SSPX Not In Schism - Diocese of Scranton

For those of you on the fence regarding the SSPX, allow me to give you some information which was apparently ignored by the modernists of the Scranton Diocese when they decided it was bad for your soul to attend the SSPX Mass.

This comes from the website Renew America

April 10, 2007

Cardinal Castrillón: SSPX not in schism

Catholics who attend SSPX masses not schismatic

By Brian Mershon

From the March 31 issue of The Remnant

Darío Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos has repeatedly affirmed that the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) is not a case of formal schism on at least five separate occasions in public interviews, as recently as March 17 and over the past 2-1/2 years. Msgr. Camille Perl, long-time secretary for the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei (PCED), has repeatedly affirmed in personal letters that such Catholics incur no penalty and no sin for merely fulfilling one's Sunday obligation at a church or chapel served by the SSPX.

"Signs of the Times" Show SSPX Not Schismatic

The primary question this article will attempt to answer, through a reading of "the signs of the times" as the Second Vatican Council encouraged us to do, is what the present attitude and position of the Church is, as viewed through many recent articles and correspondence from the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei (PCED), and particularly, Cardinal Castrillón.

Are Catholics who attend SSPX chapels out of necessity truly attempting to be "more Catholic than the pope?"

Cardinal Castrillón's most recent interview with an Italian journalist published on March 17, 2007, repeats this affirmation that while there may be a danger of schism and/or heresy for some priests and bishops within the SSPX, theirs is not a formal schism.

Cardinal Castrillón: Church Esteems Fruitful Life of Archbishop Lefebvre

Catholic journalist Simone Ortolani published this most recent interview on the Nihil Obstat Catholic website. His Eminence re-emphasized that the motu proprio easing restrictions on the Traditional Latin Mass was with the pope for his action, just as Msgr. Michael Schmitz of the Institute of Christ the King said in two recent interviews. Ortolani asked Cardinal Castrillón if Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre would be rehabilitated by the Church. Cardinal Castrillón's response follows:

Retracing the complete life story of Archbishop Lefebvre, we are certain of the great esteem and appreciation of the Church for him. He was considered worthy of being an Archbishop, Apostolic Delegate, Superior General of his religious congregation; by speaking to people who knew him during the exercise of his ministry, the fecundity of his life is discovered.

Yet, with the same clarity, according to the most genuine tradition of the Church, it cannot be accepted that a bishop may consecrate another bishop without pontifical mandate, or that the presence of the Holy Spirit in the Councils, and in particular for their importance, in Ecumenical Councils, can be disputed.

Archbishop Lefebvre — it is important to stress this — signed the documents of the Second Vatican Council, even though he was critical towards them, either regarding the texts, or regarding their interpretation. read more...

Personal Ordinariat?

Happy Sunday!

Even while our own short-sighted Bishop Bambera has forbidden faithful Catholics from attending the Society of Saint Pius X in Pittston, it seems the real authority in the matter, His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI, is working on a solution with the Lefabvrists.

I'll get back to the Pope in a second.

Does Bishop Bambera go out of his way to instruct the faithful to not attend the Orthodox? Or a Baptist Church? Or a Mosque?

No. No. And no.

But he will go out of his way to instruct the faithful to avoid the Society.

Go and visit the Protestants and do damage to your soul, but stay away from those other Catholics over there. We accept all the religions, all the sects, all the cults, but not those Catholics. Foolishness.

Anyway, back to the Pope and those terrible SSPXers.

The Pope is considering a personal ordinariat for the Society, which is basically a non-geographic diocese. This would secure for the Society a freedom from the local Bishops, and surely this will grate on his Excellence. But eventually I think that will need to change, as it certainly would need to include a change to the Constitution of the Church, which I don't see happening.

Anyway, things are moving along, keep a close eye on how they progress.

"Let them alone: they are blind, and leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both will fall into the pit." Matthew 15:14

Supplied Jurisdiction Part II

Yesterday we started to look at an article by SSPX Bishop Tissier de Mallerais about one of the imagined problems with attending Mass at SSPX chapels, that of "supplied jurisdiction" and how it applies.

With the sad state of affairs in the Catholic Church in the United States and abroad today, it is only natural that there will be those well-formed Catholics who instantly recognize the immediate danger to their souls while attending Mass in certain parishes and they will begin to look for alternatives outside of the Diocesan system.

The Society of Saint Pius X is one such group outside of the Diocesan structure who just happen to have a presence here in the Diocese of Scranton.

So today we continue the good Bishop's article on supplied jurisdiction.

I. THE PROBLEM: THE ABSENCE OF JURISDICTION?

A problem is immediately apparent to you, as I am sure you are aware. What authority do these priests, these bishops, these district superiors, this Superior General and these traditional communities have in the Church? You ask this not only because they are, so we are told, excommunicated, but also because they do not receive their authority from the hierarchy of the official Church. Our priests do not receive the power to hear confessions from the diocesan bishops. The Priestly Society of St. Pius X has no longer any "official existence." The bishops of the Society, they say, did not receive their authority from the Holy Father. What right therefore does this traditional clergy have to require of you, the laity, to depend on it in your Catholic action?

It is this objection to which I am going to reply. What is the authority of the traditional Catholic clergy in this crisis situation, and, in particular, what is its authority with respect to traditional Catholic study groups? The thesis is the following (I can review it briefly before explaining it):

Your traditional priests —for they are your priests —your traditional bishops and your traditional parishes, have no ordinary authority, but an extraordinary authority which is a supplied authority.

Then, I will strive to examine the concrete aspects of this supplied authority of the traditional clergy so as to apply them to the case of your "Catholic action."

Supplied Jurisdiction

To explain this, let me use the example of confession in normal times. The traditional clergy has no ordinary authority over the faithful, for it has not received this authority which we call jurisdiction. It has not received it by delegation or by mandate of the Sovereign Pontiff or the diocesan bishops or of regularly appointed parish priests. This is the concrete case, especially for the priests of the Society; for example, for confessions.

You know that for the validity of a confession, the priest must have the power of hearing confessions. He normally receives this power from the bishop, but it is quite obvious that in the present situation this is impossible. Does this mean that our confessions are invalid? No.

We already resolved this question a long time ago, explaining it to the faithful as a case of necessity. Here we fall back on principles which are very elevated in the hierarchy of principles of the Church. This is the case where the Church directly confers jurisdiction on a priest without going through the different degrees of the hierarchy. It is the Mystical Body of Our Lord, Our Lord Himself as Head of His Church, which gives jurisdiction to priests in some particular cases.

Do you know, for example, the case of what is called "common error"? When a priest is in a church and has no jurisdiction, but is in stole and surplice, and one of the faithful asks him to hear his confession, this priest can indeed hear his confession, although he has as such no faculties. The reason is that the person is in error in believing he does and that is what we call "common error." In such a situation the Church makes up for the lack of jurisdiction for the good of the faithful.

Another situation is when a priest is no longer sure whether or not he has jurisdiction. There is a doubt. The Church resolves the doubt in favor of jurisdiction. Likewise in the case of danger of death. If a Catholic overturns his vehicle, and is in an emergency situation any priest has the power of hearing his confession even if he does not necessarily have jurisdiction. In such a case the Church opens wide the doors of her mercy and gives jurisdiction to any priest. It is the Church herself which gives jurisdiction, without involving the hierarchy.

"Ecclesia Supplet" —"The Church Supplies" (For the Spiritual Good of the Faithful)

These three cases are foreseen by Canon Law, and the same principle applies in each of these three cases; namely that for the good of the faithful, that is their spiritual good, the Church assures, as much as possible, that they have the means available necessary for salvation. That includes the Sacrament of Confession. We therefore say "Ecclesia supplet" —"the Church supplies," —when the priest lacks jurisdiction. Another rule of Canon Law applies: "Salus animarum suprema lex" —"The supreme law is the salvation of souls." Consequently the Church supplies for an absence of jurisdiction. It is therefore not the good of the priest which is in question. It is not to reassure the priest that he has jurisdiction to hear confessions. it is the good of the faithful which matters. It is very important to understand this. It is for your own good that your priests receive a supplied jurisdiction, that is to say for the common good of the Church and not for the personal good of the priest.

For the good of the faithful in these three cases, "Ecclesia supplet" —"the Church supplies."

I have spoken to you of the jurisdictional power of the priest, which is the power of governing. Let us say a few more words about it.

Jurisdiction: The Power to Feed a Flock

Does a priest lack something when he is ordained a priest? Would there be something missing from his priestly character which the diocesan bishop has to add by word, "Here, I give you jurisdiction," as by waving a magic wand? Would a word from the bishop give something extra to the priest? No, it is not quite this.

Jurisdiction is the fact that the bishop gives a flock to his priests, or that the Pope designates a flock for a bishop by giving him a diocese. Jurisdiction is the power which a superior has over his flock and which a pastor has over his sheep.

This is what the power of jurisdiction is: the power to feed the sheep.

You certainly know that in the Church we distinguish between the power of Holy Orders and the power of jurisdiction. When Our Lord said, "Go into the whole world and preach the gospel," "docete omnes gentes" — "and teach all nations," —it was the power of jurisdiction which he gave. "Teach," or, "Teach them to observe all that I have commanded you" (Matt. 28:19), that is to teach the —commandments of God. Thus to direct the flock is the power of jurisdiction.

Just beforehand Our Lord had spoken to His apostles of the power of Holy Orders: "Baptizing them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" (Matt. 28:19). This is the power of Holy Orders, which is the power of sanctifying, which depends directly upon the priestly character. It is the power to celebrate Holy Mass and to sanctify the faithful by the Sacraments. There must therefore be something besides the priestly character, by which the priest or the bishop receives from his hierarchical superior a part of the flock. It is that which is called the power of jurisdiction.

The Supplying of Jurisdiction in Times of Crisis

In the present situation of crisis, it is obvious that your priests cannot receive from their superiors in the church, that is to say from the diocesan bishops and from the Pope, a flock, because that flock is refused to them. This authority over a flock must, therefore, be given to them in another manner: that is, by substitute or supplied jurisdiction.

In this case it is the Church herself which gives to priests a power as the power of the pastor over his flock. Normally the power of Holy Orders, brings with it the foundation or basis of a power to organize the Church in a hierarchy. Thus the priest’s or the bishop’s power of Holy Orders normally brings with it the power of jurisdiction. It is normal for a bishop or a priest to have a particular flock over which he exercises his power of Holy Orders. But in the present situation we have to deal with the abnormal situation where the power of Holy Orders is unjustly deprived of the power of jurisdiction. It is in this case that the Church mercifully supplies jurisdiction in favor of you, the faithful, giving the jurisdiction your priests would otherwise not have.

This is therefore an extraordinary power, which is an exceptional case. In exceptional situations there are exceptional powers.

The General Extent of Supplied Jurisdiction

It is not only present for confessions, but also for the entire priestly ministry. There is no reason to limit it to confessions alone.

And, you are indeed aware that jurisdiction is sometimes necessary for a priest to validly administer the Sacraments. This is the case, first of all, for Confession. It is equally the case for a priest assisting at Marriage. If he does not have jurisdiction the marriage is null and void. Although the two spouses are the ministers of the Sacrament, the Church has added a supplementary condition for validity, that is to say that the matrimonial consent be exchanged before the official witness of the Church, which is normally the parish priest. It is quite obvious that our priests do not have this power in an ordinary way. They can only receive it in an extraordinary way by the Church’s supplying of jurisdiction. In fact we here depend on OC Canon 1098 § 1, which dispenses from the necessity of the presence of a priest having jurisdiction for the marriage to be valid when it is foreseen that such a priest cannot be found.

Normally jurisdiction is necessary for licitness, that is to say, in order that the act of the priest be licit, or, permissible. For example, to preach a priest must have a mandate, or, for a bishop to confirm in another diocese than his own, he must have a mandate from the diocesan bishop. In order to ordain priests a bishop must normally have jurisdiction and this is, of course, all the more so for the consecration of other bishops. For an episcopal consecration he must have a Pontifical mandate.

This same principle is supplied throughout. In an exceptional situation the Church supplies for this absence of jurisdiction on the part of the priest or even the bishop.

And the more serious the crisis is, the more necessary it will be to fall back on this supplying of the Church on a higher level. This is what happened on June 30, 1988, when Archbishop Lefebvre consecrated four bishops with Bishop de Castro Mayer as co-consecrator.

The Case of Necessity for the Traditional Faithful

The fact that heresy, and even apostasy, is widely spread amongst the clergy, leaves the faithful, and especially those who want to keep the faith and the true religion, as sheep scattered and without a pastor.

You can easily see, my dear friends, that it is the case of necessity amongst the faithful which is responsible for the fact that traditional priests and bishops have a supplied jurisdiction with respect to your needs. This is not only so that they may validly hear confessions and validly assist at marriages, but also for all of the acts of their priestly or episcopal ministry.

For confessions, you certainly remember that Archbishop Lefebvre invoked the principle of the "danger of spiritual death" of the faithful. Just see the unhappy faithful who have no priests of certain doctrine, and who sometimes even doubt the validity of their confessions: "Does this priest really have the necessary intention so as to validly absolve?" They can readily doubt this. "If I can no longer go to confession then I am exposed to fall and perhaps to fall into grave sins. Who knows? My eternal salvation is at risk, I am in danger of spiritual death." The Church supplies, for the Church places ipso facto (by the fact itself) this Catholic under the jurisdiction of a priest. The Church places this Catholic as a sheep of a priest who will be his pastor for a determined case. Thus is established between the faithful Catholic and his priest a relationship as the sheep or the lamb with respect to the shepherd. The only thing is that this relationship of authority does not come from a delegation from the hierarchy of the Church, but by the Church, the Mystical Body of Our Lord, herself supplying.

Supplied Jurisdiction

I received an email from a member of the faithful and was asked about the Society of Saint Pius X, and whether it is illicit to attend their chapels for Holy Mass.

I responded that the Vatican itself has said that one may satisfy their Sunday obligation by attending Mass with the Society but I also mentioned that their Confessions and Marriages may be invalid due to the local ordinary denying jurisdiction.

Then I got into what is known as "supplied jurisdiction". Since the Society operates due to a state of necessity in the Church, jurisdiction is supplied by the Church. "Ecclesia supplet", or "the Church supplies" (for the spiritual good of the faithful).
I supplied this article by Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais on the subject, and for the education of Catholics who may have the questions, I present the article here.

If anyone attends the local SSPX chapel in Pittston, please email me at therockintraddy@gmail.com

SUPPLIED JURISDICTION & TRADITIONAL PRIESTS
by Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais

Introduction
by Father Peter Scott

State of the question.

Many have asked how traditional priests can continue to administer the Sacraments, and especially hear confessions, when they have had their Sacramental faculties removed by the local ordinary.

The following considerations will help you to understand not only the injustice of this, but also how these priests are clearly entitled to use supplied jurisdiction. It is obvious that the present crisis in the Church is not foreseen in Canon Law.

Consequently we must base our activity on the juridical analogy taken from the general norms of the Codes (Canon 20 in the Old Code and Canon 19 in the New Code), which state that if there is no express law concerning a special situation, the rule must be taken from:

1) laws promulgated for similar circumstances. The similar circumstances are those in which the Church supplies jurisdiction on account of the grave danger to souls. They are the cases of:

• common error concerning a priest’s jurisdiction: Old Code [i.e., the 1917 Code of Canon Law, forthwith "OC"] Canon 209 (New Code [i.e., the 1983 Code of Canon Law, forthwith "NC"] 144).
• positive and probable doubt: OC 209 (NC 144). This can be concerning jurisdiction or common error or danger of death.
• non-cognizance to the fact that jurisdiction has expired: OC 207.
• danger of death: OC 882 and 2252 (NC 976 and 1357). Those who cannot find a suitable confessor for a long period of time and who are consequently in danger of spiritual death must be assimilated to those in danger of death, according to the principle of Canonical Equity (see below).

2) the general principles of canon law, which inspire the particular laws. The two principal ones are:

• the salvation of souls is the highest law (NC 1752).
• the Sacraments are on account of men.

3) recourse equity. This is recourse to the mind of the legislator (when there is nothing explicit in writing), who never wants his legislation to be too onerous (burdensome), but always wants it to be interpreted in a just and favorable manner. That it is indeed the mind of the Church to be generous in the granting of jurisdiction and not overstrict or onerous is also apparent from the following two canons:

• OC 2261 §2 (NC 1335). The Church suspends its prohibition for an excommunicated or suspended priest celebrating the Sacraments or posing acts requiring jurisdiction, provided it be in favor of the faithful who request it for any reasonable cause at all, and especially if there is no other minister.
• OC 878 §2 (NC 970). Ordinaries and superiors are not to restrict jurisdiction. If the priest is suitable and the good of the faithful requires his services this jurisdiction cannot be refused to him. Clearly traditional priests should in justice receive personal jurisdiction and that everywhere (NC 967).

It is clear that, given the present circumstances of crisis in the Church and the principles of Canonical Equity, given the general principles of the law, and the Church’s continuous practice of supplying jurisdiction for the good of the faithful whenever it foresees that this lack of jurisdiction would be to their detriment, traditional priests receive supplied jurisdiction from the law. This is with the understanding that personal jurisdiction is unjustly refused to them simply because of their attachment to the Faith and its traditional expression (inseparable from the Faith), and that the faithful cannot be expected to continually search out and judge for themselves which confessors in the Conciliar Church might be acceptable and might give them the spiritual advice they need (given that the vast majority do not).

In conclusion, therefore, it is obvious that, besides the case of common error, besides the case of probable and positive danger of death as interpreted in the broad sense of spiritual death, traditional priests receive a iure (from the law itself) a supplied jurisdiction for all cases in which this jurisdiction is required. This is simply the application of Canon 20, notably of Canonical Equity. There are no solid arguments against this and since there is at least a positive and probable doubt in favor of this argument, and we know that in such a case the Church certainly supplies jurisdiction, then traditional priests can and must act accordingly and the faithful can and should approach them for Confession.

In the case of marriage this conclusion need not be applied. For OC 1098 (NC 1116) describes situations when even a priest without jurisdiction can validly assist at a Catholic marriage, namely when there is a major "inconvenience" for more than one month (as, for example, the New Mass or the liberal pre-Cana classes).

All depends on whether the crisis in the Church is recognized or not. Those who refuse to see it will refuse the recourse to OC Canon 20 (NC 19). Those who understand its gravity will all agree on the force of these canonical arguments for supplied jurisdiction presented by Bishop Tissier de Mallerais in the following pages.

More to come...

More On The SSPX-Rome Talks

On February 18, Fr. Franz Schmidberger, superior of the Society of St. Pius X’s district of Germany, granted an interview to the site Internet Kathnews. In it, he says that the doctrinal discussions with Rome are certainly going to require much time. He recalls to mind that the principal points of divergence remain ecumenism and the relations of the Catholic Church with other religions, and especially with Judaism, “which does not worship the same God” as the Catholics. Here are some large extracts from the interview:

“For the first time we are in a position to expose calmly to competent authorities our concerns about the declarations of the Second Vatican Council and the post-conciliar developments. These discussions are certainly going to take a long time, maybe even years. But perhaps our interlocuters recognize already after only a short time that the Priestly Society of St. Pius X is incontestably Catholic, even if there are still points of discord. This would be a huge step forward. The very discrete nature of the interviews is vital for their success, for ‘the good makes no noise, and noise does no good’. (…)

“We must avoid an exaggerated optimism about these conversations. Bishop Fellay says it will be a miracle, if they lead to a real success. (…)

“An agreement between the Holy See and the Society can mean nothing other than the following: that Rome recognizes the voice of the Magisterium prior to the council. The Society has never upheld its own positions, rather it has made itself the spokesman of the Popes, especially those who reigned from the French Revolution until Vatican Council II. The situation has changed since 1988: our objections to Rome are taken seriously and she is trying to answer them. (…)

“With the lifting of the excommunication, new faithful have joined us, barriers have been dismantled, but because of media publicity, new barriers have been raised. Nonetheless, I believe that the Pope’s courageous decision has had a positive effect not only for the Society and its apostolic work, but even more so for the entire Church. (…)

“With Benedict XVI, the Church has entered upon calmer waters. The rehabilitation of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in its traditional celebration, the lifting of the decree of excommunication, the doctrinal discussions with the Holy See are very positive acts of this pontificate. At the same time, we regret the visit to the Synagogue of Rome, and above all the words of the Pope declaring that with the Jews we worship the same God.

“We Christians, we honor the Holy Trinity and we worship Our Lord Jesus Christ, consubstantial Son of the Father. The Jews of today, on the other hand, admit neither one of these two fundamental points of our holy religion. And as there is no other God but the Most Holy Trinity, no other Lord but Jesus Christ, we do not worship the same God as the Jews.

“These things were different for the just of the Old Testament: they were open to the truth of the Trinity and the divine filiation of the promised Messiah. The Pope strays in an alarming way from the words of the first Pope, St. Peter: “There is salvation in no other [but Jesus Christ]” (Acts 4:12). That applies to the whole world, including the Jews and the Moslems.”

(Source: kathnews. Traduction française: DICI n?211, March 6, 2010)

More On SSPX - Rome

Some News about the SSPX Discussions

by Gregor Kollmorgen
New Liturgical Movement
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
http://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2009/12/some-news-about-sspx-discussions.html

Via the website Panorama Católico Internacional (found via messainlatino.it) come news about the doctrinal discussions between the Holy See and the SSPX.

The follwing is a synthesis of remarks made by Bishop Alfonso de Galareta, head of the SSPX delegation for the discussions, on the occasion of recent ordinations of the SSPX at its Argentinian seminary of La Reja.



1) The outcome of the first meeting has been good.

2) Primarily the agenda and the method of discussion were established.

3) The issues to be discussed are of a doctrinal nature to the express exclusion of any canonical question regarding the situation of the SSPX.

4) The common doctrinal reference point will be the Magisterium prior to the Council.

5) The talks follow a rigorous method: an issue is raised, and the party raising it sends a paper substantiating its doubts. The Holy See responds in writing, after prior email exchanges among the technical advisers. At the meeting, the issue is discussed.

6) All meetings are taped by both parties and filmed.

7) The conclusions of each topic will be submitted to the Holy Father and the Superior General of the SSPX.

8) The timing of these meetings depends on whether the topic is new or is already being discussed. In the first case, it will be approximately every three months. In the second, every two. The next meeting is planned for mid January.

10) The theological representatives of the Holy See "are people you can talk with", they speak "the same (theological) language as we". (meaning presumably they are Thomists).

11) Some of the topics mentioned by the bishop in his homily, not exhaustively, are:

a) The Magisterium of the Council and after the Council.

b) The conciliar liturgical reform.

c) Ecumenism and interreligious dialogue.

e) Papal authority and collegiality.

f) Freedom of conscience, religious freedom, secularism and the social reign of Jesus Christ.

g) Human rights and human dignity according to the Council's teaching.

The Bishop repeated that the results of the first session are good, compared to the previous situation. The parties talked entirely freely and only about doctrinal issues in a Thomist theological framework.

No one can foresee what will happen in the future. One will move forward day by day, as prudence and evangelical spirit direct.

SSPX And Rome...

...moving towards a personal prelature? Bishop Fellay indicated in a Spanish interview, that Pope Benedict is planning for a canonical structure for the Society of traditional Catholics.

Very interesting if this is how it turns out. Since a personal prelature would give the Society an organization independent of the diocesan structure, liberal Bishops would not be able to keep the Society out of their diocese. His Holiness is very shrewdly setting up the Society as THE center of traditional Catholicism in the church, and rightly so.

More as we hear it.

Continue praying for His Holiness and the SSPX.

Look at that picture of Bishop Fellay. That's how a Bishop is supposed to look!

SSPX - Rome Round II

In a letter from Vatican spokesman Father Federico Lombardi the doctrinal talks between Rome and the Society of Saint Pius X will begin October 26 in Rome.

The Holy father has said that full communion for the group's members would depend on "true recognition of the magisterium and the authority of the pope and of the Second Vatican Council."

"True recognition of the Magisterium". That'll be no problem. The society also believes fully in the authority of the Pope. It's that last bit about VII where they're gonna get stuck in the mud. And although the mettings will be private, I look to see this dialogue become a public airing of the errors of VII. I pray that good comes from this. I'd hate to see it end with the Bishops excommunicated again!

Pray these meetings go well and we see some positive things emerge.

Is Springtime Negotiable?

The guy consecrating the peanut butter cookie here, is Austrian Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn.

He was recently quoted as saying that the Vatican would "draw a red line in the sand" regarding the upcoming Vatican/SSPX talks.

It just strikes me as funny that this ultra modernist priest, who is already a laughing stock for his blessing gay marriages, his disco Masses, and his fresh baked hosts would even want to try to speak to the Vatican's position concerning the SSPX.

Pope Benedict is much more likely to lean towards the SSPX views we feel, especially given His Holiness' actions in the past. He freed the traditional Mass, allowed the Institute of the Good Shepherd back in the Church, and he has lifted the excommunications of the the SSPX bishops.

No matter what happens, pray that the Vatican/SSPX talks further the cause of Holy Mother Church.

A very smart Rabbi

Father Z has asked bloggers to post this article around. And always being ready to assist Father Z, here it is. With his comments:

Left Wing of the Catholic Church Destroying the Faith Says Orthodox Rabbi

By Hilary White, Rome correspondent
Wednesday February 11, 2009

ROME, February 11, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The dissident, leftist movement in the Catholic Church over the last forty years has severely undermined the teaching of the Catholic Church on the moral teachings on life and family, [fantastic!] a prominent US Orthodox rabbi told LifeSiteNews.com. Rabbi Yehuda Levin, the head of a group of 800 Orthodox rabbis in the US and Canada, also dismissed the accusations that the Holy See had not sufficiently distanced itself from the comments made by Bishop Richard Williamson of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) on the Holocaust.

"I support this move" to reconcile the traditionalist faction in the Church, he said, "because I understand the big picture, which is that the Catholic Church has a problem. There is a strong left wing of the Church that is doing immeasurable harm to the faith." [Peter was Jewish. Can Rabbi Levin be Pope after Pope Benedict? Maybe 20 years from now?]

Rabbi Levin said that he understands "perfectly" why the reconciliation is vital to the fight against abortion and the homosexualist movement. [The man-centered view of the left detaches morals from reality.]

"I understand that it is very important to fill the pews of the Catholic Church not with cultural Catholics and left-wingers who are helping to destroy the Catholic Church and corrupt the values of the Catholic Church." This corruption, he said, "has a trickle-down effect to every single religious community in the world." [What an admission!]

"What’s the Pope doing? He’s trying to bring the traditionalists back in because they have a lot of very important things to contribute the commonweal of Catholicism. [YES YES YES!]

"Now, if in the process, he inadvertently includes someone who is prominent in the traditionalist movement who happens to say very strange things about the Holocaust, is that a reason to throw out the baby with the bathwater and start to condemn Pope Benedict? Absolutely not."

During a visit to Rome at the end of January, Rabbi Levin told LifeSiteNews.com that he believes the media furore over the lifting of the excommunications of the four bishops of the Society of Saint Pius X is a red herring. He called "ridiculous" the accusations that in doing so Pope Benedict VXI or the Catholic Church are anti-Semitic and described as "very strong" the statements distancing the Holy See and the Pope from Williamson’s comments.

Rabbi Levin was in Rome holding meetings with high level Vatican officials to propose what he called a "new stream of thinking" for the Church’s inter-religious dialogue, one based on commonly held moral teachings, particularly on the right to life and the sanctity of natural marriage.

"The most important issue," he said, is the work the Church is doing "to save babies from abortion, and save children’s minds, and young people’s minds, helping them to know right and wrong on the life and family issues."

"That’s where ecumenism and inter-religious dialogue has to go."

Although numbers are difficult to determine, it is estimated that the Society of St. Pius X has over a million followers worldwide. The traditionalist movement in the Catholic Church is noted for doctrinal orthodoxy and enthusiasm not only for old-fashioned devotional practices, but for the Church’s moral teachings and opposition to post-modern secularist sexual mores. [And this is why progressivists will fight their reintegration in the mainstream Church.] Liberals in the Church, particularly in Europe, have bitterly opposed all overtures to the SSPX and other traditionalists, particularly the Pope’s recent permission to revive the traditional Latin Mass. [The TLM is the monster under their bed.]

The Vatican announced in early January that, as part of ongoing efforts to reconcile the breakaway group, the 1988 decree of excommunication against the Society had been rescinded. Later that month, a Swedish television station aired an interview, recorded in November 2008, in which Bishop Richard Williamson, one of the four leaders of the Society, said that he did not believe that six million Jews were killed in the Nazi death camps during World War II.

At that time, the media erupted with protests and accusations that the Catholic Church, and especially Pope Benedict XVI, are anti-Semitic.

Rabbi Levin particularly defended Pope Benedict, saying he is the genius behind the moves of the late Pope John Paul II to reconcile the Church with the Jewish community. [HO HO! The libs aren’t going to like that suggestion! They will attack the Rabbi especially on this point, suggesting that it was all JP II and had nothing to do with Card. Ratzinger… who is German, btw.]

"Anyone who understands and follows Vatican history knows that in the last three decades, one of the moral and intellectual underpinnings of the papacy of Pope John Paul II, was Cardinal Ratzinger.

"And therefore, a lot of the things that Pope John Paul did vis-à-vis the Holocaust, he [Benedict] might have done himself, whether it was visiting Auschwitz or visiting and speaking in the synagogues or asking forgiveness. A lot of this had direct input from Cardinal Ratzinger. Whoever doesn’t understand this doesn’t realise that this man, Pope Benedict XVI, has a decades-long track record of anti-Nazism and sympathy for the Jews."

As Tony the Tiger would say: "Grrrrreat! article!" As with most things the liberals touch, they are destroying the Catholic Church. These dirtbags are gonna FREAK out!

I love when that happens.

Support our Pontiff...

...and show those dirty progressives and lefties in the Church that seek to embarrass him for lifting the SSPX Bishops' excommunications that their plans aren't going to work.

These jerkoffs have actually gone so far as to ask for the Pope to step down!

Sign a petition in support of our Holy Father and slap a liberal scumbag at the same time with a few clicks of the mouse!

Go here to sign the petition.

See? I knew the Newchurch people would come out against the pope!

Father Z has a few postings about the yahoo's who are now coming out and bashing the Pope since he lifted the excommunications of the SSPX Bishops. Go check it out.

But come back here.

Ok?