Rorate Caeli

"Lefebvrite bishop says no progress on reconciliation"

From the News Service of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops:
By John Thavis
Catholic News Service


ROME (CNS) -- A year after his meeting with Pope Benedict XVI, the head of the Society of St. Pius X, Bishop Bernard Fellay, said there had been no substantial progress on reconciliation with the Vatican.

Bishop Fellay said that after the terms of a possible agreement were discussed by cardinals and Roman Curia officials in meetings last spring "there's been no development" on the issue.

"I think probably the pope would like things to go quicker, and he's probably facing a lot of opposition from the cardinals, from within," Bishop Fellay said Aug. 24.

"Right now, there's not much happening in either direction," he said.

Bishop Fellay spoke by phone to Catholic News Service from the society's headquarters in Econe, Switzerland.

...
Read whole article here.
________

Comment on yesterday's news: as Theseus in the palace of Minos, you may try to get out of the maze by following a trail -- of flowers...

18 comments:

6reg said...

I think Bishop Fellay may be trying to be polite. I see absolutely no evidence that B16 really wants reconcilliation nor to turn back the "springtime". He's a "conservative" modernist but that still makes him a modernist.

Jordan Potter said...

Bishop Fellay's statements seem to agree with observations that have been made here recently -- there has been a slowdown to standstill in the attempts to end the schism. But now that Bishop Fellay election is past, perhaps in the months ahead we will begin to see movement again. But he is right that it is likely to be a few years.

Rumors are flying that in the months ahead Pope Benedict XVI may issue the long-hoped-for "universal indult." Who can say if that will really happen, but it would go a LONG way to achieving reconciliation between the Church and the SSPX.

Al Trovato said...

From where I am standing, it looks more like a trail of tears...

Matt said...

There's a pertinent quite that 6reg and al are missing:

"I think probably the pope would like things to go quicker, and he's probably facing a lot of opposition from the cardinals, from within"

If we assume that Bp. Fellay knows what he's talking about then, we should attribute the lack of progress to elements within the curia. With the likes of Sodano in there still, that should not be a surprise for people on this blog.

Luzarches said...

...remember all that talk of the universal indult? I think that the pope sees himself as an ecumenical figure within 'mainstream' catholicism.He's trying to keep together the de facto schismatics and conservatives. This leaves no room to make any gesture towards even indult traditionalists. The one thing that we have seen change, the 'mood music' in Rome where things like the position of the priest re the altar is being dicussed, is about as far as it will go in this pontificate. Expect no legislation.

Pertinacious Papist said...

"The question is not so much what the church should do about the Lefebvrite society, he said, but how the church should solve these more basic internal problems.

"'We are absolutely persuaded that when church authorities take these problems in hand, then we will no longer be a problem,' he said."


Whatever 'speck' of a problem the moderate clerics see in the SSPX as preventing reconciliation, it seems that here Bp Fellay has identified the 'log' that may be the far greater obstacle.

With Peter said...

What is SSPX's position on the theology of that agreement that Lefebvre signed and then reneged back in 88? Rome seems to be operating on the assumption that the theological questions were settled at that time, but the "schism" (or whatever you want to call it) happened because of Lefebvre's distrust that bishops would be provided for the society. This would explain why Rome is concentrating on offering a mutually acceptable canonical position for the society.

Sixtus V said...

I think Matt has a very valid point. Goodbye Sodano! The Holy Father must first get control of the Curia, and put the CDF front and center again.

The thing that strikes me as amusing from some of the schismatics running about in these virtual parts, is that they expect the Holy Father can snap his fingers and the Curia and Church will obey. They do, however, fail to see the irony of position in the light of their own disobedience.

Sixtus V

Long-Skirts said...

Sixtus V says:

"The thing that strikes me as amusing from some of the schismatics...is that they expect the Holy Father can snap his fingers and the Curia and Church will obey. They do, however, fail to see the irony of position in the light of their own disobedience."

Dear Sixtus V,

The upcomming Assisi meeting is reported, partly below, by ZENIT as having "representatives of the great world religions, from the Dalai Lama to the Anglican archbishop of Canterbury."

GREAT WORLD RELIGIONS??!!!!

Hmmmmmm...I've had 10 children can I get a tubal ligation now like them Anglicans? If they are of a GREAT RELIGION, too, then it must be alright to get sterilized!!

"Interreligious Meeting Planned in Assisi

20 Years After World Day of Prayer for Peace

ROME, AUG. 23, 2006 (Zenit.org).- Twenty years after the World Day of Prayer for Peace, the Italian city of Assisi will again be a point of interreligious meeting and prayer on Sept. 4-5.

The World Day that Pope John Paul II convoked in St. Francis' city in October 1986 was unprecedented. It saw, gathered alongside the Pontiff, representatives of the great world religions, from the Dalai Lama to the Anglican archbishop of Canterbury."

BLIND FROGGY

Litto froggy cross da pond
Hope some fairy's got a wand
Hit you hard up-side yo head
Shed some light...yo brains is bread.

You ain't got sense, no nuffin'
Brains is made of bran-flake muffin.
Wolfy-sheep done called you near
Ups you hopped, ran like a deer.

Him brother froggies followed too
And jumped right in wolf-sheepy's stew.
Then there you be all puffed with pride
And one by one them froggies died.

Then froggy Pop, he called, "My sons?"
And wolfy-sheep, his meal all dones,
Says, "Litto frog get outa' hea'.
Tomorrow bring yo sistas dea'."

And litto frog, he hop away
'Cause litto frog, he do obey.
And litto froggy hopped, hopped, hop,
Tumbled, tripped into his Pop.

And froggy Pop asked, "What you say?"
Said litto frog, "I do obey,
And all my litto brothers, too,
They helped the wolf make sheepy stew."

Then froggy Pop, him hung him head,
And took him son away and led
Him hoppin' down the woodsy lane
And put in froggy's hand his cane

All shiney white to help him see...
...nuffin'.

With Peter said...

Long-skirts- Firstly, you are confusing greatness for moral goodness, a thing or person can be great without being good. Alexander is called "Great" because he conquered lands from Greece to India by his early thirties. Emperor Constantine is rightly called "great" regardless of whether he was a saint.

Secondly, the historical world religions deserve more respect than the various sects and cults that arise for a season and then fade away. Although Catholicism and Buddhism are irreconcilably different, they have more in common than with Enlightenment philosophies. Calling Hinduism a "great religion" does not imply that one thinks its an acceptable alternative to the Catholic faith.

Matt said...

happened because of Lefebvre's distrust that bishops would be provided for the society

Justified or not, Lefebvre consecrated bishops after the Holy See had turned down 100 nominations for the bishop that he had been promised. This gives good reason for him to believe that the Holy See had reneged.

With Peter said...

Yes, Matt, although I'd never heard that the Holy See had turned down 100 nominations (can you provide a reference for me?), I'd definitely say that Lefebvre had reason to believe that the Holy See would not provide promised bishops for SSPX in a timely manner.

But my point is that I think in conversations, in blogs and in SSPX's declaration a lot of emphasis is given to theological differences which make unity difficult. But I think the Holy See is operating on the assumption that these were already settled, but its a manner of providing an adequate canonical and regular status for SSPX (which was the tragic failure of 1988).

While siding theologically "with Peter," I have great sympathy for SSPX and Lefebvre on this point. It seems that the "schism" could have been easily averted by simply promising to provide a bishop by a certain date. This does not mean that what Lefebvre did was justified, but perhaps it is understandable.

tubby015 said...

"It seems that the "schism" could have been easily averted by simply promising to provide a bishop by a certain date."

Isn't this what Lefebvre waited for,was the simple promise of a date and a bishop's name or did I read his biography incorrectly? I guess after the third or fourth time it would appear to be what one would call a 'poker bluff'...either way Fellay has legitimate fears as do all the Indult communities if they had any sense.

With Peter said...

Yes, Tubby015, but at the same time, the pope did not "owe" SSPX a bishop. He is the sovereign pontiff and unless we are going to take a very modernist approach--such as 6reg displays at the top of the page in his slanderous judgment of "B16"--we owe him full assent of mind and submission of will.

There is no "calling the pope's bluff." We are not on equil and opposite ends of the same table from the Vicar of Christ.

Philothea said...

"It seems that the "schism" could have been easily averted by simply promising to provide a bishop by a certain date. This does not mean that what Lefebvre did was justified, but perhaps it is understandable."

They were stalling in the hope that the Archbishop would die and leave the Society without a bishop. Then all bets would have been off, to continue the poke analogy. ;)

With Peter said...

It's too bad because the more time has elapsed since 1988, the more polemical and sedevacantist SSPX seems to get. Look at Williamson's words. He basically says sedevacantist Cekada has an opinion with which he disagrees (for now). He is not rushing to condemn the sedevacantist enterprise, which shows how SSPX--or perhaps it is better to say, part of SSPX--is drifting from Lefebvre.

Philothea said...

with peter said:
It's too bad because the more time has elapsed since 1988, the more polemical and sedevacantist SSPX seems to get. Look at Williamson's words. He basically says sedevacantist Cekada has an opinion with which he disagrees (for now). He is not rushing to condemn the sedevacantist enterprise, which shows how SSPX--or perhaps it is better to say, part of SSPX--is drifting from Lefebvre."

First of all, the SSPX is not becoming "more sedevacantist" (whatever that means), especially when one considers the fact that Fr Schmidberger recently gave several conferences in the US that were contra sedevacantist.

I have also heard Bp Williamson speak on the topic of sedevacantism on several occasions and he makes a very convincing case that it is a heretical position.

Furthermore, the Angelus has published articles as well as a book which refutes the position.

Can you please provide specific examples that support you contention that the SSPX is sedevacantist? In order to become "more sedevacantist" it must be established that they already are, no?

Also, please be specific as to how "part of the SSPX" is drifting from Archbishop Lefebvre.

With Peter said...

"Williamson makes a very convincing case that sedevacantism is a heretical position"

Boy that sure didn't come through in the interview that New Catholic just posted. Look for instance at the way he answered the question: is Fr. Cekada right or is Bishop Tissier right? “Myself, I believe that Benedict XVI is the true pope so I think Bishop Tissier is right.” Not hardly the unequivocal language we are used to from Williamson is it? Does he say “myself, I believe that Benedict has a modern mind so I think his mind is sick”? No, here he shoots his mouth off, but when it comes to sedevacantism, he chooses his words with care, one might even say reverence.

Later in the interview, Williamson explains that Benedict has not lost his office because he doesn’t know he is denying what he doesn’t know to be a defined dogma of the Catholic faith. And then he agrees that the only difference between his position and Cekada’s is that Cekada believes Benedict XVI knows better. Ergo, if Williamson ever feels like concluding that Benedict XVI does in fact know better, he will be a sedevacantist.

Now, I know Fr. Anthony Cekada personally and if he feels like it he is going to tear Williamson to pieces. There is absolutely no comparison between their intellectual or discursive ability. Cekada will probably take it easy on Williamson, however, for the simple reason that Williamson is his best hope for leading SSPX into sedevacantism. And that is Cekada’s dream. Cekada’s a fox. He picks his fights intelligently, running from the strong, attacking the weak and supporting those whose interests most coincide with his own. He also has an extremely humble and pastoral streak running through him. He really would make an outstanding priest if he wasn’t so busy securing his place as an heresiarch.

In 1988, the break between SSPX and the Church was basically reducible to structural guarantees. The theological dialogue had borne fruit and the future looked promising. Since 1988 and especially since Campos returned to the Church, these sorts of bombastic attacks and careless and insulting accusations of heresy have increased. See if you can find Tissier’s interview which is referred to the interview on this website. I believe Fellay and the majority of SSPXers want to see a reunion with an ever more decisively orthodox and traditional Magisterium. I think they want piece, security and respect for their approach to tradition. They also have some honest concerns and doubts about the doctrines advocated by the Council and in post-conciliar period.

But not so with Williamson, Tissier and their devotees, not so. They want war and they want to come out looking like Athanasius.

Philothea, I don’t want a fight. Tell me if what I have written confirms or contradicts your experience.