Will Father Feeney's SBC in New Hampshire be Regularized?

Just received this note from Brother Andre-Marie of the Saint Benedict Center in New Hampshire. Because some reports were leaked out on-line regarding talks with the local ordinary, Brother wants this to be made known. The Saint Benedict Center will with the knowledge of the local ordinary continue to follow the spiritual legacy of Father Leonard Feeney and has received, for the time being, a chaplain from the Archdiocese. Approval from the local ordinary of the work of the Center is possibly forthcoming, but the good Bishop is recovering from back surgery. Here's what Brother Andre-Marie sent us.

Stay tuned.

Dear Larry,

Thank you for doing the manly and Catholic thing in writing to obtain information from me directly on the latest scuttlebutt over SBC and our dealings with the Diocese of Manchester. As we earlier discussed, the cause of this recent round of rumors is the notice that appeared in the Cathedral parish bulletin. The pastor, who knew very little of what was going on, penned a poorly written paragraph that was also highly inaccurate. This got circulated around the Internet because the bulletin goes on the Cathedral web site, too. When I informed the Bishop's liaison about this, and sent him the text, he called me to tell me, "I feel sick right now." When I said that the paragraph was "misleading and vague," this priest corrected me, and said that it was "wrong," as in factually incorrect. The Cathedral pastor removed the bulletin from the site and apologized for misleading the faithful.

What would help clear this up is the press release we have written announcing that our chapel is formally approved by the Diocese, but our Bishop is recovering from a recent back surgery, and is under doctor's orders to do no work. Some important paperwork for our chapel's approval is therefore held up. Because of all this business, I’m not sure when the approval will be granted and the news made public.

Catholic prudence demands that, in light of present circumstances, I offer some explanations concerning these goings on. I certainly do not want my silence on the issue to give strength to the rumors and suspicions being circulated. Please feel free to pass this information along to those you said were concerned about the rumors they’d heard.

Here, in summary, it what has transpired.

It is not a secret to our local congregation that we have had a series of discussions with officials of the Diocese of Manchester, New Hampshire. These discussions have been ongoing since just before the Holy Father promulgated his Motu Proprio, Summorum Pontificum. Our local faithful have been kept generally informed concerning the progress of these conversations. I have put off addressing the matter in writing to our larger network of tertiaries, friends, and benefactors, because I did not want the noise of public discussion, especially online, to prejudice the outcome of our conversations with the Diocese. Such spectacles in the blogosphere and in the “cage-match” environment of online forums are not fruitful, but, rather, dissipating and enervating. Lots of heat and smoke, but no light. My intention all along has been to explain in writing to our supporters at a distance what our locals know. My desire was to do so when there were actual results to report, not just a series of possibilities.

Here are the facts:

1. I, Brother Andre Marie, representing Saint Benedict Center, Richmond (SBC), have been meeting with Manchester Chancery officials for the better part of three years.

2. I was encouraged to initiate this because of the change in atmosphere in the Church begun shortly after Pope Benedict XVI was coronated Supreme Pontiff, especially his initiatives in favor of liturgical tradition and orthodoxy.

3. During those meetings, I made clear to the chancery officials that the MICM and SBC will remain loyal disciples of Father Leonard Feeney, retaining our enthusiastic adherence to, and missionary promotion of, what is often termed the “strict interpretation” of the binding Catholic dogma, extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Further, we will continue to worship according to the traditional Roman Rite of the Mass, as the Holy Father has affirmed is the right of Latin Catholics. The diocese acknowledged our right to both of these things. In short, we will remain what we always were, and that does not present a problem to the diocese. This is an amazing development that would not have been possible until very recently. (What's more, our bishop submits his retirement on August 12. I am given to believe, through sources, that his successor will be a friend of tradition, as many of Pope Benedict's appointments are turning out to be.)

4. The Diocese carried out their meetings with us in consultation with the Holy See. The positive results of our cooperation with the diocese (see #6, below) have already been approved by the Roman officials.

5. The Holy See directed our Brothers and Sisters to make a profession of Catholic Faith before Bishop McCormack. We happily did so according to the formula prescribed by the Church — the Nicene Creed with three additional paragraphs naming and professing the appropriate adherence to the three levels of magisterial teaching. All those who assume office in the Church are required to make this profession. All priests must make it before their ordination. Additionally, we each submitted to the Bishop signed copies of the Athanasian Creed, an ancient Creed of the Church that thrice declares the doctrine we are dedicated to defend.

6. The results of this definitive meeting with Bishop McCormack are the approval of a chaplaincy for SBC, and the canonical approbation of our chapel as a Catholic oratory. (This is presently pending, as the “paperwork” is held up due to the Bishop’s convalescence.)

7. We assured the Diocese that we will treat the Holy Father and the Bishops in communion with him with all the respect due to them as the Vicar of Christ and successors of the Apostles. (As you know, the kind of rancorous criticism of the hierarchy so common in many traditionalist circles has really never been our MO. Brother Francis was certainly not that way.)

8. The diocesan officials and we discussed the confusion surrounding SBC’s positions on different matters. The local media, certain bloggers, and the publishing arms of ideological progressivists had manufactured a veritable mythology about our little community, characterizing us in a false light as a “hate group.” (You know all about this.) For obvious reasons, the chancery wanted to get at the truth of these issues. We obliged them, and they were satisfied.

9. These arrangements we made with the diocese entail a canonical (legal) normalization of our status in the Church. In no way do they indicate a “conversion” to the Catholic Church, to which our members already belonged as baptized Catholics. I mention this because critics from mutually opposing camps (progressivists, sedes, etc.) may choose to put some heavy "spin" on the fact that we made a profession of Faith.

If I had thought that these arrangements with the ecclesiastical officials would detract from our twofold Crusade to promote the dogma and work for the conversion of America to the true Faith, I would not have moved forward with them. I did so with the trust and confidence of Brother Francis, whom I kept abreast of things. I am of the conviction that we live in a new era in the Church, and many good things are happening that constitute, in broad outline, a reorientation toward tradition. (I am not naive: There is very much to do!) Given this authentic progress toward a more sane era in the Church Militant, I believe it possible and prudent to advance our apostolate within the canonical structures of the Church, thus helping the Church in Her sacred mission of saving souls and giving glory to the Blessed Trinity.

Some traditionalists, who virtually consider any and all dealings with the hierarchy to be formal cooperation with Satan himself, will not understand this. They will take scandal. They will accuse, criticize, deride, label me a traitor and a turncoat, a Judas, a Brother Elias. What can I say? I have to make decisions with a good and correct conscience, based upon the goals of our Crusade, the exigencies of or apostolate, and real life circumstances in the Church and the world — not on some "false clear idea" that folks craft to make the complexities of life easier to explain. Should some friends, benefactors, and tertiaries choose to part company with us over this, I would be saddened, but I will not fume and rant. We've seen friends come and go — and enemies pile up — since we began this work. 'Twas always thus, as Brother Francis would have assured us.

The Church thinks in terms of decades, centuries, millennia, not in the soundbites of the moment. I ask those who care to judge our actions to look at us after a few years at least. Then a clearer picture will emerge of what has happened. When it turns out that, by the grace of God and the intercession of the Immaculate Heart, we remain loyal to our Crusade, then the suspicions of the moment will prove groundless. I do not expect apologies.

God bless, and Mary keep, you and Sue.