The following letter from Bishop McGrath of San Jose was passed on by a Cal Catholic reader on Dec. 16
To the People of the Diocese of San Jose
Dear Brothers and Sisters,
In late 2006, I was pleased to bring into communion with the Church members of the faithful who had been celebrating Mass and the sacraments according to the traditional Latin forms at a small church they had purchased on Homestead Road in Santa Clara. At that time, I canonically erected the Oratory of Our Mother of Perpetual Help to offer pastoral care to the people of the Diocese of San Jose who are attached to the traditional Latin Mass and other sacraments. Furthermore, I entrusted the ministry of the newly established Oratory of Our Mother of Perpetual Help to priests of the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest. These priests have served faithfully in this capacity since January 1,2007.
Because recent internal matters related to the governance of the Oratory could not be resolved in a way that is satisfactory to the Institute, the Institute has now withdrawn from its ministry to the Oratory. I wrote to the Oratory’s Board of Directors and, through the board, to lay faithful who are members there, requesting them to reconsider this action by which they would be separating themselves from union with the Church. The board, however, did not rescind its previous decision. Consequently, I must now suppress the Oratory, removing its canonical status as an established and recognized Roman Catholic community in the Diocese of San Jose.
Faced with these developments, the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest has been in contact with Father Antonio Silveira of Five Wounds Portuguese National Church, which will welcome the faithful of the newly erected Oratory of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, beginning next Sunday, December 15, at 12:30 pm.
This past weekend, it was announced at Our Mother of Perpetual Help that priests from the Society of Saint Pius X will begin ministry there. This is a matter of grave concern because of the unlawful status of the Society. I offer here, by way of background, the reason for my concerns.
The Society of Saint Pius X was formed after the Second Vatican Council by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. On June 30, 1988, against the direction of His Holiness, Blessed John Paul II, the Archbishop consecrated bishops for the Society of Saint Pius X. Consequently, Archbishop Lefebvre and the four men consecrated as bishops were excommunicated. Although Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI lifted the excommunication in 2009, he stated: “Doctrinal questions obviously remain and until they are clarified the Society has no canonical status in the Church and its ministers cannot legitimately exercise any ministry.” This means that the priests of the Society of Saint Pius X are suspended and the sacraments of Penance and Matrimony administered by these priests are invalid. Contrary to some popular belief that when the excommunication of the four bishops of the Society of Saint Pius X was lifted, the Society was reconciled to the Roman Catholic Church. This is not – nor has ever been – the case.
It is morally illicit (unlawful) for the Faithful to participate in Masses of the Society of Saint Pius X unless they are legitimately impeded from participating in a Mass celebrated by a Catholic priest in good standing in the Church (cf. Code of Canon Law, canon 844.2). The fact of not being able to assist at the celebration of the “Tridentine” Mass (Forma Extraordinaria) is not considered a sufficient motive for attending Masses offered by priests of the Society of Saint Pius X. Participation in such Masses and in the administration of the sacraments at the chapels of the Society of Saint Pius X can, over a period of time, lead to a schismatic habit of thought and heart as one slowly absorbs a mentality which separates itself from the Magisterium of the Holy Roman Catholic Church. For those faithful who desire the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass according to the Forma Extraordinaria (“Tridentine” Mass), they will find such valid and lawful Masses celebrated at Five Wounds Portuguese National Church each Sunday afternoon, at 12:30, beginning on December 15, 2013.
The doctrinal questions that remain unresolved between the Roman Catholic Church and the Society of Saint Pius X are not insignificant. A special Pontifical Commission, Ecclesia Dei, under the auspices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, had worked toward resolution, but the refusal of the Society of Saint Pius X to accept all of the teachings of the Second Vatican Council set back these efforts. The lack of full communion of the Society of Saint Pius X with the Roman Catholic Church and our Holy Father continues to wound the unity for which the Lord had prayed: “That all may be one.” Therefore, let us all pray for the Church that her unity may be healed for the glory of God and the salvation of souls.
Given at the Chancery of the Diocese of San Jose, this tenth day of December, in the year of our Lord 2013.
To read original letter, click here.
This type of Tradie thinking is bad for the Soul. Somehow people stand in Judgement of the Catholic Church like they are more Catholic than the Pope. Oh Well, the evil one always has his way in some cases. How are these stances different from Martin Luther?
We are what you once were. We believe what you once believed. We worship as you once worshiped. If we are wrong now, you were wrong then. If you were right then, we are right now.
The problem isn’t the worship.
This should be a bumper sticker or t shirt!!!
Plus as long as SSPX is not in full union with the Holy See, I will go to Novus Ordo before I set foot in their Church, Just like I would never set foot in a Greek Orthodox Church unless I was in Alaska and there was a snow storm and I could not get to a Catholic Parish in full obedience to the Holy See.
For where Peter is, there the Church is.
Western Schneider,
Are you aware that at least two Popes were declared to have been heretics, Pope Liberius I, and Pope Honorious. Learn you Faith before making such statements!
May God have mercy on an amoral Amerika!
Viva Cristo Rey!
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher, Founding Director
Concerned Roman Catholics of America, Inc.
They were not declared heretics by anyone but anti-Catholics who want to disprove the papacy.
Kenneth M. Fisher
It would seem that Mr. Schneider is still correct. Whether the Holy Father is a Heretic or not, he is still the Holy Father. We are obliged to obey him in matters where we do are not breaking the law.
John, On the contrary, I am what the Church has always been, I attend only Latin Form mass according to the 1962 Missal, celebrated by a Priest with full faculties under Roman Law, and in union with his ordinary, and the Holy Father. I believe everything that the Catholic Church teaches, ((Including V II , correctly Understood) Being that it’s not a dogmatic council and where it seems to give no guidance Go with what the Church has said before)) For Christ who is the Church, cannot deceive nor be deceived.
W.S. My statement is true. And why do you use the derogatory term “Tradie”.
I do not think a Tradie is Derogatory. I am with Schneider.
Its a term correctly used to describe to those that reject the Bologna school of V II being a new Pentecost.
Western Schnieder,
“I would rather you be cold or hot than lukewarm, I vomit the lukewarm out of My mouth” You can’t have it both ways, so which is it, blind obedience to a Pope or obedience to God and His True Church.
Again I ask you those questions about Popes Liberius and Honorious. Will I get a cogent answer?
May God have mercy on an amoral Amerika!
Viva Cristo Rey!
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher, Founding Director
Concerned Roman Catholics of America, Inc.
There is One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
Can you be obedient to God without being Obedient to the Pope?
Even worse than this look into what the Pope did to The Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate.
This schism has no chance of ever healing. Vatican 2 was a break that cannot be healed. The Latin Rite traditionalists firmly believe that the church as constituted after the reform decrees of Trent needed no revolutionary overthrowing, as happened after Vatican 2. To speak of a “hermeneutics of continuity” makes no sense. Vatican 2 turned Trent on its head, all the empirical evidence is on the side of the traditionalists. The Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church ceased to exist. The construct now regarded as the Catholic Church is much closer to mainstream Protestantism than anyone wants to admit.
If the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church ceased to exist, then it could not have been what it claimed to be. Those who break away from it cannot be the authentic church any more than any other Christian group. Then the invisible church of the protestants would be the right concept. However, we know that Jesus Christ is the only-begotten Son of God who is Truth and that He set up the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church to last until the end of the world. So the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church founded on the Apostles with Peter as the Head is still in existence and will be until the Second Coming. It is the Catholic Church in union with the Pope. There is no other.
The SSPX did not break away. They still recognize the Pope. The “so-called” excommunication was lifted; they are not in schism.
Irregardless of that, just look at the fruits of Vatican II to see what the truth is. Even Pope Paul VI said, “The smoke of Satan has entered the Church” with V2.
Anon: Did it ever occur to you the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church continues to exist in the SSPX? They are the ones who refused to go down within the ship. Who are the revolutionaries who broke with all the ancient traditions?
It can’t be. The priests are all suspended. Their masses are illicit. There is much false teaching. They are no more the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church than is the Church of England or the Old Catholics. It is just a current schismatic movement (not yet formal schism.) They have already splintered into the SSPV and independent parishes (or hotel meetings.) If you have never read this, perhaps you should:
https://thesensiblebond.blogspot.com/p/why-i-left-sspx-milieu.html
Very, very true Anton…let them Amchurch crowd go there gay little way….
Anton,
” The Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church ceased to exist” is not now true and it never will be true; however it by necessity has become a “Remnant”!
May God have mercy on an amoral Amerika!
Viva Cristo Rey!
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher, Founding Director
Concerned Roman Catholics of America, Inc.
I don’t know how to feel about this…I am greatly saddened. We have issues with an order that has dissent many times from San Francisco and yet they are still united with the church…yet we can’t help unite those of more traditional element of the faith.
I am heartbroken by all this division.
Put me down as heartbroken too. What got into these people to change from the Institute of Christ the King to a group outside the Catholic Church? This is crazy. I used to drive 1.5 hours one way to Latin Mass. Now I only drive 1 hour because our Una Voce Diocesan mass was kicked out of Mission San Juan Buenaventura by the Cardinal Mahony team to St. Mary Magdalene Chapel, Camarillo (Sundays 10 am) after 15 years of every-Sunday masses. That this group would leave the Church willingly for the FSPX is unbelievable. Most of South American countries do not have a single Latin Holy Mass and in the land of plenty we are fighting amongst ourselves? At a time when the Vatican II left is resurgent at the Vatican? Sancta Maria Mater Dei, Ora pro Nobis.
“kicked out” of the mission? Many people might say that you were gifted an even better situation- a bigger chapel, better, more direct and central location and more flexibility because there are not mission activities at the Magdalene chapel.
For a chronicle of how the Latin Mass Community was expelled from Ventura by the new pastor in 2013 read:
https://cal-catholic.com/wordpress/2013/01/27/latin-mass-at-mission-san-buenaventura-set-to-end/
Abeca,
You are not the only one, I am sure Our Lord and His Mother are even more heartbroken.
How is it that the Church of V2 can canonize 3 Popes, some with no miracles at all, and refuse to canonize Pope Pious XII because some of the the jews (the Bnai Brith types) complained. It is my understanding that Heaven showed its approval by many miracles in this holy Popes name, but no, the Jews compained. It has always been my belief that the Church must do what is right no matter who complains!
May God have mercy on an amoral Amerika!
Viva Cristo Rey!
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher, Founding Director
Concerned Roman Catholics of America, Inc.
For those who prefer the Latin (sometimes referred to as the “Traditional” Mass), the FSSP, – PRIESTLY FRATERNITY of SAINT PETER -, provides Priests who not only say the Latin Mass themselves – but teach other Priests who are interested in learning the Latin Mass with the approval of the Diocese Bishop.
https://www.fssp.org/en/index.htm
This link for the FSSP – is for the North American District for additional information.
https://fssp.com/press/
I have often contributed to the FSSP in NA. I bought their ordo and calendars for the past couple of years. The calendars are especially beautiful. 2013 has been the celebrations of the EF Mass. 2014 are martyrs. Very tradiational and welcome.
FSSP is in communion with Rome. res ipsa loquitor
I truly pray and hope for FSSP parish or visiting priest out here. Closest EF for me is a ~2 hour round trip if I’m lucky and traffic is good.
Also, I’m guessing the FSSP is keeping a close on what happened to the FFI.
Thank you Dottie for the links.
The FSSP is a blessing.
We should all support them any way that we can, and encourage our Priests to learn the Latin Mass. FSSP Priests will teach them.
MADDIE,
While I agree with you, if you encourage your priest to learn the Mass of SAINT Pius V, you must also help prepare them for Ecclesiastical crucifixion by bishops more in tune with Martin Luther, Henry VIII, etc. etc. ad nauseam!
May God have mercy on an amoral Amerika!
Viva Cristo Rey!
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher, Founding Director
Concerned Roman Catholics of America, Inc.
Dottie,
Wake up, there are far more Diocese and Archdiocese that forbid the FSSP, than there are ones who allow them. By the way, aren’t those Diocese and Archdiocese more disobedient to the Pope than are the SSPX priests and bishops?
I know of priests who were run out of the Am-Church because they expressed their desire and right to celebrate the Mass of SAINT Pius V. Such charity on the behalf of the Am-Church bishops will not go unrecognized by Our Lord!
One such priest was probably on his way to being a Black American Bishop when he was literally put out into the streets! He now leads a group of the remnant in I believe New Jersey.
May God have mercy on an amoral Amerika!
Viva Cristo Rey!
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher, Founding Director
Concerned Roman Catholics of America, Inc.
Anything that Bishop McGrath says is worthy of skepticism. Rumor has it (but this is entirely uncertain) that McGrath wanted some level of commitment to the Novus Ordo at the Oratory. This type of thing is suggested, as well, by his self-serving letter. This type of thing is precisely what happens when the Pope appears to bless the brutal and unnecessary attacks on the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate, which now has to swear some level of allegiance to the N.O. It is clear that the Church leadership — again, permitted by Francis — is pivoting away from any sort of “exclusive” commitment of an order, or a church, to the TLM. Sure, here and there, a dedicated church may be permitted, but the growing movement towards exclusivity of the TLM is being repressed. This type of militaristic approach is no different than the suppression of even the most modest beginnings of free speech in any dictatorship. You are about to witness the Church attempting to consume itself, and all this lead by people like Bishop McGrath. As we can see from the unthinkable excesses of the Obama Administration’s implementation of the Affordable Care Act, it is the lower level henchmen that do the dirty work of midnight knocks on the door. The poor Institute of Christ the King will be scurrying all over the place in an effort to find respite to continue to say the TLM. And, what are the good priests and seminarians at the FSSP thinking about now?
Now the Bishop is the problem? really?
When you disobey a Bishop that Christ himself has put in charge of your spiritual care, you are a protestant, no less than Luther himself, as long as that Bishop is not asking you to commit mortal sin. Do you know better than Christ?
You slander his name here by attacking his good name, dare I say that depending on your understanding, this could be a Mortal Sin. You cannot speak ill of other people like this without consequences. How are you ever going to repair the damage you are doing to the Bishops name?
Plus what does it matter if the Bishop wants two forms of the Roman rite within a parish? Does he not have that right as your Ordinary?
Schneider,
Wake up, a bishop does NOT have the right to abolish what a Pope has declared: “what was once holy, can never be not holy” Frankly, that statement by Pope Benedict XVII was not even necessary because common sense ( a commodity in short supply these days) tell us that.
By the way, that teaching by Pope Benedict XVII has now effectively been abolished by Pope Francis, so to whom do we owe obedience? We owe obedience as Our Lady said at Akita, Japan, to Tradition! Read your Theology, if a Pope goes against Tradition, he is not owed obedience.
May God have mercy on an amoral Amerika!
Viva Cristo Rey!
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher, Founding Director
Concerned Roman Catholics of America, Inc.
Kenneth M. Fisher
The Bishop has every right to administer his diocese as he sees fit. In this case, he has invited the Institute of Christ the King, and does not want SSPX in his diocese.
I know of a Bishop here in California that got a lot of flak in the early 1990’s for refusing to grant the Legionaries a place in his see. It turns out he was correct, and was doing the prudent thing.
Plus, be careful of putting words in Pope Francis Mouth. He has not reversed anything that Pope John Paul II or Pope Benedict XVI has put in place.
Yes there is the Question of the Franciscans, but that is an ongoing situation, and you are not privy to all the details, so do not rush to condemn the Holy Father or Your Bishop.
In all this, you need first and foremost as a son of the Holy Church to examine yourself, and adopt an attitude of Charity towards your Christian Brethren, Including your Bishop and the Holy Father.
SSPX is not in Schism, they are in an irregular canonical status, and do not have faculties to celebrate Mass. The Bishop always had the right to grant canonical faculties in his see. Are you going to dispute this?
Vatican II is not a dogmatic council, its been abused by those in power, but that does not mean its not Christ that has put them in Charge.
They exercise legitimate authority.
Schnieder,
You speak of which you probably know nothing.
I was present when the late saintly Msgr. Sweeney cried to Archbishop Khai about what McGrath was doing to him and more importantly to him, his parish.
I was at the HLI Conference at which McGrath, after originally agreeing to attend, refused to attend because the Bnai Brith, and the Jewish Defense League Jews had complained to him about Fr. Paul Marx’s alleged anti-Jewish alleged positions. Never mind that Rabi Jehuda Levin was an honored speaker at that Conference. If my memory serves me correctly, so was the late Dr. Bernard Nathanson who was still then a Jew!
May God have mercy on an amoral Amerika!
Viva Cristo Rey!
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher, Founding Director
Concerned Roman Catholics of America, Inc.
Kenneth Fisher, Mgs. Sweeney did served both the post Vatican II Mass AND the Latin Mass and very reverently. He did not seem to have any problem with the Mass in English when it was done properly, according to the rubrics and novelties were not brought in. God rest his soul.
Again, I say, if you hold to the above, WS, how is it that you could say:
“…These are windows into the souls of Shepherds, I find myself drifting slowly towards SSPX.”
Looks to me as if you are casting stones at the SSPX.
Clarification on my earlier post to WS:
The statement you made regarding drifting slowly toward the SSPX was said by you in regards to the lovely commentary made by Church hierarchy about Nelson Mandela.
Would you say that you stepped over the line in criticizing those who have been appointed by God to lead the Church?
Christopher, I’m trying to follow your logic here. According to Benedict’s promulgation, parishes ought to have TLM when there is a stable group asking for it. I don’t think he said anything about parishes that were allowed to be exclusively “TLM” parishes. If it is true that the Bishop was asking for an Ordinary Form mass at that parish, why is that such an offensive thing? Doesn’t the denial of an ordinary form mass mean that it is the OF that is being suppressed?
I will worry about the SSPX when the Novus Ordo gets concerned about correcting all the hereies, liturgical abuses and disobedience under them.
Brought to you by the Bishop that hosted the 12th Annual Conference of the National Association of Catholic Diocesan Lesbian and Gay Ministries…I will stick with the SSPX.
This website should be renamed California Schismatic Former Catholic Daily.
Stollan, that is not true. Many on here go to both the more reverent Vatican II Masses that follow the rubrics and also to the Extraordinary (traditional Latin) form. Many only complain about the newer Masses when things are brought in that are not valid or according to the rubrics, or if the sermons include encouraging immoral behavior.
Anne,
Try this one on for size. At a recent N.O. Mass in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles (Lost Angels), a priest taught in his homily that Our Blessed Mother (he probably just said Mary) did not travel to visit Her cousin Elizabeth because “it was too dangerous”!
When will that heretic be removed from his faculties? Don’t hold your breath for Arch. Gomez to take action, he is too busy insuring the many, far too many, heretics at the REC!
May God have mercy on an amoral Amerika!
Viva Cristo Rey!
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher, Founding Director
Concerned Roman Catholics of America, Inc.
Kenneth, you certainly are right about that priest’s blunder and someone should gently correct him. The Virgin May certainly had an escort, but the Bible just left it out. I have had to face some such situations as you have and often found that the priest has not gone to a good seminary, was poorly taught, or afraid of what some parishioner might say. Often they are very young. Nevertheless, we should not make a god of tradition either. If we went totally back to all tradition, all popes would be fishermen (of real fish) as St. Peter was, and all priests a tent maker as St. Paul was, in other words work outside the Church for a living. Some traditions are worth fighting for, others just are not that important. We should not, as the saying goes, make “mountains out of molehills”. May God give us the wisdom to discern wisely, act accordingly and correct charitably if and when needed.
That is an error. It should be corrected. You don’t leave the Church because a priest makes an error. Then Satan has his way.
Please excuse my typos in some of my posts. I do not have a lot of time now to go over them. The Virgin May, of course, was meant to be the Virgin Mary.
Her escort might have been the Holy Spirit too. He might have sent her and protected her with his angels along the way. Many Christians have had that happen to them, including those in the New Testament. Nevertheless, few women traveled alone in those days. How she did it does not really matter — just that she did do it.
Siollan: To point out the many grievous shortcomings of our episcopate does not contitute heresy. How can one enthusiastically endorse what some of our bishops are doing? They have become politicised. When they turn in their membership cards in the democrat party I shall reevaluate my attitude toward them. Meanwhile, as long as they advocate gun control, the minimum wage, green initiatives, and limitless govrnment expenditures for social justic causes, support the heritical grandstanding “Nuns on the Bus”, and hobnob around with pro-abortion politicians, while turning a blind eye to the homosexual rot in our Catholic colleges all around the Golden State, I shall criticize them.
Anton, That comment was in response to the one above, explicitly endorsing SSPX, but also to a general sensibility of a lot of the readers here, who are more sympathetic to schismatic traditionalist groups than the Church itself… some quite brazen. I’ve seen several recently intimating that the Pope is acting on Satan’s behalf, and many more proclaiming that SSPX is more valid than the Church, or that the Church ceased to exist with V2, etc.
Maybe it’s a vocal minority, but it seems to be the prevailing sentiment here. You’re certainly entitled to any political opinion you might have, but if you’re proclaiming allegiance to a schismatic breakaway faction from the Church, or ascribing a validity that all the legalistic Vatican doctrine governing such things denies…. That’s not really Catholic any longer.
5o years from now there will be hundreds of traditional Catholic sects each claiming to be the true Catholic and Apostolic church. Without the magisterium and communion with the See of Peter dispersion is inevitable (Pius V, Pius X, Vat I rejectionists, etc.) unless they follow the logic of their actions and elect their own Pope (in exile). However, the traditionalists cannot do this since they do not have the authority to call a council to declare themselves the true Catholic faith. I guess their strategy is to hold on until the Lord returns…….which they hope is immanent.
Like every other Christian group in the US, there will eventually be a split in the Catholic Church between the liberals and the conservatives—the cracks are already easy to see. Pope Benedict worked valiantly to keep the Church together with his “hermeneutics of continuity,” but apparently that’s over now.
Sad split, but it seemed evident that the Institute is more comfortable in a Novus Ordo facility. The Institute and Bishop wished to kick out of the congregation two old ladies who criticized the Institute. Great Christian values.
So what happened?
John Patrick:
Do you have some other information that is missing here? Since the Institute was founded for the purposes of offering the TLM, it seems bizarre to allege that they want a more modern structure unless some evidence is produced. I was in Five Wounds many years ago for a wedding. It was ideal for the TLM. Has it been subsequently renovated that makes it unsuitable?
St. Christopher:
I don’t read anything in this letter suggesting that San Jose wanted the Oratory to change from an exclusive TLM focus. The controversy seems to originate exclusively from within the Oratory, but has grown and now triggered that diocese to intervene. Is there some inside information you’re willing to share that makes you allege this?
To me, the whole thing seems to be one of those “defeat from the jaws of victory” episodes the traditionalist movement creates with depressing frequency.
The list of demands was published in the Oratory bulletin. The crisis was not brought about by the Board but by the Institute who wanted to take over the Oratory and based upon their statements to the Board from the past, sell it and take the money elsewhere, while destroying the only approved Tridentine site in the entire Diocese. Five Wounds is a Novus Ordo site.
Some one might reply that the three conditions mentioned in the Institute’s bulletin (01 Dec 2013) were craftily selected from the rest of the conditions.
AND the Institute requested that the board not release their letter of non-negotiable conditions, which the board honored. And the Institute had promised an amicable parting of the ways.
Actually, 3 years ago, dear Bp McGrath without any explanation cancelled the Latin Mass that was being said by the Institute of Christ the King @ Five Wounds Parish at that time, and forced the Oratory faithful into a tiny chapel (it seats about 40 people), even tho I regularly counted 150-200 people at the Five Wounds TLM every week. Now, being unable to stifle the request for the TLM by the Oratory community (and they were careful enough to buy and pay for the chapel property, ha!) in a larger facility, he cleverly authorizes a parallel Latin Mass at Five Wounds in order to divide the Latin Mass community. It wont work. Also, the worst nightmare for McGrath will be solid, cogent, intelligent sermons given by the SSPX (in contrast to his advocacy-sermons for gun control and raising the minimum wage in so-called Catholic diocese churches), sermons within 2 short blocks of Santa Clara University, stating again and again the SSPX case for what they believe and why they should not accept some tenets of Vat2. Many of the students of SCU who are trying to find a Catholic identity not present at the now-seculare university are going to hear a new take on the mistakes of the last 5 decades. “Self-absorbed Promethean neo-pelagians”, of course.
If one clicks on the picture, it is enlarged. I think some have done a beautiful job of combining the old with the new. Two fine looking altars. Even the modern altar in front has the old symbol of Christ on it — the Lamb of God.
The Oratory has been suppressed because the Board of Directors that runs the non-profit that owns the chapel property refused the Institute of Christ the King’s and the Bishop’s request for:
1. The liberty of the Rector in matters liturgical and pertaining to the disposition of items in the chapel and sacristy.
2. The election of eligible Board members to 3 year terms by all the faithful of the Oratory community.
3. The presence of the Rector at Board meetings and his permission for its proceedings.
[Dec 1 Oratory bulletin]
The Board (composed entirely of lay people) didn’t want to accept the authority of their pastor and the Church, pure and simple.
Has anybody ever heard of an election in a Catholic Church? Sounds like the Methodist Church. Secondly, isn’t it illegal according to Federal and State law to seek to throw persons off the Board because one filed a complaint with the Diocese, using their procedures, about being assaulted? And the other said she didn’t like the Institute.
The Board did not want to accept the non-negotiable terms made by the Institute in “giving” them the Oratory property and all furnishings the total of which is over $1.5M; there was no offer of compensation. That is the real reason they turned the Institute down. The Diocese thought that was okay as it was no skin off their nose.
My choice is made then. First choice: the Monterey County TLM in north Salinas; secondly, Five Wounds Parish. No way would I ever join with the SSPX. Sadly, they made a horrendous decision in not accepting the proposal for reunion made by Benedict XVI.
Costanoan: Do you have any references I might consult regarding the outcome of Pope Benedict’s attempt to bring the SSPX back into the fold? I would appear SSPX insisted on conditions the Vatican was unable to grant. The issue simply dropped off the radar. With Benedict’s retirement, it has no chance of revival. I would not put all the blame on SSPX; over the past fifty years, Rome has drifted very far from its anchorage, acquiring accretions perhaps too unpalatable for the traditionalists to swallow.
There is too much Catholic fraud in Vatican II!! And too much immorality in our bishops and popes, of post-Vatican II!! Bishop McGrath is no exception– very few of these men are true Christians, running a truly Christian Church!! These men are so worldly, and cowardly hypocrites to Christ!! They are also not truly Catholic– they are UNFAITHFUL, and SECULAR!!
What else is new? If I recall correctly Judas was an Apostle was he not?
remendoza 12/18/2013 is correct in listing some of the”official” issues for the Oratory community; but there are more. One of them was that the tiny chapel, which seats only about 40 people, was the only location Bp McGrath would permit the TLM in his diocese for the past nearly 3 years. It was completely inadequate. Many times, myself and relatives and family could not get into the chapel and you were forced to stand outside on the street for 90 or so minutes, heat or cold, summer or winter. We gave up. Many others gave up. The bishop knew this; everyone knew this. McGrath’s official positionstated many times is that “there isnt a desire for additional Latin Masses.” It was his way of granting permission without effectively enabling the act granted. Now, given the new papacy, he has started increasing restrictions on the Oratory, using (in my opinion) the ever-subservient (I mean that as a compliment) Institute of Christ the King as his kevlar jacket. Now he grants the use of Five Wounds, which is a beautiful church and has ample space, but only because the SSPX and the Oratory board forced him to. However, the Portuguese community who actually operate Five Wounds (it is a Portuguese National Church) have not been consulted (I have checked) and they do not want the Latin Mass community back at Five Wounds (I am a member of Five Wounds also, so no one I have talked to is in favor of this). But any port in a storm for McGrath: and now the SSPX are in a central easily-accessed location in San Jose (instead of the isolated retreat house in Los Gatos). Be careful what you set in motion, Bp PJ.
The Diocese put the chapel in a bind. The Institute wanted the Board of Directors of the chapel (A legal California corporation) to turn all possessions of the chapel including the property that the parishioners have been paying on the mortgage for several years, over to the Institute. No compensation was offered. The property is worth close to $1.5M. All sacred vessels and furnishings would also be turned over to the Institute. The bishop told the Board that they should take the offer or they’d be left out in the cold with no priest to say the Mass. When the Board turned down the offer the Institute left and the Diocese put an interdict on the chapel. This chapel has existed in the Diocese for over 20 years and never officially recognized by the Diocese until the Institute gave a helping hand. It was only in 2006 when the Institute offered to help and the Board accepted, the Diocese officially recognized the Chapel and made it an Oratory. The is no parish in this Diocese that offers the traditional Mass on a regular basis. The SSPX has offered to supply priests to say Mass with no strings attached; naturally any priest would be given a stipend each time they say Mass.
Let me assert something else: I read and hear a great amount of bitter animus against the SSPX, but it becomes clear to me that those who usually are most bitter vs the SSPX have not listened to their pastors who cogently, articulately state their case, nor have these opponents made any real effort to understand the SSPX position. It is well thought out, and is in part why the famous ex-communications of the SSPX bishops were lifted by JP2. I am AMAZED at the hostility directed against clearly dedicated men who hold what we held for centuries, who believe in practicing Catholic moral doctrine, who urge a higher level of the spiritual life than is often evidenced in some Catholic scenes. I contend that a Bp McGrath (whose major concerns are gun control and a higher minimum wage) could never engage in open debate with a Fr. Rostand or others of the SSPX: in fact it would be wise for him not to, because Bp PJ has evidenced many times his questionable teaching orthodoxy, such as his support of GLBT causes (noted above) , the ordination of women (he attended in his full episcopal robes and was seated in the sanctuary at the consecration of Episcopal bishop Mary Gray Reeves in Jan 2008), his famous statement that the scriptures are “not historical accounts” (SJ Mercury News opinion Feb 19, 2004),
or his authorizing union leaders (not even Catholic ones at that) to speak and preach from the pulpit during Mass on political causes. If you put a true thing beside a false thing, the false thing becomes obvious. No, I think it best that he not offer public debate with the SSPX.
But the SSPX sacraments are still illicit and illegal.
..There’s an open mind for you..
YFC: Illicit and illegal, but still valid!
Yes, valid, but illicit and illegal.
RR, as pointed out in Bishop McGrath’s letter, some sacraments by the SSPX are valid, some are not. Baptisms and Eucharists are valid, confessions (except in danger of death) and marriages are not, and Confirmation is doubtful.
There are a lot of people on here who have no knowledge of these events and they are making statements that are just plain wrong. Despite what the bishop may or may not have done in the past, this split had NOTHING to do with him. The situation at the chapel had become untenable and the Institute itself decided that it could no longer continue at that location. The bishop, in fact, was instrumental at getting the Institute and the faithful who follow them a spot at the most beautiful church in the diocese. It is a full apostolate, which includes daily Mass. The beauty and size of the church gives the apostolate room to grow, which was something that was lacking at the former location. The Portuguese and their pastor have been exceedingly welcoming. We should be grateful for this opportunity.
Thank you, Augustine. What you say is correct. I may not agree with everything going on in the diocese, but we cannot fault the Bishop in this situation. This unfortunate set of circumstances was entirely the choice of the board at the oratory which did not represent (or even consult) the rest of the Oratory community prior to withdrawing from the Institute. There were no stipulations that the Institute or the diocese be handed over the Oratory chapel, property or otherwise; this ultimately came down to control. They wanted control over all liturgical matters at the Oratory with no discretion for the rector. I would like to be as charitable as possible here, but it’s hard to take the side of a small group of board members who put money and control over the spiritual well being of the rest of the community. It’s situations like this that give traditionalists a bad name and provide cause for the larger church to be skeptical of our true motives. A very sad set of circumstances indeed.
Why is it that traditionalist groups always seem to get themselves in these pickles, with accusations flying left and right? You don’t often see these dustups outside of very rightist groups in the Church. Just observing.
Augustine, sorry, but you are “plain wrong” too, at least in not having all the facts, either: Fr. Silveira, under directions from Bp McGrath, “invited” the Oratory TLM people, but only after (as Mr. Cox points out) McGrath wanted complete control of the property that the Oratory people had paid for; but the Portuguese community were not involved and not consulted about the use of their church—none of us. I found out from the Diocese. Yes, Five Wounds is a beautiful church (I assume this is the church you are referring to as”the most beautiful church in the diocese”); but many including myself have requested a larger facility for the TLM for 3 years, and we were told by McGrath’s spokes-mouths “there is no need”. Were it not for the SSPX, the Oratory would not now have “room to grow” as you say, because the Diocese has been nothing but a stifling influence on the Catholic Latin Mass people in San Jose, and many priests have directly told me “we wish it would go away: soon they will all die out.” No, sir, you do not have all the facts.
By the way, when the Oratory/Institute of Christ the King Mass was cancelled in Sept. 2010, it was the Five Wounds parish council, comprised in part of important financial supporters, who did not want the Mass at the then-scheduled time (930 AM), but the fact is none of them (we have asked them) wanted the Latin Mass permanently at Five Wounds. It served Bp McGrath’s purpose to have a very limited possibility of attendance in a tiny chapel at one site in the entire diocese, where basically the Latin Mass participants, in complete violation of Summorum Pontificum, were forced not to attend.
Although a rumor was circulating to the effect, the Institute has stated that neither they nor the diocese had any intention of acquiring or selling the property. I believe them. This was all about the very reasonable conditions that they listed in the bulletin, per Xavier’s comment. The bottom line here however, is that the TLM community in San Jose is now in a much better position than before. This apostolate at Five Wounds has the chance of growing substantially and becoming prominent within the diocese with the blessing of the bishop. Isn’t that what we’re ultimately after? It’s no secret that the ecclesial climate is changing in the church and that we could lose much of what we gained under Pope Benedict. I think that we can all agree that it is in our best interest (as well as the interest of Our Lord) to conduct ourselves with charity and humility- especially at this time, when we have been given this great gift. If the Bishop, Institute, or Five Wounds community is reading this- THANK YOU for giving us this new opportunity.
Here’s a fascinating thing: We are told that Benedict XVI should have promoted “dialogue” with the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR) and avoided judgment; or that Pope Francis says we should not act “within rules which make us harsh judges” (n. 49, Evangelii Gaudium, exhortation), and that we are to avoid a “narcissistic and authoritarian elitism, whereby instead of evangelizing, one analyzes and classifies others” (n. 94, EG). PF says: ‘It always pains me greatly to discover how some Christian communities, and even consecrated persons, can tolerate different forms of enmity, division, calumny, defamation, vendetta, jealousy and the desire to impose certain ideas at all costs, even to persecutions which appear as veritable witch hunts.”(n. 100) In Pope Francis’ Sept 2013 discussion on atheism, he told the journalist Scalfari, “”The question for those who do not believe in God is to follow their own conscience. Sin, even for a non-believer, is when one goes against one’s conscience. ” So we are to promote dialogue, avoid judgment of others, certainly no witch hunts, and we can each follow our own conscience—-but NONE of this applies to the SSPX and their followers. I am truly fascinated.
Now your getting it! You can follow your conscience and you are in the same boat as the LCWR and atheists. Maybe God will have mercy on you and we pray that he does, but your wrong and we can’t let you go without at least trying to tell you that.
Uhhh. Anonymous: it was Pope Francis in September who said “everyone can follow his own conscience.” Are you aware of that?
He did not say that, exactly. Remember, the conscience is the voice of God in a person’s soul. So a person who does not believe in God yet, if they listen to their conscience-and that is sometimes a big if-will know right from wrong. The moral law is written on every heart. That is why not knowing God is no excuse for murder, stealing, adultery, lying, etc…
This is in Holy Scripture. Romans 2:12-15 It is not permission to do what “you don’t see anything wrong with” or “is nothing compared to war or terrorism.’ Pope Francis used it in a positive sense. if you are referring to the interview that I think you are, in saying that if people did what they knew was good and avoided doing what they knew was wrong, the world would be a better place.
I’m still not sure what the full truth is here, but thanks to the additional commentators in the thread for providing amplifying information on this sad tale. That is a benefit of a blog newsite like CCD: observers on the ground can provide more information than a press release.
Most observers on the ground do not have accurate information nor the full picture. What we get from these accounts tarnish the reputation of all parties involved. Better to pray for all, including the observers and spectators, and move on.
I ask for a truly studied and knowledge filled theologian with credentials to answer my questions:
1) Does the FSSP have its own bishops? If not,
2) What body ordains the FSSP priests?
3) By what ritual are the FSSP priests ordained?
4) If the FSSP has its own bishop(s), then by what ritual are FSSP bishops consecrated?
I desire straight honest and truthful answers with references to point me to verify those answers, and please no answers from those who pride themselves thinking they know the answers, when in reality, they do not as provable by their inability to show references.
Just seeking the truth! Thanks, pray the rosary for world peace, and have a blessed Advent.
Lets see this, This ‘bad’ Bishop, has given the faithful a Priests and a Facility to celebrate Mass in Union with him and the Holy Father. What is the problem again?
Augustine, I agree, that the fortuitous (or perhaps Providential) outcome of these events is to put the TLM and those who value it in the San Jose Diocese in a far better position. But also (and I am no “SSPX” ‘self-absorbed Promethean neo-pelagian’ —Pope Francis’ wonderfully charitable words), I note what you say:” ..This [TLM] apostolate at Five Wounds has the chance of growing substantially and becoming prominent within the diocese with the blessing of the bishop.” I submit that this outcome is due to the very presence of the SSPX as the muscular trad Catholic presence that forces Bp McGrath to make concessions he previously refused to make (esp. to put the Oratory TLM Mass in a large enough church where it could accomodate the numbers, which many have requested of PJ and his handlers for 3 years). I know some of the commentators above seem to take great pleasure in declaring SSPX and others “schismatic” and sedes-vacantist (they are not: they always pray for the Pope), but they dont seem to invest the same amount of energy in trying to understand their well-researched principles and desire for “what the Church has always taught.” Look for a moment: up until the Cardinal Stickler commission, the Vat2-Natl Cath Reporter wing of US Catholics was claiming that the Latin Mass had been juridically abolished by Paul VI. Now we know that is not the case. We know now that the eucharistic words of institution should be “for you and for many”, one of the SSPX and trad Mass arguments for 5 decades (not “for you and for all”). So, what else should we learn from this: listen up and learn.
Here is another interesting thing. Bp PJ McGrath’s official statement (noted above on CalCatholic) is in many places word-for-word exactly the same as a sharp rebuke to the SSPX by Bp Roger J. Foys of Covington, KY, in a pronouncement to his diocese May 23, 2013 [esp. stating “It is morally illicit (unlawful) for the Faithful to participate in Masses of the Society of St. Pius X unless they are legitimately impeded from participating in a Mass celebrated by a Catholic priest in good standing in the Church (cf. Code of Canon Law, canon 844.2). ” and “The fact of not being able to assist at the celebration of the “Tridentine” Mass is not considered a sufficient motive for attending Masses offered by priests of the Society of St. Pius X,” Foys wrote.] (I dont know which bishop plagiarized who :) — Foys or McGrath. Tongue-in-cheek). [ Foys has a very good conservative Catholic record trying to maintain a prayerful liturgy, and has also resolved apparently as well as can be done a massive abuse scandal from his predecessors’ eras. ] Foys was a canon lawyer prior to becoming bishop, and it seems it is his draft rebuking the SSPX that PJ McGrath almost entirely used as boiler-plate. He also repeats the questionable claim that the SSPX are in schism: questionable, because Card. Dario Castrillon Hoyos in Feb 8th, 2007 (Castrillon-Hoyos headed the Ecclesia Dei commission) stated: “Please accept that I reject the term “ecumenism ad intra.” The bishops, priests and faithful of the Society of St Pius X are not schismatics… The priests and faithful of the Society have not been excommunicated. They are not heretics.” He repeated this on at least 3 other occasions in different interviews, something that has been conveniently buried under the newer papal administration and the McGrath-type crowd. Now however a new wind, and an ill one at that, is blowing from the Tiber, and the zombie puppets are on the march.
One has to be careful to separate V II and interpretation of V II.
V II never defined itself as Dogmatic. Therefore nothing in it can be treated as the final word. when therefore there is a dispute, or lack of clarity, one has to go back and see what the Church has previously said.
As for the Novus Ordo, I personally prefer not to attend it. As Pope Francis would put it, I am ‘sensitive’ to the old right.
If I have to drive more miles to get to one, I will. But I also want to stay close to the Holy Church.
Steve, I realize what you’re saying and I don’t deny that things have sometimes been very difficult for those of us that have a legitimate attachment to the TLM. But we need to move forward from here. We’re in a great position at Five Wounds but that also comes with great responsibility. Our actions can make it or break it for us and if we mess up, it’s unlikely that we’ll get another chance in this environment. We need to stay away from publically criticizing the Bishop and the Novus Ordo. This plays right into the stereotypical opinions of traditionalists. I completely realize that there are double standards and that other groups within the Church don’t walk this same tightrope. It’s not fair but that’s the reality of the situation and we’re the ones with the most to lose. People are going to judge us by what we do and say and some people are going to be waiting and watching for our slightest misstep in an effort to get us out. As you say, it’s happened before. But we can confound them by constantly being charitable and humble. Especially in the midst of persecution, which we know will come. What greater model of this is there than Our Lord? We need to redouble our efforts to imitate Him. There were almost 200 people last Sunday. Imagine what a Latin Mass apostolate at Five Wounds could look like in 5 years.
Augustine: I hear what you’re saying. But having said that, whatever community that does ‘build up’ at Five Wounds should give thanks for the SSPX. God uses everything, even that which we may misconstrue as evil.
So if Bishop McGrath is forced to supply for the Latin Mass faithful, who are more than just ‘attached’, give great thanks. The SSPX works to your favor. Tradition will spread.
“Augustine:” You are completely wrong with this approach. Traditionalists cannot ever be successful with laying behind the log, as you suggest. Bishop McGrath, and many, many bishops, and the new Vatican, are simply apostates, and this needs to be called out. Benedict gave us the key to success, to victory, but it is not to be won easily. The request to return to the TLM, and “extraordinary” form of the sacraments, will always be denied, or grant permission with perverted conditions and intentions. This cannot be tolerated. There is nothing joyful or sacred about garnering the permission from a bishop like McGrath, notwithstanding apostolic succession (which the Anglicans, and others, also claim, but see Leo XIII). Benedict, notwithstanding some imperfect language, did not cede total control of the outcome of Summorum Pontificum to the bishops. In fact, the true “Great” Pope (in the post-Pius XII era) permits a juridical end-around the intransigence of modern bishops. Let them say “No”! Laugh at them. Appeal according to Summorum Pontificum and Universae Ecclesiae. Take the battle to the streets of the media. These are not holy men. These are not good men. These are not worthy men. Stand up. Be Catholic Men! As Pope John Paul II said, “Be Not Afraid!” Where is that perfect Doctor o the Church, St. Catherine of Siena when she is needed?
St. Christopher, I must respectfully disagree. Unlike our government, the Church is not a secular organization that is designed to bend to the will of public demand and scrutiny. We certainly should expect justice and holiness from our shepherds; however, if we don’t get that, we need to react in a way that differs from methods that we would use elsewhere in society. Regardless of the actions of the person, as Catholics, we’re bound to respect the Office of the Bishop. That doesn’t mean that we “lay behind the log” as you say, but it does mean that we need to look at the bigger picture and acknowledge Our Lord’s promise that the “gates of hell” will never prevail against His Church. G.K. Chesterton once wrote that if one is truly devoted to something, he must both love it and hate it. Love it enough to never give up on it and hate it enough to insist that it changes, no matter the cost to oneself. It is safe to say that many of us hate much what has happened to the Church over the last 50 years. That’s good. We must hate it with a passion that makes us willing to do whatever it takes to see it recover. But we must also never forget to love the Church- and that means never leaving, never giving up on it. The use of public media and gossip to pressure priests and bishops to exercise virtue does not show a love for our Church, which is organized as a hierarchy for a reason. Not only is it un-Catholic, it also doesn’t work.
When was the last time a bishop or priest relented to public pressure exerted by a group of traditionalists? If anything, those sorts of tactics only serve to entrench people in their positions. It’s true that Pope Benedict did provide the faithful an opportunity to get around a bishop who is obviously obstructing the TLM but, considering the current climate in Rome, I would expect whatever appellate dicastry that we may have recourse to is currently in the process of being rendered impotent. We can’t rely on that. We are a tiny minority in the Church and it would have been very easy for the Bishop to simply tell us to go away. But he didn’t. Regardless of the circumstances, no one but the Pope can force a Bishop to establish a Latin Mass apostolate. This was his call. We’re at Five Wounds because the priests/laypeople of the Institute charitably requested a place in this diocese. The Bishop responded in kind. How many of us have personally written to thank him? Regardless of what’s transpired in the past, isn’t a display of gratitude called for? What about a spiritual bouquet or inviting him to a special Mass or reception some day? If he declines, perhaps that act of charity will remain in his heart. My point is that we can best love the Church working within Her auspices and growing this new apostolate to ensure that it flourishes for years to come.
Institute of Christ the King in Gricigliano Italy members are not religious priests, and do not take religious vows, and are not part of a religious order. They are members of an Institute.