F
Faithdancer
Guest
Sorry, I meant “sacrileges” and not “blasphemies.” Brain fade…
- Status
1
1AugustSon7
Guest
I think at points though many ultra-traditionalists are in error about Catholic doctrine themselves, and apply the label of -not simply heterodoxy- but even actual heresy to things that are perfectly Catholic or at least licit, or at least by no means satisfy the definition of heresy (i.e., unbelief combined with the/a corruption of the Church’s dogmas – at least for Saint Thomas. Note that we can’t read minds so heresy only becomes discernible with the obstinate determination contrary to authority to deny or otherwise corrupt some Catholic dogma or dogmas). This sort of rash labelling is problematic for many obvious reasons.
Otherwise, for those who know that there is no grounds for a credible accusation of heresy, they label people “progressives” - a word that conveniently has no reality in Church doctrine or law, which ironically is itself not particularly Catholic (they’re appealing to a political -not a religious- category).
Admittedly, this can (and does) work both ways.
F
Faithdancer
Guest
I agree that the term “progressive” is not the best, and that it carries political overtones, although less so than the terms “liberal” and “conservative.” However, these latter terms are also commonly used among Catholics to describe those who attend OF Mass exclusively, EF Mass exclusively, who vote in line or contrary to Catholic teaching, etc.
However, if you prefer, I will simply refer to those who voted for Obama, thereby endorsing his stance on abortion and same sex “marriage,” as heterodox, if they were fully conscious of the wrongness of their vote or as poorly catechized, if they were not. I am happy to accept the generous opinion of many here on CAF that the Obama supporters are primarily in error because they are poorly catechized.
Anyone who fully understands Catholic teaching on abortion and same sex “marriage” yet still obstinately opposes or denies this teaching may be by definition heretical, according to the CCC. Whether or not a vote for Obama or a vote in favor of same sex “marriage” legislation by a Catholic who is fully informed about Catholic teaching on these subjects constitutes heresy is a question for the bishops and for the Magisterium.
F
Faithdancer
Guest
Anyway back to my previous argument, which resists straw man refutations- I repeat that I believe the greatest danger to the Church today is not the SSPX or other traditionalist movements. The greatest external danger, by far, comes from the “wave of secularism” that has swept through the US, Latin America and Europe. Its counterpart within the Church is the great internal threat represented by those many Catholics who fail to recognize the evils of materialism and moral relativism and who embrace secularist “values” and reject the moral teachings and the traditional valuesof the Roman Catholic Church. It is these poorly catechized and heterodox Catholics who vote for Obama and other, pro-abortion politicians, and for legalizing same sex marriage. Would anyone care to guess the percentage of Catholics assisting at a diocesan EF Mass or at an SSPX Mass who committed the error of voting for pro-abortion politicians or for legalizing same sex “marriage?” I predict that the percentage would be very small indeed…
If this wave of secularism which now deeply infects the Church is to be stopped, it must come through a return to traditional Catholic values and a greatly increased effort toward catechizing both youth and adults. I don’t see where traditionalism in the form of equal reverence for the EF Mass hinders this effort in any way- rather, it can only support it.
If this wave of secularism which now deeply infects the Church is to be stopped, it must come through a return to traditional Catholic values and a greatly increased effort toward catechizing both youth and adults. I don’t see where traditionalism in the form of equal reverence for the EF Mass hinders this effort in any way- rather, it can only support it.
1
1AugustSon7
Guest
And that is certainly an example of the potential unfairness of it. I can hardly determine whether or not someone else will decide wheter or not I am a liberal or a conservative-- these seem at least highly susceptible to subjective judgement based on whatever criteria the person fancies. The EF, for example, is beautiful and someone can be devoted to it but, for example, believe in big government but be vociferously anti-abortion. Does this make them liberal or conservative? I think, if we muse about it from various perspectives for a minute, that to some the person will be absolutely conservative while, for others, the person is unquestionably liberal.
True; however, I think the strong point for Democrats when it comes to the Catholic vote is deliberately portraying themselves as the party for the poor-- now we can all debate about the validity of that; however, I think the Republican weakness is that they seem to simply have no policy for the poor; whereas, Catholics and Christians generally are accustomed to having a concern for the welfare or well-being of the poor. That aspect of the Democratic Party machine seems to be what, as it were, makes landfall on a lot of Christians. Ergo, it is very possible that a lot of Christians are voting Obama not because they support absurd ideas like gay so-called marriage, or because they think abortion is a good thing (one can scarcely find any half-educated person who would dare to say an abortion is actually a good thing) but that they feel they are doing something that will hopefully help the poorest and weakest in their country.
Yes, but the CCC outlines the definition of the ecclesial crime - not the actual sin (which I gave)- of heresy. The definition of the sin, as such, involves an actual corruption of Catholic dogma; otherwise, it is disobedience, which can, at least possibly, certainly result in actual heresy when the person tries to pervert Catholic dogma or doctrine, presumably to justify their position from a doctrinal point of view.
No - there is hardly a way an act like that can constitute heresy. Disobedience at best: it is one thing to ignore your parents instruction, for example, and another thing to deny that (your) parents have any actual or real authority for such and such a reason, or otherwise twist and pervert their instruction to justify our behaviour-- that is more like heresy.
Remember that Catholics somewhat embarassingly were, once, in something of a habit of even marching on Rome to capture or otherwise manipulate the Pope: the princes and people who did this were never called heretics, even when they were doing it in opposition to Catholic doctrine (e.g., against investiture or whatever). They were Catholics, but scandalously disobedient Catholics: they are not in the category of, e.g., Arius or Martin Luther.
D
Dee_S
Guest
I must beg to differ here
Yes it can be found almost everywhere, I agree, but the entrenched anti-Semitic attitudes and convictions found in certain of the SSPX/rank & file cannot be equated with a general tendency prevalent in human nature.Bishop Williamson’s attitudes are well known, but recall that he represents the stubborn & outspoken tip of an iceberg (take a look at the link to the Angelus article I gave in my previous post - it is a lengthy academic justification written by two erudite traditional priests, of a warped perception of God’s Chosen People).
These quasi-biblical, erroneous and offensive interpretations of the true role played by the Jewish People tends to encourage a hostile attitude - one which is more entrenched in the mentality of a sizable section of their priests/followers than most people are aware. Bear in mind, he was Rector of many seminaries and this was his favorite topic - as can be seen by his numerous statements & articles in the years prior to his great publicity.
Note too… only when he brought this embarrassing problem into the limelight of world attention, did the SSPX organization frown on it and begin to distance themselves. This was not the case prior.
Fr Rostand accusing Cardinal Koch of defamy is reminiscent of Hamlet… “The . . . doth protest too much, methinks.”
A
Aramis
Guest
By rank and file, do you mean those laity who routinely attend and register at SSPX oratories? or do you mean their ordained priests, deacons, subdeacons and their professed brothers and sisters?I must beg to differ here
D
Dee_S
Guest
I took it that FaithDancer meant ‘rank’ indicated the religious - as you have outlined - and the ‘file’ being the laity.
Having given it a bit more thought, there are two positives involved in this perception that the organization has a stronger than usual Anti-Semitic vein that runs through it being:
- The drama since 2009 surrounding this topic has resulted in Bishop Fellay as leader, utterly renouncing any tolerance for this and standing his ground against one of their own bishops who does.
"We evidently condemn every act of murder of the innocent. It is a crime that cries to heaven! Even more so when it is related to a people. We reject every accusation of Antisemitism. Completely and absolutely. We reject every form of approval of what happened under Hitler. This is something abominable. Christianity places Charity at a supreme level. Saint Paul, speaking of the Jews, proclaims, 'I wished myself to be an anathema [from Christ], for my brethren!" (Rom. 9, 3). The Jews are “our elder brothers” in the sense that we have something in common, that is, the old Covenant. It is true that the acknowledgment of the coming of the Messiah separates us.**
"It is very interesting to notice that the Church did not await for the Council to prescribe courses of action regarding the Jews. Since the 30s, even during the war, several texts of Rome* provide a very just position: the abominations of the Hitlerist regime must be condemned! ‘Spiritually, we are all Semites’, Pope Pius XI had said. It is a truth which comes from Sacred Scripture itself, ‘we are sons of Abraham,’ Saint Paul also affirms."***
rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2009/02/fellay-jews-are.html
- That most of us inside or outside the SSPX have had a chance to examine how we think about this issue and remove or adjust misconceptions or prejudices. e.g. any so-called Biblical justifications that the Jews were guilty of Deicide.
"The US district superior for the Society of St. Pius X, the Rev. Arnaud Rostand of Missouri, did not return a call seeking comment. Williamson has been living in Argentina, where he had been the rector of a St. Pius X seminary, but he was removed from that post last week. Yesterday the Argentine Interior Ministry ordered him to leave the country. The Vatican has also ordered Williamson to recant his views, and the pope told a group of visiting American Jewish leaders last week that "any denial or minimization of this terrible crime [the Holocaust] is intolerable and altogether unacceptable."
boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/02/20/bishops_vexing_beliefs_have_deep_roots/?page=2
(i notice this article is no longer available for free
but I do have a copy of it)
F
Faithdancer
Guest
Let me clarify- by “rank and file” I meant the laity, exclusively, and perhaps I should have just said “the laity.” That being said, my original supposition stands, which is that the laity who assist at SSPX Masses are likely no more or less anti-Semitic than any other Catholics. This is a supposition, of course, and I don’t know that there is any hard evidence to the contrary, one way or another.
I think that we should avoid demonizing the SSPX faithful, who, it is reasonable to assume, are for the most part just looking for a serene, reverent, authentic EF Catholic Mass- just as those who prefer the EF Mass should avoid demonizing those who attend only the OF Mass…in all its permutations.
I think that we should avoid demonizing the SSPX faithful, who, it is reasonable to assume, are for the most part just looking for a serene, reverent, authentic EF Catholic Mass- just as those who prefer the EF Mass should avoid demonizing those who attend only the OF Mass…in all its permutations.
A
Aramis
Guest
It is important to be clear - the laity who attend SSPX chapels are not properly members of the SSPX. They only enroll religious and clergy, and the religious are only those of their affiliated orders… The religious and seminarians are the only laity “in” the SSPX.
J
JReducation
Guest
You are both partially in line with the mind of Pope Benedict. The laity does not canonically belong to the SSPX, because it’s not a prelature nor diocese. However, the Holy Father has made it clear that those laymen who support the SSPX may not ask the local pastor or bishop for such things as the EF. He said the loudly and clearly in UE. Later, in another comment that he made to reporters, he does blame the laity for supporting the disobedience of the SSPX. He’s not speaking about financial support. In fact, the Holy See believes that it’s fair that if you use their chapels you help them pay the electric bill. He’s speaking about using their services at all, knowing all along that they are suspended priests who have not right to be celebrating sacraments, not matter how much the laity may want these sacraments. This is how the laity gets pulled into this equation and why the bishops are not allowed to receive any requests for EF masses from people who are involved with the SSPX or similar groups. It’s guilty by association as I all it.
The positive is that since the laity is not canonically attached, it can detach without consequences.
On another note, there are two groups of religious attached to the SSPX. There are the SSPX Brothers. These are a real religious congregation that is freestanding. It’s an SSPX congregation.
Then there are other religious communities of clergy, brothers and sisters that have broken with their mother orders to pledge their allegiance to the SSPX. These are not canonically attached to the SSPX. Some are no longer canonically attached to their mother order either, such as the Capuchins of Morgon, France. They are not true Capuchins and if they ever come home, they will have to do the same thing as the Transalpine Redemptorists. They will choose to become an independent community or return to the Capuchins, provided that the excommunication is lifted and that the superior general of the Capuchins lifts their suspension and allows them to renew their vows. Even the pope does not have the authority to do that part. He can lift the excommunication. He cannot readmit them to the order. He’s not a consecrated religious himself; therefore, he does not have Franciscan Succession. He can request it and the request will surely be granted. But most peoples want nothing to do with the Dominicans, Jesuits, Salesians and Franciscans. These are big and powerful orders to whom the Church owes much. The popes try to keep their hands off them and to give them as much independence as possible.
These religious groups are not lay. They are consecrated religious, just not SSPX religious. Only the SSPX Brothers are SSPX religious. There is a question in the mind of canon lawyers that the pope will have to settle. The SSPX Brothers are not allowed to govern themselves, nor are they allowed to train their own men. They are governed by an SSPX priest and trained by an SSPX priest who is the formation director and novice master.
Canon law says that only a religious can govern another religious and only a religious can be a formation director or novice master for religious. The priests of the SSPX are not consecrated religious. They are secular priests. The question is whether or not their novitiate is valid. If the novitiate is invalid, so are their vows. In which case, they are not truly religious brothers. They are cooperator brothers or coadjutor brothers or some other name that does not include the term “consecrated religious”.
The relationship of the laity, religious and the SSPX clergy is not as clear as it seems. Actually, it’s the seminarians who are not members of the SSPX. Until you’re a deacon, you’re not a member of a priestly society. Sub-deacon does not count by canon law. You can have the order of sub-deacon, but you cannot impose the obligations of the sub-deacon on the man, because you cannot impose what Canon Law has abrogated.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
M
Melchior_1
Guest
Quick question, Brother; the SSXP Brothers who are religious brothers, do they have solemn vows or simple vows? Are they more along the lines of a religious congregation?You are both partially in line with the mind of Pope Benedict. The laity does not canonically belong to the SSPX, because it’s not a prelature nor diocese. However, the Holy Father has made it clear that those laymen who support the SSPX may not ask the local pastor or bishop for such things as the EF. He said the loudly and clearly in UE. Later, in another comment that he made to reporters, he does blame the laity for supporting the disobedience of the SSPX. He’s not speaking about financial support. In fact, the Holy See believes that it’s fair that if you use their chapels you help them pay the electric bill. He’s speaking about using their services at all, knowing all along that they are suspended priests who have not right to be celebrating sacraments, not matter how much the laity may want these sacraments. This is how the laity gets pulled into this equation and why the bishops are not allowed to receive any requests for EF masses from people who are involved with the SSPX or similar groups. It’s guilty by association as I all it.
The positive is that since the laity is not canonically attached, it can detach without consequences.
On another note, there are two groups of religious attached to the SSPX. There are the SSPX Brothers. These are a real religious congregation that is freestanding. It’s an SSPX congregation.
Then there are other religious communities of clergy, brothers and sisters that have broken with their mother orders to pledge their allegiance to the SSPX. These are not canonically attached to the SSPX. Some are no longer canonically attached to their mother order either, such as the Capuchins of Morgon, France. They are not true Capuchins and if they ever come home, they will have to do the same thing as the Transalpine Redemptorists. They will choose to become an independent community or return to the Capuchins, provided that the excommunication is lifted and that the superior general of the Capuchins lifts their suspension and allows them to renew their vows. Even the pope does not have the authority to do that part. He can lift the excommunication. He cannot readmit them to the order. He’s not a consecrated religious himself; therefore, he does not have Franciscan Succession. He can request it and the request will surely be granted. But most peoples want nothing to do with the Dominicans, Jesuits, Salesians and Franciscans. These are big and powerful orders to whom the Church owes much. The popes try to keep their hands off them and to give them as much independence as possible.
These religious groups are not lay. They are consecrated religious, just not SSPX religious. Only the SSPX Brothers are SSPX religious. There is a question in the mind of canon lawyers that the pope will have to settle. The SSPX Brothers are not allowed to govern themselves, nor are they allowed to train their own men. They are governed by an SSPX priest and trained by an SSPX priest who is the formation director and novice master.
Canon law says that only a religious can govern another religious and only a religious can be a formation director or novice master for religious. The priests of the SSPX are not consecrated religious. They are secular priests. The question is whether or not their novitiate is valid. If the novitiate is invalid, so are their vows. In which case, they are not truly religious brothers. They are cooperator brothers or coadjutor brothers or some other name that does not include the term “consecrated religious”.
The relationship of the laity, religious and the SSPX clergy is not as clear as it seems. Actually, it’s the seminarians who are not members of the SSPX. Until you’re a deacon, you’re not a member of a priestly society. Sub-deacon does not count by canon law. You can have the order of sub-deacon, but you cannot impose the obligations of the sub-deacon on the man, because you cannot impose what Canon Law has abrogated.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
Wouldn’t members of the SSPX lay third order retain some sort of membership with the SSPX?
J
JReducation
Guest
If they are a true religious congregation, they would have simple vows. Only friars, monks and nuns are allowed to make solemn vows.
As I said above, there is a question about the validity of their government and novitiate.
The question is based on two points.
- All religious must be governed and formed by another religious, even if he or she is of a different religious community. No secular person, not even a priest, can govern or form religious.
- There is a precedent for this. St. Vincent de Paul was a Secular Franciscans. When he founded the Congregation of the Mission and the Daughters of Charity, neither of them has ever been recognized as a religious community. the Vincentians and the Daughters of Charity are not religious. They are totally secular societies of apostolic life, not nuns, not religious. The reason being that Vincent was already professed as a Secular Franciscan. This made him a perpetually professed Franciscan, but as a secular, not as a friar. He was not allowed to govern and form his community unless he gave up the right to religious life for them, which is what he did.
Today, the Sisters of Schoenstatt are not allowed to be religious, because their superiors and formators are secular priests. They are a secular institute.
This all boils down to one thing. If you’re not religious, you have certain rights taken away from you and are granted other rights that religious don’t have. The measure of grace that the Church allows you to receive is proportionate to the vows that you make. Solemn vows have a higher measure of grace each time you go to confession. On the flip side, the more that is given to you, the more that is expected of you.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
J
JReducation
Guest
They’re not a real order as are the Carmelites, Franciscans, Dominicans, Augustinians, Trinitarians, etc. The SSPX are not a religious institute. A third order is a public association of the faithful that is part of a religious family.
The SSPX has made a hatchet job with titles.
They call their lay members “third order”.
They refer to their houses as priories, but they have no priors
They call their brothers religious, but they are not allowed to govern themselves as religious do or form themselves as religious do.
They have lay associates, which is not quite clear what the difference is between that and the SSPX third order.
They have a Third Order of St. Francis, but they are not Franciscan and this Third Order of St. Francis does not have the approval of the superior general of the Franciscan Third Order.
They have really muddied up the waters by using all kinds of terms that do not apply to the secular Catholic. In my mind, another good reason why secular priests and laymen should stay out of the life and and structure of the institutes of consecrated life. They don’t understand us. They are not trained in the canons, rules and constitutions that govern us. They have zero relationship with the Sacred Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life to guide them. Until you get that under your belt, you’re gong to risk making a mess of things that someone else will have to figure out how to bail you out rather than suppress you.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
D
Dee_S
Guest
I know what you mean, but it is probable that a majority of those who are regulars have imbibed and possibly subscribe to the errors of many trad priests who all too often proclaim the crime of Deicide on the Jewish People. Here I can talk from experience, in that I did not notice any Anti-Semiticm as such among the lay people, but it was an accepted proposition that The Jews were guilty of Deicide. Many a discussion took place as to whether such and such a priest or article was correct in attaching or extending that guilt to the present day Jewish Nation.
As i have said before, I hope I am the last person to do that. If anything, they are the ‘victims’ in the situation, because of the unfairness of bishops who deny even legitimate requests, no matter how many people appeal to them for a Tridentine Mass. In my diocese one dare not bring up the subject with priests or bishops - who regard anyone who loves that Mass as a rebel or worse. They even consider that the Holy Father is trying to taker the Church back to the ‘dark ages.’ Yes, the faithful have much to suffer at the hands of the clergy. And…that is where I keep laying the blame.
F
Faithdancer
Guest
This is true, and it is as if the 2007 Motu Propio never happened.
J
JReducation
Guest
But here is the glitch. The Holy Father has already said that lay people who are associated with groups like the SSPX are not to be granted the EF by the diocesan bishops, pastors or religious superiors. They must first sever their ties. Until they do so, they’re not going to make much progress with the diocese.I know what you mean, but it is probable that a majority of those who are regulars have imbibed and possibly subscribe to the errors of many trad priests who all too often proclaim the crime of Deicide on the Jewish People. Here I can talk from experience, in that I did not notice any Anti-Semiticm as such among the lay people, but it was an accepted proposition that The Jews were guilty of Deicide. Many a discussion took place as to whether such and such a priest or article was correct in attaching or extending that guilt to the present day Jewish Nation.
As i have said before, I hope I am the last person to do that. If anything, they are the ‘victims’ in the situation, because of the unfairness of bishops who deny even legitimate requests, no matter how many people appeal to them for a Tridentine Mass. In my diocese one dare not bring up the subject with priests or bishops - who regard anyone who loves that Mass as a rebel or worse. They even consider that the Holy Father is trying to taker the Church back to the ‘dark ages.’ Yes, the faithful have much to suffer at the hands of the clergy. And…that is where I keep laying the blame.
They’re certainly not going to make any progress with religious superiors who have already decided that they will not allow any of their priests to celebrate the EF for an SSPX population or other such group. The group asking for such a mass from a religious superior must align itself with the religious order that is providing it, not the SSPX. You can’t ask a Franciscan superior to lend you a Franciscan brother to celebrate the EF and at the same time chant the praises of the SSPX and Archbishop Levebvre. You will be turned down. The same is true for the Conference of Major Superiors of Men. This came ouit of UE from Pope Benedict.
There are bishops out there who are stubborn. We all agree. There are other circumstances that do not help.
a. There are many priests who do not want to celebrate the EF even if an army of people comes to them. They cannot be forced to do it.
b. Nine out of 10 religious superiors will not allow the EF to be celebrated for laymen who tow the SSPX line on the OF, the new sacramental rites, Vatican II, the CCC, Bl. John Paul II, the Jews and who consider themselves the remnant of the Catholic Church. Nor will they cooperate with laymen who go around saying that the SSPX is the salvation of the Church, thus offending their religious communities as if these had nothing to offer or have done nothing for the Church.
Cal it pride or subbornness, but when you’re the one who is in need, you have to learn to bend and cave to get what you want. I see a battle of wills between SOME people and those who have the power to give them what they’re asking for. You never get into a battle of wills with the person who has no way of losing. It’s a waste of energy and only delays things. May as well, detach from the SSPX or other such group, because we know that there are others that are smaller. You may as well put aside their positions on certain points and ask for what’s really important to you, the EF mass.
By the way, I the universal you, not the personal you. :yup:
This was one of the first things that I learned when I became a Catholic and it was reinforced when I became a Franciscan. This is not a democratic republic where you can hold anything over the hierarchy’s head, not even money. If the bishop, priest or religious superior wants to play this by the book, he can do so and no one can charge him of doing otherwise.
Maybe having grown up Jewish made this easy for me. We don’t argue with Rabbis. The Rabbi is always right. If you get angry with the Rabbi, you just leave Judaism, but the Rabbi is never challenged. It’s a mindset that we bring to the Catholic faith.
Being Franciscan in the Renewal Movement helps. The movement is about returning to the roots. Pope, bishops, pastors and religious superiors are to be obeyed and you’re to be submissive to them unless they command sin. End of conversation. Don’t say another word. Don’t think about it again. This is going back to the 13th century for us.
It’s a very peaceful existence. What can I say?
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
J
Justin_Swanton
Guest
Relevant to this thread is a sermon preached by Bishop Fellay on November 11 at St Nicholas du Chardonnet, Paris. It sums up the SSPX’s current position which quite clearly rules out a reconciliation in the near future.
The core of the sermon is the bishop’s response to three fundamental conditions laid down by the Pope for a reconciliation. These conditions came in response to a request by Bishop Fellay for a clarification by the Pope on his position regarding these issues. Here is the relevant extract in French with my translation:
**1. **Accepter que « le Magistère est le juge de la Tradition apostolique », c’est-à-dire que c’est bien le Magistère qui nous dit ce qui appartient à la Tradition. Cela, c’est de foi. Evidemment, dans le contexte, le Pape l’utilise pour nous obliger à accepter les nouveautés.
Accept that “the Magisterium is the judge of apostolic Tradition.” That is to say, that it is well and truly the Magisterium that tells us what belongs to Tradition. This is of Faith. Obviously, in this context, the Pope is using it to oblige us to accept the novelties.
**2. *Et surtout, il nous est demandé d’accepter que « le Concile fait partie intégrante de cette Tradition ». Cela veut dire que le Concile serait « la Tradition », serait traditionnel. Cela fait quarante ans que nous disons le contraire, non pas pour notre plaisir mais, selon cette parole consacrée, qu’on retrouve tant et tant de fois dans la bouche de notre vénéré fondateur : « nous sommes obligés de constater » – ce sont les faits qui nous montrent – que ce concile, c’est une volonté arrêtée de faire quelque chose de nouveau. Et il ne s’agit pas de n’importe quelle nouveauté, d’une nouveauté superficielle, mais d’une nouveauté profonde, en opposition, en contradiction avec ce que l’Eglise avait enseigné et même condamné. *Ce n’est pas pour notre plaisir que nous sommes dans ce combat depuis tant et tant d’années, contre ces nouveautés, ces réformes conciliaires qui démolissent l’Eglise et en font une ruine. Et voilà qu’on nous dit : la condition, c’est d’accepter que « le concile fait partie intégrante de la Tradition »…
And above all we are being asked to accept that “the Council is an integral part of this Tradition.” In other words that the Council is “Tradition”, is traditional. For forty years we have said the opposite, not because it suits us but, according to these memorable words said so many times by our venerable founder: “We cannot help but see” - facts show it to us – that this council, it has the firm will of doing something new. And this does not consist of any kind of novelty, of some superficial novelty, but of a profound novelty in opposition to, in contradition with, what the Church has always taught and even condemned. We are not in this combat for so many years just to suit ourselves, opposed to these novelties, the conciliar reforms that are destroying the Church and creating a ruin. And here we are told: the condition is the accept that ‘the council is a integral part of Tradition.”
**3. **Enfin une autre condition qui touche cette fois-ci à la Messe. Il nous faut accepter la validité de la nouvelle messe, mais pas seulement la validité. Il nous faudrait accepter aussi la licéité. On parle de validité lorsqu’on demande : *« *est-ce que la chose est ?». Une messe qui est célébrée validement veut dire que Notre Seigneur est là. On ne regarde alors pas les circonstances dans lesquelles cette messe est dite. C’est ainsi qu’une messe noire peut être valide. C’est affreux, c’est un sacrilège terrible mais, hélas, il y a des prêtres qui consacrent ce qu’on appelle une messe noire. Cette messe est valide. En prenant cet exemple choquant, vous comprenez bien que cela n’est pas permis, cela n’est pas licite parce que c’est mauvais. Licite veut dire permis parce que c’est bon. Et nous, nous avons constaté les ravages de cette nouvelle messe, nous avons constaté comment elle a été faite, dans quel but elle a été faite, pour l’œcuménisme. Et nous voyons les résultats, la perte de la foi, les églises vidées, et nous disons : elle est mauvaise. C’est ce que j’ai répondu à Rome. D’habitude, nous ne parlons même pas de licéité, nous disons simplement de la messe qu’elle est mauvaise. Cela suffit.
Finally another condition that, this time, concerns the Mass. We are required to accept the validity of the new mass, but not just the validity. We also have to accept its liceity. One speaks of validity when one asks: “does the thing exist?” A validly celebrated mass means Our Lord is there. One makes abstraction of the circumstances in which this mass is said. In this way a black mass is valid. It is horrendous, a terrible sacrilege, but unfortunately, there are priests who consecrate what is termed a black mass. This mass is valid. When considering this shocking example you understand clearly that it is not permitted, that it is not licit because it is bad. Licit means permitted because it is good. As for us, we have seen the ravages of this new mass, we have seen how it was created, for what purpose it was created, which is ecumenism. And we see the results, the loss of the Faith, churches emptied, and we say: it is bad. This is the answer I gave Rome. Usually we don’t even speak of liceity; we simply speak of the mass as being bad. That suffices.
The core of the sermon is the bishop’s response to three fundamental conditions laid down by the Pope for a reconciliation. These conditions came in response to a request by Bishop Fellay for a clarification by the Pope on his position regarding these issues. Here is the relevant extract in French with my translation:
**1. **Accepter que « le Magistère est le juge de la Tradition apostolique », c’est-à-dire que c’est bien le Magistère qui nous dit ce qui appartient à la Tradition. Cela, c’est de foi. Evidemment, dans le contexte, le Pape l’utilise pour nous obliger à accepter les nouveautés.
Accept that “the Magisterium is the judge of apostolic Tradition.” That is to say, that it is well and truly the Magisterium that tells us what belongs to Tradition. This is of Faith. Obviously, in this context, the Pope is using it to oblige us to accept the novelties.
**2. *Et surtout, il nous est demandé d’accepter que « le Concile fait partie intégrante de cette Tradition ». Cela veut dire que le Concile serait « la Tradition », serait traditionnel. Cela fait quarante ans que nous disons le contraire, non pas pour notre plaisir mais, selon cette parole consacrée, qu’on retrouve tant et tant de fois dans la bouche de notre vénéré fondateur : « nous sommes obligés de constater » – ce sont les faits qui nous montrent – que ce concile, c’est une volonté arrêtée de faire quelque chose de nouveau. Et il ne s’agit pas de n’importe quelle nouveauté, d’une nouveauté superficielle, mais d’une nouveauté profonde, en opposition, en contradiction avec ce que l’Eglise avait enseigné et même condamné. *Ce n’est pas pour notre plaisir que nous sommes dans ce combat depuis tant et tant d’années, contre ces nouveautés, ces réformes conciliaires qui démolissent l’Eglise et en font une ruine. Et voilà qu’on nous dit : la condition, c’est d’accepter que « le concile fait partie intégrante de la Tradition »…
And above all we are being asked to accept that “the Council is an integral part of this Tradition.” In other words that the Council is “Tradition”, is traditional. For forty years we have said the opposite, not because it suits us but, according to these memorable words said so many times by our venerable founder: “We cannot help but see” - facts show it to us – that this council, it has the firm will of doing something new. And this does not consist of any kind of novelty, of some superficial novelty, but of a profound novelty in opposition to, in contradition with, what the Church has always taught and even condemned. We are not in this combat for so many years just to suit ourselves, opposed to these novelties, the conciliar reforms that are destroying the Church and creating a ruin. And here we are told: the condition is the accept that ‘the council is a integral part of Tradition.”
**3. **Enfin une autre condition qui touche cette fois-ci à la Messe. Il nous faut accepter la validité de la nouvelle messe, mais pas seulement la validité. Il nous faudrait accepter aussi la licéité. On parle de validité lorsqu’on demande : *« *est-ce que la chose est ?». Une messe qui est célébrée validement veut dire que Notre Seigneur est là. On ne regarde alors pas les circonstances dans lesquelles cette messe est dite. C’est ainsi qu’une messe noire peut être valide. C’est affreux, c’est un sacrilège terrible mais, hélas, il y a des prêtres qui consacrent ce qu’on appelle une messe noire. Cette messe est valide. En prenant cet exemple choquant, vous comprenez bien que cela n’est pas permis, cela n’est pas licite parce que c’est mauvais. Licite veut dire permis parce que c’est bon. Et nous, nous avons constaté les ravages de cette nouvelle messe, nous avons constaté comment elle a été faite, dans quel but elle a été faite, pour l’œcuménisme. Et nous voyons les résultats, la perte de la foi, les églises vidées, et nous disons : elle est mauvaise. C’est ce que j’ai répondu à Rome. D’habitude, nous ne parlons même pas de licéité, nous disons simplement de la messe qu’elle est mauvaise. Cela suffit.
Finally another condition that, this time, concerns the Mass. We are required to accept the validity of the new mass, but not just the validity. We also have to accept its liceity. One speaks of validity when one asks: “does the thing exist?” A validly celebrated mass means Our Lord is there. One makes abstraction of the circumstances in which this mass is said. In this way a black mass is valid. It is horrendous, a terrible sacrilege, but unfortunately, there are priests who consecrate what is termed a black mass. This mass is valid. When considering this shocking example you understand clearly that it is not permitted, that it is not licit because it is bad. Licit means permitted because it is good. As for us, we have seen the ravages of this new mass, we have seen how it was created, for what purpose it was created, which is ecumenism. And we see the results, the loss of the Faith, churches emptied, and we say: it is bad. This is the answer I gave Rome. Usually we don’t even speak of liceity; we simply speak of the mass as being bad. That suffices.
J
JReducation
Guest
This is the kind of behavior that gets bishops, religious superiors and other people in positions of authority upset. If the good bishop really did say these things to the public, this is not the usual way of proceeding.
Bishops, religious superiors and other people in authority, involved in a dialogue with the Holy See, as is the SSPX, where the Holy See itself has said that it’s patiently waiting for an official response from the SSPX, usually respond to the Holy See first and then tell the general public. Even the LCSW did this. They simply told the general public that they were going to Rome to meet with the Holy See, they were going to discern, discuss and respond. They went to Rome and did as they said they would. The Holy See was the first to hear what was on their mind, not the laity or even the sisters under the leadership.
I hope that this statement came after a written response to the Holy See. It would be very disrespectful to tell others before you tell the pope, Archbishop Mueller and Archbisop DiNoia. I can’t believe that Bishop Fellay is tactless. Or the writer got it wrong. :crossing my fingers:
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
- Status