Pope Francis To Recognise SSPX – Soon?

Bishop de Galarreta gave a conference in Bailly, near Versailles, on January 17, 2016. He exposed the present situation in the Church and informed his audience of the present state of the relations between Rome and the Society of St. Pius X. He directed the Society of St. Pius X’s commission of theologians during the doctrinal discussions with Rome from 2009 to 2011. Here are the most important extracts from his conference, transcribed by DICI.

The crisis of the Faith worsens and arouses public reactions

Bishop Galarreta

Bishop Galarreta

In the first part of his conference, Bishop de Galarreta explained that “a will to draw all of the consequences contained in the principles of Vatican Council II” is developing in Rome. Now that the conciliar ideas of ecumenism, religious liberty and collegiality are established, according to the Roman authorities, it is morality’s turn to be infected with a form of evolutionism: “It is already the case with dogma and with the truth (according to the progressivists); it is already the case with ecumenism, religious liberty, collegiality, the whole liberal revolutionary spirit… so why not morality, too? In the end, it was incoherent not to apply evolution to morality, too;” it, too, is called to adapt to “man’s life, habits, laws, and the evolution of things…”

Nonetheless, the Argentinian prelate recognized that in the face of this disaster, there is a reaction: “Now we are starting to see reactions in the actual, official Church. And deep reactions, for some do realize that there is a doctrinal problem, a problem of faith. They realize that there is also a problem in the conciliar and post-conciliar magisterium. They are starting to ask questions and, this is very important, they understand that to oppose this complete rupture with Tradition, they have to react and necessarily oppose the authorities who diffuse these errors. So we see cardinals, bishops, priests and laymen beginning to react, and in the right way, even in an excellent way, sometimes very firmly.”

A double proposal from Rome: Doctrinal and canonical

Bishop de Galarreta then related that in the summer of 2015 the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith proposed a personal prelature along with a doctrinal declaration. And he explained that the “Superior General sent both Roman texts to all the major superiors and to some theologians of the Society, as well as to the bishops, so they could analyze them and give him our opinion.”

About the doctrinal declaration, the Argentinian bishop admitted: “What we see in the doctrinal declaration is that there is no longer Cardinal Ratzinger’s profession of faith. The Roman authorities ask us to make Pius IV’s profession of faith, that is, the profession of faith of the Council of Trent. Also, in the previous profession, there was a paragraph on religious liberty. They have suppressed this requirement. Ecumenism has been removed. On the Mass they had asked us to recognize the validity and the legitimacy. Now they ask us to recognize the validity of the new sacraments and the new Mass according to the typical edition, the original Latin edition. The Society has always recognized this. You see, they are taking away their conditions in an effort to succeed.” …

Then Bishop de Galarreta explained that the Superior General thought it important to answer the Roman offer to recognize the Society “as it is” with a preliminary answer that was anything but vague: “Bishop Fellay told us, ‘before answering this proposal from the Congregation of the Faith, I am going to write them an exhaustive explanation to make it very clear how we are and how we act, what we preach, what we do, what we do not do, and what we are not ready to do’,” – in order to find out if the Society really is accepted “as it is”… 

 A unilateral recognition of the Society?

In the second part of his conference, and beyond the proposals of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Bishop de Galarreta publicly confided that he thinks the pope may soon confer a status on the Society of St. Pius X:

“I think, and this is the other aspect of things, that this pope who tells anyone who will listen that we are Catholic, who says and repeats that the Society is Catholic, that we are Catholic, will never condemn us, and that he wants our ‘case’ taken care of. I think– and he has already started down this path – that when he sees that we cannot agree with the Congregation of the Faith, I think that he will overreach any doctrinal, theoretical, practical condition, or any condition whatsoever… He is going to take his own steps towards recognizing the Society. He has already begun; he is simply going to continue. And I am not saying what I desire but what I foresee. I foresee, I think that the pope will lean towards a one-sided recognition of the Society, and that by acts rather than by a legal or canonical approach.”

Bishop de Galarreta admitted that “this de facto recognition would have a good, a beneficial effect: it is a rather extraordinary apostolic opening, and it would have an extraordinary effect.” But he adds that there would then be two risks: that of creating an internal division and that of conditioning our preaching in certain circumstances. And he wondered: “It would take an extraordinary wisdom and prudence, a very great firmness and clarity. Are we capable of this?”  Read entire Dici report here

Comment:

Is this unilateral recognition of the SSPX either likely or desirable?

112 responses

  1. Two things about this excellent conference:

    1. I think the key to His Excellency’s projection is here: “I think that he will overreach any doctrinal, theoretical, practical condition, or any condition whatsoever… He is going to take his own steps towards recognizing the Society. He has already begun; he is simply going to continue.”

    This is not the same as a “unilateral recognition”; it sounds rather like a bypassing of anything formal which will not require anything of the Society, esp. not anything in terms of “obedience,” nor any restriction on our mission. Not only a lack of formal recognition, but an incremental informal recognition. In fact, the mere use of the word “recognition” is probably much too definitive. Definitive….you know, that dreaded word which the modernists have been avoiding since VII…much too Catholic and triumphalistic, dontcha know…

    2. It the Vatican’s motives are evil – i.e. yet another attempt to extinguish the eternal flame of Tradition – the use of this incremental off-the-cuff method will only backfire on them, as (a) no response at all will be required of the Society – except a polite “thank you, Your Holiness” – and (b) we will reap numerous benefits. For example: an increased number of laity appearing in our chapels, an increased number of vocations and priestly crossovers, the ability to purchase closed “mainstream” parish buildings without the resistance of Bishops, and even things like a listing of our Masses in the Ecclesia Dei and Una Voce directories. Oh, and perhaps even a retraction from Michael Voris! 🙂

    That said, on The Remnant’s article about this, there are already people posting about the “growing disenfranchisement” in our ranks. As Editor would say, “Gimme strength!”

  2. BTW, I did not realize that Bishop de Galarreta was an Argentinian – which gives him a certain affinity with this Pope.

    Also, and this is really beyond the scope of his talk, any reconciliation is so completely out of character for this disastrous banana republic papacy that I have to wonder whether the mysterious and reclusive Pope Benedict is really behind this initiative, and has been urging Francis behind the scenes to complete what he, Benedict, was stopped from doing: regularizing the Society, an agenda item which was high on his list. If true, the two of them will, of course, have to find roundabout and back door methods, since Freemasonry will never accept any overt course of action (unless it is one that attempts to conceal a trick and a betrayal).

  3. Let us be clear from the outset that the background to all of this is Pope Francis’s ‘big tent’ theory of the Church whereby there is room for most, if not all, views to be accommodated. Thus the FSPX must be welcomed, as would the Fraternity of Karl Rahner, were such to exist. I do not share this theory which is dangerous as to truth, but every cloud had a silver lining which in this case is that nothing is being asked doctrinally of the Society beyond what was believed in the Church up until Vatican II. This is, albeit indirectly, an affirmation of the purely pastoral nature of Vatican II about which I rejoice, but I wonder if Pope Francis realizes this.

    However, Bishop de Galarreta’s conference does have an air of the ground being broken for the construction something important. Let us hope and pray that it will be for the good of souls and for the greater glory of God.

    • Prognosticum,

      I’m having trouble with “Pope Francis’ ‘big tent’ theory.” This doesn’t fit in with either his savage persecution of the FFI, nor with his constant verbal assaults on faithful Catholics – traditionalist as well as Novus Ordo orthodox. I think that metaphor was much more apt for Benedict’s pontificate.

      So I’m still left scratching my head as to why this Pope is engaged in a courtship of the Society, which is staunchly opposed to everything he believes in (or, since know one seems to know what on earth Bergoglio believes in, including Bergoglio himself, it might be more accurate to say, opposed to everything he says and practices). The explanation I proposed above would make some sense to me, but for all I know that explanation is completely ridiculous.

      Michael Matt’s analysis, posted below by WestminsterFly, does make some sense as well, except that the Society is much too wary of the perfidious Vatican to accept a trap.

      • RCA Victor,

        That’s my own difficulty with this: I knew that, sooner or later, we’d find something we had in common… 😀

        For, had it not been for the Pope’s personal persecution of the FFI, I would see this news in a very different light. Now, I’m somewhere between suspicious and incredulous.

        Still, the Holy Ghost works in mysterious ways, and, just as he used Pope John XXIII’s liberalism to prevent him from calling a dogmatic Council and making an attempt to define, as binding, the errors of ecumenism etc, so it may be that God is using Pope Francis’ manifestly confused and unpredictable state of mind to bring about this most desirable end to the unjust discrimination against the SSPX.

        • Editor,

          Yep, this is a mystery all right.

          BTW, how do you get your emoticons? If I type colon + closed parenthesis, all I get is a smiley face, like the one in my first post above. But yours has a full set of teeth!

          (Which reminds me of one of the definitions of “the Golden Years”: when your toes out-number your teeth.)

      • I’m having trouble with “Pope Francis’ ‘big tent’ theory.” This doesn’t fit in with either his savage persecution of the FFI, nor with his constant verbal assaults on faithful Catholics

        RCA Victor,

        That’s a good point; my take on it is that Francis is happy to tolerate things he doesn’t personally like, as long as they remain small / unimportant. By the standards of the whole Church, the SSPX is small – and we have it “from the horses mouth” that Francis thinks the contemporary interest of youth in traditional is a mere “fashion”.

        So it seems likely Francis doesn’t see the Society as a threat to his own kind of Catholicism and in any case he is confident that the present green shoots of tradition will ultimately prove a flash in the pan (he is, of course, wrong).

        So how does the FFI fit in? My understanding of them (open to correction) is that they were a dual rite order, but tradition was increasingly dominant among the younger members and was also fuelling vocations.

        As above, I think Francis is happy to tolerate a small traditional “faction”. But perhaps he saw the vector the FFI was on as being one which would ultimately expand and strengthen the voice of tradition in the Church. And so he intervened to derail the direction of that particular order and so preclude any such outcome.

        I agree with Prognosticum regarding the type of liberal Francis is and so he is indeed tolerant. But that tolerance doesn’t extend into not meddling with things, to try to first avoid situations where where tolerance is needed!

        We can be confident the Society is well and prudently led by Bishop Fellay and the other Bishops, so let us be optimistic of a positive outcome.

        I think Bishop de Galarreta’s comments are the highest profile signal yet of what is coming. I think there has been a gradual “ramping up” of statements – each time with a cautious pause to see if there is any adverse reaction from any quarter.

        A few months ago, Fr Schmidberger said a solution was within reach but required a few things to do sorted out first and he predicted a resolution was not far off. More recently, Bishops Schneider (who visited the SSPX seminaries) spoke of “hope” in the Church for a resolution, while lavishing glowing praise on the Society, its faithful and Bishop Fellay in particular. Now Bishop de Galarreta has weighed in as to the direction of things.

        Any one of these statements itself would seem to be just an opinion, but together they are of more significance and all pointing to the same thing.

        • Gabriel Syme,

          Thank you for that. Here is something I’m still tripping over (and not in the 1960s sense either!):

          But perhaps he saw the vector the FFI was on as being one which would ultimately expand and strengthen the voice of tradition in the Church.

          Which begs the question, doesn’t Pope Francis see that a regularized SSPX would do precisely that – on a scale, in fact, which would dwarf the FFI?

          • RCA Victor,

            Which begs the question, doesn’t Pope Francis see that a regularized SSPX would do precisely that – on a scale, in fact, which would dwarf the FFI?

            I think the difference is that the SSPX already exists as a sizable traditional society of priests, with well entrenched views regarding tradition and modernity. And they minister to 100s of 1000s of faithful in long established locations. Francis cant do anything to change this.

            Whereas I think he (or whoever has his ear) has felt he could intervene to stop the blossoming of the FFI into an increasingly traditional group. Perhaps he felt he was able to change the destiny of the FFI and ensure they were chiefly a novus ordo outfit, who might roll out a TLM on occasion, as a nod to tradition (subject to the necessary permissions, of course).

            Ultimately, I am only speculating – I agree that to juxtapose the SSPX and FFI situations is baffling.

        • Gabriel
          I think the SSPX are seen as small fry and to be honest we are. A remnant of the faith. I think the juggernaut will go on as it is, careering towards Jericho, without any interference from us.

      • The FFI affair is, my sources tell me, more complicated that is generally realized. The Order does not fall within the remit of the Ecclesia Dei Commission since it was founded with no special provision for use of the 1962 liturgical books,

        After Summorum Pontificum, apparently, there was a move to embrace the old rite by some of the friars–what percentage I know not–which was had the approval of the Order’s Superiors. This led immediately to a complaint by those attached to the Novus Ordo who felt that a fast one was being pulled on them to the extent that they had entered a Novus Ordo order and had been ordained to celebrate in the Ordinary Form. And it is very difficult not to see the legitimacy of their complaint.

        The best thing would have been to resolve the matter within the Order, even seeking an amicable division between the two factions, but wise counsels did not prevail. Of course, I concede the matter would have been handled better under Pope Benedict who would have better appreciated the worth of the friars.

        I still consider my ‘Big Tent’ take on Francis to be valid. He seems to have harsh words for all categories in the Church from time to time, but he is at heart a 1960s liberal for whom getting everone on board remains the beau ideal of ecclesiastical government.

        Concerning your last point, I think that there will be an agreement.

        • Prognosticum,

          If I may attempt a small revision to your Big Tent theory: as far as I can see (which is not very far, I’m not privy to the inner workings of the hierarchy), that is indeed Pope Francis’ approach – but it appears to be his approach to the world, not to the diverse elements within the Church. That is, it appears he wants every possible manifestation of human vanity – including atheists, abortionists, homosexuals, Communists, etc. – to peacefully co-exist in one big syncretistic tossed salad, with the Church being, as it were, the salad bowl.

          This vision, in fact, is nothing more than his personal stamp on the NWO role assigned to the Church: drained of all belief, doctrine, singular identity, exclusive claim to salvation, revelation, tradition….and reduced to some warm and fuzzy humanistic club where one is free to worship God, no god, the god of surprises, Mother Earth, etc.

          • RCA,

            I have it clear on more than one occasion that in Francis there is a fundamental misunderstanding of the Church–World relationship. There is a lot of truth in what you say.

            But please remember, Francis is a Jesuit. Nough said.

  4. I’m not very good at understanding all the ins and outs of this discussion, so can anyone with patience in the face of my obtuseness answer this question. Bishop de Galaretta says ‘…when he sees that we cannot agree with the Congregation of the Faith’, but why can we not? What is wrong with, or lacking in this:

    ‘What we see in the doctrinal declaration is that there is no longer Cardinal Ratzinger’s profession of faith. The Roman authorities ask us to make Pius IV’s profession of faith, that is, the profession of faith of the Council of Trent. Also, in the previous profession, there was a paragraph on religious liberty. They have suppressed this requirement. Ecumenism has been removed. On the Mass they had asked us to recognize the validity and the legitimacy. Now they ask us to recognize the validity of the new sacraments and the new Mass according to the typical edition, the original Latin edition. The Society has always recognized this.’

    It seems to this simple soul that by professing my faith according to that of the Council of Trent I reject all modernist errors, not least that of Universalism which is rapidly and insidiously gaining ground among priest-admirers of Thomas Merton and Henri Nouwen (a favourite of Pope Francis).

    Ed: Christina, we are committed to removing all links to sedevacantist sites, so I removed the one you placed here – I know you will understand (or we’ll have bouncers at the front door to refuse you entry to our June Conference 😀 )

    • Christina,

      That link is to a sedevacantist site. (Ed: now removed).

      I was interested by what Michael Matt had to say about this issue:- “In my opinion (and that’s all this is), the Vatican knows full well that opposition against their diabolical revolution against the old Faith comes principally from one source, and that so long as that source remains out from under their control — well, they can’t control their opposition . . . ” http://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/fetzen-fliegen/item/2340-coming-soon-unilateral-recognition-of-the-society-of-st-pius-x

      • Westminster Fly,

        About “controlling the opposition”

        Surely the whole point of accepting the SSPX as they are, without pre-conditions, means that they cannot be interfered with? They can continue to do what they are doing now, including opposition to the errors being circulated in the Church right now?

    • Sorry Ed. It was just the profession of faith of the Council of Trent that I copied. I didn’t think about the source. Life ain’t arf complicated.

      • Christina,

        I knew you wouldn’t be trying to subvert. I just think we’re better censoring all mention of “that group”, the right to freedom of speech blah blah notwithstanding!

    • Helen,

      It appears that, despite the intense opposition to the SSPX from the modernists within the Vatican walls, the Pope – who has shown (incredibly) a liking for the Society when he was Archbishop in Argentina – is rumoured to be going to pronounce them “regular” within the Church – i.e. they will no longer be in an irregular situation but still permitted to work as they are doing, without any bishop being able to stifle them. It seems that he is going to make this announcement soon, whether or not the modernists around him disagree. They will be left to like it or lump it. That’s my understanding anyway, although, as ever, I am open to correction.

      Is that in any way helpful? Dost thou now understand? Or will further clarification be required? In which case…. Petrus, wherefore art thou?

    • Thanks Helen – I’m in good company with you being puzzled as well. Now, if I link exactly the same profession of faith from an acceptable site could someone kind please answer my question above, namely why is Bishop de Galarreta unable to accept the CDF’s overture when this remains our traditional profession of faith and earlier impossible conditions have been removed?

      • Christina,

        Unless I’ve misunderstood him, I don’t think the Society rejected the CDF’s overture – from my admittedly speed reading, I thought he said Bishop Fellay wrote to ensure that the Society would be, in fact, accepted “as is”. This referring to events in the summer of last year, 2015. Then, in the second part of his Conference, the report continues: beyond the proposals of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Bishop de Galarreta publicly confided that he thinks the pope may soon confer a status on the Society of St. Pius X…

        So, it all looks very hopeful, if almost beyond belief. Still, thinking of it another way, if atheists are going to get into Heaven no matter what they believe, and we’re instructed to celebrate the Protestant schism, and divorced and “remarried” people can receive Holy Communion (as apparently the Pope permitted when he was in Argentina) and if Catholic nations can pass laws permitting same-sex “marriage”, well, it’s surely not going to be an insurmountable obstacle, let alone a bombshell, even to the worst of the modernists, if Papa Francis unilaterally declares the SSPX to be wholly Catholic and within the walls. Surely?

        But then, I’m a simple gal. Say nothing 😀

      • Christina,

        Just to clarify – somewhat – the Bishop gave two seemingly opposed answers. The first answer is Bishop’s Fellay’s statement that “Before answering this proposal…etc…” – so, not a rejection, but first an affirmation of who and what the Society is, to see what reaction that generates.

        His second answer, however, is a prediction that, in effect, the CDF will sneak in additional conditions after the Society accepts the doctrinal declaration, which will then make their proposal unacceptable. In other words, he didn’t say that they would be unable to accept the CDF proposal as it currently stands, but he predicted that this would happen through future developments.

        I’m guessing that he was firing a warning shot across the CDF’s bow, that is, saying: “We know how you guys work, we’re on to your tricks, so if you try any more, we’re done. See ya, wouldn’t wanna be ya!”

        That’s probably as clear as mud…so I suppose we just have to keep our noses pressed to the window, hope and pray and wait.

          • Ha ha, Christina, I’ve been away for a few days. Yes, I get the message now, I think. Don’t forget to polish your halo!

  5. Is it not remarkable how God works? That the most in-your-face Modernist Pope to date should so court the SSPX, bypassing all the usual channels to give more and more legitimacy to this Fraternity of Catholic Tradition, is astounding and, as far as I’m concerned, genuine on his part.

    I noted the point of Prognosticum who reckons it’s all part of Pope Francis’ “big tent,” and he’s absolutely right about that. But Our Lord uses such circumstances to re-establish truth, bringing good from evil, so to speak. If nothing else, the Pope’s continued favouring of the SSPX will silence once and for all those hateful liberals who have for so long falsely accused the SSPX of being schismatic. But I think it will go even further, as far as a hands-off personal prelature that will allow the SSPX to begin to do some real work in the Church. Bishop Fellay is no fool, he’ll make certain that conditions are right before jumping in with both feet. My own feeling about this is that the tide is turning by the grace of God.

    • Athanasius,

      It is indeed remarkable that it is a Pope like Francis who looks like he may well be the Pope to end the current situation. “Only Nixon could go to China” as they say.

      There is a delicious irony in the potential – given the election of Francis has since proved to be as a result of the gerrymandered machinations of a liberal / modernist cabal. How their scheming seems to have backfired.

      • Gabriel Syme,

        “How their scheming seems to have backfired.”

        If the SSPX is given a ‘hands-off’ personal prelature without strings then, yes, that would certainly be something the enemies within could never have imagined under “their man,” to paraphrase Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor. In fact, it will horrify and greatly anger them. There is a certain delicious irony in that thought, of course, but the cabal will not give up so easily. They are quite adept at finding ways to disobey the Pope when “the cause” is at stake, as is evidenced by widespread Communion in the hand, the negative reaction to Summorum Pontificum and other such rebellions against faith.

    • Athanasius,

      Thank you for this considered intervention.

      Concerning my ‘Big Tent’ theory of Bergoglio, I think that it is important to realize tnat there are liberals and liberals. I would contend that Bergoglio ‘s liberalism is real, but it is very different from that denounced by Cardinal Newman in his famous biglietto address, or from the more serious liberalism of Cardinals Martini and Nichols, or from the less serious, less rational, more opportunistic liberalism of, say, Cardinals O’Brien and Nichols.

      The litmus test for Francis is if a priest or an order reaches out to people, especially the poor. He knows that the FSPX does this, ergo ….

      But liberals generally will have a fit if a deal is struck with the Fraternity on the terms doing the rounds on the internet. First, because it will be tantamount to saying that such doctrinal advances as there might have been at Vatican II are by their very nature not such as to compromise the Catholic faith of those who do not adhere to them. And the importance of this cannot be overstated.

      Second, because it will confirm the Society, and traditionalist orders in general, as being a wholly legitimate part of the Church.

      • Prognosticum

        There is a definite distinction between Francis and the other liberal/modernists you mention, but exactly what that distinction is I can’t quite figure out.

        It could be that Francis is just a benevolent, less intellectual liberal than his cold and calculating brothers, who, unlike him, see the real danger of giving any place to Traditional Catholicism in the Church. These people have spend most, if not all, of their adult life hating the Church’s Traditions and working within to undermine and eradicate them. He, on the other hand, although not personally Traditional in any sense of the word, nevertheless sees the likes of the SSPX as insignificant in a reform programme that cannot be stopped (in his estimation).

        His co-liberals know better of course and that’s why they will do whatever they think neccesary to halt or impede his progress on this one. The bottom line, though, is that they are all liberals and Modernists who are individually and collectively destroying our holy religion, some more maliciously than others. Pope Francis may not be malicious himself but he is certainly doing more harm to the faith day by day than any conciliar Pope before him, and that’s saying something. A personal prelature for the SSPX would only prove that he is not doing so with malice. Time will tell all.

        • Athanasius, I agree with much of what you say.

          Bergoglio’s brand of liberalism is further clarified by the fact that he was one of the Jesuits opposed to the secularizing policies of the Jesuit General Pedro Arrupe.

          Concerning the FSPX settlement, I think that this is one that Francis would like to bring home. Like the recent meeting with the Russian Ecumenical Patriarch, it would be a very big feather in his hat.

          • Prognosticum

            You may have a point. There might be an element of ego in all of this. Time will surely tell.

  6. I would treat any approach by this man and his minions with extreme caution. His popularity is on the wane, and attendance at his audiences has dropped each year by 50% in successive years. As the tide begins to turn against him and his opinions,It seems there is no depth he will not sink too in order to gain maximum publicity. The shameful treatment of Saint Pio’s remains was an reprehensible act, his latest stunt referring too the abortionist Emma “La Bicicletta” Bonino, as among Italy’s “greats” shows me at least, how far removed Bergolio is from Christ and his Church.

    • Jim

      However scandalous he may be, Francis is the Successor of St. Peter and is therefore worthy of our prayers, the more so because of his great errors. The one thing I would advise you to avoid at all costs is anger and bitterness, which disturbs the mind and rots the soul. As St. James rightly admonished: “The anger of man worketh not the justice of God”.

      Bishop Fellay, I’m quite certain, will be extremely cautious when it comes to dealing with the Modernists in Rome. He already has past experience. But deal with the Church’s authorities he must if he wants to remain Catholic. Abuse of high Church office does not give subordinates the right to be disrespectful to the one who holds that sacred office. Resitance, yes. Rebellion, no.

      • Athanasius,

        I couldn’t agree more. God’s ways are not our ways. On a human level it seems incredible that the modernist Pope Francis should be the one to restore the SSPX. However, on a spiritual level it is not surprising that the Successor of Peter should do this.

        I think all the Modernist popes have shown that the Holy Ghost is still with the Church and is still working through Christ’s vicar. Pope Paul VI reiterated the ban on contraception, Pope JP II used infallible language to declare that ordination is reserved to men alone. Yes, God is still with His Church and is still using His Vicar.

      • The Bonino episode was truly scandalous and leads me to think that Francis was not fully informed about the history of this person. The alternative–that he knew about her life-long crusade in favour of abortion–is too awful to contemplate.

      • “Francis is the Successor of St. Peter” Is he? According too Daneels, his St Galen group openly promoted Francis outside of the Conclave, which is prohibited.

        “Abuse of high Church office does not give subordinates the right to be disrespectful to the one who holds that sacred office” You are wrong again. We have a duty to correct any member of the clergy if what they say or do is against the teaching of the Church.

        Consent by silence is common place now amongst the laity and the clergy, and what I find strange that despite his widely reported “Blips & “Gliffs” mostly directed against Doctrine & Dogma, people who should know better seem only to eager to make excuses for him.

        I am neither bitter or angry. What saddens me is that those who openly confront his heresies ( and there plenty of them ) come under attacked as is witnessed by the attacks on Cardinal Pell. No doubt Burk and Sara will be subject to the same treatment.

        • Jim

          “Francis is the Successor of St. Peter” Is he? According too Daneels, his St Galen group openly promoted Francis outside of the Conclave, which is prohibited.”

          Nevertheless, the entire Church recognises Francis as Pope. No one has come forward officially to state that Francis was fraudulantly elected. Until that happens, or until some future Pope declares in the matter, rumours and gossip aside, we are obliged to recognise Francis as the legitimate successor of St. Peter, regardless of whether or not we consider him fit for office.

          “We have a duty to correct any member of the clergy if what they say or do is against the teaching of the Church.”

          Absolutely correct! But not disrespectfully, that was the point I made.

          “Consent by silence is common place now amongst the laity and the clergy, and what I find strange that despite his widely reported “Blips & “Gliffs” mostly directed against Doctrine & Dogma, people who should know better seem only to eager to make excuses for him.”

          And you would do what as the alternative?

          No one on this blog is silent about the crisis or about Pope Francis’ scandals. If we do sometimes give the benefit of the doubt it is only because the alternative is too horrible to contemplate. Unless we have absolute evidence that Francis is wickedly set on the destruction of the Catholic religion, which we cannot possibly know since it requires a knowledge of the soul, then we cannot declare him a formal heretic. So we give him the benefit of the doubt and declare as far as our duty allows that some of his words and actions are tantamount to material heresy, that is, non-malicious personal heresy that must be resisted. More than that God does not require or permit of any subordinate, for then would leap from a judgement of what is observed to a judgement of what is not observable or admissible, namely the souls of men.

          “I am neither bitter or angry.”

          With respect, I think you are both at this present time.

  7. “God moves in mysterious ways his wonders to perform” and who knows, maybe he is going to use a modernist Pope to bring the Society’s work to the attention of the world. By giving recognition to the Society it would mean that no cleric can tell people to steer clear of the SSPX. There are still people out there who firmly believe that attendance at our chapels is forbidden and some even believe that to even enter an SSPX church incurs instant excommunications. Recognition can only strengthen the SSPX, not only by an increase in laity but perhaps also by traditional minded priests coming over. It will also help in the fight to restore the Church because only the SSPX can convert her back to tradition. The Society is in safe and capable hands with Bishop Fellay who is nobody’s fool. No doubt the resistance to nothing will have plenty to say if recognition does come but who cares? I heard during the week that there has been more splits in their ranks and there now exists a “resistance to the resistance.” Ye couldnae make it up!

  8. Vianney

    So now we have to resist the resitance to the resistance? Oh joy!

    Most of these “Resistance” folk will end up abandoning the Faith altogether as time passes. They really need to get their thinking heads on, take a chill pill and recover some good Catholic sense and objectivity.

  9. This is extraordinary news indeed! How perverse that an outright modernist like Pope Francis should end up being the pope to commence the restoration of Tradition! However, as Editor says above, anything seems to go with this man.

  10. God writes straight with crooked lines, as they say . . . but I wonder how the rank and file N.O. clergy will take it? Not very well, I suspect.

      • What made me say that was my own experience. Although I don’t attend my parish, and haven’t for years, I am aware the p.p. is a raving modernist. Although the parish website has been redeveloped now, for years it had very little on it, but of the very few notices, one was a diatribe against the SSPX written by the p.p. Of all the things he could have warned about, he felt it more important to warn against the SSPX than anything (it was the usual nonsense – ‘anti-semitic’ etc). It’s not surprising though as his name has been connected with the dissident group ‘A Call to Action’.

        But also, I work with novus ordo clergy (not in a capacity where religion is involved) and they know that I only attend the TLM and eschew post-conciliar novelties, and their reaction ranges from bemusement to downright hostility. Most of them have such a lack of solid priestly and theological formation, they just couldn’t even begin to comprehend what people find wrong with the post-conciliar Church, or what the SSPX is about.

        • I know priests like those you describe. I remember one in particular, who rose to be the Vicar General of a diocese, who used to throw a hissy fit if the faithful were to make a sign of reverence before receiving Holy Communion. And I am not talking here about kneeling; just about the faithful making a simple bow. The same priest used to go mad if he saw someone reciting a rosary during exposition of the blessed sacrament.

          This to me is diabolical. If one were to add up the time that such priests spend on thwarting the traditional aspirations of the faithful against the time spent on evangelisation, I would not know which of the two would win out, although somehow I suspect that I would.

          But these priests are yesterday’s men. Behind such anti-evangelical zeal there can only be the Devil.

  11. I have just posted something on the General Discussion thread that I would advise everyone to read. It’s an exchange that took place many years ago between an atheist Professor and one of his students. I received it from an SSPX priest/friend and consider it a must read.

    • Spero

      The answer to that should be yes. However, the Modernist is a person of dual personality, a constant contradicition. It is very difficult to predict what a Modernist will do next, as he is never fully consistent.

  12. Editor,

    I’m still racking my brains (either that or they are racking me) over this: why would “the enemy within” allow Pope Francis to regularize the SSPX, when they blocked Pope Benedict from doing so? And I’m not convinced by any of the arguments put forward so far to explain this.

    However, I think the answer might be relatively simple: Pope Benedict was pursuing a formal recognition, a doctrinal recognition, a canonical recognition. But in the murky constantly shifting waters of the chameleon modernists, we know there can be no formal pronouncement of anything, no doctrinal steps taken, nothing set in stone. Everything has to be “pastoral” – the one constant since VII. (Sidebar: according to Fr. Gruner in one of his videos with John Vennari, even the so-called promulgation of the Novus Ordo was not a promulgation, but merely appeared to be!)

    So I propose – and this is what Bishop de Galarreta seems to be getting at when he says that Pope Francis will be “taking his own steps” toward recognition – that whatever Francis does and says to move toward this goal will be strictly “pastoral.” No documents issued, nothing official, maybe even the proverbial “anonymous note” from somewhere with the bowels of the Curia, just like the anonymous note which silenced the Third Secret. He will just open up certain doors and allow the SSPX to walk through them. In fact, it wouldn’t surprise me if he calls it “the Spirit of Recognition”!

    As if to confirm this, I just read the latest baloney from Msgr. Pozzo, which harps on the same old points of disagreement – perhaps his attempt to counter Bishop de Galarreta’s speech. Thus, another public re-affirmation of closed doors, yet a backroom opening of doors.

    The difficulty with this approach, of course, is that the bishops will not respond generously…

  13. I think the bishops will be having a fit. For some reason, even the best amongst them, try to block the traditional liturgy. One example is the bishop of Aberdeen who has an order of monks (“reconciled”) on Papa Stronsay and in his diocese, who are more than happy to supply. The bishop said : “I have no work for you. You are the medicine that will kill the dog”. How pastoral is that? The same monks say Mass once a month in Aberdeen at the Sacred Heart parish in Torry thanks to Una Voce but, it’s not advertised as the bishop thinks it should “grow organically”!! What a hoot! In other words, he’s trying to keep it quiet so he can quench it out. The same monks provide a 3 monthly (HAHA !!) Mass in Shetland AND DURING THE WEEK. THESE SAME MONKS HAVE OFFERED, AT THEIR EXPENSE, PLEASE NOTE, TO TRAVEL TO SHETLAND AFTER THEIR ABERDEEN MONTHLY MASS TO SAY MASS ON A SUNDAY AFTERNOON IN SHETLAND. The sulky PP won’t agree and the bishop, great apostle that he is, gives him his head. This same bishop and priest would happily have us all attending any Protestant service. Sheer madness. I’d hate to be in their shoes at Judgement Day. But then, they probably believe that, despite Our Lord’s words in Scripture, we are all going to Heaven anyway!!

    The end result is that many faithful are being denied the sacraments because they hold to the perennial teachings of the Church and attachment to the ancient liturgy, the Mass of all times. Surely it is the pastoral duty of bishops to supply to the needs of such persons especially as the supply is easy for the most part? Perhaps they, these bishops, would do well to read Dante’s Trilogy where their destination is clearly depicted.

    • Olaf,

      I have not been keeping up with the Papa Stronsay situation, and what you recount pains me in the reading of it.

      As the former Abbot that he is, I would have expected a different approach from the Bishop of Aberdeen.

    • Olaf,

      Those Stronsay monks/Una Voce should ignore the illicit command from the bishop and both advertise the Torry Masses and offer the Masses in Shetland. If they learned anything from their days with the SSPX, it should be to distinguish true from false obedience and the legitimate exercise of episcopal authority from unjust and illicit commands.

      Bear in mind that the novus ordo/diocesan priests ignore episcopal and papal commands all the time – Communion in the hand is one example that springs to mind.

  14. Olaf

    Yes, I agree with you that Papa Stronsay is a tragedy. Who would have thought at the outset that it would one day become a kind of Alcatraz? Fortunately there are still many brave priests who maintain a public defence of not just the Mass but of Catholic doctrine also. These, like Our Lord, suffer calumny and persecution for the truth, but they will not yield an inch.

    I am all for reconciliation with Rome, as I have many times demonstrated on this blog, but not at the price of compromising truth for the sake of recognition. In this regard, I am reminded of Archbishop Lefebvre’s observation that “The martyrs sacrificed their lives for the truth. Now they compromise the truth”. I bear no ill will towards the monks on Papa Stronsay, but I deeply regret their negotiated early retirement from the field of battle.

  15. All these tents….soon we’ll have a Camp..
    No sniggering at the back please…!!!

    I read somewhere recently that Pope Pius XII passed some sort of “law” that stated that if a Freemason was elected Pope, then that man would indeed be Pope. We could have had Cardinal Rampolla who was elected but then vetoed by the Emperor of Austria….St Pius X was elected in place of Rampolla, who it was latter alleged was a Freemason. St Pius X promptly removed the Emperors veto.
    Many Cardinals here been alleged Freemason, Vilot, Sunnnens… ( spelling..?? )…and Achille Lienart who ordained Archbishop Lefebvre. Not forgetting Archbishop Bugnini…of Novus Ordo infamy.
    Looking at the veto removal of St Pius X and the action of Pope Pius XII it could be said that the Pope’s realised the poisons lurking around the church….and decided that the best course of action was to stay in the swamp risk infection.. then fight the disease on its own terms.
    Pope Francis’s tent is a sorry afair full of holes, leaky groundsheet and full of loonies seeking shelter.
    The world is in a right mess, financially and moral bankrupt. With his year of Mercy leading up the the centenary of Fatima I think Pope Francis got that right, even if it does seem a bit lame in the way that only Novus Ordo types can muster.
    Then there is the “shot in the arm” the vaccination of shooting the Society of St Pius X directly in to the blood stream of the dying church.
    Just what the doctor ordered…!!
    On a practical note I think when the blessed day dawns the Society should approach Novus Ordo parishes and offer to say the mass on say two Sudays in one town….then two Sundays in another town and so on building up a time table and spreading the word wider and wider. This would save buying bigger churches…when there is already a glut of underused real estate all over the place. It would lead to further travel for many Mass center regulars. ….but the Mass centers can become a bit of a ghetto…..
    One last thing….What of Bishop Williamson and the resistance….I think a polite policy of quietly leaving the door open should be the order of the day.
    If anyone wants to howl and gnash their teeth on the doorstep…..I think that they will eventually calm down and good relations might be restored.

    • Or would the “recognized SSPX” finally put the boot in to the Resistance?Could Bishop Fellay somehow try to get Rome to have former priests of the Society excommunicated? Or day I say the SSPX accuse the Resistance of being “Schismatics”?..Just a thought..

      Ed: I imagine that Bishop Fellay, like our humble selves, will continue to ignore the daft “resistance to nothing” bunch. I kinda wonder if you are part of that group? If so, don’t waste your time writing about them any more as I won’t be releasing anything designed to discuss their ridiculous “resistance” to something that never happened, won’t happen and just gave them an excuse to stay in bed on a Sunday morning!

  16. “With respect, I think you are both at this present time.” On the contrary, I feel flattened and betrayed. There is no profit in anger.

    “No one has come forward officially to state that Francis was fraudulantly elected.” Given the vile attacks made on Cardinal Pell for opposing these “modernists” Would you?

    Archbishop Jan Pawel Lenga gave an excellent interview reprinted by Rorate Caeli some time ago giving a clear picture of what the Church is turning into.

    ‘It is difficult to believe that Pope Benedict XVI freely renounced his ministry as successor of Peter.”

    “I am forced to resort to this public means of expression because I fear that any other method would be greeted by a brick wall of silence and disregard,”

    ““In our days the voice of the majority of the bishops rather resembles the silence of the lambs in the face of furious wolves, the faithful are left like defenseless sheep.”

    “And “candidates who excel in apostolic zeal, have courage in proclaiming the doctrine of Christ and show love for all that is holy and sacred, are deliberately eliminated.”

    “… increasingly evident that the Vatican through the Secretariat of State has taken the course of political correctness.”

    As the Archbishop points out those in authority who should be confronting Francis are silent, perhaps as he said “Some Nuncios have become propagators of liberalism and modernism. They have acquired expertise in the principle “sub secreto Pontificio”, by which one manipulates and silences the mouths of the bishops. ”

    Perhaps those in the Curia opposed to “Modernism” will confront Francis openly, not behind closed doors. And they have an excellent example of a Pope being rebuked.

    “St. Thomas Aquinas who refers to the Bible and states: “It must be observed, however, that if the faith were endangered, a subject ought to rebuke his prelate even publicly. Hence Paul, who was Peter’s subject, rebuked him in public, on account of the imminent danger of scandal concerning faith, and, as the gloss of Augustine says on Gal. 2:11, “Peter gave an example to superiors, that if at any time they should happen to stray from the straight path, they should not disdain to be reproved by their subjects.” This is taken from St Thomas Aquinas’ “Summa Theologica (Second part of the second part, question 33, article 4, reply to objection 2).”

    Editor: Jim, since we already have a blogger with the St Michael avatar – and her name is Michaela! – would you mind changing yours, as it defeats the purpose of having avatars if they do not readily identify the particular commentator. We already have a string of comments from Michaela, so it would not be so easy for her to change her avatar. Thank you in anticipation of your co-operation!

  17. Jimislander

    You must not allow the present crisis, however bad, bring your spirits down so low. We are undergoing in these times a spiritual parallel of Our Lord’s Passion and Crucifixion, this time in the Mystical Body. The same betrayal, cowardice and fury are present now as then, including the fear and hiding of those who should be defending Him, the successors of the Apostles. There are one or two St. John’s around keeping Our Lady company in this dark hour, such as Archbishop Lefebvre, Bishop Fellay and perhaps Archbishop Lenga. But the majority are nowhere to be found.

    Yes, it is a very dark time for the Church right now, unprecedented in her two thousand year history, and yet we know with certainty that the storm will pass and all will be restored, perhaps even more gloriously than before. Our Lady at Fatima promised as much. Our Lord is still in charge, Jim. No matter how bad it looks, He is there in control of everything and the ressurection is coming soon.

    In the meantime, it is our sole responsibility to keep our faith, hope and charity alive, and our zeal for Our Lord and Holy Church at this time. We do not want to take the road of those who lost faith and became despondent in the Gospel account of Our Lord’s death. We need to trust in Him and His promise, keep up our devotion to Our Lady and our determined defence of our Holy religion. I hope you will see that all these human machinations going on in the Church are nothing really. Our Lord will blow it away like dust when the time comes, and that will be soon now.

    • Article on Fetzen Fliegen via the Remnant right now by Ann Barnhardt on “Time to Depose Bergoglio NOW….worth a read perhaps…. ?

    • Thank you for those kind and calming and reassuring words. Since I started saying the Little Office of The Blessed Virgin I feel much better spiritually. At present it is the Online Version Trent 1570 as I am waiting on the hardback copy of the Little Office to arrive. The seller told me that they were overwhelmed with orders, and would get it sent as soon as the new stock arrived. Looks like our Blessed Mother is gathering her troops.

      • Jim good buddy,

        ” Looks like our Blessed Mother is gathering her troops.”

        It certainly seems like it. Have a look at this link below. Misha’s post above drew my attention it.
        The anger of the Laity is becoming public via the excellent Remnant Newspaper.

        http://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/fetzen-fliegen/item/2347-calling-all-bishops-that-are-still-catholic-the-die-is-cast-bergoglio-must-be-deposed

        QUIS UT DEUS
        For the triumph of the Immaculate.

        • On my mind just now is that given the chatter on a Unilateral Recognition, (no strings attached)…why would Bishop Fellay trust such a person as this current Pope (the devil is always in the detail, no pun intended and no such thing as a free lunch)…just what is going on here ? And whoever comes after Francis..then what ? I see a Trojan Horse.

          • Misha,

            I have enough faith in Bishop Fellay to trust him to make the right decision on this. He’s nobody’s fool.

        • Gerontius,

          I’m surprised that the Remnant published that article because, from my understanding, it is not possible to depose a pope.

          • Margaret Mary

            I agree with you. I was very surprised, and a little disappointed, that Michael Matt published that article. I made a few comments on the Remnant blog to make plain what I thought of it.

            • Au contraire Athanasius, re read the article and Ms Barnhardt ‘s replies to comments,yours included. This Pope has to be called out NOW, as after death he will be lionised, immortalised and his words and scandals live on forever as the modernists clamour for his canonisation.

              • Misha,

                It’s not in Ms Barnhardt’s power to depose a pope, so she can call for it all she wants, it won’t happen. If I’ve learned nothing else on this blog, I’ve learned that! It will take a future pope or Council to make a decision about Pope Francis and perhaps excommunicate him posthumously, although if he did something like define something heretical to be held by all the Church, then a Council could be called but I don’t think he can be deposed by “calling him out” as she thinks.

            • Gerontius,

              I need to read that article, which I didn’t see until I answered Misha. However, I can’t see that the article will claim that we can depose a pope by petition or by a few bishops opposing him.

              • The main point just has to be the lionising of Emma Bonino and her responsibility, that she revels in, namely the abortion of, to be precise, 10,141 unborn children is the final straw…..there is nothing,simply nothing, that can compare with this and by “simply entertaining her” is enough to give the impression that abortion is somehow tacitly accepted (Don’t Ask Don’t Tell)..This one act by Pope Francis will embolden the pro-abort lobby no end..The fact that he lauded her and compared her to Robert Schuman is deplorable and will ALWAYS be remembered in the modern psyche…The modern Catholic church is so remote from the church that I grew up in and I fully expect for MORE EVOLVED THINKING and down the line Rome will embrace abortion and euthanasia under the guise of Climate Change, UN Population Quangos and worship of Mother Earth….and lastly given the aforementioned,how can Bishop Fellay have any truck with modernist Rome.

                • Misha,

                  “how can Bishop Fellay have any truck with modernist Rome….”

                  Yes, I see what you mean. The modernists in Rome, now led by a modernist pope, must not be challenged or corrected. Right, got it now.

                  Yes, let’s wait until somehow, by some divine intervention (God abandoning His usual method of using us mere humans as his instruments) the modernists in Rome suddenly repent and restore the Faith all by themselves.

                  Yip, that all makes sense. Archbishop Lefebvre got it totally wrong when he said that when Rome calls, he goes to talk, and he also got it wrong when he said he was not setting up a parallel Church. Of course he had to set up a parallel Church. Can’t possibly risk being tainted by “modernist Rome” – heck, our faith isn’t that strong!

                  Just like teachers faced with defiant pupils. They don’t try to change the pupils, they just throw up their hands and say “can’t work with you until you [by some miraculous intervention] learn how to behave, ‘cos I sure ain’t spending my time teaching you.”

                  Yes, makes perfect sense.

                  • As Gerontius says below, it does seem possible. I suppose since Benedict deserted his position, St Galen Mafia, Cormack Murphy-O’Connor famous phrase in 2005 “We didn’t get OUR man!” Edward Pentin articles on Synod and so forth, don’t think folks should be too squeamish about deposing him…does your reply above indicate you are in agreement with this principle Madame Editor? Are we all to sit back and watch an Ecclesiastical Termite destroy 2,000 years of teaching and allow daily more souls damaged and sent to Hell…would deposition be in the same vein as a “Just War”?

                    • Misha,

                      Don’t shift the goal posts. My comment was in reply to your suggestion that Bishop Fellay should not speak to “Modernist Rome” – an idea that makes no sense whatsoever. A bit like the old government mantra that they would never talk to terrorists. How they would work to end the terrorism, of course, they refused to explain, and anyway, it turned out to be a lie. They WERE talking to the alleged terrorists behind the scenes. Archbishop Lefebvre’s position that he would always respond when called to talks, makes much more sense.

                      The deposition argument is a separate one and I stick with the traditional view. It’s not up to any of us to run petitions to depose the Pope. No, we don’t just sit back and let Pope Francis destroy the Faith – we do what we have always done, we correct his errors and educate ourselves and others on the limits of papal authority. Let those with the authority take further action, do so.

          • Margaret Mary,

            ” from my understanding, it is not possible to depose a pope.”

            Further research into this matter revealed that it is indeed possible. The information on the necessary process is thoroughly explained in the below link.

            https://gloria.tv/media/vpheBmTfRbx

            Note however, that it pertains HERESY – it does not address an the issue of an Uncanonically elected pope which was disussed at length on this thread:

            https://catholictruthblog.com/2013/12/30/was-pope-francis-canonically-elected/

            The following links give more recent, up to date information on this matter:

            http://fellowshipoftheminds.com/2015/09/12/the-illegitimate-pope-election-of-jorge-bergoglio-as-pope-francis-was-contaminated-by-lobbying-in-violation-of-papal-laws/comment-page-1/

            and

            https://fromrome.wordpress.com/category/2013-conclave/page/2/

            and especially this one, which deals with Daneels’s OWN ADMISSION. The opening paragraph is of particular interest!

            http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/the-anti-benedict-conspiracy/

            St. Francis of Assisi’s end times prophecy of the two popes warns of an uncanonically elected pope. You can read it here if you wish:

            http://fellowshipoftheminds.com/2015/02/15/st-francis-of-assisis-end-times-warning-and-the-two-popes/

            Who knows? maybe there is an investigation already underway. Anyway, Pope John Paul 2 stated that this confrontation lies within the plans of Divine providence, and he asks us to be very assiduous in saying the Holy Rosary and to leave everything in the hands of Our Beloved Mother.

            Hope this helps.

            • Gerontius

              You are correct. Here’s what St. Robert Bellarmine writes, for example:

              “Just as it is licit to resist the Pontiff who aggresses the body, it is also licit to resist the one who aggresses the soul or who disturbs civil order, or, above all, who attempts to destroy the Church. I say that it is licit to resist him by not doing what he orders and preventing his will from being executed; it is not licit, however, to judge, punish or depose him, since these are acts proper to a superior.” (De Romano Pontifice, lib. 2, chap. 29, Opera omnia, Paris: Pedone Lauriel, 1871, vol. 1, p. 418.

              • Proper to a “superior” and who would that actually be Athanasius? Also St. Robert Bellarmine is only giving an opinion. What of the many opinions being aired here and on the Remnant and elsewhere?…Most folks are tired of the well worn hackneyed phrases, (valid but illicit and vice versa).Given the grave state of the current situation, I for one am tired of semantics and airy fairy language.

  18. Jim,
    Here’s some pics of Archbishop Schneider’s recent visit to England. Scroll down to the picture of his hand and note the ring!
    Wish we had him here. I don’t beleive in coincidences, you mentioned our lady gathering her troops, and I immediately and unexpectedly find this!

    DSC_0694
  19. “In her column, Sister Catherine Aubin, a French Dominican who teaches theology at a pontifical university in Rome, argued ” No wonder they are coming out of these places of “education” with their heads full of wee bee’s.

%d bloggers like this: