Rorate Caeli

For the record: nothing new, actually...

From La Stampa's Andrea Tornielli (in Italian):

The response of the Fraternity of Saint Pius X to the proposal of the Holy See, delivered to its superior general, Bishop Bernard Fellay, is expected in the next few days. And the signs that arrive from Econe, where the headquarters of the Lefebvrists are located [Rorate note: the headquarters are located in Menzingen, in the Swiss Canton of Zug], do not at all seem to announce a positive answer of acceptance of the "doctrinal preamble" prepared by the Vatican.

Tornielli then proceeds by quoting words of the sermon pronounced by Bp. Fellay on the Feast of the Immaculate Conception (audio available here, in French), including the folllowing: «You have heard that there is a Roman proposal that says, "we are ready to recognize you," but the problem is that there is still a condition. This condition, however it may be defined, is always the same in the end: the Second Vatican Council must be accepted. In other words, the current situation is the following: they have told us, "yes, you may criticize the Council, but with one condition: that you accept it all the same.' But we say: "how will we be able to criticize afterwards?" I believe this to be a fair assessment of the current situation.»

As it can be seen, there is nothing essentially new from the time of the interview granted by Fellay to DICI on November 28, that is, a modulated counter-proposal (not a rejection) will be given by the head of the FSSPX/SSPX, and that Society will have to wait for the eventual Vatican response to it. At that time, it must be recalled, the Superior General said that his response would be given shortly afterwards.

35 comments:

Ecclesia Militans said...

The Sedevacantist is like the man who leaves his house when it catches fire, and goes away, letting the flames spread and consume it all.
The Neo-Conservative is like the man who stands by and does nothing while his house burns, or even remains inside and acts as if nothing is wrong, until the house collapses on top of him.
Both will be severely condemned by the future Angelic Pope.

The true Catholic exists the burning building, not to get burned and killed by collapsing debris, and immediately sets to put out the fire, to save his house and as much as he can in it.

Thank the Lord for the Society.

rodrigo said...

The true Catholic exits the building?! So much for "extra ecclesiam, nulla salus".

Firemen have to take risks to put out fires, often getting uncomfortably close to the flames as they douse them with water. Thank God for the FSSP, IBP, ICRSP, etc.

Melchior Cano said...

Ecclesia Militans:

"Angelic Pope"???

Knight of Malta said...

If it is a matter of "accepting" that Vatican II was a valid Ecumenical Council, I would think that would be easy for the SSPX to do.

If, by "accept", Rome wants Econe to accept--in a positive way--Vatican II's words on, say, religious liberty, that is wholly different.

Btw: the SSPX is on the house's yard, which is still part of the house. To be across the street would be schism. The situation with the SSPX is "irregular" not separate. Their Bishops are no longer "Excommunicated"; I think it is time for the Pope to list the suspension on the Society's priests, and work on the situation from there.

Melchior Cano said...

I think the problem with the comments of both Ecclesia Militans and Knight of Malta is that they use a bad analogy. The idea of a house works to some extent, but not nearly as good as the traditional idea of an ark. Instead of mindless comments that the SSPX leaves the house or is in the yard, the SSPX is on the ark. To claim that we either "leave" the house or "stand in the yard" is to feed the Society's enemies.

Ecclesia Militans said...

“What then should a Catholic do if some portion of the Church detaches itself from communion of the universal Faith? What choice can he make if some new contagion attempts to poison, no longer a small part of the Church, but the whole Church at once? Then his great concern will be to attach himself to antiquity which can no longer be led astray by any lying novelty.”
St. Vincent of Lerins († 445) (Commonitory)

Once the building is consumed by fire, there is nothing to be done but to put the fire out from the outside.
Who can dare to claim that the situation in the Church is not so grave?

What is this water that those other societies use, and how do they exactly "douse the flames"?
Perhaps by accepting the legitimacy of the false novelties that are destroying the Faith?
Or is it by being silent about innumerous scandals from high places that endager numerous souls?

Not to mention that saying SSPX is outside the Church is rejected even by the Vatican.
To be outside the Church is to do as the sedevacantist have done, to go away and leave the building on fire.
What is truly Catholic is to always keep on trying to convert those in error to the Truth, while keeping safe of the destructive fire of their heresy.

No one has the right to endanger souls, for whatever goal. What the other societies have done is to endanger souls by teaching them that lies are legimitimate teaching, to secure themselves a canonical status from Rome.

Even though they know it is error, they choose to follow the error. What, indeed, does this say of them?

---

The Angelic Pope is the pope from Catholic prophecy who will restore order and peace to the Church, condemn false doctrines and rebuild the Church after the imminent Great Chastisement.

mundabor said...

God Bless the Society of S. Pius X.

After the astonishingly hypocritical declarations of Archbishop Vincent "Quisling" Nichols about "civil sodo-unions" being fine "because they aren't sexual", one fully understands what Bishop Fellay means with the "un-Catholic Spirit" ("spirito non cattolico" in the Italian version) infiltrating the Church.

Mundabor

Cruise the Groove. said...

"yes, you may criticize the Council, but with one condition: that you accept it all the same."

What does this mean.
Does it mean to recognize the second Vatican Council as a valid oecumenical Council of the Church?
This the Society has always done.

Does it mean to accept all the ambiguous language in the Council texts as flowing with the continuity of Church Tradition?

The FSSP and the IBP do not even do this, so why do the FSSPX have to.

P.K.T.P said...

Actually, this is not more of the same. There is a subtle shift. Bishop Fellay is now saying that there is a condition for recognition of the Society, not a condition for regularisation of the Society. This actually looks like a worsening of the situation.

However, Rome could still decline to recognise the Society and yet recognise that its members remain in communion with the Pope. This would still have some positive juridical effects.

This is all playing out for a Christmas response by Rome. I am confused by the timing reference there though. Is it meant that we shall know the content of the Society's response in a few days or that Fellay will deliver his response in a few days? He said more than a week ago that it would be delivered "in a few days". Presumably, Rome has it by now.

So this works out so that the Pope will be faced with a decision to make right around ... Christmas. This is good in itselt, and this planning cannot be an accident. I can't imagine that Benedict XVI will put a lump of coal in the bottom of the Society's stocking in place of candy, as some used to do when children were bad. The timing, at least, suggests a positive Roman gesture of some kind. At any rate, Levada is expected to leave around Christmas, which is a gift in itself.

P.K.T.P.

Credo said...

"Does it mean to accept all the ambiguous language in the Council texts as flowing with the continuity of Church Tradition?

The FSSP and the IBP do not even do this..."

But the FSSP and IBP don't publicly say that they don't accept Vatican II, and they have clergy who certainly do (less so with the FSSP, increasingly so with IBP).

Joe B said...

The sooner we get past these Vatican intermediaries the better. As long as Bishop Fellay's civility prevails, I expect his reply will be much more significant than the current document because it will likely be an improvement, as most second looks are, and will likely get to the Holy Father and move us closer to the correct understanding of the 'acceptance' that we should all truthfully attach to that council. It is an issue worthy of clarification. It should not be held hostage to a timeline.

Jordanes551 said...

. . . who stands by and does nothing while his house burns, or even remains inside and acts as if nothing is wrong, until the house collapses on top of him.

So the Catholic Church is on fire and is going to be completely destroyed?

So much for Our Lord's promise that the Church is indefectible . . . .

Ecclesia Militans, kindly refrain from promoting these unapproved "prophecies" here.

PEH said...

There is nothing new that I can see in the current situation. With the many undeniable problems existing in the Church today it would seem that only Divine intervention can solve this impasse. How can one reconcile the propositions of universal salvation, the efficacy of false religions, religious liberty, collegiality, etc, with Tradition? It's like trying to square the circle and there's only One Person that I know of that can write straight with crooked lines.

A Friend said...

At an ecumenical gathering someone rushed in shouting 'FIRE'.

The Methdists immediately gathered in a corner & pray.

The Baptists cry out, 'Where's the water?.

The Christian Scientists agree there is no fire.

The Fundamentalists shout 'It's the vengence of God.'

The Lutherans nail a notice to the door proclaiming the fire is not justified.

The Quakers quietly praise God for the blessings that fire brings.

The Congregationalists shout "Every man for himself'.

The Presbyterians form a committee to look into the matter.

The Catholics form a grand procession & march out.

John McFarland said...

To anyone who knows the conciliar authorities, the presumption has always been that (1) the Preamble is an exercise in talking out of both sides of its mouth, and hence that (2) the SSPX could not very well accept it.

Bishop Fellay's remarks would seem to confirm that presumption
(1)is correct, and hence that presumption (2) must be correct as well.

Indeed, it has been obvious from Bishop Fellay's first remarks that neither Bishop Fellay nor the Society as a whole was having any of it.

***

I quite agree with those who don't think much of Ecclesia Militan's parable. The Church is not burning. It is the Mystical Body of Christ, and those who who are baptized, profess the true Faith to its last jot and tittle, and accept the authority of the Pope and the hierarchy -- and obey that authority when in good conscience they can do so -- are secure.

The problem is they are very few.

It is not a problem for genuine traditionalists, if they hold fast. But it is a great problem for the many others. It is not metaphorical flames that endanger them.

As for those traditionalists who think that they have made their peace with Rome, and that peace would be universal if only the intransigent would be more transigent, it is as Jeremias said of their spiritual forbears: they cry peace, peace; but there is no peace.

rpg3 said...

And thank God for faithful diocesan priests, who should be counted among these brave men.

Long-Skirts said...

Jordanes551 said:

"So the Catholic Church is on fire and is going to be completely destroyed?
So much for Our Lord's promise that the Church is indefectible . . ."

The Roman Catholic Church IS indefectible but we must not enable the evil men trying to destroy the rest of our family!

IS
NOW...

We have a Home
With a weak-willed Father -
When his friends come to booze
They pay us no bother –

Took Mother and siblings
So they'd not start roaming -
Out on the streets
From sun-rise till eve's gloaming –

Our Home's attached cottage
On Chapel Street -
Safe and warm from the world
Bread from shepherds we eat –

We pray for our Father
That he'll make an amend -
So together at Home
"...shall be, world without end."

MetaphorMeister said...

Sounds like a swell metaphor to me. God bless SSPX.

The real question I want to get answered is to what extent are or are not FSSP, IBP, ICRSP colluding with the arsonists, while donning fire helmets and feeding the dalmatians.

Ivan K said...

Where is the preamble that must be signed by the Jesuits, as a condition of their 'regularization'? The numerous other liberal orders? Catholic theologians? Has Father McBrien signed a 'preamble'? If not, when will he be 'regularized'? Half the pew-sitters in the average parish don't believe in the Real Presence. Where are their regularization papers? Is Vatican II now the full extent of Catholic doctrine, in the eyes of the Vatican and mainstream episcopacy?

Delphina said...

IvanK,

You make a good point. Just goes to show...

Oreoman said...

IVAN K. MYOU HIT IT ON THE HEAD!

LeonG said...

Ecclesia Militans

You forgot to add that it is the post-conciliar NO who are the arsonists and who eventually have destroyed their own edifice.

Enoch said...

It seems as if Bp. Fellay is saying that in order to criticize the Vatican ll council, that they (the SSPX) then cannot accept Vatican ll.

So does this mean that Bp. Fellay insists that the SSPX be give the freedom by Rome to reject the Vll council? I don't see that Rome will ever grant the freedom to reject the Vll Council.

Tom Esteban said...

Why do people keep using the phrase "accept Vatican II"? There is nothing to accept - it was a valid Ecumenical council, it happened and it produced documents. The SSPX already accept it. It is only when Rome has talks with sedevacantists do we need to say "they need to accept Vii".

The SSPX don't need to 'accept' it. What is really happening is a discussion on the interpretation of the documents; criticism of the documents; post-conciliar amendments and corrections (a Syllabus of Errors perhaps); confusion about definitions(i.e. we all know there were never any set definitions of words like ecumenism and collegiality)and a few other things.

Everybody should read Michael Davies' 'Liturgical Revolution' to get an idea of what the SSPX are facing. Unless things change very quickly and many prelates see the big picture I don't see the SSPX reconciling until the next Ecumenical Council - which will, I believe, predominantly be dealing with the fall-out of the post-conciliar Church.

B. said...

Rome does not care at all what anyone believes. The only thing the Vatican cares about is the sentence "I accept Vatican II", it doesn't matter what one wants to say with it.

When the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary were regularized they produced a statement that in essence said: "We accept Vatican II, and our interpretation of Vatican II says that there is absolutely no salvation outside the visible Church."
The Vatican said: "Now that is an interesting interpretation. Oh! You said that you accept Vatican II. Then everything is OK. You're in."

The only problem is that the SSPX refuses to sign the "We accept Vatican II" line.

RobertK said...

The FSSPX probably sent their reply to the preamble dated December 8th ( Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary), but I doubt Rome will reply to that on December 16th ( Feast day of St. Eusebius, confrere of St Athanasius).

Tired and Grumpy said...

Ivan K, very very, well put. Another glaring example, you show, of the Second Vaticanist mindset at work.

Ecclesia Militans said...

Cornerning what Ivan said:

“Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ.”
St. Athanasius, Doctor of the Church, Epistle to the Catholics

He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.

PEH said...

Tom Esteban said...

Why do people keep using the phrase "accept Vatican II"? There is nothing to accept - it was a valid Ecumenical council, it happened and it produced documents. The SSPX already accept it. It is only when Rome has talks with sedevacantists do we need to say "they need to accept Vii".

The SSPX don't need to 'accept' it. What is really happening is a discussion on the interpretation of the documents; criticism of the documents; post-conciliar amendments and corrections (a Syllabus of Errors perhaps); confusion about definitions(i.e. we all know there were never any set definitions of words like ecumenism and collegiality)and a few other things.


Very well said. It is only hard-line traditionalists that are required to "accept Vatican II" - meaning, of course, the modernist interpretations of its documents.

M. A. said...

B. said: "Rome does not care at all what anyone believes. The only thing the Vatican cares about is the sentence "I accept Vatican II", it doesn't matter what one wants to say with it."
__________________________

I couldn't help but chuckle because there is truth in that statement.

There was a concrete example of this VII mindset in an incident with our former Ordinary. He was a fervent proponent of VII, a modernist, ecumentist, and anti-TLM.

An independent trad chapel in his diocese, at one time approached the bishop to discuss the possibility of regularization. The bishop showed up at a meeting with the board members and Father, and after some discussion, it was obvious to everyone that "regularization" was just not going to happen.

The concluding words of the bishop to the independent traditionalists were: "You people are not Catholic."

"Oh," one responded, "Does that mean that we are going to hell?"

The bishop, known as a vociferous advocate of VII: "No, of course not."

Roger Buck said...

If I were given the honour of saying three words to His Excellency, I think they might be these:

Please, have faith.

Enoch said...

In this La Stampa article, Bp. Fellay is reported to have said:

""You have heard that there is a Roman proposal that says, "we are ready to accept you," but the problem is that there is still a condition. This condition, however it may be defined, is always the same in the end: the Second Vatican Council must be accepted. In other words, the current situation is the following: they have told us, "yes, you may criticize the Council, but with one condition: that you accept it all the same." But we say: how will we be able to criticize it afterwards? I believe this to be a fair assessment of the situation.""

So, it seems that Bp. Fellay doesn't see a way to properly criticize the Council and at the same time accept the Council. Maybe Rome can come up with a way for them to accept the Council and at the same time be able to criticize it. If not, then there will obviously not ever be a regularization of the SSPX with the Roman Catholic Church. I hope that Rome can find a way to address this issue, since it seems to be the main issue at hand.

C. said...

So, it seems that Bp. Fellay doesn't see a way to properly criticize the Council and at the same time accept the Council.

Rather, he doesn't see a way to properly criticize the Council after accepting it unconditionally. Bishop Fellay has made a counter-proposal; let's withhold judgment until that counter-proposal is considered.

What should disappoint us is the fall-off in Rosary Crusade numbers for October. October ought to be the strongest month of the year for Rosaries, and they are off 20% from their peak in August - a veritable Rosary depression. Are we to understand that the love of some for the Mother of God is growing cold? Let the professionalist Catholic types mock Tradition all they want, It will not die but their corruption will. But allow not occasion for the infernal spirits to mock the Rosary unsaid.

Enoch said...

C. wrote:

"Rather, he doesn't see a way to properly criticize the after accepting it unconditionally. Bp. Fellay has made a counter-proposal; let's withold judgement until the counter-proposal is considered."

But has the SSPX been told, via the Preamble, that they must accept the Council unconditionally?

C. said...

But has the SSPX been told, via the Preamble, that they must accept the Council unconditionally?

Not if the Preamble is the Professio Fidei. But the meaning of the last paragraph of this, "religious assent", is often distorted today beyond its limited meaning so that it is practically synonymous with the unconditional, absolute assent of faith.

We have seen how every move and counter-move by the SSPX has been utterly distorted by the mainstream Catholic press. How many times has the "SSPX Rejects Rome" article been published, when discussions are still ongoing and all parties appear to be acting in good faith to resolve their differences? Signing the Professio Fidei as is would be widely interpreted, unfairly, as an unconditional assent of faith to every word of Vatican II.

It is interesting that it is the pious lay Catholic media elite, who regardless of which Catechism they read ought to know the Catholic's responsibility toward truth, who are the most prominent disseminators of these misinterpretations. Because it is they who also have the most to gain from an absolutist interpretation of "religious assent". A constantly changing body of doctrine practically demands a paid subscription.

I assume that the counter-proposal made by Bishop Fellay does not reject the text of the Professio Fidei but only seeks to prevent any public scandal which would occur if the SSPX were to sign its bare text.