(Rome) The agreement between the Holy See and the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X is final. The role of Pope Francis is decisive. This is reported by the Vaticanist Matteo Matzuzzi in today's edition of Il Foglio.
"The rift between the Priestly Society of St. Pius X (Lefebvrian) and the Holy See is immediately about to be repaired," says Matzuzzi. Evidence that the "complex negotiations" are moving towards a "positive solution" are the intentions of the Society to buy the Santa Maria Immacolata building complex on the Esquiline, one of the seven hills of Rome. The complex is located close to the Lateran. The large neo-gothic church was built for an order at the end of the 19th century. This included other buildings that were used as a school in recent years.
The study center is to be built near the Lateran
According to Il Foglio, there will be a study center of the Society and additionally the General House of Personal Prelature, as soon as the Society is recognized as such by the Holy See.
The approach by Pope Francis himself has accelerated. In January on the 17-20 Bernard Fellay, the Superior General of the Society, was quartered in Santa Marta in the Vatican. With him, Monsignor Alfonso de Galarreta and the Assistant General, Father Alain Nely, had come to Rome. At the talks, the Superior of the Sisters of the Society also took part. Father Nely is commissioned to complete the purchase at Esquiline.
The Society has had contacts, as Monsignor Fellay confirms, in Argentina with the then primate, Jorge Mario Bergoglio. "He has known us for a long time." If there were problems with a local bishop, one had turned to the primate. He said: "You are, of course, Catholic and not schismatic. I'll help you." He did.
That has to do with the laws of Argentina. The Latin country gives Catholic priests a residence permit only if there is an official confirmation from local church representatives that the priests are officially recognized. In this respect, in a single case (individual cases), there were interventions by Archbishop Bergoglio, who issued this confirmation for the Argentine state.
The fact that things had not already come to an agreement with Rome in 2012 led Matzuzzi to the resistance of the French part in the Society. Had it been up to the German District, the Society would already have "returned to communion with Rome".
"Fellay now seems ready to go to end the standoff, even at the cost of painful losses among his faithful and priests," says Matzuzzi.
Text: Giuseppe Nardi
Image:
Trans: Tancred vekron99@hotmail.com
AMDG
71 comments:
) "I saw a church sailing on the waters and in great danger of sinking, for it had no foundation; it rolled on the sea like a ship. With mighty efforts I had to help to restore it's balance, and we sent many people into it, chiefly children,, stationing them around the beams and the planks. In the three aisles of the church lay twelve men prostate and motionless in fervent prayer, and there were crowds of children at the entrance prostrate before an altar. I saw no Pope, but a Bishop prostrate before the High Altar. In this vision I saw the church bombarded by other vessels, but we hung wet cloths before it and it received no damage. It was threatend on all sides; it seemed as if it's enemies wanted to hinder it's landing. When by the help of extra weight it was again righted, it sank a little in the sand. Then we laid down planks to the shore. Instantly all sorts of bad ecclesiastics ran in with others, who had given no assistance in time of need, and began to mock the twelve men whom they saw in prayer and to box their ears; but the latter were silent and went on praying.--Then we brought great stones which we stuck all around the foundation which began to increase as if it were growing of itself. The stones came together, and it seemed as if a rock sprang up and all became solid. Crowds of people, among them some strangers, entered the door, and the church was again on land.
-- Bl. Anne Catherine Emmerich.
The Society has had contacts, as Monsignor Fellay confirms, in Argentina with the then primate, Jorge Mario Bergoglio. "He has known us for a long time." If there were problems with a local bishop, one had turned to the primate. He said: "You are, of course, Catholic and not schismatic. I'll help you." He did....
He helped the Fellay get rid of Bishop Williamson from Argentina. Among other things.
This was a very well laid out plan.
Sspx is always on the brink of this reunion just like Jennifer Anniston is always on the brink of being pregnant.
This is welcomed news, if it is being done with sincerity.
But it doesn't add up based on Bergoglio's additude and actions against the traditional mass and orders such as the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate.
Is there a story there?
That's true. I would not trust Bergoglio or his people. The SSPX should wait until we have a new Pope who is totally Catholic....and acts like the Pope. Not like Bergoglio et al.
Bergoglio doesn't have that much time left. I'll bet he's gone in 18 months, and we'll have a new Pope who won't try the underhanded, dirty tricks with the SSPX that Bergoglio did with the Franciscan Friars of the Immiaculate, etc.
Damian Malliapalli
I think the SSPX is making a big mistake. It's noble to attempt a reconciliation, but now is not the time and Bergoglio is not the one with whom to make a deal. I'm more than a bit surprised Fellay can't see this.
Bergoglio has practiced "divide and conquer" since he was elected and this seems to fit into the pattern. He knows reconciliation is controversial among the SSPX faithful and reunification will almost certainly split the SSPX into at least two pieces.
By granting the SSPX reconciliation, Bergoglio knows he will have neutered the most effective opposition to him. Fellay and the leadership will now be under his control while others break away again. Effectively, he will have taken a strong opposition and broken it into several pieces.
The SSPX is only growing. A deal now halts that. And it's quite possible Bergoglio will use a deal with the SSPX to suppress SP and even suppress other TLM use orders.
It's interesting that the SSPX has purchased property in Rome, to be used as the future SSPX Personal Prelature, even before the deal is done. So much for the idea that the SSPX has to wait until Bergolio "accepts them as they are." Evidently, Bishop Fellay has complete trust in our heretical Pope.
~M. Ray
How would endorsing an order exclusively founded to preserve the Immemorial Mass of All Ages fit into a suppression of SP?
I'm sure you've heard it before, but if Bergoglio and his set try something that was tried with Archbishop Lefebvre, the Society can simply leave again.
No dangers for either side if sspx is regularized. SSPX runs into problems, then they can turn to resistance attitude.
If sspx is regularized but turns out is loaded with anti-Romans who start preaching errors, Vatican can expel sspx from communion with Vatican.
So each side is protected from the other. Each side has the power to separate from the other.
It's a concern to me that the SSPX has not really, for the most part, been an effective opposition to Bergolio, except for perhaps at the beginning of Bergolio's papacy. Since then, any number of sources, such as Eponymous Flower, have been a more effective opposition. I don't know why the SSPX has dropped the ball in that they do not condemn Bergolio's actions at all. It doesn't make sense.
M. Ray
I don't know what the legal details are in the supposed reconciliation plan. Do you happen to know if there is any clause that says that the SSPX will be protected, and how? Also, I don't think that the SSPX will try to leave, no matter what the circumstances. That's just my opinion. The SSPX cares a little too much about what other Catholics think of them. I hope this isn't offensive-sounding, but the SSPX seems to very much want Modernists (heretics) to recognize as being Catholic. This indicates to me that they would not want to incur criticism if they were to leave again. I could be wrong.
M. Ray
If you don't think so, I guess that solves it.
Wonderfully said!!
Canonical reconginition of the SSPX without the doctrinal dispute being resolved [cf. Gmail - The Doctrinal Dispute between the SSPX and the Church - https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0F-MScJrClRVlpsTm5sc2FfS28/view?usp=sharing] would result in further confusion within the Church, and I wouldn't put this past the goal of Pope Francis.
The SSPX has had a small chapel in central Rome for many years but have outgrown it and have been looking for a replacement for some time. It has nothing to do with any prelature.
What if the next Pope is worse than this one?
I'm going by memory on this, so please forgive me:
About 15 years ago in The Remnant, there was an interesting Letter to the Editor.
The writer recounted an exchange between him and an Orthodox gentleman. He asked the Orthodox gentleman why he didn't convert to the Catholic Church. The Orthodox gentleman replied that he didn't want to see his liturgy "butchered".
The writer also recounted an exchange between Pope John Paul II and an Orthodox prelate. The Orthodox prelate told the Pope to put his own house in order first. The Pope asked him what he meant. The Orthodox prelate told Pope John Paul II: "Settle your differences with the Society of St. Pius X first and then we'll talk."
Anyway, ever since the Jubilee Year 2000, the Vatican has been making overtures towards the SSPX.
This is just my opinion, but quite frankly, I believe that the Vatican took this to heart. IOW, they're only interested in the SSPX because the SSPX is an obstacle to ecumenical relations with the Orthodox. If the SSPX is "regularized", they will start focusing on the Orthodox.
Sorry for the long post. That's my 5¢ for now.
Margaret
We need to, as the saying goes, "follow the money". The SSPX doesn't live on fresh air, its finances haven't been examined or discussed recently in the traditionalist blogs. The mysterious Mr Maximilian Krah has been mentioned in political blogs as the source of the Society's financing, could he be pulling the strings?
G.
Allow me to respond to Tancred. I know many say Fellay can simply leave again if Bergoglio doesn't treat him well, but Fellay holds the high ground so why give it up now to Bergoglio? If the SSPX was to leave again after a dispute, it may make them look like the problem rather than Bergogolio. After all, Bergoglio decapitated the FFI and it barely registered outside of traditional circles.
As for the suppression of SP, it would not surprise me at all if Bergoglio decided to do two things. First, he might roll all of the TLM orders into the SSPX as a way to consolidate the handling of those for whom he does not care.
More importantly, I could easily envision Bergoglio deciding there's no reason for parish priests to say the TLM anymore since he's already provided for an order of priests to say it. Maybe I'm being too conspiratorial, but I wouldn't put anything past Bergoglio.
Instead of dwelling on all the negative maybe's I'm rejoicing at this moment. We have been waiting for this for a long time. If the Prelature falls apart I have total trust in the Most Holy Trinity and Our Lady to lead the leaders of the SSPX who follow in the same steps as Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. This is the Church of Jesus Christ. No Compromises Ever!!!
Please give the citation for this so that other people can find it too. And thank you very much.
Bishop Williamson is a great man, a no compromising Catholic. The road to hell is paved with the skulls of bishops but his won't be one of them.
Worse than Pope Beendict? Except for resigning his public office, I don't think he's that bad.
We're in 2017 and if you believe in the message of Fatima it doesn't even matter does it? Our Lady will show her power soon enough.
We'll see if Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais stays aboard. He is a brilliant man, has great insight. My guess, is he is not at all very happy with this arrangement. If he bolts to Williamson, I guess Williamson was right in his actions. We will soon find out. This brings with it the possibility of Fellay being in on some type of betrayal scheme. Why they would cut a deal with Francis and his satanic perverts, one can only wonder.
The most likely problem scenario would come from a minority within the SSPX appealing to the Pope to intervene to resolve a dispute
The Pope would send in a Commission to restructure and reform the SSPX along more modernist lines. This would be my concern..since it is strategy used by Bergoglio alot.But its not for me to know if an agreement would contain some proviso to prevent something like this from happening.
I hold the sedevacantist position.The past 6 years I've been outside "official Rome".
We sede's have a small part of our brain that silently,wrongly,worries about our chapels falling into the hands of " Official Rome".
Our priest has beat into my head to stop worrying and allow Almighty God's will be done.
The SSPX reuniting with Official Rome is God's will!
I know this message is long winded but its important we trust our blessed Lord's will.
I googled the Church being purchased by the SSPX in Rome. Santa Maria Immacolata All'Esquillino. It is a beautiful Church fit for the Glory and Honor of God. Lets pray that the Modernist heretics don't ruin this. Of course they will try but prayer is more powerful than their evil designs.
Fellay and the SSPX willfully and with open eyes are putting the rope Francis has prepared for them around their own neck. All this points to their inner insecurity. They are of afraid in their consciences of being without a Pope, that they will prefer going to hell with a godless Pope to having none. They prefer formalities above substance.
They repeat saying that they do this under the condition that can "stay what they are". But this condition is the height of sillyness. For it presupposes their own position as an exception in the Church, and thus it implicitly and unwillingly legitimizes Modernism. This is a betrayal of the constant position of the SSPX, which is that Modernism has no place in the Church at all, and that modernists should be expelled from it because they are not Catholic. The entire strength of the SSPX is based on this maxim: Modernism is not Catholicism, which implies that true Catholics are always at war with the modernists and will never be content with a position being able to stay as they are. This maxim implies that the traditional doctrine and practice are the only permissible expression of the faith, and that the Church outside the SSPX, i.e. the entire Novus Ordo Church, is infected with heresy and is unacceptable as a partner in any agreement as long as the modernists are in charge.
You saying it doesn't make it so. You're attempting to project your own fears onto the future, which you haven't seen yet.
Another example of Our Lord using evil to bring greater good.
Anonymous, just answered the questions. Read the interviews the Society has been touting as of late. They have no intentions of accepting. Same old story at a different time.
Robbie....winner, winner, chicken dinner!
Not likely. I've read a lot about what's going on in the Vatican, and I have two friends who live in Rome...one is a young teaching nun in a traditional Italian Order. Francis is hated in Rome, in large parts of Italy, and in 75% of the Vatican. That includes Cardinals. They are not going to be stupid enough to elected someone even worse than the guy they hate....who they know isn't even a true Catholic!? If they did, I'd say that then truly, there is no more Catholic Church.
Damian Malliapalli
Tancred, may I ask....what is it that you hope for when SSPX when it regularizes with Rome? How will this help fight the Crisis in the Church at present?
M.Ray
If the property recently purchased in Rome by the SSPX doesn't have anything to do with a prelature, then why did Guido Pozzo, who is the head of Ecclesia Dei, help with the purchase of the property?
M.Ray
As an adherent of the SSPX, I too have concerns about any agreement with the current pontiff. Having said that, does ANYONE outside of those involved in said negotiations have any idea what the details are? Methinks not. What we DO know is that the suspension of priestly functions by Pope Paul VI in the mid 70's were unjust! Hence "full recognition" of the SSPX is at the very least an act of justice. We know that God can write straight with crooked lines. Let us pray Bishop Fellay acts in the best interests of his priests and faithful, fully aware of the potential pitfalls, but always with the intention to restore all things in Christ!
This quote from the Life of Catherine Anne Emmerich is from volume II, number 20. It is accurate; I checked.
The post above by Ronald Sevenster brings to my mind the perspicacious line from the great English Catholic poet Alexander Pope: about something "often thought but ne'er so well expressed." Right on target---I do not claim oracular gifts but we will rue the day when the Society of St. Pius X places itself in the hands of a cruel, vindictive man who almost daily proves his hatred of tradition and contempt for orthodox Catholics. Do they expect he will change for them? That is the height of presumption if it is the case. First the artificial (or even real crisis, to which the Society is certainly no stranger); then the complaint by the malcontents; next the pastoral visitation; after that the intervention---and the rest we know because we have seen it. It has nothing, Tancred, with anyone claiming a fiat or a projection of personal fears or oracular peeks into the future: it has to do with common sense in dealing with evil men, with looking at a very public and problematic record of persecution of the orthodox, at not trusting those who have power and have also demonstrated an animus for those who love tradition. I pray I am wrong and will rejoice if I am prove so.
Does Bishop Fellay have a plan on how to "restore all things in Christ," after the SSPX are reconciled with Rome? To date, I've not heard anything of how he will go about doing this.
M.Ray
Sounds like sedevacantists clergy being mocked when she states "I saw no pope but a bishop" & "bad ecclesiastis boxing the ears of the 12 men in prayer"
Not saying its so,that is just my interpretation.
If Rome had given Archbishop Marcel a traditional consecrated bishop to consecrate his priests, archbishop Marcel would've stayed in union w/Rome.
I was around back then & remember this detail vividly.
Tancred man to man in all due respect,will you answer this question please?
Bishop Fellay refuses to conditionally re_ordain men in the traditional rite of ordination,refuses to renounce the Novus Ordo missae,clings to the 1962 missal,and doesn't renounce the heresy in V2 documents.
How is he any different from a standard Novus Ordo 'Bishop' ?
Although I know you don't mean it to be, your proposition is blasphemous. The Good Lord never 'USES' evil means though he sometimes PERMITS them.
It is always possible for God to draw good out of an evil means, but it is never permitted, and in this case, ludicrous, to desire something evil in the hope that God will draw good out of it.
Bishop Fellay at the Conference in Upstate NY 2015 related that Bishops were offered to become Cardinals if they do such and such. Could there be a Cardinal Fellay in the works?
Another point is that Bishop Fellay and His Holiness agree on anti-shemtism (sic). Recall the SSPX lay group of young red berets who interrupted the ecumenical affair in the Bueons Aires Cathedral see utube. Note that the discussions did speed up including his surprise visit to Santa Marta´s in 2014 and the imfamous handshake.
XXXXXXX, Bishop Fellay has recently been speaking out against Amoris Laetitiae. I thought for sure this would end the plans for the Papal Prelature. It didn't! So Bergoglio is either okay with it or may retaliate but it would only be to Bergoglios detriment. Bishop Fellay is a fearless man, all for God or nothing.
St. John Paul ll did in fact sign an agreement acceptable to Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. The Holy Father would allow a Bishop to be consecrated to succeed Lefebvre. But there were those who kept moving the date forward for the Consecration of a Bishop. It was said that His holiness was getting frustrated with those who kept interfering (modernists of course). Finally Archbishop Lefebvre did not trust what he called "Modernist Rome" and went ahead with the Episcopal Consecrations. Lefebvre, St. John Paul ll and the then Cardinal Ratzinger did not give up and were working behind the scenes. Modernists were always interfering, the last one who damaged an agreement was Cardinal Levada. Lets pray and Trust because there will still be Modernist interference.
Society of St.Louis XI have chapels in South America.
One day that group of priests will become well known.
They are excellent priests with great patience.
If they ever have a chapel near my hometown,I will definitely be a regular attendee.
@Pax77
I know all of that & your response ads nothing to my original statement.(no offense)
You all forget the 'Pope' and Rome do not owe any order or bishop anything,whatsoever.
If the man you believe to be Pope gives an order or says no to a request,that is end of the subject.
Archbishop Marcel had good intentions but Rome doesn't owe ANYONE anything,including a traditionally ordained/consecrated Bishop.
PaxTecum, yes, I read what Bishop Fellay said about Amoris Laetitia. However, it was a general criticism, and didn't address anything specific at all in Amoris Laetitia. Not a thing. You can be sure that if Archbishop Lefebvre were still alive, he would have actually CONDEMNED Amoris Laetitia for what it really is, rather than the wimpy response given by Bishop Fellay. Since 2012, the SSPX is a shadow of it's former self in regards to speaking out against errors coming from Rome. You need only to see the comparisons from before 2012 and since then. I was once very much for a SSPX reconciliation with Rome, until I studied how the SSPX has changed, and how Bishop Fellay has banished any priest(and one bishop) in the SSPX who speaks out against a deal with Rome.
While it's true that an SSPX reconciliation will offer more options for the faithful to attend a TLM, we cannot count anymore on the SSPX to speak out against Rome's errors. They're just not about that anymore. I could be wrong, but as has already been mentioned I think, once the SSPX reconciles with the Modernists, Francis can move forward with his agenda. I hope I'm wrong.
I gave up on the sspx when I learned that they stopped conditionally re-ordaining Novus Ordo priests. They might as well go into the spider web and be destroyed. We still have CMRI, sspx, sspv and independent chapels. And We still have Eastern rite Catholic Churches (lots of sedevacantists use the Eastern rite Catholic Churches even though their Masses are una cum Jorge.) All valid priests and valid Masses and undefiled by Vatican 2.
Respectfully you all will never accept reconciliation with Rome. You are wedded to SSPX being irreconciled with Rome. They will get a Personal Prelature and keep everything requested . Drop your obstinacy
Or just presumption.
Anonymous, I have offended you but what you said sounded like St. John Paul ll never offered Lefebvre a Bishop to succeed him. I was only correcting that mistaken notion. As for the Church owing anything to anyone, the Church owes to God's people the Traditional Latin Mass. It was codified by St. Pius V with the Document Quo Primum, inspired by the Holy Ghost. That Document guaranteed the TLM until the end of the world. Many Catholics suffered because of the violation of Quo Primum. The Mass belongs to the Most Holy Trinity. Christ established the Church so that He could give to us. We have a right to what God has given. The representatives of Christ have the obligation to give to the People what God has ordained. If they think they owe God's people nothing then they should leave the Church. The Pope and Bishops are servants of the servants of God. The representatives of Christ do owe us, for 50 years they have only deprived us. This evil must end!
Which bishop has gone sedevantist? None that I can think of in any recent time and if they weren't a legitimate bishop of the Church she would not have called them as such.
Anonymous, I know you are asking Tancred this question but allow me to ask something. Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre before the Council was hailed as an exceptional Archbishop. After the Council he was treated in the complete opposite. Will His Excellency Bishop Bernard Fellay undergo the same unjust treatment?
Didn't answer my question
I hold Archbishop Marcel in high esteem & I'm a sedevacantist.
His loyalty & devotion to holy mother church speaks for itself.
"Saint" John Paul II? Really? He of liturgical innovation, pagan prayer meetings?
@John JP2 also gave Western Bishops carte Blanche to practice ANY and EVERY type of heresy.
Saint John Paul ll, Yes! There were 279 miraculous cures, all documented according to the rules of the Congregation of the Saints. After Pope Benedict XVl Beatified him there were hundreds more documented miraculous cures. This proves to the Church that the Holy One is in fact in Heaven. Bergoglio may have been the one who added Pope John Paul ll to the list of the Church's Saints. But it was done with the approval of the Congregation for causes of Saints and in the presence and with the approval of Pope Benedict XVl. St. John Paul ll will go down in history as the Pope who did all in his power to restore the Tridentine Mass and who called for the "Reforms of the Reforms". His reforms were all about correcting and ending the modernist heresies.
Anonymous, "JP2 also gave Western Bishops carte Blanche to practice ANY and EVERY type of heresy". Would you please name a good number of the heresies St. John Paul ll gave permission for? Thank you.
Since when did "Saints" organize ecumenical services complete with voodoo priests? Since when did "Saints" kiss Korans? Since when did priest saints have girlfriends?
Seattle kim
Seattle Kim, Let me tell you a bit about Assisi. The world was on the brink of a nuclear holocaust. All men are created by God and loved by him without exception for anyone he ordained to create. Assisi was called for, so that each religion pray to God for peace. All mankind was represented in the name of the True God gathered in the same place. His Holiness gave very strict rules that no Catholic was to pray along with those of other religions, one of many rules he made. The Pope did not pray with them, he said Roman Catholic prayers and different religions were not allowed to join these prayers. There were of course abuses, especially by the modernist Franciscans of the Basilica of Assisi. Afterward the Pope was informed of the abuses and is said that he was outraged by the sacrilegious committed. That he kissed the Koran is still debated. The eyewitness Prelates assured that he did not. It just looks like it in the photos. Are you insinuating that His Holiness St. John Paul ll had girlfriends. If you mean priests in general, what fault is that of the Holy Father? Tell me what you think of this, Ven. Pius Xll during WW2 received in audience a group of Nazis and a Jewish Man. When the Jewish man departed Ven. Pius Xll shouted to that man in front of the Nazis, "You are a Jew. Be a good Jew". Was Ven. Pius Xll justifying the perfidious Jewish religion? No! We should get facts straight before condemning the Supreme Pontiff (and I ain't talking Bergoglio).
When did saints allow "extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist" in every dioceses every day of the week?
Which saints called Christmas "the Feast of Man?"
Which saints firmly stood behind the doctrine of excusing Jews of deicide and affirming the Jews right to await "their messiah"?
After learning about Assisi, and after having read Nostra Aetate, I completely understand why I have encountered the following in various conciliar churches : religious sisters who practice Buddhist meditation, pro-life committee members who believe in reincarnation, and Native American "smudging" ceremonies on the altar of a Novus Ordo church. It was confusing as a convert who had read numerous saint biographies as this did not seem in keeping with the religion that the saints of old practiced.
Recently the original drafter of Nostra Aetate came out as a homo priest who was practicing his homo-ness during Vat 2. If you've read the love letters exchanged between JP2 and his married lady friend, you'd see that there was sumpin going on. The letters conveniently didn't surface till after the canonization.
Seattle Kim
JP2 never actually offered Archbishop Lefebvre a bishop. JP2 said that he would do so, but Archbishop Lefebvre waited for a long time, and it never happened. Archbishop Lefebvre said that he thought that Rome was waiting for him to die, and that's why they were taking such a long time to give him a bishop. And that is what lead to him consecrating the four bishops. He wanted to ensure that Tradition would live on after him. Archbishop Lefebvre lived for only another two-and-a-half years after the consecrations.
I know you mean well, PaxTecum, but you aren't very familiar with the history of the SSPX.
Anonymous, Extraordinary Eucharistic Ministers were allowed only because of the long communion lines and a shortage of priests. St. John Paul ll made it clear that this was only a temporary solution. The Holy Father made strict rules on their use. Communion services are forbidden on weekdays. Communion services are only for those areas that don't see priests for months at a time and only to be held on Sundays. This is Church law anything to the contrary is an abuse which His Holiness condemned unceasingly. The Church does not approve of the Messiah awaited for by the Jews, which is why they are called perfidious Jews. Set the Modernist heretics aside and we are left with the Truth
Unknown, There is a problem with Nostra Aetate, I don't understand it but if Archbishop Lefebvre said there was then I believe it. Are the abuses you mention the fault of the Holy Father who called for the "Reform of the reforms" for the purpose of ending all abuses after Vatican ll? I understand the confusion you speak of, I am a cradle Catholic and when reading Traditional books I too was confused because the Modern Church in no way corresponded with the True Faith. We must not be scandalized but hold to the True Faith.
Anonymous, St. John Paul ll did offer Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre a Bishop from among his own priests. Lefebvre gave the Holy Father a list of 4 potential priests. His holiness asked for another list. The modernist stepped in and caused damage to the agreement signed by Lefebvre, Ratzinger and His Holiness. Lefebvre did not hold a grudge against the Holy Father but against the modernists in Rome. As far as not being familiar with the history, I don't know it all but at that time I followed all that I could very closely. When the agreement was announced I then considered myself as an adherent of the SSPX. On the Sunday before the Consecrations I went for the last time to the beloved SSPX Chapel I attended to say goodbye. That hurt! Now I am planning a return to that Holy Chapel filled with holy people. Deo Gratias!
Conference in July 2004, Church of Sts Joseph & Padarn, London, England. Bishop Fellay did say: "We are the only obstacle to the One World Religion".
Conference in July 2004, Church of Sts Joseph & Padarn, London, England. Bishop Fellay did say: "We are the only obstacle to the One World Religion".
Well, they didn’t do it after all.
Post a Comment