From Crux:
Pope Francis may be on verge of deal with traditionalists!
Pope Francis may soon offer the Society of Saint Pius X regular canonical status within the Catholic Church without requiring acceptance of certain texts of the Second Vatican Council with which they disagree, a prerequisite that heretofore had been seen as a deal-breaker for the traditionalists.
It also appears the society may itself be poised to take such a historic step, urging that “perhaps only Pope Francis is able to take this step, given his unpredictability and improvisation”, according to an internal Society of St. Pius X document that was leaked to the press in recent weeks.
The Society of St. Pius X is a breakaway group founded by the late French Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, who objected to some of the reforms that followed the Second Vatican Council (1962-65), including the introduction of a new Mass in vernacular languages and the broad expansion of ecumenical and inter-faith dialogue.
The memo, titled “Considerations on the Church and the position of the Society of Saint Pius X in it”, outlines six reasons why the group should accept an offer of regularization by Pope Francis, provided “an appropriate ecclesial structure” is ensured. It also addresses possible objections raised against such a move.
“It seems the time to normalize the situation of the society has come,” the memo reads.
The document, dated Feb. 19, was written by Father Franz Schmidberger, rector of the society’s seminary in Germany. Schmidberger had served as superior general of the society from 1982 to 1994.
In the memo, Schmidberger asserts that the Vatican has been “gradually lowering its demands and recent proposals, no longer speak of recognizing neither the Second Vatican Council nor the legitimacy of the Novus Ordo Missae,” referring to the post-Vatican II Mass.
On April 10, Bishop Bernard Fellay, the current superior general of the society, said before some 4,000 pilgrims in the French city of Le Puy-en-Velay that there is a “profound change” in its relationship with the Vatican, triggered by the “dire situation” of the Church: “in the midst of this disorder … comes this whisper: ‘No, we cannot force you to accept the Council.’ They perhaps will not say it so clearly, but they did indeed say it to us after all.”
On April 10, Bishop Bernard Fellay, the current superior general of the society, said before some 4,000 pilgrims in the French city of Le Puy-en-Velay that there is a “profound change” in its relationship with the Vatican, triggered by the “dire situation” of the Church: “in the midst of this disorder … comes this whisper: ‘No, we cannot force you to accept the Council.’ They perhaps will not say it so clearly, but they did indeed say it to us after all.”
Albeit carefully, these assertions are to some extent matched by similar utterances from Rome.
Italian Archbishop Guido Pozzo, secretary for the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei – the Vatican office of the responsible for doctrinal discussions with the society – said in an April 6 interview with La Croix that “as far as the Second Vatican Council is concerned, the ground covered in the meetings over the past few years has led to an important clarification: Vatican II can be adequately understood only in the context of the full tradition of the Church and her constant magisterium.”
“Certain questions can remain ‘subject to discussion and clarification’,” Pozzo added.
Similarly, Schmidberger’s memo asserts that whilst the group would like to “return from its ‘exile'”, further discussions would be expected: “We will not be silent, more over, we will point out the errors by name. Before and after our normalization.
40 comments:
Just great! And not in a good sense. We already have the Katholic Krazies who destroy the Faith from within and misrepresent Latin Mass attending Traditonalists. If he lets them in Scott free without heavy discipline and re-education like the FFI case, he'll be letting in a Trojan horse that will cause the sin Francis himself declared, corruption, to run rampant at the heads of the SSPX. Oh and the Krazies will finally get their wishes to harden their hearts under their now "valid and licit" masses.
I get he has a mission of "mercy" but this may be a fatal mistake for his papacy.
Julian, you consistently spout slander. It is really time for you to grow up.
You slander the SSPX. the work of restoration movements in Toronto and you call it a "Trojan Horse."
It is really time for you to stop this nonsense. It tears down the work, it does not build up.
Vox Cantoris
Is this verbose, slanderous, insulting and rambling work your blog, Julian Barkin?
http://torontotlmserving.blogspot.ca/search/label/Radicals%20Misrepresenting%20Traditionalists
Sheesh, talk about a "Katholic Krazy who misrepresents Latin Mass attending Traditionalists!
Pot calling kettle black.
If true, a great injustice will be corrected and the re-catechization of the Church may began. It will take several generations, hopefully not too many martyrs.
Julian is right. I was okay with the pope's authoring purportedly magisterial documents promoting heresy and sacrilege, but granting the SSPX canonical recognition without publicly throttling Bishop Fellay is too much.
Anyone who attends a traditional Latin Mass anywhere in the world -- whether the priest is diocesan, FSSP, or ICRSS -- does so because of the SSPX. Every one of us is daily or weekly reaping the rewards of Abp. Lefebvre's work, including his consecration of four bishops. On that basis, I contend that it is not possible to be a Catholic "traditionalist" and not have some level of respect and support for the SSPX and the persecution undergone by its bishops, priests, and lay associates over the last several decades. While you might choose to stay away from their chapels for whatever reason, the fact that you can attend the traditional Mass anywhere is a direct result of that chapel you're avoiding.
CNA is late in reporting the story about the SSPX internal memo. Here is a purported copy that surfaced a couple of weeks ago on Traditional Web sites.
Imminent Areement: SSPX Internal Memo from Fr. Schmidberger
Discussion in 'Resistance Movement' started by Machabees, Apr 15, 2016.
CONSIDERATIONS ON THE CHURCH AND THE POSITION OF THE SSPX IN IT
http://cor-mariae.com/index.php?threads/imminent-areement-sspx-internal-memo-from-fr-schmidberger.3823/
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Pope Francis really wants genuine Catholics? Deo Gratias. The lefties will go bananas
And not soon enough, as the Cardinal Archbishop of Colonge Rainer Maria Woelki slams the German Party AfD for telling the German people they want a ban on Islamic minerets and full veils. Cardinal Woelki say church steeples are the same as Islamic minerets, these Novus Ordonarians still think all religions are same! Please tell that to Our Lord Jesus Christ when you compare him to the mass murderer, pediphile, Mohammed, shame on the Novus Ordo Cardinal of Colonge Germany, the S.S.P.X. needs to come home as soon as possible to restore Holy Mother Church, you can read the whole story on Breitbart.com.
Julian, it's scot free, not Scott free (scot was a medieval tax paid by borough householders). The idea that the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate require 're-education' sounds a bit Orwellian to me; in fact the same friars have recently been entrusted with a parish in the Portsmouth diocese where they offer Mass in both forms.
Unless you wish to be regarded as an immature choleric blockhead, you really need to moderate your comments. Otherwise you risk giving a new twist to the venerable expression 'barkin' mad'.
This will be interesting, especially within the various US Archdiocese. I have been more than a little surprised at the animosity of the progressives, even the clergy, and their ignorance of what is going on in the FSSP, and similar, parishes. This area has a very large percentage of Catholics and the vitriole that surrounds topics as minor as abstain from meat on Friday is amazing. We are also a heavily Unionized region and I see a similar attitude towards corporations as towards the pre-Vatican II Church. I have to wonder how this will be executed.
Julian, aren't you the guy with some blog about altar serving who piled on during the Rosica lawsuit and falsely accused your brother Vox Cantoris and his wife of living in adultery doing so publicly, on your blog for the world to see? I understand that they were married in a Solemn Nuptial Mass in the EF. Pretty strange thing to do, I should say. Now you want to slander these Catholics in the SSPX?
Get thee to a Confessional!
Joseph Domenico.
Father McDonald, let' say that Rome and the SSPX reach an agreement with each other. Rome would then provide SSPX with a "protective umbrella" (Personal Prelature...whatever) to "protect" the Society from anti-Holy Tradition bishops.
Many Traditionalists have painted the following picture of a Rome-SSPX agreement: The SSPX would be 100 percent free of "Novus Ordo" bishops. The SSPX will waltz into any diocese to establish parishes as they please. The SSPX will operate as free as they please. For all practical purposes, the Society will operate as though the local "Novus Ordo" bishop doesn't exist.
Father, how realistic is that picture?
I wonder about that as during a 2014 A.D. interview, Monsignor Steenson, who served as the first Ordinary of the Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter, said the following:
oversees the U.S. and Canada
by Brian Fraga OSV Newsweekly, Nov. 9, 2014
Msgr Steenson on The Journey Home - kleinAs a former bishop in the Episcopal Church, Jeffrey N. Steenson was responsible for leading a diocese that encompassed Southwest Texas and all of New Mexico. Today, Msgr. Steenson, who entered the Catholic Church in 2007, administers an ecclesial entity that comprises the United States and Canada.
“The administrative part has been quite challenging for us. It’s just a lot to do, and we don’t have the resources to do it very efficiently right now,” said Msgr. Steenson, the first ordinary of the Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter, which is composed of parishes, groups, religious communities and individuals from the Anglican heritage that have entered into communion with the Catholic Church.
The ordinariate was established on Jan. 1, 2012, after Pope Benedict XVI paved the way in the fall of 2009 by establishing a structure for Anglicans to unite with Rome. In a recent interview with Our Sunday Visitor, Msgr. Steenson reflected on the first three years of the ordinariate and shared his hopes for the future of Anglican-Catholic relations.
Our Sunday Visitor: How would you describe the ordinariate’s first three years of existence?
"In every case, we have to partner with the local bishop and the local diocese in terms of ordinations and establishing communities."
Was that due to the Ordinariate's newness as well as lack of money and additional resources? The SSPX has bishops, longevity, and money. Would those factors permit the SSPX to operate "independently" of "Novus Ordo" bishops?
I also wonder whether many bishops have awaited the SSPX's regularization. Perhaps many bishops are keen to cooperate with the SSPX but had preferred to have remained on the sideline until SSPX regularization. They may be akin to laymen who remain at a distance from the SSPX but will attach themselves to the SSPX the moment that regularization is announced.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Julian is just a young man (I think he is around 16 yrs. old) who has yet to understand the real situation of the Church. Leave him alone and don't worry about "Trojan Horses" - in fact, if the SSPX agreement works out, renew your mission to subvert heterodoxy and sacrilege in the Church and wear your subversion as a badge of honor.
To Marc, thanks that you think my argument makes some sense. I will give credit where it is due that the Latin Mass would have been quashed by the liberals (completely gone after saints like Padre Pio died as the last generation of non SSPX competent priests) without their existence. However with their anti Church, anti Francis mentality that has gone on so deep since its inception, and having that poison spread to a couple of generations, we cannot allow for such free reign, lest innocents become mentally and spiritually corrupted from within.
To Nolan, thanks for the correction. However I will take your advice with a grain of salt, as we should all be as fervent in defending True Orthodoxy and Holy Mother Church and true Catholic Traditionalism (incl the Latin Mass) from that which seeks to turn it into a weapon for their Protestant version. Let me also ask you, in posts where others have bashed Francis and the Novus Ordo and bishops, have you dealt out the same advice to those people as you are doing to me now, or do you display bias towards those who are Radicals Misrepresenting Traditonalists?
"It has been speculated that the normalization of the society would be accomplished by recognizing the group as a 'personal prelature' ".
This would be one way to solve the problem of the SSPX churches being as they are situated within the boundaries of already established parishes.
Blogger Marc said...
Anyone who attends a traditional Latin Mass anywhere in the world -- whether the priest is diocesan, FSSP, or ICRSS -- does so because of the SSPX.
Not to be argumentative, but that's not 100% accurate.
The people of Campos, Brazil, did not need the SSPX and still had access to the old Mass. They would still have that access today, albeit limited due to the lack of a bishop (which the SSPX supplied in 1991).
But the priests who were ordained prior to 1991 never had need of the SSPX. They had their own bishop.
Julian Barkin said... I will give credit where it is due that the Latin Mass would have been quashed by the liberals (completely gone after saints like Padre Pio died as the last generation of non SSPX competent priests) without their existence.
That's not accurate either.
As mentioned, there are Campos priests, ordained prior to 1991, who are still alive. They never needed the SSPX in order to offer the old Mass. They were ordained by their own bishop.
DJR
DJR, that is an amazingly pedantic point. Yes, those roughly 25 priests in Brazil aren't strictly tied to the SSPX, except that they fraternity was basically founded due to the existence of the SSPX after their bishop sold them out.
Marc said..."Anyone who attends a traditional Latin Mass anywhere in the world -- whether the priest is diocesan, FSSP, or ICRSS -- does so because of the SSPX. Every one of us is daily or weekly reaping the rewards of Abp. Lefebvre's work, including his consecration of four bishops. On that basis, I contend that it is not possible to be a Catholic "traditionalist" and not have some level of respect and support for the SSPX and the persecution undergone by its bishops, priests, and lay associates over the last several decades."
Marc, are you familiar with Father Gommar DePauw? If we owe respect and support to the SSPX, then, in turn, the Society owes respect to Father Gommar DePauw (R.I.P.). Years prior to the Society's existence, Father DePauw was by far the key person who preserved and promoted the Traditional Latin Mass.
If we wish to assign credit in that fashion, then Father Gommar DePauw, not Archbishop Lefebvre, is the most prominent character in the drama that preserved the TLM. In that regard, it's not even close. Father DePauw is the clear lead character.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Blogger Marc said...
DJR, that is an amazingly pedantic point. Yes, those roughly 25 priests in Brazil aren't strictly tied to the SSPX, except that they fraternity was basically founded due to the existence of the SSPX after their bishop sold them out.
On the contrary, it was a truncated statement, using one example, to demonstrate that your initial statement was incorrect. There are plenty of other examples to demonstrate its incorrectness.
You previously stated: "Anyone who attends a traditional Latin Mass anywhere in the world -- whether the priest is diocesan, FSSP, or ICRSS -- does so because of the SSPX."
The only time I ever see such an assertion is from someone, usually younger, who was not part of the Traditional movement in the early years. Priests of the SSPX never make such an assertion, as they realize it is not correct.
Unfortunately, I am not "younger," and I have been around the movement since the 1970s, so I am aware of what I speak.
Regarding Campos, I was speaking of the priests who were ordained by Bishop de Castro Mayer prior to 1991. For several decades after the council, he was ordaining priests, and those priests were offering the old Mass, with absolutely no need for the SSPX.
The people of Campos were attending the old Mass for decades without the SSPX and presumably would continue to do so without them, so those people don't fit into your statement.
France has several monasteries where the old Mass is offered, with absolutely no input from the SSPX, nor did they ever need it. And laymen can assist at Masses in those places.
They don't fit into your statement either.
There are also other places in Europe where the old Mass had been maintained by priests who resisted the changes but who were not affiliated with the SSPX, and I am not talking about sedevacantists.
Another exception is China. There are Catholics in China who have not switched to the Novus Ordo Missae. They kept the old Mass, yet they have never had the SSPX.
People who, for decades, have attended Masses offered by Father Yves Normandin of Canada could do so without the SSPX. He's still alive.
Father Gommar DePauw publicly offered the old Mass until his death without any need for the SSPX.
Father Carley and Father Roach in Ohio offered the old Mass publicly in their chapels without any need for the SSPX.
Other names would be Fathers Snyder, Sullivan, Marchosky, Miceli, Houghton, Crane, Pulvermacher, Monsignor Hodges, LeBlanc, Father Stemper, SJ.
Father Gruner offered the old Mass until he passed away; he had no need of the SSPX in order to do so.
These were diocesan priests, Jesuits, et cetera, who resisted the changes, and older Traditionalists would recognize their names.
Father Wathen offered the old Mass until he died in 2006. He didn't need the SSPX.
Bishop Mendez of Arecibo, Puerto Rico, maintained the old Mass and obviously did not need the SSPX to do so.
Benedictine Father Leonard Giardina publicly offered the old Mass at Christ the King Abbey in Alabama for many, many years, and the faithful continue to have access to the old Mass there, with approval of the local ordinary and without any need for the SSPX (although he did at one time think of affiliating with them but never did). And he was not a sedevacantist.
There are other examples.
The SSPX certainly did much of the legwork for many people, but the idea that everyone, anywhere in the world, owes attendance at the Latin Mass to the SSPX is just not true, and never has been.
DJR
"In the memo, Schmidberger asserts that the Vatican has been “gradually lowering its demands and recent proposals, no longer speak of recognizing neither the Second Vatican Council nor the legitimacy of the Novus Ordo Missae,” referring to the post-Vatican II Mass."
Vatican II was a legally called Ecumenical Council whose acts were approved by the Pope. I don't see how one can be Catholic and not "recognize" it (as opposed to questioning interpretation, or non-binding "pastoral" language, etc.). Nor does the language quoted by Archbishop Pozzo say they can "not recognize Vatican II". He says Vatican II has to be interpreted in light of the tradition and that some issues are debatable.
In addition, the Ordinary Form of the Mass was validly enacted by the Pope. Surely, the SSPX would have to recognize the validity of the Ordinary Form Mass, even if they don't celebrate or attend it, and criticize certain aspects of it. Even Summorum Pontificum required this. How can SSPX be in full communion with the worldwide Church if it does not recognize the validity of the vast majority of Masses celebrated in the Church?
Hopefully, this memo is just using imprecise language and any actual agreement will be more precise.
I think it is fine to question and reject the pastoral theology of religious liberty, ecumenism, interfaith dialogue and engagement with the world which leads to a sort of universalism and loss of Catholic identity. None of this is doctrine. It is like the teaching on limbo.
Not recognizing the validity of the new Mass would be unthinkable and divisive. However they should not be required to celebrate it.
The SSPX recognize the validity of the Novus Ordo. They just counsel people not to attend it for many reasons.
DJR, I stand corrected!
Marc said... DJR, I stand corrected!
Not meaning to beat a dead horse, but I did want to mention some of the other stalwarts of the Traditional movement here in the States, as it doesn't seem right to leave them out.
I should also have mentioned Fathers Perez, Zigrang, Smith, Schell, and Stretenovic, none of whom are affiliated with the SSPX, are not sedevacantists (at least not publicly; however, their views may have changed recently), and who publicly offer the old Mass (except for Father Schell, who is deceased).
Father Paul Wickens in NJ. Although he collaborated with the SSPX, he did not need them, at least for Mass purposes, as he was a diocesan priest.
There is also an old priest in the Chicago archdiocese who maintained the old Mass, with full approbation of the archdiocese. I have forgotten his name.
Near my home, until recent years, there were two older monks at the local Trappist monastery who, in their private Masses, did not use the new missal, and outsiders were able to assist. I have been present at such Masses, with other people also present. At one time, several dozen people were going to these Masses, offered in the crypt of the monastery.
Needless to say, they had no affiliation with the SSPX, yet the old Mass thrived.
I will add this though: If it were not for the SSPX, more specifically, certain seminarians of the SSPX who convinced Archbishop Lefebvre to return to the missal of 1962, many people would probably be assisting at the reformed Mass that the SSPX used in the early years.
I don't think many people now would like that. I wouldn't care too much for it myself.
But had the archbishop not made that change, presumably that's what people at SSPX venues, and their offspring, would be experiencing today: Mass that started at the chair in front of a microphone (possibly in some places facing the people), no prayers at the foot of the altar, readings of the epistle and Gospel in the vernacular only, et cetera.
Archbishop Lefebvre offered Mass that way for a time.
DJR
To your latter point, DJR, I wonder about that. The Institute use a variation on an older Missal as part of their charism (and it seems they'd like to return to the pre-1955 totally, but are limited by Ecclesia Dei, which is tied to the SSPX decision you mentioned). I wonder if they'd done that anyway since they have no direct connection to the SSPX that I'm aware of. What do you think?
Many younger Catholics believe that the defense and preservation of the TLM began with Archbishop Lefevbre and revolved around him. That is a poor understanding of the movement within the Church that preserved and promoted the TLM.
Anyway, it seems improper to me to attempt to elevate just one person, even Father DePauw, to, if you will, MVP (Most Valuable Player) status in regard to the preservation of the TLM.
Countless Catholics sacrificed much to preserve and promote the TLM. Lay Catholics gave a tremendous amount of their time and money happily in the holy fight that kept the TLM alive. Holy and brave priests preserved the TLM at the expense of having been "excommunicated" supposedly by their bishops.
Within and without the Church, vicious criticisms, insults, and charges of "heresy" and "schism" were hurled at Catholics, clergy, religious, and lay, who had remained attached to the TLM.
I recall that during the 1970s and 1980s, and, incredibly, not more than just a few years ago, various Church official in my diocese insisted that Catholics who remained attached to the TLM "hated" the Church.
TLM-attached Catholics were informed that "something was very wrong with them" for not having appreciated the liturgical reform (revolution) that had supposedly "renewed" the Church.
The movement that preserved the TLM was a "team" effort.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
If it hadn't been for the liberal and tyrannical, Paul VI, Archbishop Lefebvre would have not have been forced to take the action he did. For Paul VI it was his way or the highway
Everything that DJR and Mark Thomas say is true, regarding the many stalwart priests who kept lit the flame of the traditional Mass during the dark years of its persecution (and that of its faithful adherents).
But is also a historical fact that both the FSSP and the Ecclesia Dei encyclical and commission--under whose aegis the currently existing "in communion" traditional orders (e.g. the FSSP, ICKSP, etc.) were established and operate today--were direct outgrowths of the SSPX and, in particular, of the collapse of Card. Ratzinger's 1988 attempt to secure Ab. Lefebvre's agreement to a regularization of the SSPX, under essentially the same terms that may be at hand today. For instance, the founding members of the FSSP were priests who left the SSPX the day after Ab. Lefebvre's consecration of new bishops and (under Card. Ratzinger's direction and with his approval) established their new order, which today is by far the largest and most influential of the Ecclesia Dei communities.
My own view is that the single individual who plainly deserves the lion's share of credit for the resurgence and canonical survival of the TLM is Card. Joseph Ratzinger himself--his promulgation of Summorum Pontificum itself being the fruition of his quarter-century effort to sustain the traditional Mass, dating back to before the 1986 recommendation of a blue-ribbon commission of cardinals (one of whose members was Card. Ratzinger) that John Paul II give the TLM essentially the status that as Pope Benedict XVI he finally promulgated.
Marc said...
To your latter point, DJR, I wonder about that. The Institute use a variation on an older Missal as part of their charism (and it seems they'd like to return to the pre-1955 totally, but are limited by Ecclesia Dei, which is tied to the SSPX decision you mentioned). I wonder if they'd done that anyway since they have no direct connection to the SSPX that I'm aware of. What do you think?
I don't know. Hard to say.
If they want to do it though, they should just do it. Who's going to do anything about it?
I remember when the indult came out, and we were told by the powers that be that we could not include the second Confiteor before Holy Communion in "the indult Mass," nor could the Leonine prayers after Mass be said.
The uppity ups were that nitpicky.
Then, gradually, those instructions were just ignored, priests just started adding them in, to the point where they are now standard, at least at the venues I frequent.
In our day, when a Catholic can attend Hula Hoop Masses, Basketball Masses, Snoopy slideshow Masses, and God knows what else, it seems patently ludicrous for members of the hierarchy to forbid something found in earlier missals.
I think many present day bishops now realize how ridiculous it appears and probably couldn't care less what Traditionalists do as long as they shut up and don't bother them.
DJR
Mark Thomas said... Marc, are you familiar with Father Gommar DePauw? If we owe respect and support to the SSPX, then, in turn, the Society owes respect to Father Gommar DePauw (R.I.P.). Years prior to the Society's existence, Father DePauw was by far the key person who preserved and promoted the Traditional Latin Mass.
A courageous and saintly priest. God rest his soul.
DJR
Julian Barkin
In answer to your question above, I don't pigeonhole my fellow Catholics as you do (and sadly Pope Francis also succumbs to this temptation). I deplore certain trends, opinions and practices, and may take individuals to task, but this is not the same as inventing such categories as 'Katholic Krazies' or 'Radicals Misrepresenting Traditionalists' and shoehorning people you disagree with into these groups which have no existence outside your fevered imagination.
Stalin invented a class of people (the 'kulaks') so that he could first demonize and then liquidate them as a means to crush the peasantry. Your comments about 'heavy discipline and re-education' with regard to the FFI are Stalinist (or Maoist, take your pick) and Pope Francis's treatment of them discredited his papacy in the eyes of many who were at first inclined, despite his record, to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Ironically, the loyalty of the friars (in contrast to the manifest disloyalty of liberal dissidents who are given the kid-glove treatment) prevented them from taking the obvious course of parking themselves with the SSPX, waiting for better times, and being regularized along with the Society in due course.
If you take the trouble to read the history of Archbishop Lefebvre's relations with the Vatican you will discern a certain amount of intransigence and rigidity on his part, but on the part of the Vatican there was a sorry catalogue of bad faith, mendacity and scant regard for correct judicial procedures.
Pope Francis made a grovelling apology for his predecessors' treatment of the Waldensian heretics (which was pointedly rebuffed). An apology for the far more recent treatment of both Archbishop Lefebvre and Cardinal Mindszenty is the least he can do.
The TLM priests whom DJR enumerates were truly heroic and (in many cases) self-sacrificial, but it still can be wondered whether the ancient Mass they kept alive then could nevertheless have died with the death of their generation of priests that had been formed in the TLM.
Whereas it can be argued that it was actually the work of the SSPX that led directly to Ecclesia Dei and the continued support of Card. Ratzinger while he was Prefect of the CDF and later as Pope, which have born fruit in the new generation of young priests and seminarians who are carrying the torch now and into an ever brighter future (for the TLM certainly, and surely ultimately for the whole Church). Indeed, it is a historical fact that it was Ab. Lefebvre's illicit episcopal consecrations that spawned concretely the FSSP and brought the TLM into the institutional mainstream of the Church (to the extent that it now is).
DJR...Yes, Father DePauw was as you described.
If you are interested, and most especially, Father McDonald-permitting, here is a video of Father DePauw's explanation as to why he had held to the TLM:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DuBu5Utd3LY
Here is a fascinating audio of Father DePauw explaining that he and all Latin Catholics have every right and reason to hold fast to the TLM and Holy Tradition...if what the Church had taught for decades and centuries was true, then those very teachings are true today. The decades-old recording allows us also to grasp the tremendous turmoil that swirled within the Church as the liturgical reforms had begun to unfold.
Father DePauw was correct and prophetic.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Henry said..."But is also a historical fact that both the FSSP and the Ecclesia Dei encyclical and commission--under whose aegis the currently existing "in communion" traditional orders (e.g. the FSSP, ICKSP, etc.) were established and operate today--were direct outgrowths of the SSPX and, in particular, of the collapse of Card. Ratzinger's 1988 attempt to secure Ab. Lefebvre's agreement to a regularization of the SSPX, under essentially the same terms that may be at hand today."
I am not at all saying that the following applies to Henry...I just wish to use what Henry said to offer the following:
One of the difficulties that I have had with certain Catholics attached to the SSPX is that they believe that the SSPX is perfect...never, ever made a mistake. They simply won't consider such a possibility.
In regard to the Rome-SSPX saga, Rome alone has been the "villain". Rome alone has made mistakes. "New Rome, Modernist Rome, NewChurch," has been the villain. But consider as Henry noted that it "is also a historical fact that both the FSSP and the Ecclesia Dei encyclical and commission--under whose aegis the currently existing "in communion" traditional orders (e.g. the FSSP, ICKSP, etc.) were established and operate today--were direct outgrowths of the SSPX..."
My main point is that the FSSP, ICKSP, etc., have flourished under "New Rome". They entered into agreements with Rome and have flourished for decades. Now, imagine if Archbishop Lefebvre had not reneged on the Protocol that he had signed in 1988 A.D. with Rome.
Unlike the FSSP and additional TLM societies, the SSPX had a bishop and would have been permitted to ordain a bishop(s). The SSPX would have enjoyed privileges and protections that, for example, has eluded the FSSP.
The SSPX has performed stellar holy work during the past 28 years. But consider the even greater amount of holy success that a "regularized" SSPX would have accomplished during the past 28 years. I just wish that the SSPX, regularized, had been unleashed, for example, in France and Europe 28 years ago.
All the talk about "New Rome" plotting to "trap" the SSPX has been nonsense. The FSSP, ICKSP, etc., have flourished within the Church. Just imagine what the TLM Movement would have accomplished during the past 28 years with a regularized SSPX on its side.
The SSPX's rejection of the 1998 A.D. Protocol that they had signed with Rome was a big mistake.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Mark, there's no doubt that the FSSP has done well. But I don't think it's fair to blame Abp. Lefebvre for backing out of the protocol. This is especially true in hindsight. He consecrated the bishops to ensure continuity, and ultimately, he didn't trust Rome to give him a bishop to continue his mission (a God-given mission, mind).
We know now that he was right. The FSSP still lack the bishop Rome promised. So it isn't fair to say that Rome would've given the SSPX a bishop.
Otherwise, I'm very thankful to both you and DJR for the information you've provided in your posts in this thread.
Henry, it's good to see you again. I was wondering where you'd gone. I hope all is well in your community.
Blogger Marc said..."Mark, there's no doubt that the FSSP has done well. But I don't think it's fair to blame Abp. Lefebvre for backing out of the protocol. This is especially true in hindsight. He consecrated the bishops to ensure continuity, and ultimately, he didn't trust Rome to give him a bishop to continue his mission (a God-given mission, mind). We know now that he was right. The FSSP still lack the bishop Rome promised. So it isn't fair to say that Rome would've given the SSPX a bishop. "
Marc, what document from Rome signed by the FSSP promised the Fraternity a bishop?
How do we know that Archbishop Lefebvre was right? He signed the Protocol with Rome, then abandoned the Protocol almost before the ink had dried.
Several weeks prior to the signing of the Protocol, Pope Saint John Paul II had taken a dramatic and beautiful step when he intervened publicly into the discussion between Cardinal Ratzinger and Archbishop Lefebvre. The Pope appealed for peace between Rome and the Society.
http://fsspx.org/en/letter-pope-john-paul-ii-cardinal-ratzinger
Pope Saint John Paul II had placed his credibility and word on the line in regard to the Protocol. Had he reneged on the Protocol, for example, the granting of a bishop(s) to the SSPX, then his credibility would have been destroyed publicly.
Archbishop Lefebvre would then have obtained the certain high ground and would have argued unassailably that Rome could not be trusted. He would have been 100 percent correct in that an emergency situation had existed within the Church that would have permitted the SSPX to have taken extraordinary measures to preserve the Society.
Instead, it was Archbishop Lefebvre who opened himself to massive criticism as he had broken his word in regard to the Protocol. As of today, his action has set the SSPX back 28 years in the fight against the Church's crisis of faith, particularly in regard to Europe and the West.
From 1988 A.D. to date, a regularized SSPX would have enjoyed a 28-year head start in its quest to establish parishes throughout the world. That is a tremendous amount of lost time.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
I think John Nolan sums it up 'barkin' mad'
Marc, there are several priests I know who obtained a celebrate to offer the Traditional Mass who were not part of the SSPX, although they would have had sympathy with the SSPX position.
One such is Fr Denzil Mueli who has celebrated the TLM since 1987: "He attended the International College for the Propagation of the Faith where he was awarded the degrees of S.T.D., U.J.D., and Ph.L.. He was ordained as a Priest of the Diocese of Auckland in Rome in December 1956. After ordination, Meuli spent 18 months in Germany preparing for his doctorate and was a chaplain in the Occupation Army of the Rhine. He also held chaplaincies in several parishes in France (including Neuilly-sur-Seine, Charleville-Mezieres, Armentieres) and at the Walburgeschule in Menden, Germany, while collecting material for his doctorate. He obtained his doctorate from the Pontifical Gregorian University. In 1977, Meuli obtained an LL.B. from the University of Auckland and was admitted as a Barrister and Solicitor of the High Court of New Zealand.
In 1987 he studied the work of Patrick Henry Omlor and his questioning of the validity of the Catholic Mass using the all-English Canon, particularly the replacement of the Latin "Pro multis" ("for many") with the English "for all" in the rite of consecration. Omlor argued that a deviation from the earlier wording resulted in the new Mass not constituting a proper sacrifice. Meuli was influenced by Omlor's arguments and resumed the celebration of the Mass in Latin."
Fr Mueli's parish has the biggest Latin Mass congregation in New Zealand.
Aside from individuals priests the International Federation Una Voce a lay organisation predates the SSPX:
"In 1964, Dr Borghild Krane, an eminent psychologist in Norway, sent out an appeal to concerned Catholics to group together in defence of the Church's liturgical heritage. As a result of that appeal a number of national associations came into being in 1964-65. Delegates from six European associations met in Rome early in 1965 and the International Federation was formally erected in Zurich on 8th January 1967 when delegates from 20 associations approved the draft statutes and elected the first Council."
Michael Davies was one of the first Presidents of Una Voce and this group has fought long and hard for the preservation of the traditional Latin Mass and continues to do so.
I think it is regrettable that Archbishop Lefebvre didn't go ahead with the protocol that he signed. He may well have been pressured by some ambitious priests wishing to be bishops - thinking especially of Bishop Williamson and how he has since left the SSPX. I don't think that fear that a bishop may not have been provided was sufficient reason to go ahead and ordain bishops in contravention of Canon Law. The SSPX have blamed St John Paul II The Great for the excommunication but Archbishop Lefebvre was aware of the automatic penalty of excommunication under canon law if he went ahead and ordained bishops without the permission of Rome.
Not to forget that Bishop Milingo was automatically excommunicated when he went ahead and consecrated bishops without the permission of Rome as with the Church in China. So what unfortunately happened to the SSPX was of their own making and they should stop laying it at the door of St John Paul The Great who begged Archbishop Lefebvre "on my knees" not to go ahead with the consecration. I have always agreed with many of the positions of the SSPX but have always disagreed with what they did and I feel it hurt the traditional movement more than helped it. The flourishing the the FSSP is proof of that.
Based on the text of the protocol and the various statements and correspondence issued in the immediate aftermath, it seems to me that Lefebvre's main mistake was to sign the protocol, as worded, to begin with. Backing out the very next day compounded the problem by tarnishing people's view of his good faith. Clearly he didn't do his due diligence with regard to the contents of the protocol, or else he signed something he didn't agree with ab initio. As I've said on this blog many, many times, talk is cheap. "[T]he consecration of a member of the Society appears useful"--a phrase from the protocol about which he had misgivings--is at best weasel words, not a commitment to consecrate such a bishop, let alone to consecrate him in the immediate future or specific date. Lefebvre should have objected to this and pressed for commitment before signing. By signing and then backing out, he at least gave the appearance of being the obstructionist.
At any rate there was clearly no meeting of the minds in this document.
Post a Comment