29th June: Feast of SS Peter & Paul

Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation? Or distress? Or famine? … For I am certain of this; that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor might, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.          (St Paul : Romans: 8:35)


From the Gospel of St Matthew…

At that time, Jesus came into the quarters of Caesarea Philippi, and He asked His disciples, saying Whom do men say that the Son of Man is? But they said “Some, John the Baptist, and other some, Elias, and others, Jeremias or one of the prophets. Jesus saith to them: but whom do you say that I am? 

St Peter
Simon Peter answered, and said: “Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God.”

And Jesus answering said to them: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona, because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but My Father Who is in heaven: and I say to thee that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it; and to thee  will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.  (Matthew: 16:13-19)

 

Comment:

This is a Feast Day thread with a difference.  It is posted to mark the Feast, with bloggers encouraged to discuss all and any relevant issues connected with this holy day, as usual,  and to post favourite prayers, hymns, stories, even jokes (in the “good clean fun” category). That’s what we normally do on Feast days. 

In addition, however, this time, I wish to draw attention to the fact that a home-schooling family asked me if it would be possible to draw on the great knowledge of the Faith displayed by our bloggers, to answer some questions about key teachings on this centrally important Feast of the Church;  the doctrine of indulgences was mentioned since they’d been learning about indulgences in a lesson recently – and, naturally, I said “yes, of course”.  Ask away! 

I will email the link to that family and then it’s over to our committed team of bloggers to deliver the goods and services… 

Happy Feast day to all readers, bloggers and visitors to this site! 

62 responses

  1. Happy Feast Day everyone!

    I would love to be the first to start a discussion on indulgences. Does anyone know if there is a book that talks about the different indulgences there are? Also, I’ve read there are 100 days indulgence for making the sign of the cross devoutly – I thought it was 300 days? Maybe I am mixing this up with 300 days for blessing yourself. Is there are two different indulgences,one for blessing yourself with holy water and one for simply making the sign of the cross?

    • Catherine,

      Indulgences are a sign of God’s great mercy. I don’t know how many different kinds there are but I look forward to learning more, like you.

      I found this article on EWTN and it says that the 300 days is when you make the sign of the cross using holy water –

      “An indulgence of 100 days is granted for making the sign of the cross and saying the words. An indulgence of 300 days for making the sign of the cross, with holy water.” http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/SIGN.htm

      I’m afraid I can’t recommend any books, as I’ve never read any myself and these days wouldn’t want to suggest something that may not be accurate. IMHO, I think articles from good websites would probably be better.

  2. A very happy feast-day, and may these holy Apostles come to our aid in this hour of the greatest need..

  3. Thank you DOTF, I’ve just paid a visit to your blog and left my Feast Day greetings to one and all.

    I can never resist a pearly gates joke on this Feast, so here goes…

    40 lawyers showed up at the pearly gates, asking for admission. St. Peter had never seen 40 lawyers at the same time, and didn’t know quite what to do. “Wait here,” he said, “I have to go consult.” He hurried to the Throne. “Lord,” he said, “There are 40 lawyers standing at the pearly gates. What do I do?” God said, “True, it is an unusual situation. But just give them the standard morality test, and admit the five highest scores.” St. Peter headed back to his post. A minute later, he came running back to the Throne. “They’re gone! They’re gone!” he shouted. “Do you mean to say all 40 of them just up and left?” God asked. “No, no!” said Peter. “It’s the pearly gates! They’re gone! They’re gone!”

    Happy Feast!

  4. Happy Feast day to all! And may the two great Apostles intercede for the present Pope that he be given the light to see the very real danger his off-the-cuff remarks represent to so many souls and repent of his Modernism.

    Editor

    Here’s my joke:

    A coal miner’s leader dies during a Union strike riot and appears at the pearly gates. St. Peter, knowing of the man’s life, says “sorry, you can’t enter here. It’s down stairs for you”. Two weeks later the devil comes to the pearly gates begging St. Peter to reconsider: “he’s only been down there a fortnight,” says he, “and has already shut down four of my furnaces”.

    • Athanasius,

      Great joke – LOL! Here’s mine:-

      Shirley was rushed to the hospital after a heart attack. For a moment, she saw the white light and was in at the pearly gates. Saint Peter began his questions, but then God came and told her that she still had about fifty years to live. She woke up in the hospital and decided that since she was already there, she might as well have plastic surgery and beautify herself if she was going to live so long. Four days after leaving the hospital, she was run over by an ambulance. Saint Peter admitted her to heaven. Distraught, she went to God and said, “You told me I had fifty years left!” God paused for a moment and then said, “Oh, Shirley! Hi, I didn’t recognize you.”

  5. Madame Editor,

    Mrs leprechaun and I have just now returned from Walsingham where we were able to attend Mass this morning in the Slipper Chapel to mark the Feast of Sts. Peter and Paul.

    I took the opportunity to thank Our Lady for hearing the Novenas on behalf of a successful Brexit campaign, and I also reiterated WestminsterFly’s plea to Her to watch over our Nation in the months ahead such that we get the best possible arrangements for Her Dowry.

    Do all please continue to say the Novena he proposed through Mother Mariana of Jesu Torres.

    I wish all fellow lurkers and bloggers a happy Feast Day.

  6. Afraid I’m no help whatsoever on the subject of indulgences, though I must say, the way things are going with this Papacy, it wouldn’t surprise me if Francis came out with an Exhortation on self-indulgences!

    A Happy Feast Day to one and all. Off to kill the fatted calf…

    • RCA Victor

      “I must say it wouldn’t surprise me if Francis came out with an Exhortation on self-indulgences!”

      LOL!

    • Leprechaun,

      “The “restoration of all things in Christ” intended by Saint Pius X, following Saint Paul (cf. Ep.h 1:10), cannot happen without the support of a Pope who concretely favors the return to Sacred Tradition. While waiting for that blessed day, the Society of Saint Pius X intends to redouble its efforts to establish and to spread, with the means that Divine Providence gives to it, the social reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

      4. The Society of Saint Pius X prays and does penance for the Pope.”

      Well, don’t we all. I was hoping for more leadership and a willingness to try some way of actively bringing the fullness of the faith to the poor spiritually starved people in the parishes around the world.

      One of the Society priests where I live once said (in the pulpit) that maybe the Society is not the means chosen by God to cater for this crisis, after all. At the time I disagreed with him, but now I can see that the Society is going to wait until there isn’t a crisis before agreeing to any form of regularisation. I can’t see the point of that.

      I agree we should pray for the Pope, of course – we’ve already been doing that or should have been, but I’d hoped for a bit more from the Society. Anyway, that’ll keep the resistance people happy. IMHO, it’s an opportunity missed. I’m sorry to have read this news on this feast day of all feast days.

      • Michala,

        “…now I can see that the Society is going to wait until there isn’t a crisis before agreeing to any form of regularisation.”

        How did you arrive at that conclusion? I didn’t come away from the Communique with that feeling at all.

        • RCA Victor,

          Well, I’m afraid I did get that impression. To paraphrase, Pope Francis is awful, so let’s wait until we get a fully “traditional” pope and then we can agree to regularisation. In the meantime, let’s just keep on doing what we’ve been doing, which, unfortunately, has all too often meant the faithful keeping their heads down and weathering the storm. Zeal? What’s that then? Isn’t that the position of the Resistance-to-Nothing brigade?

          The Society – priests and faithful – should be at the forefront of the battle, not lurking in the background in “preservation” mode. That’s not what happens, as far as I can see, except in a few, individual cases. Very disappointing.

    • Leprechaun

      I have posted some reservations about this Communique on the General Discussion thread. I’d appreciate your thoughts in the matter.

      Editor: I’ve taken the liberty of copying your GD post below, for ease of reference, and because the GD thread is filling up and due to close soon. I’ve erased it on GD, with re-direction to this thread – hope you don’t mind.

      Athanasius writes…

      Bishop Fellay’s Communique is so opposite in tone to the letter of Fr. Schmidberger posted on Rorati Caeli the other day.

      I could be very wrong but it sounds to me like the superiors of the SSPX have unanimously rejected proposals from Pope Francis for a canonical settlement. I think Bishop Fellay should have put his statement in context with recent talks in Rome and the subsequent rumours that have gone around. God knows the faithful have enough confusion to deal with in the Church these days without Menzingen adding to it.

      Was a proposal made by Pope Francis, and if so what were the terms and why were they rejected? We need more clarification on this, urgently.

      • Editor,

        Of course I don’t mind, my comment seems to be more in tune here with the discussion on the Communique. Frankly, this worries me. I don’t like the noises coming from Menzingen. This idea that we must wait until the Pope is miraculously converted back to Tradition is reminiscent of Bishop Williamson’s mindset.

        I want to know what was offered, if anything, and why it was rejected. After the Bishop Williamson “Resistance” fiasco, I question everything and everyone. No one gets my automatic obedience these days, absolutely no one, unless they can demonstrate that they remain faithful to the spirit of Archbishop Lefebvre. If a proposal was made by Rome that has serious inherent flaws, obvious safeguarding risks or downright unacceptable demands, then let us see the detail. I don’t like it when people reject proposals they won’t let us see, if in fact such a proposal was made and rejected. Clarification is essential now.

      • Athanasius, Madame Editor, Michaela,

        The primary raison d’être of the SSPX is the formation of new priests for the upholding of Tradition and it seeks candidates for ordination through its Missions around the world.
        Madame Editor has the wrong end of the stick if she thinks that the Society exists for evangelical motives.
        I see nothing wrong in pressing ahead with its main role – after all “Truth comes before Unity” and “Dogma comes before False Obedience” – and that is what the communiqué reaffirms. The Society wishes to have its irregularity resolved, but that will come about when Truth is once more proclaimed and Dogma is once more upheld by the Vicar of Christ.
        In the meantime, the Society will just continue with its work of formulating new priests, which it does with great zeal.
        I found the communiqué to be a reassuring affirmation that the Society will continue with its prime task, and that it will deal with matters of lesser importance when more favourable circumstances pertain.

        • Leprechaun,

          Nobody, but nobody is exempt from our Baptismal and Confirmation duty to evangelise. Nobody. We ALL “exist for evangelical motives”, SSPX included.

          There ARE good SSPX priests who seek to spread the Faith, not just to preserve it. You really cannot do the latter without the former.

          As Athanasius says, the mindset that we must wait for the Pope to “return to Tradition” before regularising is exactly the mindset of the Bishop Williamson “resistance” group. And it’s patent nonsense along the lines of talking the Society out of a job.

          Until we know the circumstances (any offer) which led to the statement from Bishop Fellay, we don’t really understand it. At face value, however, it is disappointing and suggests the wrong thinking of the “resistance” people has prevailed, which is certainly at variance with the mind of Archbishop Lefebvre.

        • Leprechaun

          I’m sorry to have to disagree with you but what you say sounds very much like the line given by Bishop Williamson and the “Resistance” a few years back. It is simply not justifiable for the SSPX to remain isolationist if a decent and protected offer of Personal Prelature is offered by Rome. We have a duty to the Church as Catholics. We belong to the Church and we want to be recognised as such and allowed to carry out the mission of unpholding Tradition without interference. If that is guaranteed by the Pope then we have no justification for standing back waiting for miraculous conversions in high places, that’s not how God works.

          What I want is for Bishop Fellay to tell us if an offer was made by the Pope, and if so what were the conditions and why was it refused. I don’t offer blind obedience to the Pope and I’m not going to offer it to Bishop Fellay. The Church and my soul’ salvation are far too important to take people at their word. I really do demand to know the detail.

          • Athanasius,

            I agree with you, the communique sounds very much like the line given by Bishop Williamson and the “Resistance”. I really do not like the Society being “isolationist” as you put it. They should be leading from the front. I’d like to see the Society people attending events in the diocese, influencing people and the priests doing the same. I think they underestimate how much good they could do, if only they would move out of their comfort zone.

    • Theresa Rose,

      You’re forgiven for being late in the day. I’m sure you were not off enjoying some retail therapy (shopping!) or otherwise having fun. Not allowed!

      Seriously, I hope you enjoyed the Feast day. Oh and share your thoughts on the SSPX latest – the Communique. I’m disappointed in it, but then, maybe I’m in the wrong this time (bound to happen some day). Would be interested in your thoughts.

      • Editor,

        How discerning you are. Met a friend and true we did not indulge in retail therapy. We sat at a window in the John Lewis store, people watching while drinking tea and eating cake. Prior to a university graduation ceremony at the next door Royal Concert Hall, large groups of graduates were having photographs taken, singly, with friends and relatives, or class mates. Quite a scene. Plenty of people in street doing the retail shopping. Afterwards I attended Mass.

        Since Leprechaun has posted the link to Bishop Fellay’s communique, thought I’d post the letter by Fr Schmidberger to Rorate Caeli.

        http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2016/04/considerations-schmidberger-letter.html

        Fr Schmidberger is saying the “Time is right for normalization”, not quite the same thing that Bishop Fellay says in the communique.

        What is Rome saying and I agree with Athanasius, we need clarification.
        What is Rome saying – What proposals are on the table?

        • Theresa Rose,

          I think, comparing the letter from Fr Schmidberger to the communique from Bishop Fellay, it seems that the latter may be too afraid of the extremists within the Society to take the SSPX forward. That was always a danger. What a pity of the rogue elements have won the day.

    • Lionel,

      A very happy Feast day to you and yours, over there is sunny Paris.

      I’m leaving this thread open in case anyone wishes to comment on the SSPX Communique. On first reading, I’m disappointed in it. I’d like to see the SSPX playing a leading role in leading confused Catholics back to the Faith; sitting back and waiting for a good pope strikes me as pointless. When we get that good pope, we won’t need the SSPX! But maybe I’m too hasty in my conclusion on this. What do you think?

      • Editor
        Maybe a thread on sspx? I am also disappointed if there will be no agreement with Rome. SSPX I think would be God’s instrument to bring Catholics back to the True faith. If Rome were to accept us as we are no one could use the “schismatic” “outside the Church” lines.

        • Spiritus,

          Sorry, but this is it. The communique was issued on Feast of SS Peter & Paul and one blogger posted the link to the communique here before I saw it so there was no point then in launching a special thread, which I would have done, no doubt. I’ve been away form my computer all day but before I left I posted the headline on the website, with a note that we are discussing the communique, here, so this – as I say – IS the “SSPX thread”.

  7. The problematic part of the new Communique seems to be #3:

    3. The “restoration of all things in Christ” intended by Saint Pius X, following Saint Paul (cf. Eph 1:10), cannot happen without the support of a Pope who concretely favors the return to Sacred Tradition. While waiting for that blessed day, the Society of Saint Pius X intends to redouble its efforts to establish and to spread, with the means that Divine Providence gives to it, the social reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

    This implies that either Pope Francis, or Cardinal Muller acting for him (wouldn’t that be a hoot!), has laid down, in a proposal, “concrete” conditions under which regularization could occur – and that those concrete conditions are unacceptable. I agree that It would be helpful to know what those conditions were (if indeed there were any, or if there was any proposal at all). However, with the unfortunate history of leaked documents from Menzingen, it wouldn’t surprise me if something highly relevant surfaces in the near future.

    It could also mean that even if the Society were regularised tomorrow, it’s work in returning the Church to Tradition could be severely hamstrung, if not neutered, by a Pope like Francis – or any of the Conciliar Popes, for that matter. Which in turn implies that the hypothetical proposal contained terms which the Society felt might isolate them – protected and regularised though they might be – from the rest of the Church.

    But these are all shots in the dark without more specific information…btw, did the other two Bishops sign off on this, or just the District Superiors?

    As for evangelization, I believe the last sentence of #3 addresses that quite clearly, and so does the latter half of #2.

  8. While we’re in hypothetical city, let’s speculate with a little history in mind: we know that Pope Benedict was prevented from regularising the Society, and even, as I believe one of the bloggers pointed out several years ago, was threatened if he carried it out. All of which resulted in double-dealing and more unacceptable conditions.

    Now we have a Pope who is a complete loose cannon, emoting that he wants the Society regularised blah-blah-blah – but, the same Wormtongues are still in power behind the Throne, are they not? So if this Communique is a reaction to a hypothetical proposal that is just more of the same, then it seems obvious that our loose cannon of a Pope has been reined in on this issue.

    If, but, maybe, whether, perhaps, in case of….good grief, I need a large cup of coffee….

    • RCA Vicctor

      “If, but, maybe, whether, perhaps, in case of….good grief, I need a large cup of coffee….” LOL!

      I do wish the Society would publish all the facts re. the communique so that we can know if they have just battened down the hatches rather than grasp an opportunity. I’m sorry, but I suspect it’s batten down the hatches. I fear that with this going on so long, there might be a real schismatic mentality developing within the SSPX. I hope I’m wrong, but that has to be a danger.

  9. I’m very disappointed in this and agree we should be told the reason for an apparent volte face in the space of a few days. I really don’t understand paragraph 3 at all. The Society has always known that this Pope has never and will never favour a return to sacred tradition and yet until now Bp. Fellay was prepared, almost enthusiastically at one point recently, to accept some sort of accommodation from him. There is no sense or logic in this completely new position. And how long are we to wait for ‘that blessed day’? If God does not shorten these days, how many of these priests will live and die in a ‘priestly society’ where they seem (and this is only my own observation) to be more conscious of this role than of any truly pastoral one, in Persona Christi, that surely is inseparable from the priesthood. This homily of Pope Benedict XVI about the duties of a priest is, I think, a good one, and, in the absence of any explanation, I can’t see any justification for this retreat of Bp. Fellay from the proper course at this desperate time – that of sending his priests out to do the the sacred work to which they have been called.

    http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/b16prduties.htm

    • Christina,

      Well said. I agree with every word. No time to check out your link right now, but I look forward to reading it asap.

      In the meantime, I’ll say this: the idea that the SSPX should stay in the background, training priests to supply the sacraments and nothing more, is ridiculous. And anything but Catholic.

      There is a lack of the truly Catholic missionary spirit within the Church today, largely due to ecumenism and inter-faith activity but it is also lacking in the Society, due to this inward looking, ghetto-like mentality that considers any contact with the rest of the Church – and the world – to be dangerous.

      I originally thought the decision wise, to include all 30 District Superiors in any further talks with Rome, but I’m now wondering if it were a huge mistake, as there may well be those of the stupid “resistance” mentality, unduly influencing decisions.

      Certainly, if the decision now is to wait until the Church has a good Pope, committed to restoring the traditional Faith, which means, effectively, that the crisis will be over, then I don’t see the point of the SSPX at all, except to provide the sacraments in the traditional rite, which other priests are now doing, invoking Summorum Pontificum. My own mother was given Extreme Unction in the traditional rite by a non-SSPX priest, a young diocesan priest whom I believe is now offering the TLM.

      The communique is disappointing – I, personally, had hoped to see the SSPX play a leading role in the restoration. That appears now to have been exposed as a forlorn hope.

  10. Getting back to #3, but still having no background on which to base speculation, it seems as though the consensus of the Society leadership is to take up a position halfway, as it were, between the “Resistance-to-nothing” crowd and the traditional Society position.

    The “RTN” position being, of course, “have nothing to do with Modernist Rome until they convert.” A conversion, however, is a complete change of mind, heart and behavior. So instead of a required conversion, we now have a required “…support of a Pope who concretely favors the return to Sacred Tradition.”

    This is nowhere near the same as a conversion. “Concretely favors,” in my opinion, means take certain tangible and above all honest steps toward undoing the revolution. Well, the first obvious step would be the regularisation of the SSPX, without any unacceptable conditions! Which leads me back to this: I smell yet another unacceptable proposal behind the scenes, and the renewed odor of double-dealing which has reined in Francis’ reckless, off-the-cuff optimism.

    Finally, I notice that nowhere does this statement rule out further negotiations with Rome, but it does firmly put the ball back in the Pope’s court. Or should I say, back in the court of the Wormtongues behind the Throne…

  11. John Vennari has posted Abp. Lefebvre’s sermon for the Episcopal Consecrations of 1988 (for the anniversary, yesterday). These paragraphs are quite striking in view of the latest developments:

    “And why, Archbishop, have you stopped these discussions which seemed to have had a certain degree of success?” Well, precisely because, at the same time that I gave my signature to the Protocol, the envoy of Cardinal Ratzinger gave me a note in which I was asked to beg pardon for my errors. But if I am in error, if I teach error, it is clear that I must be brought back to the truth in the minds of those who sent me this note to sign. “That I might recognize my errors” means that, if you recognize your errors we will help you to return to the truth. (What is this truth for them if not the truth of Vatican II, the truth of the Conciliar Church?) Consequently, it is clear that the only truth that exists today for the Vatican is the conciliar truth, the spirit of the Council, the spirit of Assisi. That is the truth of today. But we will have nothing to do with this for anything in the world! .

    That is why, taking into account the strong will of the present Roman authorities to reduce Tradition to naught, to gather the world to the spirit of Vatican II and the spirit of Assisi, we have preferred to withdraw ourselves and to say that we could not continue. It was not possible. We would have evidently been under the authority of Cardinal Ratzinger, President of the Roman Commission, which would have directed us; we were putting ourselves into his hands, and consequently putting ourselves into the hands of those who wish to draw us into the spirit of the Council and the spirit of Assisi. This was simply not possible.

    This is why I sent a letter to the Pope, saying to him very clearly: “We simply cannot accept this spirit and proposals, despite all the desires which we have to be in full union with you. Given this new spirit which now rules in Rome and which you wish to communicate to us, we prefer to continue in Tradition; to keep Tradition while waiting for Tradition to regain its place at Rome, while waiting for Tradition to reassume its place in the Roman authorities, in their minds.” This will last for as long as the Good Lord has foreseen.

    It is not for me to know when Tradition will regain its rights at Rome, but I think it is my duty to provide the means of doing that which I shall call “Operation Survival,” operation survival for Tradition. Today, this day, is Operation Survival. If I had made this deal with Rome, by continuing with the agreements we had signed, and by putting them into practice, I would have performed “Operation Suicide.” There was no choice, we must live! That is why today, by consecrating these bishops, I am convinced that I am continuing to keep Tradition alive, that is to say, the Catholic Church.”

    • RCA Victor

      One of the Society priests wrote a very good article at the time of the silly “resistance” movement, to say that it is a mistake to quote Archbishop Lefebvre as if he would take the same exact position today as he did all those years ago.

      For myself, I would, frankly, think less of Archbishop Lefebvre than I have always done, if I thought he backed staying on the edge of the crisis until it was all over. I see our Confirmation duty as being fighting on the front line, and that is where the Society should be right now. Not waiting for a “better deal”. All the signs were that they were going to be allowed to live and work “AS IS” in a personal prelature. If they prefer to stay in the background, then they’re not the leaders I thought they would be in this Church crisis. I don’t think we’ll get a good pope any time soon and I actually think we’ll get another bad one after Francis. So, maybe God will send another leader or groups to influence the whole Church – and not just a small minority of “traditional” Catholics, which seems to mean those who want to attend the Latin Mass, not much more. As was pointed out before on this blog, being a true traditional Catholic means being an apostle, going into the world. Not keeping our heads in the sand and hoping for the best till it’s all over.

      It’s not going to be over for a while – LOL!

      • Fidelis,

        I agree with you wholeheartedly (wasn’t implying that Abp. Lefebvre’s position was similar to Bp. Fellay’s, however) – but as for “all the signs that they were going to be allowed to live and work “AS IS” in a personal prelature,” I have to ask: what signs? The ramblings of Pope Francis? (who was soon corrected by Cardinal Muller) And as for a “better deal,” also agreed, but apparently the deal they were offered was unacceptable – i.e. they were not going to be allowed to live and work as is.

        But…still more speculation on my part, since we don’t know what the proposal was, or even if there was a proposal! Could somebody turn on the lights in this room, please!? I keep bumping into the furniture!

        • RCA Victor,

          “Could somebody turn on the lights in this room, please!? I keep bumping into the furniture!” – LOL! I think you were a comedian in a former life, for sure!

          Yes, I agree that we need to know what the deal was before jumping to any conclusions. It’s just that I’ve met so many Society people who just want things to stay as they are, they really don’t want to be part of the mainstream, and I remember reading somewhere that that was a fear of the Archbishop, that the schismatic mentality would set in. So the sooner a regularisation takes place, the better, IMHO.

  12. Well said Fidelis. I too have met people in the Society who seem to have a siege mentality that I fear borders on schism. The situation today is not the same as that in which Abp. Lefebre found himself. The ‘excommunications’, and consequent branding of the Society and its priests as schismatic in the eyes of mainstream Catholics, made it impossible for them to pursue their priestly ministry as missionaries in the wider Church, and necessary to raise the drawbridge. The ‘excommunications’ have now been lifted; the Church has confirmed publicly that the traditional Mass had never been abrogated and Summorum Pontificum gave the lie to those who said otherwise; Catholics were told that they could freely receive absolution from Society priests, and the Pope expressed the wish that regularisation of the Society would soon take place. Again, it must be said, that without any explanation this communique does not make sense.

    Although it takes a few minutes to read, I do hope that the link to the duties of the priest will be read, so I’m reposting it here.

    http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/b16prduties.htm

  13. The reactions to this Communique seem to be all over the map. Was talking with several people after Mass this morning who were overjoyed at Bp. Fellay’s firmness, but who also didn’t know what, if anything, elicited this statement. Once again, I hope some background information emerges sooner than later.

    • RCA Victor,

      That is the worrying thing – I experienced it myself after Mass yesterday – that the default position of too many people seems to be that they are very pleased to keep things as they are. That’s not healthy.

  14. Editor,

    I think it’s important to make a distinction between wanting to keep things as they are vs. wanting to make sure that the Society is not fooled into making a bad deal. The people I’ve talked to and listened to fall into the latter category – that is, they look forward to regularisation, but not at the expense of the very existence and mission of the Society. However, it sounds as though your ears have picked up more of the former category.

    I myself was not concerned that our leadership would be lured by the Nattering Nabobs of Nincompoopery into some obscure trap, but clearly the anxiety level has been high on that account, among many.

    Meanwhile, it will be interesting to see how Rome reacts to this. Francis has already muttered some rant about “ultra-conservatives,” but it wasn’t clear if he was referring to the SSPX (probably not, since the SSPX has no earthly power to “slow him down” – http://www.cfnews.org/page88/files/f097d071452519419beb6dd2f9f34310-609.html

    • RCA Victor,

      You are right in that the people I’m thinking of are the type who are quite determined that no deal will ever be good enough!

      As for the non-SSPX “ultra conservatives” – where are they? Cardinal Burke and Bishop Schneider seem to have gone to ground. A very loud silence all around. I’m told that Cardinal Sarah is speaking out all the time but when I Googled his name, the last report is dated May.

      So, what, pray tell me, is going on?

    • RCA Victor,

      Well what WOULD have been going on if I’d not replaced your photo, is that you and I might have been landed with a copyright law suit!

      The clue was in the name of the company right across the image 😀

      As for the answer to the question – who – on this earth – knows? Things are just SOoooooo bad now…

  15. “I have this theory that chocolate slows down the ageing process…It may not be true, but do I dare to take the chance?”

    • Christina,

      I’ve also heard that haggis speeds up the ageing process. No wonder I’ve aged so quickly since my visit to Scotland in 2008!!

      • RCA Victor,

        Groan… don’t remind me of that visit, especially the drive from the airport when you asked me “what is the population of Glasgow?” and I hadn’t a clue! When I later told a friend up visiting from England, she made me laugh with her response: “That’s the kind of question only a man would ask on arrival in a new city. A woman would ask “where are the shops”! 😀

        • Editor,

          LOL – I’d forgotten about that tourist-type question! You should have just handed me Fodor’s Guide to Glasgow and told me to look it up myself! I know you keep a copy in your back seat….

  16. Madame Editor,

    Returning to the Communiqué issued by Bp. Fellay on the Feast of Ss. Peter and Paul, and the views it gave rise to about why the SSPX appears to be adopting an isolationist role, the situation is that Bp. Fellay is getting conflicting statements from Rome.

    One source says that the Society can be reconciled with Rome without having to accept the Documents of Vatican II and without having to remain non-critical of the errors they contain, whilst another source says just the opposite. There is no longer just one voice speaking on behalf of the Vatican.

    Consequently, until this issue is resolved, there can be no further progress.

    This has been expounded very well by Fr. Karl Stehlin in a sermon he gave on his return from the meeting in Switzerland where the Communiqué originated.

    It can be seen on Youtube at this link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3WhKZezE5Y

    • Leprechaun,

      That is a very welcome clarification, but if memory serves, this double-dealing was also encountered by the Society during the reign of Benedict XVI – in fact, from the Pope himself, wasn’t it? The same irreconcilably conflicting signals: you must accept Vatican II and the NO, vs. you may continue to criticize the Council and reject the NO just as you are doing now…ending with the ultimate stiffening of Benedict against regularisation without submission.

      Father also continues the rejection of the “Resistance” position, by emphasizing (around 12:04) that the SSPX does not expect a “conversion” of Rome before accepting a deal, but that the Pope recognizes the importance of preserving Tradition in the life of the Church, and that he wants the presence of Tradition within the Church.

      (Contrast this with the latest contemptuous statement of Francis regarding the “ultra-conservatives” whom he will not allow to “slow him down.” Does Francis even understand what the SSPX is and does?).

      It also appears that the Communique was not, as some of us previously conjectured, in response to a specific proposal, but in response to the ongoing confusing and contradictory statements from Vatican officials.

%d bloggers like this: