Wed 3rd Sep 2014 | Last updated: Tue 2nd Sep 2014 at 16:41pm

Facebook Logo Twitter Logo RSS Logo
Hot Topics

Latest News

Superior general says the SSPX may split over reconciliation with Rome

By on Friday, 11 May 2012

Bishop Bernard Fellay at the SSPX headquarters in Menzingen, Switzerland (CNS)

Bishop Bernard Fellay at the SSPX headquarters in Menzingen, Switzerland (CNS)

The leader of a breakaway group of traditionalist Catholics has spoken in unusually hopeful terms about a possible reconciliation with Rome, but acknowledged significant internal resistance to such a move, which he said might lead to the group splitting apart.

Bishop Bernard Fellay, superior general of the Society of St Pius X (SSPX), spoke to the Catholic News Service today at the Society’s headquarters in Switzerland about the latest events in more than two years of efforts at reconciliation with the Vatican.

The Society effectively broke with Rome in 1988, when its founder, the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, ordained four bishops without the permission of Blessed John Paul II in a protest against modernising changes that followed the Second Vatican Council of 1962-65.

In April the Society responded to a “doctrinal preamble” stipulating the group’s assent to certain Church teachings, presumably including elements of the teaching of Vatican II, as a prerequisite for reconciliation. The Vatican has yet to respond, but the director of the Vatican press office initially described the latest position as a “step forward”.

The Society is hardly united behind its leader’s position, however. In April, according to a letter which surfaced on the internet yesterday, the Society’s other three bishops warned Bishop Fellay that the Vatican’s apparent offer to establish the group as a personal prelature – a status currently held only by Opus Dei – constituted a “trap” and urged him to say no.

“There are some discrepancies in the Society,” Bishop Fellay told CNS. “I cannot exclude that there might be a split.”

But the bishop defended his generally favourable stance toward the Vatican’s offer against the objections of his peers.

“I think that the move of the Holy Father – because it really comes from him – is genuine. There doesn’t seem to be any trap,” he said. “So we have to look into it very closely and if possible move ahead.”

He cautioned, however, that the two sides still have not arrived at an agreement, and that unspecified guarantees from the Vatican are still pending. He said the guarantees are related to the Society’s traditional liturgical practices and teachings, among other areas.

“The thing is not yet done,” the bishop said. “We need some reasonable understanding that the proposed structure and conditions are workable. We are not going to do suicide there, that’s very clear.”

Bishop Fellay insisted that the impetus for a resolution came from Pope Benedict XVI.

“Personally, I would have wished to wait for some more time to see things clearer,” he said, “but once again it really appears that the Holy Father wants it to happen now.”

Bishop Fellay spoke appreciatively of what he characterised as the Pope’s efforts to correct “progressive” deviations from Catholic teaching and tradition since Vatican II. “Very, very delicately – he tries not to break things – but tries also to put in some important corrections,” the bishop said.

Although he stopped short of endorsing Pope Benedict’s interpretation of Vatican II as essentially in continuity with the Church’s tradition – a position which many in the SSPX have vocally disputed – Bishop Fellay spoke about the idea in strikingly sympathetic terms.

“I would hope so,” he said, when asked if Vatican II itself belongs to Catholic tradition.

“The Pope says that … the Council must be put within the great tradition of the Church, must be understood in accordance with it. These are statements we fully agree with, totally, absolutely,” the bishop said. “The problem might be in the application, that is: is what happens really in coherence or in harmony with tradition?”

Insisting that “we don’t want to be aggressive, we don’t want to be provocative”, Bishop Fellay said the SSPX has served as a “sign of contradiction” during a period of increasing progressive influence in the Church. He also allowed for the possibility that the group would continue to play such a role even after reconciliation with Rome.

“People welcome us now, people will, and others won’t,” he said. “If we see some discrepancies within the Society, definitely there are also [divisions] in the Catholic Church.”

“But we are not alone” in working to “defend the faith” the bishop said. “It’s the Pope himself who does it. That’s his job. And if we are called to help the Holy Father in that, so be it.”

  • Parasum

    I know those verses, and could add others to them. They are impressive only if there is no moral responsibility in Christianity, no need to distinguish false shepherding from faithful. Far too many peopl who uses those verses ignore the fact that God himself cannot command what is evil, nor  approve it: & that Papal authority is not justified simply by being exercised: if it exercised in order to do wrong, it is abused, & not to be feared. It is a sacrilege & a blasphemy for a Pope to abuse it, since it is the Messianic authority of Christ Himself, in which St. Peter was permitted to participate – not for his glory, but for the good of the Messianic Community, the Church. 

    Popes have been heretics before. Liberius signed an ambiguous creed; Honorius was condemned by the Sixth Ecumenical Council, & several Popes after it condemned him for negligence.  Even if  all Popes had been models of blameless orthodoxy, that would not make their own ideas & their personal *attraits* into the Catholic Faith – or even into sound theology. Catholic theological method & standard have to be to the same for popes as for all other Catholic theologians; otherwise they become one-man bands, speaking only to themselves, cut off frpom the Church, in a sect of one. There is no absolutely reason whatever Rome should not emit all sorts of nonsense: whether a major abomination like the Assisi filth, or trash like the Balamand declaration, or milder stuff of a purely private nature. Our guide here is Catholic Tradition, not the idiosyncrasies of individual popes. If the Pope were the standard of what is Catholicism, we would not be Catholics, but Papists – which is exactly were are often called. We are Christians, not Romans or Papians or Vaticanians. He is not the standard of what is Catholic, but the steward of & witness to what is Catholic; & for him to alter what is committed for a while to his care, but not as his property, is falsification of it, as well as going far beyond the authority vested in him.

    Michael Davies (R.I.P.) said a lot of this, in one of the appendices to vol.1 of the *Apologia* – a book I can’t believe you are not thoroughly familiar with. The Pope is *servus servorum Dei*, allegedly at least; not the Church’s “Lord of Lords”. A the “servant of servants of God”, the Pope os bound by the faith & by Tradition: he is not free to innovate, let alone to reshape the Faith around himself. And he certainly has no freedom to tyrannise over the faithful by requiring them to believe doctrines that look suspiciously like distortions & denials of Catholic doctrine. Precisely because of his authority, which is not even his but Christ’s, he cannot without sin require Catholics to believe novelties that have not been shown to be fully Catholic. And we have neither the duty nor the right nor the Christian liberty to follow a Pope’s teaching who requires us to believe novelties that have not been shown to be in fact perfectly Catholic & Christian. Evil Popes have been withstood in the past, and have compelled to resign – Benedict IX for instance. Popes who are “scandalisers of the Church” should at the very least be resisted, as St. Peter was by St.Paul. Christ even called St.Peter “Satan” – which is far more than any Pope has been called. To follow the Popes uncritically, regardless of their deeds, is to fear men more than God. Human respect is not a virtue, but a vice. We cannot honour the Pope for non-Christian reasons or for doing what is against the Christian Faith. Popes are not beyond criticism. They are subject to Christ every bit as much as the rest of mankind – if not much more so.

  • JByrne24

    Unbelievable (if I didn’t know better).

    These people (Sweetjae and Benedict) actually put words into the mouth of God. (Their own words of course, they can be spotted several miles away – but they hardly notice that).

    When Princes of The Church meet to elect a new Holy Father, they sometimes struggle to divine the will and word of God, as they perhaps vote several times.

    But, no longer – henceforth the “Sweetjae & Benedict Telecom” service will be there to provide a direct hot line – or even better: their own words instead.

    Just WHO do these people think they are? Was it faulty potty training, at an early age, that causes these delusions?

  • JByrne24

    You are a pseudo-intellectual full of hot air.
    I am a Catholic seeking to minimise the damage you cause to my Faith.

  • JByrne24

    You are a pseudo-intellectual.
    I am a Catholic seeking to minimise the damage you cause.

  • Parasum

    There is far too much rot in the Church at present for it to be a safe environment for the SSPX. To have a split SSPX, one part of it in a very sick Church, merely adds to the number of patients. Rome has form for saying nice things to traditionalists to get them to come in, then letting them down with a bump. Rome is the head and centre of the sickness in the Church – how can it be safe to have anything to do with it ? It didn’t even get the post-Concilar Missal right, or the 1994 CCC – things one can surely be forgiven for thinking Rome would regard as of very great importance. 

  • Parasum

    If the bishop had the head of a squid, possibly…

  • Parasum

    That sounds extremely devious. So much for “Let your “Yes” be “Yes”, and your “No” be “No”” :(

    This is sensible, but guilefully so. Trust Rome to speak out of two mouths.

  • Parasum

    Good luck persuading the Vatican. They’re obsessed with that idiotic daftness about JP2 being the “Pope in White”. Being shot =///= being a character in an alleged prediction. JP2 has become an UeberSaint, as far as the Vatican is concerned. Fascinating for the psychologists. The sooner Popes get back to being Popes rather being slebs, and stop jetting around, & turning out Saints by the fistful, the dozen or the hundred, & shut up and do their day job as they are meant to, the better.

  • Parasum

    “You are either maliciously suggesting that the See of Rome tampered and forced Lucia to write something untrue”

    ## That is entirely possible. There is no reason to dismiss the idea out of hand. This after all is the gang of crooks that sat on the scandals in the Legion of Christ & ignored widespread clerical molestation. There is no evil so revolting that Rome can be automatically & without further thought be acquitted of it. It’s not as though Rome were distinguished by having as its bishops only men of incorruptible probity – that would have been wonderful, but in no way is it the case.

    Saints have been persecuted by the Church before now – as have lesser men. Sister Lucia would simply be a modern instance of this. For Rome or its apparatchiks to lean on a nun to make her say what it wanted is entirely credible: bad men do bad things for bad reasons to good people. The only question is whether in fact she was  leant on.

    There are certainly examples of alleged messages received in alleged visions being changed for publication: Poulain gives some examples in his book. This is very close to – though not the same as – what you mention.

  • Parasum

    It is now – & has been since the Church & the Synagogue separated. The Church is “the Israel of God”. Most of Israel “according to the flesh” rejected the Messiah when He came – that part of Israel “according to the flesh” that did not reject Him was the nucleus of the new Israel, that which is “according to faith”, & not circumcision. The Old Covenant is out of date, expired – & has been since the Triduum. Judaism is therefore of as much saving power as Islam or animism – i.e. zilch, nil, zero, none. Salvation is in Christ the Messiah, & in Him Alone. Not in the dead Law or the dead rites of Judaism. They are done away with, because they were types of the good things that were to come. And those came in Christ. Ergo, Judaism, the Law, the Jewish rites, are dead.

    The alternative is to deny one of the most basic convictions of the NT writers. The Popes can be Judaism-huggers if they really must, but they are totally wrong in thinking it has any validity. Christ – or the Law: they have to choose. If they want the Law, they reject Christ.

  • Parasum

    A truly pastoral council would not torment men by inflicting such weasel words upon them; it would explain its meaning. 

  • Parasum

    You got there first LOL. If the Popes can receive new revelations, they become almost indistinguishable from the Mormon authorities, for whom receiving new revelation is an important category. V1 is explicit that such a thing is not possible.

  • Parasum

    “Revelation is the central activity and purpose of the One Holy Apostolic Catholic Church.”

    ## And there is only the one revelation, which is completed, entire, and is the Apostolic deposit of faith. Nothing whatever can be added to it – any more than one could add to Christ.

    Both can be searched into, more and more, inexhaustibly, for both are inexhaustible, and are different aspects of the same thing. But because all revelation is complete in Christ, none can be added – it is not possible for God to give more than everything, as in Christ He has. If ther were other gods, and God were but one amomg several gods, ther might be more than one complete revelation given to the Church. But ther are not – there is only the one God, speaking His One Word in the One Christ. There is nothing to add to this revelation, which is final, adequate, complete, and intended for the entire world: IOW, it is one, holy, catholic, & Apostolic, just like the Church.  And because it has all these marks, it is also canonical – it is the universally-applicable standard & measure of all piety & all truth, for all times and all nations. And nothing can be added to what is entire and complete.

  • Victor

    Benedict Carter said “I try not to attend a Novus Order Mass as it destroys my Catholic faith.”

    I spent my whole life going to the NO Mass and always found it lacking but didn’t know what exactly; the guitars, bland sermon, ugly church, and rushed consecration were all I ever knew.

    How specifically Bendict do you feel the NO undermines Catholic faith? as I’m starting to feel the same way.
     

  • Mark A Romero

    I always was (and still am) blessed to be a member of SSPX, as I spiritually envision the society as a Sanctuary from modernism, liberalism, Marxist-socialism, ecumenism, and indifferentism in the Catholic Church that invaded exponentially after VII. The novus ordo mass with communion standing up in the hand administered by laity women and altar girls, with the Monstrance removed from the Sanctuary, and the priest facing the people in the liturgy, and communion lines longer than those who go to confession, with popular music and bands is so much un-catholic. I find it hard to evangelize souls to this fancy mutated form of Catholicism. Hence, I will continue to reject the novus ordo as did Archbishop Lefebrve did. Pope Saint Pius X, Ora pro nobis. Father God, You are NOT the Author of confusion. Help us to hold fast to the Tradition we have received. Deliver us from all evil. Help us endure persecution. Give us graces to endure by Your Spiritre. In Jesus we pray in the love of Mary and Joseph.

  • Benedict Carter

    Hilarious.

  • Benedict Carter

    Sorry Victor that you are attacked in such a manner by JByrne24, whose contributions are made up of slogans and a total inability to address any of the points he/she dislikes. The usual liberal-Modernist approach.

    Here is a piece on the New Mass I wrote a couple of years ago. It explains why the NO is a travesty of the Mass and must be abrogated as soon as possible. These Herald pages by the way are a revelation: the NO supporters are nearly always those “Catholics” who support every moral outrage the modern world can dream up. 

    - – - – - 

    The answer to your question:

    I have little doubt the Novus Ordo, when the priest keeps to the few rubrics it has, is Sacramentally valid.  But that it the very, very least it should be. There should be much, much more.At the same time, I have been of the growing opinion that the Novus Ordo is ONLY *relatively* safe in the hands of an orthodox priest. In the hands of a free-thinker, a weak priest or an out-and-out heterodox priest it is a lethal weapon against the Catholic Faith. The Mass, as the centre of our Holy Faith, should:a) Reinforce the entire Catholic Faith in every aspect (how we pray contains within itself all that we believe);b) It should raise up the individual reverently to the majesty and glory of God;c) It should present to the individual (sic) soul the starkness and finality of the moral choices we have to make as Catholics in order to inherit Eternal Life;d) It should keep us in safe continuity with the two thousand years of organic (and in fact miniscule) development of the Church’s main western liturgy, so that we can be Catholics hearing the same words and seeing the same gestures as a Catholic in Italy in the 4th century, as a Portuguese Catholic in the 9th century, as a Swedish Catholic in the 14th century, as an Englishman hearing a recusant Mass in the 17th century; as any Catholic at all until 1968. Communion in worship is communion in belief, not only with one’s fellow Catholics throughout the world, but with all Catholics throughout the centuries back to the time of Christ Himself. The Novus Ordo does NOT fulfil any of these functions of worship. When an SSPX Bishop says that it represents a new religion, he speaks as a bishop (yes, illicitly consecrated and suspended a divinis) and not as the holder of unsound historical opinions. This view should be thought about most carefully by any serious Catholic. It is a terrible charge to lay on the Novus Ordo and I believe that it is correct. That there has been a gigantic rupture in the Church these past forty years cannot be denied. Those who do deny it are either very stupid, have a vested interest in the rupture or (even worse) are quite happy that it occurred, whatever the damage done; or have been formed by it and don’t know anything else. I was born in 1963 so came to self-consciousness with the changes already made. I was therefore extremely lucky to be the child of parents whose whole lives and characters were formed by and steeped in the Catholic Faith of their parents, people of the First World War generation. So prayers were said at home, which was full of religious pictures, statues, music, books and Catholic conversation, going to Mass was an event and the whole world of Catholicism was in our home constantly.The rupture has caused conflict within families, civil war in the Church, and apostasy on a scale not seen since the 16th century and before that, in the time of Arius; and has lost countless souls. I am sure of this latter point: the changes have cost many, many souls. At the heart of the rupture is the Novus Ordo: quite understandable, as the Mass is the centre and summit of the Catholic Faith. So what is the nature of the rupture, seen most vividly in the New Mass?I believe with all my heart that at its bottom-most level, it is a loss of faith in the existence of God and the invisible world, which for any authentic Catholic should be the world that has most pull on his mentality, thoughts, conduct, and whole life. This has in turn led directly to the loss of the sense of sin and of its seriousness (and so the Confessionals are empty). It also represents – as anyone understands who knows from whom the New Mass came into existence, and how – the fruit of a significant number of people in the Church who were seeking ways of robbing the Mass of its Catholic nature in order to (a) appeal to German and English protestants, to whom they felt closer than to their fellow Catholics; (b) actively do the Church harm. These were Modernists who had kept a low profile since the time of Pope St. Pius X but who were still very much around. Their world-view was shaped by the seeming triumph of “historicity”, by the (coming, they thought) triumph of Marxism and its “truths”, and by the onward march of science and technology. The Council experts, or periti, were mostly made up of these people. Ratzinger was one of them, dressed in his business suit. A new Mass was needed for the Modern Man formed by all these things they thought, a New Mass giving Man greater “dignity” (= “involvement” = Eucharistic Ministers, civilians tramping about the Sanctuary, the destruction of the priesthood). A Mass for the (Marxist Collective) “community” where the individual soul is no longer called to say in his heart “I believe” but, along with the Collective, say “We believe”. The mindset produced by this emphasis is one of “community”: thus the Mass as a “meal”. In fact, it is the Collective at prayer (more properly it is the Collective praying to itself). It is not a meal for me in any sense: I prefer chicken curry. And the New Mass, by eliminating specifically Catholic doctrine about Sacrifice, would appease all those Lutherans and Anglicans to whom we had been so nasty for so long, eh?And for this New Mass, with its centre of gravity NOT Christ above the individual soul (a vertical relationship) but the Collective (a horizontal relationship), there was needed a new physical orientation: priest and people face each other; the Tabernacle to which I knelt and prayed as a small boy thrust out of sight into some alcove chapel. All barriers (altar rails) that “denied” the Collective its rightful dignity were removed so that the Sanctuary is now the whole Church; new Churches built to more represent an ancient Greek theatre where the Collective can gather round each other rather than the Churches of all our forefathers that were built in one dimension – vertically, a line from the faithful to the priest and deacons to God in His Tabernacle. Culturally, the Novus Ordo has been a catastrophe of world historical proportions. That the Catholic Church, repository of the greatest fruits of human endeavour in history, should have effectively turned its back on Her cultural greatness is like the Irish monks of the 5th to 9th centuries saying, “What the hell, the transmission of all that Greek and Roman knowledge, art, poetry, prose and greatness is boring, let’s chuck all that copying into the Atlantic and have a rest”. The Novus Ordo goes along with one of its many nefarious bedfellows, iconoclasm (of an order not seen since the Iconoclastic Heresy of the Eastern Church or the so-called “Reformation”); it is culturally utterly impoverished, and all of us are as a result greatly impoverished – a catastrophe. To sum up (and for what I say about the Novus Ordo, the opposite is the case for the true Roman Rite, the Old Mass, which I refuse to call the “Extraordinary Form”):* it is a Mass specifically created (the first time this has been done in history) to meet an imagined sociological need of a supposed “Modern Man”. As the creation of a committee, it cannot possibly have any organic link with the venerable rite of at least 1,500 years it replaced;* it was, without question, designed to effectively protestantise the Catholic Church (the motivations for which range from naivety to outright demonic hostility to the Church;* it has led to Christ and the Sacrifice of His own life for us sinners being thrust out from the centre to the periphery – both literally and figuratively;* it is proud, oh so proud – trumpeting in its nature a “dignity” of Mankind that we sinners do NOT deserve;* it is a cultural non-entity; a disaster;* it banishes the soul’s private communion with God and through noise and distraction makes such communion well-nigh impossible;* it cries out on every side its sheer infantility;* it is the deliberate collectivisation of the Church’s worship in Marxist form. I have found it so difficult to attend that in the end I have decided not to anymore. If I do, I will lose my faith or have a faith so hollowed out by the New Church’s secularism that my conscience would be gravely offended, rather than just my senses or love of beauty. I will not subject my soul any longer to the Spectacle of Inanities that the Novus Ordo is. The women traipsing about the Sanctuary as if they owned it (as an altar boy, the Sanctuary for me was HOLY, not to be defiled. It was a great HONOUR for me to be anywhere on the Sanctuary); the refusal of the old parish priest to allow altar servers to wear vestments at Mass or even to have Holy Water in the Church. We have to get the Old Mass back if we ever want the Church to triumph in this world. You can’t abuse it – indeed, it is impossible to assist at the Old Mass and NOT be a Catholic.One might ask, “if the useless priests were eradicated, could I be reconciled to the New Mass? I thought I was reconciled to it for some time. But even when I attended it, I wasn’t reconciled in my heart.The bottom-line problem with the Novus Ordo is that it is fundamentally un-Catholic. It is only because the sad figure of Pope Paul VI couldn’t stomach what Bugnini really wanted to do that we have a valid Mass now at all. And even so he had to be shamed into some kind of stand by the “Ottaviani Intervention” of Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci. A bad priest can turn the New Mass into straight-forward sacrilege (clown Masses etc) whilst a good priest has one arm permanently tied behind his back by it. Which is why I believe that it cannot be reformed. By its very nature it is no good. And in what does the difference fundamentally lie? In a wholly different Christology. The Old Mass places me where the Faith says I should be – on my knees before God, knowing that only through God can I be saved. The New Mass puts me in the centre, in the place of God Himself, or at the very least, alongside Him. It ASSUMES my deification has already been achieved. But the whole thrust of the Church these last decades is one of PRESUMPTION about our Salvation, no?

  • Benedict Carter

    Agree entirely.

  • Jae

    Sorry mate but I don’t agree with you and Mr. Davies’ conclusions about VII though Iam a great lover of TLM, I don’t undermine and reject Novus Ordo and VII. They are validly ratified promulgations of a valid General Council of the Church and if you are an orthodox catholic as you say you are, you should accept and give your assent to the Authority of Council of VII because it is the same Authority of the very first Council of the Church at Jerusalem and Nicea.

    The conclusion you have about the “bad fruits” of VII is the same argument as the Council of Florence ushered in the “baddest fruit” and the most liberal of all time, Martin Luther and Protestantism.

    I truly understand that in every Council convened by the Church there were always protesters, old catholics in the Council of Trent by its alleged liberal doctrine of “baptism of desire” against their strict interpretation of Extra Nulla, Council of Vatican I by its “papal infallibility”, Council of Vatican II “ecumenism, religious freedom”.

  • Jae

    Arrogant , spoiled cry baby who didn’t get his way, why don’t you just build your own church like the Mormons and stop this nonsense complaints since you only believe the authority by yourself?

  • Jae

    Oh yes definitely you will agree with Parasum, well the only thing to sort out between the two of you is, who is going to be the pope?

  • Victor

    Thank you Benedict for taking the time to write further. As generation Yérs, my wife and I were never asked whether guitars, reductionist architecture,  and bland Bible translation were fit for us so called “modern people.” The answer would have been an emphatic no.

    My generation would be much more inspired by organ and choir, a sermon actually relevant to Christian virtues, a Bible translation that sounds sacred, and a church that inspires. We will search for the SSPX in our city.

    God Bless,

    Deo Vindice

  • Jae

    JBryne, before I answer you, are you a supporter of gay marriage? If you are then you are not a catholic but rather a catholic by name only and belong to the Left bin as Benedict Carter belongs to the Right bin.

  • Jae

    Mere fallible opinion of a man, full of impressions and nothing of substance to support his allegations against N.O. Mass, against the teaching authority of the 5 popes, Magisterium, General Council and the current Pope Benedict16, that there is NO rupture from Tradition yet this guy obstinately insisted. Who cares? Who are you again besides having the same name of our beloved Pope?

  • Ethos

    You guys are single-issue campaigners. Really.Finally, I do not see that JPII, Benedict16 nor the Church need to apologise to Rad-Trads like you Mr. Carter. Whenever I see their like online I notice they are forever obsessing about liturgy and just, well, complaining. I never see the Rad-Trad evangelistic outreaches, the Rad-Trad soup kitchens, the Rad-Trad medical boats… Oh no. It’s always Latin, liturgy and ‘reverence’ (as if reverence was the only permissible human state sometimes.) JPII did things! Pope B16 is doing things. The Church moves on doing things. The Catholic Church in Indonesia is booming! Oh, and up until recently both my friends were involved with the Evangelistic community “Couples for Christ.” It’s a lay community founded in Asia committed to evangelism and family support. It’s a high commitment community I can tell you! But it is growing exponentially. Oh look, it was founded under Post Vatican II watch and given permanent Vatican recognition by him! ‘Cause, you see, real Pope’s are interested in people doing things and spreading the Gospel.

    In the Last Day, a General Judgment, The Lord of Host will not ask if you attended a Latin Mass, Greek or Ambrosian mass but rather The Terrible Judge will ask you this, “What did you do to the least of my brothers?”

  • Sweetjae

    Guilty? As charged?

  • daclamat

    That’s a relief!

  • daclamat

    Parfaitement d’accord, sauf “un juriste* qui aurait livré quelque pars une opinion n’est guère rassurant. Plus de précision, svp.
    Sensible in hindsight? Oculi omnium. Where do you go, if you die, not knowing whether your excommunicated latae sententiae, latae ferendae or ipso facto?  And then not at all. A bit scorched or purgated before receiving one’s heavenly reward.  I’m worried for Arbishbishop Lefebvre who strikes me as being a bit past it for all this up and down and sideways movement.

  • daclamat

    Are you sure you’ve got the number of orifices right?

  • Sweetjae

    Is it true, JByrne that you support gay-marriage?

  • Sweetjae

    Is it true JBryne that you support gay-marriage?

  • Sixupman

    My previous parish, Clifton Diocese, had a priest who preached against The Magisterium, espoused non-Catholic ideas regarding Communion, was of the opinion that the laity should have an exalted staus and be able to preach.  For my sins, I was perforce to listen to such drivel. He was bestowed with 
    Faculties’ and we are informed that SSPX Masses and Sacraments are invalid – you must be joking.I prefer to believe that taught by the clergy in my youth, with which the SSPX ethos coincides.

  • Benedict Carter

    On the contrary, Benedict XVI’s “hermeneutic of continuity” could only exist because there HAS been a gigantic rupture which in his books – I have nearly all of them – he admits to be a fact several times. 

  • Benedict Carter

    Pleasure. My own opinions of course, and I am just a simple layman who has read a great deal and who thinks about these questions a lot. There are millions upon millions like you and me.

  • Benedict Carter

    Valid, but currently illicit. The CDF has confirmed though that attending an SSPX Mass on Sunday does fulful one’s Sunday Obligation.

  • Benedict Carter

    If the “single issue” is remaining a Catholic and refusing to be a protestant, you are right! That’s a single issue EVERY Catholic should be passionate about. 

    But even that’s not it: it’s about the SALVATION OF SOULS. 

  • Benedict Carter

    I note that JByrne24 has now changed his name to “Ethos”. 

    How many names do you have on these pages? Might it be legion?

  • Jae

    Mr. Carter, we don’t care if you have a library of pope Benedict’s collection the problem is your false assertion that he said there has been a gigantic rupture! Yes there was a change in the roman missal but the Dogma and Substance remains the same as it has always been since the first Early Christian liturgy of the apostolic martyrs and saints which is also different from that of the Latin Mass that begun only in mid-5th century. Pope Benedict said in his apostolic letter there has been NO rupture and you are saying the opposite, do you imply he was contradicting himself? Nonsense, I think rather Mr. Carter you are reading between the lines.

  • Jae

    Yes we agree but the problem with your version is, its APPLICATION. One should be transformed with humility and obedience NOT bogged down by arrogance and disobedience in our dealing with the Church and neighbors. One can attend Latin mass, kneel and receive the Holy Host by mouth all day and everyday but if the disposition of the heart is the latter, they are all useless and more liable to judgment.

  • Jae

    Oh by the way the “hermeneutic of continuity” refers to a few VII documents that are ambiguous and should be interpreted that way, according with the light of Tradition, a precaution and warning to the ultra-liberal and ultra-traditionalists wing. But being ambiguous does not necessarily mean there exist a rupture……the Holy Bible is ambiguous sometimes, look at our protestant brothers and eastern orthodox churches, that is the reason why we need the Living Magisterium, not any bishops, not individual opinions.

  • Benedict Carter

    Why on earth would you think that Traditionalist Catholics would think otherwise? You don’t have a clue, do you?

  • Benedict Carter

    No point at all I think conversing with a person who (a) changes his/her posting name; (b) rather than accept statements of fact insinuates that the other is a liar. 

    Sweetjae/Ethos: just how many names do you have here? Legion, perhaps??

  • JabbaPapa

    And very soon to be entirely licit, except those churches refusing Rome’s offer.

    Alleluia !!!

  • JabbaPapa

    I do not agree with dear Benedict’s overly harsh analysis — provided as it is by the existence of clear *abuses* of the Order of Mass in the English-speaking churches especially.

    Masses in southern Continental Europe (and I have attended Masses in many, many MANY different parishes) are always focused on the Confession, the Sacrifice, the Worship, the Veneration, and the Holy Communion. Where they may occasionally be focused on other aspects of the Liturgy, there’s usually a particular and liturgically licit Feast Day exception — such as the possibility of a focus on the Last Supper or the Miracle of the Loaves and Fish on those particular Feast Days ; or, to be honest, the Incarnation, or the Trinity, or the Trial, or the Doctrine, or the Personal Relationship with the Christ and the Father and the Holy Ghost, and a shining host of other theology.

    Abuses of the Liturgy are ABUSES — and NOT the normal state of affairs of Novus Ordo.

    Besides — the current generation of seminarians is REQUIRED to know the Tridentine Rite prior to Ordination. Some seminaries may still be in rebelion over this fact, but the traditional Mass is NOT going away.

  • JabbaPapa

    You have publicly denounced several infallible truths of the Faith, and are unsuited to comment on the Catholicity of others.

    Given your unrepentant attitude, it is unlikely that you are in Communion with the Church — may the Christ have mercy on your soul.

  • JabbaPapa

    He does.

  • JabbaPapa

    Yep.

  • JByrne24

    Ridiculous!

  • Tim

    I picked up Mr Carter’s post a little late on this subject, but it is very informative and very much in line with my experience and understanding of the subject. There can be little doubt that forces inside and outside the Church have worked over many many years for its change, weakening and destruction. The ambiguous language in VII documents must have been celebrated as a dream come true by these people and in another place which I have little doubt was the ultimate source for such evil.

  • Richard of Danbury

     That’s where you are incorrect VCII is neither dogmatic or doctrinal, it was merely pastoral …it was meant as a guideline for those who wished to follow it. Listening to the N.O. and the fence-sitters you would think that the Roman Catholic Faith started in 1962. Yes, they give lip service to the long and glorious history of the Faith, but it is empty talk. That is why we have Catholic politicians who say there political views are informed by their Faith and they support abortion, birth control, and sodomite marriage. “By their fruits you will know them!”