Rorate Caeli

SSPX: What we really received


From the news agency of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X (FSSPX / SSPX), DICI:

30-08-2011
General House of the Society of Saint Pius X: Bishop Fellay will be received by Cardinal Levada on September 14, 2011

Cardinal William Joseph Levada, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, invited Bishop Bernard Fellay, Superior General of the Society of Saint Pius X, and his two assistants, Father Niklaus Pfluger and Father Alain-Marc Nély, to meet him in the Palace of the Holy Office on September 14, 2011. In his letter of invitation, Cardinal Levada noted that the purpose of this meeting is first to make an assessment of the theological discussions conducted by the experts of the Congregation for the Faith and of the Society of Saint Pius X over the past two academic years, and then to consider the future prospects. 

As an aid to making this assessment, the conclusions of the theological discussions drawn up by the experts of both parties were sent to their respective superiors. That is how Bishop Fellay received in late June the document that will be the subject of the meeting on September 14. 

Concerning future prospects, Cardinal Levada’s letter provides no details, but some – in the media and elsewhere… [sic] – think that they are authorized to make hypotheses; they speak about the proposal of a formal agreement on the interpretation of the Second Vatican Council and foresee the institution of a personal prelature or of an ordinariate…. [sic] These hypotheses are the product of speculation and have only their authors to vouch for them. The Society of Saint Pius X abides by official proceedings and confirmed facts. 

As Bishop Alfonso de Galarreta recalled on the occasion of the recent priestly ordinations in Ecône [June 29; 2011], “We are Catholic, Apostolic, and Roman. If Rome is the head and the heart of the Catholic Church, we know that (…) the crisis will necessarily be resolved in Rome and by Rome. Consequently, the little good we will do in Rome is much greater than the great deal of good that we will do elsewhere.” With this deep conviction Bishop Fellay will go [to Rome] at the invitation of the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
(Source : SSPX/MG [General House] – DICI : 08/30/11)
___________________________
[Rorate will remain in silent recess until mid-September; relevant items could be posted in the meantime. We have replaced our own translation with the one provided a few hours afterwards by the FSSPX.]

51 comments:

Jon said...

Memorare, o piisima Virgo Maria, non esse auditum a saeculo, quemquam ad tua currentem praesidia, tua implorantem auxilia, tua petentem suffragia esse derelicta. Nos tali animati confidentia ad te, Virgo Virginum, Mater, currimus; ad te venimus; coram te gementes peccatores assistimus. Noli, Mater Verbi, verba nostra despicere, sed audi propitia et exaudi.

Amen.

Anonymous said...

If only Rorate Caeli and other outlets would stop publishing mere rumors which only serve to get the extreme hardliner SSPX and the liberal / neo-con Catholics to work together to derail any chance of reconciliation of the SSPX, maybe the reconciliation would have happened a long time ago.

PLEASE DO NOT PUBLISH THIS. FYI.

New Catholic said...

You insult us and then tell us not to publish it... Right...

If you think this is directed at poor Rorate, read it again.

ATW said...

Dear New Catholic,

Enjoy your August recess. I, for one, certainly appreciate all that you and the others do at Rorate Caeli. Keep up the good work. You are remembered in my prayers.

ATW

John McFarland said...

Once more, the hopes of the deal-firsters have been shown to have no discernible basis in fact.

The Holy Father is not interested in a deal. The whole discussion process is based on his contention that doctrinal matters must be settled first. In this, if in nothing else, he and Bishop Fellay stand shoulder to shoulder.

Now one could imagine the Holy Father's being bullied into proposing a deal. At least when he was Cardinal Ratzinger, he showed himself rather easily bullied.

But there is no one willing and able to bully him into a canonical deal. The significant bullying capacity resides with his fellow progressives; and if they had had their way, the events of 2007 and 2008 never would have happened.

The petition of our Memorare then should be that we forswear fantasy ecclesiastical politics and face up to the real crisis of faith and its implications.

PreVat2 said...

Rorate Caeli remains one of my foremost "go to" sources on the web. You folks are outstanding! Keep up the good work.

In Christ through Mary (and Semper Fi)!

Anonymous said...

I too, am grateful for the service Rorate provides. You are my number one stop daily because you are unbiased, on the side of tradition (meaning on the side of the Universal Church), unafraid to cover things that the neo-conned-Catholic press will not cover.

My whole family, my wife, my children await anxiously the reconciliation if this wonderful order.

Indeed it will be a "game changer" in many diocese. As the old saying goes "a rising tide lifts all boats".

vty Robert Fox.
Long Island, NY

Anonymous said...

One hopes that the doctrinal summaries will prove to be the source of reconciliation between the Society and the Holy See and that whatever the outcome, the Will of God will be discerned and followed.

NC,
Don't allow the crazies to get to you; keep up the good work.

PEH

Anonymous said...

While folks are gushing here about RC, does this include the uncalled for posting of a comment that was requested to be private correspondance? And the suppression of a post that consisted of nothing but the pope's very own words quoted directly verbatim?

Cruise the Groove. said...

If there is no deal offered by the Holy Father to the FSSPX, then one hopes he at least grants temporary jurisdiction for the Society to offer valid sacraments.
Hopefully this cat and mouse game will go on for much longer.
Either the Society has a canonical part in the Church or it does not.

New Catholic said...

How is a comment "private correspondence"? If you wish to send us private correspondence, send us private correspondence marked as "private correspondence".

And "supression of a post"? Who is writing this? The blog arm of "Amnesty International"?...

NC

Bryan said...

I wholeheartedly applaud Bishop de Galaretta's comment about Rome.

If the tide is turning away from Modernism and Liberalism in Rome, then then it is a good sign for the future. The key is that Bl. John XXIII's Apostolic Constitution - Veterum Sapientia should be implemented in all Roman Seminaries and Colleges.

" 3. As is laid down in Canon Law (can. 1364) or commanded by Our Predecessors, before Church students begin their ecclesiastical studies proper they shall be given a sufficiently lengthy course of instruction in Latin by highly competent masters, following a method designed to teach them the language with the utmost accuracy. "And that too for this reason: lest later on, when they begin their major studies . . . they are unable by reason of their ignorance of the language to gain a full understanding of the doctrines or take part in those scholastic disputations which constitute so excellent an intellectual training for young men in the defense of the faith." 15

http://www.adoremus.org/VeterumSapientia.html

Restoring the supreme palce of Latin in the Seminaries is the key to restoration.

In caritate Xp.,

Bryan Dunne

Roger Buck said...

Re:

"Rorate Caeli remains one of my foremost "go to" sources on the web. You folks are outstanding! Keep up the good work."

My sentiments precisely.

John McFarland said...

Dear PLEASE DO NOT PUBLISH,

All indications are that practically to a man, the members of the SSPX believe that Rome is sunk in modernist heterodoxy. Doctrinally, there are nothing but hard-liners.

The only issue is whether the Society should talk with Rome before Rome shows some sign of movement back to tradition beyond the events of 2007-08. Those few Society members who were dead set against such discussions have already left. As you can see from the DICI piece, the consensus is that it should be done. Even Bishop Williamson, the most prominent expresser of misgivings, is on board.

But what everyone is on board for, to put it without the SSPX's wonted diplomacy, is the conversion of Rome. If you don't recognize that, and draw the obvious implications, you're barking up the wrong tree.

Steve said...

"If Rome is the head and the heart of the Catholic Church, we know that (…) the crisis will necessarily be resolved in Rome and by Rome."

And yet, Our Lady of the Rosary declared at Fatima, that the dogma of the faith will always be preserved in Portugal, etc.

shane said...

Before reading this post I was going over old newspaper reports on Vatican II, becoming increasingly angry and began thinking to myself: 'What a pity we can't just turn the clock back to 1961 and start all over.'

That is what the SSPX must demand. Nothing less will do!

(PS: Enjoy your recess and keep up the great work!)

Crouchback said...

Yes.but how long should the Society wait before it signs a deal . .??? fair enough they dont want to be part of a zoo with many and varied beasts wandering all over the place picking and mixing at will.

They have to deal with some Pope sooner or later . .I'm slightly dismayed . it seems that some in the Society are getting too comfortable in the ghetto . . hopefully they will be rescued from this fatal delusion by this Pope.

If not . .then how long before another Pope comes along with whom they can work . .??? will the ghetto be even more comfortable then . . .???

Anonymous said...

Thanks to Rorate for its always stimulating infos and translations.

The statement of SSPX is very well written, it seems each word has been carefully chosen in order to provide some infos but not too much and to avoid any kind of commitment or idea of an imminent big "deal" to be signed off.

Like I've said before, a step in a long path. We can pray for these clarifications to be fruitful for both sides and that it won't be a remake of 2002.

Alsaticus

Anonymous said...

The sad thing is that there are SO MANY in the Church who are against the teachings of the Church... and the SSPX are not in communion yet remain more solid except on the side of obedience...

I do not understand how we can have so many phonies corrupting the Church within, and this order (SSPX) remains on the "outskirts". A big part of me wishes they would come into many Churches and whip people into shape.

Anonymous said...

Bl. Anne Catherine Emmerich writes of a small group within the Church that appears to be sinking and a small bridge is built out to them whereupon many rush to join the group including many priests. I have always thought this was describing the FSSPX. In any case, it can't be long, the world and Church is at the edge of a abyss, the west is about to crumble financially. If the reunification doesn't happen now, it certainly can't be more than a few years off. After that, troubled times ahead.

Gratias said...

I pray wisdom and Faith will prevail so that the SSPX can join the Church from its source in Rome. We are all very fortunate to have Benedict XVI in Peter's Chair. Pray that we may receive the SSPX reinforcements in this critical battle for the survival of the apostolic Church.

Anonymous said...

I pray the SSPX humbles themselves and submits to Rome so as to reform the heretics within...
Until then, we have this wonderful order that remains apart because they cannot accept that some aspects of the Church went astray...as all humans do.
Let's rebuild with the SSPX, as one. Why cant they just submit and work to reform? You don't abandon those that fall and err. You patiently assist and never abandon.
St Pio of Petrelcina is a great example... he never went astray, or decided he was more Catholic when he was rebuked...

I pray for a reunion, I pray for reform!

Hope Springs Eternal said...

We must pray to Our Lady with complete confidence! The key word here is "confidence."

John said...

I guess the position of those people in or following the Society who don't want reconciliation doesn't make sense to me. Suppose the Holy Father allows them to hold to their chief doctrinal positions unchanged—i.e., that certain expressions of the Council seem opposed to prior Magisterium (and that this apparent disagreement can be discussed and argued in a constructive, non-polemical fashion), that many past actions of Popes and bishops (e.g. Assisi) were not in accordance with Catholic teaching, and that the Novus Ordo (although valid) has serious problems with it. I feel as though it is likely that the Holy Father will let the Society continue to hold these positions in any potential deal, as I believe this is what was afforded the Institute of the Good Shepherd. Also, let's suppose they have their own kind of apostolic administration in which they aren't subject to the whims and desires of liberal bishops.

Why wouldn't they accept such a deal? What would they lose?

They could remain faithful and obedient to the Holy Father, they could receive unimpeachably valid jurisdiction, and they could continue to hold to the same doctrinal positions they've always had--although they might have to present some of those beliefs a bit less starkly. Other than maybe being a little more polite towards the Holy Father and other Catholics who accept Vatican II, they wouldn't have to change a single thing they do.

What do they have to lose? What would they have to sacrifice? What dangers would they face? Other than the threat of some hypothetical future Pope completely changing whatever situation Benedict gives them, I can't think of anything. They wouldn't have to pledge allegiance to Dignitatis Humanae, they wouldn't have to hang out with or obey Cardinal Mahony and his ilk or anything...what would be lost? Some odd idea of "purity" in not associating with the Church because it accepts Vatican II? They probably wouldn't even be subject to any of the Bishops' Conferences in any country, given the international scope of any canonical organism they would receive.

I would encourage people more familiar with the Society to enlighten me (someone who isn't familiar with the SSPX) as to what spiritual risks the Society would face by joining, from their perspective. There are risks of a material nature that they would almost certainly face (loss of lay followers, loss of members, loss of donations), but those shouldn't be factors in the decision.

Saint Michael Come To Our Defense said...

This is a moment of triumph for His Excellency Bishop Fellay.

As long as Bishop Williamson does not steal his thunder again, all should proceed as agreed.

A Roman Catholic Bishop would bring his three fellow Bishops with him that they in unison accept or reject that which is presented to them at the gates of Rome.

He should leave his office help at headquarters to answer phones and open the mail.

Too much is riding on the meeting at Rome to ride in expecting to be a hero and wind up riding a goat.

Just as Cardinal Bugnini has been thoroughly investigated for his part in things, Fathers Pluger and Nély should be examined.

Archbishop Lefebvre used the motto Cor Unum; One Heart.

Will history tell us this trio’s heart was different than that of the Archbishop?

Better to know now than cry later.

Having all the Bishops attend would demonstrate the regime of Bishop Fellay includes everybody throwing a dollar in the collection plate.

As it stands now, this only shows further the Elitism of his administration.

*

Anonymous said...

May it all be †Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam†

AVE MARIA, gratia plena, Dominus tecum. Benedicta tu in mulieribus, et benedictus fructus ventris tui, Iesus. Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, ora pro nobis peccatoribus, nunc, et in hora mortis nostrae. Amen.

GLORIA PATRI, et Filio, et Spiritui Sancto. Sicut erat in principio, et nunc, et semper, et in saecula saeculorum. Amen.

Lord Jesus Christ no one but YOU is the one who has the last say in the destiny of Your Holy Church,I completely trust that your Holy Will will be done.

Anonymous said...

I suggest that in this next two weeks we should fast and offer our rosaries, or at least a decade of the Rosary so that the Holy Will of Our Lord Jesus Christ will be done!

Anonymous said...

I suggest that in this next two weeks we should fast and offer our rosaries, or at least a decade of the Rosary so that the Holy Will of Our Lord Jesus Christ will be done!

Bryan said...

I note that some above have spoken about the SSPX REjoining the Church.

The SSPX is part of the Roman Catholic Church. It is not in schism.

The Bishops and Priests of the SSPX are in dispute with the Roman Church and criticise some of the actions and pronouncements of previous Popes but they have not said "We are the Church" have they.

So obedient to Peter, they go to Rome when Cardinal Levada summons them.

We MUST be careful not to write or think about the SSPX's position within the Roman Church in a way that suggests they are in Schism.

EG: Does anyone think the modern Society of Jesus is in perfect communion with Rome? Is the Society in Schism? What about the Modernistic Dominicans? What of their Communion with Rome? What of the Orders that promote the Ordination of Women to the Priesthood and are soft on fundamental credal beliefs - are they in Communion with Rome?

Please let us be very careful how we discuss this matter and pray for the Holy Father.

In caritate Xp.,

Bryan Dunne

Anonymous said...

As an aid to making this assessment, the conclusions of the theological discussions drawn up by the experts of both parties were sent to their respective superiors. That is how Bishop Fellay received in late June the document that will be the subject of the meeting on September 14.
Concerning future prospects, Cardinal Levada’s letter provides no details, but some – in the media and elsewhere… [sic] – think that they are authorized to make hypotheses; they speak about the proposal of a formal agreement on the interpretation of the Second Vatican Council and foresee the institution of a personal prelature or of an ordinariate…. [sic] These hypotheses are the product of speculation and have only their authors to vouch for them. The Society of Saint Pius X abides by official proceedings and confirmed facts.


There is no "deal" and the meeting is about the conclusions of the theological discussions which have been distributed to both sides. Whether or not anything further comes as a result of the discussions is a matter better left up to the awesome Intellect and Will of Almighty God. Surely, anyone who has followed this matter of the relations between the Society and the Holy See knows that many obstacles will have to be overcome before any reconciliation occurs. Pray, then, that the Will of Almighty God will be discerned and followed by all involved.

PEH

Jordanes551 said...

I note that some above have spoken about the SSPX REjoining the Church.
The SSPX is part of the Roman Catholic Church.


More precisely, the members of the SSPX are members of the Catholic Church. The SSPX itself, however, was formally suppressed in the 1970s and is therefore canonically irregular -- it is not at this time accepted by the Catholic Church as a Catholic priestly fraternity.

Anonymous said...

Jordaness in response to your comment:31 August, 2011 13:10

Well said!!!

Many fail to understand that very fact.

poeta said...

St. Michael CTOD:

Preposterous. Fathers Pluger and Nély are not Bishop Fellay's "office help." The are the elected Assistant Superiors General of the SSPX. In other words, they and Bishop Fellay constitute the leadership of the Society.

Bishop Fellay holds authority in the SSPX because he is the elected Superior General, and for no other reason. The other three bishops, though they are ontologically bishops, hold no higher organizational rank in the SSPX than a simple priest.

If Father Schmidberger were still the Superior General, would we still hear these complaints that the bishops should be going to Rome with him?

poeta said...

Sorry, that should have read "Pfluger" above.

Bryan said...

Dear Poeta,

With great respect it is contrary to the hierarchical nature of the Catholic Church for a Bishop to take orders from a mere priest.

When a Jesuit is consecrated as a Bishop he has to leave the Order as he cannot no longer fulfil his vow of obedience.

The position of the Bishops in the SSPX is anomalous and would need to be resolved in time.

Bryan Dunne

Cruise the Groove. said...

Jordanes,

With all due respect, what are the priests of the former SSPX?

Saint Michael Come To Our Defense said...

"...If Father Schmidberger were still the Superior General, would we still hear these complaints that the bishops should be going to Rome with him?..."

Yes.

Truth does not change with circumstances.

*

Jordanes551 said...

Cruise, they are validly ordained priests who have been suspended a divinis.

Cruise the Groove. said...

Jordanes,

Is it the Vaticans policy to let suspended priest's offer Mass at St Peters Basilica?
Because that is what has exactly happened.
My uncle is an SSPX priest and has asked for permission and gotten it for celebrating Mass at one of the side altars at San Pietro in Rome.

Does Rome see "suspension" as a state where you are still permitted to offer public Mass, but are suspended from some other action?

Jordanes551 said...

Cruise, I assume your uncle informed St. Peter's Basilica that he was a suspended SSPX priest when he asked for permission to celebrate Mass there. However, given that it's the Vatican's "policy" to let a heretical and schismatic non-priest/non-bishop celebrate the Anglican imitation of the Eucharist on a Catholic altar in Rome, I'd think it would hardly be fair to refuse permission to celebrate a real Eucharist to a real priest whose faculties have been suspended. In any case, under law SSPX priests aren't supposed to celebrate the sacraments. Nobody can stop them if they do, however.

Brian said...

I read that Bishop William's pastoral epistles were recently removed from the SSPX website. I do not know how to confirm this.

If it is true, with Sept. 14 rapidly approaching, is the timing merely coincidental?

Cruise the Groove. said...

"However, given that it's the Vatican's "policy" to let a heretical and schismatic non-priest/non-bishop celebrate the Anglican imitation of the Eucharist on a Catholic altar in Rome,"
Jordanes,
If the Vatican is so misled and off in allowing hertical and schismatic non priests celebrate their service on Catholic altars, then perchance the Vatican is misled and off in its declaration of the priests of the SSPX being suspended.
Unless the suspensions have been declared, and I have never seen where they officially are declared suspended.

Anonymous said...

Interesting how the extremists on both sides are working to prevent reconciliation, contrary to the commandment of Jesus Christ.

Brian said...

Anonymous 21:57,
I do not know what "extremists" your are referring to. I trust that you did not mean me.

Jordanes551 said...

If the Vatican is so misled and off in allowing hertical and schismatic non priests celebrate their service on Catholic altars, then perchance the Vatican is misled and off in its declaration of the priests of the SSPX being suspended. Unless the suspensions have been declared, and I have never seen where they officially are declared suspended.

As far as I know, the suspensions have never been declared, but rather are latae sententiae undeclared suspensions. (Experts in canon law will have to correct me here.) If a man receives Holy Orders illicitly, his ordination is valid but he is automatically suspended a divinis.

The suspensions will be removed when the Church and the SSPX effect a reconciliation and a regularisation of the fraternity. Hopefully the meeting next month will bring us closer to that happy day.

Anonymous said...

Brian,

No, I was not referring to you.

New Catholic said...

To the author of "Please do not publish this": I deleted your comment without reading it in its entirety. Any other future comment posted by you will be published, regardless of any warning made by you.

This, by the way, serves as a reminder to all: if you click on the "publish your comment" button, it is pretty clear your comment may be made public (the very meaning of "publish").

If you wish to send us private correspondence, send it to newcatholic AT gmail DOT com.

Jordanes551 said...

Sure -- if no unsuspended priest is readily available, or if one cannot reasonably be expected to know or discover the priest's status.

But note that the canon stipulates no celebration of any sacrament or sacramental unless someone is in danger of death or, in the case of an undeclared suspension, someone makes a request and has a just cause to do so.

But this has taken us very far afield from my initial comment, which was a brief aside meant to clarify the canonical and ecclesiastical status of the SSPX as a priestly fraternity. I really don't wish to divert the discussion down this tangent any further than I already have.

Anonymous said...

Cruise the Grove, your post about the side chapel reminds me about my experience at Chartres in May.

After flying 11 hours, we drove straight to Chartres to thank God for bringing us to safely to France. On a side alter, a guy in green tights and cowboy boots was celebrating some sort of ceremony. We didn't hang around there long enough to figure out what it was.It was a hard welcome to modern day "Catholic" France and I said a prayer to Louis IX to rid the Cathedral of this court jester.

Too bad your uncle wasn't there to offer a mass.

Anonymous said...

The vast majority of SSPX priests are products of Mass centers and they have no knowledge of the mainstream Church. Circumstances, no doubt, have made them self-opinionated. Alas,some of us who have worked closely with them over several years have found many to be ill-mannered and rude. I wonder if the high expectations of the after-effects of a SSPX-Rome deal will ever materialize in the real world we live in!

Derechos said...

That is OUR fight as CATHOLICS (not 'lefebrist', nor 'traditional'... simple CATHOLICS)