Pat Archbold’s Controversial Call for Unity

Pat Archbold has written an intriguing post arguing that the Pontificate of Pope Francis is the best opportunity to bring the SSPX back into the fold.

I have great concern that without the all the generosity that faith allows by the leaders of the Church, that this separation, this wound on the Church, will become permanent. In fact, without such generosity, I fully expect it. Such permanent separation and feeling of marginalization will likely separate more souls than just those currently associated with the SSPX.
 

I have also come to believe that Pope Francis’ is exactly the right Pope to do it. In his address to the evangelicals, he makes clear his real concern for unity.
 

So here is what I am asking. I ask the Pope to apply that wide generosity to the SSPX and to normalize relations and their standing within the Church. I am asking the Pope to do this even without the total agreement on the Second Vatican Council. Whatever their disagreements, surely this can be worked out over time with the SSPX firmly implanted in the Church. I think that the Church needs to be more generous toward unity than to insist upon dogmatic adherence to the interpretation of a non-dogmatic council. The issues are real, but they must be worked out with our brothers at home and not with a locked door.
 

Further, Pope Francis’ commitment to the aims of the Second Vatican Council is unquestioned. Were he to be generous in such a way, nobody would ever interpret it to be a rejection of the Council. How could it be? This perception may not have been the case in the last pontificate. Pope Francis is uniquely suited to this magnanimous moment.

You can go here to read the rest.

Now the link goes to Pat’s own blog and not the National Catholic Register, where Pat originally published this piece. And that is why I have called this post controversial, because for reasons that remain unfathomable, NCR has deemed fit to remove this post. Frankly I see nothing remotely objectionable with anything that he has written. Even if one disagrees with the upshot of it, why did NCR feel the need take this post down? It’s a bizarre decision, and frankly it leaves me gravely concerned about where we’re heading in the Catholic blogosphere and what is deemed as “acceptable” opinion.

78 Responses to Pat Archbold’s Controversial Call for Unity

  • I just don’t see full unity with the SSPX happening, not and finding a “pastoral solution” to the divorce issue. The evangelicals allow divorce and contraception and what not. The SSPX categorically condemn it. Heck, they are not even thrilled with NFP.

  • I don’t know why it was taken down but will avoid the temptation to hyperventilate about it.

    The article is less controversial than somewhat confused though, as far as I know the option to normalize themselves is still open to the SSPX, they simply have to choose it. What would be quite explosive would be for Francis to work with Tony Palmer and his community to explicity lay out terms for their reunification. THAT would be something. Pride goeth before a fall, in both cases.

    Most of the analogous bromides about common beliefs and vocations with the SSPX went said during the previous pontificate, though mostly not in the public view, unlike with Palmer.

  • It seems to me that there is a danger of falling into tautology here: “The true church is that which teaches the true faith” and “The true faith is what the true church teaches.”

    Now, there is only one possible test that avoids the question-begging assumption of defining Catholics by examining their tenets, or the Church by its teaching. As Mgr Ronald Knox put it, “The fideles, be they many or few, be their doctrine apparently traditional or apparently innovatory, be their champions honest or unscrupulous, are simply those who are in visible communion with the see of Rome. No doubt, in the long run this means the people who are so orthodox that Rome has seen no reason to excommunicate them, so that unity and orthodoxy still react upon one another…. And, in fact, there can be little doubt that, in the West, our labelling of this party as orthodox and that as heterodox in early Church history comes down to us from authors who were applying this test of orthodoxy and no other.”

    It is a test remarkably easy of application; just what one would expect of the criterion of a divine message, intended for all, regardless of learning, capacity or circumstances.

    If the SSPX can jettison VII, by what criterion do they criticize the Armenians and the Copts who reject Chalcedon, or the Assyrians who reject Ephesus? For us, the answer is simple: we have Pope Francis in our party and the Armenians, the Copts and the Assyrians do not. No other answer is necessary or, indeed, possible.

  • “why did NCR feel the need take this post down?”

    Fear. In the current pontificate tolerance is apparently a one way street, or so must be the perception at National Catholic Register.

  • It would demonstrate pastoral sensitivity for Pope Francis to readmit SSPX to full communion with Rome….are such considerations which are purportedly the very essence of Vatican II reserved only for returning Protestants?

  • Slainte,

    Let me first say that I fervently desire the full reconciliation of SSPX with the Catholic Church, however, what you suggest: readmit SSPX to full communion with Rome was all but completely done during the Pontificate of Pope Benedict. Rome basically begged them to come back home. There was wavering for a time and it seemed it was going to happen. However, a faction led by Bishop Williamson pushed against it and it did not happen.

    I hope and pray that reconciliation and full communion does take place soon. I see nothing but fragmentation ahead for SSPX without communion. I have been stunned at some of the stuff coming from the Sedesvacantists toward th SSPX-I see SSPPX’s future with Rome as odd as that might sound, and not in this no-man’s land between Rome and the Sedevacantists they have staked out.

  • I share Paul’s concern. I thought Pat’s piece was an excellent “only Nixon can go to China” rumination.

    Seemingly, it was taken as a slap at the Pope instead. The removal says more about the gatekeepers of Catholic media than it does about Pat’s post. And it says it unmistakably.

    In short, if you like the MSM’s narrative-driven filtering process, you’ll love its Catholic imitator.

    If you don’t, well…why so querulous?

  • There will be no unity within the Catholic Church itself until Bishops actively promote the reading of the Bible and the “CATECHISM of the CATHOLIC CHURCH, revised in accordance with the official Latin text promulgated by Pope John Paul II”.
    ,
    There is so much heresy, schism, general apostacy, and/or relativism within the Church – that this what should be the top priority. – Unity within our own Church.
    .

  • slainte: “It would demonstrate pastoral sensitivity for Pope Francis to readmit SSPX to full communion with Rome….are such considerations which are purportedly the very essence of Vatican II reserved only for returning Protestants?”
    .
    “If the SSPX can jettison VII” Is it really Vatican II that the SSPX has jettisoned or is it the fabrication of Kung and Rahner?
    Especially since Pope Benedict XVI said that Vatican II did not ban the Latin Mass.
    .
    If Patrick Archbold’s post calls for an examination of Vatican II and what has been foisted on the priesthood of the laity by some at Vatican II, perhaps the NCR will explain their removal of Patrick Archbold’s post.

  • With one strike….

    “Fear. In the current pontificate tolerance is apparently a one way street, or so must be the perception at National Catholic Register.”

    ….he drives the whole nail deeply into the dense oak!

  • Mary De Voe,

    You wrote, “is it really Vatican II that the SSPX has jettisoned or is it the fabrication of Kung and Rahner?”

    You are so close to hitting the nail on the head. In various readings I have seen from SSPX it seems that they are indeed rejecting what is commonly called “the spirit of Vatican II”, the Council according to the likes of Kung especially. There is a hermeneutic by which we read Vatican II and ‘the spirit of VII” is not it. It is the six points established in the Extraordinary Synod of 1985 and reiterated by Pope Benedict in 2005:the hermeneutic of reform in continuity with the Tradition. If SSPX could see their way clear to agree with this then they would have a similar established structure within the Church to the “Anglican Ordinariate”

  • Donald, as usual, you are correct, though again I really question what is objectionable even in light of the rampant soft ultramontanism that is gripping a good chunk of the Catholic blogosphere. The worst that can be claimed about the piece is that Pat may have been taking a passive aggressive swipe at the Pope (that is not my interpretation), but even then, so what? Are we not free even to make subtle criticisms of the Pontiff? As I’ve said elsewhere, if that is the case, then we would only be confirming the most fevered anti-Catholic polemics of Protestants.

  • Perhaps, the NCR is anxious not to be tarred with the Crypto-Lefebvrian brush.

    Whilst I can understand the members of the SSPX’s nostalgia for the EF, I find their nostalgia for the politics of Vichy rather disconcerting. For the ones I have met, the Republic is « la gueuse » and Philippe Pétain is always « le Maréchal » with an annual pilgrimage to his tomb. After all, during the 1987 pilgrimage, Lefebvre spoke of him as having “restored [France] spiritually and morally.”

    One senses that a good number of them would like to go back a good deal earlier that Vatican II, to a time in the ’30s, when the good Catholic youth of the Camelots du Roi were beating up Jews in the streets. That War Criminal Paul Touvier found refuge in one of the Society’s priories in Nice is not reassuring.

    I can imagine the SSPX finding fertile mission territory in a “liberated” West Ukraine.

  • Michael Paterson-Seyour,

    I usually chime in with you as you know, but perhaps your own experience in France has prevented you from realizing that the SSPX is not just ‘the good old days of France’. That , would be the last thingon the mind of American SSPXers I would presume. Thus it was the American segment of the SSPX that was most open to reconciliation with Rome.

    At this point in time I believe the phrase describing Christ’s own ministry in Matthew’s Gospel is apropros: “A bruised reed He will not break, a smouldering wick He will not quench, until He brings justice to victory” [Matthew 12.20 quoting Isaiah 42.1-4]

  • I hope the Register editors explain their decision, but until they do so, hypothesizing accurately about their motives seem difficult, given the absence of any similar actions taken on their part (in fact, they’ve published other posts which are mildly critical of Pope Francis).

  • There is a major airport outside of Rome. From there, you can catch a train into the city, and from there, crawl on your hands and knees to St. Peter’s. (You should probably call ahead for an appointment if you want to meet the pope.) If SSPX wants to be reconciled, they can be reconciled.

  • The Catholic Church allows priests who will not say the mass in Latin to stay in communion with the Catholic Church. Even though they exclusively say it in english they aren’t excommunicated. Therefore, it’s a double standard to not to allow priests who want to use the other language choice (Latin) exclusively since exclusively using english is allowed.

  • Whilst I can understand the members of the SSPX’s nostalgia for the EF, I find their nostalgia for the politics of Vichy rather disconcerting. For the ones I have met, the Republic is « la gueuse » and Philippe Pétain is always « le Maréchal » with an annual pilgrimage to his tomb.

    Really? Petain married quite late in life and was supposedly something of a Roue. Pierre Laval, who was the prime minister longer than anyone else in that musical chairs regime, was drawn from the nexus formed by the Radical Party and the masonic lodges and provincial political grandees. Pierre Pucheu had no religious affiliation. He was the staff director of the steel cartel (and admirer of Hitler, supposedly). Joseph Barthelemy was a serious Catholic, but I think that was atypical in the regimes many ministries.

    Charles de Gaulle, of course, was a serious Catholic. I think the Croix de Feu were the earliest to take up arms against the Petain regime.

  • Mary De Voe, You are right on point. Very few people can affirmatively identify what constitutes the legitimate teachings of Vatican II and what constitutes the distortions of the Spirit of Vatican II crowd. I believe much of what SSPX opposes is the latter…Pope Francis would demonstrate profound wisdom if he would meet with the SSPX and address their specific concerns. It would take a great deal of humility on both sides of the divide to do this.
    .
    Botolph, The SSPX would bring a huge gift to Rome if reconciliation were possible…
    .
    “….After the ordinations in the seminaries of the Northern Hemisphere, the Society of St. Pius X has 569 priests. 18 new priests were ordained in the United States, Switzerland and Germany…” Monday, July 23, 2012, “Number of SSPX Priests at all Time High”
    Source: http://acatholiclife.blogspot.com/2012/07/chart-number-of-sspx-priests-at-all.html.
    .
    Fortunately Bishop Williamson has been separated from the SSPX as his views were excessive and uncivil. I don’t think that he is representative of this group which was among the first to identify, raise the alarm, and resist the Spirit of Vatican II crowd. Although I am not part of SSPX, I respect their desire to protect the traditions of the faith and live …lex orandi, lex credendi, lex vivendi.
    .
    MPS, you are mistaken if you believe that the desire for the traditional latin mass is merely “nostalgic”. My church is full for the EF latin mass on Sundays and many who are in attendance are young adults and families. Last Sunday, there were twelve altar boys ranging in age from approximately 6 years to about 15 years old serving the EF mass. In addition, there were four priests which made an impressive 16 boys/men at or surrounding the altar. This is the norm at my RC Church…and it is not SSPX.
    .
    I find it disturbing that traditional Catholics are likened to bashers of Jewish people. This is not the case among many traditional Catholics of my acquaintance who fully apprehend that Jesus Christ was a Jew who gave His life so that many (including gentiles) may be saved. One cannot be truly Catholic and embrace anti-semitism. To love Christ is to imitate Him and to love the Jewish people while rejecting all forms of bigotry in their regard.

  • I cant help but notice the continued effort to link or actively smear the SSPX with being anti-Semitic or Nazi sympathizers (ex. citing the Paul Touvier case, or the Bp. Richard Williamson situation), yet failing to notice the contrary evidence to the matters (Archbp Lefebvre’s father died as a result of incarceration in a Nazi concentration camp, a well-concealed fact; Bp. Richard Williamson, showing the SSPX have the same episcopal-selection disasters as does the greater Catholic Church, was finally dismissed in Oct. 2012, better late than never). Touvier was a clever con man and fooled many trusting priests in Lyons, Chambery, Montpellier and everywhere; Bp Richard Williamson—what a disaster, enough said. But the convenient readiness of attacking anyone as anti-Semitic or pro-Nazi is a classic ploy of the secular as well as faux-Catholic left. George Soros worked for the Nazis until “defecting” at the end of WW2—and he has done quite well with accessing the world power elite. It all seems that you need to be on the “right side of history” again as the secular left likes to say.

  • Pinky writes, “….There is a major airport outside of Rome. From there, you can catch a train into the city, and from there, crawl on your hands and knees to St. Peter’s…
    .
    I don’t think that your description fits the manner in which the Anglican Ordinariate found its way home to Rome…nor should it be how the SSPX is welcomed home. Give each man his due.

  • Botolph & Slainté

    It is fanciful to suggest that it is only in France that SSPXers support Neo-Fascist and Anti-Semitic policies.

    On 12 December 2012, Fellay hosted a conference in Canada – “The head of the traditionalist Society of St Pius X has called Jewish people “enemies of the Church”, saying Jewish leaders’ support of the Second Vatican Council “shows that Vatican II is their thing, not the Church’s.” Bishop Bernard Fellay, the society’s superior general, said those most opposed to Rome granting canonical recognition to the SSPX have been “the enemies of the Church: the Jews, the Masons, the modernists.” He said these people, “who are outside of the Church, who over centuries have been enemies of the Church”, urged the Vatican to compel the SSPX to accept Vatican II”

    Always and everywhere the SSPX speaks of the Jews as the l agents of the destruction of the Christian political and social order and the source of modernism of the Church. Fellay did this publicly during his talk in Canada. Members deny that this blaming of the Jews is anti-semitism. They call it “the Counter-Revolution” or an aspect of “the Social Reign of Christ.”

    In the US, the Anti-Defamation League has branded the SSPX an anti-semitic organisation. This does not surprise me; those members I have encountered readily accept the Protocols of the Elders of Zion as genuine and regard the Blood Libel as entirely plausible. No wonder they harbour Holocaust deniers – they probably think it too good to be true

  • Slainte – I was being snarky, of course. I have an even snarkier reply, which is that yes, the Holy See should use the same approach it did with the Anglicans: (1) petition, (2) pray, (3) condemn errors, (4) attempt reconciliation, and (5) try back every 500 years. I think that’s a funny line. Do I mean it, though? I’d love to see the SSPX return to the fold, but I honestly don’t see it happening as an organization. Individuals will come back, and should always be welcomed. Maybe in God’s mercy whole groups will come back. But there’s always going to be some split-off group of the split-off. I mean, the Franciscans couldn’t stay orthodox and unified after Francis’s passing, and barely could before. We can and must pray for the movement and its members, but I have very low expectations.

  • Again, it is noted: the desire of some to smear a whole group, esp. a Trad Catholic group and all their members, as anti-Semitic or pro-Nazi, a ploy which advantageously serves perhaps a bitterly hostility to the Church prior to Vatican 2 anyway.

    It is just the same convenient readiness to damn all opponents as anti-Semitic or pro-Nazi, a method of the secular as well as faux-Catholic left and as old as the Dreyfus case.

    Yet again I note George Soros worked for the Nazis until “defecting” at the end of WW2, and is now one of the closest elite to the current president. The current president has close ties to actively anti-Semitic groups, including the Muslim Brotherhood: but the Anti-Defamation League has never uttered a murmur of protest about any of those connections.

    So, one way to seal the deal to expel the SSPX forever is to paint them this way. And while we are at it, we didnt even mention the Erich Priebke case—yet!

  • In the near future a schism in the Church that will be so huge it will make the present concern with the SSPX irrelevant. Pope Pius X had a mystical dream or vision in which he saw a successor of his fleeing Rome in disguise as Rome is invaded. Other prophecies confirm this: the Pope will be driven out and hunted down. The Shepherd will be struck and the flock dispersed and an uncanonical “pope” will take over and go the way of the world. Persecution will follow, remote signs of this are already popping up here and there. In fact the 3rd Secret that was revealed in 2000 shows this very thing with the pope and companions being gunned down by invading troops. It is obvious that this is coming because the only public institutional hindrance to the spread of many evils of our time is the Papacy and the UN committee’s grilling of the Vatican delegation for eight hours recently manifests this intention to remove the “obstacle”.

  • The Register has been censoring the truth for several years.

  • There was a time (until very recently, actually) that I thought it would be a great blessing to the Church were the SSPX to reunite fully with her. But from what I’m reading and hearing from friends with ties to the SSPX, the society is undergoing some tumult as those more in line with Bishop Williamson (of Holocaust denial infamy) battle those more in line with Bishop Fellay. It might be prudent to allow that to shake out – for the sake of the SSPX and the Church at large.

    Also, it’s not exactly helpful when the head of the SSPX publicly and formally thanks God Almighty that they were “preserved” from the “misfortune” of reconciliation with the Holy See, publicly states that the ordinary form of the Mass is “evil”, publicly accuses the pope of being a heretic (calling him a “genuine modernist”), and also states that Second Vatican Council represents an outright rupture with Tradition. That doesn’t strike me as a group that is quite ready for (or even particularly interested in) full communion.

    You can read AB Fellay’s comments here at Rorate Caeli: http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2013/10/bishop-fellay-we-thank-god-there-was-no.html

    Of course, it also doesn’t help when the SSPX goes out of its way to take care of a Nazi war criminal who never apologized or disavowed Nazi ideology. Nor does it help when the SSPX disrupts an interfaith service in memory of Kristallnacht only to have the head of the SSPX in South America defend the behavior.

    http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/the-city-gates.cfm?ID=687

    http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=19666

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/catholic-fringe-defies-pope-disrupts-interfaith-kristallnacht-ceremony-at-argentine-cathedral/2013/11/13/eca47820-4c72-11e3-bf60-c1ca136ae14a_story.html

    These things only reinforce the perception that the SSPX is not ready. I hope and pray that changes.

  • On the weekend of Oct. 11-13 2013, SSPX Superior General, Bishop Fellay, said the following with respect to the failed negotiations with the Vatican:

    “… They want us to recognize not only that the (new) Mass is valid provided that it is celebrated correctly, etc., but that it is licit. I told them we do not use that word. It’s a bit messy, our faithful have enough (confusion) regarding the validity, so we tell them, ‘The New Mass is bad, it is evil’ and they understand that. Period.” – (Rorate Caeli)

    Do all of the priests and followers of SSPX subscribe to this condemnation of the Novus Ordo as “evil” as they are taught by their Superior? In it’s most common understanding, “evil” is equated with “satanic”. The Novus Ordo constitutes a valid confection of the Eucharist and is celebrated by probably 90+ percent of priests in ‘Persona Christe’ in the Roman rite throughout the world – including the Pope – hundreds of thousands of times a day. Are they all instead Satan’s ministers? This vile and outrageous SSPX position of contempt against the Holy Sacrament by it’s superior is beyond heretical. Do we really think it acceptable to welcome into full communion such a group without their renunciation of such a belief?

  • Pinky,
    .
    If the gate-keeper standing between SSPX and Pope Francis also happens to be a propopent of Liberation Theology and views his friend and co-author Gustavo Gutierrez as an orthodox Catholic because of his shared belief in liberation theology, does a traditional group like SSPX even stand a chance for reconciliation with the Church?
    .
    Consider the following:
    .
    “…Archbishop Gerhard Ludwig Müller, soon to be a cardinal of the Catholic Church and Prefect of the Congregation of the Faith, announced on 22 December 2013 during an interview with the Italian daily Corriere della Sera, in which he claimed that it would a “sacramental de facto excommunication” continues for the SSPX “due to their schism”….”
    .
    Meanwhile …..
    .
    “…..It is all the more surprising that in the recent response of Abp. Müller to the Corriere della Sera, he says immediately afterward, with regard to the liberation theologian Gustavo Gutiérrez: “Gutiérrez has always been orthodox.” In fact, Abp. Müller co-wrote a book with him, On the Side of the Poor: Theology of Liberation, which was published in both Spanish and German. As the English journalist William Oddie reported in The Catholic Herald on July 6, 2012, citing the American Vatican-watcher John Allen, “Every year since 1998, Archbishop Müller has travelled to Peru to take a course under Gutiérrez…. In 2008 he accepted an honorary doctorate from the Pontifical Catholic University of Peru, which is widely seen as a bastion of the progressive wing of the Peruvian Church. On that occasion, he praised Gutiérrez and defended his theology. ‘The theology of Gustavo Gutiérrez, independently of how you look at it, is orthodox because it is orthopractic,’ he said publicly. ‘It teaches us the correct way of acting in a Christian fashion since it comes from the true faith.’”
    .
    “Now we understand: if Gutiérrez is orthodox—and even “orthopractic”—in Archbishop Müller’s view, the Society of St Pius X can only be “schismatic.” That is the whole difference between liberation theology and traditional theology. But in this context, it is necessary to recognize that the use of the word “schism” is the result of an entirely arbitrary decision.”
    .
    “One might therefore readily conclude that the recent statement by the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith makes any “reconciliation” impossible. But then how are we to understand this apparently contradictory statement: “We are not closing the door and never will”? ….”
    .
    Source: http://eponymousflower.blogspot.com/2014/01/official-statement-by-sspx-to.html.

  • Steve Phoenix wrote, “It is just the same convenient readiness to damn all opponents as anti-Semitic or pro-Nazi, a method of the secular as well as faux-Catholic left and as old as the Dreyfus case.”

    No one I suppose would call Charles Peguy a faux-Catholic. He, you will recall, declared that « Notre dreyfusisme était une religion […] d’essence chrétienne… C’est que nous ne nous placions pas moins qu’au point de vue du salut éternel de la France. » – Our support of Dreyfus was a religion, Christian in its essence We saw it from no other point of view than that of the eternal salvation of France.

    « Tout au fond nous étions les hommes du salut éternel et nos adversaires étaient les hommes du salut temporel. Voilà la vraie, la réelle division de l’affaire Dreyfus. Tout au fond nous ne voulions pas que la France fût constituée en état de péché mortel. » – Above all, we were the men of eternal salvation and our opponents were the men of temporal salvation. There is the real, the true division in the Dreyfus affair. Above all, we did not want France established in a state of mortal sin.

    Catholics like Peguy and Claudel did not have to wait for the Second Vatican Council to tell them that anti-semitism is “a gangrenous spot that corrupts the entire body.”

    That is why, at the time of the SSPX occupation of Saint-Nicholas-du-Chardonnet in 1977, Jean-Marie Lustiger, then vicar of Sainte-Jeanne-de-Chantal, declared, “Their Catholicism is not my Catholicism; their beliefs are not my beliefs; most fundamentally, I suspect that the object of their worship is not the God who revealed Himself at Sinai.”

  • If the Holy Father can call a heretic Pentecostal friend of his “brother bishop,” then surely he can extend the same ecumenism to the SSPX, who have true Bishops. It’s comical, really. Ecumenism toward everything and everyone except traditional Catholicism.

  • Slainte – Anyone can reconcile with the Church. As Michael notes, the first natural step toward reconciliation is to consider the Church worthy of reconciliation (to? with? what an ugly sentence).

  • MPS,
    .
    Are the roots of anti-semitism present in the pre-Vatican II RC Church?
    .
    If so, please amplify and also address how Vatican II treated these issues.

  • Under the ancient rules of outlawry . . . “putting a person beyond the protection of the law for his refusal to become amenable to the court having legal jurisdiction. In the past, this deprivation of legal benefits was invoked when a defendant or other person was in civil or criminal contempt of court; and, in cases of alleged treason or the commission of a felony (referred to as major outlawry), it amounted to a conviction as well as an extinction of civil rights.”

    Seems Francis I isn’t so “modern”, or he’s being selective.

    MPS can direct anti-semite/Holocaust/nazi commentary at the French. It calls to mind two cases.

    One, the execrable Andrew Sullivan’s explanation for John Paul II’s principled opposition to the 2003 Iraq invasion/war hysteria. Sullivan called it, “. . . traditional Catholic anti-semitism.”

    Two, in the late 1940’s a NYC bank teller was being bullied by a woman with a thick accent. The man couldn’t (bank rules and regulations) help her. She became more upset and displayed to him her nazi concentration camp number tattoo. Being a WWII ETO combat veteran, he told her, “Look lady, if it wasn’t for men like me you’d be a lamp shade.” True story.

    Now, aside from the superficial I am unfamiliar with SSPX reasons for breaking with the new-fangled church, but I know it was not a disagreement over Jews.

    Apparently, being outlawed/declared heretical SSPX merits ad hominems and detractions.

  • T. Shaw’s comments noted and to which I add:

    Please note the following

    —Pius XII – accused of being allegedly pro-Nazi (papal nuncio 1st to Bavaria, then Germany, 1917-1929), and accused of being an anti-Semite—notwithstanding his many public speeches openly denouncing Nazism, or in one letter calling Hitler “an agent of Lucifer.” QED, pro Nazi, anti-Semite.

    John Paul II – accused of being a “silent Nazi”, by “acquiescing” to the Holocaust (1999 PBS documentary in which an “expert” alleged that he “did not defy the Nazi’s” and that he “entered the priesthood to escape” the ongoing conflict.) JP2 was called “a child of Polish Anti-Semitism.” All this even tho he was secretly a member of the same Polish resistance group that provided exit documentation to at least 50,000 Jews. QED, pro-Nazi, Anti-Semite.

    Benedict XVI – accused of being an actual Nazi, smeared as “Der Panzer-Kardinal” ,
    Fr Thomas Reese SJ in a PBS radio interview on the eve of the 2005 papal conclave trying to infer that Ratzinger’s membership in the Hitler Youth (he was forced to serve as a 15-year-old in an air-defense battery) made him unelectable as pope.
    QED. Ibid.

    Now, some would say: no pattern here, nothing to see, move along, children.

    Let us just contrast that with the silent treatment accorded the following:

    — Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the “spiritual father” of the current president, who has called the state of Israel “genocidal”, “illegal” (June 2011 address), and who regular has blamed “the Jews” (his words) for problems in black America.

    —“Catholic” Fr. Michael Pfleger, admired by Mr Obama for “his work”, who revealed his close relationship with Louis Farrakhan. Pfleger defended the Nation of Islam in a Chicago city row in 2006 over a hate-crimes commission (how would anyone know hate in Chicago: it’s like the humidity, always up) when several Jewish members resigned over attendance by N of I members, Pfleger replying literally “Good riddance”, explicitly or implicitly because the 3 who resigned were Jewish members.

    —Or, Louis Farrakhan. Farrakhan’s statements at this time (2006): “These false Jews promote the filth of Hollywood. It’s the wicked Jews, the false Jews that are promoting lesbianism, homosexuality,” and “Zionists have manipulated Bush and the American government” over the war in Iraq. (These were the actual comments Pfleger defended.)

    —But my favorite nominee, Yassir Arafat, co-winner of the 1994 Nobel Peace Prize, life-long terrorist and killer of Jewish people. But we shouldnt recall that, after all (It could have been the almost entirely fictitious erzatz leftist of the 2003 prize, Rigoberto Menshevik, er. Menchu: But the Nobel people like the symbolism, not the substance, of course.)

    I have already mentioned a certain actual ex-Nazi collaborator and convicted international currency trader (2005, France) as well as a certain president with many connections to anti-Semitic organizations: All this treated with silence by the media.

    It is the Dreyfus strategy employed again, as so excellently documented in above posts, but only used to its full effect against traditional Catholics, to damn all with the same brush.

  • In response to the SSPX Jewish commentary:
    First, the problem is over Judaism, not the ethnicity. Second, the deniers of Christ and representatives of the anti-Christ religion of Judaism have absolutely no place in a Catholic church.
    It had nothing to do with the persons being Jewish, but prostituting the Church out to welcome, celebrate, and commemorate events, whatever they may be, along side false religions. That’s the issue here.
    Don’t make it an anti-Semite issue like the Southern Poverty Law Center does.

  • Don’t forget that NCR is EWTN and that traditional catholic ship sailed a long time ago

  • A more practical way to reconcile SSPX members with Mother Church is for more Summorum Pontificate EF Masses celebrated. SSPX members are known to come to diocesan Masses if they are more conveniently situated in their localities – person by person, family by family.
    We used to distribute copies of Universae Ecclesiae at our EF Mass, pointing out the conditions for SP – that people should not criticize the Novus Ordo or question the validity of its sacraments. But we’ve stopped distributing those and just leave it up to people to “don’t ask, don’t tell.” Now we’re having more and more SSPX and sedevacantists showing up at our EF Mass.
    Reconciliation through Pope Francis papacy looks like a long shot for now – not with him embracing protestants, atheists, Jews, gays, etc., but continuing to be hostile to traditionalists.
    My two centavos.

  • When I ‘penned’ that i hope and prayed for the reconciliation of SSPX with the Catholic Church I had no idea what a firestorm would erupt ,nor was I aware of some of the more recent statements of Bishop Fellay concerning Jews, the Ordinary Form of the Mass as ‘evil’, or even his statement that Pope Francis is a modernist [which he is not]. My only hesitation is whether these are accurate statements or not [I am hoping against hope that they are not, however the sources seem solid] I don’t usually say this, but, I am at a loss for words here and will end my post, with these words. I am very very sad.

  • How is it possible to ‘recongise’ the schismatic sspx to the Church when they do NOT accept a substantial part of the Magisterium of the Church. Recently Cardinal Muller declared that they are excommunicated for formal schism. See: http://renitencia.wolkartt.com/2013/12/dom-muller-os-bispos-da-fsspx-estao.html They also cast doubt on the forthcoming canonizations of Blessed Pope John Paul II and say : “The only way out is to draw the double conclusion that follows: Karol Wojtyla cannot be canonized and the act that would proclaim his sanctity in front of the Church could only be a false canonization.” See: http://www.dici.org/en/documents/the-dilemma-presented-by-john-paul-iis-canonization/ The schism sspx are absurd for the act of Canonisation is an Infallible act of the Extraordinary Magisterium of the Church. The exercise of infallibility comes only when the pope himself proclaims a person a saint. The proclamation is made in a Latin formula of which we offer an approximate translation:

    “In honor of the Holy Trinity, for the exaltation of the Catholic faith and the increase of the Christian life, with the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul and of Our Own, after long reflection, having invoked divine assistance many times and listened to the opinion of many of our Brothers in the Episcopate, We declare and define as Saint Blessed N. and inscribe his/her name in the list of the saints and establish that throughout the Church they be devoutly honored among the saints.” Which in April of this year Pope Francis will declared both Blessed Pope John XXIII and Blessed Pope John Paul II as Saints of the Universal Church. The sspx have distanced themselves not only from the Church but from reality as well. They are self centred and are afraid of loosing their ‘power’! Their concept of catholicism has stopped at the Medieval ages and has become a cystalisation of such.

  • Botolph, it correct in his comments. Fellay (the so called moderate!!!!!LOL’s) did not only call the Rite of Holy Mass which was promulgated by Pope Paul VI, (soon to be canonised) NOT only as ‘evil’ but also as ‘illicit’ and illegitmate as well as comparing it to a ‘black mass’! How absurd they are (the sspx) ! Not only that, they also do not accept as valid the new sacramental rites espcially that of ordination as promulgated by Pope Paul VI, for they refused the ‘help’ of an elderly retired, now died, RC Bishop because he was ordained with the New Rite.

  • Botolph, is correct in his comments. Fellay (the so called moderate!!!!!LOL’s) did not only call the Rite of Holy Mass which was promulgated by Pope Paul VI, (soon to be canonised) NOT only as ‘evil’ but also as ‘illicit’ and illegitmate as well as comparing it to a ‘black mass’! How absurd they are (the sspx) ! Not only that, they also do not accept as valid the new sacramental rites especially that of ordination as lawfully promulgated by Pope Paul VI, for they refused the ‘help’ of an elderly retired, now died, RC Bishop because he was ordained with the New Rite. – See more at: http://the-american-catholic.com/2014/02/25/pat-archbolds-controversial-call-for-unity/#comment-228562

  • Dom Harold,

    I for one have certainly argued these points over time in other posts on this site. My fundamental point is that we as Catholics long for reconciliation and full communion of the SSPX. My last post simply was a comment on my sadness at the more recent statements of Bishop Fellay on various subjects obviously putting greater distance between the Catholic Church and the SSPX.

    The “Kairos” [graced time of opportunity] of the door of ecumenism [of which dialogue with SSPX is one (very important) aspect] is rapidly closing. The 1 billion Christians not in full communion with the Catholic Church (of over 1 billion) have had this ‘moment’ since the 60’s. Yet the forces of ‘the world’ are rising against all of us-and we remain divided. Even more tragic we have such phenomenon as

    1) the Russian Orthodox Church questioning ‘primacy’ as constitutive of the Church alongside synodality. Its primary aim is to whittle down the role of the “Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople” in relation to the rest of Orthodoxy, however it obviously attacks the Bishop of Rome in the process. This move of the Russian Patriarchy undermines not simply Orthodox Catholic theological dialogue but actually Orthodox unity as well. This coupled with the growing new nationalism of the Russian Church in relation with President Putin is spilling over into the ecclesiastical life as well as political life of the neighbors of Russia. For example, there are three distinct Orthodox Patriarchs of the Ukraine (one under Moscow, the other in opposition to Moscow). The largest Eastern Catholic Church is the Greek Catholic Ukrainian Church found mostly in the western part of the Ukraine-see what I mean about the ecumenical kairos closing?

    2) While ‘the Church of England’ is (for the present) holding the line on the Apostolic Tradition on marriage between man and woman, they are rapidly moving toward the ordination of women bishops. The issues of Anglican orders was considered to be ‘problematic’ under Pope Leo XIII who considered them to be non-existent. Other ecclesial communities within the Anglican Communion have already gone this route ordaining woman priests and bishops [i..e. American Episcopal Church]. But when the Church of England ordains its first woman bishop, it will set a greater division than we already have-the greatest distance we have had in ‘500’ years.

    3) While the Anglican Ordinariate, especially in USA, is doing well, many Anglo-Catholics remain within the Church of England and are doing all sorts of maneuvers etc to remain Anglican while opposing many positions of the Anglican Communion and Church of England.
    The love their Anglo-Catholic identity but have what I would call an allergic reaction to “Rome”

    It is in this light that I mourn the seeming growing distance between the Church and SSPX. I see how voracious and yes even vicious the attacks from Sedevacantists are on the SSPX and wonder how long the SSPX can even survive as it is and in the ‘theological space’ it has attempted to carve out for itself. I see nothing but fragmentation ahead.

    But I mourn over the divisions that have developed over two thousand years of Church history. We once were all one: with Peter and the apostles, and now half are no longer in full communion and the propensity for division and disunity seems to be only growing I do not believe that this is of the Lord Who prayed: Ut unum sint

  • Oh, my, Dom Harold: So you want to take Card. Mueller’s statements as dogmatically infallible? You may want to ask him the following questions.
    First, ask him what his position is now on the matter of the perpetual virginity of the BVM.

    In his 2003 book “Catholic Dogmatic”(pub. in German), Mueller stated a directly heretical belief that the virginity of the BVM was not an actual physical fact but merely a symbolic concept (“[The virgin birth is] not so much concerned with specific physiological proprieties in the natural process of birth (such as the birth canal not having been opened, the hymen not being broken, or the absence of birth pangs), but with the healing and saving influence of grace of the Savior on human nature.”] This goes directly against what the Lateran Council of 649 declared stating such a position as anathematic. (Lateran Council/649: “If anyone does not properly and truly confess in accord with the holy Fathers, that the Holy Mother of God and ever Virgin and Immaculate Mary in the earliest of the ages conceived of the Holy Spirit without seed, namely, God the Word Himself specifically and truly, who was born of God the Father before all ages, and that she incorruptibly bore [Him], her virginity remaining indestructible even after His birth, let him be condemned.” )

    Ask the dear Kardinal about his position on the Eucharist: in his 2002 book (in German, my translation): “The Mass: Sources of Christian Living”, he absolutely stated that we should avoid using the term “body and blood” in reference to the Eucharist. It seems the dear Kardinal is offended that this might refer to the real Body and Blood of Jesus Christ (he says it: you read it for yourself). The dear Kardinal wants only a symbolic memorial.

    Ask the Kardinal his definition of the Catholic Church: he includes other Christian Churches (he specifically cites the “Evangelical Churches”) as full members (2011 Address, Katholische Akademie in Bayern): “Thus, we as Catholic and Evangelical Christians are already united even in what we call the visible Church. Strictly speaking, there are not several Churches one beside the other — these are rather divisions and separations within the one people and house of God.” He went on to say that the other Christian churches who have denied a “valid episcopacy” are not denied full Catholic status (it is tortuous near-Ratzingerian speech, but that is where he was going on this matter), no doubt about it.

    This last position is of the utmost hypocrisy and contradiction in his personal opinon stating the condemnation of the SSPX as “schismatic”. This is not a “Katcholische Kardinal”, and I am only scratching the surface of this formally heretical teacher. So buy in on his positions, but as for me, if he quacks like a duck…he is a quack!

  • Firstly, Botolph, I do NOT believe for one second that the majority of Catholics wish for the ” reconciliation and full communion of the SSPX”. They have distanced themselves from the Church and from Reality. How could they reasonably be ‘recognised’ when they reject a substantial part of the Magisterium of the Church as expressed by the Second Vatican Council. Many of their priests have turned ‘sede vacantist’ and I could name at least 20, and not all french ones too, who are still with that society, incidently with no legal foundation in Canon Law at all. Although Pope Emeritus Benedict removed the excommunication because they were knowingly ordained bishops without an Apostolic Mandate from the Pope. In fact, Lefebvre submitted several names of candidates that he had in mind to be ordained bishops to Blessed Pope John Paul II and He expressly rejected each and every one of them ! So rather than being ordained bishops without an Apostolic Mandate, they were ordained contrary to one and to the Holy Father’s express wishes ! However, Cardinal Muller recently declared (in the reference that I have already given, Steve, that the sspx bishops are still excommunicated de facto, for formal schism. I am sure that before Cardinal Muller issued that Declaration, Pope Francis was duely informed of the fact. Remember that Cardinal Muller is Prefect of the CDF. Even when the original excommunication of them was dispensed with by Pope Emeritus Benedict, He specially said that the sspx bishops still lacked ‘a canonical mission in the Church’ ( See: https://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/otc.cfm?id=1080 ) and all of their priests are suspensed ‘a divinis’ if not also subject of excommunication, de facto, for formal schism, as well. See: http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=20046
    This thread is about the schismatic sspx and to attempt to bring in other factors like Cardinal Muller’s theological positions, which incidently, I believe are misunderstood and misrepresented, are in fact ‘red herrings’ and have nothing whatsoever to do with this thread. The point of fact is that they (the sspx) were deemed schismatic and de facto, excommunicated and have no canonical authority or mission in the Church whatsoever. The thread is not about what Cardinal Muller believes, at all but about his official statement as Prefect of the CDF. Think about it, calling the Holy Mass ‘evil’, ‘illicit’ and illegitimate’ as ‘moderate’ Fellay has already done publicly, giving great scandal. Not including calling into doubt the forthcoming Canonisations of Blessed Pope John XXIII and Blessed John Paul II as ‘not valid’ and attempting to ‘repeat’ ordinations of priests ordained validity in the New Rite ! Clearly, both a sacrilegious and heretical act ! 3 into 2 does not go and that is what they are like, they just couldn’t be allowed to be ‘let loose’ on the catholic faithful, formenting heresy and schism. Now we have many other societies within the Church such as the Society of St Peter and many more that legitimately celebrate the extraordinary form.

  • The schismatic sspx attempt to use the ‘extraordinary form’ as a type of ‘hidden agenda’ or not so ‘hidden’ for everyone knows that their first year seminary students at Ecône and elsewhere study the spurious ‘Protocolos of the Elder’s of Zion,’ as one of their primary texts and this as everyone knows is highly, to say the least anti-Semitic. Their real agenda is a rejection of a substantial part of the Magisterium of the Church as expressed by the Second Vatican Council and all subsequent Reforms, each and every one ! So don’t fall for their strategy !!!!!

  • Dom Harold,

    You might have been reading this blog for some time but at least to me, you are a new poster here. I participate in the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite, and am solidly in the Church following Vatican II. My point is that any and every Catholic should be desiring the return of the SSPX to full reconciliation and communion with the Church, just as we desire full communion to be restored with the Orthodox the Oriental Orthodox churches, and the ecclesial communities of the Reformation. That is what Christ prayed for at the Last Supper and has certainly been the mandate given the Church since Vatican II.

    I am saddened by what I see is the wider divide and greater obstacles that are developing (and of which I was somewhat unaware-my fault!). For example in anti-semitic statements I thought they all centered around the ‘renegade’ bishop Williamson and those following him. I still wonder if most SSPXers from America follow any anti-semitism [I see a distinction between American SSPX and the larger body]. Perhaps I am “too ecumenical” (sic) lol

    I still however mourn these divisions of Christ’s Church and pray for their healing. In the words of one man not considered to be all that ecumenical (lol) “Here I stand, I can do nothing else!

  • Botolph, Yes, I am new to this blog. And than goodness it doesn’t exercise cenorship even unknow like in North Korea like other ‘catholic blogs’ ! And I bet you know the ‘blogs’ I mean were people don’t have the courage of their convictions and use penn names ! Seeking full communion with the Orthodox churches etc is very diferente from seeking full commion with the sspx ! the later, the sspx is schismatic and schismatic of their own making for they seperated from the Church themselves while the Orthodox Churches ‘schism’ is almost a Thousand years old – and the Orthodox faithful cannot be held at fault for this of something happening all those years ago but the schism of the sspx is recent and of their own making, called formal or pernicious schism and maybe heresy too ! But the ‘Orthodox’ are not formal heretics or schismatics in the same sense as the sspx are. The ‘Orthodox’ although they may be technicial ‘schismatics’ are only ‘materially so’ (and cannot be held responsible for the schism hundreds of years ago) and not formal ones, through no fault of their own, quite unlike the sspx !

  • Williamson is not the only ‘renegade’ bishop within the sspx. But what about the Ecône 8 ! and Bishop Dolan and Sanborn and Kelly and many, many others. See: http://www.traditionalmass.org/priests/sanborn.php
    All were born from the schismatic sspx and Lefebvre is their father no matter what may be said ! LOL’s Williamson is still technicially within the sspx because that body has no authority whatsoever based on Canon Law. These are just a few examples of what is ‘breed’ from within the sspx !

  • Dom Harold,

    When a separation (leading toward?) a divorce is taking place, emotions run very high for those separating, as for the’children’ involved and forced to take sides. Some if not much of what you are stating comes from the present separating that is taking place. I sense you know Church history and know that back when the Eastern and Western Church were splitting the emotions ran very high over such important issues as whether priests wore beards, the bread used for the Eucharist had yeast in it or not, as well as whether Mass was celebrated in Latin or Greek. When I first began reading the history of the Anglican Reformation (which happened simultaneously with Henry’s break with Rome but are not the same thing), I was amazed at how many “Catholic Bishops” had no problem signing the declaration that Henry was indeed supreme head of the Church of England. I was also stunned at the vehemence of Latimer, Ridley and Cranmer were against the doctrine of Transubstantiation. Things are always heated and messy when the divorce is happening.

    In the case of the SSPX I was hoping that the estrangement might end before full divorce settles in for members and children

  • Botolph, “In the case of the SSPX I was hoping that the estrangement might end before full divorce settles in for members and children,” Well, the ‘estrangement’ is of their own making and I believe its ‘members’ are those that the Church could maybe well do without – Ideologising the extraordinary form (someone which Pope Francis has spoken so strongly against, I believe) and counting their rosaries during Mass and such the like. But the ‘problems’ run much deeper than their ‘nostalgic’ desire for the ‘vetus ordo’ but at the roots is a rejection of the Reforms of the Second Vatican Council, a substantial part of the Magisterium of the Church. Perhaps they, (the sspx and their followers) will be the ‘old catholics’ of today and certainly of ‘tomorrow’. But as I understand it and read what Williamson had to say, many of their followers (the sspx) are leaving them in droves, many of which are going to were they can get the ‘extraordinary form’ and are not interested at all in (the sspx) struggles for ‘power’ and for the ‘hearts and minds of ‘their’ people ! That explains why Fellay and Company are now adopting a ‘hard line’ approach in an attempt to dissuade those presently leaving in droves ! After all they need money for their ‘missions’! ‘Moderate’ Fellay calling the ‘New Mass’ as ‘evil’, ‘illicit’ and ‘illegitimate.’

  • Dom Harold,

    You have a certain ‘animus’ towards the SSPX, that I cannot quite put my finger on, but it is there. I do not share that ‘animus’ but I do share your consternation concerning the positions etc of the SSPX which seem to be becoming more complex and dare I say ‘panicky’?

    I do believe that Pope Benedict’s motu proprio Summorum Pontificem was not only only a great act of pastoral charity but brilliant on several levels. No longer can it be claimed that those loving the Tridentine Mass could not find their home in the Catholic Church. In two distinct pastoral moves Benedict broadened the understanding of the Latin Rite to include both forms (Ordinary and Extraordinary) of the Roman Rite but also the Anglican Usage (Rite?) as well as the Ambrosian Rite which calls for a deeper appreciation of the Latin Rite and relativizing the tiring arguments about the correct form of the Latin Rite (often confused soley with the Roman Rite) with the Roman Rite

    May those loving the Tridentine form of the Roman Rite, the Extraordinary Form increase and prosper, with the caveat that we who participate in the Ordinary Form are quite content in the Ordinary Form etc. Arguments over the two forms of the Rite are as productive and needless as people arguing over whether the Roman Rite was better than the Melkite-Byzantine Rite etc. Basta! (Enough! in Italian)

  • Botolph,
    The motu próprio, Summorum Pontificum of Pope Emeritus Benedict. Well that is another matter. But once thought to be ‘universal right’ is no longer so ! As I sure you are well aware of the Franciscans of the Immaculate, largely being ‘prohibited’ from celebrating the ‘vetus ordo’ because of their ‘cypto-Lefebvrian’ ‘backward’ views unless they have special permission from Fr. Volpi who was appointed by Pope Francis to oversee and put that Order back onto the ‘right track’. A motu próprio it is and so can be changed, or even abrogated completely. I have no doubt for one minute that at any time the ‘extraordinary form’ is used in any kind of ‘derisive’ manner to cast doubt or as a ‘flag ship’ against the continuing reforms of the Second Vatican Council the motu próprio may indeed be further restricted. The point of fact is that the celebration of the ‘vetus ordo’ is no longer ‘a right’ (as is shown in the Order of FMI) but rather is a ‘concession’, which is granted for those who cannot easily adopt, through their age, for example, to the Ordinary of the Mass, which is that of Pope Paul VI. A concession given can also be withdrawn ! I find it difficult, like the Holy Father, to undersatnd how one who is a child of Vatican II could adopt to the ‘extraordinary form’ !

  • but rather is a ‘concession’, which is granted for those who cannot easily adopt, through their age, for example, to the Ordinary of the Mass
    ——
    This is absurd. The majority of people that I see at a typical EF Mass, including myself, weren’t even born at the time of the Second Vatican Council.

  • Dom:

    I’m no SSPX-er.

    I mistakenly thought the Latin Mass to be ‘universal right’ even included in VII.

    I remember the Latin Mass. If you didn’t “know” the Latin you followed it all word-by-word in a prayer book. My understanding is that the English Mass translation (Kumbaya!) was the only one that was untrue. That’s why Pope B recently had it corrected.

    Earlier this afternoon, I closed my office door and quietly sat “counting” my Rosaries.

    Have you got a problem with that? Can you recite the Apostle’s Creed or the Hail Holy Queen, or the prayers before and after? Can you name or explain the Mysteries of the Holy Rosary that we meditate obn as we “count”?

    Regarding the outlawry of the SSPX and the Latin Mass. I think it reflects deficiencies of charity and mercy. Or, is it evidence of human nature? They naturally fear and loathe those whom they have injured.

    But, “Who am I to judge?”

  • Dom Harold,

    While I agree a Motu Proprio can be changed or even abrogated, a rubricon of sorts has been crossed by Rome. While the fundamental desire is for the two forms to inform each other-(which will take time: generations etc I believe) I believe what we are witnessing is a widening of self understanding within the Latin Rite. We always have had at least two different forms of the Latin Rite (Roman and Ambrosian) and before Trent a wide variety of forms of the Latin Rite (almost all tracing their origins from the Roman Rite [for example even the Tridentine Mass is not the original form of the Roman Rite; it is a synthesis of the Gallican and Roman Rite]- now we are returning to a certain plurality within the Latin Rite. Plurality does not mean (and does not have to mean) division

    If some who participate in the Extraordinary Form begin militating against-for the sake of argument-‘ecumenism’, it will be the ideology that will be ‘expunged’ and not the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite. Now it might take some time for those coming to the Extraordinary Form to become fully onboard with the Church on some issues such as ecumenism, I do not see them given ‘orthodoxy tests’ as they dip their fingers into the holy water. We do not do that in the Ordinary Form, do we? God only knows how many would pass muster! Might be different issues-for example not holding to Humanae Vitae or militating for women’s orders or gay marriage. See what is extremely important here is to differentiate faith from ideology (not only for the more traditional but for the mainline and liberal aspects of the Church) Faith is not ideology and cannot be reduced to ‘easy formulas’. Even the doctrines and dogmas which are in formulaic form cannot be reduced to ‘easy formulas’

    Dom, I am 63. I served the Tridentine Mass and participate in the Ordinary Form. I am not sure how old you are. But I do not think love for the Extraordinary Form can be relegated to the old or nostalgic (any more than we who participate in the Ordinary Form all want guitar Masses singing cum bye ya-I won’t even touch the sacriligious ‘clown Masses’ etc) These are caricatures. As Paul Zummo mentions. many young people find a home in the Extraordinary Form. If it is not for an ideological reason (i.e. over against Rome etc) then may they increase. Over time, I believe there will be more cross-pollinating of the two forms but for now they need to be allowed to breathe and live-without fear or ‘threat’.

    This is what it really means to be Catholic

  • Well, Mr Shaw, there we are. Most people I know ‘attend’ a celebration or two out of sheer curiosity and that’s about it. The ICEL translation ‘problem’ did not effect the Mass in the slightest. Many priests I know still use the english missal prior to the minor corrections that were made and prefer it too ! This is not of consequence.
    The problem with the ‘vetus ordo’ and obviously it is not your case, is that it is used by many who also reject the Conciliar Reforms and this is the real danger that lurks. Those ‘from within’ rejecting the Conciliar Reforms’ ! And by the way I know latin quite well and the ‘vetus ordo’ like the back of my hand, without a bi-lingual missal either but since I am around 12 years younger than you, I truely am a (young) ‘child’ of Vatican II and for the life of me cannot understand someone of my age, (‘I’m getting old’) and those much younger adopting to the extraordinary form. And that’s it !

  • Sorry Mr Shaw I confused you with Botolph as regarding my age !

  • These are ‘the children of Vatican II’ and their physical age doesn’t matter, preparing for Our Holy Father’s visit: (Watch it) It was fantastic !

  • T Shaw

    Next time you ‘count your rosaries’ pray a decade for me, please. Divisions within the Church are fundamentally the failure of charity and then and only then an ideological proposition that is confused with Faith.

    I am going to shock some reading this perhaps but I need to say it. Every day I read what is going on in the Middle East, I think of the first real split in the Church (Arianism was a real substantial heresy and cannot be seen as simply a split in the Church) which took place within twenty years of each other. The “Liberals” broke with the Council of Ephesus on the One Person, the Eternal Son in the flesh, basically too proud to reintegrate their position [emphasizing the distinction even separation of the divine and human in Christ] on the Incarnation within the authoritative teaching of the Church-we now call them Nestorians [Assyrians are their present day name]. Twenty years later however, the conservative faction broke with the Church at Chalcedon. They thought they had won at Ephesus (when it was the Church and truth that had won) but now thought the Church under Pope Leo was moving toward the liberals (Nestorians) in its teaching on the two natures of Christ. They became known as the Monophysites (Miaphysites), the Coptic and Armenian Orthodox are the present day descendants of the ‘conservatives’

    My point is both emphasized the truth found in the two Councils of the Church. Both were too proud to be reintegrated into the Catholic Church because they wanted to stick with their ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ points. The ‘liberals’ moved on into Iraq, Iran, along the Silk Road all the way to western China. The ‘conservatives’ set up rival hierarchies in the countries of the near Middle East. The division was tragic.

    When Islamicist Arabs bent on conquest by the sword swept out of Arabia, divided Christianity in the Middle East lay before them. It took no time for them to eradicate Christianity in Iran and along the countries like Kazakstan etc along the Silk Road. In the meantime the ‘conservatives’ saw the Arabs as ‘liberators’ against the ‘bad’ Byzantine Empire. The Christians of Alexandria [Egypt] opened the gates for the Arab forces It took longer for them to pummel the ‘conservatives’ into submission [dhimmitude] but the Islamic Arabs succeeded. These ‘conservatives’ ended up in the Armenian holocaust by the Islamic Turks at the beginning of the 20th century and we are hearing about ‘the Coptic Christians’ (Egyptians) today in the news.

    Can we ever learn from history as well as Tradition? Schism is always a failure to love just as heresy is a failure to believe.

  • Botolph,

    You are very perceptive and have put everything in a ‘nut shell’ about the schismatic sspx: “Schism is always a failure to love just as heresy is a failure to believe.” Unfortunately, the sspx suffer from both !

  • Botolph writes, “…I am saddened by what I see is the wider divide and greater obstacles that are developing (and of which I was somewhat unaware-my fault!). For example in anti-semitic statements I thought they all centered around the ‘renegade’ bishop Williamson and those following him….”
    .
    I was not aware of the October 13th Canadian conference either and still am not clear what Bishop Fellay said. If he did attack and condemn the Jewish people and/if he referred to the Novus Ordo Mass as evil and the pope as a modernist, he was very wrong to do so.
    .
    There are 569 priests among the SSPX who acknowledge Francis as Pope; they and the SSPX laity should be reconciled with Roman Catholic Church and should not be prejudiced by improvident statements attributed to their bishop. I believe Our Lord Jesus Christ wants his children united.
    .
    Botolph, your imput has been very charitable, just and evenhanded; your refusal to condemn is admirable and very Catholic. Thank you.

  • Slainte,

    You are very welcome. The Lord has placed a burning passion within me for full communion, peace and charity in and of the Church. Every time I think of the 1 billion Christians, brothers and sisters in the Lord not in full communion with us and not able to participate in the same Sacrament of Unity and Charity-it literally tears me apart. I feel like Jeremiah in a sense. Not that the Church will crumble, etc but Christians do not realize the hour we live in. There is an inexorable force moving toward us and the divisions will not help but only harm us. The Church founded by Christ on Peter and the Apostles now pope and bishops in union with him will survive, I have no doubt of that-but oh we are not reading the signs of the times, and the failure of Christian charity and so many going off in so many directions ‘believing this or that’ (like Jerusalem’s many idols—idols:: ideologies)-it tears me apart. And the coldness of so many in the Church (whatever rite they participate in) is shocking. I probably should stop, but you can see it really sears the soul

  • Botolph, what is moving toward us is the spirit of division whose head, God tells us, will be crushed by the woman…Our Blessed Mother.
    .
    I will pray the Rosary tonight and will offer prayers for you; your task is not an easy one.
    .
    I hope God knows you by your pseudonym. : )

  • Slainte, You must be from Ireland like me !!!
    You shouldn’t expect any consistency at all in the schismatic sspx, they are all running around chasing their own tails. Schismatics and heretics are never consistent and the same holds so for them. Most were ‘trained’ at Ecône by self educated ‘professors’ hardly with an academic degree, even a primary one ! They attack one another as Williamson attacks Fellay and as both Fellay and Williamson and the others attack Our Holy Father ! They confuse the simple people who only really wish to attend sometimes the ‘vetus ordo’ and I doubt if most of their ‘faithful’ really know their (the sspx) absurd anti-catholic theological positions. Even some people writing in this blog aren’t so sure what they (the sspx) really teach- formentors of heresy and schism, and that’s all !

  • Slainte

    Very perceptive! The ‘inexorable force’ is indeed the Ancient Serpent [see Revelations 12] her cannot touch ‘the Woman’ [Mary/Church as a whole] but seeks out and persecutes her children. It will be in a particular ‘incarnation’ as it always has been, but we are in for another full blown frontal confrontation with this ‘force’. Division just like sin is “Devil’s Food”. Now you can see where this is going.

    Thank you for the prayers. I truly appreciate them.

  • Dom Harold: “To attempt to bring in other factors like Cardinal Gerhard Muller’s theological positions, which incidently, I believe are misunderstood and misrepresented, are in fact ‘red herrings’ and have nothing whatsoever to do with this thread.”

    My, this is a convenient avoidance of fact, the “poor misunderstood” Kardinal—Dom Harold hasnt read him, I fear—because if Dom Harold faced the facts he would be forced to admit that the dear Kardinal has spoken heretically and repeatedly so, and is not one to be able to adequately define the Cathoic Faith. How can he therefore define schism (by the way, in contradiction to what Card. Dario Castrillon Hoyos’ years of research on the matter concluded with regard to the SSPX)?

    Dom Harold especially avoids the fact that Muller recognizes other Christian churches as Catholic and “in union” (Muller specifically spoke of the “evangelical churches”) , even those who deny a valid episcopacy, then by what principle of reason or logic or law or quackery does Muller declare the SSPX “schismatic”? This isnt relevant? How convenient.

    Don’t worry, Dom Harold: I wont bother you any further with facts that one prefers to deny. The best response is to laugh. And laugh and laugh and laugh. What tomfoolery.

  • Dom Harald…
    .
    I am Irish American and spend a fair amount of time in the West of Eire.
    .
    I think your animus against the SSPX is misplaced. While its leadership does appear to have become seriously skewed in its wrongheaded conclusions, there are many SSPX priests and lay people who honor and preserve in continuity the traditions of the Roman Catholic Church.
    .
    Interestingly, one of SSPX Ecône’s (Switzerland) seminarians Archbishop Georg Ganswein serves both Pope Francis and Emeritus Pope Benedict XVI as a trusted personal assistant. see, http://www.georgganswein.com/ (quite a nice website btw : )
    .
    Perhaps through Absp Ganswein’s diplomacy an amicable resolution can be reached for SSPX and the Church.
    .
    Slán agat

  • It’s an unofficial website and he was never ever been at Ecône at all. All the priests of the sspx that I know told me the story is just not true. Anyone can put up a website. And this one is not his. It’s bogus !

    More heresy I received notices about only now from the schismatic sspx.
    http://www.dici.org/en/documents/the-dilemma-presented-by-john-paul-iis-canonization/ Canonisation is na Infallible act of the Extraordinary Magisterium and they (the sspx) say that the forthvoming canonisation of Blessed Pope John Paul II will not be valid. How absurd they are.

    I presume you are from Galway, so beautful !

  • slainte,

    1’m sorry but this is not what Cardinal Muller, the Prefect of the CDF has declared. He declares them officially in schism and excommunicated too !- O U T S I D E T H E
    C H U R C H.- Couldn’t be much clearer than that ! Extra Ecclesiam !

    http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=20046

  • Dom Harold…
    .
    My family is not from Contae na Gaillimhe although it is indeed beautiful…in particular Connemara and Dun Aengus on Inishmore (Aran Islands)…
    .
    Back on point: If not Econe, which seminary did Absp Gänswein attend?
    .
    Some additional background information:
    .
    “…Gänswein was born in Riedern am Wald, Waldshut, Baden-Württemberg, a village in the Black Forest and part of Ühlingen-Birkendorf municipality in Germany, as the eldest son of Albert Gänswein, a blacksmith and his wife Gertrud. He has two brothers and two sisters.[3]
    .
    Gänswein initially began his seminary training at the International Seminary of Saint Pius X in Switzerland.[4] He has said in interviews that he decided to become a priest in 1974 when he was 18. But it was not until two years later, at the age of 20, that he began his seminary training for the Archdiocese of Freiburg, the local church for which he was ordained on 31 May 1984 at 28.[5]

    Upon his ordination, Gänswein dedicated himself to rigorous academic activities. He received his J.C.D. degree from Ludwig Maximilians University of Munich in 1993. In an interview, Gänswein describes the two years he spent in the Black Forest as a curate (assistant pastor) after his ordination to the priesthood. In 1993, he wrote his dissertation in Munich about Ecclesiology according to the Second Vatican Council…..”

    Source 1: http://medlibrary.org/medwiki/Georg_G%C3%A4nswein.
    Source 2: http://en.vi.ki/Georg_G%C3%A4nswein

  • Dom Harold wrote, “….1′m sorry but this is not what Cardinal Muller, the Prefect of the CDF has declared. He declares them officially in schism and excommunicated too..”
    .
    On what provision of Canon Law or other Authority did Archbishop Muller rely upon when he declared SSPX schismatic in December 2013?

  • Dom Harold writes, “…he was never ever been at Ecône at all. All the priests of the sspx that I know told me the story is just not true…”
    .
    This source suggests otherwise:
    .
    “…Gänswein was born in Riedern am Wald, Waldshut, Baden-Württemberg, a village in the Black Forest and part of Ühlingen-Birkendorf municipality in Germany, as the eldest son of Albert Gänswein, a blacksmith and his wife Gertrud. He has two brothers and two sisters.[3]
    .
    Gänswein initially began his seminary training at the International Seminary of Saint Pius X in Switzerland.[4] He has said in interviews that he decided to become a priest in 1974 when he was 18. But it was not until two years later, at the age of 20, that he began his seminary training for the Archdiocese of Freiburg, the local church for which he was ordained on 31 May 1984 at 28.[5]
    .
    Upon his ordination, Gänswein dedicated himself to rigorous academic activities. He received his J.C.D. degree from Ludwig Maximilians University of Munich in 1993. In an interview, Gänswein describes the two years he spent in the Black Forest as a curate (assistant pastor) after his ordination to the priesthood. In 1993, he wrote his dissertation in Munich about Ecclesiology according to the Second Vatican Council….”
    Source: http://medlibrary.org/medwiki/Georg_G%C3%A4nswein.

  • Now it’s Cardinal Muller (he was created a cardinal a week ago). His authority comes directly from Pope Francis as he (Cardinal Muller) is Prefect of the Congregation of Faith and Doctrine. Pope Francis is the Supreme Authority of the Church even though the sspx would like to be in his place ! And that’s it, all in a ‘nut shell.’

  • Methinks Dom’s understanding of Papar and Episcopate authority is, erm, a bit lacking.

    That said, this discussion has now moved beyond the point of usefulness.

Follow TAC by Clicking on the Buttons Below
Bookmark and Share
Subscribe by eMail

Enter your email:

Recent Comments
Archives
Our Visitors. . .
Our Subscribers. . .