Bishop Fellay of the Society of St. Pius X to Meet Pope August 29

In this year’s May-June issue of the French bi-monthly magazine “Sous la Bannière”, on page 7, there is a most interesting quotation attributed to Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI. It reads as follows:

“A source in Austria, preferring to remain anonymous, assures us that Cardinal Ratzinger recently made the following admission to an Austrian bishop who is a friend of his: ‘I have two problems on my conscience: Archbishop Lefebvre and Fatima. As to the latter, my hand was forced. As to the former, I failed’.”

Of course if the “source in Austria” prefers to remain anonymous, we have no means of verifying whether the Cardinal truly said these things about Archbishop Lefebvre and Fatima, but the quotation is at least true to life, so it is worth dwelling on for a few moments.

As for what the Cardinal says about Fatima, we suspected back in June of 2000, when the Vatican – with the Cardinal in the forefront – supposedly released the third Secret, that there was some trickery going on. Either Rome was still hiding the true Secret, the one kept in his room by Pius XII but never looked at, or Rome was revealing the true Secret but twisting its interpretation. Either way, we said to ourselves at that time, Rome was wanting to have done with Fatima, and we saw Cardinal Ratzinger playing a leading part in the manoeuvre. Now comes the quotation from Austria confirming that the Cardinal was indeed taking part in a manoeuvre. Who “forced his hand”? Was it John-Paul II? Some hidden power behind both Pope and Cardinal? God knows.

As for what the quotation says about Archbishop Lefebvre, there too, if the quotation is not true it is certainly true to life. In May of 1988 when Archbishop Lefebvre was threatening to consecrate with or without Rome’s permission bishops for the Society of St. Pius X, it was Cardinal Ratzinger who represented the Holy See in the negotiations meant to head off the “break” that such consecrations would involve. We recall that the Cardinal almost “succeeded” on May 6 when Archbishop Lefebvre signed a draft agreement, but the Cardinal “failed” when the Archbishop after a sleepless night took his signature back on the following day. And now comes the quotation from Austria confirming that the Cardinal still sees the termination of those negotiations as a “failure”.

This confirmation is important as suggesting that the Cardinal will remain, now he is Pope, in the same frame of mind to deal with the Society of St. Pius X in the audience which this August 29 he is due to grant to Archbishop Lefebvre’s successor at the head of the Society, Bishop Bernard Fellay. In other words, it is highly likely both that the present Pope is sincerely convinced that the “break” between the Society and Rome must be brought to an end, and that he will give all the appearances of being of good will when he employs all possible means, including his long experience of Roman diplomacy and all the prestige of his now exalted rank, to bring the “break” to an end.

In fact, a Rome-SSPX agreement seems impossible. And of course if the Society rejoined Rome, the resistance of Catholic Tradition would carry on without it, and if the Pope “converted”, then instead of the gentle war now being waged on his right by Tradition, he would be faced with a savage war being waged on his left by the cabal of neo-modernists. Either way, the war goes on between the friends and the enemies of the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ.

But what is important here and now for Catholics who will be following with interest the up-coming meeting between Rome and the Society, is not to fall into any of the traps that the Devil will be setting for them.

Firstly, the fact that the Society is asking to be received in audience by the Holy Father does not mean that it is on the point of betraying. If there is no contact between Tradition and Rome, now will the truth of Tradition ever make itself heard in Rome?

Secondly, there being a contact does not mean that an agreement is possible. Let all the Catholics who dream of fitting together Catholic Tradition and the present neo-modernist authorities of the Church come back down to earth. Catholic Authority and Catholic Truth will one day re-unite, but nothing for the moment indicates that that day is tomorrow – or the day after!

Lastly – and this is the subtlest trap of them all – let nobody think that because the Pope is of good will, therefore he cannot be a neo-modernist, or that because he is a neo-modernist, therefore he cannot be of good will. The present crisis of the Church would be much less grave and would deceive far fewer people if the neo-modernists were obviously of ill will. It is characteristic of these last times that bad principles are so widespread that few people are aware of the fact, and many people do evil convinced that they are doing good. That is why the Cardinal’s quotation is true to life in which he says that his “failure” of 1988 weighs “on his conscience”.

Let us pray to the Mother of God for Benedict XVI to see, above all the need to consecrate Russia to her Immaculate Heart, and if we ourselves can see, let us pray to her that we too not go blind – “He who thinks he stands, let him take care not to fall”, says St. Paul (I Cor X, 12). The times are bad!

When SSPX reconciles, and the TLM is freed, then???

I would normally use the phrase, "let me look into my crystal ball..."

I think things would turn quickly, as people who are serious about Catholicism flock to parishes where Mass is offered seriously. If that is the Tridentine Mass, then thats where they will be.

I think those who support the Indult now, are those who would be even more active in the parishes when they feel less like an oddity and more like a valued member. Right now, the mention of Latin Mass makes some quiver, because of bad experiences with those who express that SSPX-style defiance.

One current problem is there are a lot of people who attend Church but don't have the Church as a purveryor of self-improvement and growth, or even something they work with to solve problems and enrich the Faith. These hangers-on tend to go to Catholic Church because they get a discount on tuition.

I think when the people who are serious about the Faith have a jurisdictional parish, that supports the spiritual needs with reverent and possibly Tridentine Mass, those CHurches will fill. The first effect would be that changes will occur at Church that have Novus Ordo Mass, and those too will improve and be more reverent. Kind of like a price war, looking to attract those high value hard working, and collection plate filling serious Catholics.

Mershon I have not always agreed with you, and I am sure I had irritated you in the past, but I appreciate your thoughtful point of view.

If someone attends an SSPX chapel, I look at it like they attend a Call to Action meeting. It is a dangerous thing for the faith, and the way they relate to the Church as a whole. When you foster suspicion, you are rarely disappointed. Sometime suspicion in the people governing the Church is well founded.

At first, I try to make it clear I am talking about the SSPX and not that person. Sometimes I pop off.

After someone opens their mouth, and says something that illustrates they have imbibed schism, then I have no qualms about my opinion.

No person is forced to attend an SSPX chapel, if they understand the nature of the Church clearly. I think some SSPX adherents do have an element of false advertising, and overstate the status of people regularly attending those chapels.

I think there are indeed good people in the SSPX, and having those people participate in the fight instead of being bricked up in a chapel would be very helpful. One doesn't hide your light under a basket, or in a chapel, right?

"One doesn't hide your light under a basket, or in a chapel, right?"

If one lives in certain dioceses where there are no truly Catholic liturgies nor truly Catholic priests, and no examles of holiness, and where heresy is spouted as a matter of course, and where confessions are not offered regularly, or rarely, and one has numerous small children, as a father, I would say it would be perfectly reasonable to attend an alternative as an emergency situation. The Vatican agrees. The application of these circumstances must come with the help of a well-formed Catholic conscience. The same would apply to the necessity to attend a Greek Orthodox church to fulfill one's Sunday obligation.

If one lives in certain dioceses where there are no truly Catholic liturgies nor truly Catholic priests

If you think a Pauline Mass is not licit, then this condition would exist. That is not an orthodox position. If the Priest was validly ordained, and the Mass is conducted as a Catholic Mass following the GIRM, with no serious defects, then indeed there is no excuse. Even at that, the other options are non-Roman rite Catholic Churches, and there are plenty. Preference for the TLM is not considered licit, that comes from the Holy See.

I understand about children, but frankly, my kids go to CCD, and then when they get home they get the advanced version from me, and our discussions.

This condition does not exist in the United States.

I am Protestant? No, it is the Vatican who is Protestant! You are being led down that slippery slippery Path........

Vatican's New Ecumenical Officer May Smooth Relations with Protestants
Walter Kasper has criticized Dominus Iesus for treating Protestant denominations as "not churches in the proper sense."

By Luigi Sandri in Rome

On January 22, the day after the Pope announced the names of the new cardinals, including Kasper, a Catholic magazine in Austria, Die Furche, published an interview with Kasper in which he expressed doubts about the presentation and interpretation last year of a controversial Vatican document, Dominus Iesus, which annoyed many Protestant churches.
Dominus Iesus, published on September 5 and signed by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, stated that the churches which grew out of the Reformation of the 16th century were not "churches in the proper sense."
"That affirmation offended other people," Walter Kasper told Die Furche, "and if my friends are offended, then so am I. It's an unfortunate affirmation—clumsy and ambiguous." He added that the section of Dominus Iesus on the Protestant churches was written in "abstract, doctrinaire language, which in some ways excludes [others]. The tone is not appropriate."
Another negative aspect of Dominus Iesus signaled by Kasper was its failure to mention the fruits of ecumenical dialogue undertaken since the Second Vatican Council (1962-65). He pointed out that Pope John Paul had specifically referred to this dialogue in his encyclical on ecumenism, Ut unum sint, published in 1995.
Referring to the claim that Protestant churches were not "churches in the proper sense," Kasper said out that Cardinal Ratzinger had correctly explained that "churches which grew out of the Reformation have a different idea of church from us [Catholics]. There is no dispute about that. These churches do not wish to be churches like the Catholic Church. They do not retain the apostolic succession for the episcopate or the ministry of Peter, which for us are essential. So in fact Dominus Iesus does not signify any change in the Vatican's ecumenical policy."
Moreover, he added, "the document upholds the common ecumenical belief that Jesus Christ is the sole and universal mediator of our salvation. Protestants say the same thing."
In an interview with Lutheran World Information in Geneva late in February, Cardinal Kasper also commented on Dominus Iesus, saying that the original controversy had now been more or less overcome. He felt that the pontifical council had succeeded in its attempt to clarify the misunderstandings that had arisen. The language of the statement was certainly different from that of the Second Vatican Council and from that used by Pope John Paul, and did not mention previous dialogues, Cardinal Kasper admitted. He added that Dominus Iesus was intended as a warning against "a relativism or a fundamental pluralism" and stressed that Pope John Paul had repeatedly stated "that for him, the decisions taken at the Second Vatican Council are irrevocable and irreversible for the ecumenical process."

"If you think a Pauline Mass is not licit, then this condition would exist."

Just by the fact that you call the Mass by the name of one Pope should reveal more to you than anything I have to say. I am willing to go out on a limb and state categorically that nearly EVERY SINGLE "Pauline-rite" liturgy offered in the U.S. on nearly every day of the week is illicit--undera strict understanding of the term. If you want to discuss specifics, we can do this privately.

"That is not an orthodox position. If the Priest was validly ordained, and the Mass is conducted as a Catholic Mass following the GIRM, with no serious defects, then indeed there is no excuse."

If "ifs and buts" were candies and nuts, we'd all have a merrier Christmas! Altar girls? Communion in the hand? Under both species? The habitual use of extraordinary ministers? Faulty English translations? NO Latin in most Novus Ordo Masses, directly contradictory to Sacrosactum Concilium? Which version of the GIRM? The new one or the old one? The American adaptation one, or the USCCB modified version? The one that states that kneeling to receive communion is the universal norm, or the one that contradicts that, all with Vatican "approval?"

"Even at that, the other options are non-Roman rite Catholic Churches, and there are plenty"

Not in South Carolina. There is one. It is 3-1/2 hours away one way.

"Preference for the TLM is not considered licit," (by itself: this reason "by itself" is not considered a good enough reason, not "licit."

"that comes from the Holy See." I have a personal letter from Msgr. Perl directly related to my specific situation that addresses this very matter, as well as others. I think you are universalizing your own particular situation and your own particular opinion.

"I understand about children, but frankly, my kids go to CCD, and then when they get home they get the advanced version from me, and our discussions."

Great. Did you know they are soon going to be subjected to mandated sexual education as early as first grade as part of the VIRTUS program that is being sold as being the Bishops' response to the homosexual crisis. I hope you believe that is a good use of their 45-minute class time.

"This condition does not exist in the United States."

The thing speaks for itself. In your personal opinion. One must use and rely upon one's rightly formed Catholic conscience for individual situations such as today's times bring. Can't help if you don't recognize the magnitude of the crisis.

I am willing to go out on a limb and state categorically that nearly EVERY SINGLE "Pauline-rite" liturgy offered in the U.S. on nearly every day of the week is illicit

OK, I guess that pretty much puts you in a bad place. A Novus Ordo Mass or "Pauline" Mass, is the noramtive Mass of the Church. If you think that is illicit, then sadly, you are declaring the Church Christ founded as fallen.

Did you know they are soon going to be subjected to mandated sexual education as early as first grade as part of the VIRTUS program

That isn't the nature of that class, and in particular, not at my parish.

If you have a letter from Msgr. Perl, wonderful for you. Conversely, your particular situation does not extend to others. I would also say if you are telling people the Novus Ordo is illicit, then you need more than a letter from Msgr. Pnrl to set that right.

I am willing to go out on a limb and state categorically that nearly EVERY SINGLE "Pauline-rite" liturgy offered in the U.S. on nearly every day of the week is illicit

OK, I guess that pretty much puts you in a bad place. A Novus Ordo Mass or "Pauline" Mass, is the noramtive Mass of the Church. If you think that is illicit, then sadly, you are declaring the Church Christ founded as fallen.

Evidently, you do not even know the difference between "illicit" and "invalid." Illicit means there was some change of wording, gestures or rubrics not in accord with the GIRM. Nearly every Mass has some added or deleted word or words by the presiding priest that would qualify it as being illicit.

The SSPX Masses are illicit, as they are done outside of the approval of the local Ordinary. Nearly every single Sunday Mass is illicit if it does not conform exactly to the rubrics and words in the Missal.

I need no other letter from Msgr. Perl. I never told you the contents of that letter. You need to understand the difference between "illicit" (illegal) and invalid.

The nature of the error of integrism is overemphasizing every defect in a Mass.

Not every error or defect in the Mass makes it illicit. It is not illicit, but is defective, if the Priest stumbles on a word. If they introduce unauthorized stupid and annoying "innovations"; then you are right there are defects that make for doubtful licitness of that Mass. If those are illicit or not depends on the intention of the person making the error. A defect introduced because a Priest was ordered to do so by his Ordinary, even those that may have been banned by the Holy See, calls into question if that Mass was licit or illicit. Your limb is kinda broken off, but I understand your point. You implied that by using the Novus Ordo Mass in particular, that makes a Mass invalid.

Now if the nature of the illicit Mass is intentional, as is a Mass at a SSPX Chapel, any reasonable person could agree that is more serious. You are correct in most cases the Priest is validly ordained, but suspended, and in many cases operates without oversight. This intentional defect makes every Mass of the SSPX illicit.

An invalid Mass would be one where the Mass was confected by a Woman, who could not be ordained. Using foreign matter, like honey bread, would cause this to be invalid. Consecrating Grape Juice causes an invalid Mass. Another example is omitting consecration, omitting readings, or omitting other essential elements also invalidate the Mass.

"The nature of the error of integrism is overemphasizing every defect in a Mass."

Really? Then the Pope, current and past, and the GIRM and bishops who actually try to enforce them are "integrists." This is ridiculous.

"Not every error or defect in the Mass makes it illicit. It is not illicit, but is defective, if the Priest stumbles on a word. If they introduce unauthorized stupid and annoying "innovations"; then you are right there are defects that make for doubtful licitness of that Mass."

Really? Do you have a list of hierarchy for all of us? I have never heard of these distinctions before. Can you cite them? How about this one? A priest makes one or two little changes such as "My sacrifice and yours" when the Missal says "may our sacrifice". He is technically correct because that is the way the Latin reads, BUT the English translation, being corrupt, requires that he say the wrong thing. But he is not obeying the GIRM nor the Missal? I would argue it is illicit. This is the problem the stupid ICEL people, bishops and Vatican who approved it, put the priests in.

"If those are illicit or not depends on the intention of the person making the error."

Absolutely not.

"A defect introduced because a Priest was ordered to do so by his Ordinary, even those that may have been banned by the Holy See, calls into question if that Mass was licit or illicit."

What?

"Your limb is kinda broken off, but I understand your point."

I never implied nor said any such thing. Re-read the posts. I said nearly every Novus Ordo Mass celebrated in the U.S. even by conservative priests by conservative bishops was illicit. I NEVER said anything about invalid. You read that into my words.

"You implied that by using the Novus Ordo Mass in particular, that makes a Mass invalid."

??????? Show me where. Read my posts. Word search on my name. You are wrong.

"Now if the nature of the illicit Mass is intentional, as is a Mass at a SSPX Chapel, any reasonable person could agree that is more serious."

The SSPX argues it is providing Masses for laymen who ask for them (which is correct because if there were no requests by laymen, they wouldn't be there)due to an emergency situation in the Church. If bishops would be "wide and generous" in the application of the indult, then many SSPX chapels would not exist. Why not come down on all the Eastern Orthodox churches which open up in the same areas as Catholic churches. They should be "warned against" by the bishop and pastors as well, don't you think?

"You are correct in most cases the Priest is validly ordained, but suspended, and in many cases operates without oversight. This intentional defect makes every Mass of the SSPX illicit."

They have permission from their bishops. This is not an "intentional" defect.

"An invalid Mass would be one where the Mass was confected by a Woman, who could not be ordained. Using foreign matter, like honey bread, would cause this to be invalid. Consecrating Grape Juice causes an invalid Mass. Another example is omitting consecration, omitting readings, or omitting other essential elements also invalidate the Mass."

Form, matter and intention. I never said anything about Novus Ordo masses being invalid, although my confirmation Mass in the late '70s and our nuptial mass were both invalid. So I know there have been at least two.

I do not know of any Traditional Latin Masses that have been suspected of being invalid. Perhaps there have been some, but I have never seen it reported.

They [SSPX priests] have permission from their bishops

The Bishops have no justisdiction to incardinate a Priest.

There is a hierarchy of errors; defects, illicit, and invalid. Neither of us has the authority to make the distinction, but as an exercise we tried to give examples of each.

A defect would be a Priest making a slip of the tongue. A defect could be a Priest losing his place. An illicit Mass would be one where a Priest allows dancing, or has a layman give a Homily. A illicit Mass is also a Mass said by a Priest who is a vagus. An invalid Mass is much more clear.

If we take your definition then any Mass of any rite is illicit that in any way is found to be deviating from the missal, GIRM or whatever.

I sense you are trying to make a moral equivalence between attending a illicit Mass held under the authority of an excommunicated Bishop, and a illicit Mass due to error or ignorance.

"The Bishops have no justisdiction to incardinate a Priest."

They claim no jurisdiction. In times of emergency, jurisdiction is supplied by the Church.

"I sense you are trying to make a moral equivalence between attending a illicit Mass held under the authority of an excommunicated Bishop, and a illicit Mass due to error or ignorance."

Nope. A priest who habitually and purposefully changes words, violates rubrics, doesn't wear all his priest attire, uses glass instead of sacred vessels, uses EMHC at every Mass, changes the WRONGLY translated English words to the CORRECT translation habitually, is offering an illicit Mass. Accidentally making mistakes is of course not grounds for being illicit. If a priest habitually out of ignorance makes the same mistakes, it is his responsibility to KNOW, therefore, this does not excuse him.

So, in these situations, I would say there IS a moral equivalency between an SSPX priest offering Holy Mass illicitly AND a Novus Ordo priest offering Mass illicitly, which I still contend, happens at nearly every Parish and at nearly every Mass in the U.S. that offers the Novus Ordo.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.