Michael Matt – Unite the Traditional Clans! August 26, 2019
Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Basics, fightback, General Catholic, Glory, Grace, Restoration, sanctity, SSPX, the struggle for the Church, Tradition, true leadership, Virtue.comments closed
I have learned over the past few months that I have missed an incredible amount of infighting between traditional/orthdox Catholics. In fact I haven’t missed it at all, I’m glad I haven’t had to witness all that. With Francis continuing to try to change the Bride of Christ into a pathetic, modernist worldly construct, a creation not of God but of men, never has there been a greater need for unity among the most devout, believing Catholics, whatever they call themselves. I have long been of this opinion, which I share with such stalwart defenders of the Faith as Fathers Michael Rodriguez and Isaac Mary Relyea, two men who have suffered more than most of us will ever have to for their rejection of the post-conciliar construct.
There are legitimate criticisms of, or concerns regarding, all branches of traditional Catholicism in these days. That is one of the chief coups of the modernists dominating the hierarchy of the Church, to use Catholics own faith and fidelity to the Magisterium against them. By corrupting that magisterium, they have managed to put Catholics in a “damned if they do, damned if they don’t situation.” While the SSPX seems to be slowly leaning towards some kind of formal recognition from Rome (and some would argue it already exists), there remains great hostility in the institutional Church to them, and much fussiness over their purported canonical status. The Ecclesia Dei communities and diocesan priests offering the TLM forever have to live with the taint of ostensible accommodation, and the constant threat that all they have achieved and built over the past several decades could be snatched away in an instant by a hostile pope.
Each of the traditional groups has their strengths and weaknesses. Certainly there is room for legitimate expression of these differences, but the constant internecine struggles between these various groups has long passed the point of ceasing to be productive, and is most often positively destructive. It is so easy for all of us to fall into tribalism and the belief that “our side” is not just the right one, but the only good and decent one. From that belief can spring all kinds of animus and destructiveness. It is the ultimate circular firing squad, and could not be more ill-timed or counter-productive, given the collective threats we all face from the current pontificate and the upcoming Amazonian synod. This should be a time of conciliation, not ever-increasing conflict and strife.
Thus, I heartily support Michael Matt in attempting to bring collaboration and commonality of purpose among all those priests, religious, and lay people struggling to live out the Faith in this time of unprecedented crisis within the institutional Church. Every single growing, vibrant traditional parish is a beacon of hope for millions of those who call themselves Catholic, whether they realize it or not. They are a hope for the present and the future, and, in my mind, represent the only real future the Church has, by returning to her roots and her real self. And, if we continue to work together, we can hope for the coming restoration of Holy Mother Church, as Mr. Matt in describing how the FSSP taking over a dying Minneapolis parish has now totally turned the parish around. He then lists some criticisms of the FSSP, presumedly coming from the SSPX, and proceeds to refute those. I’m not certain if his piece was in response to something in particular, but the article could just as easily have been framed in the opposite way, defending the SSPX from FSSP criticisms. I don’t think the particular framing is most important, I think what is most important is the overall message of looking for the good in all the various branches of traditional Catholicism and working together to maximize their effect in terms of saving souls and, even more importantly, giving all glory and honor to God.
I did, however, want to address a few points Mr. Matt raises, which I will do below:
Yes, okay. Fine! But the FSSP does not condemn Pope Francis on a daily basis.
Again, true enough. But neither did Edmund Campion run around publicly condemning the tyrant and heretics of his day. Instead, he chose to dress as a layman—a jeweler—and to call himself ‘Mr. Edmunds’ so that he could avoid arrest and carry on with the important work of preserving the old Faith in Elizabethan England. He wasn’t a coward. He was a strategist, who would eventually be starved, beaten, disemboweled and drawn and quartered for his fidelity the old Faith.
It’s called strategy. Maybe you’ve seen pictures. You know, Father Miguel Pro undercover, dressed in suit and tie, as he waged holy war in defense of the old Faith during the Cristero uprising. Dressed in disguise, was Father Pro afraid to ‘say it like it is’? Please!
There’s more than one way to get the job done, friends, and the job right now is to preserve the old Faith at all costs. ‘Sayin it like it is’ in times like these is sometimes just a really stupid thing to do! It’d be like Colonel Claus von Stauffenberg shouting condemnations of the psycho Nazis as he walked into the Wolf’s Lair with a bomb under his arm, preparing to assassinate Hitler. Not a good time for Claus to ‘say it like it is.’
Let’s not shoot ourselves (or the few good priests left) in the head by calling for recklessness when prudence and strategy are obviously working so well to save souls and to attach so many young people to the cause of Traditional Catholic restoration. [These are all fine points, but I will say that I have heard very strong condemnations of Francis from a number of FSSP priests. And, I have heard similar condemnations from diocesan and other traditional or traditionally inclined priests. I don’t know if condemnations of this kind are more frequent and severe from SSPX priests, but I will simply note that it would be a falsehood, in my experience, to declare Francis gets a pass from Ecclesia Dei priests.]
Yes, well, the FSSP priests don’t like the SSPX and vice versa. Maybe that’s true in some cases, but so what! The Dominicans and the Franciscans didn’t always get along, either……….. [This is the other point I wanted to touch on, it is true, there are some FSSP and other non-SSPX traditional priests who are extremely critical of the SSPX. Some of this criticism, to my mind, goes beyond the bounds of reason. I know the reverse is also widely true. However, many FSSP priests have quite warm attitudes towards the SSPX, and are well disposed towards them, generally speaking. Like all organizations made up of hundreds of passionate, committed people, you’re going to see a variety of points of view. That may be a milquetoast manner of speaking, but it’s true. I wish all priests in all these groups were much more supportive and possessed of a common purpose, but at Mr. Matt notes immediately below, all priests are humans and as prone to human failings as the rest of us].
So, there are precedents. We’re all human…even priests.
Bottom line: When I was at Mass last Sunday at the local FSSP parish, I saw dozens of little children kneeling at the consecration, striking their breasts at the elevation, receiving Holy Communion on the tongue in the company of their mothers and fathers and rafts of siblings.
It reminded me of the little Japanese children I’d seen at the SSPX chapel in Tokyo the month before—kneeling at the consecration, striking their breasts at the elevation, receiving Holy Communion on the tongue in the company of their mothers and fathers and rafts of siblings………
…………I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: Unite the clans! For God’s sake and the sake of those children facing the real possibility of the eradication of the old Faith from the face of the earth— unite the clans!
I couldn’t agree more, or close on a better note. We have so much in common, and so much to fight for together, that the differences between us can really take a back seat for the foreseeable future.
By the way, Twitter drives people insane. Just sayin‘. I can not advise anyone enough to stay off it. None of my rapidly growing into adulthood kids are on it and, I pray, never will be.
SSPX to Build Huge New Parish in St. Mary’s, Kansas July 14, 2019
Posted by Tantumblogo in Art and Architecture, awesomeness, Christendom, General Catholic, Glory, Grace, history, Latin Mass, Liturgy, Restoration, SSPX, Tradition.comments closed
Two things immediately come to mind after viewing this video on Rorate Caeli – 1. I’ll have to check this place out, I’ve never been to St. Mary’s, and 2., St. Mary’s is way, way bigger than Mater Dei. 6 Masses a day with one in a gymnasium seating what looks like close to 600 people, the video sort of vaguely mentions 4000 people attending St. Mary’s. I don’t know if that means every Sunday, but with Mater Dei averaging about 1500 on a Sunday St. Mary’s is much larger. And, I am not surprised, it is in a sense SSPX-town USA, and has been around 13 or 31 years longer than the FSSP parish in the Dallas Diocese. I had long suspected that if there was a TLM parish with higher attendance on Sunday than Mater Dei, it would be St. Mary’s.
Well, God bless them, and may He bless this work. Whatever one thinks of the SSPX – and I for one am very grateful for Archbishop Lefebvre and the priestly society he started and maintained, since without it the TLM and the entire traditional practice of the Faith would probably have been expunged from the Church – this is a huge step forward for the entire traditional movement. This is a cathedral-class building being built for the sole use of the Traditional Latin Mass and the traditional practice of the Faith. It’s a huge undertaking and requires at least $30 million (construction budgets have a tendency to go up as construction advances, but this crew looks like they are really focused on keeping a lid on expenses). And, I must say, it looks like this new church when built will be architecturally and artistically significant. I do pray it has outstanding stained glass and other aspects of liturgical art – there is a great deal available on the market these days, with so many ancient and beautiful churches being razed in Europe and parts of the US.
It looks less and less likely that we will have anything similar (certainly not on such a scale) locally. The funding just isn’t there. Well, a new church will happen in God’s good time. If you feel inspired to help bring a substantial new traditional Catholic parish to fruition, you can donate here.
Please Pray for the Repose of the Soul of Gregory Latz June 17, 2019
Posted by Tantumblogo in Admin, Four Last Things, General Catholic, Interior Life, reading, SSPX, thanksgiving, Tradition, true leadership.comments closed
I have asked for prayers for this man for some time. He fought a long battle with cancer and I learned to my sadness some weeks ago that Mr. Latz had died.
Please, if you would, also pray for my brother-in-law Brian Haeglin, who suffered a severe stroke about 2 weeks ago and is still hospitalized, and likely will be for weeks. Thank you and God bless you and your family.
They don’t call this a vale of tears for nothing.
I would also like to thank longtime reader Tim T for his continued support, and for his surprising gift in the mail this morning of some good and very interesting Catholic books. I haven’t read them yet, obviously, but I look forward to doing so, especially the biography of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. This is the one by Bishop Tissier de Mallerais. Interesting timing, I had been strongly considering ordering Michael Davies’ Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre. Do any of you familiar with both have any thoughts on these two books or preferences between them, as I believe they are generally regarded as the best studies of Archbishop Lefebvre. ?
Whatever one thinks of the SSPX, and I am personally well-disposed towards them and thankful for their existence (as they, at the very least, saved the public practice of the TLM, in my opinion), Marcel Lefebvre has had a huge influence on the Church in the past 60-70 years and more and deserves careful study. Plus, history has always been my favorite subject.
So thank you again Mr. T! I pity the fool!
No relation, I just felt like throwing a pic in this post.
Father Michael Rodriguez – Is It Acceptable for Catholics to Assist at the Novus Ordo……..? April 8, 2019
Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Basics, catachesis, Father Rodriguez, fightback, General Catholic, Glory, Grace, Latin Mass, Liturgy, manhood, Restoration, Spiritual Warfare, SSPX, Tradition, true leadership, Virtue.comments closed
………and is it acceptable to assist at the SSPX if that is their only alternative? Interestingly,, Dr. Peter Kwasniewski of Wyoming Catholic College, among many others, agrees with the latter conclusion regarding the SSPX, that yes it is acceptable/licit (the question of validity having long ago been settled) to assist at the SSPX, particularly when one is faced with a liturgical desert in a particular locale.. I agree with both good men, and I’m very grateful that the SSPX is around in this current climate.
Now, I personally feel increasingly strongly that one should assist at the TLM if one is reasonably available. Of course, the definition of reasonable availability will vary from person to person. But I would also add that not all Novus Ordo Masses are the same. While they are exceedingly rare, rarer, in many cases, than the TLM, very reverently offered Novus Ordo Masses with priests who are solidly catechized and who promote the solemn Doctrine of the Faith to the utmost of their ability are to me an exception to this general guideline. I do have a personal bias, however, in that just such a Mass and priest played a pivotal role in my family finding its way to the TLM. That priest continues to serve and do very much good. Other viable options are reverent Eastern Rite Masses and the like. There is a quite worthy option in the Irving area in St. Basil’s.
Finally, I’m sure SSPX partisans may take exception to framing of Kwasniewski’s post, making an argument that the SSPX is okay in certain conditions. I know many folks fully believe that the situation is quite the opposite, with the SSPX being entirely justified and association with it being really the default option. I get where you’re coming from. But rather than taking exception for Kwasniewski failing to evaluate the SSPX’s status as you might prefer, consider how far the situation has come in just the past few years, where now mainstream conservative Catholic sites are proclaiming it just fine to assist at an SSPX Mass for the Sacraments in the vast majority of cases (because a liturgical and doctrinal wasteland full of abuse and outright evil is exactly what most people face in this tragic time in Church history).
Anyway, Father Michael Rodriguez below, along with Father Isaac Mary Relyea, answering a number of questions at a recent Catholic conference. You’ll take this short post, and you’ll like it!
Yeah, baby……… August 28, 2018
Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, fun, General Catholic, silliness, SSPX, the struggle for the Church.comments closed
………nails it. Via Fr. Kevin M. Cusick:
Coulombe: Attendance at SSPX not Grave Disobedience……. February 28, 2018
Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, catachesis, General Catholic, Latin Mass, Liturgy, Restoration, SSPX, the struggle for the Church, Tradition.comments closed
……….or necessarily sinful, because even if one grants that the SSPX “rejects” certain parts of Vatican II, according to Benedict XVI, any novel declarations made at Vatican II were not dogmatic and thus not binding on conscience. Thus, the SSPX has been and remains free to disagree with Guadium Et Spes, Dignitatis Humanae, and Nostra Aetate to their heart’s content, in so far as those parts they disagree with present novel but non-dogmatic explanations.
Now, of course, many partisans of the revolution in the Church will argue that every single last jot and tittle of Vatican II represent THE most dogmatic things ever produced by the Church, especially the most novel or revolutionary parts. But I think Benedict is correct here, and has the support of both Paul VI and John XXIII in these respects – both of them declared the intent of the Council was not to define any new dogmas, but simply to explicate Church “teaching in a modern light.” The revolutionaries must make every utterance of Vatican II dogmatic in order to try to compel souls to adhere to the revolutionary program.
Now there are other matters surrounding the SSPX, as to whether they somehow disobeyed papal directives under Paul VI or John Paul II, but those matters really dealt with specific individuals and the individual excommunications have either been lifted, or the individuals in question have long since passed to their reward. I read some claim that all SSPX priests were suspended a divinis in 1976 and that those suspensions remain in effect and this serves as the basis for SSPX Masses being “valid but not licit,” according to many.
As to the actual question, however – whether attendance at an SSPX Mass constitutes “grave disobedience” or not – I think it very much depends on the spirit of the person who attends the Mass, does it not? One can attend a Novus Ordo offered by their bishop in a spirit of grave disobedience. I can think of a variety of reasons why one might feel compelled to attend SSPX Masses regularly without doing so from a standpoint of disobedience or bad faith. Perhaps all local Novus Ordos are so filled with abuse, error, and heresy that they represent a positive danger to one’s faith (and that of their children), perhaps one is just blown away with the beauty, reverence, and majesty of the TLM and no other option is available, perhaps the SSPX just happens to be close by, the Mass is beautiful and the soul in question isn’t hung up on which side in this debate might be right or wrong (IOW oblivious to the political situation), etc., etc.
Anyway Mr. Coulombe:
Matt: Cardinal Burke Did Not “Betray” Traditional Movement with SSPX Comments October 4, 2017
Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Basics, catachesis, episcopate, error, General Catholic, Latin Mass, Restoration, sadness, SSPX, the struggle for the Church, Tradition, Virtue.comments closed
If you’re fortunate, you’ve probably been spared the drama over some comments Cardinal Burke made at a conference back in June or July regarding the SSPX. When asked specifically whether lay Catholics should or could attend an SSPX parish, Cardinal Burke said (in main point) they were schismatic, and that while their Masses were valid they were not licit and should be avoided. This is the 100% mainstream conservative opinion in the Church, and the one that was espoused by the Pope Emeritus.
Some folks took grave exception to this commentary and opined that Cardinal Burke had somehow exposed himself as a true modernist at heart, or that he had failed the traditional movement, or that he is now rather suspect and not a good friend of traditional Catholics.
I think Michael Matt sums up my sentiments more or less exactly. I am not surprised at what Cardinal Burke said in the slightest. As I said, it’s pretty much the default position of the hierarchical Church, what these men in positions of power are taught and expected to say. This doesn’t make Cardinal Burke a bad person or somehow a turncoat. The good things he has done remain. He remains the chief opponent of Francis in the ecclesiastical hierarchy, the author of the Dubia, and a very good friend of the Traditional Latin Mass. But, like all of us, he’s far from perfect, and probably does not, nor ever will, align with our every desire as a perfect Catholic prelate (we all know there has only ever been one perfect prelate, and ever will be – Marcel Lefebvre).
Personally, I was neither exercised by the cardinal’s comments, nor by the reaction. In fact, I completely expected the reaction. If Matt’s video below did not so well accord with my own views and provide sensible counsel, I would not have covered the matter at all. I don’t want to see the comments turn into one of those endless SSPX/anti-SSPX imbroglios. They are boring and have already been done to death 1000 times over. You are welcome to your opinion and to express it, but if the tete a tete’s get to extensive and descend into incivility I will terminate the comments (but not take any action against particular commenters, especially those who have been around a long time). Experience has taught that anything touching on the SSPX tends to lead to great passions on all sides. Let’s try to keep things cool.
I think Matt’s video could be easily summed up as: don’t throw the baby out with the bath water. Sure, Cardinal Burke may have said something you or I or we don’t like, or wish he had said another way, but he does a great deal of good at the same time.
FSSP Priest Interview Reveals Divisions within Fraternity April 25, 2017
Posted by Tantumblogo in Admin, Basics, foolishness, General Catholic, huh?, Latin Mass, priests, Restoration, Revolution, sadness, Society, SSPX, the struggle for the Church, Tradition.comments closed
I got sent a link to the following post this morning by reader TT. It’s an interview of the rather small German province of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter, the organization of priests dedicated to the traditional Mass that was founded by some who “broke away” from the SSPX at the time of the illicit consecrations of 4 bishops in 1988.
This interview is already being picked up as fodder for the endless (and tiresome) SSPX/FSSP debates that have been raging for almost 30 years. For those who already feel the FSSP is hopelessly compromised, the interview is being taken as proof of the correctness of that view. For those with internal knowledge of the Fraternity, as it is typically called, however, this interview only reiterates the divisions already well known within this society of priests.
I’ll add comments to the post I copy below, because I think there are some important things to clarify/note, but I’d like to make one point clear at the outset: every grouping of more than a few individuals is going to have disparity of belief. Once you get into the hundreds, like the FSSP, there is going to be a whole range of belief. Given that, generally speaking, both acceptance of a more stridently traditional outlook (or a certain, sometimes severe, hostility to Vatican II) and friendliness/sympathy for the SSPX varies inversely with the age of the priest and their closeness to the original point of division in 1988. That is to say, older priests in the Fraternity, especially those who were present in 1988 and made the decision to leave the SSPX, generally tend to be more accommodating towards the post-conciliar ethos and hostile towards the SSPX. Younger priests are generally more hardcore “traditional” and more friendly towards the Society.
This is not a universal rule and there is infinite nuance, even within individual priests!, but that’s probably the broad norm. I would also add that there is, as I understand it, a certain division of belief between priests of the Fraternity in the Americas, and those in Europe, with those again in Europe tending towards being the less ardently traditional, or the more accommodating. Having said that, I concur with a commenter at 1Peter5 that this is far from an inspiring interview. While I think the interview is being presented in a fairly negative light by Maike Hickson at 1Peter5, I think I can also say these are some of the most unhelpful comments I’ve seen from an FSSP priest in print, perhaps less for what they say (esp. on reflection) but for the sense they seem to convey of accommodation, of being (to quote some commentary I’ve seen) “modernist lap dogs who will do anything so long as they can continue to offer the ‘old Mass'”. Then again, I find myself defending the priest quite consistently below – I think that while he exhibits an attitude far different from what I’d like to see expressed, it’s not entirely surprising given his past.
So keep that in mind as you read the below, which many of you perhaps already have:
The usually cautious and reserved Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter (FSSP) has now given its current opinion concerning the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) and on its possible formal re-integration into the structures of the Catholic Church. Father Bernhard Gerstle – the head of the German district of the FSSP – just gave a 24 April interview to the German Bishops’ official website Katholisch.dein which he explains many of the positions and opinions of his priestly fraternity. (Father Gerstle is the same priest who, in 2016, made a politely critical statement about the papal document Amoris Laetitia.) [An important note of clarification. Fr. Gerstle may be the head of the German district of the Fraternity, but I think it a great leap to derive from that that he is speaking for the mind of the entire Fraternity. Words of Fr. John Berg, former Superior of the entire order, in Latin Mass Magazine from 2015 (which I haven’t to hand) were far different and conveyed a far more traditionally Catholic understanding.]
Father Gerstle explains, first of all, that he himself split off from the SSPX because of the “illicit episcopal consecrations” in 1988 which, in his eyes, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger tried to forestall. (Interestingly, and just in the recent past, there have been voices saying that Cardinal Ratzinger, as pope, later removed the excommunications of the four SSPX bishops because he realized that he had contributed to the intensification of that earlier conflict. Worth noting is that, Bishop Athanasius Schneider, who has served as an official Vatican liaison to the SSPX, recently called this act of excommunication an “injustice.”) [This little aside causes me to wonder whether the author is not trying to inculcate a bit of doubt, even resentment, towards Fr. Gerstle. Sure “some voices” may say that, but lots of others say that the excommunications were wholly right and just. Obviously Fr. Gerstle is going to have a bias since he left the SSPX over this matter. I am curious as to why Hickson chose to introduce this seeming rebuttal right here.] In Gerstle’s eyes, the 1988 breach happened due to a “lack of trust toward Rome.” He also claims that many more priests within the SSPX had disapproved of the episcopal consecrations, “but did not make the final step.” Thus, there were “only a few priests and seminarians who left the Society of St. Pius X at the time [in 1988].” Gerstle explicitly says that the foundation of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter happened “essentially due to Cardinal Ratzinger, [who was] then head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.” [For those of us who weren’t involved, I don’t think it is easy to comprehend the depth of feeling on both sides involved in the 1988 consecrations. This was an event so trying and so radicalizing I don’t think many today fully realize the effect these events had on the participants. As one who was directly involved and experienced that heart-rending time, I don’t find Fr. Gerstle’s comments out of place. There are many involved who share his views, and of course, many who don’t, but it’s not like he’s breaching some radical new concept no one’s ever said before, even those who are very attached to the traditional practice of the Faith.]
Father Gerstle further distances himself from those smaller groups within the SSPX – whom he calls “hardliners” – who “reject the Second Vatican Council to a large extent, for example with regard to religious freedom or as to the decree on ecumenism.” Some of them, he says, also doubt the validity of the new liturgy. Gerstle makes it clear, moreover, where the Fraternity of St. Peter stands with regard to the Second Vatican Council: [No, he gives his own opinion. Unless he directly stated he was speaking as the voice of the entire Fraternity as a matter of policy – which if he did, we can be certain Hickson would be trumpeting this from the rooftops – then he’s giving his opinion, which Hickson is taking to mean it is the policy of the Fraternity because of his position, but I can say from direct experience there are many Fraternity priests who do not conform to the views expressed in this para or the one below. As to the divisions within the SSPX, these are well known and I find pointing them out wholly unremarkable.]
The Fraternity of St. Peter, however, has accepted to study without prejudice the conciliar texts and has come to the conclusion that there is no breach with any previous magisterial statements.However, some texts are formulated in such a way that they can give way to misinterpretations. But, in the meantime, Rome has already made here concordant clarifications which the Society of St. Pius X should now also recognize. [Emphasis added] [I would say the situation now remains as it has been, vague, uncertain, and unclear. Some tradition-friendly individuals in the Curia have made clarifications, they have expressed their opinions, but that is far from saying there has been a wholesale clarification of the problematic aspects of Vatican II. Rome appears willing to say almost anything to get the SSPX regularized. But whether these stands hold after that occurs is anyone’s guess, but there remains a huge monolith of progressive-modernist opinion in the clergy and hierarchy that VII is perfect, the best expression of the Faith ever conceived, and that the Church was literally re-born in 1965. That remains an extremely dangerous ideology that has not been washed away by a few conciliatory comments from folks at the Ecclesia Dei commission.]
Additionally, Father Gerstle insists that for the FSSP, the new 1983 Code of Canon Law is the standard. In his eyes, the SSPX has here some more reservations. For the FSSP, explains Gerstle “there is not a pre- and a post-conciliar Church.” “There is only the one Church which goes back to Christ,” he adds. Gerstle also insists that the FSSP does not “wish to polarize or even to promote splits,” but that they wish to instill in their own parishes “an ecclesial attitude.” Certain (unnamed, unspecified) abuses in the Church should only be criticized in a “differentiated and moderate way.” [We are only getting very partial and bifurcated comments. I don’t read German so I can’t go to the original and Google translate is too unreliable in such fine points. Having said that, I find these comments disappointing and far too conciliatory towards the post-conciliar construct. Then again, we do not know what pressures the Fraternity is under right now, but I understand they are considerable and the dangers great from those who would like to do to the ED communities what has been done to the FI’s.]
Father Gerstle also distances himself from the concept “traditionalist” when he says: “This notion I do not like at all to hear. We are not traditionalists, but simply Catholic.” As Catholics, he says, “we appreciate tradition,” but without “completely blocking organic adaptations and changes.” [This one I have no problem with. Some of the most informed readers of this blog eschew the term traditional, and say that what we practice is simply the Catholic Faith as it has always been believed, understood, and lived. There is nothing remarkable about “organic changes” either. VII was wholly inorganic.]
The worthy celebration of the traditional liturgy, together with a loyal teaching of the Catholic Faith, is at the center of the work of the FSSP, according to Gerstle. “Salvation of souls” and “eternal life” are their Fraternity’s own concern. Unfortunately, adds the German priest, “the Four Last Things have been widely neglected in the Church, with the effect of a belittling and attenuation of sin and of a loss of the practice of sacramental confession.” [I would hope this is uncontroversial. In fact, one could take from this a tacit rebuke of the post-conciliar construct, where the Mass is typically deplorable and the “teaching” counterfeit.]
Father Gerstle sees that “one cannot simply introduce everywhere again the old liturgy and, so to speak, impose it upon people.” “Both rites thus [with the help of the “reform of the reform”] should enrich each other,” explains the priest. Certain elements of the new liturgy could be “enriching for the extraordinary form of the Roman Rite.” [He’s just parroting PBXVI here, but I am personally extremely leery of any “enrichment” flowing from the NO to the TLM. I think there is virtually nothing in the NO that would “improve” the TLM.]
Moreover, Father Gerstle also explains that, in the German district, there are growing numbers of faithful who are interested in the traditional Tridentine Mass. Some of the FSSP Masses have “100 to 180 faithful” in attendance. He admits, however, that the FSSP has not too many vocations. “All in all we have a good number of incomers [16 new priests in 2016 and currently some 100 seminarians altogether], but it is not so that we are under pressure due to high numbers of vocations.” [The Fraternity is generally doing better in North America, where there is a certain pressure to grow the seminary. As for Mass attendance, the local FSSP parish is now attracting 1200+ on a typical Sunday. That is unusual, but the growth is consistent throughout, and I pray all the other tradition-oriented groups are experiencing the same or better.]
At the end of this interview, Gerstle explains that the SSPX faces a dilemma: either Bishop Fellay chooses unity with Rome and will have a split within his own organization, or he will choose unity within the SSPX and will not have unity with Rome. The German priest explains, as follows:
I think that the current Superior General, Bishop Bernard Fellay, will have to decide between unity with Rome and unity within the Society of St. Piux X. The realists within the leadership will then hopefully realize that there is no alternative to a reconciliation with Rome.
I find the first part of this analysis to be insightful, but I think anyone who has followed the situation even as casually as I have has reached about the same conclusion. I also think the second part is right, though I continue to have doubts as to whether now, with Francis in charge, is the right time. The man has a demonstrated track record of deliberately targeting tradition-embracing groups for destruction. But may God’s will be done.
As for the interview, this is absolutely not what I would prefer to see from a leading Fraternity priest. But I’m not sure it confirms the fatal weakness of the Fraternity, either. Does having a regular canonical status involve some compromise? Absolutely*. And folks in the SSPX had better be FULLY cognizant of that fact when they sign their “deal” with Rome.
Well I don’t post for a week then you get a novella. Lucky you. Sorry folks, posting is going to be infrequent for the foreseeable future. I had a very unusual situation for first 76 months of this blog’s history but that period is definitively order. I probably would not have posted today if this matter hadn’t hit so close to home. We’ve had a nightmare bronchitis/pneumonia go through our family that takes weeks to get over. I’m still fighting it but am back at work but also playing lots of catchup. Hope to get another post out tomorrow but who knows.
*-but so far, only of a limited and generally unobtrusive (or undamaging) sort. The “gravitational pull” of an unreconciled SSPX probably plays a role in the limited nature of the compromises forced on the FSSP – which is why I fear regularization for the entire restoration of the Faith. But ultimately God is in charge and we have to want what is best for the salvation of souls, which everyone (not really, but lots) tells me is regularization. So it must be it.
What to Make of the Francis’ SSPX Marriage Imbroglio? April 6, 2017
Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, catachesis, cultural marxism, different religion, disaster, error, foolishness, Francis, General Catholic, horror, persecution, Revolution, scandals, Society, SSPX, the struggle for the Church, Tradition.comments closed
I chose the word imbroglio, because gambit felt a bit critical, and indult seemed off the mark, too.
For those who do not know, Francis, Bishop of Rome, extended another “indulgence,” or a faculty with no formal juridical structure, to the SSPX, this time concerning marriage. Readers will know that since Advent 2015 the SSPX has had faculties to hear Confession granted from Francis himself. Originally intended for the Year of Mercy, those faculties have been extended indefinitely. A few days ago, Francis, through the CDF and Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, granted permission to local ordinaries to grant faculties for the Sacrament of Marriage, as well, under some rather odd circumstances. The “normal” means of doing this would be to have a Novus Ordo priest perform the actual marriage sacrament, or to oversee it somehow?, with the nuptial Mass following according to the ancient Rite and conducted by a Society priest. But in addition – since this would surely be a huge burden to already overtaxed (or so we are told) diocesan priests – there is also a caveat allowing faculties to simply be granted without the involvement of local clergy.
That’s admittedly a rough summation of a fairly complex initiative but you can read all the details at the Rorate link. The point of this post is not to haggle over details of this initiative, or whatever it is, and to talk aboutits implications.
I have seen two general reactions to this, and they have followed in line with sentiments folks hold towards SSPX regularization overall. Some, like Rorate, are convinced that both this latest indulgence by Francis, and the overall process of regularization that now seems coming close to fruition, are unalloyed goods and something every faithful soul should be really excited about. I would like to present some text confirming this optimistic view, but Rorate seems to have shifted much of their focus to Twitter and while I’ve seen tweets confirming their excitement at this development, such as this: “This is clearly a final step towards full regularization that will go away when the papers are signed. It’s a good thing.”
Others, like Michael Matt below, are far more skeptical. In fact, in my very narrow experience, it seems a lot of folks who have had a long time association with the Society of St. Pius X are among the most skeptical of both this latest grant of faculties and the overall process of regularization. The Remnant video:
“They are wrecking the Church, they are enabling heretics everywhere……They are raping our kids, physically and spiritually, and then they have the audacity, to demand obedience. Oh so pious. To demand OBEDIENCE, and to hold the threat of schism over the heads of little old ladies to prevent them from in any way standing in opposition to their diabolical agenda.” Great rant.
Former Catholics are now the second largest “denomination” in the country. 70% of those baptized in Catholics in the US have fallen away. 80% of even those remaining American Catholics never go to Mass (and I bet it’s at least slightly higher than that). Even the vast majority of “practicing Catholics” are heretics of one form or another. Almost all of them support the use of contraception, and a large majority do not believe in the Real Presence, the very core, the essence, of our Faith. And these statistics from the US are much better than one would find in Europe and other locales, the Church’s ancient home.
Matt brings up a key point and one that I have gradually, over the years, come to accept, not as a metaphysical certitude but as being supported by the preponderance of the evidence: that “full communion” is a term much bandied about by those who have wrought the destruction of the Church in this world while demanding obedience from all to go along with a project they can easily see is causing nothing but devastation for souls. I am not sure what meaning that term means when bishops “in full communion” can declare, with the full backing of the pope, that adulterers can freely receive the Blessed Sacrament, re-crucifying our Blessed Lord over and over and over again in a horrid sacrilege. Given what is going on in the Church and world, as evidence by those statistics above and what we see and read every day, the arguments over the canonical regularity of the SSPX seem like a tempest in a teacup. Even worse, these same Church leaders who constantly appeal to obedience while snarling at and denigrating all those who strive to practice the Faith as it has always been practiced are the very ones who have placed the Church in the direst straits of her 2000 year history!
Not that the canonical status of the SSPX is a hill I’m prepared to die on, nor something I’m overly concerned about. I know there are fervent partisans on both sides, and I’ve always struggled to stay out of those endless squabbles where partisans stack up enormous piles of books and quotes from Fathers, Doctors, and Saints to support their favored side. It just seems to me, practically speaking, all this concern over and focus on the canonical status of the SSPX is just not a huge issue, compared to all else that is going on. The Church has fallen into the worst crisis of her history and the ostensible imperfect canonical status of the 0.05% of the Church (nominally speaking) associated with the SSPX just doesn’t concern me that much.
I do continue to be very ambivalent regarding this apparently unstoppable ongoing process of regularization. I’ve been catechized to believe that this must and has to be a very good thing, but something – my own lack of faith, the temptations of satan, worldly experience, natural cynicism, something – keeps shouting in my interior spaces that this is a grave, grave danger, not just to the SSPX but to all the Ecclesia Dei communities and the entire human aspect of the Church. It is also an opportunity, yes, but given how easily communities like the Franciscans of the Immaculate have been completely crushed by the modernist powers, it seems like the opportunity is far outweighed by the dangers.
If regularization comes to pass part of me will be happy and I’ll pray like mad – as I already have been – that everything will turn out for the best. In the grand, grand scheme of things I know it will, that the Church will be restored and Christ’s reign recognized by all, but I cannot get over my concern for the millions of souls who will continue to fall into hell so long as the Church persists in this disastrous crisis. Whether SSPX regularization will ultimately be a massive turning point in the restoration of the Faith, or simply another grim milestone in the chronicle of the Church’s long demise prior to the parousia, I do not know. None of us does. So I’ll just keep hoping and praying that God will have mercy on His Church and raise up the leadership and laity we so desperately need, and not that which we and the world deserve.
If you want an even more detailed critical take on this initiative, sent in by reader D, read this. I am concerned that it seems like the leadership of the SSPX is giving evidence of an attitude of appeasement towards the overwhelmingly modernist hierarchy in the Church and not rocking the boat, which bodes ill, I think, for their role in the Church after regularization, but we shall see.
If the SSPX Regularizes Under Francis, There Will Be No Going Back February 28, 2017
Posted by Tantumblogo in different religion, error, Francis, General Catholic, persecution, SSPX, the struggle for the Church, Tradition, true leadership, Virtue.comments closed
Rorate Caeli, with all the good work they do, continues to hint strongly that an accord regularizing the SSPX is very close to being finalized. Rorate has also long indicated their unqualified support for this regularization to occur, even, or especially?, under Francis. The great hope, I believe, is that regularization of the canonical status of the SSPX will introduce a great leaven into the Church, strengthening the cause of Tradition all around and hastening the much longed for restoration of Holy Mother Church. Of course, most feel there is much to be desired in regularization as an end to itself, as something that is very necessary for the good of the souls within or associated with the Society of St. Pius X.
I have not been so wholeheartedly in favor of this regularization, at least not now, under Francis, because I see the man as having a very clear agenda to wholly remake the Church, and that does not include long “permitting” recalcitrant recusants like the SSPX and others who hold to the great Tradition of our Faith to remain even a minor annoyance. Many in the Society seem aware of the potential for danger, even what might be called a “betrayal,” in the regularization, for the same penalties and attempts at co-opting made in the 70s and 80s seem to be at least quite possible in the present-day Church environment, but some tend to brush these concerns aside, claiming that if the Society could “escape” the post-conciliar milieu once, they can do it again. It is this kind of thinking I’d like to address in this post.
But before I do, at what cost will the regularization be granted? I am supremely doubtful that Francis regularizing the SSPX without any changes in thought, practice, or behavior on their part is simply one of his patented acts of mercy. Indeed, some believe there already exist hints that the Society IS changing in response to the potential for regularization. An anonymous priest recently levied the charge that the SSPX has been noticeably quiet in response to many of Francis’ errors and attacks on the Faith. A brief review of the SSPX website covering articles going back a month or so does not reveal any specific criticisms of the present pontificate, even though there are continuing general explorations of the problems of the post-conciliar Church and even the notion of papal heresy considered generally. Those who follow the SSPX more closely than I do (which is hardly at all) may rebut this particular claim. Even still, I would find it remarkable if this pontiff would really regularize the SSPX without some kind of quid pro quo. And let’s consider this, even if there is no quid pro quo demanding SSPX silence on certain matters, is it not human nature to want to play it safe during periods of delicate negotiation and subsequent “re-entry” into the full, regular life of the Church?
I’d also like to note that I am not entirely comfortable with the sense of fear and trepidation I have over regularization now, under Francis, while I certainly desire it as an overall objective to be realized. Part of me desires to see the SSPX enjoy full canonical recognition/regularity instantly, which would largely simply recognize their reality as being Catholic and part of the Church. I have a certain measure of guilt over my sense that this accord, if it occurs, will be supremely dangerous to the cause of Tradition and could even set it back decades, erasing all the small gains made in recent years and pushing whatever tiny bit of tradition remains to the extreme fringes of the Church, if not wholly outside it. But I completely understand the “regularization now is the only acceptable stand” arguments and on many levels wish I could share them.
But regarding regularization and then some kind of betrayal, could the SSPX simply “go back?” We have to look at the history. Archbishop Lefebvre did not set out to create a canonically irregular body “separated” from the Roman authority or somehow at odds with it. He simply wanted to preserve some semblance of the traditional practice of the Faith amidst the insanity of the immediate post-VII years, so he started a seminary to continue training priests in the pre-conciliar ways. As was inevitable in Church of the 70s, most bishops and powers in Rome were overtly hostile to this new priestly society. It didn’t take long before charges of disobedience were levied and refusals to abandon the traditional practice of Faith – the Catholic Faith – resulted in a certain ostracization from the “mainstream Church.” Eventually the issue was forced by various matters, especially the consecrations of 1988, for which Lefebvre, the four consecrated bishops, and others directly involved were excommunicated. Some of those excommunications were lifted by Pope Benedict XVI, but the canonical irregularity has remained.
The reason I go over this very complex history, admittedly very briefly, is because it is critical to understand that what happened then is radically different to what would have to occur if the SSPX is regularized, finds its situation intolerable, and then tries to revert to its present status. What occurred very gradually and under very different circumstances then – a gradual process of alienation between the SSPX and the authorities in Rome – would have to occur suddenly, almost violently, should the Society be regularized. Back in 1974, say, no one knew what would develop 5 or 10 or 15 years later, what the “end point” would be. But today the situation would be inverted, where all would know exactly what was in the offing and what the final destination would be – more excommunications, loss of canonical status, etc. This is huge.
Then there is the factor of human nature. After fighting a long, lonely struggle for decades, and finally achieving fully regular canonical status, would the wherewithal really exist to separate themselves again should things go south? It took an enormously charismatic, convicted figure in Archbishop Lefebvre to create and hold together the SSPX during its initial, very trying period of formation and then alienation from authority. Does such a figure exist today? Again, it is so important to note that everyone now knows where another irreconcilable dispute between Rome and the SSPX will lead to, instantly, this time. None of that was certain or known when Archbishop Lefebvre was treading these choppy waters decades ago.
From a psychological perspective, for a very long time, the Society maintained that they did not need to “return” to the Church, but that the Church needed to return to herself, and then reconciliation would occur naturally. Almost, in a sense, “Rome” coming hat in hand to the Society begging forgiveness for having lost its collective mind in the 60s and 70s and asking readmittance to the Church the SSPX had maintained. Whether that notion was ever realistic or not, the point is, Rome has not changed. In fact, under Francis, it has gotten far worse than it’s been in decades. Will a return at this time not entail a certain surrender of the vital, animating focal point of the Society’s existence?
Our experience in recent years with other, admittedly much more secular organizations, is that those who have resisted the secular pagal progressive zeitgeist for years, even decades, and then surrender on some key point – like the Boy Scouts – quickly surrender on all or many points of vital import. Resistance becomes totally untenable. They become co-opted, as it were, by the process of accommodating whatever it is the powers that be demand of them.
I’m sure people within the SSPX ,or closer to it than I am, have hashed over these matters in far more detail than I can. Indeed, the SSPX-SO split off because they see regularization as tantamount to surrender. I’m sure they’re aware of the risks. At least, I hope they are. Because I fear what is at stake in this process is far more than the canonical status of the SSPX, but possibly the entire traditional practice of the Faith, extending to the Ecclesia Dei communities, tradition-embracing religious orders, and even Summorum Pontificum and the ability of some diocesan priests, under friendlier bishops than we’ve had here in Dallas, to offer the TLM. All of these latter entities either came into being as a direct result of the SSPX’s existence, and the pressure that existence exerted on the Church. Indeed, many of them were created or allowed to exist both as a form of pressure on the SSPX (keeping people who otherwise might have associated formally with the SSPX from doing so) and as a carrot to lure them “back.” If the SSPX is regularized and back within the fold, then what purpose do those things serve anymore, from a realpolitik point of view? None. How long will the be permitted to continue to exist?
These men in power today in Rome, they do not fool around, and they despise all things traditional to a degree many readers would find unimaginable. Is this a leap of Faith, trusting in God’s Grace to prevail in the end, or a leap into the abyss? On a cost-benefit ratio, do the benefits come close to equaling the dangers here?
Anyway, those are my concerns. Some will think this makes me a bad Catholic and short on faith, but I simply see so much danger here, and we have the example of the Franciscans of the Immaculate to guide us. I’m also less and less sure what real meaning canonical regularity has in a Church where adultery is praised and fornicators are held up as virtuous examples for the rest of us, while being a faithful soul is excoriated as the very worst kind of person to be. With this kind of rank (and mass) moral inversion ongoing, the finer points of canonical regularity seem like arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
A Blog for Dallas Area Catholics 