My Photo

Insight Scoop

Catholic World News Top Headlines (

The Curt Jester


Poor Box

Render Unto Us

Tip Jar
Blog powered by Typepad

« Rosie O'Donnell: A Special Kind Of Crazy (Joy Behar Is Not Far Behind) | Main | Have A Blessed Pentecost Sunday! »

Sunday, May 27, 2007



He makes complete sense.


Very good article and commentary, Thomistic.
As was claimed by SPAX in a previous thread about 2 weeks back, SSPX was and is not in schism.
This is an incorrect claim by SPAX, but neverless, very tough times for Catholicism.


"The USCCB is perhaps the most corrupt organization within the Church. "

Regrettably, after having seen the bilge they come out with, I have to admit this is true.

It saddens me to see our shepherds leading the flock astray.

Ave Maria

Yes, what he says does make sense but he is NOT a Roman Catholic bishop but is excommunicated and is thus a bishop of a church that was founded by someone other than Our Lord.

Rome is softening its stance and wants the return of the SSPX--and the faithful can attend Mass with them--and the window of opportunity is approaching. Some will return and some will not but will remain outside the church just as the 'Old Catholics' did after Vatican I.

We do know what many of our bishops are and we have a good idea of how far the USCCB can be trusted but I cannot look to an excommunicated 'bishop' for guidance.

Ave Maria!


Folks, when I read commentaries blasting the Church, the Pope (as "powerless") and the bishops ("the USCCB as corrupt") I grow disheartened, because we are missing the Big Picture. First and foremost, the Church is an object of faith. She's not an arena for our activism, be it liberal, conservative or traditionalist. We are commanded to love the Church, warts and all, confident that she's lead by the Spirit, who always gets His way in spite of human frailty. We also presume to stand in judgment over the Church, the Pope, and her Bishops, because we don't always get our way NOW.

We sin of presumption every time we judge the Church, forgetting that we're also judging her Founder along with her, and the Spirit animating her.

People, get a grip. We're Catholics. We ought to know better.



Depends on whether the excommunication is valid or invalid. In the case of Archbishop Lefebvre it has already been extensively argued and shown that the declarations of Pope John Paul II and though authoritative and ordinarily requiring submission are not binding upon the faithfuls consciences because they are objectively wrong and therefore unjust, and hence do not require the submission of the faithful.

Above the Pope there is a God, and hopefully, it will be eventually seen that the excommunication of Archbishop Lefebvre was invalid just as the excommunications of St. Athanasius and St. Joan of Arc were.

Jesus Christ did not make His Popes as infallible as many Catholics wrongly think, and so to obey the Catholic Faith one must sometimes "disobey" the Pope. St. Paul "disobeyed" Peter himself (Gal. 2:11-14), the great St. Athanasius had to "disobey" Pope Liberius. This is not real disobedience, because it is putting obedience to God first. And this is precisely what Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre did and this is what SSPX continues to do.

It must be stated however that,Archbishop Lefebvre always made it clear that there was no spirit of schism involved.

"We are not schismatics!...There is no question of us separating ourselves from Rome, nor of putting ourselves under a foreign government, nor of establishing a sort of parallel church ...It is out of the question for us to do such things. Far from us be this miserable thought to separate ourselves from Rome..."

Does this sound like a stubborn schismatic, who denies the authority of the Pope or wishes to separate himself from him?


Schismatic or not, I agree with Fellay's analysis of the current situation, and I believe his stories of Machiavellian Vatican politics.

Of great interest, to me, was his description of the situation in France, "The Eldest Daughter of the Church." The Church in Europe will probably follow the lead of France. So, watch what happens there.

Some Day

You guys do know that the indult is out already???

Or do I know because I am a Herald of the Gospel???

I am pretty sure the media is already informed.


Some Day,

Fellay spoke at a church in Oregon. It appears that there is one indult Mass in the entire state (Portland).


I believe that there is a conspiracy among Cardinal Arinze and the German bishops to scuttle the motu propio about as much as I believe that Lee Harvey Oswald conspired with the mob (or Castro, or the CIA, or enter-your-favorite-boogeyman-here) to kill JFK. First, in matters of the discipline of the sacraments, the Holy Father is the top dog; nobody can force him to do or not do anything relating to them. Moreover, he has a special charism granted to him when he makes decisions with regard to the faith. Second, the problem with conspiracies is that members of the conspiracy talk; they never remain "hidden" too long...unless you believe that Jesus married Mary Magdalene and she carried the "holy blood" to France and that Jesus' disciples scuttled this "truth."



Ever heard of the phrase "The Rhine has begun to flow into the Tiber?"

The current conspiracies against the motu propio are not at all new. Similar conspiracies were very much alive way back when the list of Fathers, drawn from the preparatory commissions and proposed by Archbishop Felici as the ones best suited for election to the conciliar commissions, was rejected. Together with the German Bishops, Cardinal Frings, Archbishop of Cologne pushed for the acceptance of another list made up of liberal bishops from the banks of the Rhine i.e. Germany, Austria, France, the low countries, Belgium, and Switzerland. This alliance of Bishops won 49% of the seats and this is how "The Rhine begun to flow into the Tiber." The Germans were conspiring then as they are doing now.

In fact this was the first of the liberals victories, who from the outset would shape the way the Vatican II Council would develop. The council was controlled by the forces of modernism; the same forces are pretty much present in the Vatican today.

The second victory was secured when the first doctrinal schema "On the Sources of Revelation" came up for discussion. So the liberal group promptly got to work and mobilized itself for the purpose of denying divine Tradition's independence from scripture with the aim of establishing the primacy of the Bible for ecumenical ends.

Of particular interest is the fact that prior to the string of victories, a certain schema written by Cardinal Bea's Secretariat for Christian Unity and entitled "On religious Liberty" was written to satisfy the demands of non-catholics. Someone was very keen on turning these demands into catholic doctrine. It is impossible to reverse or change catholic doctrine. Whoever it is, these people are extremely clever and deadly. Indeed angels have superior intelligence. Satan is a fallen angel but still retains the superior intelligence with which he was created.

Keep your fingers crossed but formally granting a motu propio would reverse decades of hard won victories and this is something the liberals are not likely to take lying down.


spaxx, I'm not denying that there are liberals who would love to have the motu propio scuttled. However, I think the likelihood that Cardinal Arinze and a group of German bishops have met in a smoke-filled room (or some super-secret chat room on the internet) to coordinate moves is rather low.

Moreover, I've never been shown any statements from Cardinal Arinze demonstrating his antipathy toward the TLM. In a court of law--where I work--these statements by Bishop Fellay would amount to mere speculation.



I don't recall anyone saying anything about secret meetings in smoke filled rooms, and I linked an article that said Cardinal Arinze sided with the German Bishops in the post after his name.

I have read other things that suggest to me that although he may not be a flaming liberal, Cardinal Arinze is less than enthusiastic about Traditional Catholicism.




It is no secret that the German bishops are against the motu propio.

And in any case nothing is too low for liberal minds because such minds are inspired by the prince of darkness.

Lisa Noonan

Bp Fellay was in Phoenix a few weeks ago and a friend who is an ardent SSPX-er sent me the notes from this meeting. One thing I noticed is the *anger* that emanates from the hard conservative end, which matches the anger from the extreme liberal end of things in this matter(such as my now-former formation director whose eyes flared with green fire if TLM was brought up). Some of the notes taken from this meeting were flat out hostile towards the Holy See. This is Catholic behavior? This is Gospel living?

I'm going to post on those notes shortly and will link to this post here, if you don't mind. I thought about it this weekend and time ran away from me.




I am interested in truth. I will take it wherever I find it. I may disagree with Fellay on many things, however I believe that most of what he had to say (above) is true. If you do not believe that the above statements are true, then I will be glad to hear your rebuttal. You may actually change my mind on a particular point. If you post accurate quotes by Fellay that I believe to be false, I will label them as false statements. I am eager to read what you have to share.

The controlled anger and frustration that a person may demonstrate in relation to his beliefs has no bearing on the veracity of his statements. If anything it is proof of his sincerity. It is just emotion. It is an ad hominem attack to imply that we should not listen to anything a person has to say because he is angry. Anger only becomes an issue when a certain line is crossed (i.e., abusive behavior). In that case, there may be cause to marginalize the individual.

Catholic behavior and Gospel living are about stating the truth with regard to the Faith. Being a good Catholic and living the Gospel do not mean we have to be mellow, pacifistic, spineless jellyfish who will do anything and sacrifice anything just to be the "congenial good guy." The reason the Church is in such a mess is that we all just go along with whatever garbage is foisted upon us so as not to make a fuss.

Lest you think that I am an SSPX-er, I want you to know that I suffer through horrible liturgies by modernist priests rather than attend the SSPX Mass in town. And, yes I am angry about it, but anger is just an emotion that needs to be controlled. Remember, Our Lord got angry at the money changers in the temple.

You sound like a nice person and a good Catholic. My comments above about jellyfish and so forth are not directed at you. They are of a more general nature concerning a trap to which we have all fallen prey. Over the past 30-40 years we are like the frog who doesn't know it is being boiled because the heat was turned up slow instead of all at once. We are told, that in the interest of being loving and charitble, we should not make waves while the Church is being dismantled by the homo-modernist juggernaut. The modernist bishops have some things in common with their pre-Vat II counterparts--namely "pay, pray, and obey."

But because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold, not hot, I will begin to vomit thee out of my mouth.The Apocalypse, 3:16.

Some Day

No no, I mean I have it that it is already a fact. Not that it will or soon.

Lisa Noonan

Patrick: agreed. :)

I don't suffer through ghastly "modernist" priests--I change parishes. I couldn't take the showboating and the constant donation lectures in place of the homily, so I moved on to a much happier (and orthodox!) parish. Sometimes it's hard to be on the SFO path and not have my head explode because of... uh... interesting stances of some folks, including Friars.

I attend TLM at random to keep focused on the Lord. I'll never understand how we went from that to the Novus Ordo. It's like the difference between living here on Earth as opposed to on Jupiter. However, thankfully, our Bishop is an awesome person and we don't have to resort to going to an SSPX center to go to TLM.

I never meant that a person doesn't have a right to be angry, or that we shouldn't listen to angry people. It was just a startling thing I've observed in the past few years as my exposure has widened to both extremes. I find it a little hypocritical that my SFO formation director preaches tolerance to other Christian sects, Muslims, agnostics, etc., but has a great big problem with anything to do with anything pre-V-II. I guess it's just human nature. I don't know.

And thanks for your honesty. I agree, being passive and mindless solves nothing. And I don't believe in a foofy-cloud God, either.




I live in a town in the same diocese. Unfortunately, the TLMs in Phoenix are quite a drive for me. There are two parishes in my area. On Easter Sunday, the pastor of one of these parishes delivered the following homily to a packed church:

"The idea of God is an abstract concept. We, humans, are in need of ritual, story, and myth to deal with the concept of God. So, we have this story about God becoming a man and rising from the dead. We can give this story real meaning and make it relevent by making it our own story."

I may have gotten a word or two wrong. However, the above is nearly an exact quote. It was also the theme of his entire homily--nice, huh?


Thomistic, no, you did not state that Cardinal Arinze, together with a cabal of German bishops, is attempting to scuttle the motu propio. However, the placement of his name and the statement that he is "on the side of the German bishops" certainly could cause a reader to believe that there was a "plot" out there, particularly with the statements that "But the Pope seems to have strangely little real power. He is surrounded in the Vatican by people who oppose the Latin Mass."

Cardinal Arinze may have prudential reasons to oppose the TLM (I have yet to see any hard proof that he opposes the expansion of the TLM, BTW), but the statement above implies that he is somehow emasculating the papacy's power over the regulation of the sacrament.


First time posting to this blog. Interesting conversation. Here’s my take on this topic:

I will “admit” to being an SSPX-er – been attending their chapel since 1985. In my youth (1960s), I served as an altar boy in my local diocesan parish. We had very devout Irish priests and nuns who drilled us in the Catechism and fundamentals of the Catholic faith. I witnessed how the debacle following Vatican II disfigured the mass, sacraments, spiritual life, etc.

When I found the SSPX in the mid-80s, it was like a breath of fresh air – and a return to sanity. In 20+ years attending their chapel, they have never said (or done) anything I would describe as counter to the Catholic faith I was taught. How many of the people who vehemently attack the SSPX have every attended their masses on a regular basis – and thus have any real insights?

I lack the knowledge of theology and Church history that many of you seem to possess (I’ll admit to being a bit envious!). I’m just a simple Catholic trying to stay true to the religion of my youth, my family, and my German ancestors. On that note, I’ve always believed in one simple truth: Judge a tree by the fruit it bears. One look at the horrible developments from 40+ years of the Novus Ordo tells me all I need to know. A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit any more than a sick tree can bear good fruit.

When debating these complex issues, don’t forget the simple truths our faith has given us.

I’m not a blind follower of the SSPX. But really, when taking stock of all the so-called “illicit” Catholic groups around today, they should be pretty low on the “criticism list” of any orthodox Catholic.

Mark Jacobson

Why is it that every Modernist heretic in the Church is allowed free reign in our dioceses, and the most orthodox and traditional Catholics are trampled upon and excommunicated? Does not this one fact clearly indicate that Modernist heretics are in full control of the Church? The Pope must act decisively... the situation today rivals the Arian heresy and may even surpass it in its devastation...

Mark Jacobson

I firmly believe that Archbishop Lefebvre will one day be canonized by the Church.



modernism is indeed a synthesis of heresies, including the Arian heresy. One can clearly see this in those who deny the divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ. The world clealrly witnessed the rejection of Christ's divinity and His social Kingship when He was included in the Assisi pantheon.

Personally, am highly skeptical of the current Pope's ability or even willingness to decisively act against modernism. If the latest u-turns on inter-religious dialogue are anything to go by, he seems determined to drive forward with ecumenism, which is hand in glove with modernism.

Which is not surprising bse Pope Benedict XVI is a modernist really. In Nov 1984 Cardinal Ratzinger, Pope Benedict XVI today, in an interview by the Italian monthly magazine called "Jesus", said,

"The challenge of the 1960's was to take on board the best values from two centuries of liberal culture. Even if these values were not born in the church, once they are purified and corrected, they can find their place in the vision that the church has of the world. That is what was done. It is true that the results have disappointed some hopes that were perhaps naive. This is why there is need to find a new balance."

In otherwords, cardinal Ratzinger admitted that attempts to marry The Church and liberal values was the cause of the current crisis in the Church. Therefore, he talked of "finding a new balance", which as Pope he still hopes to find. This impossible balance is at the heart of his ideas and are anything but an indication of a Pontiff determined to fight modernism in the church. Interestingly enough then as now, the Indult carrot was dangled (October 3, 1984) by the self same Cardinal Ratzinger.

I guess this should give the faithful an idea of what to expect. Fasten sitbelts and brace for the worst. And as food for thought, the following statement by Fr Emmanuel written two centuries ago is rather prophetic. This pious priest described what dramatic times the Church would pass through at the end of the world when he said,

"Since the Church must be like our Lord in everything, before the end of the world she will suffer trials that will be a true passion."

Is it possible that Popes can lead the Church to her ruin? Such a proposition seems untenable given promises of The Holy Ghost's assistance. But the facts are before our eyes. So we must conclude that when our Lord spoke of help until the end of time, He did not exclude periods of darkness and a time of passion for His mystical spouse (Archbishop Lefbvre - Letter to Mrs Jean-Marc Le Panse, Econe, Jan 29 1984).

Mark Jacobson

spaxx -

I appreciate your comments... I have often thought of the link between what our Lord suffered in His Passion and what His Body is going through in the present crisis. I'm sure the Lord's disciples could not see a way out during the Passion, and yet we know the Resurrection was to follow. We know the Church will be triumphant in the end. The hard part is knowing what part to play to help bring about the Restoration. Do we wait and pray and fast (always a good choice), or do we do more? Do we directly confront evil in our own parish, or run to the safe haven of another and wait it out?

The comments to this entry are closed.

Pope Benedict XVI Homilies & Statements

Codex of Catholic Blogs

Orthodox Blogs

Blogs From People We Wish Were Catholic