M
Moore11
Guest
That is true in my diocese as well.
- Status
J
Justin_Swanton
Guest
Ditto
F
Faithdancer
Guest
Even in Southern California, with some 7 million plus Roman Catholics spread over three dioceses and an archdiocese, there are but a handful of parishes where the EF Mass is offered. I’m waiting for it to happen at Our Lady of the Angels or the Crystal Cathedral, once the changeover is complete. That would be amazing!
J
JReducation
Guest
We have to be very careful not to blame the bishop too often. There are many circumstances that are beyond the bishop’s control
In the diocese where I work the bishop himself celebrates the EF as does the rector of the cathedral and about five or six other priests. However, when the newly ordained priests from the last three classes were asked if they would celebrate it, they said that they would not. All of them have been trained in the EF. They have the language, the rubrics, the history and the theology in the prayers. They did very well in the class. But they refuse to celebrate it. They all celebrate a beautiful OF mass.
We also have had religious superiors ordain some men, but of these I only know of one superior who has given limited permission for the EF. That’s me. One of our brothers likes it very much. He has permission to celebrate it for the community on special occasions. He may never celebrate it for the laity. Another superior can change that or I may see a need, in which case I would grant him permission to do so. Even though SP and the local diocesan bishop are in agreement that the EF may be celebrated. The religious superior remains the highest ranking ordinary over his community. The Holy Father cannot mandate that they celebrate it, because you cannot mandate that which is extraordinary. It defies logic. If it’s extraordinary and you mandate it as a regular thing, then it ceases to be extraordinary. You can mandate it once in a while.
Another issue, as I always remind people is that most parishes have many masses and only one or two priests. The priests are not allowed to celebrate more than two masses on a Sunday. If they bump an OF mass that has 500 people to replace it with an EF that has 50 people, the bishop has the right to step in and prohibit it. He’s not prohibiting the celebration of the EF, he’s prohibiting the poor pastoral judgment of the pastor. It’s not prudent to bump 500 for 50. It’s quite another thing if the priest has only one mass and is available for a second mass in the EF.
Finally, there is diplomacy. In my diocese we have the Latin Mass Society. I don’t know about other places, because I know that they are everywhere. But the folks who make up the society in this diocese are the most humble, most respectful, cooperative, and submissive people I know. They’re the kind of people that you really want to sit and hear them out. Once you do, you want to try whatever is in your power to help them. That’s how we managed to find seven who would celebrate the EF for them.
Here is what they did right.
- They refused admission to their group anyone who is associated with the SSPX or any other independent chapel not under the bishop.
- They presented a request, not a demand.
- They are very active in CCD, pro-life ministry, ministry to the immigrant poor, hospital ministry, hospice, and in many organizations such as the Legion of Mary, K of C, Holy Name Society, and other parish and diocesan activities.
- They never tell anyone that they are pro EF people. Many of us were surprised to see some of these folks at the first EF mass that was celebrated in this diocese, which was by the bishop.
- They do not market the EF. This makes them very likable to the mainstream Catholics. They have attracted the attention of many mainstream Catholics who have heard about the EF in certain parishes.
- When they were told to wait until they could be accommodated, they did not argue or pull out a bunch of documents. They knew that this would not win the other person over to their side.
- They approached the religious superiors. When the superiors said no and explained why we were saying no, they showed great respect for the charism of the community and the authority of the superiors. This left some superiors open to the possibility of a public EF mass in the future.
- Their greatest tactical move was not to compete with the mass in Creole, Spanish and Vietnamese. In a diocese where 1/4 million Catholics prefer mass in their mother tongue, you don’t challenge that, especially if there are only several hundred or less who want the EF. Instead, you try to work around that and make suggestions such as combining the different language groups into one Latin mass.
J
JReducation
Guest
In speaking about bishops, much consideration has to be given to the resources available, how the bishop is approached, the personality of the bishop and the personality of the person approaching. Some people do not belong in the same state, never mind the same room. We need to learn to pick our ambassadors. One has to remember that the bishop cannot order any of his priests to celebrate the EF. Bishops have no authority over priests who belong to religious orders. The number of these are on the rise again. That’s a resource that he can’t tap. Bishops also have to play with numbers. How many people want the EF mass and how many would be bumped if you replace an OF with an EF? A pastor cannot act alone. SP gave diocesan priests permission to celebrate the EF in public without permission.
However, here is the catch. The Holy Father has said that no priest can act independently of his bishop. What happens? The priest has the freedom to celebrate the EF without asking for permission. However, the priest has no authority over the parish and the parish schedule. That authority rests on the bishop and the local pastor as his delegate.
It’s like saying that you have permission to eat meat on Fridays, but you live in a fishing village where people rarely eat meat. The permission is useful only when there is the possibility of making use of it. Even when you have a priest who volunteers to celebrate it, the parish schedule is not under his jurisdiction, nor is the parish property under his administration. These are under the jurisdiction and administration of the local pastor. It is the local pastor who has to inform the bishop that this is doable.
There are local pastors who just can’t squeeze it in and there are local pastors who just don’t want to be bothered. Like the rest of humanity, pastors can be very helpful or very stubborn and even close minded. We must never be surprised that a pastor is a human being and just like us, he has faults. Nor must we be surprised to find that just like us, he wants to help, but can’t find a way to do so without upsetting the entire chess board.
Let’s go easy on each other, especially our bishops.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
However, here is the catch. The Holy Father has said that no priest can act independently of his bishop. What happens? The priest has the freedom to celebrate the EF without asking for permission. However, the priest has no authority over the parish and the parish schedule. That authority rests on the bishop and the local pastor as his delegate.
It’s like saying that you have permission to eat meat on Fridays, but you live in a fishing village where people rarely eat meat. The permission is useful only when there is the possibility of making use of it. Even when you have a priest who volunteers to celebrate it, the parish schedule is not under his jurisdiction, nor is the parish property under his administration. These are under the jurisdiction and administration of the local pastor. It is the local pastor who has to inform the bishop that this is doable.
There are local pastors who just can’t squeeze it in and there are local pastors who just don’t want to be bothered. Like the rest of humanity, pastors can be very helpful or very stubborn and even close minded. We must never be surprised that a pastor is a human being and just like us, he has faults. Nor must we be surprised to find that just like us, he wants to help, but can’t find a way to do so without upsetting the entire chess board.
Let’s go easy on each other, especially our bishops.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
D
Dee_S
Guest
If some want to refer to certain posters as ‘stirring the pot’, well that is their right, but at the end of the day, the SSPX challenges by it’s very position, a dogma that is very close to the heart of all true Catholics.
These extracts from the letter sent to Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre by Pope Paul VI one month after he visited the Pope on September 11, 1976 (some 36 years ago) I post for those who may be interested to see that nothing much has changed!
“Moreover, you act as if you had a particular role in this regard. But the mission of discerning and remedying the abuses is first of all Ours; it is the mission of all the bishops who work together with Us. Indeed We do not cease to raise Our voice against these excesses: Our discourse to the consistory of last May 21 repeated this in clear terms. More than anyone else We hear the suffering of distressed Christians, and We respond to the cry of the faithful longing for faith and the spiritual life. This is not the place to remind you, brother, of all the acts of Our pontificate that testify to Our constant concern to ensure for the church fidelity to the true tradition, and to enable her with God’s grace to face the present and future.”
“Finally, your behavior is contradictory. You want, so you say, to remedy the abuses that disfigure the church; you regret that authority in the church is not sufficiently respected; you wish to safeguard authentic faith, esteem for the ministerial priesthood and fervor for the Eucharist in its sacrificial and sacramental fullness. Such zeal would, in itself, merit our encouragement, since it is a question of exigencies which, together with evangelization and the unity of Christians, remain at the heart of Our preoccupations and of Our mission”
"But how can you at the same time, in order to fulfill this role, claim that you are obliged to act contrary to the recent Council in opposition to your brethren in the episcopate, to distrust the Holy See itself - which you call the “Rome of the neo-modernist and neo-Protestant tendency - and to set yourself up in open disobedience to Us? If you truly want to work “under Our authority,” as you affirm in your last private letter, it is immediately necessary to put an end to these ambiguities and contradictions.”
" Let us come now to the more precise requests which you formulated during the audience of September 11. You would like to see recognized the right to celebrate Mass in various places of worship according to the Tridentine rite. You wish also to continue to train candidates for the priesthood according to your criteria, “as before the Council,” in seminaries apart, as at Econe. But behind these questions and other similar ones, which We shall examine later on in detail, it is truly necessary to see the intricacy of the problem: and the problem is theological. For these questions have become concrete ways of expressing an ecclesiology that is warped in essential points."
**“What is indeed at issue is the question - which must truly be called fundamental - of your clearly proclaimed refusal to recognize in its whole, the authority of the Second Vatican Council and that of the Pope. This refusal is accompanied by an action that is oriented towards propagating and organizing what must indeed, unfortunately, be called a rebellion. This is the essential issue, and it is truly untenable.” **
My ‘irritating’ position will always be that of the Pope’s from then until now.
These extracts from the letter sent to Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre by Pope Paul VI one month after he visited the Pope on September 11, 1976 (some 36 years ago) I post for those who may be interested to see that nothing much has changed!
“Moreover, you act as if you had a particular role in this regard. But the mission of discerning and remedying the abuses is first of all Ours; it is the mission of all the bishops who work together with Us. Indeed We do not cease to raise Our voice against these excesses: Our discourse to the consistory of last May 21 repeated this in clear terms. More than anyone else We hear the suffering of distressed Christians, and We respond to the cry of the faithful longing for faith and the spiritual life. This is not the place to remind you, brother, of all the acts of Our pontificate that testify to Our constant concern to ensure for the church fidelity to the true tradition, and to enable her with God’s grace to face the present and future.”
“Finally, your behavior is contradictory. You want, so you say, to remedy the abuses that disfigure the church; you regret that authority in the church is not sufficiently respected; you wish to safeguard authentic faith, esteem for the ministerial priesthood and fervor for the Eucharist in its sacrificial and sacramental fullness. Such zeal would, in itself, merit our encouragement, since it is a question of exigencies which, together with evangelization and the unity of Christians, remain at the heart of Our preoccupations and of Our mission”
"But how can you at the same time, in order to fulfill this role, claim that you are obliged to act contrary to the recent Council in opposition to your brethren in the episcopate, to distrust the Holy See itself - which you call the “Rome of the neo-modernist and neo-Protestant tendency - and to set yourself up in open disobedience to Us? If you truly want to work “under Our authority,” as you affirm in your last private letter, it is immediately necessary to put an end to these ambiguities and contradictions.”
" Let us come now to the more precise requests which you formulated during the audience of September 11. You would like to see recognized the right to celebrate Mass in various places of worship according to the Tridentine rite. You wish also to continue to train candidates for the priesthood according to your criteria, “as before the Council,” in seminaries apart, as at Econe. But behind these questions and other similar ones, which We shall examine later on in detail, it is truly necessary to see the intricacy of the problem: and the problem is theological. For these questions have become concrete ways of expressing an ecclesiology that is warped in essential points."
**“What is indeed at issue is the question - which must truly be called fundamental - of your clearly proclaimed refusal to recognize in its whole, the authority of the Second Vatican Council and that of the Pope. This refusal is accompanied by an action that is oriented towards propagating and organizing what must indeed, unfortunately, be called a rebellion. This is the essential issue, and it is truly untenable.” **
My ‘irritating’ position will always be that of the Pope’s from then until now.
D
Dee_S
Guest
Not quite “hair splitting”
actually when one reads what the Pope’s all along have been saying to them. Here are some more extracts from the letter of Pope Paul VI to Archbishop Lefebvre (1976) which shed even more light on the issue.“Is it necessary to remind you that you are Our brother in the episcopate and moreover - a fact that obliges you to remain even more closely united to the See of Peter - that you have been named an assistant at the papal throne? Christ has given the supreme authority in his church to Peter and to the apostolic college, that is, to the Pope and to the college of bishops una cum Capite.”
“In regard to the Pope, every Catholic admits that the words of Jesus to Peter determine also the charge of Peter’s legitimate successors: “. . . whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven” (Mt. 16:19); “. . .feed my sheep” (Jn. 21:17); “. . .confirm your brethren” (Lk. 22:32). And the First Vatican Council specified in these terms the assent due to the sovereign pontiff: “The pastors of every rank and of every rite and the faithful, each separately and all together, are bound by the duty of hierarchical subordination and of true obedience, not only in questions of faith and morals, but also in those that touch upon the discipline and government of the church throughout the entire world. Thus, by preserving the unity of communion and of profession of faith with the Roman pontiff, the church is a single flock under one pastor. Such is the doctrine of Catholic truth, from which no one can separate himself without danger for his faith and his salvation” (Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus, Ch. 3, DZ 3060).”
"Concerning bishops united with the sovereign pontiff, their power with regard to the universal church is solemnly exercised in the ecumenical councils, according to the words of Jesus to the body of the apostles: “. . .whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven” (Mt. 18:18). And now in your conduct you refuse to recognize, as must be done, these two ways in which supreme authority is exercised."
“Each bishop is indeed an authentic teacher for preaching to the people entrusted to him that faith which must guide their thoughts and conduct and dispel the errors that menace the flock.** But, by their nature, “the charges of teaching and governing . . . cannot be exercised except in hierarchical communion with the head of the college and with its members”** (Constitution Lumen Gentium, 21; cf. also 25).*** A fortiori***, a single bishop without a canonical mission does not have in actu expedite ad agendum, the faculty of deciding in general what the rule of faith is or of determining what tradition is.”
**“In practice you are claiming that you alone are the judge of what tradition embraces.**You say that you are subject to the church and faithful to tradition by the sole fact that you obey certain norms of the past that were decreed by the predecessor of him to whom God has today conferred the powers given to Peter. **That is to say, on this point also, the concept of “tradition” that you invoke is distorted.”
**
“… you refuse to accept the living church, which is the church that has always been: you break with the church’s legitimate pastors and scorn the legitimate exercise of their charge. And so you claim not even to be affected by the orders of the Pope, or by the suspension a divines, as you lament “subversion” in the church.”
"Is it not in this state of mind that you have ordained priests without dimissorial letters and against Our explicit command, thus creating a group of priests who are in an irregular situation in the Church and who are under grave ecclesiastical penalties? **
**
E
EcceAgnusDei
Guest
Absolutely. A Bishop’s responsibility is overwhelming and they deserve our love, respect, and prayers.Let’s go easy on each other, especially our bishops.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
My specific response was to the post that wondered why someone would go to an SSPX chapel when there are EF Masses available elsewhere. My point was that in many places, EF Masses are not available. Brother, you did an admirable job listing many practical reasons why this may be so. However, in my particular situation, the Bishop (and the Bishop in the neighboring diocese) are actively hostile towards the EF and traditional Catholic practices, and not for the reasons you mention. I imagine this situation exists elsewhere, too. I ask you, and other readers, to accept that there are Bishops who refuse the EF, despite the desire of parishioners and priests, and it has nothing to do with scheduling, but mainly to do with their disapproval of things traditional. Mariachi Masses, where the Bishop wears a sombrero, or immigration Masses, where the offertory includes not just the bread and wine, but also backpacks, bottles of water, and worn out shoes (to symbolize what the illegal immigrants carry across the desert) are promoted and celebrated by the Bishop himself, but the EF is disallowed.
Ok, to make my point, here are two small examples that show the mindset. A priest restored a high altar from the mid-1800s and returned it to the sanctuary. When he asked the Bishop to come and consecrate the altar, the Bishop said he would only if there was never to be a Tridentine Mass celebrated on the altar.
Second point: a priest who is very interested in the EF and traditional liturgy started to chant the “Agnus Dei” in Latin during some of his OF Masses. The Bishop contacted him to find out what he was doing and to make sure he wasn’t contemplating celebrating the EF Mass.
I heard both of these stories from the priests themselves.
So, yes, we should go easy on each other, and yes, we are all sinners, but let’s not also delude ourselves into thinking that the only reason EF Masses are limited is because of logistics, scheduling, etc. There are still many people who are hostile to the EF, despite the Pope’s clear statement that that which our ancestors held to be holy cannot be considered wrong or dangerous.
- PAX
F
Faithdancer
Guest
Absolutely true, in my experience, and “hostile” is no exaggeration. And I’m talking about diocesan EF masses and not SSPX masses per se.
J
JReducation
Guest
There are going to be all kinds of people in all walks of life. The priesthood is no exception. Unless the priesthood draws its men from a pool other than the one Microsoft uses, dioceses and religious orders are going to draw the same mixed bag of people. The fact that there are some bishops or pastors hostile to the EF is not a surprise to me. Though in my experience, working with many bishops, the number of hostile bishops is an insignificant percentage. It seems bigger than life to the person who loves the EF and happens to be in that bishop’s diocese. As a conference, the US bishops are come in three groups. The vast majority who are neither going to market it nor oppose it, as long as it’s possible to do. A smaller group that loves it and the smallest group that is antagonistic toward it.
Like everything else in life, we must strive to understand why someone would be antagonistic. I can only speak from personal experience.
I have heard some people say that the EF was brought back only to please the SSPX; but look at how the SSPX has treated Rome and how the SSPX clergy speak about the rest of us Catholics every chance they get. This has bred some resentment. In my opinion, the resentment is misplaced; but it’s there and it happens in many situations. Ask anyone who is married or anyone who has kids.
There is that second group to which I belong. When I first became superior, the EF lovers would not leave me in peace. They knew that I have one brother who knows how to celebrate it and likes doing so. Now I know what a parents of a nagging five-year old feels like. These folks could not take, “Let’s see” or “I have to think about it” or “Our community is not a community of priests. Our priests are for the benefit of the community, not the outside world.” These are perfectly reasonable responses. What I received in return were challenges, “What do you have against the EF?” I have nothing against the EF. I do have something against people getting in my way when I’m trying to work and I have something against people trying to get me to turn my community into something that it’s not.
Like me, there are others who at the end of the day saw a Traditionalist coming and we’d cross the street. Yet, we would pray our LOTH in Latin, attend an EF mass with comfort, attend an OF in Latin, English, Spanish or other and are very orthodox in our theology and how we live. But we wanted to avoid certain people. I could mention the folks from the other side of the aisle whom I avoided, but that’s another thread.
A third group simply does not like the EF. They have a misunderstanding of Vatican II. They see the EF as going backward. But this happens because they see Vatican II out of context. When you don’t look at it as part of an ongoing and fluid tradition, your Church history either ends or begins at Vatican II.
Finally, there is a fourth group, which is a younger group and I include myself there. I was about 12 when Vatican II started and maybe 19 when the liturgy was revised. I can’t really say that I was an EF kid. Most of my life I’ve known only the OF or the other rites. We’re curious about the EF. Some of us like it very much. However, for some it’s a novelty that wears out within a year or two. There are many reasons why the novelty wears off. But these men stop celebrating it after a while. Within this younger group you have the many priests in the Ecclesia Dei institutes and religious communities.
There is no one reason why people in the mainstream are for or against the EF. I’m sure there are other reasons that I missed. Whether the bishop allows it or not, every Catholic must remember that unless there is what the Church considers a legitimate reason to attend mass at an SSPX chapel, they should not do so. I am being very specific, because we have a tendency to create our own “legitimate reasons” for doing or not doing things. In this case, the Church tells us what she wants. She has said that the SSPX chapels are to be avoided. She has not put a contingency, “avoid unless you can’t find another EF mass.”
We must be very careful not to put the form of the mass over the authority of the Church. In the end, it is the authority of the Church that acknowledges or abrogates the form.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
G
giuseppeTO
Guest
Just thought I’d offer a quick anecdote to this post. Last month, my wife and I were visiting Osaka, Japan and were fortunate to find a Mass offered by an SSPX priest. When we arrived, none of the faithful spoke English, but of course, all were very gracious and considerate. They were kind enough to pray the rosary in Latin prior to Mass for our benefit. Although we could not communicate with eachother at all, when the priest intoned the “Introibo ad altare Dei”, we were immediately one in thought, word, action and prayer in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and we were truly united in prayer. We were even able to sing the Latin hymns together within the Mass. For the first time, I was able to appreciate the value of a common universal liturgical language. I also was able to appreciate how my father and grandparents felt when the emigrated to the US in the early 20th century without knowing any English. I am sure the comfort of a Mass they understood in foreign country was most welcome.
F
Faithdancer
Guest
giuseppeTO, on another thread you might get jumped for using the word “fortunate” in this context, but fortunately those who have contributed to this thread are well mannered and don’t read rebellion
or sedavacantism:bigyikes: into every slightest word or turn of phrase.But to address your main point- the universality of Latin is indeed a huge plus for the international traveler. One can go to any major city in the world and if there is a Mass conducted in Latin, one can feel at home in the Liturgy without knowing a single word of the local dialect. God bless Pope Benedict XVI for the Motu Proprio of 2007, and for his recent efforts to encourage the study and promulgation of the Latin language.
G
giuseppeTO
Guest
Good point Faith,giuseppeTO, on another thread you might get jumped for using the word “fortunate” in this context, but fortunately those who have contributed to this thread are well mannered and don’t read rebellion
But to address your main point- the universality of Latin is indeed a huge plus for the international traveler. One can go to any major city in the world and if there is a Mass conducted in Latin, one can feel at home in the Liturgy without knowing a single word of the local dialect. God bless Pope Benedict XVI for the Motu Proprio of 2007, and for his recent efforts to encourage the study and promulgation of the Latin language.
To be clear, my use of ‘fortunate’ was not so much in finding an SSPX priest but finding Mass in the EF within 10 minutes of our hotel.
F
Faithdancer
Guest
Oh I figured that was what you meant. God bless you, and know that I keep the priests and faithful of the SSPX in my prayers!
F
Faithdancer
Guest
btw I just downloaded Traditional Catholic Radio to my Android and they are playing The Drifters “White Christmas.” Not what I expected, but very cool!
F
Faithdancer
Guest
But wait (as Cosell would say)…now they are broadcasting a Latin Rosary. Good times!
E
EcceAgnusDei
Guest
Just as we shouldn’t make broad generalizations on diocesan Bishops, we likewise shouldn’t make broad generalizations on SSPX clergy. I have never heard the priest at the SSPX chapel I attend say anything negative about other clergy or the heirarchy. During homilies, he simply preaches the gospel and never spends time discussing relations with Rome, etc, etc.
The Church has not spoken so clearly, for good or for ill. Her statements surrounding the SSPX have been vague. Yes, she has said that the SSPX exercises no legitimate ministry in the Church. But she has also refused to say that going to an SSPX chapel should be avoided when she has been directly asked (there are many letters from the CDF that attest to this). My point is that it is not quite as clear as you state. I think this is probably from compassion and mercy, especially since Pope Benedict is trying to foster unity rather than division.
The irony, of course, is that if the Church were to exercise direct and clear authority as she did prior to Vatican II, the issue with the SSPX would most likely be crystal clear and would probably not favor the SSPX. The vagueness and restraint that the Church uses now, about which the SSPX complain, in some ways allow the SSPX to remain in the gray area they are in.
Absolutely, and I am very grateful that the Church, under the guidance of the Holy Ghost, has clearly proclaimed that the Tridentine Mass and other traditional sacraments were never abrogated.
- PAX
F
Faithdancer
Guest
Well said. We must remain objective about all aspects of the situation. The only SSPX sermon I’ve heard that says anything negative was the one by the pastor up in Oregon, who was upset that the youth at his chapel were ignored in the invitations to the RC challenge, a game-show styled competition for Catholic youth about the faith. Whether or not the SSPX kids would have cleaned up at the competition, as some have suggested, will never be known as Archbishop Vlazny made his decision and it must be respected.
G
giuseppeTO
Guest
There are 2 links. The one at the bottom of the page links to a constant music stream which can be anything from chant to Bavarian polkas. The link at the upper left hand corner plays the programs associated with the schedule page (sermons, rosary, Mass, Compline, etc).
The Drifters is just to show that one can be a traditional Catholic and enjoy even the Drifters!
TuneIn.com carries both links and works great on Android.
G
giuseppeTO
Guest
Thank you for that also. It would be hard for me to explain how difficult a time this is for those who are in one way or another attached to the Society of St. Pius X. I am a member of its Third Order so I have more of an affiliation than someone who merely assists at Mass at an SSPX chapel. It is, needless to say, a very complex issue and one that I had hopes would be resolved in 2012. It is the kind of discussion that can be had on some boards but not this one. Folks do PM me and I am always happy to discuss the issues in charity. But the issues are too emotional at many different levels to discuss here.Oh I figured that was what you meant. God bless you, and know that I keep the priests and faithful of the SSPX in my prayers!
To provide a general update here, I would say that progress is still probable. I base that in part on the promise that Our Lady’s Immaculate Heart will triumph. But any progress will be made far from the public eye on a very personal basis. There are many inside and outside Catholic Church, as well as those inside and outside the Society who do not want to see a rapport, as sad as that is. When you walk into an SSPX chapel, you will see priests, seminarians, mothers, fathers, children, teens, grandparents, and great-grandparents with no other agenda than to be Catholic, raise their children Catholic against a world that wants them to be atheist (and worse), and maintain their souls in the state of sanctifying grace. Any prayers you could offer to that end would be much appreciated.
- Status