“Crypto-Lefebvrianism” & the Willful Confusion Around the SSPX

Author: Steve Skojec

SSPX_May_2009_Ordination_Mass1

I was on the receiving end of the “crypto-lefebrvist” charge yesterday – a neat trick considering that the originator of that term is now sentenced to pay hefty restitution for defaming the founder of a religious order. Still, it would seem that in the minds of some, the charge bears a certain sting. And I suppose it does. I’m a long-standing devotee of the traditional Mass. We go to great lengths to ensure that our children are baptized in the old rite (because what kid these days couldn’t use a double-exorcism upon arrival?)

I came across yet another online discussion this morning about the Priestly Society of St. Pius X (there seems to be a new one all the time) and those who attack them. Sadly, they are always under fire from pretty much all sides, which must only deepen their sense of isolation.

Reading the back and forth, I have to admit that I do not know what to make of the SSPX situation. I have always carefully avoided becoming involved with them, because it feels like a trap. I know there is good being done there. I know good faithful people who are involved. I refuse to accept asinine arguments like the one made by Fr. Paul Nicholson about how Satanic “masses” are less offensive to God than those offered by the SSPX in good faith. But there are questions that demand consideration:

Does anyone here think it’s possible to disagree with the disobedience of Archbishop Lefebvre but still agree with the theological positions he put forth?

Does anyone believe that Rome has been in any way clear about the canonical status of the SSPX, or whether or not people can attend their Masses, support them financially, or even receive other sacraments from them?

Does anyone believe, after taking into account ALL the various pieces of documented evidence which so frequently seem to contradict each other, that they can say with 100% certitude they know that the SSPX is a) in schism or b) not in schism – based solely on the statements of popes, cardinals, and the relevant persons in the appropriate dicasteries and commissions in the Vatican?

Is there a single person reading these words who does not believe that the very existence of the SSPX serves as a perpetual indictment of the Church’s post-conciliar liturgy and ecclesiology, and that any validation from Rome provided to the SSPX beyond the occasional vague updating of the semantics of their status or the lifting of the excommunications would absolutely decimate many of the precepts upon which the current Catholic edifice stands?

Subsequent to this last point: can anyone think of a reason why, considering the modernist/gnostic/neo-pagan political machine that the Vatican has sadly become, we could reasonably expect there to be sufficient interest in Rome to accomplish reconciliation or at least offer sufficient clarification to pull us out of this morass?

It seems undeniable that we (faithful Catholics) are being manipulated by at least some of the Roman officials who should be dealing with this, and quite possibly actively being lied to. The SSPX remains a stigma-by-association deathtrap for all those traditionalists who take pains to maintain clear communion with Rome. If you show any sympathy to the SSPX and their arguments or positions, you, like me, will be branded a “crypto-lefebvrist” or a flat-out schismatic. If you cite any of the clearly-articulated theological arguments made on their websites as part of a discussion, you will be instantly dismissed and the citations disregarded. They are, for all intents and purposes, radioactive. And while they have done things over the years that demonstrate that they share the blame for this, they appear to be intentionally kept in the outer darkness by those whose very job it is to make them a full and licit part of the Church.

Perhaps most important is this: if it is schismatic or somehow un-Catholic to believe the things that they believe, then this means all of our ancestors in the faith should be similarly condemned for believing and worshiping the same way. As an institution, they do not hold a single theological position that is not clearly and unequivocally Catholic. They cannot be condemned because of their theology – it is simply not possible to show it to be in error. They even believe in and promote submission to the Petrine office. (One could cogently argue that they have more respect for the institution of the papacy than even the last few popes have – because those last few have been willing to make changes that no pope, if he desired continuity with his forebears, should have made.) Even the infamous act of disobedience has been presented with a very explicit canonical justification. Agree or disagree that this justification is valid, they do not appeal to their own authority, but to the law of the Church.

Their isolation has damaged them. I have no doubt pride has crept in in some areas, which can be very off-putting to those on the outside looking in. The act of disobedience remains a scandal to many. They are most certainly not perfect.

And yet…and yet they are what the Church was before it abandoned its patrimony. They give every appearance that they are doing their best to be faithful to an authentic Catholicism. Should any of us be surprised that there are many in the Vatican who want to keep them as far away as possible, and keep us confused and wary about them in the process? They represent, to Rome at least, the sort of problem that would by its very solution create more problems than it alleviates. Thus, I cannot accept that the confusion surrounding them is entirely an accident. Too many contradictions in official statements exist; too many distinctions without differences are made. Meanwhile, nothing moves forward, and the majority of Catholics associate all traditionalists with the black legend of SSPX schism.

What do you think?

***

Apart from some comments worth reading on the original blog where the article was posted, there is also this levelheaded article in response to Steve Skojec’s post, with a following very interesting pertinent discussion in the comment section below.

Where do I personally stand? I could not put it better than that of the author of the Opus Publicum response to Skojec in his final paragraph:

“The SSPX—and those who regularly attend their chapels—don’t care. Deo gratias. They have found it necessary in these troubled times to be intentionally hard to the volley of misguided, and sometimes calumnious, criticism which is sent their way on all sides. This does not mean that the Society is closeminded or unwilling to discuss their positions; it only means that they will not let the unfair derision distract them from their apostolate. Contrary to the false claims of others, the SSPX is not out to replace the Catholic Church or her hierarchy. The Society has no interest in vesting itself with the mantle of being the “last true Catholics” on earth. As Skojec makes clear in his article, the SSPX is not perfect. There is reasonable room to disagree with some of the SSPX’s actions and words, including those of their founder, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. Even so, the Society continues to bear good fruit while remaining a thorn in the side of those who would demolish and then rebuild the Church into a worldly institution bereft of Divine mandate and purpose. And for that all Catholics, particularly traditional Catholics, owe them a debt of gratitude.” (My emphasis.)

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

83 Responses to “Crypto-Lefebvrianism” & the Willful Confusion Around the SSPX

  1. sixupman says:

    The “proof of the pudding” etc.,

    Merely consider the state of Mother Church to-day and where exists the de facto schism, not SSPX for sure.

  2. Magdalen says:

    crypto-lefebvrist and traditional drift….
    These were made up “charges” where there was nothing to charge against a certain holy Institute and its founders. And now the true colors of the perveyors of such charges are showing.

    God can bring good out of evil. Schism is evil but the good from the SSPX is that they have held fast to the teachings and traditions of holy Church. One day they will reconcile when there is a different climate in Rome. I can only imagine that at the present time they are breathing a sigh of relief that they did not reconcile under B16 considering how things are now in Rome.

  3. I personally think that if SSPX were reconciled with Rome they could be a stronger support for the faithful Cardinals and Bishops who are now standing firm against moral heresy or de facto schism if you want to call it that . The longer SSPX remains without jurisdiction, the more vulnerable they are to divisions, such as that devision created by Bishop Williamson who did not want the Rome talks and who has said that all of the Vatican II Documents should be discarded. Bishop Williamson was expelled from SSPX but is no without followers.
    As for the sacraments of penance and marriage which by canon law require jurisdiction for validity except in emergency situations, I know of people who actually married at SSPX and a Novus Ordo ceremony on the same day to be reassured of the validity of their marriage.
    JMJT

  4. JabbaPapa says:

    Does anyone here think it’s possible to disagree with the disobedience of Archbishop Lefebvre but still agree with the theological positions he put forth?

    Of course it’s possible — but misguided ; with the caveat that only a tiny number of his theological positions are part and parcel of the disobedience.

    Does anyone believe that Rome has been in any way clear about the canonical status of the SSPX, or whether or not people can attend their Masses, support them financially, or even receive other sacraments from them?

    Rome has been very clear indeed about the non-canonical situation of the Fraternity, but —

    [b]1)[/b] There is no clear-cut yes/no answer to the question of whether people may or may not attend SSPX Masses. Not because the theological & disciplinary & pastoral direction from Rome is confused, but because the answer to the question depends to a very great extent on the personal situations of each individual SSPX priest and each individual Mass attendee, including particular circumstances that may only exist on one particular day.

    [b]2)[/b] There is no prohibition against providing financial support to SSPX chapels & etc, except if one becomes consciously aware that the priest(s) in charge of that chapel have preached any objective heresy. However, the possibility of tithing towards the upkeep of the SSPX (in normal circumstances) does not free anyone of their obligations to tithe towards their Parish and Diocese, except in such circumstances where the parish/diocesan priests may be preaching or practising any objective heresies or other grave abuses against the Body of Christ.

    [b]3)[/b] The only Sacraments that may be licitly received from SSPX clergy are Baptism, Last Rites, and conditionally the Eucharist — though celebrations of the Sacrament of Marriage are considered of course as being at the very least conditionally licit, provided that no defect of Catholic intent is present in the spouses and providing that they are in a sufficient state of Sacramental Grace to provide each other with the Sacrament — and though an Ordinary Diocesan Bishop retains the faculty to provide a priest of the SSPX to licitly provide the Sacrament of Confirmation in his stead. No priest of the SSPX may licitly hear Confession and give forgiveness except in some very limited special circumstances.

    The difficult one is the Sacrament of Holy Orders — there is no question about the validity of that Sacrament as provided by the SSPX Bishops ; but I pure and simple do not understand the full complexity of the question of licity.

    Does anyone believe, after taking into account ALL the various pieces of documented evidence which so frequently seem to contradict each other, that they can say with 100% certitude they know that the SSPX is a) in schism or b) not in schism – based solely on the statements of popes, cardinals, and the relevant persons in the appropriate dicasteries and commissions in the Vatican?

    I can say with certitude that the SSPX has been in a formal state of schism, but since the lifting of the excommunications, this is no longer the case.

    Is there a single person reading these words who does not believe that the very existence of the SSPX serves as a perpetual indictment of the Church’s post-conciliar liturgy and ecclesiology, and that any validation from Rome provided to the SSPX beyond the occasional vague updating of the semantics of their status or the lifting of the excommunications would absolutely decimate many of the precepts upon which the current Catholic edifice stands?

    I believe no such thing, because it’s patent and blatant nonsense.

    The precepts of the “current” Catholic edifice have not shifted and changed over time, no matter WHAT some of the less admirable theologians, Bishops, “liturgists”, and individual priests may be practising or preaching.

    I mean — the very fact that this question is SO loaded with the very sort of terminology and phraseology that’s normally spread about by Modernists does not lead one to accept it as being valid.

    the modernist/gnostic/neo-pagan political machine that the Vatican has … become

    Sorry, but this is just relativist junk.

    And again — the vocabulary used here is of a Modernist origin.

    Where is the teaching of our Christ to be found in words such as these ?

    If you cite any of the clearly-articulated theological arguments made on their websites as part of a discussion, you will be instantly dismissed and the citations disregarded.

    False — although some of the (very few) actually uncatholic doctrinal positions of the SSPX must be dismissed and denounced ; but never of course disregarded.

    Perhaps most important is this: if it is schismatic or somehow un-Catholic to believe the things that they believe, then this means all of our ancestors in the faith should be similarly condemned for believing and worshiping the same way. As an institution, they do not hold a single theological position that is not clearly and unequivocally Catholic.

    False and false — it is blatantly heretical to describe the Novus Ordo Mass as being “Satanic”, as +Fellay has done.

    The SSPX keep on falsely describing the so-called Tridentine Mass as “the Mass of Ages” — and let’s all completely ignore that the most drastic changes to the Form of the Mass prior to the 1960s were undertaken during and after the Council of Trent !!

    Let’s all completely ignore the fact that so many of our ancestors in the faith believed in heresies and practised apostasies and denied the creeds of the Catholicity.

    It is extremely naïve to paint this utterly false rose-tinted picture of some sort of ecclesial perfection of past centuries, instead of simply looking at the facts, that that wonderful age of Catholic Heroes was the very source of the so-called “reformation” and the so-called “enlightenment” that engendered Modernism, Relativism, Americanism, and Freemasonry in the first place !!!

    Modernism did not appear ex nihilo in the 1960s — it is an invention of the 15th Century.

  5. reinkat says:

    “the majority of Catholics associate all traditionalists with the black legend of SSPX schism” . . . .
    What? I would suspect that the majority of Catholics don’t have a clue what you are talking about. Myself included, I might humbly add.
    “crypto-lefebvrist”: what kind of word is that? I would love to hear a simple explanation of the schism, the players, the dates it occurred and where, what it all involved. ???

  6. kathleen says:

    Dear Jabba,

    Thank you for taking the trouble to write such a detailed rejoinder to Steve Skojec’s piece. I won’t comment on each of your points (many that I accept anyway, and others because I don’t have the canonical know-how to refute the claims you make) but only on the ones I do not completely agree with, or have a question on.

    You say: “The only Sacraments that may be licitly received from SSPX clergy are Baptism, Last Rites, and conditionally the Eucharist...”

    The SSPX are indeed no longer officially “in schism” (as you also state) so why should there be any “conditions” placed on Catholics attending the Holy Eucharist celebrated by a SSPX priest? How can ordinary Catholics attending one of their beautiful Tridentine Masses (that are Catholic to the core) even know whether this is considered “licit” or not by the Church? It seems to me that this, if true, is very confusing.

    Skojec says: “Is there a single person reading these words who does not believe that the very existence of the SSPX serves as a perpetual indictment of the Church’s post-conciliar liturgy and ecclesiology, and that any validation from Rome provided to the SSPX beyond the occasional vague updating of the semantics of their status or the lifting of the excommunications would absolutely decimate many of the precepts upon which the current Catholic edifice stands?”

    And you respond: “I believe no such thing, because it’s patent and blatant nonsense.

    The precepts of the “current” Catholic edifice have not shifted and changed over time, no matter WHAT some of the less admirable theologians, Bishops, “liturgists”, and individual priests may be practising or preaching…”

    Well, I do not think this is “blatant nonsense”! The liberal members of the clergy who have infiltrated into the highest realm of the hierarchy are right now in strong confrontation with the loyal, faithful Catholic clergy who will not compromise Catholic Doctrine… (greatly evidenced in the recent ‘Extraordinary Synod on the Family’.) The exclusion of the SSPX means they are not present to support these traditional Catholic prelates, but it is precisely because of the stand for orthodoxy of some of the hierarchy, that the liberals cannot fail to be reminded of the ‘thorn in their side’ refusal of the SSPX to bow down to the ‘changes’ in Liturgy and Ecclesiology that took over in the aftermath of VII. Therefore I would say the SSPX do indeed “serve as a perpetual indictment” of this!

    You quote Skojec’s words: “the modernist/gnostic/neo-pagan political machine that the Vatican has … become” out of context, which slightly changes his meaning, but nonetheless I do agree that this is too sweeping a statement.

    That there are ‘wolves’ of this ilk within the very walls of the Vatican, I fearfully admit that I believe (and have we not been warned of this by some outstanding and holy members of the clergy?) but not that the whole Vatican is overrun by them. The Holy Spirit may permit the ‘wolves’ to prowl for a time, but they will never finally succeed in achieving their evil plans of destruction of Christ’s Pure Bride, and She will one day prevail triumphant once again.
    In the meantime, just look at some of the rubbish and un-Catholic nonesense coming out from some members of the Vatican nowadays!

    You say: “It is extremely naïve to paint this utterly false rose-tinted picture of some sort of ecclesial perfection of past centuries,…”

    I do not see either the author of this article, nor the one from ‘Opus publicum’ with the linked-to response (nor the majority of traditional Catholics) doing this at all. Anyone who has even an inkling of Church history knows that Man is a fallen creature and sin, heresies, problems, etc., has always been part and parcel of the Church Militant.

    But Jabba, can you really and truthfully deny that the magnificence of the Church’s liturgy, devotions, piety of her members, Catholic teaching (in schools, catechesis in parishes, etc.) flourishing vocations, religious institutions, missionary work, Catholic practice, et al, has not taken a notable downward spiral all over the West in the past 50 years ?? The statistics, whether by secular or Catholic sources, tell us that this is no falsity and that the blossoming pre-VII Church is not a “rose-tinted picture” I’m afraid. We have lost so many souls since the imposed changes were implemented in liturgy and ecclesiology. The SSPX, in spite of their own mistakes and limitations, as has been mentioned, is simply doing their best to avoid any of the Church’s splendour being assigned to history.

    This is not “Modernism”!! No one is talking of abandoning the Barque of Peter as she confronts “the stormy seas” of dissent and treachery in her midst, but there is a lot of solid good sense in the words of Steve Skojec… IMHO at least.

  7. JabbaPapa says:

    The SSPX are indeed no longer officially “in schism” (as you also state) so why should there be any “conditions” placed on Catholics attending the Holy Eucharist celebrated by a SSPX priest?

    Even though they are no longer in a formal state of schism, the SSPX remains in a position of canonical irregularity — there are some exceptional cases of some individual SSPX priests who may be permitted by their Diocesan Ordinary to provide the Eucharistic Sacrament ; particularly some of the older priests who may have been regularly ordained prior to the excommunications, or may have joined the SSPX after their ordinations ; or contrariwise, those SSPX priests who have actively published and preached any objective doctrinal errors ; but the general rule for “typical” SSPX priests/chapels is as I have described it.

    But Jabba, can you really and truthfully deny that the magnificence of the Church’s liturgy, devotions, piety of her members, Catholic teaching (in schools, catechesis in parishes, etc.) flourishing vocations, religious institutions, missionary work, Catholic practice, et al, has not taken a notable downward spiral all over the West in the past 50 years ??

    kathleen, I’d simply add a 0 at the end of that figure, and say “the past 500 years”.

    And one should look at all of the statistics — the 20th century saw an upsurge in Catholic practice & numbers until the baby boomer generation reached adulthood, after which point the numbers started dropping constantly — and in the West, rather drastically.

    But — just as one should not confuse the all-too-often very poor quality of the English-language version of the Novus Ordo Mass as being accurately representative of the Novus Ordo in its nature ; so one should not confuse the overly liberal declarations and actions of certain theologians, Bishops, or Cardinals — as individuals or groups — as somehow re-defining the Catholicity in its nature.

    This is not “Modernism”!!

    kathleen, I think you misread me — I stated certain 15th-17th century developments as being the source of Modernism ; my point was that those who blame Vatican II as being the prime source of all of this Modernism are quite mistaken !!

  8. sixupman says:

    Canonical regularity under Cardinal Marx and the German Bishops’ Conference – an oxymoron?

  9. toadspittle says:

    “You quote Skojec’s words: “the modernist/gnostic/neo-pagan political machine that the Vatican has … become” out of context, which slightly changes his meaning, but nonetheless I do agree that this is too sweeping a statement.”

    …Regardless of the content of the arcane and irrelevant minutiae under debate here – the latest and modish ‘get-out’ for everything folk find disagreeable on CP&S is, “…it’s taken out of context.”
    Unless I, or anyone, quotes the entire chapter of a C.S. Lewis book, or the whole of “Paradise Lost,” I’m probably going to be accused of making my point “out of context.”
    Dopey.
    And makes debate a nonsense.
    Jabba will agree.
    Not.

  10. toadspittle says:

    Do my eyes deceive me, or do I see a woman dimly lurking in the far background of the lovely snapshot above?
    Oh, yes, they do. It’s a only gargoyle. Thank God.
    …What a relief!
    Gave me quite a nasty “turn,” for a moment there.

  11. JabbaPapa says:

    Oh — one detail I forgot.

    Attending SSPX Masses is generally permissible to those who ensure that their ordinary Sunday obligation is fulfilled in a regular parish ; it would be possible, for example, for most people, to attend their diocesan parish Mass on the Saturday evening ; then a Sunday SSPX Mass.

    And there are not many restrictions against attending any weekday SSPX Masses.

    What the SSPX Masses do not provide, with certain local or situational exceptions, is the fulfilment of the Sunday obligation.

    (BTW just as a personal comment — my own unusually detailed understanding of the various intricacies involved here actually forbid me from attending such a Mass except in a case of an emergency, or if I were to be explicitly permitted to do so ; but I am hardly in the situation of most Catholics in this respect : including for the extra local reasons that we have two diocesan TLMs very locally, as well as a sung Gregorian Latin Novus Ordo Mass at Nice Cathedral ; and our French-language but Latinate and reverent Novus Ordo is also very unlike the sorts of horrors that one hears about in the English-speaking local churches)

  12. JabbaPapa says:

    Canonical regularity under Cardinal Marx and the German Bishops’ Conference – an oxymoron?

    It’s true that certain actions of the German Bishops seem to be incoherent with canonical regularity …

  13. JabbaPapa says:

    I’m probably going to be accused of making my point “out of context.”
    Dopey.
    And makes debate a nonsense.
    Jabba will agree.
    Not.

    Well, an accusation that words have been taken out of context only makes sense if the contextual meaning of those words is altered by the process of doing so.

  14. I’m afraid that nothing with regard to the SSPX will change until the “modernist/gnostic/neo-pagan political machine that the Vatican has sadly become” changes.

  15. JabbaPapa says:

    Things were so much easier in the “good old days” of Traddies vs. Liberals — I’m not sure I understand anything at all in this new clash of cultures between the crypto-lefebvrian drifters and the modernist-gnostic neo-paganist politicians …

    And I can’t seem to find any of these labels in my copies of the Bible, nor in the CCC.

    Whatever happened to just being a Catholic ?

  16. Roger says:

    Vatican II the Pastoral Council. From this came radically a different liturgy. These liturgical changes including Ordination and Consecration Rites.
    What then are the fruits of Vatican II well Schism and Apostacy spring to mind but also the subservience of the Institution of Rome to the world (United Nations).
    SSPX are not a new novelty but simply a continuation of pre Vatican II rites and liturgy.
    Whence came this chaos? The smoke of Satan entered the Church, that is NOT the mystical Body (which is Christ) it is then the Institution. Rome as an institution can this survive?
    The Great Apostacy of the West is a reality.
    The Faith has been reduced to the level of myths and legends and replaced by rationalism and materialism.
    The question is not SSPX or modernism etc.. Its placing Christ first. Faith before reason and rational. Fatima is most definately NOT in the Past rather it is starkly before us with beheadings and crucifixions.

  17. kathleen says:

    Thank you Jabba – you certainly know a lot about this subject.

    My reference to Modernism was not actually directed to your final paragraph in your comment at 20:20 yesterday, but where you said Steve Skojec’s words “the modernist/gnostic/neo-pagan political machine that the Vatican has … become” were “relativist junk” and “Modernist in origin”.
    I think Skojec’s sees everything rather too negatively – not allowing for all the faithful members of the clergy fighting for Truth, who also form part of “the Vatican” – but there are good reasons for Skojec’s criticisms, as any loyal Catholic cannot fail to acknowledge.

    And yes, I have often heard it confirmed that the first seeds of what later came to be called “Modernism” were planted at the time of the Reformation; I’m sure you are right. I do not know what actual “statistics” for the “upsurge in Catholic practice & numbers” you are talking about if you are referring to the last 40 years of the 20th century, but I am one of those “baby boomers”, and things were already going absolutely crazy out there when I was growing up, and before I reached “adulthood”!😉

    Also, I found your comment at 10:25 this morning very interesting, for this is exactly the situation I find myself in! If I wish to attend a Tridentine Mass (which I very much do; I believe there is nothing that compares to this beautiful Mass) then I have no option where I live but to go the monthly TLM offered by the SSPX. No other parish, and no other order of priests celebrates it within hundreds of miles from my home here – very sad. It’s a different matter when I go to visit my daughter in Madrid (where the ICKSP offer it regularly), and certainly when I go to England there are many places where it can be found. You are fortunate to have so many choices of Holy Masses celebrated within a reasonable distance from where you live Jabba.🙂

  18. kathleen says:

    “Whatever happened to just being a Catholic ?”

    Ah Jabba – the million dollar question !

    The way I see it is… if you are truly Catholic, i.e. faithful to all the Church’s Teachings, you must be a traditional Catholic. Our entire Faith is steeped in 2000 years of faithfulness to Tradition.😛

  19. I guess “just being Catholic” is now considered “so very pre-twentieth century.” These days, apparently, you have to be either a crypto-lefebvrian drifter or a modernist-gnostic neo-paganist – or else you’re simply nothing.

  20. toadspittle says:

    Pre-twenty-first Century, surely, Robert John?
    Or what was I doing 60 years ago?
    ..Yours truly, Crypto-Toad.

  21. toadspittle says:

    Who cares about all this waffling?
    …Do we really think God is keeping meticulous score on perceived metaphysical heresies and the like? (Yes, Toad.)
    Let’s just all be nice, and kind, and loving, and decent to one another, and let the metaphysical chips fall where they may.

    (Don’t be so daft, Toad – where’s the fun in that?)

  22. toadspittle says:

    That is to say, while we are solemnly discussing the merits or demerits of naughty old SPXX, and which way round the altar rails should face or whatever, or whether we should receive communion lying on our backs – people are getting their heads cut off.

  23. The Raven says:

    I haven’t read this thread with sufficient attention, but there are a couple of points that are worth making: the lifting of the excommunications doesn’t change the canonical status of the society – they were deemed by Rome not to be in formal schism before the excommunications were lifted; few, if any, SSPX priests will have been granted faculties by their ordinary to administer the sacraments of confession or matrimony.

    The guidance from the CDF under the Pope Emeritus was that SSPX Masses were valid and that the faithful incurred no penalty by attending such Masses (although we were and remain strongly advised not to attend Masses presided over by persons who are not in full communion with the Holy Father). As far as I am aware, one can fulfil one’s Sunday obligation by attending an SSPX Mass – after all, the bishops of E&W pretend that one can fulfil one’s obligation by attending a prayer meeting of protestant heretics.

    From my own perspective, I would not attend an SSPX Mass: after their wicked rejection of the olive branch offered to them by Benedict XVI they deserve neither praise nor pity; I’d rather go to the Salvation Army, who are at least honest in their protestantism.

  24. The Raven says:

    And to Toad,

    I am sorry that you are offended by other people’s ability to think about more than one thing at once.

    Speaking only for myself, I’d gladly support an addition to the income tax if they would spend the extra money on men and guns to ensure that the likes of “Jihadi John” ended up confined in a small cell for the rest of their lives (and I wouldn’t be overly upset if the walls of that cell were made of pine, if you get my drift).

  25. Jabba,
    — I stated certain 15th-17th century developments as being the source of Modernism ; my point was that those who blame Vatican II as being the prime source of all of this Modernism are quite mistaken !!
    Historical Modernism began around 1907. What it consists of is a rationalistic approach to Divine Revelation, Enlightenment ideals, Philosophical systems deeply contrary to the Catholic faith, and Theological rebellion. Each one of these points is visible in the world today, and while it may have had roots in Protestant thought, Modernism itself is not from the fifteenth century.

    It is extremely naïve to paint this utterly false rose-tinted picture of some sort of ecclesial perfection of past centuries, instead of simply looking at the facts, that that wonderful age of Catholic Heroes was the very source of the so-called “reformation” and the so-called “enlightenment” that engendered Modernism, Relativism, Americanism, and Freemasonry in the first place !!!

    Perfection is not possible in this world, and it is indeed naive to suggest that it was once attained. It is also naive to suggest that the Liturgy of the Catholic Church did not in previous ages contain more order, beauty, and form in their celebration. It is naive to suggest that the new missal was not taken advantage of to introduce erroneous forms and actions into the celebration of the liturgy and that steps should not be taken to reform the missal providing stricter rubric and more beautiful prayers. It is naive not to see that the actions Pope Pius XII condemned (But it is neither wise nor laudable to reduce everything to antiquity by every possible device. Thus, to cite some instances, one would be straying from the straight path were he to wish the altar restored to its primitive tableform; were he to want black excluded as a color for the liturgical vestments; were he to forbid the use of sacred images and statues in Churches; were he to order the crucifix so designed that the divine Redeemer’s body shows no trace of His cruel sufferings; and lastly were he to disdain and reject polyphonic music or singing in parts, even where it conforms to regulations issued by the Holy See.) are being carried out in many Churches today.

    And finally, it is naive to suggest by the form of statements to the wonderful age of Catholic Heroes was the very source of the so-called “reformation” and the so-called “enlightenment” that engendered Modernism, Relativism, Americanism, and Freemasonry, which shows sorrowful ignorance of Catholic history.

  26. GC says:

    Let’s just all be nice, and kind, and loving, and decent to one another, and let the metaphysical chips fall where they may.

    An absolutely gorgeous sentiment, possum . . er, Toad.

  27. johnhenrycn says:

    I don’t think Toad is a possum. I think he’s playing possum, to see if it agrees with him.

  28. GC says:

    Greetings, JH. I’m a bit of silly old fan of Edna’s, though she’s not globe-trotting as much as she used to.

  29. toadspittle says:

    http://www.pablopicasso.org/avignon.jsp
    “Historical Modernism began around 1907.
    Absolutely correct, Habsburg, old possum.
    Give that possum a cigar! 1907 it was.
    …And here it is.
    “Perfection is not possible in this world, and it is indeed naive to suggest that it was once attained.”
    Agreed. The Garden of Eden is a Crypto-Picasso fake.

  30. johnhenrycn says:

    TR, one of the 6 most respected owners of this blog, says at 00:19 that he wouldn’t mind spending money for guns “to ensure that the likes of ‘Jihadi John’ ended up confined in a small cell for the rest of their lives”. After reading that, my thought was to think back to a conversation I had with my beloved wife around 2001 – about what to do with the savages responsible for Twin Towers – and I then told her that if she died first, I’d have no problem living alone and would welcome a life like that of the Birdman of Alcatraz. She was very downcast to hear me say that – as if I could manage quite well without her. I remember sadly (and with pain) that day as if it were yesterday. My point to wifey was that living a hermitish life is not one that I would fear if she was no longer part of it. A small cell would not be a punishment for me. This is not to say that I lack sympathy (or empathy, since my country also has subhumans in our midst) with TR’s grief and shame about what some of his countrymen have done. But life in a small cell is what Catholics can – in the right circumstances – admire and welcome if the circumstances in their lives so allow.

    This is, in no way, a negative review of TR’s comment, but rather a reflection on the thoughts it brought to mind.

  31. toadspittle says:

    Life in a small cell would kill Toad, the Crypto-possum.
    He needs his 2-hour walk through the fields every day.
    But, as you say, under certain circumstances – it might just be a price worth paying.

  32. johnhenrycn says:

    God love(s) you, Toad. I no longer have a dog. My last one was a Rottweiler called Amos. Wifey and I wanted to get another one. We were going to call it ‘Andy’. But one Rotti was enough, God love it. I sure did, and cried when I had it put down – the first time I’d cried since my brother skiid off a mountain to his death in ’87, in the same month Amos was born. (I mentioned Robert’s death on a CP&S sub-blog a couple of years ago). My first dog was a beagle, like the Canadian dog that (not who, you very silly anthropomorphist) won ‘Best in Show’ at the prestigious Westminster competition last week. Tad (my beagle) wasn’t exactly a show winner, and when our neighbour, a local policeman with a gun, told me he’d “run away”, I didn’t shed any tears. Tell me, is that a venial sin, a mortal sin or no sin?

  33. JabbaPapa says:

    The guidance from the CDF under the Pope Emeritus was that SSPX Masses were valid and that the faithful incurred no penalty by attending such Masses (although we were and remain strongly advised not to attend Masses presided over by persons who are not in full communion with the Holy Father).

    Raven — you’re just sweeping aside all of the conditions that have been provided by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith or by Pope Benedict XVI in respect of this question — most notably, the condition that the lack of penalty applies only to those who are solely motivated by their desire to worship according to the traditional liturgy.

    But the CDF has been very clear that those who attend the SSPX Masses with any intent to express an opposition to the Church/to Rome/to the Vatican or as an act of rejection of the Novus Ordo Mass will place themselves outside full communion with the Church, as well as those not fulfilling their obligations in their regular parish and diocese, but pretending to fulfil them in a SSPX chapel.

    So that it would not at all be permissible to attend a SSPX chapel in cases where a diocesan or FSSP or other such regular TLM could be attended, and it is certainly not permissible to attend even a single SSPX Mass if one were to be motivated by the false and implicitly schismatic belief that “the SSPX serves as a perpetual indictment of the Church’s post-conciliar liturgy and ecclesiology“, or that “the Vatican” is a “modernist/gnostic/neo-pagan political machine” or any other such uncatholic doctrines that have been unambiguously denounced by the CDF as being incompatible with any licit worship at the Holy Catholic Eucharistic Mass.

    As far as I am aware, one can fulfil one’s Sunday obligation by attending an SSPX Mass – after all, the bishops of E&W pretend that one can fulfil one’s obligation by attending a prayer meeting of protestant heretics.

    In cases where one’s Bishops are providing such objectively false & objectively uncatholic doctrines as this, then of course one will find oneself in the sorts of extraordinary situations where it can be far more licit to attend a SSPX Mass than it would be elsewhere …

    There are conditions where the Sunday obligation is fulfilled at a SSPX Mass — but in the ordinary situation of an ordinary degree of access to an ordinary Diocese & Parish where adherence to the Catholic Religion and its teachings is ordinarily orthodox, then those conditions are not fulfilled. Sadly, such circumstances have become by no means universal throughout the world …

    If the only properly given Sunday Mass in one’s location is the SSPX one, and if one is solely motivated by a desire for proper worship of God, and no other FSSP or monastic or other such Sunday Mass can be found, then the Sunday obligation is considered as fulfilled by attendance of that Mass — but it’s not the Mass itself that fulfils the obligation, but rather the honest and valid motivation of the worshipper plus the validity of the Masses in question plus the extraordinary conditions of no other properly worshipped Mass being available to fulfil that desire.

  34. JabbaPapa says:

    Historical Modernism began around 1907. What it consists of is a rationalistic approach to Divine Revelation, Enlightenment ideals, Philosophical systems deeply contrary to the Catholic faith, and Theological rebellion. Each one of these points is visible in the world today, and while it may have had roots in Protestant thought, Modernism itself is not from the fifteenth century.

    Sorry, but this is just completely ahistorical — Lutheranism, Calvinism, the “enlightenment” and etc. = “a rationalistic approach to Divine Revelation, Enlightenment ideals, Philosophical systems deeply contrary to the Catholic faith, and Theological rebellion”

    Or what — did you think Oliver Cromwell waited until 1907 or thereabouts to engage in these things ?

    And finally, it is naive to suggest by the form of statements to the wonderful age of Catholic Heroes was the very source of the so-called “reformation” and the so-called “enlightenment” that engendered Modernism, Relativism, Americanism, and Freemasonry, which shows sorrowful ignorance of Catholic history.

    No it certainly is not — it’s a conclusion from reading 15th, 16th, and 17th century accounts of what life was actually like in those times, including accounts of the extremely widespread ideological rebellions that were taking place throughout Europe against the orthodoxy of the Catholic Church and her doctrines.

  35. Roger says:

    Go back to St Francis and St Dominic to see the real state of the Church. St Francis was told by Heaven to REBUILD the Church in the 12th century! What has been created is a Self Centred Egoistic World that shuts out its Creator. Modernism = Self Centred that is Man worshipping Man

    “If a new theory turns out to be true, the universe may not have started with a bang.
    In the new formulation, the universe was never a singularity, or an infinitely small and infinitely dense point of matter. In fact, the universe may have no beginning at all.
    “Our theory suggests that the age of the universe could be infinite,” said study co-author Saurya Das, a theoretical physicist at the University of Lethbridge in Alberta, Canada

  36. toadspittle says:

    “In fact, the universe may have no beginning at all.”
    …If only.
    Think of all the trouble that would have been avoided. Including CP&S.

    “Our theory suggests that the age of the universe could be infinite,”
    In which case, God becomes redundant.

  37. JabbaPapa says:

    Modernism = Self Centred that is Man worshipping Man

    Not sure I’d use the verb “worship”, but essentially, yes : Modernism is egocentrism elevated into a deficient manner of pseudo-philosophical ignorance.

  38. JabbaPapa says:

    “Our theory suggests that the age of the universe could be infinite,”

    In which case, God becomes redundant.

    Quite.

  39. toadspittle says:

    “Modernism,” as any fule knows – is putting both eyes on the same side of the nose.
    Very old-fashioned, now.

  40. toadspittle says:

    Do’h.

    (GC: There we are, cleaned up that very unsightly mess for you, Toad. Don’t mention it.)

  41. Jabba,
    First of all let me thank you for showing me that I did not express my last point in the way I intended. I meant to state that while painting an overly rosy picture of the past is certainly wrong, to paint the past black and deny that the present is blacker is equally wrong. It was in spite of the great Catholic heroes and not because of them that the Revolt developed and without their efforts we would be worse off. That being said:
    Lutheranism, Calvinism, the “enlightenment” and etc. = “a rationalistic approach to Divine Revelation, Enlightenment ideals, Philosophical systems deeply contrary to the Catholic faith, and Theological rebellion”
    Lutheranism denied the use of reason in regards to the supernatural. Luther himself called reason the devil’s bride. No rationalism there. To Calvin the enlightenment ideals would have been equally abhorrent, especially as the Enlightenment taught that men are born equally without a special purpose, contrary to his doctrine of predestination. Both system of these contain exactly half of the points mention above and both eventually completely broke with the church, neither claiming to be Catholic. In the Enlightenment again there was no theological rebellion or approach to Divine Revelation because the “Enlightened” did not trouble themselves with such “superstitious nonsense,” nor did they claim to Catholic. In was only around the early 20th century that certain theologians and priest, while claiming to be Catholic, engaged in the above points. That is my definition of historical Modernism, and to be more clear I should have included in the points above this phrase: While claiming to be Catholic in communion with the Pope.

    Or what — did you think Oliver Cromwell waited until 1907 or thereabouts to engage in these things ?
    Oliver Cromwell at no point claimed to be Catholic, nor did he engage in a rationalistic approach to scripture. His entire regime was a revolt against the “Enlightened” and “Romanist” policies of Charles I of England.
    it’s a conclusion from reading 15th, 16th, and 17th century accounts of what life was actually like in those times
    I would be grateful if you could provide me with some of the titles of those accounts so I could judge for myself the informational content.

    Let me end by again summarizing my definition of Modernism. Modernism is a doctrinal heresy consisting in part of a rationalistic approach to Divine Revelation, Enlightenment ideals, Philosophical systems deeply contrary to the Catholic faith, Theological rebellion, and that false claim that the Church must update everything to flow with the times, with those following this heresy claiming to remain in the Church and in communion with Rome; a heresy first formally condemned in 1907, and continuing to the present day.

    Thank you for an intelligent conversation and I look forward to your reply.

  42. The Raven says:

    “Our theory suggests that the age of the universe could be infinite,”

    In which case, God becomes redundant.

    What arrant nonsense: an infinite universe without a temporal beginning is no less capable of creation by a God who stands outside than a universe that has a determinant beginning.

    Besides which, there is nothing new in this theory: it’s just reheated Hoyle.

  43. Michael says:

    This post poses questions that I myself have been feeling puzzled about for some time. Is the SSPX is schism? Is the SSPX not in schism? It seems like the answer from Rome itself is a conflicted one, which I hope and pray can be settled sooner rather than later, to the benefit of everyone involved.

  44. Roger says:

    Science if looked at closely is speculative, theory’s. The Big Bang and singularity? Well the Laws of Physics breakdown before this singularity, God is NOT redundant in an Infinite Universe God is the Creator of Infinite.
    We do not understand or can comprehend the work of Creation! Visible and Invisible.
    Our starting point should always be the Apostles Creed!
    Now Schism in the Church? Well has this not happened in the Past? Why assume that SSPX is the culprit? Why not look at the Disobedience of Masonic members revealed in 1960’s.
    Pope Leo XIII and St Michael Prayer? Why St Michael? Well wasn’t St Michael the opponent to Lucifer (renamed Satan) and the rebel of the Angels. Wasn’t Pope Leo XIII pointing to a battle in the Church instigated by Satan (Leo XIII vision) at the same level as that of rebellion of the fallen Angels? Again Fatima and the sight of Hell when linked to Leo XIII and St Michael Exorcism prayer points to a Church in turmoil (battle in the heavens between good and bad angels). This is what we are seeing.

  45. geoffkiernan says:

    I think we have two choices… Crypto-Lefebvrianism or Crypto-Protestantism . I know which I prefer

    And Roger above… Bravo

  46. toadspittle says:

    “Science if looked at closely is speculative, theory’s.”
    No it isn’t.
    Theories are a part of science, not the whole. Any fool can have a theory.
    I’ve got several myself. Some involve Rogebert.

    However, I’m not sure what Raven considers “arrant nonsense” here. The idea that the age of the universe is infinite (which I doubt, although the idea must depend on an infinite number of possibilities) – or the other idea that – if that is the case, then the idea of God becomes inessential, though remaining a possibility.
    However, I think it’s wiser to bypass all this, for fear of falling into Habsbuggery, as practised by the late Tribunus – with “scientific and theoretical” comments two miles long.

    HRM @ 19.47 ydy, was very good, I thought.
    “In the Enlightenment again there was no theological rebellion or approach to Divine Revelation because the “Enlightened” did not trouble themselves with such “superstitious nonsense,”
    Well put, and applies to much contemporary thinking. This is why, for example, the Abominable Fry does not “hate” God – just the idea of God. A distinction many people seem unable to make.

  47. kathleen says:

    Therefore, thanks to the information given us by The Raven and Jabba, the SSPX is in a “position of canonical irregularity” but not “in schism” from the One True Catholic Church. That’s good! So, IOW, Catholics (like me) who have no access to the Traditional Latin Mass anywhere in my vicinity can, in good conscience, attend a TLM celebrated by a priest of the SSPX. I had never previously thought for a moment that this might even have been in question (since the lifting of the ban of excommunication of the order by Pope Benedict XVI), but it is all the same a great relief to have this now confirmed above by both of these scholarly friends.
    In fact what they confirm is clearly true, for why else would Pope Benedict XVI have referred to the Rome/SSPX discussions that took place having to do with healing at the “heart of the Church”?

    However, I am very perturbed by this scorn of the SSPX my team-mate The Raven poured on them yesterday: “I’d rather go to the Salvation Army [than the SSPX], who are at least honest in their protestantism.” !!!!

    That this very Catholic society (‘Catholic’ in the sense of all it professes in Faith and practices and its affirmation of the papacy) who celebrate the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, in the very same reverential and holy way centuries of Catholics have always celebrated it, by their legitimately ordained priests, should be rejected for being considered of less value than the very Protestant group of the Salvation Army (‘Protestant’ in all the many Doctrines and dogmas it rejects from the True Faith, including the role of the papacy)… well, I am simply flabbergasted! And, I have to admit, very disheartened.

    In fact, such a statement goes to endorse the author’s view that the SSPX “are always under fire from pretty much all sides”. The general attitude of hostility towards them, even among some ‘good’ Catholics themselves, and the way the term ‘Crypto-Lefebrvist’ can be used as an insult by ‘not-so-good’ Catholics and hurled at traditionalists who refuse to get sucked into the liberal agenda, just goes to ram this point home!

    I went to my ‘once-a-month’ Tridentine Mass offered by the SSPX yesterday, with its beautiful ancient liturgy, reverence, holiness… and I must add, a meaningful, CATHOLIC homily on the Gospel for the Second Sunday of Lent – the Transfiguration of the Lord. (You just don’t get these kind of homilies at N.O. Masses!)
    I don’t believe I am an apostate or any less of a convinced traditional Catholic for having done so.

  48. Roger says:

    The point is as Catholics we must start with a solid foundation. The Apostles CREED links Us to the Fathers of the Church. The formation of priests (seminaries) and the Sacraments is at the Root of Lefebrve. The Offering to God NOT to Man. The priest elevates and offers on our behalf and that of the Church (visble and invisible) the Crucified to God. Reparation to God for Sin NOT to placate the sensibilities of Men.
    As for Science I am not against it quite the contrary, its interesting and exciting seeing Gods handiwork and the visible aids Our understanding of the invisible.
    Creation clearly is ongoing because souls are created daily.
    But Science is far from conclusive.

  49. JabbaPapa says:

    “Our theory suggests that the age of the universe could be infinite,”

    In which case, God becomes redundant.

    What arrant nonsense: an infinite universe without a temporal beginning is no less capable of creation by a God who stands outside than a universe that has a determinant beginning.

    It’s unusual for me to disagree with you, Raven — but here we go.

    What you’re suggesting is coherent with the Buddhist notion of transcendental divinity, certainly, or with the impersonal Supreme Being of Deism, but it is not compatible with the personal Creator of our own Faith — Catholicism posits that Creation has both a Beginning and an End.

    And it is hardly “arrant nonsense” for Toad to have quite rightly pointed out the redundancy of God in such a flawed cosmic theory.

  50. toadspittle says:

    Well, Kathleen, as we all agree – that’s metaphysical horse racing.
    One “punter” is sure SSPX is a dead cert in the Catholic Stakes.
    …Another would’t back it with shirt buttons.
    C’est, as Jabba is fond of saying – La Vie.

    Re: The “cause” of the universe.
    Dawkins and Co. seem to believe it will ultimately, (maybe even soon) be “discovered.” I doubt it, though I might be wrong.
    To paraphrase Wittgenstein, In order to “see” the total structure of the universe, we’d need to be observing it from outside.
    …As God is supposed to. And we aren’t, and can’t.

  51. toadspittle says:

    “But Science is far from conclusive.”
    You mean it hasn’t so far solved everything, Rogebert.
    No, nor will it ever. (In Toad’s opinion. Though he may be wrong.)

    Here’s a little analogy of Science: We go through a door into a room. In that room there are two doors. We choose one, and find ourselves in a room with four doors. Then, from there, in a room with eight doors. And so on indefinitely.
    Er…that’s it. (and think of all the unopened doors!)

  52. Roger says:

    Toad your Science analogy is true, the choice of doors to open sadly is profit driven rather than seeking truth for the sake of truth. The Faith is simply but Creation is like your expotential pyramidic of choices. St Francis gives you an insight into the spirit found in Creation that is commonly shared by Creatures.
    The point about SSPX and Lefebvre is he retained and perpetuated the seminarian training necessary to prepare for and understand the Sacraments. The Holy sacrifice of the Mass offered to God by Creatures for Sin. 25th March is the greatest Day in the Church calendar. The Word made Flesh (that is the marriage of the Word (God) to Flesh (Man)) Emmanual. With the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass again this miracle takes place on the altar and calvary is renewed and offered again to the Father.
    Now without that perfect sinless Lamb there is no restitution to God for Sin. Satan’s intent is the destruction of the Mass. No Mass No reparation No Heaven.
    So although SSPX is argued here the real battle is the priesthood and the sacraments. Pope Leo and St Michael prayer (expressly after Mass) points to a spiritual battle, like that of the rebel angels.
    I will keep on refering to Fatima because that public Miracle of the Sun on 13 Oct 1917 revealed a Hand that controlled Nature!

  53. toadspittle says:

    “… the choice of doors to open sadly is profit driven rather than seeking truth for the sake of truth.”
    That is an absurdly sweeping statement, Rogebert. Nobody ever sought truth “for the sake of truth.” That is an utterly meaningless reason for doing anything.
    Scientists seek cures for sicknesses, not to get rich, but because they want to improve our wretched lot on earth.
    People want to know new things because knowledge enriches their lives. It does mine, anyway.
    Do scientists make money out of it?
    Sometimes, luckily. They need it to live. But that’s not why the vast majority of them do it.

  54. GC says:

    Toad, what an old leg-puller you are.

    In the universities I’ve worked in over the last 30 years it’s called “industry university partnerships”. Lots of extra “brownie points” for them, I can assure you (wink wink). And that’s even before we advert to the 1000 word articles “written”, apparently, by at least 13 “scientists”, on a good day, that is. They boost the university’s ranking all right. Annual reviews, a desirable associate professorship, anyone?

    “Nice” that you still have your baptismal innocence, Toad. Yuck.

  55. toadspittle says:

    Doesn’t affect what I believe, GC.
    And why the “Yuck”? What’s wrong with “baptismal innocence,”assuming I’ve still got any?
    It’s your world-weary cynicism that deserves a “Yuck,” I suggest.
    I meet a lot of altruistic young people, and older ones, including scientists – here as they walk the Camino, who don’t believe – as you do – in the Almighty Dollar, and nothing else.
    Why don’t we ask Burro, an anesthetist – and thus a scientist – why he does what he does?
    Is he just in it for the money?
    I’d be very surprised.

  56. GC says:

    Oh yes, Toad. Let me say “I love your passion”.

    One of my more onerous tasks over the years has been to interview applicants as an “inter/extra faculty representative” on the panel for the “medicine and health sciences” faculty, as it is often styled these days.

    Did you know that, even in spite of a likely income (after graduation) of 1 million Straits Dollars a year, nearly all of our eager little possibles said that “helping people has always been my passion”? Very laudable, as I am sure you would readily agree.

  57. toadspittle says:

    I’m sorry to read of your bitterness and cynicism, GC.
    Maybe you should consider another way of earning a crust?
    I really believe a great many people would like to “help other people.”
    A fair few actually do. Like Burro. And what about priests and nuns?
    Mugs, to you, I suppose.
    But all this naiveity is nothing to you, in the dire Straights, is it? Take the dollars and run.
    OK. And, yes, it works – after a fashion.

  58. toadspittle says:

    …And, I must add, it’s not “my passion.” I’m like you – a weather-beaten old cynic, and
    ex-hack who believes nice guys come last. Look after number one, right?
    But I admire the selfless ones.
    You might try doing so, I diffidently suggest.

  59. GC says:

    Ah, that lovely and quaint baptismal innocence, Toad, shining through, even still.

  60. toadspittle says:

    Are you all right, GC? You seem a bit troubled. You used to have a good laugh with Toad.

  61. GC says:

    I am flourishing, Toad. And how are the pilgs this Springtime?

  62. toadspittle says:

    Millions ( I exaggerate somewhat) of the sweaty, blister-ridden, unshaven, uncouth, little rascals. And the men are worse.
    Record breaking 2015, already.
    Numbers:
    Compostelas issued during February 2014, – 970
    Compostelas issued during February 2015 – 1,544

    Extrapolate these, and God knows how many there will be in high season.
    Nobody else dares to.

  63. JabbaPapa says:

    It’s your world-weary cynicism that deserves a “Yuck,” I suggest

    QFT

    And yuck from me too.

  64. GC says:

    Well, Toad, the power of the Internet. Marvellous.

    If you’re still sheltering and sustaining penitents in every possible state of dishygiene and dishabille (the pilgs, that is, not you), have you heard of medieval Lenten lentil and barley pottage? Very biblical and just the thing before a long walk ahead.

    I made it yesterday for four. It all cost about 80p in your money.

  65. toadspittle says:

    But to whom is your “Yuck” directed, Jabba? You have left it – I suspect deliberately – unclear.
    …Have to hope it’s Toad.
    He was a bit “snitty” with poor GC.
    …Who is not feeling all that tip-top, these days, he fears.

  66. GC says:

    Actually, Toad, I’ll let you in on a little secret. I’m pretty sure that nobody much is terribly bothered by what Jabba may or may not think. Amused possibly. Shhhh.

  67. toadspittle says:

    The thing about blogs like this, GC – is that it’s unwise to be bothered by what anyone may, or may not, think.
    In Toad’s case, including himself.
    Particularly himself.

    Yes, we give the pilgs lentils, but with bits of chorizo and morcilla added – for sabor.

  68. JabbaPapa says:

    Actually, Toad, I’ll let you in on a little secret. I’m pretty sure that nobody much is terribly bothered by what Jabba may or may not think. Amused possibly. Shhhh.

    QFT

    And no, Toad, that “yuck” was not directed against any of your warts …

  69. JabbaPapa says:

    … oh and please save some lentils, chorizo, and morcilla for me ?

    No idea when exactly I’ll be there next, but it will be this year🙂

  70. GC says:

    Yes, we give the pilgs lentils, but with bits of chorizo and morcilla added – for sabor.

    In Lent, Toad? Disgraceful.

    May I suggest instead a couple of dashes of some chili concoction just for sabor, as you say, just before serving (like we often do over here), in keeping with the season?

  71. toadspittle says:

    GC – a great many of today’s pilgs have barely heard of God, let alone Lent.
    Anyway we gave a priest a plateful a day or so, and he liked it.
    Since when has meat-eating at all throughout Lent been frowned on, anyway?
    Is it a “modern” thing?

    You will be welcome,as always, Jabba – but don’t go AWOL this time – please?

  72. JabbaPapa says:

    I’ll try not to have my phone stolen this time, Toad.

  73. Tom Fisher says:

    Compostelas issued during February 2014, – 970
    Compostelas issued during February 2015 – 1,544

    that’s great, is there anything identifiable driving the increase?

  74. toadspittle says:

    Just general interest growing about the Camino, I think, Tom: several books, a successful movie, articles in newspapers, TV progs.
    Also, possibly a fair few unemployed people, with nothing much else to do, and it’s a relatively cheap vacation. (A Chinese kid told me, a few days ago, that’s why he was doing it.)

  75. kathleen says:

    Apologies for interrupting ‘the Camino conversation’, but I must post this video clip – relevant to the original subject of the article.😉 It is of a surprisingly tame Fr. Rosica (quite a metamorphosis if one is to remember his recent angry attack on blogger Vox Cantoris) interviewing Fr. Fellay of the SSPX in 2009 shortly ahead of the talks with Rome, i.e. when hopes were still high of a reconciliation. Fr. Rosica’s polite kindness in giving this interview has been called a typical example of the ‘Benedict-effect’, when the modernists kept a low key…. unlike nowadays under the ‘Francis-effect’ when they have all come out into the open!!

  76. Roger says:

    What is the purpose of being a Catholic if you are not seeking Truth for the sake of Truth? Is it a Case of serving two masters 6 days a week mammon and 1/2 hour God ona Sunday?

  77. Tom Fisher says:

    I find it hard to accept what Fr. Fellay had to say in October 2013, mostly referring to events which took place while Benedict XVI was Pope:

    As for the discussions with Rome: “Any kind of direction for recognition ended when they gave me the document to sign on June 13, 2012. That very day I told them, ‘this document I cannot accept.’ I told them from the start in September the previous year that we cannot accept this ‘hermeneutic of continuity’ because it is not true, it is not real. It is against the reality. So we do not accept it. The Council is not in continuity with Tradition. It’s not. So when Pope Benedict requested that we accept that the Second Vatican Council is an integral part of Tradition, we say, ‘sorry, that’s not the reality, so we’re not going to sign it. We’re not going to recognize that’.”

    “The same for the Mass. The want us to recognize not only that the [New] Mass is valid provided it is celebrated correctly, etc., but that it is licit. I told them: we don’t use that word. It’s a bit messy, our faithful have enough [confusion] regarding the validity, so we tell them, ‘The New Mass is bad, it is evil’ and they understand that. Period!’” Of course the Roman authorities “were not very happy with that.”

    http://www.cfnews.org/page88/files/14e8cf27a431ca52105cf70b45567b82-149.html

    Of course Fr. Fellay is a devout Christian, but is it not Protestantism?

  78. sixupman says:

    BUT, was the ultimatum document placed before +Fellay actually reflective of the discussions up to that point? Or was it rigged, as the most recent example of chicanery relative to the carsdinals discussions, not to mention the FFI debacle? Leaving aside BXVI’s situation, who would actually trust that band of thieving brigands? Literally, apparently, in view of the interception of mail destined for the self-same cardinals.

  79. toadspittle says:

    “What is the purpose of being a Catholic if you are not seeking Truth for the sake of Truth?”
    Rogebert, would you listen to music, “..for the sake of music”?
    No, you listen for what satisfaction you derive from it.
    Would you tap dance for the sake of tap dancing?
    Swim for the sake of swimming?
    Write purple prose for the sake of writing purple prose?
    No.
    It would make more sense to say, “I seek the Truth for the sake of seeking.” That is to say, the journey is more important than the destination. But I suppose that’s heresy.

    Unamuno thought the purpose of being a Catholic (or of belonging to most religions) was to obtain immortal life. Possibly.

    (Pompous old twit, Toad. Yuck. Shut up.)

  80. GC says:

    Since when has meat-eating at all throughout Lent been frowned on, anyway?
    Is it a “modern” thing?

    Toad, if I’m not mistaken, all of the 23 sui juris Catholic Churches and all Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches avoid flesh meat on days of fasting and even all animal products except fish – as did the Latin Church for centuries. You know the origin of the word *carnival*, I presume. Even over here, a good many Latin Catholics go completely vegetarian during Lent.

    Here, Toad, give the pilgs this. Very Lenten and a common enough breakfast in these here parts.

  81. kathleen says:

    @ Tom

    No, I would not call it Protestantism (refusing to accept either the Second Vatican Council or the New Mass)… though I do see how some could possibly come to that conclusion.

    In fact in the past I used to think that it was a form of Protestantism to ‘protest’ the Pope and Magisterium’s decisions in any of their teachings, for so we were taught since we were little – that only perfect obedience to both is what a loyal Catholic should have. One could ask, that while that is of course still in great measure true, yet when the Pope (not speaking ex cathedra) makes claims that in essence challenge the timeless traditions and teachings of the Catholic Church, then, are we supposed to go along with all his views? The SSPX, and indeed, many within the Catholic Church today, do not think we should do so.

    Real Protestantism is a body breaking away from the authority of ‘Peter’ and a refusal to accept one, two or many of the dogmas of Catholic teachings on Faith and Morals. It is thus heretical at its core. The SSPX have never done that, quite the contrary: they reaffirm Catholic teaching loud and clear, while not allowing the Church’s ancient beautiful liturgy to be assigned to history. They, and also a lot of traditional Catholics these last years, are protesting abuses and even heresies coming from some in the hierarchy who should know better, but remain fully in communion with the Catholic Deposit of Faith*. That does not make them (the SSPX), nor us (still ‘fighting the good fight’ within the framework of the Church), in any way part of the Protestant Revolt.

    * The “Deposit of Faith” is the body of saving truth entrusted by Christ to the Apostles and handed on by them to be preserved and proclaimed. The CCC states:
    “The apostles entrusted the sacred deposit of the faith [the depositum fidei; see 1 Tim 6:20; 2 Tim 1:12-14] contained in Sacred Scripture and Tradition, to the whole of the Church. ‘By adhering to (this heritage) the entire holy people, united to its pastors, remains always faithful to the teaching of the apostles, to the brotherhood, to the breaking of bread [the Eucharist] and the prayers. So, in maintaining, practicing and professing the faith that has been handed on, there should be [my emphasis] a remarkable harmony between the bishops and the faithful.'”

    Yes, there “should be” !!

  82. JabbaPapa says:

    It’s a bit messy, our faithful have enough [confusion] regarding the validity, so we tell them, ‘The New Mass is bad, it is evil’

    It’s not merely heretical — but actually blasphemous to describe the Mass itself as being “evil”.

    I was stunned when I heard +Fellay make that statement, and not just because he destroyed all of the work that Pope Benedict XVI had done towards attempting to bring the SSPX back into the Church, but because of the violently un-catholic nature of this false doctrine.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s