Tuesday, 4 November 2008

SSPX Rumours



The SSPX launched a new rosary crusade a week or so ago - from Lourdes itself - this time praying for the lifting of the excommunications on their four bishops.

Now rumours have been reported on New Liturgical Movement that a decree lifting the excommunication is sitting on the desk of the Pope, awaiting the bishops' petition that they acted in good faith in seeking consecration, due to a state of necessity.

I have to admit my reaction to the prayer crusade was that it was a bit cheeky - after all, the Holy See set out five very reasonable conditions for reconciliation several months back, and the SSPX, as far as can be ascertained from their public pronouncements, refused to accept them.

Still, we can certainly hope that the rumours are true, and that the prayer crusade will have the effect of softening the hearts of the bishops concerned and of their supporters. I wouldn't hold your breath however. Fr Tattersall of Melbourne has commented on NLM that:

"...While of course I hope and pray that the SSPX's rupture with the Church can be healed, my own extensive experience in dealing both with the SSPX clergy, and with many former adherents of the Society among the laity, would support Daniel's [another commenter] concerns. There are deep seated theological and spiritual problems in the SSPX movement. We should not be blind to this, as that ultimately is of no help to the SSPX...."

4 comments:

Cardinal Pole said...

"The SSPX launched a new rosary crusade a week or so ago"

The Rosary Crusade for the lifting of the putative excommunications was first made almost two months ago. See my post of September 9:

http://cardinalpole.blogspot.com/2008/09/fr-blacks-newsletter.html

"the Holy See set out five very reasonable conditions for reconciliation several months back"

As I recall, the only condition that might have had any substance was the one about not setting themselves up above the Magisterium of the Holy Father. But that charge was, of course, preposterous, unless one thinks that the only Papal teachings worth listening to begin with Bl. John XXIII. The S.S.P.X. defends the authentic Magisterium of ALL the Popes.

The lifting of the putative excommunications will be the second of three great victories for Tradition. The first, of course, was Summorum Pontificum, which was a stunning vindication of the S.S.P.X. The third will be the end of the Novus Ordo as a permitted rite.

Anonymous said...

Of course, the Society of St Peter suffers from many of the same problems (as do the other traditionalist priestly societies).

+ Thomas Wolsey

Archieps. Eborac., etc.

David said...

Wolsey,

It would be helpful if you would elaborate upon this allegation against the FSSP (of which, by the way, Fr Tattersall is no longer a member, having been incardinated as a priest of the See of Melbourne). Presumably you are leveling the same accusation against ICK and others.

The problems of the SSPX are familiar to many of us - pride, disobedience, and many would say, Jansenist tendencies.

We know to what Fr Tattersall was referring, because his comment was in response to a statement that Bishop Tissier de Mallerais had stuck his buskin into the Holy Father, accusing him of - amongst other things - heresy, (including Gnosticism).

Now, there's a real problem when people who call themselves "Catholic" start carrying on like Prots and accusing the Pope of heresy. Therein lies the slippery slope to sedevacantism [cool alliteration, eh?]. Next thing, we'll have Bishop Williamson crafting a triregnum in his garden shed in Argentina, while his semniary schola attempts to render the Anvil Chorus in Gregorian Chant.

Are you seriously suggesting that members of the FSSP and other Ecclesia Dei societies are guilty of the same sort of thing? Who? What? When?

Please, if you're going to engage in off-topic sledging of priests in full communion with the Holy Father, (and that seems to be the sole point of your comment) it behooves you to elaborate.

Anonymous said...

"accusing the Pope of heresy."

I can't locate the precise spot - it's been 15 years since I've been to the ANU library - but in the records of the debates during Vatican I, it was queried how the popes could be infallible since so many of them (around 40?) had been heretics... (of course, no pope had ever dared try to bind the faithful to believe heresy under pain of sin, i.e., pretended to define heresy dogmatically as orthodoxy)

Actually, I suggest you ask Father T. about his experiences of the FSSP's seminary in the US.

And, another friend of mine left Wigratzbad in disgust at the lack of charity (and if I remember rightly the Jansenism, too). I think he's lost his faith now.

Another friend of mine, having visited Clear Creek, as well as the FSSP seminary in the US more recently, found the seminary "creepy" and compared the atmosphere there very negatively with that at the monastery. He's a fervent traditionalist, too.

There's no use being naive about these things. If we are, we're just making a rod for the church's back. Just like shutting one's eyes to the homosexual problems with the clergy, even, in some cases, before Vatican II.

Traditionalists ought to learn from history.

+ Thomas Wolsey

Archieps. Eborac.

Card. Presb. Sae Caeciliae trans Tiberim

Legatus a latere