I’m not sure if the timing has anything to do with Pope Benedict’s U.S. trip, but the schismatic traditionalist Society of Saint Pius X chose this weekend to announce its disappointment in the pontiff and its decision not to seek closer ties to Rome now. SSPX leader Bishop Bernard Fellay wrote in a “Letter to Friends and Benefactors” (here in French) that Benedict had not budged in his support for the Second Vatican Council despite his decision last year to allow wider use of the old Tridentine rite Mass in Latin.
“The time for an agreement has not yet come,” Fellay wrote. The decree on the old Latin Mass was “not accompanied by logically co-related measures in the other areas of the life of the Church … Nothing has changed in Rome’s determination to follow the council’s orientation, despite 40 years of crisis, despite the deserted convents, abandoned rectories and empty churches.”
The letter is dated April 14 but was only published on Saturday by the SSPX information service DICI. Here’s our story and here’s a partial English translation of Fellay’s statement at Rorate Caeli (hat tip to Father Z for that).
Fellay signalled his continued estrangement from Rome in February when he accused the Vatican of caving in to “foreign pressures” when it issued a new wording of the Latin prayer on Good Friday. In a FaithWorld post on that statement, I wondered out loud whether any or many SSPX parishioners would drift away from their churches to attend Latin Masses in their local parishes. From scattered comments I’ve heard since then, it seems that few if any of the people attending the (admittedly also few) old Latin Masses now seem to have defected from the Lefebvrist ranks.
Fellay isn’t the only one who might feel let down by Benedict. Michael Sean Winter had an interesting piece on Slate about “How Pope Benedict has disappointed the Right.” He recalls how conservative Catholics welcomed his election in 2005, only to find he didn’t crack down the way they hoped he would.
What do you think? Has Benedict been as conservative as you expected him to be?
Trackback
99 comments so far
Previous | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | Next
Were it not for the SSPX, we would not even have the Motu Propriu of the Holy Father, allowing for the unrestrained use of the Tridentine Mass.
- Posted by Peter LaChapelleMiss Nguyen, I don’t recall ever mentioning anything about Saints since Vatican II so I’m confused as to where you are going with this. Again, I don’t pick and choose what to believe. I hold the same faith the Church Magesterium has taught since it’s inception. No more, No less. Regardless of what you may think, the duty of the Magesterium is to safeguard the faith, not to alter it. You may wish to follow blindly if you wish, but if you opened your eyes you might find that where you are being led isn’t exactly in the direction which you may want to go. How you don’t see the contradiction between what used to be mainstream Catholic teaching and what is being taught today is beyond me. If it was true before 1962, then it has to be true today. The truth does not change otherwise it would not have been the truth to begin with. So, are you ready to say that the Church since Vatican II is only now teaching the truth and that she erred for almost 2000 years. Do you really want to go there? You can’t have it both ways.
- Posted by RubenI think H. E. Bp. Fellay has displayed remarkable moral courage. Few people realize that the Modernists at the Vatican are offering him a red plastic “cardinal’s hat” the moment he hands over the SSPX to the Modernists. It is a grievous error on his part to imagine that Benedict XVI and his modernist Vatican organization has any real Catholic authority. However, having made this mistake (a common and typical one, to be sure) he has nevertheless quite commendably stood his ground and resisted a quite considerable pressure and temptation to hand it all over to them.
- Posted by Griff RubyThe issue is much bigger than merely the Mass (which Benedict XVI has admittedly taken some small steps to rectify), and it is good to see Bp. Fellay standing with his fellow bishops and clergy, flock, and most of all with the totality of God’s truth in the Historic and Universal Magisterium of the Church by also insisting on a repudiation and renunciation of Vatican II together with its works and pomps. It is Vatican II itself that has formally and publicly defined the Vatican institution as it exists today to be a “parallel hierarchy” to that of the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the real and authentic Roman Catholic Church. The complete and unconditional revokation of Vatican II and all that followed from it is the price of Benedict XVI and his organization ever being regularized back into the Church.
So many keep saying that Bp. Fellay is going to hand over the store. Well, he had his chance and he didn’t do it. So will those who keep saying that he will do such a thing please shut up? Despite his terribly mistaken and incomplete understanding of the present situation he has nevertheless behaved in it exactly as a real and legitimate Catholic bishop (which he is) should.
I just don’t understand your reasoning. So you don’t believe in the validity of all the saints and blessed the Church created since Vatican II?
To be Catholic, you have to embrace the Church’s entire teaching - you can’t just choose and pick what to believe or question what the Church should and should not do. That is the duty of the Magisterium. Your duty as sheep is to obey and follow her teaching.
You either believe that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ and that the Church is the true Church or you don’t. If you do then you should trust in Christ’s promise as the Church can not err on matter of faith and moral. If you believe that she had been once the true Church established by Christ, then she is true yet, and shall be the true Church until the end of time - she just can’t be true until Vatican II and ceased to be true after, unless Jesus Christ has deceived us.
- Posted by Quoc Anh NguyenIt’s not just the Mass folks. The Faith since Vatican II has been changed. Unfortunately, the picture is much broader that just the Mass. Perhaps some of you should read the Papal Oath to see what truly is the job of the Holy Father. As far as the Missal of Paul VI, have you folks even taken a look at it? What you attend on Sundays is a far cry from the Missal of Paul VI which is intended to be in Latin, with the Priest facing the tabernacle. Turn off EWTN for a couple of days and do some research. What you will find is that the Mass of Paul VI when translated into the vernacular languages waters down the faith & strips the Mass of all of it’s Catholicity. Secondly, even Vatican II states that the Mass should remain in Latin, so who approved all of these translations?
- Posted by RubenAbraham,
The pope being infallable is not a dogma. When he sits in the seat of St. Peter and proclaims a dogma of Faith, such as the Blessed Mother being immaculately conceived, then he speaks infallably. Ask your priest, I speak the truth. And I did not wish to imply that St. Peter was a heretic, just he was in error and corrected by St. Paul. Then again, there were times popes were in heresy and condemmed as heretics by subsequent popes. Check that with your priest, too. And, yes you are right, great saints along the way have added to granduar and glory of the Holy Mass, but the core of the liturgy has remained unchanged from apostolic days. That is, until the New Order Mass. The translation into English was not a literal translation. Certain prayers were omitted, and others changed to give ambiguous meanings. Ask Fr. Sommerfield (Mel Gibson’s priest from the Passion) whose job it was to help translate the Mass and who later went onto to renounce his services. Or ask the 6 Protestant ministers who helped the Vatican concoct the New Mass. I kid you not. In fact, go to just about any Protestant Mass these days, and you’ll feel right at home. It is virtually the same mass.
- Posted by Nancy NolanJohn70, I am beginning to believe the way you do. The turning point for me was the change by Benedict XVI of the pray for the conversion of Jews of the 1962 Missal, which by the way it does not exist anymore. I also believe that the next logical step for Benedict will be to change the pray for the conversion of pagans and for the unity of the Church. It is the only logical road he left. I loathe these changes. He really shocked me.
- Posted by HumboldtI,m just one member of “the society of the popeless”,but after reading every response written here,I feel so much better being a part of the “sane” group. I for one, have no fear of believing like I do about the church,and the way I was taught,for 71 years. I don’t believe the Pope is a “bad” man,the SSPX church I attend prays for him every Sunday.But any so called “Novus Ordo” mass put together by Protestants,Masons and modernist catholics, any so called mass that has removed The Holy Eucharist from it’s place of honor on the Alter, and relagated it to a side closet, could not possibly be anything like the Church I was born and raised in.And this day and every day,till the day I die, no one will or can convince me, that the Novus Ordo is what our Lord desires. To me it is an abomination.
- Posted by John70Is Latin or the Tridentine Rite the Mass of the Church from the very beginning of her existence or they also came later in the Church? The great saints of the Church like St. Basil the Great, St. John Chrysostom and others composed anaphoras that later were adopted for use in the Church, how come the SOCIETY OF POPELESS FORMER CATHOLICS claim that the Church cannot composed new formulas or rites for the Liturgy? WHERE IN THE BIBLE OR IN THE DOGMAS OF THE CHURCH DOES IT SAYS THAT THE TRIDENTINE MASS IS UNCHANGEABLE? SINCE WHEN DOES THE CHURCH WAS STRIPPED OF HER POWER TO DEVELOPED HER LITURGY? The Novus Ordo as invention… Excuse me. Everything in Novus Ordo from Entrance Procession, Sign of the Cross and Final Blessings are all part of the Sacred Tradition of the Church. The followers of heretic and schismatic Lefebvre speak as if Vatican II or Paul the VI inserted human sacrifice in Novus Ordo. WHAT PART OF NOVUS ORDO IS NEW? EVEN THE TRIDENTINE MASS, WHICH I LOVE VERY MUCH, DID’NT BECOME PART OF THE LITURGY UNTIL LATER ON. THERE WERE MOMENTS IN THE LIFE OF THE CHURCH THAT THOSE SIMPLE ELEMENTS WERE NOT OBLIGATORY UNTIL THE POPES MADE LITURGICAL INNOVATIONS AND INSERTED THEM ALONG THE COURSE OF TIME.
Stop claiming that you are faithful to the two thousand Catholic tradition. You should instead reflect the fact that even the Tridentine Mass is once a novelty in the history of the Church.
To Nancy Nolan, it seems that you have forgetten that the Infallibility of the Pope or Papal Infallibility is a Dogma of the Roman Catholic Church. How dare you claim the great saints on your side. St. Paul disagreed with Pope Peter but he never made a schism away from him. Nonce of the saints that you’ve mentioned did what Lefebvre did.
- Posted by AbrahamMiss Nguyen, I don’t interpret anything for myself. I rely on the defenitions of two thousand years of Popes, Councils, and Saints. If something coming from Rome contradicts something which was previously taught, then we have a problem. It’s very simple and you don’t have to go back very far in time (late 19th, early 20th century)to read Papal encyclicals warning us about exactly was is going on today. The obvious difference between us Miss Nguyen is that I wish to stay loyal to God and the Catholic Faith passed down for two thousand years, and you wish to stay loyal to the Church since Vatican II regardless of the fact that it’s teaching contradicts the Faith which you claim to hold.
- Posted by RubenMaybe, yes, God will have mercy on those who blindly follow the Pope as if he were infallable. But thank You, dear God, for allowing great saints like St. Paul, St. Catherine of Sienna, St. Vincent Ferrer, St. Marcellus, St. Hermenegild and St. Athanasius. They all stood up against the pope of their day who was in error. Thanks to them, again the gates of Hell did not prevail against Holy Mother Church. Please do your research on Church history. Also please read up on the differences between the “New Mass” and the old Rite…..they even changed Jesus’ Words at the Consecration - now there’s pride.
- Posted by Nancy NolanWhile you’re researching, please look up the Church approved apparation of “Our Lady of Good Success” from the 17th century. Our Lady warned Mother Mariana that the 20th century would be a time when “heresies will flourish”. Mother Mariana, in fact, volunteered to be a martyr for our times so that God would send us a “prelate to stand up to the apostacy of those times and form good and holy priests.” Thank you Mother Mariana for suffering for us. And thank You, dear God, for sending us Archbishop Lefebvre in forming the SSPX. We humbly cling onto this lifeboat of the Faith, the Liturgy, the Tradition that has formed many, many souls for Heaven over 2,000 years.
It is only too obvious the Faith is lacking today and heresies flourishing. Where are the Catholic families of 8, or 10 or 12 children any more? It is a mortal sin to contracept without viable cause and dispensation from your pastor. Are all these 1 or 2 children family parents really in a state of grace? Are they truly obedient to God? Ok, so the present pope does have sentiments against birth control. I point this out as an all-too appearant showing of the loss of Faith. But what about going into a church other than a Catholic one, and praying with those of a different denomination? It is also a grave sin. One against the 1st Commandment. But where is the present ecumeniscism leading us Catholics to do? Obey God first, and Churchmen also, but only if they, too, follow Him. “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.” GA 1:8
Which side is being falsely obediant?
The thread has provided so much to discern that I just wanted to throw out some random thoughts.
Has the Novus Ordo accomplished its feat? Has it brought more into the fold or has it been a wolf in sheeps clothing?
There are more than a billion Catholics (a decent harvest) worldwide. And, I can see the beauty in having the Mass spoken in the multitude of languages and dialects. On the other hand, less than 15% of Catholics in the United States are actively participating (excercising the sacraments) in their faith (the statistics being worse in Europe). So, what is the fate of the majority of Catholics (the minimalists)? Is the harvest much less than suspected?
I suppose the crux of it all, from my perspective, is whether or not satan is capable of affecting the Church?
If not, then the Mass, Latin or New Order, in Chinese or French, does not make much difference. The Mass remains the Mass world over.
However, if satan is capable (to any degree), then it appears logical that an effort would be made to comprimise the Mass.
If, by being in Christ, we are above all things, and is the objection of satan, then, presumably, satan would make every effort to impede us from recieving the Eucharist.
So, which would be simpler, affect the masses/society to the point where they don’t appreciate recieving the Eucharist or affect the Mass.
My final question/point is, what was the motivation of the Church in altering the Mass? Could it have been fear? Was the Church afraid that if it didn’t alter its image that the its flock would continue to be depleted. And, if so, isn’t fear the weapon of choice for satan. Wasn’t it fear that lead to the fall of man? Wasn’t it fear that lead Abraham to bear Ishmael? Isn’t it fear that leads to seperation and division?
- Posted by Jon_in_CharlotteWho says that the Catholic Tradition is contained only in the Tridentine Mass or the use of Latin? Before the Mass in Latin was developed the Church was using Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek in its worship of God. So to say that Catholic Tradition is to return only to Tridentine Mass is deceived because from the Apostolic Time the CAtholic Church is multi-Rite. If the heresies of Martin Luther are SOLA SCRIPTURA & SOLA FIDE, the heresies of Lefevbre and the SOCIETY OF POPELESS FORMER CATHOLICS ARE: [1] SOLA TRIDENTINA AND [2] SOLA LATINA! and o, there is one more [3] NULLA PAPA! and another, [4] NULLA CONCILIA! Like the Orthodox they will never have a Council by rejecting a valid and ecumenical one.
Bye, bye from the Catholic Church rebels and heretics. We will enjoy Tridentine Mass and Latin together with our Pope and we will enjoy still the Byzantine, Maronite, Ukrainian, Ambrosian and other valid rites in the Church. The Novus Ordo is valid. I challenge the members of the SOCIETY OF THE POPELESS to point which part of Novus Ordo is evil or immoral.
- Posted by AbrahamJason
- Posted by DerekDon’t be daft, the church is constantly evolving so to say the church does not change is very naive. The modern church is very, very different to that of the Jerusalem council of the Acts of the Apostles.
As for Vatican II, it was inspired by God. The teachings of the Vatican Council are to be obeyed by all those who call themselves Catholic, and the church is entering into the greatest time, the harvest of the world.
Rebellion is just that, rebellion. You may wish to use the Latin variation, but its meaning does not change!!!!
Although Summorum Pontificum enabled wider use of the Traditional Latin Mass for PRIESTS, this didn’t widen opportunities for the laity like myself, a 35 year old Catholic husband and father, to make us of the Motu Proprio. This was merely a bone for traditionalist priests to gnaw on for a while.
In the meantime however, those of us who are trapped like animals in the Novus Ordo cage have seen zero benefit in terms of liturgical reforms from Pope Benedict. I must admit, the areas needing the greatest attention with authentic Catholic leadership are in the ranks of the Novus Ordo mass - not with Traditionalists.
I implore Pope Benedict to please begin reforming the modern liturgy and spend some attention with the rank and file instead of reforming the traditional latin mass liturgy (Good Friday prayers). Raise the bar for the modernists and stop lowering it for the traditionalists.
- Posted by SHow do you know for sure what you believe in is the truth? Who is it that you depend on to interpret what is truth or not? Yourself? Are you sure you are obeying God’s will and not your own or satan’s will? If you are really obeying God’s will, then you should obey His Vicar. Do you know how many bishops there are in the world in communion with the Bishop of Rome? Do you really think that they are all wrong and you are right? How naive and full of pride!
- Posted by Quoc Anh NguyenDoes anyone still read Aquinas? Before you go on and on about being “obedient” to authority, perhaps you folks should brush up on what Aquinas and other Saints have taught about “obedience”. Have you folks ever heard the terms “reckless obedience”, or “false obedience.” Furthermore, what “Springtime” are you folks talking about? Look around you. Open your eyes. We must obey God before man. I’m all for unity, but unity must be based on the truth! The Catholic faith in it’s entirety as it’s been handed down for two thousand years. Lastly, the SSPX is not Sedevacantist or Schismatic and your continuous assertions to the contrary betray your sincererity and reveal your true colors. Viva Cristo Rey!
- Posted by RubenBut Giuliani, he can comunier.
- Posted by Francisco JoséEven during his visit to the U.S. Benedict’s true colors came to be seen. In Washington, D.C. his mass used the tapers on the altars, while in NY the tapers were removed. Who is going to believe anything from this modernist Pope, in terms of intergrity? This man, and the conciliar Catholic Church, lack integrity. No wonder the Church is home to so many corrupt people.
- Posted by Humboldt