It was a great disappointment to read Fr. Regis de Cacqueray's Monday statement made with the approbation of Bishop Fellay; at a time when we needed give no opportunity to the devil.
The content of the statement is not the particular issue here; the SSPX has been able to discuss this matter with the Holy See since the beginning of the year.
What is wrong is this:
Barely two days before the Holy See presents its considered judgment to the Society, Bishop Fellay, jumping in first, approves an SSPX judgment against the person of the Holy Father; without even waiting for the Holy Father to speak through His representative.
A very serious issue, Assisi, has been abused here, and used as a smoke-screen as if to distract from a fundamental fact.
The fundamental fact is, that whoever the true Pope may be, it is necessary for Catholic bishops and priests who accept him, to have hierarchical submission to that Pope of the here and now, irrespective of the other grave theological or moral issues of the time.
Fr. de Cacqueray's statement and Bishop Fellay's approval of it reads as an unworthy tactic. Why didn't the bishop say it himself: si si, no, no?
The issue of the day is fronting up to submission to Peter.
The successive resolution of all other serious Church matters until the end of time, follows after, and only after, submission to Peter, Benedict XVI, the Vicar of Christ.
Fr. Michael Mary, F.SS.R.
The content of the statement is not the particular issue here; the SSPX has been able to discuss this matter with the Holy See since the beginning of the year.
What is wrong is this:
Barely two days before the Holy See presents its considered judgment to the Society, Bishop Fellay, jumping in first, approves an SSPX judgment against the person of the Holy Father; without even waiting for the Holy Father to speak through His representative.
A very serious issue, Assisi, has been abused here, and used as a smoke-screen as if to distract from a fundamental fact.
The fundamental fact is, that whoever the true Pope may be, it is necessary for Catholic bishops and priests who accept him, to have hierarchical submission to that Pope of the here and now, irrespective of the other grave theological or moral issues of the time.
Fr. de Cacqueray's statement and Bishop Fellay's approval of it reads as an unworthy tactic. Why didn't the bishop say it himself: si si, no, no?
The issue of the day is fronting up to submission to Peter.
The successive resolution of all other serious Church matters until the end of time, follows after, and only after, submission to Peter, Benedict XVI, the Vicar of Christ.
Fr. Michael Mary, F.SS.R.
I don't mean to fault SSPX as a whole, but it seems that sedevacantists (and elements associated with SSPX do have such tendencies) are showing gnostic features, claiming they alone have a special something that the official Catholic Church does not have.
ReplyDeleteIsn't this the main claim of the gnostics?
I feel very sad, if they are not able to make the most of this chance.
ReplyDeleteIsn't it possible for someone to recognize certain person as a valid successor of st. Peter and Christ's representative on Earth but still say that some decisions weren't prudent enough?
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't say that pointing out some errors is denying his or hers submission to the Pope.
Dear Father,
ReplyDeleteI foresee a backlash :) but taking the opportunity to get a word in edgewise...
thank you for taking a stand for our Holy Father.
Well said, Father.
ReplyDeleteFirst, Fr. Pagliani is definitely not a closet sede-vacantist.
ReplyDeleteSecond, is it not possible that this was as a "conciliation" to the supposed "hard-liners" in the Society? Obviously I don't mean the document itself; it's something every Catholic must hold. I mean the timing.
Fr. Cacqueray told the TRUTH plain and simple...regardless of the timing...still, most don't want to hear the truth if it doesn't suit them.
ReplyDeleteThe issue of the day is fronting up to submission to Peter.
ReplyDeleteThis is indeed the issue. Anyone can take the theological high ground against Assisi. It takes a real Catholic to humbly kneel and kiss the Pope's ring. This, it seems, the leaders of the FSSPX will never do. Let your yes mean yes and your no mean no. Quite.
I would not participate of my own volition in such a gathering as this one in Asissi is said to be.
ReplyDeleteHowever, if the Pope is the chief Pastor, then non-Catholics and even non-Christians (howsoever far they may stray) are part of his flock, and the Good Shepherd goes after the wandering sheep, not simply waits for them to return.
If Pope Benedict feels this is the best way to reach out to other faiths, then may God crown his efforts with success. You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.
Great post Father, agree 100%.
ReplyDeleteTo ignore the timing is, I think, to miss the point. Surely the timing was a consideration for those that issued this statement given its conspicuousness.
ReplyDeleteIn any case, only God knows the Truth and in our humility we should temper our perception of it in this life with obedience.
IMO, we as a whole, give too little room for God to work His Will in us.
A great post, Father, and one that contrasts with a former priest of your community who now ministers on the neighbouring island of Stronsay. I seem to recall that you reconciled, he said that before he would submit himself to the authority of the Pope, certain doctrinal matters needed to be sorted out. I wondered whether anyone had told him that obedience to and submission to the Pope was sorted out at the First Vatican Council.
ReplyDeleteFred
In light of the Holy Father's explicit gesture of reconciliation toward the FSSPX, the timing and content of these words approved by Bishop Fellay are absolutely shocking:
ReplyDeleteDoes this not make of the Pope, presiding over this meeting, not the head of the Catholic Church but the head of a “Church” of the United Nations, the primus inter pares of a religion of all the religions, essentially identical with the Masonic cult of the Great Architect of the Universe? Is this not a satanic perversion of the mission of Peter?
God protect our kind, gentle, and fatherly Pope from his ungrateful and abusive children.
David
What about the father of a household who welcomes his adult children to his table, even if they have left the faith? Let us imagine that one of these children has, regrettably, converted to Islam, and insists on praying to Allah before the family meal. If the father allows his grown child this liberty, is he guilty of a "perversion" of his paternal mission?
ReplyDeleteDavid
All this talk about timing? The timing is irrelevant. The Gospel needs to be preached in season and out of season and the truth is the truth. The anniversary of Assisi should be a day of penance and reparation for years to come.
ReplyDeletePreaching the gospel is one thing. Poking a stick in the Pope's eye is another. The timing of this attack on the Pope is quite relevant. Indeed, it is precisely the timing that makes the attack so unseemly. We know where the FSSPX stands with regard to Assisi. The publication of this statement just as the Pope was to make a gesture of reconciliation toward the FSSPX was unnecessary, and, as Fr. Michael Mary says, an unworthy tactic.
ReplyDeleteDavid
anointedruins said...
ReplyDelete"What about the father of a household who welcomes his adult children to his table, even if they have left the faith? Let us imagine that one of these children has, regrettably, converted to Islam, and insists on praying to Allah before the family meal. If the father allows his grown child this liberty, is he guilty of a "perversion" of his paternal mission"
The father would not only be GUILTY he would be allowing scandal to reign in front of his other children and comittingthe sin of omission by not admonishing his son's sins and heresy! No well informed Catholic conscience would EVER allow such worship in their Catholic home of a false god! Dear Lord!!!
Long-Skirts, there is no single way to approach what is clearly a practical and not a doctrinal issue. How are you to know that scandal would reign in front of the other children? It is assumed in my scenario that this same father, after permitting his son to pray to Allah, would lead the rest of his family in prayer to God the Almighty Father in the Name of Jesus Christ. There would be no question of parity between the "Allah" of Mohammed and the God and Father of Jesus Christ. It is also assumed that the father has raised his children in the faith. Some of his children have stayed in the faith, some have strayed from it. He loves each of them without exception. His way of loving the wayward son is to grant him a certain liberty of worship in the family home, while testifying through vocal prayer and charitable action to the infinite love of Jesus Christ. This is not to say that a different father might not act in a very different way, such as you describe. I do not say that your way is wrong, just different.
ReplyDeleteDavid
anointdruins said:
ReplyDelete"His way of loving the wayward son is to grant him a certain liberty of worship in the family home,"
NEVER!! Are you even a Catholic? If you're not I can understand your misplaced sentimentality but never, EVER should a Catholic parent allow their fallen away Catholic children to lead ANY prayers in their home. I grew up in a Catholic family of 10 and many of my siblings fell away and are all sorts of Protestants now. They are never allowed to lead any prayers before meals, etc. at family gatherings. Yes, we still love them but pray for their return to the True Faith before they die and we make the sign of the Cross before and after meals. They will NEVER make the sign of the Cross on themselves anymore and my children notice it but I have always had them pray for their wayward Aunts and Uncles for what they have chosen to be is terribly, terribly wrong.
"This is not to say that a different father might not act in a very different way, such as you describe. I do not say that your way is wrong, just different."
It has nothing to do with "different ways" it is about Truth and the Truth is that there is only One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church! And it's not "my way" either, it's the Catholic Church's way and I'm not wrong but you are. Another soul to pray for.
Anointedruins,
ReplyDeleteThe situation you brought up would be obvious scandal and any Catholic Father, conscientious of his Catholic duty, would not permit "public" prayers of infidels in his own home. By 'public' I mean dinner time meals or other family activities; you can't stop one from privately praying.
An analogous situation would be letting your son bring home a gay boyfriend for dinner. Hopefully you would be of right mind enough to not let such pass in your home. Sins against faith are even more heinous than that.
.. I'm not wrong but you are. Another soul to pray for.
ReplyDeleteThank you, Long-Skirts. I'm the worst of sinners, and I need and appreciate your prayers.
By the way, I never said that the Catholic father should allow his son to LEAD the family in a prayer to Allah. I merely suggested that he could permit the son to say his own prayer, then he himself would lead the family in a prayer to God the Almighty Father in the Name of Jesus Christ. Contrary to your opinion, I do not believe that the Catholic father in this scenario is guilty of a "satanic perversion" of his paternal mission.
SkinnyBaldGuy,
Again, these are practical, not doctrinal, matters. They are matters of prudential judgment, and approaching these situations differently than you and Long-Skirts insist is not necessarily a sin against the Holy Faith. The Pope would be ok with my approach (and besides, I cannot be certain what "my approach" would be in the specific situation). Fortunately, I answer to the Pope, not to you and Long-Skirts. However, perhaps when "your people" have control of the Church's government, you can have me burned at the stake.
David
I really have no problem with the Catholic father who tells his wayward Islamic son, "Sorry, no prayers to Allah at this family's table." Nor do I have a problem with the Catholic father who refuses to welcome to table his gay son's boyfriend. I can see myself acting in both of those scenarios with greater or lesser tolerance depending on the specifics and particulars of the situation. What I have no use for is the strident fanaticism of those who insist that there is only ONE way to handle these delicate situations. The analogy to Assisi is, of course, imperfect, but nevertheless instructive.
ReplyDeleteDavid
anointed ruins said:
ReplyDelete"I do not believe that the Catholic father in this scenario is guilty of a "satanic perversion" of his paternal mission."
I never said the father was guilty of a "satanic perversion" but if he truly loved his "Islamic" son he must admonish him but of course he could still have supper.
"What I have no use for is the strident fanaticism of those who insist that there is only ONE way to handle these delicate situations"
I'm sorry but as a Catholic there is only ONE way to handle "these delicate situations" and that is to be charitable but ONLY tolerant of the One, True, Catholic and Apostolic Church and religion...have dinner together, drink wine and be cheerful but only Christ must be the King in a Catholic home. I answer to the Pope in the Faith and Doctrine but God is always higher. Todo/Nada!
AMBIGUITY
ReplyDeleteOne day Assisi
The next day Latin
One day The Way
Some use a paten.
Some let ministers
Eucharistic-chick
Hand out Our Lord
So you can have your pick.
Sometimes bongos
Assembly on their feet
Holding hands in the air
Kneelers obsolete.
One Holy Catholic
Apostolic Church?
Good for some let others run
In circles as they search.
For we are all approved
Don't ever rock the boat --
Like those who open schools have classes
Teaching souls to float.
Saintly Thomas More
Could’ve had it all
Private Latin Masses
Behind a purpled wall.
But no - he chose the scaffold
Where truth and lie collide
Heads were cut --
Entrails gut -
Ambiguity couldn’t hide!
Viva Christo Rey!!
Fr. Michael Mary wrote: "The issue of the day is fronting up to submission to Peter.
ReplyDeleteThe successive resolution of all other serious Church matters until the end of time, follows after, and only after, submission to Peter, Benedict XVI, the Vicar of Christ."
I answer this statement with the following questions:
1.Does Pope Benedict XVI himself submit to the unanimous teaching of his predecessors in respect to false religions?
2. Are these Assisi gatherings in harmony with the First Commandment and the infallible dogma 'outside the Church no salvation,' Or do they offend against both?
3. Does resisting personal papal errors necessarily equate to a refusal of submission to Peter? Some may wish to acquaint themselves with the posthumous excommunication of Pope Honorius I.
4. Does Peter, in the person of any Pope, have the authority from God to command obedience from those who refuse alteration to the Church's perennial teaching against heretics, schismatics, pagans, idolaters and all others who reject the divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ?
5. Is there a precedent in the sacred history of our holy religion for Assisi?
6. Why did the Martyrs sacrifice their lives if Assisi is really what God intended from the beginning? Does God alter His ways to suit the times, or has this Pope, like his predecessor, fallen into serious doctrinal error?
Fr. Michael Mary is right about submission to Peter being the burning question for Catholics today. However, let us understand that there is a distinction to be made between submission to the truth preached by the Papacy and subserviance to the errors of individual Popes. Popes, remember, are sometimes infallible. They are not at all times impeccable. Those who truly love this Pope in the charity of Our Lord are those who confront him with his error, not those who pretend that he is a divine being who must be obeyed in every utterance, action and scandal. That's called papolatry.