exceeds our own plight. It is not a matter of persons, but of an attitude which for centuries has been that of all the members of the Church, and which remains ours, unlike the new spirit, called “the spirit of Vatican II.” And it is obvious
for us that this new spirit is at the root, and is the main cause of the present misfortunes of Holy Mother Church. Hence, the basic motivation behind our actions and our relations with the Roman authorities has always been to do prudently all we can to bring about the return of the Church to what she cannot deprive herself of without rushing headlong to suicide.

Our situation is very delicate: on the one hand, we recognize both the Roman authorities and the local bishops as legitimate. But on the other hand, we contest some of their decisions, because, in various degrees, they are opposed to what the Magisterium always taught and ordered. In this, there is no pretense on our part of setting ourselves as judges or of picking and choosing. It is nothing more than the expression of an extremely painful observation of a contradiction which goes against both our Catholic consciences and faith. Such a situation is extremely grave, and cannot be treated with levity. This is also the reason why we move only very slowly and with the utmost prudence. If we are obviously greatly interested in obtaining a situation which is concretely livable in the Church, the clear awareness of the much more profound key issue which we have just described, forbids us to place the two issues on an equal footing. It is so clear for us that the issue of the Faith and of the spirit of faith has priority over all that we cannot consider a practical solution before the first issue is safely resolved. Holy Mother Church always taught us that we had to be ready to lose everything, even our own life, rather than lose the faith.
What is strange is that the blows are now coming from within the Church, and that is the stark reality of the drama through which we are living.

“Surely the time has come to abandon the harsh and counterproductive rhetoric that has emerged over the past years,” U.S. Archbishop J. Augustine Di Noia, vice president of the Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei,” wrote to members of the SSPX in an Advent letter."

Well, what Bp Fellay is saying does not sound like harsh rhetoric, nor counter-productive, to me at least.

 

[numealinesimpet]

He’s doing something - that may be difficult to define, but we can rest assured that the Vatican knows what it is doing and can trust the Holy Father implicitly.

Recent news (posted earlier) is that the SSPX/Bishop Fellay et al have been told by the Vatican **to stop publicaly criticizing the Pope **and involving the laity & the world at large, as if it were a political campaign.

Given the “conditions” as posted above - would you say they are respecting them - or not?

Bp Fellay has been very respectful to Pope Benedict, far more so than did the German Bishops. One of Bp Fellay’s first actions once the decree of excommunication was lifted was to spring to the Pope’s defence in face of the highly disrespectful, not to say disobedient, actions of the German bishops.

Bro. JR & others rightly point out that more goes on behind the scenes than is made public. That must be so in any organisation. Bp Fellay has been saying that Pope Benedict does support the good work of the SSPX but feels it would be imprudent to antagonise the many bishops who are determinedly hostile. I have privately thought this for a long time, but I do not personally base my actions on any guesses about what might be said in confidence.

 

[JReducation]

I have no idea what the arrangement the SSPX has with its benefactors, nor is it any of my business, so I won’t ask. We’re living in a world where people feel entitled to ask for information to which they have no right. Having said that, I would say that if it’s possible for Bishop Fellay to say less to his benefactors, it would be the prudent way to go right now.

Sometimes, benefactors place conditions on their gifts. My policy has always been to accept donations only from those who go no further than to ask for receipts of how the donation was spent. Any request for information about what happens in-house is not going to be shared. If that’s the condition for the gift, then we’re sorry, but we cannot accept the gift. It’s not a matter of having something to hide. It’s a matter of being practical. Sometimes, the more you share the greater the number of people involved in a situation. That makes for chaos.

The same is true speaking directly to the faithful or to the media. If you speak to the media, it’s going to get to the faithful, usually edited. If you speak to the faithful, you may be contributing to a civil war. This is beginning to look like a civil war. Not only is there is conflict at the upper levels between the Vatican and the authorities in the SSPX, but there is a conflict at ground zero among the laity.

This certainly should be avoided at all costs. Christ came to drive a sword between good and evil, not through the Mystical Body.

This takes me back to the same thing that I have always said. In the end, the Holy See is concerned about regularizing the Priestly Society of St. Pius X. As far as everyone is concerned, the only people under that umbrella are those who are legally part of the Society. This excludes the laity.

Throughout the history of the Church, we have never seen a religious order or a secular institute that involves the lay faithful in its affair with the Holy See. It seems that this has been the case for many years with the SSPX; but as Archbishop DiNoia is indicating, this has to stop.

You folks wouldn’t be having this discussion if there were not all of this information floating around. There is too much material floating around that really belongs between the SSPX and the Vatican.

 

[Dee_S]

… Well, what Bp Fellay is saying does not sound like harsh rhetoric, nor counter-productive, to me at least.

we’re all entitled to our own opinion but I tend towards believing Archbishop de Noia myself:thumbsup:

 

[Dee_S]

Bp Fellay has been very respectful to Pope Benedict, far more so than did the German Bishops. One of Bp Fellay’s first actions once the decree of excommunication was lifted was to spring to the Pope’s defence in face of the highly disrespectful, not to say disobedient, actions of the German bishops.

Still, he needs to get his own house in order and stop criticizing the teachings of the Pope/Church

 

[pnewton]

Archbishop Gomez has suddenly issued an unprecedented declaration here, as has Cardinal Mahony.

Is* that* your understanding of “sudden?”

Let me just say that I very much disagree.

 

[pnewton]

That’s what I meant by ‘imputing motives’.

Then in your understanding, I impute motive. The same motive I impute to myself and the rest of humanity, at least as the most innocent of possibilities. Beyond that, I have offered no opinion because I do not know.

 

[numealinesimpet]

And you know this, how? Do you think everyone is like Fellay, publishing every message from Rome?

Well, just as a point of fact, I know that there are things that Bichop Fellay does not report.

 

[numealinesimpet]

we’re all entitled to our own opinion but I tend towards believing Archbishop de Noia myself:thumbsup:

Well I would not mind a direct quote rather than the kind of general statement from Archbp. de Noia. That is one reason why I have quoted Bp Fellay’s actual words. I have heard him speak in Ireland and he is very gentlemanly and kind. But firm.