CNS offers the following news brief:
Pope to meet with head of schismatic Lefebvrites
VATICAN CITY (CNS) — The head of the schismatic Society of St. Pius X, Bishop Bernard Fellay, was scheduled to meet with Pope Benedict XVI in late August. A Vatican official who asked not to be identified told Catholic News Service Aug. 23 that the meeting between the pope and Bishop Fellay would take place Aug. 29 at Castel Gandolfo, the pope’s summer residence outside Rome. The Holy See press office would neither confirm nor deny the report. Bishop Fellay is one of four bishops ordained against papal orders by the late French Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre in 1988. He is the current head of the Society of St. Pius X, which was founded by Archbishop Lefebvre after he broke with Rome over liturgical reforms and the teachings of the Second Vatican Council. On the society’s U.S. Web site, Bishop Fellay wrote that he felt the April 19 election of Pope Benedict offered "a gleam of hope" in resolving what he called a "profound crisis … shaking the Catholic Church"[ SOURCE.]
I don’t know if this will come to anything (or if the source is even accurate), but B16’s chances of healing the breach with the SSPX are far larger than JP2’s were.
Pre-16 was vocally supportive of the Tridentine rite of Mass, engaged in respectful dialogue with people in the Traditionalist movements, and he has a willingness to talk about and frankly acknowledge the crisis in the Church and in Western Civilization that JP2 didn’t (he tended to put a marked optimistic reading on matters).
All of that gives B16 advantages that his great predecessor didn’t have, but he also has another advantage, and it’s a big one: He ain’t the pope that declared the excommunications. That’s just gotta personalize things for you if you’ve been excommunicated by a pope, and one can see how it would make it hard to reconcile that THAT pope.
But with his successor comes a new start, and if the successor has already been sympathetic . . .
How many bishops, priests and laity are there in the SSPX?
If I’m not mistaken, there are 4 bishops and maybe 500-550 priests or so. The number of priests is an estimate; the most recent statistics I could find were for 2003 (Check them out at http://www.sspx.co.uk/articles.php?articleid=59). On a side note, differences among the SSPX bishops might torpedo this whole enterprise: Bishop Fellay, the head of the SSPX, seems to be amenable to reconciliation; but Bishop Williamson is much more of a hard-liner….
As for laity, that’s a lot harder to say, both because they don’t post figures (at least none that I know of), and because there’s a decent number of people who shift back & forth between the SSPX and other Latin-rite Masses, depending on convenience & availability. (Not to mention the fact that their numbers in any given diocese seem to take a hit when an Indult Mass is established).
Well, all I can say is that any schism in the Church is a bad thing, especially for the salvation of souls, and any work towards healing that schism is a good thing. Let’s pray and keep praying that we will all be one.
I saw this earlier at Vaticanisti.
http://vaticanisti.blogspot.com/
I agree that Bishop Williamson will be the main roadblock in any reconciliation.
I understand that the validity of the N.O. is a big (if not the biggest) issue betwixt the SSPX and Rome. I would assume that Rome expects the SSPX to give some recognition that the N.O is valid (even if the SSPX wants to still think it ill-advised), and I would assume Rome would have to (1) recognize or regularize the orders for SSPX priests (if not already done so) and (2) allow SSPX to use the T-Rite within the dioceses independently of a given Bishop’s permission. I think the SSPX’s concession on the N.O. (at least when celebrated in Latin) may be possible, as well as Rome’s No.1, but I have a hard time seeing No. 2 come to pass or SSPX dropping that demand. Any info on that front?
I’d be interested in further examination of this issue in the direction of the following questions (either of which can be recast as needed):
In other words, would we have a healing of a schism on our hands, or simply one pope imposing an excommunication and then another one lifting it?
I’m in no way implying any particular answers to these questions — I actually have no idea what the answers are.
Why would Catholics split? I thought the stock response only had to be ‘Rome has Spoken”? What’s going on? I am so confused.
I still don’t understand the problem they have with the N.O. Don’t they realize that the Tridentine Mass was the Novus Ordo at one point?
The Orthodox split off, the Protestants split off — it little matters why in view of the fact that it happens.
Steven Greydanus,
JPII did not impose the excommunication; what he did was declare that the bishops who had consecrated new bishops without the mandate of Rome had excommunicated themselves automatically, because their act was one that carries an automatic (latae sententiae) penalty of excommunication, by canon law.
And by declaring this fact, their lata sententiae excommunication became ferendae sententiae.
I don’t know how accurate this report is but it is from the “Catholic News Agency” of 08/23/05 to which I subscribe.
****According to sources close to the Society, Fellay will present two demands to Pope Benedict in order to return to full communion with the Church: the withdrawal of the excommunication and the possibility to celebrate the Saint Pius V mass in Latin in any part of the world without having to ask for permission of local ecclesiastical authorities, as it is currently required by Church norms. ****
When I first saw the headline mentioning the possible meeting, I thought it might be a good thing. But then I read the report and saw the word “demands” and read the rest of the article and had the immediate thought that I pray that B16 does not accede to them in this manner.
Granted, they are prodigals and looking for a way back into the good graces of the Church, but in that parable the son had seen the errors of his ways and had eaten w. the swine and come back to his father on his knees asking to be treated as a servant or slave rather than the his son. And his father took him back gladly and ordered that a party be held to celebrate.
Now, according to this report, that is NOT the attitude of these prodigals. They have an attitude that, if it is overlooked and accepted and the Pope accedes to their demands, it will make him look weak give other dissenters the idea that they can do the same thing and get away with it.
What I would like to see is that if this meeting is to happen, that the Pope hear them out w/o a conclusion on his part. But he would tell them what is necessary for them to come back into the Church’s good graces. And just a part of that would be that all the priests would have to be accepted and go through seminary again, at least as if they had come in from the Anglican communion, however w/o re-ordination as it is my understanding that the ordinations were all valid. That the four Bishops be stripped of their Bishop’s credentials and required to do as the rest of the priests, including asking for acceptance to the seminary. The reason for this is that LeFebvre made them bishops without papal authority and against the Pope’s wishes.
Now, I say this even though I know that these priests love the Church. the Mass and the Lord with probably more fervor and reverence than many of the priests we have in the Church now. But if the Pope accepts them back with no repercusions it will have set a very negative precedent.
Now as to what to do w. the excommunication of LeFebvre, I would leave it as is. He has passed away. He had made his choice. His legacy is set. His judgement is complete. To remove the excommunication would just give credence to his actions as if they had been correct and they were NOT.
As to the Latin Mass(Pius V), for now I would leave it alone and I grew up w. that Mass and I loved it.
But, the Pope should, fairly quickly, advise the Bishops of the world and the US especially, that they went too far too fast in regard to the mass. That they should allow many more Tridentine masses in their dioceses. The only problem there is that there are few priests today who know latin so there would probably be a training problem.
Anyway, by doing that it would give the SSPX’rs a push to come back. It would let them know that the Pope agrees to some degree w. their complaint at least in regard to the changes from the Tridentine mass. He should explain to them that he wants them back but they left us . We did not leave them.
There is probably more to this than I could ever know but those are my thoughts. You might think that I am being hard on them but they have commited a very serious action and have put many souls at risk because it is not just the priests and Bishops, but the lay peole they are leading in schism. I know they think they are doing the right thing but it is a prideful error they are commiting and I would not want that on my consciense.
Whit,
1. Making the SSPX priest go through seminary training again is an absolutely ridiculous suggestion. Many of them already did go through seminary training before the ’88 consecrations. The bishops, in question, obviously did. Furthermore, the SSPX provides excellent training, already, and teaches absolutely no heresy, so no new training would be needed. Also, in the case of Campos, no new seminary training was needed, I don’t believe, so none would be necessary here, either.
2. As for the demands you mention, I appreciate your point about the prodigal sons; however, the SSPX’s demands are entirely reasonable and should be accepted w/o question. Say what you will about the ’88 consecrations or the canonical status of the SSPX, but their analysis of the current crisis in the Church is right on the money, even if their actions were wrong.
In reply to Inquisitor Generalis:
***1. Making the SSPX priest go through seminary training again is an absolutely ridiculous suggestion.***
OK, you have an opinion! Now what? [Sorry, I just had to do that! ;-)]
***Many of them already did go through seminary training before the ’88 consecrations. The bishops, in question, obviously did. Furthermore, the SSPX provides excellent training, already, and teaches absolutely no heresy, so no new training would be needed.***
They might have had excellent training except for one thing. Obedience to the Pope and the Church. That is a part of their vows at ordination. They need re-training. To allow them back w/o some type of discipline allows them to feel they were correct to go against the Pope and their vows. And what happens the next time one or more of them takes a disliking to what the Church says or does? [I just know you’re going to ignore that question.]
You say the Bishops obviously had good training. I’d say they forgot a some of it. And in the meantime picked up a prideful manner that is not becoming a shepherd of the Church.
You say the SSPX provides excellent training. Well if that was the case they would not be outside the Church, would they?
You say they teach absolutely no heresy? Well, technically I guess the SSPX is in schism but from my understanding the root of heresy means to pick and choose and I would say they picked not to be obedient to the Pope and the Church, thereby in effect starting their own religion outside of the Church. You can call it anything you want. They are still outside the Church. They are wrong.
***2. As for the demands you mention, I appreciate your point about the prodigal sons; however, the SSPX’s demands are entirely reasonable and should be accepted w/o question.***
You don’t appreciate the point I made about the prodigal son because you are ignoring it. The prodigal son had humility, not demands.
Their demands are absolutely unreasonable. To DEMAND that LeFebvre’s self imposed excommunication be lifted after his death when he had at first defied papal authority by ordaining or consecrating the Bishops(whatever the correct term is, I have forgotten), then as I remember, under threat of excommunication, he comes to the Holy See and meets with the Pope and they come to an agreement and within a few days he reverses himself on the agreement thereby obtaining his own excommunication. And he chose to die in that state rather than swallow his pride, show humility and change his ways and come back to the Church.
Now as to the Mass of Pius V, just where do they get off DEMANDING their own mass? Who made them Pope and/or Council? Again, they have forgotten those little items called obedience and faith.
There is something I neglected to mention in my last post. I did say I grew up w. that mass and I loved it. But I did not say that I had been away from the Church for a long time and had attended mass a few times and was disappointed w. the changes that the “spirit” of Vatican II had wrought. But I did come back and when I did I checked on the latin masses in town and lo and behold there were two. One, Tridentine, at a beautiful 150 year old church downtown and the other, a latin mass,in a small little wooden “Catholic” church on a side street out in the burbs. Well the wooden church was an SSPX and I looked into it and although it was tempting I could not be disobedient to Christ and His words to Peter when He gave him the keys. That is where the church is. If it is in a ditch, I’ll go to the ditch. If it’s in a cave I’ll go to the cave. If the mass is said in Swahili, I’ll try to understand Swahili as long as Peter’s successor is the leader of the Church because that is Christ’s Church.
Now you can come up with all the silliness you want as to the SSPX’ers but their primary sins are disobedience and a defiance of the primacy of the Pope.
I pray that they come to their senses and obtain humility and each come back on their own or they drop their DEMANDS and come back as a group. The Church does need them and they need the Church. God bless them and you.
Whit, sfo
“OK, you have an opinion! Now what? [Sorry, I just had to do that! ;-)]”
I apologize if my tone was a little on the rude side.
“They might have had excellent training except for one thing. Obedience to the Pope and the Church. That is a part of their vows at ordination.”
False. There were no vows. From the SSPX website: “The Society of Saint Pius X is an international priestly society of common life *without vows*…” You’re confusing priests w/the vows of religious. Fr. Jim Tucker of the Dappled Things blog explains the whole vows issue quite nicely:
http://donjim.blogspot.com/2005_08_01_donjim_archive.html#112506208617926441
“And what happens the next time one or more of them takes a disliking to what the Church says or does? [I just know you’re going to ignore that question.]”
That depends. If they disobey orders that are evil — like any orders NOT to say the Traditional Mass (such orders in and of themselves are disobedient to the Pope, b/c JPII said that the indult was to be granted widely and generously) — then that would make a difference.
“You say they teach absolutely no heresy?”
Yes, and Fr. Levis of EWTN fame has said the exact same thing:
http://www.ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.asp?RecNum=390741&Forums=0&Experts=6&Days=2004&Author=&Keyword=sspx&pgnu=1&groupnum=0&record_bookmark=24&ORDER_BY_TXT=ORDER+BY+ReplyDate+DESC&start_at=
“Well if that was the case they would not be outside the Church, would they?”
The situation of the SSPX is very complex. And, just for the record, those who attend SSPX chapels *are* considered to be Catholics, regardless of whether the SSPX priests and bishops are. So please be careful in your language concerning who is and who is not inside The Church.
“To DEMAND that LeFebvre’s self imposed excommunication be lifted after his death when he had at first defied papal authority by ordaining or consecrating the Bishops(whatever the correct term is, I have forgotten), then as I remember, under threat of excommunication, he comes to the Holy See and meets with the Pope and they come to an agreement and within a few days he reverses himself on the agreement thereby obtaining his own excommunication. And he chose to die in that state rather than swallow his pride, show humility and change his ways and come back to the Church.”
Apparently, that’s not such an unreasonable demand. The Church lifted the excommunications for the Orthodox, remember? Also, *from what I understand*, lifting that excommunication would be no problem if reconciliation were to ever take place w/the SSPX. The Vatican has even said so. Are you familiar w/Bishop Rifan and the Campos situation?
“One, Tridentine, at a beautiful 150 year old church downtown and the other, a latin mass,in a small little wooden “Catholic” church on a side street out in the burbs.”
Regardless of whether or not you think an SSPX chapel is, indeed, a Catholic church, these chapels do house the Real Presence of Our Lord and Catholics DO worship there (again, as Fr. Levis has stated, those who attend SSPX Masses *are* Catholics). So such chapels should be respected, and your use of scare quotes is simply distasteful. Here’s an answer from Fr. Levis that you might find interesting:
http://www.ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.asp?RecNum=388238&Forums=0&Experts=6&Days=2004&Author=&Keyword=sspx&pgnu=1&groupnum=0&record_bookmark=27&ORDER_BY_TXT=ORDER+BY+ReplyDate+DESC&start_at=
So, Whit, tell me… Would you cross yourself when driving by an SSPX chapel as you would when driving past a Novus Ordo church? I ask you this as a test. Let’s see how you respond.
My point in all this is that the SSPXers have their merits, and constantly bashing them will NOT bring them to regularize their situation w/Holy Mother Church. If anything, the attitude you have expressed would only cause them to circle the wagons, and that would make matters worse.
In Christo et Maria,
Inquisitor Generalis
Everyone has their merits, Inquisitor. That does not mean they can demand entry to the Church on their own terms. NO ONE can approach the church in that way.
If the SSPXers did wrong by entering into schism (and they did), then repentance would be the proper disposition to adopt. If Fellay comes to the Pope with demands then he is obviously not ready to reconcile with the Church.
It reminds me of C.S. Lewis’ story “The Great Divorce”, in which he explores the motivations of a number of people who wish to enter heaven, but only as long as certain conditions are met.
“That does not mean they can demand entry to the Church on their own terms. NO ONE can approach the church in that way.”
No one? It’s not like it hasn’t happened before, and it’s not like those demands haven’t been accepted. I’m sure many of the Eastern rite churches may have made some demands on their way back to Rome. I’m sure Campos did the same. Either way, it’s just best that they come back, demands or not. And, when it comes down to it, the SSPX’s demands are not so unreasonable, and, in the case of the TLM, would be good for the Church. So I would say the SSPX’s demand in regard to the Mass should be met just b/c it’s the right thing to do and they are truly in the right on the matter.
In short, you are probably right about the proper disposition to adopt when entering the Church. But that doesn’t change the fact that the SSPX is still right in thinking that the Traditional Mass should still be the official liturgy of the Latin Church.
***”They might have had excellent training except for one thing. Obedience to the Pope and the Church. That is a part of their vows at ordination.”***
False. There were no vows. From the SSPX website: “The Society of Saint Pius X…..***
You are being silly trying to argue a distinction without a difference. They are WRONG whether the disobedience stems from a vow or a promise of obedience to the Bishop and the Pope.
***”And what happens the next time one or more of them takes a disliking…
That depends. If they disobey orders that are evil — like any orders NOT to say…***
Yeah, I guess that would have worked just fine with the Jewish Christians after the first Council in Jerusalem when Peter agreed w. Paul & the council, that the gentiles did not have to be circumcised to come into the Church. That it would have been just fine by SSPX thinking if the Jews had taken it upon themselves to determine that Peter and the council were wrong and had made an illegal determination and therefore kept requiring circumcision of gentiles and Jews to come into the Church. Yeah, let’s spread this authority around a bit. I mean isn’t that what Christ meant by giving the keys to Peter alone? Or shucks, did Christ go behind everyone’s back and give keys to all the other apostles too?
***”You say they teach absolutely no heresy?”
Yes, and Fr. Levis of EWTN fame has said the exact same thing:
“Dear Jeff, Great!! I was not familiar with this latest correspondence from the SSPX. My only remark is a bit of correction: I don’t think, as erroneous as the SSPX is today, they should be called heretics. Schismatics? Yes, but heretics, no……..Fr. Bob Levis”***
Well, I’ll tell you. Two points. First Fr Levis was unfamiliar w. this latest correspondence AND he doesn’t state unequivocally that they are not heretics, just that he doesn’t think they should be called that. Did he read the full 47 page document? I don’t think so. Does Fr. Levis attend SSPX sermons to see what they are espousing from the pulpit? I don’t think so. Fr. Levis is a wonderful priest but he is not a derminer of fact in this regard and he may or may not be familiar w. St. Jerome’s writings in this regard:
1913 Catholic Encyclopedia-
“Between heresy and schism”, explains St. Jerome, “there is this difference, that heresy perverts dogma, while schism, by rebellion against the bishop, separates from the Church. Nevertheless there is no schism which does not trump up a heresy to justify its departure from the Church (In Ep. ad Tit., iii, 10). And St. Augustine: “By false doctrines concerning God heretics wound faith, by iniquitous dissensions schismatics deviate from fraternal charity, although they believe what we believe” (De fide et symbolo, ix). But as St. Jerome remarks, practically and historically, heresy and schism nearly always go hand in hand; schism leads almost invariably to denial of the papal primacy.***
And that is exactly what the SSPX is doing by arguing that the Pope and the Council did not have a right to change the liturgy and demanding the right to perform whatever liturgy tilts their boat at the time. So, in actual terms, they are not only in schism but very possibly heretical too. Not good.
***”Well if that was the case they would not be outside the Church, would they?”
The situation of the SSPX is very complex. And, just for the record, those who attend SSPX chapels *are* considered to be Catholics, regardless of whether the SSPX priests and bishops are. So please be careful in your language concerning who is and who is not inside The Church.***
Nonsense! They are not necessarily considered Catholic except by themselves just like some in the “Anglican communion” consider themselves to be catholic. They can consider all day long but that doesn’t change the fact that many are OUTSIDE the Church. And the situation of the SSPX is NOT complex at all. The SSPX are acting like children and are trying to get their way. Pure and simple. Not difficult at all. The only problem is that they may be putting their souls at risk as well as others too.
***”To DEMAND that LeFebvre’s self imposed excommunication be lifted after his death when…
Apparently, that’s not such an unreasonable demand. The Church lifted the excommunications for the Orthodox, remember? Also, *from what I understand*, lifting that excommunication would be no problem if reconciliation were to ever take place w/the SSPX….***
Lifting the excommunication on the living has never been a problem as long as there has been reconciliaton with the Church and that is the Church’s decision. And I would assume that when the excommunication was lifted on the Orthodox, it was on those who were living and able to give assent to reconciliation with the Church. But how does one reconcile with a dead man who sought no reconciliation before his death and in effect turned his back on the Church and it’s authority? And no, I am unfamiliar w. Rifan and Campos. Are they like Ben & Jerry’s? No, I know. They are like Abbot & Costello, a couple of comics.
***Regardless of whether or not you think an SSPX chapel is, indeed, a Catholic church, these chapels do house the Real Presence of Our Lord….***
I don’t know whether they do or not. The local chapel here has one service a week and is locked up the rest of the week. If they leave the Body of Christ there in a tabernacle all week they are crazy because of the possibility of breakin and theft. There is no one around that building except for that one service all week. If it is there, It, not the building, deserves the Sign of the Cross. It is not a Catholic church because the local Bishop has NOT consecrated it as such and he has the authority to do so, not your SSPX bishop.
*** and Catholics DO worship there (again, as Fr. Levis has stated, those who attend SSPX Masses *are* Catholics).***
I’m sure ther are some Catholics sho worship at SSPX chapels. I’m not going to get into it with you as to the Catholicity of so and so as that is a whole other argument.
***So such chapels should be respected, and your use of scare quotes is simply distasteful.***
The term scare quotes are your words not mine. Don’t put your words in my mouth.
***Here’s an answer from Fr. Levis that you might find interesting: –
Hate to tell you but all Fr. Levis said in that post was that if the Real Presence was in the building that one should show reverence [to the Real Presence]. I concur wholeheartedly. Never an argument there.
***So, Whit, tell me… Would you cross yourself …church? I ask you this as a test. Let’s see how you respond.***
I believe I have answered this before but just in case you don’t understand, I always give reverence to the Body and the Blood of Christ.
***My point in all this is that the SSPXers have their merits, and constantly bashing them will NOT bring them to regularize their situation w/Holy Mother Church. If anything, the attitude you have expressed would only cause them to circle the wagons, and that would make matters worse.***
If they circle the wagons based on my statements I have much more influence than I ever expected. Wow!!!
And if they do circle the wagons, all it means is that they were not interested in reconciliation in the first place. That they are acting like children.
Look, these are MY thoughts. I have no idea what the Pope is going to do or say and to be honest ths whole report of a meeting may be bogus or it may fall apart before it happens. Again, I do want them back in the Church but not on their terms. They do not deserve it and they have acted wrongly through this whole matter. They have accused the Pope and Council of acting illegaly as I understand it and now want to put demands on the Church in return for reconciliaton. We will just have to wait and see how Pope Benedict handles it. I will have to accept whatever he does. I’m like Peter after the multitudes had turned from Jesus after His Bread of Life speech. “Where else can I go, Lord. Nowhere. you have the words of eternal life..
Whit: RULE 3 WARNING.
Inquisitor – So, all the Pope has to do to get back in the good graces of the SSPX is to admit that they were right all along?
Well, when you put it that way it’s totally reasonable…
“Well, when you put it that way it’s totally reasonable…”
I’m glad you agree.
Whit,
I’m glad you gave the right answer on the crossing yourself thing. Not many SSPX bashers are that nuanced.
***”Again, I do want them back in the Church but not on their terms. They do not deserve it and they have acted wrongly through this whole matter.”***
Maybe they don’t deserve it. But what about the rest of us? Those of us who wish for a return of the Traditional Mass do not deserve to be treated as second class citizens in our own Church, as Pope Benedict XVI has said himself.
***”If they circle the wagons based on my statements I have much more influence than I ever expected. Wow!!!”***
Well, I wasn’t referring to just you in particular, but all those who bash the SSPX. Note that I am not simply referring to those who criticize the ’88 consecrations or the SSPX’s currently irregular status w/Rome. I’m only referring to those who go into hysterics over any mention of the SSPX, and also those who ignore the problems the SSPX *rightfully* opposes.
In any event, I can’t really go much further than this w/o breaking Rule #3 (and I may have already broken it), so there’s not much else I can respond to.
In Christo et Maria,
Inquisitor Generalis
Inq. Gen.
I agree with you on the Traditional Mass but I don’t know if we will ever get back to that one. But that’s not to say we won’t.
It would have been better for everyone concerned, the SSPX included, if they had not pulled their little Martin Luther Lite trick and gone outside the Church to fight for what they wanted. With the SSPX on the outside, there were just that many fewer people to fight for the traditional on the inside. They begged out and did no one any good.
Again, I don’t know what is going to happen but I’ve been thinking that the longer the split continues, the more difficult it will be to re-unite/reconcile. There are always the power-hungry in any group and they could derail the situation at any time to their benefit.
All we can do as far as getting the latin mass said more often is to get as many people interested in it in our own parishes and then bug the local diocese for additional masses.
I was just thinking about the old High Masses. Do you remember how beautiful they were with their embroidered vestments and the concelebration activity up on the altar? They used to be really something to see. The vestments were a lot different than the tie/die stuff we see today. I wonder where they have all gone.
God bleess and good night, IG.
pax et bonum
Whit, sfo
“It would have been better for everyone concerned, the SSPX included, if they had not pulled their little Martin Luther Lite trick…”
See, Whit? That’s exactly the kind of language I’m talking about. That doesn’t help things.
“All we can do as far as getting the latin mass said more often is to get as many people interested in it in our own parishes and then bug the local diocese for additional masses.”
How does one do that, however? I’m pretty sure that dioceses generally don’t allow ppl to advertise the Traditional Mass. So that’s a big problem.
“I was just thinking about the old High Masses. Do you remember how beautiful they were with their embroidered vestments and the concelebration activity up on the altar?”
Yup. Aren’t they great? That’s part of why I think the old Mass attracted a different sort of priest. Who would want to wear that rainbow colored garbage? Ironically, even the lace, for cryin’ out loud, looks more masculing than the newer style vestments.
“‘Well, when you put it that way it’s totally reasonable…”
I’m glad you agree.'”
Inquisitor – If I may quote Charlie Brown, “Don’t you know sarcasm when you hear it?” 😉
“Inquisitor – If I may quote Charlie Brown, “Don’t you know sarcasm when you hear it?” ;)”
Yes, I do. Do you? 😉
Jimmy: re: your remark that JPII’s declaration that the SSPX bishops excommunicated themselves according to canon law is itself an act of excommunication: I never heard that before. I went back and read “Ecclesia Dei,” and it seems a stretch to interpret the statement “[they]have incurred the grave penalty of excommunication envisaged by ecclesiastical law” in this way. But what do I know about canon law. Can you point me to some more detailed argument that an official declaration of a latae sententiae excommunication puts the excommunication in a new category?
I see this post is about to disappear, so if you were so inclined, I would be grateful for an emailed response.
RE-TRAIN SSPX clerics or Bishops, I think not.The really interesting prospect is the re-training of ALL of the Pauline/Novus Ordo Missae priests ordained since Vat 2 in both Society of St. Pius X seminaries and “here’s a rub” re-training in SSPV seminaries also. The dummied down Pauline/Bugnini post Vatican 2 priesthood couldn’t for the most part utter more than 1 or 2 words in Latin much less Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic. This woefully inadequately trained post vat 2 priesthoods end result is massive homosexual/pedophilia, heretical novus ordo ad hoc masses, parish financial scandals, massive decline in religious observance worldwide since the un-necessary Vatican 2 council,smoozing with Schismatic (Eastern Orthodox) and heretical (protestants)while venemously condeming Orthodox Catholics, half empty parish churches, seminaries, and religious communities. So much for the so-called “Divinely Inspired” second Vatican council. The post vatican 2 popes are answerable to the King of the Universe for the loss of millions of souls since that disasterous council convened. Thank God, GOD alone is the judge of humankind. Shalom