The 2nd part of your title (and those who are pushing for it are being expelled from the Society) is totally wrong: Father Chazal and Joseph Pfeiffer ARE being expelled from the SSPX but for the opposite reason: BECAUSE they are AGAINST any deal with Rome, not because they want it.
Bishop Fellay certainly can not be accused of being a sedevacantist...to continue to resist any contact with the Vatican could lead one to believe there exists an sspx sedevacantist position. Like the Jesuits who were founded to be a protection of and advisers to the pope, Bishop Fellay, in my opinion, is making himself available to render the truth to the derelict new church...if they persist in their error, then, so be it. How would the naysayers react if Bishop Fellay was successful in getting the Vatican to take steps to heal itself if its modernist errors and heresies.
Fathers Pfeiffer, Hewco and Chazal et al.are playing into Williamson's hands by aiding his divisive program against that which he hates, America, the SSPX and anyone who espouses anti-communism. Jesus said, beware of false prophets; Williamson is one of those, a true wolf in sheeps clothing. There are some older SSPX priests who could give you a good account of Williamson's disruptive and divisive nature when in seminary with him.
In the May 2012 edition of "Catholic" The Papa Stronsay Telegraph rightly confesses - At either end of the ribbon there is a shield, the one to the left is that of the Sons of the Most Holy Redeemer, while the Coat of Arms of Pope Benedict XVI, now gloriously reigning, is on the right. By this we denote our submission to the Catholic Church; the Church of the time in which we are living and not to an abstract concept of an idealised Eternal Rome.
I suspect that Our patient Holy Father will have no choice but to formalise the schism with a declaration that The SSPX are schismatics and excommunicated.
All Ecumenical Councils trail in their wake all manner of recalcitrant men, haughty in their proclamations that they are orthodox and the Pope is heretical and V2 was no exception.
The Sine qua non of Catholicism is Unity of Worship, Doctrine, and Authority and there has never been a time when Tradition is preserved in a schism; Satan is the Father to that thought.
One odd consequence of a formal declaration of schism is that the Sacraments of Marriage and Penance will now be valid in the SSPX.
A bit befuddled. Aren't Frs. Chazal and Pfeiffer two of the more-tradition-minded priests who oppose a deal between SSPX and NewChurch? Frankly, I've been torn between anxiety and hopefulness that His Excellency Bp. Williamson and one or two of the other Bishops of the SSPX might lead a schism. Fearful b/c the voices of Tradition do not need to splinter and divide against ourselves. Hopeful b/c His Excellency Bp. Fellay has allowed his tenure as Superior General to sound an uncertain note in the time of battle against the errors of NewChurch. Hoping for a clarification
I wonder if the desire for regularization of the SSPX on the part of Pope Benedict, followed by the appointment of Archbishop Muller, is the sign of paralysis referred to by Our Lady of Good Success, which will directly precede the complete restoration of the Church?
Well, to be plain, simple and sincere, if the statement concerning 'no deal' came from Archbishop Lefebvre I would immediately accept it, having known the man before many others knew him. It does not come from the beloved Archbishop. When I say this I mean to call into question nobody's honesty. God alone can judge us in the internal forum. I say simply i. that this does not come from Archbishop Lefebvre and ii. that trust is earned, irrespective of who you may be. The work of the Archbishop is, as always, under continuous attack from 'outside' Rome but also, most regrettably, from some on the inside and those who really should know better. The citadel is not impregnable when those who guard her are not completely faithful, as I suspect is the case with some. Too great a tendency to expel is not the sign of a wise Superior. It has been too freely the response to criticism and is most un-Lefebvre-like, in my considered experience and opinion. It is very possible that I, too, should be cast into the outer darkness and away from the warmth of Menzingen's 'love' and 'charity' did some people discover who I am and were I not entirely protected. To be shunned by such people is, sub specie aeternitatis, no catastrophe fpr any Catholic, much less for a Priest who knows he is in all good conscience faithful to his calling. Such love and charity is phoney if it can be denied because I oppose you. Priests are not intended to be 'vagi' - they are supposed to be brought together for mutual support, so necessary in any age and never more so than now. I find it a sad but indisputable sign of immaturity - as well as a stain on the FSSPX - that any Superior behave in a manner than runs clean contrary not only to the ethos and philosophy of Abp Lefebvre but is entirely antipathetic to the essence of the Episcopal duty to be the Fullness of the Fatherhood of the Priesthood. Christ is not so. Neither was Marcel Lefebvre
I think part of the problem with, for example, Fr. Pfeiffer's case were the mixed signals that were being sent on the website and elsewhere, as well as all the pointless secrecy.
I guess they thought the doing things quietly would keep speculation down to a minimum, but instead it did the opposite.
I know I couldn't (and still can't to a lesser degree) help but wonder if they were creeping away from their old, tougher stance.
Your headline is ambiguous. I thought the linked documents were about the expulsion of pro-deal priests, but they are priests who were in the Williamson camp. Please edit the headline for clarity. Thank you! Scott
This quote of Fr. Couture's, relating that the Archbishop has said that nothing will happen with the current Pope, sent up a red flag in my mind. When did the Archbishop say this? I went to the official SSPX site and don't see any such official statement. That seems pretty final. But I did tune out for awhile when the talks faltered. Maybe I missed it?
Elizabeth - The only public record of Bishop Fellay's comments are from the SSPX-Asia website, which is an official SSPX source. For that reason, I don't consider it a rumor or unsubstantiated. If this was coming from a blog or some other source, that would be different.
So, the DS of Asia has issued a statement, based on "several recent statements" by the SG of the SSPX, that there will be no "deal" under Pope Benedict XVI. This is a fairly significant claim! If +Felley has been saying such things in addresses to groups, or in homilies, why has he himself not made a general public statement for both the faithful and Rome? To say, officially, that "there will be no deal" with this Pope, is a very final thing to say. It is worlds away from saying there "is" no deal, or that things have stalled - both of which need need no special formalities to state. But for a DS to make an official statement on a secondary (though still official) outlet of the Society, about the finality of the situation, seems a bit out of line. I would think it proper for +Fellay to be the one to say something so final, and in a more official and public way than what was intimated by in the DS's statement. In other words, could this be a case of the DS jumping the gun, or maybe misreading the words or meaning of +Fellay? I sure hope so.
Tom, I have to admit that I'm a bit confused by the source of this information as well. I do know that Fr. Couture has always been supportive of Bishop Fellay's wishes in regard to the Vatican negotiations, so I'm pretty sure he and the SSPX-Asia website wouldn't misconstrue Bishop Fellay intentionally.
For my part, I've been convinced there would be no agreement ever since the appointment of Müller. The decision to nix this deal did not come from the SSPX. It came from the pope.
Get ready for worse. I'm hearing some very distressing rumors from other corners concerning Medjugorje. I hope I'm wrong.
Yeah, it seems like something is missing here. In any event, I am going to take this with the same grain of salt I took this spring's weekly "reconciliation imminent" speculations. I've only been in the Traditional movement for a few years (generously speaking) and following the SSPX for only half that, yet even I feel almost jaded by all this back and forth. I can't imagine how those involved since '74 or '88 have kept sane.
As for Medjugorje, you have me worried about some sort of favorable opinion coming out of the investigation. I pray whatever you may know, will not be true.
"One odd consequence of a formal declaration of schism is that the Sacraments of Marriage and Penance will now be valid in the SSPX."
I am not Spartucus,
So if this happens, an FSSPX Mass will not fulfill the holyday obligation, but one may validly have his sins absolved by an FSSPX priest? Unbelievable.
The 2nd part of your title (and those who are pushing for it are being expelled from the Society) is totally wrong: Father Chazal and Joseph Pfeiffer ARE being expelled from the SSPX but for the opposite reason: BECAUSE they are AGAINST any deal with Rome, not because they want it.
ReplyDeleteBishop Fellay certainly can not be accused of being a sedevacantist...to continue to resist any contact with the Vatican could lead one to believe there exists an sspx sedevacantist position. Like the Jesuits who were founded to be a protection of and advisers to the pope, Bishop Fellay, in my opinion, is making himself available to render the truth to the derelict new church...if they persist in their error, then, so be it. How would the naysayers react if Bishop Fellay was successful in getting the Vatican to take steps to heal itself if its modernist errors and heresies.
DeleteFathers Pfeiffer, Hewco and Chazal et al.are playing into Williamson's hands by aiding his divisive program against that which he hates, America, the SSPX and anyone who espouses anti-communism. Jesus said, beware of false prophets; Williamson is one of those, a true wolf
in sheeps clothing. There are some older SSPX priests who could give you a good account of Williamson's disruptive and divisive nature when in seminary with him.
In the May 2012 edition of "Catholic" The Papa Stronsay Telegraph rightly confesses - At either end of the ribbon there is a shield, the one to the left is that of the Sons of the Most Holy Redeemer, while the Coat of Arms of Pope Benedict XVI, now gloriously reigning, is on the right. By this we denote our submission to the Catholic Church; the Church of the time in which we are living and not to an abstract concept of an idealised Eternal Rome.
ReplyDeleteI suspect that Our patient Holy Father will have no choice but to formalise the schism with a declaration that The SSPX are schismatics and excommunicated.
All Ecumenical Councils trail in their wake all manner of recalcitrant men, haughty in their proclamations that they are orthodox and the Pope is heretical and V2 was no exception.
The Sine qua non of Catholicism is Unity of Worship, Doctrine, and Authority and there has never been a time when Tradition is preserved in a schism; Satan is the Father to that thought.
One odd consequence of a formal declaration of schism is that the Sacraments of Marriage and Penance will now be valid in the SSPX.
Strange days indeed.
A bit befuddled. Aren't Frs. Chazal and Pfeiffer two of the more-tradition-minded priests who oppose a deal between SSPX and NewChurch? Frankly, I've been torn between anxiety and hopefulness that His Excellency Bp. Williamson and one or two of the other Bishops of the SSPX might lead a schism. Fearful b/c the voices of Tradition do not need to splinter and divide against ourselves. Hopeful b/c His Excellency Bp. Fellay has allowed his tenure as Superior General to sound an uncertain note in the time of battle against the errors of NewChurch. Hoping for a clarification
ReplyDeleteI wonder if the desire for regularization of the SSPX on the part of Pope Benedict, followed by the appointment of Archbishop Muller, is the sign of paralysis referred to by Our Lady of Good Success, which will directly precede the complete restoration of the Church?
ReplyDeleteWell, to be plain, simple and sincere, if the statement concerning 'no deal' came from Archbishop Lefebvre I would immediately accept it, having known the man before many others knew him. It does not come from the beloved Archbishop. When I say this I mean to call into question nobody's honesty. God alone can judge us in the internal forum. I say simply i. that this does not come from Archbishop Lefebvre and ii. that trust is earned, irrespective of who you may be. The work of the Archbishop is, as always, under continuous attack from 'outside' Rome but also, most regrettably, from some on the inside and those who really should know better. The citadel is not impregnable when those who guard her are not completely faithful, as I suspect is the case with some. Too great a tendency to expel is not the sign of a wise Superior. It has been too freely the response to criticism and is most un-Lefebvre-like, in my considered experience and opinion. It is very possible that I, too, should be cast into the outer darkness and away from the warmth of Menzingen's 'love' and 'charity' did some people discover who I am and were I not entirely protected. To be shunned by such people is, sub specie aeternitatis, no catastrophe fpr any Catholic, much less for a Priest who knows he is in all good conscience faithful to his calling. Such love and charity is phoney if it can be denied because I oppose you. Priests are not intended to be 'vagi' - they are supposed to be brought together for mutual support, so necessary in any age and never more so than now. I find it a sad but indisputable sign of immaturity - as well as a stain on the FSSPX - that any Superior behave in a manner than runs clean contrary not only to the ethos and philosophy of Abp Lefebvre but is entirely antipathetic to the essence of the Episcopal duty to be the Fullness of the Fatherhood of the Priesthood. Christ is not so. Neither was Marcel Lefebvre
ReplyDeleteI think part of the problem with, for example, Fr. Pfeiffer's case were the mixed signals that were being sent on the website and elsewhere, as well as all the pointless secrecy.
ReplyDeleteI guess they thought the doing things quietly would keep speculation down to a minimum, but instead it did the opposite.
I know I couldn't (and still can't to a lesser degree) help but wonder if they were creeping away from their old, tougher stance.
It's just a big mess on all sides.
Your headline is ambiguous. I thought the linked documents were about the expulsion of pro-deal priests, but they are priests who were in the Williamson camp. Please edit the headline for clarity. Thank you!
ReplyDeleteScott
This quote of Fr. Couture's, relating that the Archbishop has said that nothing will happen with the current Pope, sent up a red flag in my mind. When did the Archbishop say this? I went to the official SSPX site and don't see any such official statement. That seems pretty final. But I did tune out for awhile when the talks faltered. Maybe I missed it?
ReplyDeleteEdgar - I corrected that.
ReplyDeleteElizabeth - The only public record of Bishop Fellay's comments are from the SSPX-Asia website, which is an official SSPX source. For that reason, I don't consider it a rumor or unsubstantiated. If this was coming from a blog or some other source, that would be different.
So, the DS of Asia has issued a statement, based on "several recent statements" by the SG of the SSPX, that there will be no "deal" under Pope Benedict XVI. This is a fairly significant claim! If +Felley has been saying such things in addresses to groups, or in homilies, why has he himself not made a general public statement for both the faithful and Rome? To say, officially, that "there will be no deal" with this Pope, is a very final thing to say. It is worlds away from saying there "is" no deal, or that things have stalled - both of which need need no special formalities to state. But for a DS to make an official statement on a secondary (though still official) outlet of the Society, about the finality of the situation, seems a bit out of line. I would think it proper for +Fellay to be the one to say something so final, and in a more official and public way than what was intimated by in the DS's statement. In other words, could this be a case of the DS jumping the gun, or maybe misreading the words or meaning of +Fellay? I sure hope so.
ReplyDeleteTom, I have to admit that I'm a bit confused by the source of this information as well. I do know that Fr. Couture has always been supportive of Bishop Fellay's wishes in regard to the Vatican negotiations, so I'm pretty sure he and the SSPX-Asia website wouldn't misconstrue Bishop Fellay intentionally.
ReplyDeleteFor my part, I've been convinced there would be no agreement ever since the appointment of Müller. The decision to nix this deal did not come from the SSPX. It came from the pope.
Get ready for worse. I'm hearing some very distressing rumors from other corners concerning Medjugorje. I hope I'm wrong.
Yeah, it seems like something is missing here. In any event, I am going to take this with the same grain of salt I took this spring's weekly "reconciliation imminent" speculations. I've only been in the Traditional movement for a few years (generously speaking) and following the SSPX for only half that, yet even I feel almost jaded by all this back and forth. I can't imagine how those involved since '74 or '88 have kept sane.
ReplyDeleteAs for Medjugorje, you have me worried about some sort of favorable opinion coming out of the investigation. I pray whatever you may know, will not be true.
I'm confused. I thought the announcement that there would be no deal happened months ago.
ReplyDelete"One odd consequence of a formal declaration of schism is that the Sacraments of Marriage and Penance will now be valid in the SSPX."
ReplyDeleteI am not Spartucus,
So if this happens, an FSSPX Mass will not fulfill the holyday obligation, but one may validly have his sins absolved by an FSSPX priest?
Unbelievable.