Rorate Caeli

Updated
SSPX asks for removal of excommunications
Official SSPX note. I.MEDIA. APIC


[Update-1600 GMT] The official news agency of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X (FSSPX / SSPX), DICI, has published the first official communiqué of the Fraternity on current events:

On the matter of the ultimatum of Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos

On June 4, 2008, at the request of Cardinal Darío Castrillón Hoyos, president of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, the Superior General of the Fraternity of Saint Pius X, Bishop Bernard Fellay, went to Rome, along with the 2nd Assistant General, Father Alain-Marc Nély.

In the course of the meeting, a memorandum, in the form of an ultimatum, was given to him, an answer being demanded by the end of the month of June. On June 23, contrarily to custom, Italian daily Il Giornale revealed the existence of this ultimatum and published its content, on the next day, in its electronic edition. The information was picked up in the following days by the entire international press. Therefore, in addition to the urgency of the ultimatum, there was media pressure.

The document of Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos included five demands: besides a positive answer asked for before the end of June, the Fraternity of Saint Pius X, in the person of its Superior General, should commit (1) to "a response proportionate to the generosity of the Pope"; (2) "to avoid every public intervention which does not respect the person of the Holy Father and which may be negative to ecclesial charity"; (3) to "avoid the claim to a Magisterium superior to the Holy Father and to not propose the Fraternity in contraposition to the Church"; (4) to "display the will to act honestly in full ecclesial charity and in respect for the authority of the Vicar of Christ".

It should be noticed that the very generic, not to say vague, character of the proposed demands contrasts remarkably with the urgency of an ultimatum. These conditions seem to aim at the achievement of a climate favorable to an ulterior dialogue, rather than being precise commitments on exact points. The Fraternity of Saint Pius X wishes that this dialogue be situated at a doctrinal level and take into consideration all questions which, if evaded, would run the risk of turning obsolete a canonical position established in haste. It considers that the prior withdrawal of the decrees of excommunication of 1988 would favor the serenity of such dialogue.

The Fraternity of Saint Pius X does not claim to exercise a Magisterium superior to that of the Holy Father, neither intends to oppose itself to the Church. Following its founder, it intends to transmit that which it has received, that is, "that which has been believed always, everywhere, and by all". It makes its own the profession of faith which Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre addressed to Paul VI on September 24, 1975: "It is to His Vicar whom Jesus Christ entrusted the mission to confirm his brothers in the faith and whom He demands to watch so that every bishop will faithfully guard the deposit, according to the words of Saint Paul to Timothy."

It is in this sense that Monsignor Fellay responded to the ultimatum in a letter to Pope Benedict XVI, on Thursday, June 26, 2008. Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos simply noticed the reception of this response on the following day.

Until further information is available, no comment will be made.

Father Alain Lorans
[Spokesman]
(Permanent link for the French text.)

______________________________________

[Update-1605 GMT] Swiss news agency APIC adds the following: " 'The letter is on the Pope's bureau,' it [the Pontifical Commisson Ecclesia Dei] has indicated, noticing that 'discretion' should be kept in this affair."

______________________________________

[Original text:] Agence France-Presse (AFP) publishes today the information that the Rome-based French religious news agency I.MEDIA reports that the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X (FSSPX / SSPX) has asked the Holy See to lift the excommunications:

The Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X has asked the Vatican to lift the excommunications pronounced against it, an Integrist [sic] organization, to display its will to dialogue, according to religious news agency I.Media.

The Superior of the Fraternity, Bishop Bernard Fellay, sent Pope Bendict XVI a letter responding to the conditions posed by the Vatican to a reintegration of this organization, founded by schismatic [sic] bishop Marcel Lefebvre, the agency notes.

According to an internal note of the Fraternity mentioned by I.Media, Bishop Fellay asks that the dialogue "be placed at a doctrinal level" and that he may avoid every hastiness. He underlines that "prior withdrawal of the excommunication of 1988 would favor the serenity of such a dialogue".
...
"These conditions seem to aim the achievement of a climate favorable to an ulterior dialogue rather than precise commitments on exact points," the Priestly Fraternity considers in its note.
It seems step one of the "One-Two-Three Strategy" is about to be completely accomplished.

54 comments:

Anonymous said...

o yes the key word DIALOLOG Rome loves that word...

Anonymous said...

This is absolutely wonderful news. Now, it's up to Rome to advance the ball down the field with the lifting of excommunications. If that happens, then the SSPX must take the next step. Sooner or later, with enough steps, they'll come together in full communion.

St. Athanasius, ora pro nobis.

Jason said...

So, should I read this as 'Breaking News' or 'Status Quo'? I ask because it seems the SSPX has always viewed removing the excommunications as a precondition for any talks...

New Catholic said...

Jason: The SSPX has sent an official letter asking for it explicitly. That is the news.

Wm. Christopher Hoag said...

If the language of the letter to Rome in fact requests a lifting of the excommunications, well...this is a big development.

The FSSPX has always denied the validity of the excommunications. To formally ask for these to be lifted would be a GREAT act of humility and sign of good will.

Lhd said...

There is a problem Mgr. Fellay doesn't understand: if the lifting of the excommunications occurs then it must follow a canonical agreement because of the incardination (can 265) that regular priests and Bishops must have to exercise their powers.

Anonymous said...

ANOTHER NEWS ALERT:

Vatican’s Working Document for Synod
Undermines Inerrancy of Sacred Scripture

By John Vennari

On June 12 the Vatican released its “Instrumentum laboris” (working document) for the upcoming October Synod of Bishops.
The document entitled “The Word of God in the Life and the Mission of the Church” contains a disturbing section that appears to undermine the inerrancy of Sacred Scripture.

Go to www.cfnews.org/SynodScripture.htm


See also:

TUESDAY, JUNE 17, 2008

Synod on Scripture 3 Months Away
http://mauricepinay.blogspot.com/2008/06/synod-on-scripture-3-months-away.html

The upcoming synod of bishops on Scripture has finally registered on the trad radar--now that it's only 3 months away. "Better late than never," they say. But I prefer to say, early is better than late. That's why I was warning people about this matter 13 months ago when there was still time to bring pressure to bear on the Judaizing elements who will now, no doubt, run amok at the synod--that is, barring a miracle. I leave it to the reader to guess whether such a miracle is deserved.

I wonder when the trads will address the Vatican document which implies that the Talmudic "Noahide Laws" are found in the New Testament. Perhaps, sometime after the "Noahide Laws" are written into the Catechism ...

Kosher Catholic Exegesis

What to Expect From 2008 Synod

Highlights From Itinerary For 2008 Synod

Vatican: "Christians Can Learn Much From 'Jewish' Exegesis of Past 2000 Years"

More Signs of What to Expect from the October Synod

Papal Commission Promotes Noahide Laws

Cerimoniere said...

Not really: the clergy were suspended for 12 years without being excommunicate. There's no reason the process can't unfold back the same way.

Anonymous said...

Please note that Thomas J. Herron has passed away.

Requiem aeternam dona ei, Domine.
Et lux perpetua luceat ei.
Requiescat in pace.
Amen.
Anima ejus et animum omnium fidelium defunctorum per misericordiam Dei requiescant in pace.
Amen.

Anonymous said...

It's a good thing that we have so many canon lawyers on this website to offer their expertise and advice to all involved.

What would the Holy Father and Bishop Fellay do without them?

PJL

Jordanes said...

LHD said: There is a problem Mgr. Fellay doesn't understand: if the lifting of the excommunications occurs then it must follow a canonical agreement because of the incardination (can 265) that regular priests and Bishops must have to exercise their powers.

That's wrong. Lifting the excommunications is not tied to incardination or jurisdiction. Msgr. Lefebvre was suspended a divinis for several years before he was excommunicated. If the excommunications are to be lifted, there need not be a prior lifting of the suspensions. That's another issue to be worked out alongside to, not dependent on, the lifting of the excommunications.

Dan Hunter said...

This is very hopeful news!

Let us pray the Divine Office that the FSSPX are soon regularized, and we can see their priests offering Holy Mass in diocesan cathedrals and parishes.
We need them, badly.

Deo Gratias!

Pascendi said...

Let us continue to pray that the cardinal (and hence the Pope) continue to build trust with Bishop Fellay -- both sides are under intense pressure from Evil to stop any eventual agreement.

Agnes said...

Didn't Paul VI remove the excommunication of the Orthodox without the following "canonical agreement because of the incardination (can 265) that regular priests and Bishops must have to exercise their powers"?

Jordanes said...

Al said: Judging from items "missing in action" followed by "comments disabled" on this site, . . .

But then all inconvenient Word of God and teachings of the Saints, Doctors, Popes, and Councils must be censored, erased from this site.

Quick censor all the above!


Al, people who obsessively post and repost the same off-topic message over and over again in various commentboxes are going to be censored -- especially when the message is a Protestant Fundamentalist one like yours is. Jesus says in Luke 21 that the sign of the abomination of desolation is, or was, Jerusalem surrounded by armies, not the Pope and the Catholic Church losing the one true faith. The Great Apostasy prophesied by the Apostles involves the clear and explicit denial of the Incarnation, as St. John said. There is no doubt that the Catholic Church and her holy pontiff in Rome upholds the Incarnation. Therefore your Protestant speculation that Rome has fallen away from the truth is erroneous, and I doubt New Catholic is likely to favor attempts to propagate that message here.

Al said...

Jordanes, the Douay Rheims offers exegesis of Daniel 9:27's "abomination of desolation" different from your own obsessive error:

http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=32&ch=9&l=27&f=s#x

"The abomination of desolation"... Some understand this of the profanation of the temple by the crimes of the Jews, and by the bloody faction of the zealots. Others of the bringing in thither the ensigns and standard of the pagan Romans. Others, in fine, distinguish three different times of desolation: viz., that under Antiochus; that when the temple was destroyed by the Romans; and the last near the end of the world under Antichrist. To all which, as they suppose, this prophecy may have a relation.

Too, the phrase "abomination of desolation" does not appear in Luke 21.

As has been said, converts should have a bit more humility than they exhibit on this site. Steeped in a lifetime of error, including erroneous exegesis as you exhibit now, you would do well to listen and learn once in a while.

Paulo said...

"Vatican’s Working Document for Synod
Undermines Inerrancy of Sacred Scripture"


The English translation is a horrible translation. The Portuguese, Spanish and Latin translations all say:

Although the Holy Scripture is inspired in all its parts, its inerrancy concerns only to "that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation" (DV 11);

Anonymous said...

Paolo, you really have to wonder about the authors, don't you?

"Although the Holy Scripture is inspired in all its parts, its inerrancy concerns only to 'that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation.'" (DV 11);"

The obvious inference is that these modernists allow that the Holy Spirit might have inspired error in some matters. These men make a fallible God in their own image.

What satanic gall! But so typical of the Talmudic pilpul that passes for Catholic exegesis these days.

Athanasius said...

There is a problem Mgr. Fellay doesn't understand: if the lifting of the excommunications occurs then it must follow a canonical agreement because of the incardination (can 265) that regular priests and Bishops must have to exercise their powers.

This is not a difficulty for the Pope since he is the author of Canon law and can create his own structures as he wishes. In following the same canons, he can make use of the vehicles that already exist such as a personal prelature, or the medieval example of the abbots of Cluny, and incardinate them under his own authority, or that of a titular Church. The issue is could he do that for say Bishop Williamson? It seems to me incorporating the society in such a way would demand a certain agreement in doctrine first, or the understanding thereof.

Athanasius said...

The obvious inference is that these modernists allow that the Holy Spirit might have inspired error in some matters. These men make a fallible God in their own image.

anonymous,

This is actually a modernist translation. The original Latin reads:

Cum ergo omne id, quod auctores inspirati seu hagiographi asserunt, retineri debeat assertum a Spiritu Sancto, inde Scripturae libri veritatem, quam Deus nostrae salutis causa, Litteris Sacris consignari voluit, firmiter, fideliter et sine errore docere profitendi sunt.

Which reads:

"Therefore, that everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers ought to be held as having been asserted by the Holy Ghost, thereupon it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching the truth solidly, faithfully and without error, which God willed to be placed into the sacred writings for the sake of our salvation."

That is quite different from the modernist gloss. The qualifying and limiting gloss doesn't exist in the original, and was contrived by modernists who were angry at Pope Paul VI's intervention in the production of this document.

Syriacus said...

***UPDATE from DICI*** :


Au sujet de l’ultimatum du cardinal Castrillón Hoyos


Le 4 juin 2008, à la demande du cardinal Dario Castrillón Hoyos, président de la Commission pontificale Ecclesia Dei, le supérieur général de la Fraternité Saint-Pie X, Mgr Bernard Fellay, s’est rendu à Rome accompagné du 2nd assistant général, l’abbé Alain-Marc Nély.

Au cours de l’entretien, il lui a été remis un memorandum sous forme d’ultimatum, exigeant une réponse pour la fin du mois de juin. Le 23 juin, contrairement aux usages, le quotidien italien Il Giornale révélait l’existence de cet ultimatum et en livrait le contenu, le lendemain, dans son édition électronique. L’information était reprise les jours suivants par l’ensemble de la presse internationale. Ainsi, à l’urgence de l’ultimatum s’ajoutait une pression médiatique.

Le document du cardinal Castrillón Hoyos formulait cinq exigences : outre une réponse positive réclamée avant la fin juin, la Fraternité Saint-Pie X, en la personne de son supérieur général, devait s’engager (1) à « une réponse proportionnée à la générosité du pape » ; (2) à « éviter toute intervention publique qui ne respecte pas la personne du Saint Père et qui serait négative pour la charité ecclésiale » ; (3) à « éviter la prétention d’un magistère supérieur au Saint Père et à ne pas proposer la Fraternité en contraposition avec l’Eglise » ; (4) à « démontrer la volonté d’agir honnêtement en toute charité ecclésiale et dans le respect de l’autorité du Vicaire du Christ ».

On remarquera que le caractère très général, pour ne pas dire vague, des exigences formulées tranche singulièrement avec l’urgence d’un ultimatum. Ces conditions semblent viser à obtenir un climat favorable à un dialogue ultérieur, plutôt que des engagements précis sur des points déterminés. La Fraternité Saint-Pie X souhaite que ce dialogue se situe au niveau doctrinal et prenne en compte toutes les questions qui, si elles étaient éludées, feraient courir le risque de rendre caduc un statut canonique établi dans la précipitation. Elle pense que le retrait préalable des décrets d’excommunication de 1988 favoriserait la sérénité d’un tel dialogue.

La Fraternité Saint-Pie X n’a pas la prétention d’exercer un magistère supérieur à celui du Saint Père, ni ne cherche à s’opposer à l’Eglise. A la suite de son fondateur, elle entend transmettre ce qu’elle a reçu, c’est-à-dire « ce qui a été cru toujours, partout et par tous ». Elle fait sienne la profession de foi que Mgr Marcel Lefebvre adressait à Paul VI, le 24 septembre 1975 : « C’est à son Vicaire que Jésus-Christ a confié la charge de confirmer ses frères dans la foi et qu’Il demande de veiller à ce que chaque évêque garde fidèlement le dépôt, selon les paroles de saint Paul à Timothée ».

C’est en ce sens que Mgr Fellay a répondu à l’ultimatum dans une lettre au pape Benoît XVI, le jeudi 26 juin 2008. Le cardinal Castrillón Hoyos a simplement accusé réception de cette réponse, le lendemain.



Jusqu’à plus ample informé, il ne sera pas fait de commentaire.

Abbé Alain Lorans

Anonymous said...

When I was provided the URL for Fr. [deleted] FSSP's sermons, there was no intimation that Fr. [deleted] FSSP's identity required secrecy. Neither is the admonition on the home page.

Huh? This is what the website says:

Who are the priests giving these sermons?

The priests you hear in the recordings on this website are Catholic Priests, in good standing with their local ordinaries, incardinated with normal faculties and jurisdiction, and serving in North America.


Okay... so why not just say who the priests are?

Because they have duties and responsibilities as priests to care for the souls of the Faithful entrusted to them. By remaining unidentified, their attention for their flock won't be divided by folks outside of their parish who might seek them out for questions rather than going to their local priests. Moreover, the message they happen to be preaching -- the Catholic Faith -- is what is important, not the human beings who are preaching it.

Syriacus said...

The link to the communique: http://www.dici.org/accueil.php?loc=FR

Anonymous said...

Until now, I have been the one saying over and over again that a withdrawal of the 1988 declarations of excommunication was coming. Now I urge caution and prayer instead. Here are some points:

1. First of all, Fr. Zuhlsdorf is unclear over at his site when he claims that this all points to the need for some sort of public apology from the S.S.P.X before the penalties can be lifted. Bishop Fellay, representing the Fraternity, has apparently sent Rome a positive note. Rome has given a positive response to it (or so we are told). Rome could lift the penalties and merely make public the general content of Fellay's note. Moreover, Fellay himself may make his note public. Since a news agency is quoting from it, that may be what has happened. In any event, what is important is that what Fellay has written is adequate.

2. At this point, we must be wary of anything written by a leftist news agency which calls us by the pejorative 'integrists'. What is their source? We don't know. So far, one journalist after another has misreported this story. For example, this story contradicts entirely the one from "Le Figaro" and the one from "Le Monde". They, in turn, contradicted Tornielli's original story. The recent stories on E.W.T.N. were also patched up lies, based on old news and then sewn together so as to imply a recommendation that the Pope merely talk to the Society but do nothing more.

I am not saying that this story is untrue, only that we don't know if it is reliable--yet.

3. My prediction all along has been that, IF the first story was true, the Pope would lift the 1988 declarations of excommunication by today and that this would be published by tomorrow. I see no reason to change that. Therefore, we need to continue to pray.

Let us pray that the Pope will withdraw the 1988 declarations and somewhat further, granting faculties for Society priests for the time being.

If tomorrow is too soon for Rome to publish such a decree, the other possible significant date would be next Monday, the first anniversary of "Summorum Pontificum".

Of course, I would also like to see the international jurisdiction but I don't expect that this soon.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

"Care to toss me on the fire with 2nd Thessalonians, Daniel, St. Francis, and the rest?"

Sure. Why not? Then perhaps we can carry on with the discussion uninterrupted.

M.A. :-)

Lhd said...

PKTP:

Once the lifting of the excommunications, can we approach a suspens priest for sacraments without commiting mortal sin??? especially if we consider that the state of necessity is gone.

Anonymous said...

On Ihd's comments and some others:

1. First of all, this is NOT the first time the S.S.P.X has asked for the lifting of the excommunications. It was one of the pre-conditions MADE PUBLIC by the S.S.P.X three years ago.

2. Secondly, asking for this DOES NOT imply that the Society thinks that the declarations of excommunication are valid. The Society thinks that they are invalid but that it would foster good relations with Rome and help the Society in the field if they were lifted. Even the appearance of excommunications will obviously hinder the Society's work, since many good traditionalists will think the penalty to be valid.

3. Thirdly, remember that only the four bishops are declared to be excommunicated. Lifting the penalties is not the same thing as achieving regularisation, in which each priest must be incardinated somewhere.

4. Rome can override Canon 265 and provide faculties directly, sincde the Pope is also a bishop one who has universal jurisdiction. This will likely be seen as useful here, since we ARE NOT about to see the Society ask for or accept regularisation. The Society has made it crystal clear that it will not accept regularisation until doctrinal discussions have been completed successfully.

Secondly, Ihd, the Society's priest were not incardinated anywhere between 1976 and 1988 and yet there were no excommunications in that period. We may be about to return to that situation. I hope not because, according to some canonists, that would mean that, although the Society priests would all be Catholic and 'not-excommunicated', they would be 'vagrants' (wandering clerics) and, therefore, their Masses would be illicit and, perhaps, not fulfil the obligation.

Darío Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos, as president of the P.C.E.D., has already found that their Masses are presently illicit but nevertheless fulfil the Sunday obligation. However, he did not have the competence to make that finding, and some have said that he went too far. We need something from the Pope on this, or from the President of the Pontificial Counci for Leglislative Texts, but preferably a declaration from the Pope.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

On P.J.L.'s comments"

Well, if the popes had consulted good canonists in the first place, we wouldn't be in this hole. Paul VI, through "De Missali Romano", 1971, declared that priests no longer had the right to celebrate the old Mass. Benedict XVI, in 2007, found the exact opposite. Both can't be right. At least us dolts understand the law of non-contradiction. But the blind 'neo-conservatives' merely think that whatever the reigning pope thinks on any subject from dogma to ice cream must be correct.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

I don't see what I. Media is basing it perception on regarding SSPX sending such a letter.

Sorry folks, this is nice, but just a wishful thinking.


Just imagine, lifting the ex... solves nothing about the chasm and the break Vatican II created.

The issue of ex...(which in this case one of "late sententiae") will also be automatically "lifted"
by resolving the blockage of the council's reforms.
Start praying, friends.

Dan Hunter said...

"Secondly, asking for this DOES NOT imply that the Society thinks that the declarations of excommunication are valid"

This is not true for all the priests in the FSSPX.
My uncle who is a priest in the Fraternity, acknowledges the fact that excommunication was incurred "latae sententiae" [spelling] at the time of the consecrations.
He has also told me that he is not alone in the Society, in believing this.

God bless you.

Anonymous said...

On Ihd's last comments:

I agree that the state of necessity is gone, although the S.S.P.X apparently does not.

On the matter of the Mass, the question is how to interpret le mot "Catholic" in Canon 1248.1. The Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos has found in a letter that this allows the faithful to attend such Masses and fulfil their Sunday obligation there. He including receiving Holy Communion and even making a small contribution. Some canonists have disputed this.

The Pope could use his universal jurisdiction to provide faculties for Society priests pending more negotiations.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

To P.K.T.P,

You obviously missed the direction of my satire. It is laughable for someone on this blog to write "there is a problem that Mgr. Fellay doesn't understand". Does anyone on this site presume to think that they are smarter than either Bishop Felly or Benedict XVI?

And as far as the rest of your response is concerned I think you're barking up the wrong tree. Being an underground tradiotionalist most of my life I had the unique experience of having interacted with the SSPX, SSPV, FFSP, ICKSP, a couple of sedavecantist bishops who we won't mention, and have attended several indult masses accross the eastern United States.

I received my first communion from Archbishop Levebre, I've met Bishop Williamson, Archbishop Tuck, Micheal Davies and a bunch of other traditionalists that I'm sure my Dad knows the names of. That was all by the age of 21. How many 10 year olds do you know that understand what a sedavecantist is?

So my point is, I understand your point but to me it's old news and I've heard it 1000 times before. I understand that people need a forum to vent and display their vast knowledge of theology, canon law, and in the case of "Al" end of the world prophesies. But there are times when my "give it a break" meter goes off and I feel the need to spout off.

PJL

Mark said...

Al: please stop being so precious. I hadn;t meant to appear heavy-handed, though I would have thought one would read the "About" page!

Anonymous said...

There is still hope!

Anonymous said...

"Well, if the popes had consulted good canonists in the first place, we wouldn't be in this hole. Paul VI, through "De Missali Romano", 1971, declared that priests no longer had the right to celebrate the old Mass. Benedict XVI, in 2007, found the exact opposite. Both can't be right."

Quite, which is why many people don't believe Benedict's view either.

GD said...

"Statut" in the French should be translated "status" in English. A reference to the personal prelature? Obviously they don't want any such structure until doctrinal matters have been clarified.

Anonymous said...

God Bless the great Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, and may God protect the holy work of the SSPX.

Hooray for Bishop Bernard Fellay !!!

Luiz said...

Stop discussing and pray! Pray!

Anonymous said...

On Dan Hunter's comment:

I was obviously referring to the official position of the Society, which is that of its superiors, not your uncle of any other particular priests. The Society holds that the excommunications are not valid. Notice that what they want withdrawn are *declarations* of excommunication, not excommunication itself. Since both sides agree that declarations of excommunication were issued, these can be withdrawn without there being any canonical finding as to their correctness in the first place.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

To gd:

Please do not spread the constant error of the secular press. A jurisdiction will not mean a 'persoal prelature'. That structure would be a disaster, owing to Canon 297. Both parties to the matter agree on this, which is why Rome offered the Society in 2000 to be a society of apostolic life of pontifical right incorporated, in turn, into an international and 'personal' (cf. Canon 372.2) diocese or apostolic administration, a Campos writ large. That's why the Campos got that (by locally instead of internationally). There must be no personal prelatures. We must drop that dangerous expression from our vocabularies.

You are right that they won't take a juridical structure until doctrinal matters are resolved. But the Pope might grant direct faculties for their priests in the interim so as to satisfy Canon 262.

P.K.T.P.

ione said...

at least remove the excommunication against Marcel Lefebvre

H said...

I am happy to inform you that last June 18th, before Cardinal Castrillon and the members of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei in Rome, I humbly petitioned the Holy See on my own behalf and on behalf of the monastery council for our priestly suspensions to be lifted.

On June 26th I received word that the Holy See had granted our petition. All canonical censures have been lifted.


http://papastronsay.blogspot.com/2008/07/canonical-good-standing.html

Anonymous said...

To P.J.L.:

If you find that your vast knowledge causes you impatience with long comments by me, just skip them. Works for me. I'm not sure how others on this list benefit much by hearing not good arguments but a long list of traditionalist leaders whom you've met.

To answer your first question, given my own position teaching in a university, I have no idea if I'm smarter than Bishop Fellay. Hard to say. I'm definitely not as smart as this Pope. He has a first class mind. But I note that Bishop Williamson also has a first class mind, as his record at Cambridge indicates. That doesn't mean that his judgement is all that good.

P.K.T.P.

Jordanes said...

Al said: Jordanes, the Douay Rheims offers exegesis of Daniel 9:27's "abomination of desolation" different from your own obsessive error

The Douay Rheims says exactly what I believe about the abomination of desolation, so if I have an "obsessive error," then that means you are saying the Douay Rheims' interpretation is in error -- in which case you shouldn't be citing it.

Too, the phrase "abomination of desolation" does not appear in Luke 21.

Irrelevant. Jesus said, "When you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is imminent." This is parallel to the passage in Sts. Matthew and Mark that refer to the abomination of desolation, and understood by the Catholic Church to be a reference to the abomination of desolation. Therefore Jesus says the sign that the desolation is about to occur is a siege of Jerusalem.

However, since neither physical Jerusalem nor spiritual Jerusalem are currently surrounded by armies and about to be sacked and burned to the ground, we can be sure that your private interpretation of Scripture arguing that the Great Apostasy has already taken place, an interpretation so redolent of Protestant Fundamentalism, is erroneous.

As has been said, converts should have a bit more humility than they exhibit on this site.

I don't think anyone is obliged to accept the advice of anonymous trolls who obsessively post the same off-topic apocalyptic speculations over and over and over and over again.

Steeped in a lifetime of error, including erroneous exegesis as you exhibit now, you would do well to listen and learn once in a while.

If you had anything worth listening to, you would have posted it in an appropriate forum, not spammed these commentboxes. Just because a convert does not accept the personal opinions of anonymous trolls, that doesn't mean he is not humble or docile.

Franzjosf said...

I think that Bishop Fellay will ask that the Decree of Excommunication be vacated, because the Society believes that that particular kind of excomminication is invalid in this circumstance. Reason: The Canon--I'm sorry I can't quote it atm--that applies to a state of necessity says the excommunication may not be applied where such a state does NOT exist but the person BELIEVES that it does, which is the case here.

Paul Haley said...

The following is a direct quote from the 1983 Code of Canon Law:
quote
Can. 1323 The following are not subject to a penalty when they have violated a law or precept:

1/ a person who has not yet completed the sixteenth year of age;

2/ a person who without negligence was ignorant that he or she violated a law or precept; inadvertence and error are equivalent to ignorance;

3/ a person who acted due to physical force or a chance occurrence which the person could not foresee or, if foreseen, avoid;

4/ a person who acted coerced by grave fear, even if only relatively grave, or due to necessity or grave inconvenience unless the act is intrinsically evil or tends to the harm of souls;

5/ a person who acted with due moderation against an unjust aggressor for the sake of legitimate self defense or defense of another;

6/ a person who lacked the use of reason, without prejudice to the prescripts of cann. ? 1324, §1, n. 2 and ? 1325;

7/ a person who without negligence thought that one of the circumstances mentioned in nn. 4 or 5 was present. Endquote

It appears, then, the holy father could, acting on his own authority, cite the preceding canon in vacating the excommunications stating:

(1)the extreme ill health of the archbishop, the grave fears expressed by the archbishop and his own particular knowledge of the situation.

(2)the expressed good will and intentions the response to Cardinal Hoyos by Bishop Fellay.

(3)the desire to put to an end any talk of schism.

(4)the need to further discussions of doctrinal matters for the good of the church.

(5)the desire to extend to the members of the FSSPX and its followers the benevolent hand of the Vicar of Christ.

Now, as far as I can determine, this action could take place immediately and the details about integrating the Society into a juridical framework could follow along with the doctrinal discussions. And, hopefully, these discussions would take place in an atmoshpere of mutual cordiality and understanding, as well as outside the glare of publicity.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Perkins makes a good point regarding the relative structure of the Society.

Like him, I believe Rome will not grant a Personal Prelature, but a personal apostolic administration. They would have to be freed from diocesan control, but probably still be held directly under Clero or the PCED.

It is interesting to note that the Apostolic Administration in Brazil does not answer to the PCED, but Clero.

If one were to go back and access the emails around the years 1999-2001 on ctngreg (yahoo group for Una Voce -- successor to CINGREG), one would see that Mr. Perkins was critical in forming a consensus among the members regarding a Personal Apostolic Administration.

At that time, there were very few email groups, etc that closely followed traditionalist issues. CtnGreg was monitored pretty closely by some romans, and I am morally certain that it had an effect in that it saw the problems that would be encountered in reconciling the SSPX.

Anonymous said...

To P.K.T.P,

I do not recall professing any vast knowledge only to being exposed to the Traditionalist circles my entire life. I am also puzzled as to why you would be so offended to my about my observation that some on this site go a bit over the top. I never stated that I disagreed with any of your comments or anything else about your posts for that matter.

But since your last response suggested that the only person who wouldn't stand to benefit from your point of view is The Pope then I can see why you might be a bit offended by my initial post.

PJL

DR. HERBERT R. said...

But the SSPX must show goodwill by signing the proposals. It must first commit itself to something concrete and stop playing like "little popes". Removing the excommunication is also hastiness. They should first show a committment to obey the Holy Father, then that would be a good chance to remove the excommunication. They should remember that they are under sanctions. They should not forget the Keys of St. Peter. All Catholics must shudder in the thought of excommunication. Becasue heaven itself recognizes these sanctions. Undeniably. "Whatsoever is bound on earth shall be bound in heaven...." REMEMBER THESE WORDs!

LeonG said...

"........Let us pray the Divine Office that the FSSPX are soon regularized, and we can see their priests offering Holy Mass in diocesan cathedrals and parishes.'

It is doubtful if the good priests of SSPX will want to risk falling over the Cranmer Table on the way to the high altar, if it is still there, that is.

Confiteor said...

The question is whether the excommunications were truly "bound on earth". That's where Canon Law comes into play.

Rick said...

Maybe this sticky canonicity is precisely why the good Bishop Burke was hastily brought to the curia.

Pray for this scentario and its hope and pray for him as the new Prelate.

Audio Sancto said...

I respectfully request that one of the owners or editors of this blog contact me at once at http://www.audiosancto.org/pages/contact.php regarding Al's posting the name of a priest in direct violation of the request for anonymity posted at http://www.audiosancto.org/pages/about.php. Thank you.

New Catholic said...

I believe all have been removed. If you have any questions, mail me at newcatholic AT gmail DOT com .