Fr. Lorans, spokesman of the SSPX, speaks of the Roman press release

Fourth Sunday of September 2011:
Fifteenth Sunday after Pentecost

Are we moving towards the end of a schism, the reconciliation between the heirs of Archbishop Lefebvre and Rome? Today it seems as if the ball in the Society of St. Pius X’s court.

Is this a historical moment or is it a mere rebound?

Fr. Alains Lorans: This is a step. After the preliminaries which Bishop Fellay asked from the Holy Father on the traditional Mass, the canonical sanctions against the bishops of the Society, the doctrinal meetings on the Second Vatican Council, one could foresee future perspectives. This was done on September 14. It is worth noting the great candor of the theologians of the Society during these meetings in which they made very clear the doctrinal difficulties presented by some conciliar texts. This frankness did not prevent the new step. Obviously, Rome knows exactly our positions, and it is with this clear knowledge that Cardinal Levada presented this doctrinal preamble to Bishop Fellay.

Will the Society follow Bishop Fellay if he gives his agreement to this preamble?

An agreement with Rome would solve the canonical situation of the Society of St. Pius X. But this is not as important as to give back to Tradition—often scorned, or persecuted for the last forty years—its right of existence within the Church. This process already began with the motu proprio Summorum pontificum which declared that the traditional Mass had never been abrogated. If, after the thorough reading which Rome wants him to have, Bishop Fellay may give his agreement, the Society will certainly be favorable to it.

What is the legitimate margin of debate around the texts of Vatican II?

This is the question! The doctrinal preamble being confidential, I can add nothing to the official press release: “leaving open to a legitimate discussion the theological study and explanation of expressions or particular formulations present in the texts of the Second Vatican Council and of the magisterium which followed.”

Some explain this to mean that the points of contention in the Council could be open to discussion without putting into question the adherence to the Church: this would be to recognize that these litigious texts do not require the adhesion demanded for dogmas.

Others insist on the fact that this doctrinal preamble—which is not public, mind you—would demand the respect of the entire Council, of its authenticity and of the legitimacy of its teaching. For them… the mere possibility of a discussion of Vatican II would appear a little much…

What we can see is a clear difference between the press release of Sept 14, 2011 and the note dictated by the Secretary of State of February 4, 2009 which was saying: “The indispensible condition for a future recognition of the Society of St. Pius X is the full acceptance of the Second Vatican Council and of the magisterium of Popes John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II and Benedict XVI himself.”

Between these declarations, there are two years of theological discussion which allowed to “dig out and clarify the doctrinal problems” in the words of Bishop Fellay. Has there been an evolution of Rome between 2009 and 2011? Has the exposition of the theologians of the Society contributed to it? I leave it to you to reply.

The Vienna de Facto Schism (Second Round)

Fourth Sunday of September 2011:
Fourteenth Sunday after Pentecost

Although about 400 Austrian priests have now joined in a call for open disobedience of Church authority, Vienna’s Cardinal Christopher Schönborn does not perceive a major crisis.

In July, Cardinal Schönborn said that he was shocked by the open defiance expressed by the Priests’ Initiative, which has encouraged pastors to defy Church rules on issues ranging from homosexuality and female priests to the reception of Communion by divorced and remarried Catholics. But—contrary to several media reports—the cardinal has not threatened disciplinary action against the dissident priests.

Cardinal Schönborn met in August with four priests of the Vienna archdiocese who are active leaders in the Priests’ Initiative [the group of 400 or so dissident priests]. His spokesman said that a wider dialogue with the group should be conducted by the Austrian bishops’ conference. Cardinal Schönborn hopes to persuade the dissident priests to cooperate in building up the Austrian Church. This brings up some comments from us in the Traditional movement, who are often considered dissidents, associating real constructive criticism with rebellious priests.

1. The Modernist Church has long eclipsed that mark of ‘unity’ which is the property of the true Church of Christ. What unity can there be in such a profound doctrinal and moral division within the Austrian Church when so many priests have an ‘attitude’ with the traditional teaching? And the optimism of the dear Austrian Cardinal cannot hide the ugly reality of the complete breakdown of the Church in such a case. To dialogue with such persons is like speaking of the Trinity to an atheist. The July speech of the cardinal was Catholic common sense and it could be that the Austrian summer damaged some of his neurons.

2. This is the case of a cardinal, the head of the Austrian Church, virtually mesmerized and paralyzed by the sacrosanct ‘liberty’ of his ministers. The matter is taboo, and the legitimate authority finds itself unable to tackle a situation which, of itself is very simple. This is a typical case of non-committal exercise of ‘authority’, prevalent ever since the Vatican II Conciliabulum. The Church has lined itself up to the Rousseauist modern day democracy, where number prevails over justice and where the responsible authorities can cover their tracks with total impunity. Such is the modern ecclesiastical concept of ‘collegiality’, which unnerves authority and dissolves unity. This government is a government of lies, much more intolerant in the Church than in the civil society.

3. And that is why, when applied to true Catholic like the Traditionalists, the same authorities are willing to use all their canonical power and leverage against people who, at least, do not believe in total liberty and favor strong authority and order. Are we dealing with shadow authorities or with opportunist men who act whenever it suits them best, regardless of the immortal principles of faith and morals?

When Churchmen think like politicians, forgetting their primary purpose on earth, we are in a mess. Perhaps, we could advise Cardinal Schönborn to take time to ponder of the plain words of the Gospel: “Seek ye first the Kingdom of God and His justice.”

Previous news article on this subject:

Conformity to God's Will

Second Sunday of September 2011:
Thirteenth Sunday after Pentecost

We present this beautiful conference of Archbishop Lefebvre, which he gave to the priests of the French District on December 13, 1984. Though it is addressed to priests, we thought it of great value for the laity. It reveals the spirit in which His Excellency has trained his priests; the lessons on our dependence upon God are valuable for all Catholics, and the necessity of preserving the Faith is also well stressed!

It is a great satisfaction for me to report that, fourteen years from the foundation of the Society, its organization, its purpose―particularly sacerdotal―of forming priests shaped in the spirit of Our Lord, in the spirit of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass―is finding its realization in the ministry, in the practice of the priestly life that you lead now, (…) which shows also your concern to keep up and to perfect your desire for holiness. This is our outstanding importance.

You see, I think that if difficulties have arisen, which we know, in the priesthood, and in the sphere of secular priests in particular, since the Council, and these difficulties have been a painful verification of something that was lacking in the formation of these priests, it is without doubt that they had lost at the same time the true notion of the priesthood in which they were clothed, and that they had not taken the means of keeping this desire to maintain their faith and their fervor…

(…)

…And then it is another great trial that we all suffer: the trial of the Church, because we finally have to recognize it, the exterior situation and in a certain way the juridical situation (at last juridical in the sense of purely literal law), well, now it is not normal, that is true. Thus we are not in a normal relation with the bishops, with the priests who are around us and who also have an apostolate―what apostolate?―but in the end, they are priests who are still in the parishes; the relations with them are obviously not the relations, which we normally should have had in the holy Church. So, no normal relations with the bishops, no normal relations with the priests who are around us, no normal relations with men religious or sisters, with a good part of the faithful, with Rome itself. It is an appalling, horrible trial, because it is abnormal. But the anomaly does not come from us. It is from them that it comes, from all those who have not followed the Tradition of the Church, who have themselves put themselves permanently outside all legality, outside the Faith, yes―even outside the Faith!

But however it may be, we are convinced of this, it is they who are wrong, who have changed course, who have broken with the Tradition of the Church, who have rushed into novelties, we are convinced of this. That is why we do not rejoin them and why we cannot work with them; we cannot collaborate with the people who depart from the spirit of the Church, from the Tradition of the Church. But that puts us in a very critical situation of breaking with that mass of Church people who are departing from the Tradition of the Church. That makes thus for an unlikely situation, assuredly unbelievable, that is at times for us a cause for sorrow, for a desire to see the Church rediscover her way, that is to say, her Tradition―at least not the Church, but the people of the Church―for a desire that the Church not be torn anymore as it is right now, and finally that her passion in some way end.

Has feminism emptied American female religious congregations?

First Sunday of September 2011:
Twelfth Sunday after Pentecost

According to LifeSiteNews, a high-ranking Vatican prelate told Catholic News Service recently that the animosity which has recently built up between the Vatican and some groups of women’s religious orders in the United States was the fault of “unscrupulous canonical advisers” in the Vatican. This suggests that, far from being a problem of nuns, the struggle was between two Roman officials, Archbishop Tobin, secretary of the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life, and conservative Cardinal Rode, the former president of the same congregation.

The latter denounced:

the secularized culture (that) has penetrated into the minds and hearts of some consecrated persons and some communities, where it is seen as an opening to modernity and a way of approaching the contemporary world. Above all, you could speak of a certain secularist mentality that has spread among these religious families, perhaps even a certain “feminist” spirit.

On the other end of the spectrum, Archbishop Tobin comments:

I believe a visitation has to have a dialogical aspect, but the way this was structured at the beginning didn’t really favor that. I’m an optimist, but also trying to be realistic: The trust that should characterize the daughters and sons of God and disciples of Jesus isn’t recovered overnight.

Is this just a matter of an irate prelate out of touch with truly dedicated sisters in the field? This is hardly believable if we take into account his comments made about some modern female congregations. Cardinal Rode said that today there are some in religious life “who have chosen paths that have carried them away from communion with Christ in the Catholic Church, even though they have decided to physically ‘be’ in the Church.”

Indeed, in 2007, at a meeting of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR), a group of progressive nuns, Dominican Sister Laurie Brink said that the more liberal congregations of sisters were leaving behind “institutional religion” and “moving beyond the Church, even beyond Jesus… Religious titles, institutional limitations, ecclesiastical authorities no longer fit this congregation, which in most respects is Post-Christian.” LCWR has also publicly supported health care legislation that was denounced by pro-life leaders and the United States bishops for expanding abortion funding.

Rode aroused a storm of fury from some religious when his congregation announced the launch of an Apostolic Visitation to take stock of the current situation of religious life in the United States. Some sisters wrote public letters denouncing the Visitation as a “witch hunt.”

To add fuel to the fire, the New York Times—of all things!—reports that, whereas in the sixties, nuns or priests served as chief executives of 770 of the country’s 796 Catholic hospitals, today, they preside over 8 of 636 hospitals. Even the Times has to admit that the near “extinction” of sisters from hospitals “accompanied” the rise of feminism, the sexual revolution and the changes wrought by the Second Vatican Council.

So, in lieu of a witch-hunt, we might have to settle for a house haunted with mere ghosts of nuns!

< click to read October 2011 letters

click to read August 2011 letters >