Posts
In August 2007 we were informed by letter
that we had been nominated to receive
half of the residue of the estate of
the late Mrs. Margaret Patricia Kingon-Rouse, R.I.P.
(Click on documents to read them)
There were legal complications involved with the property which formed the estate.
The last time we had information about the Will was last August.
that we had been nominated to receive
half of the residue of the estate of
the late Mrs. Margaret Patricia Kingon-Rouse, R.I.P.
(Click on documents to read them)
There were legal complications involved with the property which formed the estate.
The last time we had information about the Will was last August.
In the latest issue of the SSPX Newsletter
(November, 2011),
the District Superior,
Rev. Paul Morgan wrote:
Therefore I telephoned the new London Executor and asked about the present status of the Will.
I was told that the Will
did not legally bind the SSPX
to honour Mrs. Kingon-Rouse's request
and that it was decided that
although I was named in the Will
the SSPX had decided that Papa Stronsay
would not receive the half share of the remainder of the estate
as had been requested by the deceased.
Here is the entire clause of the Will:
(November, 2011),
the District Superior,
Rev. Paul Morgan wrote:
"Similarly, we are indebted to the late Mrs Patricia Kingon-Rouse of Herne Bay whose bequeathed property now allows the Fathers to have a base for their apostolate there. May she rest in peace."
I understood from this announcement that the legal complications had been overcome.Therefore I telephoned the new London Executor and asked about the present status of the Will.
I was told that the Will
did not legally bind the SSPX
to honour Mrs. Kingon-Rouse's request
and that it was decided that
although I was named in the Will
the SSPX had decided that Papa Stronsay
would not receive the half share of the remainder of the estate
as had been requested by the deceased.
Here is the entire clause of the Will:
In March 2010 we received the £2, 000 for Masses.
I thought that we, Catholics and clergy,
held last requests as sacred prescriptions.
All that is legal is not moral.
If last requests are not honoured by
traditional priests
by whom will they be honoured?
As for the bequest's request
graciously made for us by our friend
Mrs. Kingon-Rouse, R.I.P. -
we are in no position to renounce it
but we accept that it has been taken from us:
we resign ourselves to this injustice.
In all things may God's Will be done
and may it teach us the lessons necessary for salvation:
For the desire of money is the root of all evils;
which some coveting have erred from the faith,
and have entangled themselves in many sorrows.
[1 Timothy 6:10]
I thought that we, Catholics and clergy,
held last requests as sacred prescriptions.
All that is legal is not moral.
If last requests are not honoured by
traditional priests
by whom will they be honoured?
As for the bequest's request
graciously made for us by our friend
Mrs. Kingon-Rouse, R.I.P. -
we are in no position to renounce it
but we accept that it has been taken from us:
we resign ourselves to this injustice.
In all things may God's Will be done
and may it teach us the lessons necessary for salvation:
For the desire of money is the root of all evils;
which some coveting have erred from the faith,
and have entangled themselves in many sorrows.
[1 Timothy 6:10]
39 comments:
Such a shame that something like this could happen. Who would not honour the wishes of the dearly faithful departed? Mrs. Kingon-Rouse sounded like a saintly woman who only wanted to share what God had so kindly blessed her with; that God's kingdom on earth may be built and His name glorified. May she rest in peace.
"Better a little with righteousness than much gain with injustice." -Proverbs 16:8
If last requests are not honoured by traditional priests by whom will they be honoured?
An excellent question. This is what happens when the supposed last guardians of "Tradition" become too wise in the ways of politics.
David
Dear Father
Another Cross for you all. I can assure you this is not the first time the SSPX has taken estate money from other Traditional Catholics. Surely you can contest this in Court. It appears the the SSPX and the new executor have broken the law. This appears to be legally wrong as well as morally wrong. It really shows that the Superiors of the SSPX do not care about the desires of their faithful. Sadly Bishop Fellay, will no doubt, also know about this and is allowing it. I see it as theft.
No good will come of it.
God Bless you all
terribly telling
Well, what did you expect the SSPX to do?
You quit the club! That's the first rule: "Don't quit the club!"
And the second is like unto it: If you do quit the club, don't you dare take the property with you!
The question I would ask is: would Mrs. Kingon-Rouse wish you to share in the estate, knowing that you are no longer associated with the SSPX? Clearly, her intention was that the estate go to the SSPX with the "community of Redemptorists at Golgotha Monastery Island" being an SSPX-associated organization. In fact, one could argue that there is no longer a "community of Redemptorists at Golgotha Monastery Island", but rather a "community of the FSSR at Golgotha Monastery Island".
Don't get me wrong, Father, I think you made the right decision with your regularization, but I'm not convinced that the SSPX has dishonored the will of Mrs. Kingon-Rouse.
Why blame this on the SSPX? The responsbility of this falls on the executor.
Surely there must be a Catholic lawyer who will fight this battle on behalf of your community? The questions of legality & morality should, surely, be the same. The SSPX seems to dig itself a bigger hole with each passing day. Thank God they will answer for such actions at the Judgement Seat.
To Anonymous "The question..."
Yes you have a possible take on the situation within the realms of speculation where many and varied interpretations could be given.
Wills are written to avoid such speculation.
Requests are made in Wills for actions to be carried out according to the written words of the deceased.
Thus if in his Will the deceased states that he requests that after his death he be given a Requiem Mass according to the old rite, this request should be followed.
Somebody is entrusted to follow the dictates of the deceased as they were recorded at the time when he made his Will. That has been the traditional way of acting.
If in his Will my relative asked me, as Executor, to give a certain sum of money to a friend of his, I would give it to him even if, since the Will had been written, he had become an enemy of the family.
Certainly I would not think much of a co-beneficiary who simply decided that the other party does not deserve their half; and "we" deserve it all for ourselves.
To be light hearted, I note the actions of the temple Jews. They received back the silver pieces from the traitor Judas, but had the decency to use the money for an entirely different cause than their own. They used the money to buy the Potter's Field which they called Haceldama, the Field of Blood.
I think that it is not suitable to whip a dead horse. What is done is done. Let us note it for our records as a page in our history and continue with the work of the day which is Sunday, a time to rest and pray.
Fr. Michael Mary, F.SS.R.
I believe the saintly archbishop Marcel Lefevre was fond of saying "by their fruits you shall know them!".
May evil not be repaid by evil and may they not be judged as they have judged.
Well, as our Lord, God, and Savior Jesus Christ said, if you are asked for your coat, give your cloak as well.
Dear Brothers in Christ,
It is a shame that the providence meant for you, has been 'stolen', pray for Father Morgan, his brothers and the SSPX in the UK. They are being influenced by a man who claims to be a man of God, a man, whom I am sure is going to cause a split in the SSPX if they accept the recent preamble from the Holy See.
Embrace the mantle of poverty. Miracles often happen when we least expect them.
To Jesus through Mary
Andrew
To Jack and last Andrew:
I think that money while needed is secondary in this story.
What is interesting is deeper than the surface: It is the judgment against us, that brings the new UK SSPX to refuse Mrs.K-R's request to us ...
If the new UK SSPX leadership considered themselves and also the FSSR to be Catholic, then they would act in this case in the same way that Dominicans and Franciscans would act with each other: We are in the same Church, there is essential no difference between us; we have communion with each other.
In 2008 the FSSR submitted to the Pope. That can be our only "crime" because it is the only difference between the way we were then and the way we are now.
We still say only the old Mass. We still continue as we ever did.
There is no change with us except that now we are united with the Pope and submitted to the Pontifical Commission 'Ecclesia Dei'.
If that is the 'crime' that cuts us off from the UK SSPX what does that say about the new UK SSPX leadership?
Should we consider that either the new UK SSPX leadership is in schism from the Catholic Church or that the FSSR is in schism from the Catholic Church?
And since the FSSR is subjected to the Pope how can the FSSR be considered to be in schism with the Catholic Church?
The FSSR could only be in schism with the Catholic Church if the Pope too was in schism with the Catholic Church.
So since the SSPX hold that the Pope is the Pope, then they the new UK SSPX leadership have to be schismatic according to the 1917 Code which the SSPX follow.
Here is the 1917 definition of a schismatic:
Canon 1325.2, 1917 Code of Canon Law:
“One who after baptism… rejects the authority of the Supreme Pontiff or refuses communion with the members of the Church who are subject to him, he is a schismatic.”
As Bishop Williamson says:
IF it looks like a duck,
IF it quacks like a duck,
IF it moves like a duck...
THEN it must be a duck.
IF X has been baptised.
IF X rejects the authority of the Pope...
or
IF X refuses communion with the members of the Church who are subject to the Pope....
AND
IF 2+2 are to equal 4 and not 505...
THEN X must be a schismatic.
These matters, more than any amount of money, bear serious, prolonged consideration followed by action.
Fr. MM
No doubt we'll soon be hearing the old refrain that "Cardinal So-and-So at the Vatican assures us that the Society is not in schism." It seems that the only time that the Society quotes the "Roman authorities" approvingly is when one of those authorities speaks off the record (and always quoted out of context) concerning the matter of schism. Yet how can members of the Society deny the plain fact that they refuse "communion with the members of the Church who are subject to" the Pope? Examples of that explicit refusal can be culled in the scores from FSSPX web sites. Now, in the matter of a contested will, we see the latest evidence that the Society is schismatic de facto if not de jure.
David
I'm glad you have gone public with this. Such clerical actions need to be subjected to scrutiny by the Faithful.
We are all better informed now about the mind behind St. George's House.
Perhaps, in time, we may even read a public response from the same?
Father,
May God's blessing be with you.
Let the SSPX have the house if they want. And if their conscience can allow them to withstand such an immorality, let them stay in this state of sin. Sooner or later the SSPX followers, at least those who really have critical thinking, will recognize that the SSPX is in no way Orthodox. How terrible can they be!
Father, please continue your good work! I appreciate so much the Catholic! They are just brilliant!
God Bless, Father!
Calvin.
At this critical time for Catholic Tradition, I am grateful that this sad affair has been brought to the light of day. The SSPX represents itself as the only safe haven for those of us who resist the modern innovations within Holy Mother Church and this is how they behave behind "closed doors"!
Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us! (And may you inherit that which was legally bequeathed to you and your brethren, Fr. MM)
IF X rejects the authority of the Pope...
or
IF X refuses communion with the members of the Church who are subject to the Pope....
The FSSPX can quibble about the first premise. The second premise is absolutely indisputable.
David
To Melchior,
thank you for your communications.
To this evening's first question: In some way many things have, especially with the UK SSPX attitude which was not duplicated in other Districts. In the UK we were condemned from the District pulpits for four successive Sundays in 2008 which was just the beginning of what was to follow.
The second point is that by Canon Law the SSPX could not stop an SSPX member from doing that either; and nor can the FSSR, but we are all internally committed to never do it anyway, whatever about legal powers of prohibition.
The SSPX, if in following Canon Law -which it must do- is in the same situation. Having seriously considered reconciliation they must also have accepted that fact of law too before they went to the table.
As for lack of comment, we all know it proves nothing. For example would you say that because they never commented, all the SSPX priests agree with the position of Bp Williamson on the holocaust? Hopefully not.
And more: Why should the FSSR who faithfully continue on saying the old Mass; why should they be shunned and disinherited because they dared to do what Bp. Fellay and Fr. Schmidberger and many other SSPX notables have been contemplating and urging the whole SSPX to do for many years? The latter group are to this day respected as the Superior General and High Superiors of the Society, and the former group of FSSR are unjustly vilified by the same people.
If the SSPX had agreed to Unite we would all be in the same boat and, as Fr. Aulagnier said of himself so well: My only crime was to be right too early.
For all these little Crosses let us give thanks to Our Lord who has called us to rejoice to suffer something (however small)for His Name. Does not God look after the sparrows and offer them His altars for their places of abode? Will He not look after us too by whatever way He chooses?
We must pray for one another. I often enough put Bp. Williamson and Fr. Morgan in the Memento of the Living in my Mass just as I continue to rejoice in the times of friendship that we have shared together. Our decisions have halted these times of priestly fraternity for now. If they cannot be picked up again in time, I hope for them in a blessed Eternity. I believe "friend lost, never was" and continue believing that they were such in God, and that they will be again, in God; but God only knows when.
Fr. MM
May Our Lady of Perpetual Succour comfort or discipline her children according to where they stand in a situation in which some are being victimised by others, to the pang of yet another sword of sorrow. And may those who suffer, comfort HER in her pain, the Stabat Mater.
Can the courts of this world bring lasting joy? Or even joy?
Father,
There is an old medieval maxim, that I found reading a French account of the Battle of Towton (1461) that "ill gotten goods do not last." Well, may the good God rebuke them.
Keep the faith with the fire of the Scots of old, you all are in my prayers.
James Aloysius Ignatius McAuley IV
Could Fr Michael Mary FSSR at least make representation to the executor? I believe the Lord Himself urged us to seek a settlement out of court. Good lawyers who read this would surely not be able to ignore the implications and still sleep at night.
Some interesting comments here regarding the FSSPX and FSsR:
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2011/11/truly-and-fully-catholic.html
I just submitted the following comment; don't know if it will make it past the Rorate censors:
The first step to regularization is reconciliation. The first step to reconciliation is admitting to oneself that you have made some mistakes. That is all the more true if one seeks to reconcile with Mother Church (in the person of the legitimate "Roman authorities", the temporal and all-too-human face of the Church). One does not first go looking for Mother Church to admit mistakes. That is not the Catholic way. The FSsR understand this. That's what makes the Sons so truly and fully, so wonderfully Catholic.
David
Well said, David. How often have we heard from the SSPX that "Rome needs the SSPX"? Personally, I cannot fathom how one would even begin to believe such a thing, nevermind to say it out loud when tensions are high and the situation is delicate. That attitude - which, in my limited experience, is pervasive in the SSPX- will do no good. Not for the SSPX, and most importantly not for the Church.
Amongst other things that have drawn me to the FSsR is that - as David points out - the Sons are humble servants, being patient and courageous in their reconciliation with Rome. Rev Fr. Michael Mary receives flak from the SSPX for "compromising" and he receives flak from the kind in the Church who think that the 1962 Missal is something to be forgotten and kept in the past. Yet they patiently continue to do what the Lord will have them do. Indeed, this is what makes them "so truly and fully, so wonderfully Catholic" not only as individuals but as a Religious community.
+ To a "David" who began a letter to me: "I've been having some thoughts..."
I'm not sure of the status of your letter and since it is to me I will post you a reply soon hopefully. It's not forgotten but on the list.
+ To Richard who mantioned "(You conveniently omit the date)":
No we were never given that date! We received what we have posted and there is no mention of that.
+ To Athanasius:
No. We never chose "to create a platform" for what you described and yes, we thought it the right thing to do.
+ To Everybody:
We send you our prayerful best wishes and do our best to reply from time to time. Hardly any abuse reaches the target now which is a good thing.
God bless.
Fr. Michael Mary,F.SS.R.
As I understand it, when a formerly schismatic individual or group returns to full and visible communion with the Catholic Church, there is involved a special rite in Latin that is suffused with contrition and spiritual gravitas. Thus, to return to Rome and to finally submit oneself to the "Roman authorities" is to undertake a profoundly religious act. Meanwhile, those who refuse communion with Rome (except on their own terms) engage in unworthy political stratagems, so that instead of giving off the aroma of the incense of true religion, their actions are redolent of the fallen state of the world.
David
This is very off topic, but how does a faithful Catholic [my family] who cannot, without the near occasion of sin, go to a TLM in his diocese [diocesan aproved Mass] if there is no access to it but at an SSPX chapel?
Please help, I cannot assist at the NO Mass here [so loud irreverent etc.] unless there is absolutely no choice.
I wish the FSSR, FSSP or ICRSS was here, but unfortunately the bishop will not let them in, we have tried to ask for his help.
Our only option for the TLM is the FSSPX, so they are doing some good here.
To Cruise:
There is no choice other Cruise, in your situation you are free to go to the SSPX for Mass because there is nowhere else to go. I suppose you have done everything that is expected, i.e. formally writing and asking for the TLM from your Parish Priest and then the Bishop and then to the PCED?
Drop me an email if you think I can help further.
Fr. Michael Mary
Dear Rev. Fr. Michael Mary, F.SS.R.
I am both sorry and saddened for the legal battle between SSPX and you.
Procedural flaws, interpretation of the clauses, legal quibbles; this is the law of men and all we know men should be corrupt and corruptible, shady and insidious.
Confide in God and in your Bishop, pray for the Dear Mrs. Margaret Patricia Kingon-Rouse soul and pity for the despicable persons on earth.
Humbly Yours
A.B.
I just came across the following quote from Archbishop Lefebvre (emphasis added):
The day when the Vatican will be delivered from this occupation by Modernists and will come back to the path followed by the Church down to Vatican II, our new bishops will put themselves entirely in the hands of our Sovereign Pontiff, to the point of desisting if he so wishes from the exercise of their episcopal functions.
http://sspx.org/archbishop_lefebvre/public_statement_ab_lefebvre_june_1988.htm
The highlighted statement is remarkable. Could any clearer indication possibly be given that the FSSPX bishops are presently separated from Peter? "We will put ourselves in his hands someday, but not today." What is this if not a profession of schism? The fact that they refer to the Pope as "our Sovereign Pontiff" is utterly meaningless. How can they refer to him by that title, while explicitly refusing to put themselves in his hands? Is this what they call "si si, no no"? I call it smoke and mirrors.
David
anointedruins,
You have completely misread Archbishop Lefebvre's statement and that misreading has led you to detraction.
Professor Georg May of Guttenburg University, who is a priest and canonist of 40 years good standing in the Church, said: "It is not the SSPX that refuses communion with the bishops, but rather the bishops who refuse communion with the SSPX." That's a very telling statement from a very eminent priest.
Archbishop Lefebvre referred to the Vatican, not the Pope. He was well aware of the modernist bishops of the time who populated the positions of power in Rome, particularly in the Curia. It was these he alluded to, not the Pope, and that's why there is no contradiction in his referring to the Pope as "Sovereign Pontiff."
You would be better to remain silent and pray than assault the good name of a holy prelate of the Church with your homespun interpretations.
Whatever the enemies of Sacred Tradition may think about the SSPX, it is not permitted them to doubt the word of Bishop Fellay when he declares that Pope Benedict XVI himself referred to Archbishop Lefebvre as "the venerable Archbishop Lefebvre." Would the Pope have said such a thing about a wilful schismatic?
I know a priest who might accuse you of making mischief with these kinds of posts.
Athanasius,
I know a traditional priest who would not hesitate to let me know if I was making mischief. He knows of my posts. If I hear from him, I'll moderate my position. That said, let's look at Archbishop Lefebvre's own words:
The day when the Vatican will be delivered from this occupation by Modernists and will come back to the path followed by the Church down to Vatican II, our new bishops will put themselves entirely in the hands of our Sovereign Pontiff ...
Two things are very clear from an unbiased reading of the Archbishop's statement:
1) The Archbishop thought that the Vatican was occupied by modernists. (He was no doubt correct.)
2) The Archbishop was willing to command his illicitly consecrated bishops to put themselves "entirely in the hands" of the Pope on the day that the Vatican was swept clean of modernists.
From these points, we can reasonably infer:
1) The bishops illicitly consecrated by the Archbishop did not (and to this day still do not) put themselves in submission to the Pope. (They do not "put themselves entirely in [his] hands", like true spiritual children.)
2) For the Archbishop and his spiritual sons, submission to the Pope is contingent upon historical factors (cleaning the Vatican of modernists), not a pure religious assent of the will in the face of the sovereignty of "sweet Christ on earth".
Bottom line: following the lead of their spiritual father the "venerable" Archbishop (there are many meanings of that word, "venerable"), the illicitly consecrated bishops of the FSSPX call the Pope "our Sovereign Pontiff", but they refuse to recognize his sovereignty in practice until their own demands are met.
Don't lecture me, Athanasius. I'm not detracting against your hero with mischievous misinterpretations. His words speak for themselves.
Father: My post was not only directed to you, but also to other commentators. I could probably have been more clear on that. Sorry for any confusion.
anointedruins: I don't really know where you're coming from, but you appear to be very upset at something about the SSPX, something that is beyond your theological and practical disagreements with them, which are also a somewhat grey area. I personally don't adhere to the SSPX view of how to respond to the post-conciliar crisis, but I find your approach very hostile, akin to that of certain SSPXers of a particular ilk.
I would advise you to take the time to read for instance Michael Davies' Apologia pro Marcel Lefebvre. Things are more complicated than you seem to acknowledge. That said, I think some parts of the SSPX at the moment are approaching the crisis in a black-white manner, and unfortunately I see this in some of your writings as well. There is a real crisis of Faith, acknowledged by the Holy See, in the West of today and (more importantly) in the Church of today. We can't ignore that by making claims like "whatever the Pope says goes" and sticking our heads in the sand. The question of how to deal with the crisis without either compromising Catholic Faith and Catholic Tradition or Catholic Unity, is something that I think keeps many people awake at night both in Ecclesia Dei communities and in the SSPX (figuratively and literally speaking). And if you don't experience that, or if you don't understand why some of us actually struggle with these issues, then I don't think you should be the one making blanket statements about how to deal with the crisis. I come to the same conclusion as the Transalpine Redemptorists regarding submission to the Holy See, but I can certainly understand why someone would come to a different conclusion. I think they are ultimately wrong, but I see where they're coming from.
You also seem to have a somewhat absolutist view of the Papacy, which is not really in accord with Catholic principles. If there would be a breach either of positive law or basic natural justice we would not be obligated to follow such dictates, since even if the Pope is Supreme Legislator, he can not arbitrarily change law to condemn someone post factum, a thing which would be contrary to basic natural justice. If there was a command from someone in the hierarchy for something sinful or deleterious to our Faith or the Faith of those close to us we would even be obliged to resist it, in some sense, since our first obligation is that of keeping the Faith and persevering in Charity. Even if such command came from the Pope. (On another note, we are of course never allowed to judge or depose a superior.)
Now, I'm not arguing the specifics here, ie. whether or not this applies in the way the SSPX claims it does, just laying down the principles.
And, as an aside, why would you make comments about "Rorate Caeli censors" as something bad? Is it bad because they censor you in particular or because censorship is bad? Well, we know that censorship is a positive good and that one big problem in modernity is the licentious use of media; electronic, paper, music, video, you name it. If you are being censored maybe that would be a sign that you should reconsider the way you write, as I have been forced to do several times.
In the Sacred Heart,
Swedish David
Swedish David,
Thank you for your comments. I have read Apologia pro Marcel Lefebvre, as well as many writings of the Archbishop himself. I'm very well informed of the issues. I was formerly a vigorous adherent of the FSSPX position regarding the crisis of the Church and how to deal with it. My views have changed for a number of reasons. I don't have any personal vendetta against the FSSPX.
My position today is very simple. Yes, there is a grave crisis in the Church. However, that crisis does not justify the illicit consecration of four bishops by Archbishop Lefebvre in 1988, nor does it justify the Society's present stance against the Pope's sovereignty, a stance that can be essentially summarized thus: "We'll submit to you if and when you've proven (to our satisfaction) that you're not a modernist or modernist sympathizer." The FSSPX and their loyalists always come back to the "crisis of the Church" as a way of justifying the Society's refusal to submit to Peter except on their own terms. They completely miss the point.
My position has absolutely nothing to do with taking an absolutist view of the Papacy, as if I think that the Pope is God and that every Catholic must obey him in every detail, including theological and moral error. That is a strawman argument, which serves no purpose.
As for that other blog and its moderators, that's my personal problem. I don't go there anymore.
In Jesu XPI Passio,
David
Postscript to Athanasius and Swedish David:
There might actually be a deep psychological reason for my rhetorical hostility toward the FSSPX. It's the fear that I might slip back into a total embrace of the FSSPX worldview. I've been there, and it wasn't good for me. Understand, my loathing of the New Mass and the new ecumenism is profound and abiding. The new ecumenism is easy enough for me to reject in principle, but the New Mass is a practical reality in my life. I prefer not to go into the personal details regarding my situation. Suffice to say that there are both FSSP and FSSPX Masses within an hour of my home, but I'm more or less chained to the Novus Ordo. Sundays are a torment to me, as the modernist vulture gnaws at my spleen. Do not see me as an enemy. See me as a fellow sufferer in this crisis. Bear in mind also that sufferers who are not saints have a tendency to lash out in their pain.
David
anointedruins,
I think David's response to you pretty much puts the matter into a proper objective perspective!
This SSPX vs the Pope propaganda is an obvious red herring. Ok, there are issues concerning the Pope's support for ecumenism and religious liberty that the SSPX completely opposes, but if your looking to find truly disobedient bishops then you have to look at the history of Communion in the hand, extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion and various other activities that neither Vatican II nor the Popes ordered or promoted. Do some research in these areas and you'll surely find many a disobedient bishop who is yet considered to be "in good standing." This is why the SSPX is cautious, and rightly so bearing in mind the observation of Professor Georg May previously quoted.
Everything would be just dandy if one could submit to the Holy Father and let him deal with a rebellious hierarchy. Sadly, though, as we have seen these past decades, the Popes have been unable or unwilling to suppress the true rebellion.
So many have given themselves over to modernist bishops in the false belief that their action constitutes unity with the Holy See. It does not. I leave these wise words of Archbishop Lefebvre in summation: "it has been Satan’s masterstroke to introduce disobedience to all Tradition in the name of obedience."
To Anointed Ruins, David Sweden and Athanasius:
I do not want to judge the past as to the errors. I have been spared that to some degree and we are encouraged to move forward in time to the mercy of the Pope in lifting the excommunications of the four bishops. I think we should begin again there so that, with fresh views we can sort out the problems. There is nothing more confusing than having to return to the past and weigh and sift through the old arguments that many have fruitlessly done before us.
In a new day, let it be the Motu proprio or let it be the lifting of the excommunications, 21 January 2009.
We should take Bishop Fellay on his word speaking for all the Bishops: "In the mentioned letter, Monsignor Fellay affirms, among other things:
"We are always fervently determined in the will to be and to remain Catholics and to place all of our strength at the service of the Church of Our Lord Jesus Christ, which is the Roman Catholic Church. We accept all of her teachings with a filial spirit. We firmly believe in the primacy of Peter and in his prerogatives and because of this, the present situation makes us suffer so much."
This is what I think Bishop Fellay believes since he said so to the Pope.
The Bishops made a commitment which was: "to spare no effort in going deeper in the necessary conversations with the authorities of the Holy See in matters still unresolved, and to be able to thus arrive quickly to a full and satisfactory solution of the problem existing from the beginning...."
This is what they have given their word to do.
We must pray that they will keep their word. The clock is ticking and the months are being pulled off the calendar: three years will soon be up... but these things take time.
Thank you Anointed ruins for your honesty about your situation. You may count on our prayers, it is not easy but you are doing the right thing.
It all comes down to this in my opinion: it is time for the SSPX to bite the bullet and do the right thing because it is the right thing to do: which is to submit to Peter Benedict XVI. It is wrong to persist in disunion with the Holy See. It cannot be justified by saying that there are bishops who support women priests, communion in the hand and any other number of things. We all know that no number of wrongs make it right to persist in separation from Peter.
Traditional Catholics are now beginning to act as any number of other Non-Catholics; that's not really a slip of the tongue or a typo. In the si si - no no world, where 2+2 can only equal 4 separation from Peter is very wrong and as soon as one is aware of that fact he must act: even in the middle of the night by deciding that he must submit as Christ would have him submit. Not in a perfect Church but in the Church all Militant as She is and whether She appears to be winning or losing.
Which someone we all know would call: ~~Reality~~.
Devotedly
Fr. Michael Mary, F.SS.R.
So many have given themselves over to modernist bishops in the false belief that their action constitutes unity with the Holy See. It does not.
Ah, but Athanasius, it does. If the local ordinary is legitimate, then jurisdictional submission (which is not to say theological submission) to him is precisely the necessary link that constitutes unity with Peter. It doesn't matter if the bishop himself is a disobedient heretic. If he is ordained by the authority of Peter, then he is the visible link to Peter. Our Lord Jesus Christ has bound his apostles to the incarnational reality of jurisdiction, the structures and strictures of which are the sinews and tendons, as it were, of unity. To accept this reality, in all of its discomfort, is to be a Catholic.
COMMENTS ARE NOW CLOSED ON THESE TOPICS
Thank you all for your participation.
Fr. MM
Post a Comment