FSSP Responds to SSPX Protest

Fr Romanoski FSSP, has responded to the SSPX protest, and the flier that was passed out during the protest line by line. Fr. Romanoski is one of the priests at the FSSP parish in Mexico that was the victim of the SSPX's protests and disruption of Mass a few weeks ago. Don Paco over at Ite ad Thomam has made Father's response available.  Below are a few of the lines that caught my eye. To read the entire letter visit the link. I am glad that Fr. Romanoski wrote this letter and made it available to be read. He addresses the issue of ecumenism and the Vatican II documents well. If the SSPX folks would wake up and face reality by reading this, they would be reconciled with the Church tomorrow. 

Flyer text in black,

This means that the Fraternity of St. Peter must accept the following text of the Council: "This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him, although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure. These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic unity"; taken from Lumen gentium, no. 8, second paragraph.

Fr. Romanoski's Response in red,

Here the author assumes that, if one explicitly accepts paragraph 25 of Lumen gentium, one must also explicitly agree with paragraph 8.  Non sequitur.  What does follow from the traditional teaching of 25, is what has already been explained, that all magisterial documents must be accepted according to the orindary mode of theological interpretation, allowing for dubia where such texts are not infallible, nor seem clear. I know of no official position of the FSSP or of the SSPX regarding the expression, 'subsisit in'. Suffice it to say that Msgr. Lefebvre signed this document at the Council, and there was no objection made by any traditional bishop at the end of the Council that this phrase was heretical, but rather only ambiguous. I know of at least one FSSP priest who has investigated the subject thoroughly, writing a dissertation on the subject, who also noted that the phrase was introduced by the renowned Bellarmine scholar Trump, in order to affirm the exclusive substantial identification between the Catholic Church, and the Church of Christ. There are also the Vatican responses on the subject, and if any Catholic has subsequent doubts, he is of course free to write a dubium to the Vatican. And in the meantime all are of course free to express the faith in the arguably clearer forms of Pius XII, in Mystici Corporis, and Humani Generis #27, which very clearly are obliging Magisterial texts, since all official subsequent declarations of the Magisterium have only affirmed that they did not wish to undo the traditional teaching.

http://www.ewtn.net/library/Theology/subsistitin.htm

In the Council, H. Schauf wished to substitute adest with est, while S. Tromp responded by proposing subsistit in. It was Philips, the chairman of the discussion, who noted the acceptance of the term subsistit in. The change from adest to subsistit came, therefore, not from the Bishops but from members of the Commission, in the same way as the change from est to adest. It is not possible to identify the meaning that those present attributed to the term subsistit in.

The tape recording is more informative. It shows that Schauf disagreed with the term adest because in his opinion it was imprecise. Immediately Tromp replies:

Possumus dicere: itaque subsistit in Ecclesia catholica, et hoc est exclusivum [said very forcefully], in quantum dicitur: alibi non sunt nisi elementa. Explicatur in textu".³²

We can say, therefore that it subsists in the Catholic Church, and this is exclusive [said very forcefully], in so far as it is said that there are but elements. It is explained in the text.

In his opinion, therefore, the term subsistit in expresses a property that is exclusive to the Catholic Church.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070629_responsa-quaestiones_en.html

http://www.ewtn.net/library/CURIA/CDFBOFF.HTM

http://www.franciscan-archive.org/apologetica/subsist.html

And according to these conditions, the Fraternity of St. Peter will not be able to criticize the documents of the council.

Hence, according to these conditions, the FSSP will follow the traditional Catholic theological norms for questioning non-infallible statements of the Magisterium.

Therefore, our protest is not against a priest of this congregation, it is more general, against the entire institution called THE FRATERNITY OF ST. PETER, which was born ECUMENICAL and SILENCED even before it saw the light of day.

The protesters knew that the Mass that was going to be said in the chapel of the FSSP in Guadalajara the night of January 20th was not an ecumenical event, since the SSPX chapel was informed beforehand via email.  The manifest intent of those present handing out this flyer, therefore, in the presence of Fr. Puga SSPX leading the prayers, was simply to protest against the entire institution of the FSSP, which has carried on the mission of reintroducing the traditional rites and praxis into the heart of the Church, which now enjoys over 200 priests, and has trained hundreds and hundreds of priests, and even bishops worldwide on how to say the traditional Catholic Mass, while at the same time preaching traditional Catholic doctrine, as one can hear from the many audio recorded sermons available on-line, and as clearly seen in the sermon delivered during the Mass that night.