For the last time, there is zero difference between God's mercy and His Law!!! Anybody who says different is selling timeshares in Hell. Anybody. -- Me

Featured Posts


Creative Minority Reader

Pope Francis and the SSPX: An Opportunity

Please find the original NCR story below.

. . .


Pope Francis and the SSPX: An Opportunity
By PATRICK ARCHBOLD
By now, many of you have probably seen the Tony Palmer video last week that was so exciting to many.
At a Protestant conference, Tony Palmer, an Anglican priest, brought along an iPhone video of greeting from Pope Francis. The subject of the presentation and of the Pope’s recording was unity of Christians.

In his remarks, Pope Francis made the following statements to our separated brethren regarding the separation: “Separated because, it’s sin that has separated us, all our sins. The misunderstandings throughout history. It has been a long road of sins that we all shared in. Who is to blame? We all share the blame. We have all sinned. There is only one blameless, the Lord.”

It is certainly true. Regardless of the truth of Catholic doctrine, the Church has accepted its share of the blame for the misunderstanding that were allowed to deepen and harden, leading to centuries of separation.

When I heard this, something else written by Pope Francis’ predecessor came immediately to mind. In 2007, along with the issuance of the “motu proprio” Summorum Pontificum, Pope Benedict XVI issued a letter explaining his reasoning. In that letter, he made the following statement.

Looking back over the past, to the divisions which in the course of the centuries have rent the body of Christ, one continually has the impression that, at critical moments when divisions were coming about, not enough was done by the Church’s leaders to maintain or regain reconciliation and unity. One has the impression that omissions on the part of the Church have had their share of blame for the fact that these divisions were able to harden. This glance at the past imposes an obligation on us today: to make every effort to unable for all those who truly desire unity to remain in that unity or to attain it anew. I think of a sentence in the Second Letter to the Corinthians, where Paul writes: “Our mouth is open to you, Corinthians; our heart is wide. You are not restricted by us, but you are restricted in your own affections. In return … widen your hearts also!” (2 Corinthians 6:11-13). Paul was certainly speaking in another context, but his exhortation can and must touch us too, precisely on this subject. Let us generously open our hearts and make room for everything that the faith itself allows.
It strikes me that this may be one of those critical moments in history to which His Holiness refers.

With the breakdown of discussion between the Holy See and the Society of St. Pius X at the end of the previous pontificate, the public mood during this first year of the current pontificate, and other internal events, traditional Catholics, both inside and outside the Church, have felt increasingly marginalized. Whether fair or true, I say without fear of contradiction that this is a prevailing sentiment.

This perception of marginalization has manifested itself in increasingly strident and frankly disrespectful rhetoric on the part of some traditionalists and their leaders.

I have great concern that without the all the generosity that faith allows by the leaders of the Church, that this separation, this wound on the Church, will become permanent. In fact, without such generosity, I fully expect it. Such permanent separation and feeling of marginalization will likely separate more souls than just those currently associated with the SSPX.

I have also come to believe that Pope Francis’ is exactly the right Pope to do it. In his address to the evangelicals, he makes clear his real concern for unity.

So here is what I am asking. I ask the Pope to apply that wide generosity to the SSPX and to normalize relations and their standing within the Church. I am asking the Pope to do this even without the total agreement on the Second Vatican Council. Whatever their disagreements, surely this can be worked out over time with the SSPX firmly implanted in the Church. I think that the Church needs to be more generous toward unity than to insist upon dogmatic adherence to the interpretation of a non-dogmatic council. The issues are real, but they must be worked out with our brothers at home and not with a locked door.

Further, Pope Francis’ commitment to the aims of the Second Vatican Council is unquestioned. Were he to be generous in such a way, nobody would ever interpret it to be a rejection of the Council. How could it be? This perception may not have been the case in the last pontificate. Pope Francis is uniquely suited to this magnanimous moment.

I believe this generosity is warranted and standard practice in the Church. We do not insist on religious orders that may have strayed even further in the other direction sign a copy of Pascendi Dominici Gregis before they can be called Catholic again. So please let us not insist on the corollary for the SSPX. Must we insist on more for a group that doctrinally would not have raised an eyebrow a mere fifty years ago? I pray not.

Give them canonical status and organizational structure that will protect them. Bring them home, for their sake and the sake of countless other souls. I truly believe that such generosity will be repaid seven-fold. Pope Benedict has done so much of the heavy lifting already, all that is required is just a little more.

Please Holy Father, let us not let this moment pass and this rift grow into a chasm. Make this generous offer and save the Church from further division. Do this so that none of your successors will ever say, “If only we had done more.”


*subhead*Generosity.*subhead*

Your Ad Here

136 comments:

Capt. Morgan said...

Tried to follow the link, all I get to is the register page with no story. Did it get pulled?

Netmilsmom said...

Please repost it here. It was brilliant!

Jason said...

I zee nothing. Nothing.

Aloysius Gonzaga said...

Why is an appeal for Church unity, something forbidden? Hello Catholic Register? Hello? Anybody there?

Terrye said...

What happened? The Status of the SSPX is a vexed question in the Church, and I would welcome any plan to resolve their canonical position.

Terrye said...

What happened? The Status of the SSPX is a vexed question in the Church, and I would welcome any plan to resolve their canonical position.

overcaffeinated said...

Ironically pulling the article merely reinforces its argument.

Alphonsus Jr. said...

The NCRegister is a NeoCatholic publication. As such, it's not at all surprising that they'd see fit to flush such an essay down the memory hole. The question is, will you continue to write for such a compromised rag?

Las Vegas Mama said...

I couldn't get to the article at the Register either so thanks for posting it here. That said, I think it makes sense to expect Pope Francis would willingly extend that desire for unity to SSPX.

That Mom with all those kids said...

I haven't been able to pull up Fr. Z's website or that of the National Catholic Register since Sunday.

oldcanon2257 said...

I pray that someday when the SSPX is regularized, the Holy Father at that time would appoint one of the SSPX bishops to be the local ordinary of whichever diocese which the Register falls under.

JFM said...

THANK YOU!

Stephen Spencer said...

A good article. These are times of division: during the pontificate of Benedict, I'm sure that the article would not have been pulled.

Jon said...

Nailed it.

phlogiston1667 said...

@overcaffeinated - 100% correct.

Steve C said...

awesome article & I'm no SSPX apologist. Hear Hear. I want them in to help inside the Church.

wkndbeachcomber said...

No need to comment, Pat. It's a great article.

Why not get a hold of Professor de Mattei and see if your talents, and those of others that have been or are about to be silenced, can be joined together in a truly Catholic online publication where you don't have to worry about such things?

Jewel said...

Mom with the kids, have you tried cleaning out the cache? That sometimes helps, as does typing in the url manually. I haven't had any problem getting Father Z's Blog.

Elizabeth Rose said...

It's simply beyond me how the Church can embrace protestants & come to an agreement with the Anglicans & fail to come to an agreement with the SSPX. This article truly hits the nail on the head in regards to the situation. I hope it's published & shared widely.

Chris said...

Perhaps much of the hierarchy of the church embraces protestants because it secretly wants to be one too.... :-P

Alphonsus Jr. said...

Steve C, those of the SSPX already are operating from inside the Church. Their position is that of canonical irregularity, not of being outside the Church. On the absurdity of this latter notion, search for this essay:

Gnostic Twaddle, by Christopher Ferrara

David Heath said...

I agree...with all the homilies re: brotherly Love, Christs redemptive power and His Mercy and Compassion, and the now-ubitquitous "who am I to judge" meme, there remains little validity in keeping the SSPX at arms length. It is time to practice what is being preached.

David Madeley said...

Pat, do you have an opinion about where to start in terms of finding the hermeneutic of continuity? Agreements are well and good, but for my part I simply have no idea how to square, say, Leonine political theory with religious liberty. However charitable I and my friends in good standing can be to one another, we don't understand where the other is coming from.

StWinefride said...

Thank you for saying what needs to be said!

Capt. Morgan said...

Well said Pat. Unfortunately the instigators and leaders of this chapter of the Church are not interested in allowing the Faith of the ages a return. Does not seem to fit their agenda. Keep up the hard work.

M. Prodigal said...

Amen, brother! If atheists, heretics, pagans, any and all are to be embraced with charity, then one can only hope that the 'irregular' Catholics also can be. Also, if the strident name calling and suppressing of things of the traditional aspects of our holy Church continue to be marginalized, there will be a new influx into the SSPX. Lets bring them all the way home!

iowapapist said...

Hear, hear! Legislate the SSPX into regularization with the Church. One act would end a major controversy while greatly enriching the Bride of Christ.

Long-Skirts said...

PIUS
THE
TENTH
PATCH

Brer bishops
Brer priests
And brer people of god
Accept everyone
But the Pius the Tenth’s odd.

Brer mother of ten cried,
"The old's tried and trued."
Brer people of god cried,
"Chill out
Take a lude."

Brer priest said,
"Ms. Brer have a coke
Serve with me
And together we'll create
A nice mess harmony!"

With these words
Brer mother got sick
And threw up
So brer priest urged her, "Go!
If you can't drink our cup."

"So you're urgin' I go?"
And her head she did scratch,
"Jus' please don't throw me
In no Pius the
Tenth Patch!!"

But brer priest
Flung brer mother
Out the door shut the latch
And forced her to land
In a Pius the Tenth Patch.

So Pentecostals
Are given a nod
By brer Bishop of Rome
Who sends hugs
By cast-pod

But high on a hill
Brer mother of ten
Is singin' and kickin'
Her heels
Up again...

"I was born and raised
In a Pius the Tenth Patch
Known as the Catholic Church
And there still ain't
No match!!!"

Dan Hunter said...

It is very telling that NCR and EWTN pulled this very charitable piece.

It tells a lot about EWTN's tolerance and charity.

Harry Seldon said...

Of course the article was pulled down. Pat is advocating for the SSPX being regularized without accepting an ecumenical council. It's idiotic. I'm glad the Register is finally reading its own bloggers, it's about time.

utubeo said...

Only now, young Skywalker, do you truly understand.

Harry Seldon said...

Long Skirts posted:

"But brer priest
Flung brer mother
Out the door shut the latch
And forced her to land
In a Pius the Tenth Patch."

...without valid absolution due to a lack a faculties. Hope you enjoy kicking up your heels and writing amateur poetry enough that it's worthwhile.

I see you're still attracting only the best and brightest, Pat.

Mary's Child Mariann said...

Uhm, I believe someone up above in the comments mentioned that as much as we hope for this reconciliation and return, is there not still the possibility that they will not return until N.O. is removed? I may be under the misunderstanding that they have never agreed with the validity of the N.O. and thus it is their stance that prevents their return. If I am in error, I ask forgiveness for misleading anyone's understanding since I am no expert. Pat?

JB said...


Unfortunately, I think may be more the case that there needs to be an ecumenical outreach to Francis at this point, who with his most recent comments on confession, i.e., that Christ became a "sinner" for us, and likes it when we sin, has me seriously wondering if the SSPX does not have many valid points about the post Vatican II world.

Long-Skirts said...

Harry Seldon said:

"I see you're still attracting only the best and brightest, Pat."

"You have delusions of adequacy."

Harry Seldon said...

"You have delusions of adequacy."

Way to mine the internet for classic insults. You still are cut off from valid absolution in the SSPX. Come out of it. Don't let anything keep you away from valid sacraments.

CatholicBuckeye said...

Who is EWTN and NCR to judge?
I'm not for sure how EWTN and NCR are going to recover after this debacle. Can EWTN/NCR even perform a Mea Culpa large enough to regain their credibility after this idiotic decision?

David Madeley said...

Harry, the tradosphere is changing - did you hear there's an initiative afloat to deck out Deacon Sandy's parish with new kneelers? Spread the word.

Good luck with your indisputably valid, albeit theologically dodgy confessions. I'll stick with my theologically sound if canonically disputed confessions. In the end it's not canonical horror stories that will bring anyone 'back', but a robust defense of the place of moral leadership in Church and State, and an explanation of how the council texts reinforce that role.

Bornacatholic said...

Our Holy Pontiffs have repeatedly extended their hands towards the sspx schism and have had them bitten; but, they continue to search after the lost sheep within that schism.

The point of no return was passed long ago and it will be formally concretised when the SSPX publicly rejects the raising to the Altars, Pope John 23rd and Pope John Paul II.

With his recent public statements about Pope Francis, Bishop Fellay has backed himself into a schismatic corner and from which extreme corner only an act of heroic humility can rescue him and the sspx.

I may be wrong (it is my speciality) but I don't see any end to the schism in the lifetimes of even the young folks reading this Blog.

And considering youth, what can be said positively about a schism that has been teachings generations of youth that Holy Mother Church teaches error and that one or more Popes are material heretics?

Having had that pernicious and malign propaganda drilled into them, who expects the energetic youth of the sspx to accept any deal with corrupt masonic, Rome?

Harry Seldon said...

"""Good luck with your indisputably valid, albeit theologically dodgy confessions."""

Thanks for agreeing about validity. Now, I'd absolutely love to know what's theologically dodgy about my confessions. That's the sort of glib, meaningless throwaway line that passes for thoughtful argumentation in so many Trad circles.

Harry Seldon said...

""Can EWTN/NCR even perform a Mea Culpa large enough to regain their credibility after this idiotic decision?""

For the 14 people who noticed? No. Probably not.

David Madeley said...

Come on, are you saying you've never been to confession with a priest who's given you some dodgy advice? If so you are very lucky - don't assume it's common or will carry on for the rest of your life. And don't assume you can innoculate yourself against bad advice by good reading. You are far more suggestible when in the confessional or listening to a homily.

David Madeley said...

But let's back up a bit, Harry. What's your hermeneutic of continuity? How does Dignitas Humanae square with the Syllabus of Errors? If you have an idea, I would genuinely like to hear it.

Patrick Archbold said...

I think we ought to be very careful of ever saying "It is too late for mercy" lest that be true for ourselves.

David Madeley said...

If you're interested, there are some excellent articles on this topic by Thomas Pink and John Lamont. I'm still skeptical but it's a start.

Harry Seldon said...

David -

So, you fail. Be more careful in your comments in the future, lest people notice how vacuous they are.

David Madeley said...

Fail? At what?

David Madeley said...

If you're saying I need to be more precise - re: confession - I can be more precise. But it means going into a lot of detail about 20th century personalism and I thought it would be better to get you to dwell on your own experiences.

cyrillist said...

@Seldon: "Pat is advocating for the SSPX being regularized without accepting an ecumenical council."

The SSPX is being punished for being forthright in their rejection of 5% of Vatican II. At the same time, modernist clergy are being rewarded for being covert in their rejection of the remaining 95%. Tu quoque, granted. But still. Let's not be disingenuous here.

Having said that, I wouldn't expect the SSPX to agree to regularization along the lines suggested by Mr. Archbold. Their big gamble was to insist on doctrinal dialogues with the Vatican, in the hope that their interlocutors would be converted to their view of tradition. By all accounts, the dialogues were a fiasco.

The SSPX could possibly act as traditional leaven in the Church, once regularized, but they have consistently insisted that regularization would be predicated on the Church's return to tradition beforehand, not afterwards. It's a classic rock-and-a-hard-place, and a tragedy on all sides.

Salvelinus fontinalis said...

I find it very odd that NCR pulled this (or refused to post it) - Its very charitable.... But then again, the "soft-Sede" and Ultra-Modernist" side of "Catholicism" will set their sites on the Combox, and NCR may have not wated to deal with it.

Waht better way than to bring SSPX into full communion, than to get rid of the ultra modernists and sedevavatists, which are the real problems. Right now they just hide in plain site.

Andy said...

The Pope's video to the Pentecostals was very heart-felt and moving and I think a great step in the right direction. I believe that it takes both time and a loving attitude from both sides to heal that division. And it will take time, lots of time. I have conversed with some Pentecostals online, and from the sound of it, there has been in some places an environment of hate for the Catholic Church there.

I believe that the love from Christ softens hearts and makes full communion possible. In time, it could be that Pentecostal's hearts are softened, and then true dialogue can happen. But the bottom line is, that Pentecostals, just like anyone else, need to accept both the Truth of the Catholic Church and her authority. The only way they get there is by first turning to us with loving hearts and learning.

Allowing the SSPX to not accept Vatican II is not the way to reunite them. They also need to turn in love toward the Church. From what I understand, traditional teaching is powerful, and I have listened to a lot of it (nearly every homily given by the priests at AudioSancto) and I consider myself a more traditional Catholic, and I love tradition. But I have also a feel for some traditional persons and their attitudes, and they insist more on doctrinal agreement and would outright reject this approach to coaxing anyone into communion. It's more black and white to them, it seems, and less the loving grey. And in a sense they are right to insist on doctrinal agreement. And so should we. And that is why the Church absolutely SHOULD NOT allow the SSPX back in and not having to accept Vatican II. It would create real problems from within the Church. It's not worth caving on that for the sake of superficial unity. The people in the SSPX probably wouldn't want to be a part of a pussilanimous church that caves in to the demands of others for the sake of said "unity" which is not unity at all. We should be bold too, but with a heart that listens. And they need to do the same.

So I disagree with your article Matt. We just have to be patient. The Lord alone can heal this rift. Compromise in this way is a fleshy means to solve a real spiritual problem. It doesn't work that way.

Frederick Dempsey said...

Don't fret too much, Pat. No one mistakes the National Catholic Register for a real newspaper. It's a a Church propaganda rag, and powerful Church leaders want part of peace with the SSPX.

Frederick Dempsey said...

Correction: Want "no" peace...

Dan Hunter said...

Catholics are not bound to accept anything novel in the Second Vatican Council.
Pope Paul VI himself declared VII a non-Dogmatic Council.

The only parts of the VII documents that are binding on all the faithful are those parts which the Council just restated, that the Church always and everywhere taught.

The SSPX have always believed this.

His Excellency, Bishop Fellay, in a fairly recent interview said as much.

CatholicBuckeye said...

"For the 14 people who noticed? No. Probably not."

Harry, you're probably right. The only poor saps to have taken notice are those few, silly souls that are still left trying to practice Catholicism.
Will the last person left please turn off the lights?

Bornacatholic said...

Dear Mr Hunter. That is simply untrue. Christian c\Catholics must accept everything decided by a council and they must accept it with a religious submission of mind.

Here is Yves Congar contrary to the claims made by the enemies of an Ecumenical Council that one does not have to accept any new teaching:

The only passage of the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church that could be considered a truly dogmatic declaration is the one that concerns the sacramentality of the episcopate (LG III, n. 21): in fact, it settles a question that until now had been freely disputed by theologians. At the same time it is proposed as a teaching on the same level with the others, without the use of the emphatic, repeated and solemn formulas that normally introduce a ‘definition....

All of the false claims made by those who oppose the Popes, Council, and Mass were systematically answered long ago; just google

A Prescription against Traditionalism

and as for those who demand a specific formulation of Dogmatic/Infallible formulations, see Bishop Vincent Gasser warning about how many problems would result from that demand (I posted his entire Relatio at Vatican 1 on my crummy blog).

The sad and pathetic reality is that the soi disant traditionalists have the most novel reasons for opposing the solid Catholic Tradition of accepting the teachings of an Ecumenical Council (Catholic Encyclopedia notes that those who reject any teaching of an ecumenical council are rejected by the Church)

The Rise of the Online Trad Machine has resulted in a huge chasm between the Church and those who claim authority to teach the Church what Tradition is; and down through that chasm one can hear the same false charges endlessly echoed.

Bornacatholic said...

Bishop Vincent Gasser at Vatican I (I presume most are still jake with this council)


030. But some will persist and say: there remains, therefore, the duty of the Pontiff - indeed most grave in its kind – of adhering to the means apt for discerning the truth, and, although this matter is not strictly dogmatic, it is, nevertheless, intimately connected with dogma. For we define: the dogmatic judgments of the Roman Pontiff are infallible. Therefore let us also define the form to be used by the Pontiff in such a judgment. It seems to me that this was the mind of some of the most reverend fathers as they spoke from this podium. But, most eminent and reverend fathers, this proposal simply cannot be accepted because we are not dealing with something new here.

Already thousands and thousands of dogmatic judgments have gone forth from the Apostolic See; where is the law which prescribed the form to be observed in such judgments?

031. Perhaps someone will say: if we don't have a law, let us make one. But let us not do this lest we run up against that already condemned law which said that the council was above the Pope. Furthermore, of what use would be such a law? Would it not be completely useless, since it would never be able to be verified by the faithful and the bishops scattered throughout the world? Even more, it would be a very dangerous thing since it would offer the opportunity for innumerable foolish objections and anxieties. Therefore, let Peter gird himself according to the word of our Lord Jesus Christ, since Peter does not grow old while the world grows old but rather renews his powers like the eagle.

So, contrary to the innumerable claims issued sine the Rise of the Online Trad Machine, ther have been THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS OF INFALLIBLE JUDGMENTS MADE BY THE HOLY SEE

And, as Bishop Gasser wisely noted, demanding a specific formula would just lead to the very trouble we see in any com box on any Catholic Blog any day of the year.

wkndbeachcomber said...

@Harry Seldon -

Harry, I used to read worthy comments from you. Even if I disagreed, I always thought, "gee, what he says needs to have a thoughtful response."

Now, you just seem to be trolling. I have never attended an SSPX chapel or mass. I'm fuzzy on their status. Many comments from those that do attend resonate with me. Some don't.

To treat a group of people that accept every jot and tittle of every council except the most recent, self-described non-dogmatic one with such derision, whilst bear-hugging out-and-out heretics, is a cause for cognitive dissonance for many.

joe said...

We already have the National Catholic Distorter, now this. Pray Pray Pray

Alphonsus Jr. said...

David,

On the desperate insanity of the "hermeneutic of continuity," see this essay:

The Oath Against Modernism vs. the "Hermeneutic of Continuity," by John Vennari

Catholic in Brooklyn said...

Mr. Archbold, you have an unleashed an unholy torrent of comments here, with people cheering you on and turning against the Church hierarchy, as seen in this comment from @Elizabeth Rose:

"It's simply beyond me how the Church can embrace protestants & come to an agreement with the Anglicans & fail to come to an agreement with the SSPX. This article truly hits the nail on the head in regards to the situation. I hope it's published & shared widely."

As a public figure, you need to be very careful what you write. You are affecting souls and turning them against the hierarchy of the Church, You wrote in Father Angelo's Blog, Mary Victrix, (which can be found here http://maryvictrix.com/2014/02/26/more-evidence-of-the-wedge/#comments ), while "correcting" something he wrote, that you "may be wrong." If you honestly feel that you are wrong in any sense, and that you maybe understand now why the Register rejected your article, you need to print a retraction immediately. You correctly stated in your article, "With the breakdown of discussion between the Holy See and the Society of St. Pius X at the end of the previous pontificate, the public mood during this first year of the current pontificate, and other internal events, traditional Catholics, both inside and outside the Church, have felt increasingly marginalized."

Articles such as yours only promote this mood even further and are very destructive to the unity of the Church.

Joseph said...

Just a little research into SSPX turns up quite a lot of vile anti-semitism/jew-hatred. Any reconciliation with this bunch should be contingent on their renunciation of their anti-semitism.

Harry Seldon said...

WkndBeachcomber wrote:

"""To treat a group of people that accept every jot and tittle of every council except the most recent, self-described non-dogmatic one with such derision, whilst bear-hugging out-and-out heretics, is a cause for cognitive dissonance for many.""

...and what's the difference? Only the SSPX is explicit about it.

See, that's the thing. The SSPX is honest about their dissent. The other dissenters are not. This means what? That the SSPX is rightly punished for what millions of others should rightly be punished for.

Pat is advocating for a Churchwide policy-change for all time, he just doesn't realize it. He wants to make explicit rejection of the teachings of an Ecumenical Council possible for Catholics declared 'in communion'.

Is the treatment the SSPX receives 'fair' in the human sense? No, of course not. They are treated much, much worse than Protestants in (I think) every diocese in the world. On the other hand...they purport to be Catholic in a way no Protestant does in the modern age.

So the Church does as she will, and up here in the cheap seats we all point and whisper and have our private theories and render petty anathemas. Pat stood up and yelled at the Ref - 'Hang the rules! The bad guys are winning. Throw away the rulebook and call some plays for our side!"...

...and he got ejected from the game.


There. That thoughtful enough for you? Or am I just trolling? Here:

SSPX priests lack faculties from the ordinary of the diocese they operate in. Certain sacraments require faculties for validity. The priests are lying, hiding behind the thinnest excuse, and operating illicitly (and thus sinfully) to the vast detriment and danger of those who have chosen (un-wisely but understandably) to follow them.

The king of radical Traditionalism remains naked. And without faculties.

Harry Seldon said...

Joseph wrote:

"""Just a little research into SSPX turns up quite a lot of vile anti-semitism/jew-hatred. Any reconciliation with this bunch should be contingent on their renunciation of their anti-semitism."""

True. However, to their credit, they did eject that Nazi +Williamson from the party. That was a positive step. This took the worst of their crazy priests (like that nutbag Fr. Pfeiffer, who in a homily video since removed from YouTube, actually accused Pope Benedict of participating in infant sacricfices - I'm not kidding. You can read the Williamson supporters discussing it calmly, here:

http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Fr-Pfeiffer-gives-credence-to-Ratzinger-Satanism-accusations

) out, since their followed Williamson, who is quietly insane somewhere in England right now.

So, yeah, the SSPX is trying to purge the worst crazies from their midst, but they won't be able to, since in my experience the average SSPX'er is a conspiracy nut who believes in a flat Earth at the exact center of the universe...and their priests are worse.

Hey Pat...does the Earth revolve around the Sun? Just curious.

Bornacatholic said...

On the desperate insanity of the "hermeneutic of continuity,"

Dear Alphonsus. Are we to take the personal opinion of Mr Vennari over the statements of a Pope?

I know doing such a thing isTradition but it is Protestant tradition not Catholic Tradition.

Mr Vennari repudiates an Ecumenical Council and so he can have no objection to any protestant repudiating any other Ecumenical Council for the authority of the Church upholds al Ecumenical Councils; that is to say, Mr. Vennari rejects Divinely-Constiuted Authority and he follow his own opinions.

C'est la vie.

Pray for Mr. Vennari for he has lost the Faith.

Dan Hunter said...

All the more reason to regularize the Society.

As Mr Archbold has so astutely put it they are our brother Catholics.
We share the same Apostolic lineage.

The SSPX are doing their best against an egregious and growing animus of Modernism within the institutional Church.

As Pope St Pius X said:
"Traditionalists are the True Friends of the People."

Michael said...

There was a time (until very recently, actually) that I honestly thought it would be a great blessing to the Church were the SSPX to reunite fully with her. But from what I’m reading and hearing from friends with ties to the SSPX, the society is undergoing some tumult as those more in line with Bishop Williamson (of Holocaust denial infamy) battle those more in line with Bishop Fellay. It might be prudent to allow that to shake out – for the sake of the SSPX and the Church at large.

Also, it’s not exactly helpful when the head of the SSPX publicly and formally thanks God Almighty that they were “preserved” from the “misfortune” of reconciliation with the Holy See, publicly states that the ordinary form of the Mass is “evil”, publicly accuses the pope of being a heretic (calling him a “genuine modernist”), and also states that Second Vatican Council represents an outright rupture with Tradition. That doesn’t strike me as a group that is quite ready for (or even particularly interested in) full communion.

You can read AB Fellay’s comments here at Rorate Caeli: http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2013/10/bishop-fellay-we-thank-god-there-was-no.html

Of course, it also doesn’t help when the SSPX goes out of its way to take care of a Nazi war criminal who never apologized or disavowed Nazi ideology. Nor does it help when the SSPX disrupts an interfaith service in memory of Kristallnacht only to have the head of the SSPX in South America defend the behavior.

http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/the-city-gates.cfm?ID=687

http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=19666

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/catholic-fringe-defies-pope-disrupts-interfaith-kristallnacht-ceremony-at-argentine-cathedral/2013/11/13/eca47820-4c72-11e3-bf60-c1ca136ae14a_story.html

Michael said...

[I accidentally cut off the last line of my comment above]


These things (listed above) only reinforce the perception that the SSPX is not ready. I hope and pray that changes.

Harry Seldon said...

Michael wrote:

"""Of course, it also doesn’t help when the SSPX goes out of its way to take care of a Nazi war criminal who never apologized or disavowed Nazi ideology. Nor does it help when the SSPX disrupts an interfaith service in memory of Kristallnacht only to have the head of the SSPX in South America defend the behavior."""

Indeed. It is almost...as if...they...didn't want to be regularized at all.

As if...they wanted...to be...excommunicated.

Almost...as if...they wanted to simply have a reason to stay away...and aloof...and better...and more pure than those commoners.

Sort of...like...

""But high on a hill
Brer mother of ten
Is singin' and kickin'
Her heels
Up again...

"I was born and raised
In a Pius the Tenth Patch
Known as the Catholic Church
And there still ain't
No match!!!"""

Alphonsus Jr. said...

Harry, what's with the trendy ellipses?

Alphonsus Jr. said...

Once again the "full communion" nonsense has been trotted out. For a debunking of this, see this essay:

Gnostic Twaddle, by Christopher Ferrara

Michael said...

The same Chris Ferrara who suggests that Pope Francis may not really be the pope?

http://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/274-latest-updates-from-socci-the-papal-games

The same Chris Ferrara who is now helping to promote geocentrism (the belief that the earth is the immobile center of the universe and the sun, planets and stars all rotate around it)?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=554TOFX3FW8&feature=share&list=LL3x3gDTqUYy_bFZWS-U_mZQ



Viva Cristo Rey said...

Same old liberal hate for traditional Catholics.

cyrillist said...

@Seldon: "That the SSPX is rightly punished for what millions of others should rightly be punished for. "

Willingly granted.

But when the millions of others who merit rightful punishment remain in full communion? With full faculties? Often in positions of high authority? In light of that, doesn't the SSPX's malfeasance dwindle into a bit of a side issue? Kind of a red herring? Something small that can be easily and safely railed against, as opposed to something so big that it can scarcely be grasped, much less addressed?

Well, the Church remains indefectible. On bad days, it beats me how. But like you say, what do I know, I'm out here in the bleachers (albeit with pretty good binoculars). Kyrie eleison.

Bornacatholic said...

Once again the "full communion" nonsense has been trotted out. For a debunking of this, see this essay: Gnostic Twaddle, by Christopher Ferrara

Dear Alphonsus Jr. There is one Faith, one Baptism, thus, any human who is, say, Baptised, by a Evangelical Minister comes into Partial Communion with the Catholic Church and then has to go through additional steps to come into Full Communion with the Catholic Church.

That such a reality is denied by the soi disant traditionalists evinces a massive amount of ignorance but it does have the, somewhat funny and ironic, consequence of casting those who deny the reality of partial and full communion into the camp of those who are in partial communion with the church you know, the protestants.

I am sure you do not see the humorous irony in that...but, that is what ya get for following the personal opinions of Mr. Ferrara rather than the Catholic Magisterium.

Augustinus said...

It's clear to me that EWTN has been infiltrated by Neo-Catholics, i.e. mostly composed of converted protestants, who can never seem to fully convert to the Catholic Faith and accept it's traditions. The Church has been infiltrated and it is being destroyed from within.

It is time there is a counter-infiltration of Traditionalists! The only way the Church will be free of the Masons is to covertly infiltrate the Church and regain power and hunt down and destroy this plague of Masons. We need to fight fire with fire, my fellow traditionalists.

Harry Seldon said...

Cyrillist wrote:

"""@Seldon: "That the SSPX is rightly punished for what millions of others should rightly be punished for. "

Willingly granted.

But when the millions of others who merit rightful punishment remain in full communion? With full faculties? Often in positions of high authority? In light of that, doesn't the SSPX's malfeasance dwindle into a bit of a side issue? Kind of a red herring? Something small that can be easily and safely railed against, as opposed to something so big that it can scarcely be grasped, much less addressed?

Well, the Church remains indefectible. On bad days, it beats me how. But like you say, what do I know, I'm out here in the bleachers (albeit with pretty good binoculars). Kyrie eleison."""""


When one of the other millions rises up and defies the Church openly, they indeed are often punished. The SSPX defies the Church openly. Ergo, they are duly punished.

Yes, it would be nice if one could compel all the dissidents to rise up publicly and declare where they stand, but until they do (or until an inquisition of the clerics is ordered) they remain safely hidden under the thinnest, flimsiest appearance of orthodoxy.

That's why.

It's rather like someone getting caught speeding and complaining loudly to the cop "But everyone else is speeding too!". The cop will not be impressed. Even if one claims that millions of others are speeding worse than you, the cop will still point to the number on his radar gun and write you up. Even if (stretching the metaphor) you tell the cop he'd catch the worst speeders if he would just sit on so-and-so corner at a certain time, you're still getting your ticket.

And, the SSPX is still getting punished.

Harry Seldon said...

""""Viva Cristo Rey said...
Same old liberal hate for traditional Catholics.""""

No, that's bullshit. We're talking about the SSPX in this thread. I'll keep going to FSSP Masses, with priests who actually have faculties, and whose Fraternity officially recognizes the Novus Ordo as valid and VII as legitimate and Summorum Pontificum as binding. That's the difference, and you're willingly overlooking it to paint with a braod (and really, very dishonest) brush. So stick it.

Harry Seldon said...

"""Augustinus said...
It's clear to me that EWTN has been infiltrated by Neo-Catholics, i.e. mostly composed of converted protestants, who can never seem to fully convert to the Catholic Faith and accept it's traditions. The Church has been infiltrated and it is being destroyed from within.

It is time there is a counter-infiltration of Traditionalists! The only way the Church will be free of the Masons is to covertly infiltrate the Church and regain power and hunt down and destroy this plague of Masons. We need to fight fire with fire, my fellow traditionalists.""""


Hey Pat. Here's one of your people now. I got $50 bucks which says he's a geocentrist and another $50 that says he thinks 9/11 was an inside job. I'll go double or nothing on whether he thinks fractional reserve banking is a Jewish conspiracy.

Still feel good about your position? Still think Pope Francis should herd them in without a question or a condition? You know, so these people can come in and teach us all how to be good Catholics again?

Give me a f_______ break.

Capt. Morgan said...

Pat, you were right to post your article. The die has been cast as to the battle for the Church. St. Athanasius withstood the arians. We must withstand the conciliarists. This battle started 50 years ago, and now the rotten fruit is starting to stink enough to get people's attention. The worse the Church becomes, the more ardent the supporters of the conciliar acrobatics will become in painting defenders of the Faith as wacko tin foil nut jobs. Just like the progressives in the US do to anyone who dares to question liberal agendas. This is a war for the Faith. Cowards need not apply.

Harry Seldon, your ad hominem attacks are rather petty, and belie a certain fear.

Bornacatholic said...

Dear Augistinus. Yu are a little late with your fear of infiltration by protestants.

I am still very suspicious (Tongue-in-cheekily) of all of the Jews who infiltrated the Catholic Church and assumed EVERY SINGLE position of authority right from the get-go; heck, Jesus even chose a Jew to be the first Pope.

I guess we were screwed right from the get go and don't tell me the soi disant traditionalists are going to save us; even the great Traditionalist, Dom Prosper Gueranger, in "the Liturgical Year," described Pentecost as The Jewish Pentecost

Augustinus said...

Hey Harry, you owe Pat 50 dollars. I believe in Evolution - divinely planned and directed. Anyone who doesn't accept Evolution, has a weak science background in the Life Sciences. I was a biology and philosophy major in college. I am not a geo-centrist, either. As are as 9/11 being and inside job - wrong again! I am a scientist by education - therefore, I follow the scientific method. As a philosopher, I follow logic - and use reason and faith to inform my conscience.

And lastly, I am not an "SSPXer" - which I bet you thought I was. Being a traditionalist is to be Catholic. I attend both a couple N.O. parishes and a FSSP Parish. Although, I believe the N.O. is valid, it certainly has it's defects in my opinion. However, I wish it were reformed or abolished outright, admittedly.

Augustinus said...

Dear Bornacatholic,

I wish a flood or Jews would convert to the one true Church. I welcome my Jewish brothers with open arms! I'm talking about Masons and Protestants that have succeeded in "Protestantizing" the majority of the Church.

Augustinus said...

...As a matter of fact, I welcome every single person on this earth into the Church. I wish that ALL would convert - not subvert. I don't like it when people convert who don't accept it's teachings and try to change and subvert Her teachings.

sofia said...

Excellent article Thanks

Adam Barnett said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Harry Seldon said...

""Hey Harry, you owe Pat 50 dollars.""

Actually, I had two 50 dollar bets and then doubled down. It's a good thing he didn't accept. I'd actually owe him $200.

Good thing you're not SSPX...so why are you so nuts about EWTN? Anyone with all of your smarts should be able to figure out exactly how that network runs...and why your conspiracy-mongering is stupid.

Harry Seldon said...

So, since Rorate is a bunch of little bitches who won't allow comments, let's just do it here:

Rorate Caeli posted:
""""""""In this case, not the Pope Emeritus, but poor Pat Archbold. EWTN's National Catholic Register and their intolerance just proved Benedict XVI right - one more time! It cannot be that Pentecostals have full presence in their paper, and their own Catholic brothers and sisters (whose priests are in an irregular situation, but are still priests, celebrating Catholic sacraments every single day) do not. How can unity ever be achieved thus? Curiously enough, we are pretty confident that Francis would be the first to reject this demeaning level of servility and sycophancy."""""

So, Pat suggested regularizing a group of priests who reject parts of an ecumenical council, and you don't think that's a big deal, because lots of other people are heretics. Great. That's some tight reasoning. Further, what is sycophantic is to say SSPX priests are 'celebrating Catholic sacraments every day' without noting the important part: Illicitly and without faculties!

That's like commenting approvingly on a loving couple, raising their children together every day, and neglecting to mention that they aren't married.

Well done Pat, for being a doofus again. Well done, Rorate, for humping the leg of the SSPX, again. Well done, EWTN and NCR, for apparently choosing your bloggers by throwing darts at a board blindfolded.

The only injustice here is that Pat's post got taken down, and all of Mark Shea's did not.

Augustinus said...

Harry, I've been in communion with the Church 7 years now. I'm what most would call a "revert" - only though God's great gift of Faith to me. Faith was the one cardinal virtue, I had never experienced. My science and philosophy studies refined and confirmed my agnosticism. Without faith, it is impossible by definition to believe in God. I had hope but no empirical evidence that would convince me that the Judeo-Christian God exists.

I have been following EWTN for the past seven years. There are solid "hosts" there to be sure. Fr. Pacwa, Johnnette Benkovic, and a couple others are pretty solid. I can't say that for everyone - mostly neo-cons. Especially the Catholic Answers hosts, namely Patrick Coffee, Jimmy Aikin, and Mark Shea. I would argue that Catholic Answers is the most influential and most anti-tradition minded of the bunch. Also, I find Raymond Arroyo pretty solid as well.

The fact that Pat's article got pulled by EWTN, provides more evidence of the clout the Neo-cons have within EWTN.

Paul Zummo said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Long-Skirts said...

In honor of the St. Pius X Priests and all the truly, holy Priests preserving not only the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass but the whole Catholic Faith...

UPON THIS ROCK

Weary, weary,
On this earth
Shielding souls
Beyond their worth.

Few are grateful
Some regress
Others proud
They won't confess

When the waves
Break on the shore
Warning them
What is before.

Established
You stand on this rock
'Gainst the gales
Fore those who mock

Facing squalls
They cannot see
But all behold
Your bended knee.

Few will follow
Some deny
Oblivious
They won't comply.

Then a blue moon
Saffron sun
Come together
Almost one.

Fingers blessed
With Holy Oil
You lift the Light…
Sun moon recoil.

Blinding many
Opening eyes
Contradiction
Most despise.

But on this rock
Eroded-rife
You stand your ground
Opposing strife.

Between the storms
And sheep you block
The tempest winds
That hurt the flock.

With outstretched arms
The daily crux
You nail the Truth
So not in flux

Never will lie
Only can free
Upon this rock
Catholicity.


Salvelinus fontinalis said...

Yikes.. there is a lack of charity here, as usual from the "tradition bashers"like Harry Seldon

culbreath said...

I'm impressed with Pat Archbold's charity and tolerance. It not only extends to his Catholic brothers in the SSPX, but to paranoid loopy nutcases like Harry Seldon. Can't say I would go quite that far.

Augustinus said...

I'll defend Harry a bit...Although he made the common error of making a few assumptions - which many of us are guilty, mind you - he did at least admit his mistake with me - and frankly, I appreciate it. I wouldn't go so far as call Harry a Nutcase - Culbreath... that's nothing more than name-calling - which is counter productive.

Augustinus said...

...and by the way, Harry. You too should refrain from name-calling. It detracts from the substance of your argument/opinion and lacks charity.

wkndbeachcomber said...

@Harry Seldon wrote: "There. That thoughtful enough for you?"

Actually, yes. I don't agree with the conclusion, but the exposition is solid.

Is granting absolution for past transgressions and bringing the SSPX into full communion with Rome without any pre-conditions within the Pope's power - as opposed, to say, changing the doctrine on divorce?

If so, do Catholics have a right to petition the Church for such things that are within it's power to grant?

I think the answer to those two questions is yes. Pat's article is bold, but reduced to its essence it is asking the Church to do something that is within its power to do. You can argue, Harry, that Pope Francis would be nuts to do it, but not that it isn't it within his power. At least I don't think you can do that and be correct.

Or -

Is Pat allowed, when he gets on his knees to pray, to ask God to reconcile the SSPX and the Church? Is a petition to God Our Father to touch the heart of the Pope to reconcile with our brethren a bad prayer, as compared to someone praying for a doctrinal change on divorce?

If that prayer is a valid one, how can you say that it is outrageous for Pat to ask our earthly father what we are validly allowed to ask of Our Father in Heaven?

Based on that alone, the Register's removal of the article is horrible editorial policy. What they should have done was ask a writer with an opposing view to lay out the reasons you gave earlier in this thread.

wkndbeachcomber said...

@Augustinus, @HarrySeldon

Good back and forth. Things can get overheated sometimes - I know I do - but compared to a combox on the really important stuff that can affect our salvation - like baseball's new homeplate collision rule - this place is very tame.

Harry, it's not an easy task to take on all comers. Good for you for standing your ground. But seriously, the comment on Rorate (little bitches) is way over the top. In all Christian brotherhood, an apology - unless it was meant as a joke and it went past me - might be a good idea. Sleep on it at least. Read it again tomorrow and see if that's not the right thing to do.

Weouro said...

You're in danger of the fires of hell.

Augustinus said...

You're right, Weouro - we all are "in danger of the fires of hell." To think otherwise, is presumptuous. So, what's your point?

David Madeley said...

Speaking for myself, no-one is going to convince me that the council is in continuity by insult and intimidation. Thomas Pink and John Lamont may be on to something with religious liberty - I'll keep an eye on that debate.

In the meantime, I'd like to see people take more personal responsibility for the positions they hold and the potential consequences of those positions. I don't mind admitting there are some disadvantages to the SSPX stance, which Bishop Fellay himself alluded to in his letters to the three bishops. It does come with one major advantage, and that is that language retains its power to communicate meaning. The 'hermeneutic of continuity' enables us to breathe a huge sigh of relief, but when the dust settles we will realize that we now have the power to make words mean whatever we want them to mean. That smells like relativism to me.

apoc9 said...

If any pope had chance to bring back SSPX, it would be pope Benedict. The pope Francis is in completely different mindset. Because of his easygoing attitude towards everything, he is considered disrespectful towards his office, tradition and true faith.

Bornacatholic said...

Dear Long Skirts. Do you have children and do you teach them that they can reject an Ecumenical Council and do you teach them that, like Bishop Fellay said publicly, Pope Francis is a modernist; that is, a heretic?

Is that what you are teaching your children?

It prolly is for that is what the sspx is teaching the youth who go to their illicit masses; they are teaching them to reject an ecumenical council and they are teaching them the Pope is a heretic.

Given that reality, explain to me why youth, whose minds have been poisoned by this perverse schismatic propaganda (directly in opposition to Vatican I) would EVER accept reconciliation with the Holy See?

The sspx has raised two generations of young people who have been taught to reject an Ecumenical Council and who have been taught that at least one Pope has been, is, a heretic; they have been taught that Rome is the enemy and yet we are supposed to think a reconciliation is possible...

Ma Tucker said...

Pat! Pat! what could you be thinking!

Catholic Mission said...

There must have been a leftist storm over Archbold's report
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/02/there-must-have-been-leftist-storm-over.html#links

Harry Seldon said...

I say what I say intentionally, and it provokes what I wish to provoke. It flushes the game from the underbrush. I like the contrast between thousands of priests lying to lay people about the validity of the absolutions they offer on the one hand, and me being warned of hell fire for use of 'bitches' on the other. It pretty much encapsulates what I think is wrong with Traditionalism, the ignorant, arrogant, overwrought, self-referential and competitive piety.

Pat used to have a solid readership of conservative Catholics who mostly attended solid NO masses, with a sprinkling of FSSP types. At this time and presumably for this reason, he and his brother were picked up by NCR/EWTN as bloggers.

Since the election of Francis, CMR and the pieces written for NCR has been on the move toward a much more radical Traditionalism (and away from humor, BTW). I used to wonder if anyone at NCR was awake, but apparently they are and they noticed this.

Is it within the power of the Pope to regularize the SSPX without any conditions? It would seem so. It's a juridical decision and the Pope is the highest juridical authority.

The point is that in the history of the Church (you know....tradition) Popes don't do that, because the substance of communion has always been more important than the appearance.

Harry Seldon said...

I wonder if anyone at NCR is reading this blog, seeing that the Archbolds are not bothering to defend their publisher at all, and you could say even provoking a backlash against NCR via this post. I hope so. What Pat did here by re-publishing the article so quickly (and apparently without giving any time for consultation with his bosses at NCR) should get him the boot.

Paul Zummo said...

So now Harry is openly calling for a man to be fired from his position because he disagrees with his opinion.

But don't dare call him a troll, or perhaps a little psychotic. Nah, that would be uncharitable.

Harry Seldon said...

""Paul Zummo said...
So now Harry is openly calling for a man to be fired from his position because he disagrees with his opinion. ""

No, Paul, and your reading comprehension seems lacking. I'm saying that Pat acted thoughtlessly in re-posting here what his publishers deemed unfit and in doing so, bringing a backlash (intentionally?) against his publishers. That should get him booted, not the content.

Read more carefully next time.

BTW, I think you're a troll. Nobody sucks at reading that terribly.

Harry Seldon said...

Long skirts wrote:

"""""In honor of the St. Pius X Priests and all the truly, holy Priests preserving not only the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass but the whole Catholic Faith...

UPON THIS ROCK

Weary, weary,
On this earth
Shielding souls
Beyond their worth.

Few are grateful
Some regress
Others proud
They won't confess

(SNIP to remove some bad amateur poetry)

With outstretched arms
The daily crux
You nail the Truth
So not in flux

Never will lie
Only can free
Upon this rock
Catholicity."""""


Sheesh, why not just title it 'Non Serviam'.

Stephen Ryan said...

WHo did not see this coming from day one. I would like to be a poker game with anybody who has not seen Archbold's disdain for this "liberal" Pope. Pope Francis is Archbold's worst nightmare. He should just get on with and joing SSPX ..it is where is heart is. And according to Pope Francis that is what matters most.

David Madeley said...

Harry, the reason you can call SSPX priests liars is that you believe in a distinction between telling the truth and telling a lie. I agree that that distinction exists - I don't believe the SSPX are liars, but I agree that it is possible to tell if someone is a liar, simply by analyzing what they say or write. Now there is a game afoot to challenge that basic assumption that you and I share. The game is to make words mean whatever we want them to mean. In the words of Roland Barthes, "Refusing to assign a 'secret,' ultimate meaning" to text "liberates what may be called an anti-theological activity, an activity that is truly revolutionary since to refuse meaning is, in the end, to refuse God and his hypostases—reason, science, law." (Death of the Author) To refuse meaning is to refuse God. That should send a chill down the spine of any Catholic, whatever rite they go to. It seems to me we should do all we can to defend plain interpretation of texts. Concerning the texts of the Council, I have read some excellent articles explaining how they are in continuity with Tradition. I say excellent, but they all depend on understanding words in their least obvious sense - words like liberty, person, religion, etc. This approach - the famous 'hermeneutic of continuity' - buys us obedience at the price of language, and in an age of postmodernism that is a heavy price to pay. Obedience depends on people being able to understand one another to function properly. I'm willing to listen, but I refuse to be Roland Barthes' accomplice.

Long-Skirts said...

David Madeley said:

"The game is to make words mean whatever we want them to mean"

SACERDOS

“They have abandoned the Fort, those
who should have defended it.” (St. John Fisher)

Who held the Fort
Till the Calvary came
Fighting for all
In His Holy Name?

Who fed the sheep
As the pastures burned dry?
A few Good Shepherds
Heeding their cry.

Who led the charge
‘Gainst heresy’s Huns
Defending the degreed
To His lowliest ones?

Who battened down
The hatch of the barque
To warm cold souls
From shivering-seas dark?

“Who?” mocks Satan
Delighting in doubt
Fills you with questions,
Never lets you find out.

“Hoc est enum
Corpus meum…
and for many…” who kept
The dead words – Te Deum!

Bornacatholic said...

I think that the Church needs to be more generous toward unity than to insist upon dogmatic adherence to the interpretation of a non-dogmatic council.


Dear Mr. Archbold. You do realise you are asking the Pope to ignore Tradition to gain the approval of those who reject Tradition, right?

Sadly, you make the common mistake of thinking that only that which has been infallibly defined must be adhered to; and you are not alone in that for, like your own self who described himself as a traditionalist, the vast majority of soi disant traditionalists think the very same thing not knowing that such an idea was formally condemned in the Syllabus of Errors.

The obligation by which Catholic teachers and authors are strictly bound is confined to those things only which are proposed to universal belief as dogmas of faith by the infallible judgment of the Church. -- Letter to the Archbishop of Munich, "Tuas libenter," Dec. 21, 1863.

The Rise of the Online Trad Machine has sown error and reaped a false ideology before which a vast majority of soi disant traditionlaists genuflect before they rise to tell a Pope and an Ecumenical Council that he/it does not know the first thing about Tradition.

All of this would be hysterically funny were it not so serious and if it were not true that so many souls were being lead into mortal-sin-error.

David Madeley said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
David Madeley said...

On a more positive note, people wondering about how the Pope might potentially recognize the Society might be interested in this article on the 'economy' of St Basil. He stressed the importance of avoiding certain controversial words, so long as equivalent circumlocutions could be substituted.

http://archives.sspx.org/miscellaneous/st_basils_economy_of_silence_in_the_face_of_heresy.htm

"Therefore, let us seek for nothing more, but hold out to the brethren who wish to be united with us the Creed of Nicaea; and, if they agree with it, let us require further that they must not say that the Holy Ghost is a creature, nor be in communion with those who say it.

But I think that we should demand nothing beyond this [i.e please don't make them say that the Holy Ghost is 'consubstantial' with the Father and the Son - see article]. In fact, I am convinced that by a longer association and an experience together without strife, even if it should be necessary to add more for the purpose of explanation, the Lord who makes all things work together unto good for those who love Him will grant it."

David Madeley said...

The first comment was identical, except for the quotation marks.

Harry Seldon said...

David, I think if the SSPX was open to that sort of solution, it would have been done under Benedict. My reading of SSPX materials, starting years ago with 'The problem of the liturgical reform" (The red paperback, the one that reads as if it was edited by a sixth-grader) has convinced me that they want all or nothing when it comes to the second Vatican council.

JB said...

bornacatholic, when Francis comes out and says Jesus was a sinner, twice, and that our sin is his sin, and that he likes it when we say that we will sin again, he is speaking as a Lutheran and outside Tradition. It is material, if not formal, heresy. It's also just offensive to all Catholic ears.

M. Prodigal said...

Sigh. So much in-fighting all over: in the Church, in the world, in families and marriages. I ask the Lord what can I do? The answer was to do what I can in my own small sphere of influence: to lead parish programs, to visit the elderly, to be involved in pro-life work and to better live my vocation as wife and mother. That is what I can do to bring an attitude of peace.
Sadly, I am far from perfect with this as I get upset about things I cannot control. Let us pray for as much union as possible among all Christians and as much good will as possible among all peoples and do our little parts.

Bornacatholic said...

Dear JB. Your comment has aught to do with what I wrote in response to what Mr. Archbold wrote and whose specific statement that I responded to had aught to do with what you claim our Sweet Jesus on Earth said.

David Madeley said...

Harry, I agree - what I had in mind was the Pope making a unilateral statement that the SSPX are in communion, along the lines of St Basil. Not saying it's likely but if it were to happen it would probably be along those lines. My preference would be for an agreement that is as clear as possible so that all Catholics, not just the SSPX, understand precisely what is expected of them re: the council. What precise attitude should I adopt towards false religions? Tolerance I can get along with, raising it to the level of a 'right' is a much stronger claim and we need to know where we stand.

JB said...


Our Sweet Jesus on Earth? That is not what the pope is.

And it's not what I "claim" he said. It is there, word for word, on the official Vatican news site. Wait, don't tell me, he was misunderstood or mistranslated right? And it is relevant to the general topic of being more welcoming of the SSPX who, more and more, seem more in sync with Catholic tradition and dogma than Francis does.

Bornacatholic said...

Dear JB. Why are you so stridently trying to change the subject of my response to a statement written by Mr Archbold?

Harry Seldon said...

JB,

You ought, as a Catholic, to know how silly the Pope sounds when he formulates things, but that isn't heresy. You're just one of millions of people who are enjoying taking what Francis says in the worst possible way for shock value.

Here's one translation of the relevant quote from Francis:

"""" True reconciliation means that God in Christ took on our sins and He became the sinner for us. When we go to confession, for example, it isn’t that we say our sin and God forgives us. No, not that! We look for Jesus Christ and say: 'This is your sin, and I will sin again'. And Jesus likes that, because it was his mission: to become the sinner for us, to liberate us. """

So, I think anyone with higher than a middle-school education will be able to see that Francis stinks at phrasing, but is not promoting heresy. It's his re-phrasing of II Cor 5:21. I've heard plenty of priests confuse homilies on that passage at least as bad as Francis, and no one called them heretics.

So, in this environment, everybody has to take a side, I guess, and be a Francis-basher or a Francis-apologist. I really don't want to do either one, but I had to point out how stupid, flat-footed, and/or disingenuous your take on Francis and sin is. Of course Francis isn't Lutheran. Give me a break. You can call him an idiot if you want, but don't call him a heretic.

Bornacatholic said...

Dear JB. Take it uopwith Saint Catherine of Siena who wrote to Pope Gregory XI

I tell you, sweet Christ on earth, on behalf of Christ in Heaven, that if you do this, without strife or tempest, they will all come grieving for the wrong they have done, and lay their heads on your bosom...

Now, why don't you show some patience and let Mr. Archbold answer and stop trying to distract from my point.

Alphonsus Jr. said...

Harry, the concept of a "solid Novus Ordo mass" is logically akin to the concept of a "square triangle" or a "morally upstanding child molester." When are you NeoCaths going to understand that the Novus Ordo service, while it may occasionally enjoy bare validity, is inherently irreverent (even when committed in Latin according to its rubrics)?

Aged parent said...

Quick note to Mr Seldon:

Yawn.

cyrillist said...

Joyously off-topic: Proposed Lenten observance for Bornacatholic!

To abstain from the online use of the following terms:

"soi disant traditionalists" (including any and all variants thereof, e.g., "soi disant trads," "SDTs," etc.) (If that's too harsh, I would recommend the substitution of "self-described traditionalists," which gets the same message across, and preserves the acronym. The Easter Vigil will be here before you know it.)

"Online Trad Machine"

"captious"

"Sweet Jesus on Earth" (pace St. Catherine, non-use also effective in discouraging charges of papalotry)

"prolly"

"haughty"

"petit ecclesia"

"jake"

...well, wouldn't that be a mortification and a half? (I would have included "Rumpelstiltskins," but you only started using that one recently. And to restrict use of "the Bride" would be simply inhuman.)

Bornacatholic - sometimes a trad, sometimes an ultramontane, never Spartacus, always a pugilist. I salute you, sir!

(Fondly remembered: "Li'l Licit Liturgy," "Brick By Brick Bund," "Effete Ecumenism," "Nattering Nabobs of Negativism"... no, wait, that was someone else's...)

JB said...


Harry, I did not call him a heretic, as you falsely state. He conveyed a blatantly heretical concept, however, and that is very troubling. I'm not interested in "bashing" the guy but I'm also not going to sit by and let his very confusing statements that, if accepted as true, would do enormous spiritual damage to people and cause enormous confusion. Stop judging motives.

cyrillist said...

(And, as it never hurts to add, my "Lenten observance" for Bornacatholic is intended in the spirit of good-natured joshing, based on years of enjoying his offerings as a mostly-lurker. God bless.)

bleusmon said...

Bornacatholic,

Sorry, that won't cut it. Saint or not, CoS is not only wrong, she is DEAD WRONG on this point. Saints are not sources of infallible teaching or orthopraxis. Not everything taught by Aquinas has risen to the level of a teaching of the Church. St. Jerome was wrong about not including the Septuagint in the Bible he assembled - the first in the Church or the world. Citing CoS as justification for your own unauthorized theological leaps is unaccaptable.

Your passion does make up for a lot, though, but not all. Very clever to foist back on your critics's houlders responsibility for your own mis-speaking, rather than take responsibility for them.

Not only ultramontane, but proud of it and so much more!

bleusmon said...

Harry,

I agree Pope Francis poorly phrases things from time to time, but his troublesome statements about Jesus and sin are far worse than merely poor phrasing. His words - as posted on the Vatican web site without clean-up or clarification, since last June - are more heresy than not.

As pope he must be accountable for his words and the impressions they leave. If not him, who? BTW, he even said a couple months back when brushing off an apology by someone who had criticized him publicly, that he needs criticism. He better understands criticism and accepts it, and therefore does not share the ultramontane views of either you or Bornacatholic.



Bornacatholic said...

Dear Cyrillist. Talk about rhetorical fingerprints, huh? :)

It does my heart good to read your proposal but I think that such a task is beyond my limited ability and nearly limitless sinfulness.

I see others have, not good-naturedly, expressed a desire I not write as I do but my writing is a reflection of who Bornacatholic is, so, cut me a break; Y'all only have to read a few of the things I write whereas I have to live as Bornacatholic 24/7/365.

Bornacatholic said...

Sorry, that won't cut it. Saint or not, CoS is not only wrong, she is DEAD WRONG on this point.

Dear bluesmom Tsk, tsk, tsk...fear of strong women is an unattractive trait.

As to the great Doctor of the Church, she is more alive today than when she was on Earth and the impressive list of those who have quoted her re Our Sweet Jesus on Earth (Bornacatholic excluded) is impressive.

O, and you prolly don't know that you are wrong about , Saint Jerome, do you?

I could write that he did accept the very books you claim he rejected but mere facts are so yesterday, aren't they? :)

Bornacatholic said...

http://taylormarshall.com/2011/09/did-st-jerome-reject-deuterocanoical.html

Bornacatholic said...

Imagine that, a Saint hearing the Church Jesus established to teach in His name...How ultramone :)