Friday, May 11, 2012

I will stand with Bishop Fellay

I've been asked via email to "clarify my position" in regards to the canonical recognition of the SSPX. Accompanying that request was, I think, a veiled threat that this particular person would not return to Ars Orandi if I were to support an agreement between Rome and the SSPX.

Allow me, then to use this opportunity to reiterate what I have already made clear in the Q&A: I am not, in any way, affiliated with the Society of St. Pius X, nor do I attend an SSPX chapel, nor do I personally know any SSPX priests. Therefore, my "position" is completely irrelevant, and I shouldn't have to answer that question one way or the other. I would like to say that I'm here simply to propose the beauty and spiritual fecundity of the Traditional Latin Mass and traditional Catholicism.

However, I will, for the sake of clarity, make clear that I will stand with the Superior General of the SSPX, Bishop Fellay. I will support whatever decision he makes in regards to an agreement with the Pontificate of Benedict XVI. Even though I respect the person and profoundly honor the office of the Pope, frankly, I trust Bishop Fellay more than I trust the intentions of Pope Benedict XVI. Those intentions, however, in no way change the fact that greater will be the good fruits for the Church if the SSPX is reconciled and given canonical recognition than if its priests and bishops aren't. No matter the intentions of the Pope, be they liberal or genuine, nothing but good can come from canonical recognition if it means that the Society can gain that recognition without having to change who they are or what they stand for, which seems to be the case.

If the Holy Father gives Bishop Fellay everything he asks for, how can resistance from within the SSPX be anything less than a wholesale denial of the visible nature of the Catholic Church and the august role of the Office of St. Peter?

I would also like to make something very clear to those of you who seem to agree with the notion that every Catholic not affiliated with the SSPX is a Modernist or a liberal: YOU ARE WRONG. Your Superior General has told you, himself, that you are WRONG. I am not a liberal or Modernist because I attend a Traditional Latin Mass offered by a Fraternity priest or because I belong to a parish of the Diocese of Fort Wayne-South Bend. Not only is such an opinion unrealistic, as your Superior General has told you, but it is intellectually lazy and disingenuous, and this applies to you whether you be a layman, priest or bishop.

It is my prayer that the SSPX will soon be given the canonical recognition that it deserves, that its Founder desired, and that its current Superior General so earnestly desires. It will not, by any stretch of the imagination, end the fight, but it will signal a decisive turning of the tide, which will benefit all traditional Catholics. It is high time that those members of the Society, who have in these recent days caused so much pain for their Superior General, realize that their insularity is not only intellectually false and prideful, but also diabolically uncharitable. It is uncharitable to the rest of us who are laboring, in the vineyard of the Church, for an end to the novus ordo Mass, and the full and complete restoration of the Traditional Latin Mass and traditional Catholicism.

Isn't it enough that we must face insidious enemies on the Left? Why now should we be decimated by blows from those who ought to be our brothers?

7 comments:

  1. I agree with you. I completely trust the discernment of Bishop Fellay. I don't completely trust the underlings at the Vatican who must pass the issue forward to the Pope. I too despise Novus Ordo, yet remain within the diocesan network of the Church of Jesus and St Peter.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I also agree wholeheartedly with your statement ~ and so well-stated. Bishop Fellay has had all my trust for quite some time now, although I too am not affiliated in any way with the SSPX, mainly because I'm not able to get to the closest chapel.

    Only good can come from regularization, if the Society is allowed to continue as they are. And indeed it sounds as if that's what may happen, God willing.

    Thank you for a great site.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Saturday, May 12, 2012
    COMMUNITY OF FR. LEONARD FEENEY IN WORCESTER CAN AFFIRM THE LITERAL INTERPRETATION OF THE DOGMA EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS ACCORDING TO THE DIOCESE

    Historic decision for the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

    According to the diocese of Worcester,USA there are no known cases of persons saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire.

    So there are no known exceptions to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Neither are there exceptions to Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II.

    So the communities of Fr.Leonard Feeney in Worcester who have been granted canonical status, can affirm the dogma just as Fr.Leonard Feeney.

    The Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, including a monastic community in Worcester, are free to proclaim the centuries old interpretation of the dogma in accord with Vatican Council II (AG 7).

    Even other religious communities in the diocese are free to proclaim (AG 7) that all need Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation (to avoid Hell) and there are no known exceptions of invincible ignorance and a good conscience (LG 16).

    They accept the possibility of people being saved in invinciblle ignorance etc but acknowledge that in reality these cases are known only to God and are unknown to us.

    So there is nothing in Vatican Council II e.g seeds of the Word etc, which contradict the dogma as understood by Fr.Leonard Feeney,Sister Catherine Goddard Clarke, Bro.Francis MICM and other founders of the Slaves of the Immmaculate Heart of Mary.
    -Lionel Andrades

    Friday, May 11, 2012
    Two U.S Catholic dioceses agree that we can hold the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Vatican Council II (AG 7)
    http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/05/two-us-catholic-diocese-agree-that-we.html


    Thursday, May 10, 2012
    NO DENIAL FROM DIOCESE OF WORCESTER, USA: All religious communities are permitted to hold the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Vatican Council II (AG 7)
    http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/05/no-denial-from-diocese-of-worcester-usa.html
    http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/05/community-of-fr-leonard-feeney-in.html#links

    ReplyDelete
  4. Yes I agree entirely with Bishop Fellay's position espcially regarding the Holy Father's wishes to proceed now with regularization. Thanks to the SSPX I found the true faith some years back and while I have great respect for the sspx and only attend the traditional latin mass, it is usually a EF mass at my parish. It is important that the other three bishops and those in the sspx who mistakenly are taking on what is very like a protestant or schismatic perspective of deciding for themselves rather than following the Holy Father in matters of religion should take a cold shower and realise this is the best ever chance of regularising the status of the sspx within the fold of Mother Church. It's time to face up to the facts that there is only one Catholic church

    ReplyDelete
  5. I'd like to add that in regards to the other three bishops, we really don't know where they now stand on regularization. After all, they are well within their rights to give council in this matter, even strongly worded council. We also need to keep in mind that not any one of them intended for their letter to be made public, and what they have said publicly hasn't included any criticism of Bishop Fellay.

    I speculate, however, that none of them, including even Bishop Williamson, will break off from the Society if regularization is achieved. I could be wrong, but I don't think they will, given the consequences of such an action. It isn't as though that by splitting the SSPX, and forming their own group, that that group will be able to just continue in the situation that SSPX is currently in now. We can be sure that those who split from the SSPX will incur new excommunications and will definitely be condemned by the Holy See as schismatics. Indeed, it would be difficult to see them as anything other than schismatics.

    Granted, there will probably be a handful of priests, with small groups of laity, that will split from the SSPX, mainly because they are already sedevacantists with schismatic minds and hearts. Will this number include any one of the three bishops that wrote the letter back in early April? I doubt it, and I strongly doubt it in regards to at least two of them.

    But, like I said, I could be wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  6. 'Put not your trust in Princes" - especially some ecclesiastical ones. There is something odd about all this business and neither friends and acquaintances nor I have yet been able to 'see' where we truly are for all the smoke and mirrors that impede our view. Someone, somewhere is doing some very fancy footwork and, I think, in order to hide from present view his true intentions. Categorically, I do not readily trust either the intentions or the 'good will' of some at Rome. I am sincerely sorry to say that I am unable in conscience to say I trust Bishop Fellay, either. That, friends, is a horrible situation for a Catholic, is it not?

    ReplyDelete