Rorate Caeli

The rumor mill

1. Yes, we did notice, as all who check the Holy See Press Office newsletter ("Bollettino") that the Pope received in separate audiences today the Prefect Emeritus of Clergy, Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos, former president of the Pontifical Commission "Ecclesia Dei", in the morning, and the Prefect of the Holy Office, Cardinal Levada, current President of the Pontifical Commission "Ecclesia Dei", in his usual Friday afternoon audience.

2. From the head of communications of the Society of Saint Pius X (FSSPX / SSPX), Fr. Alain Lorans:
Many are wondering about the contents of the letter addressed in early December to Rome by Bishop Bernard Fellay in response to the Doctrinal Preamble delivered to him by Cardinal William Levada last September 14. We are in a position to report that one of the components that make up this response is the cogently argued study by Fr. Jean-Michel Gleize that appeared in Le Courrier de Rome (no. 350, décembre 2011); the most significant excerpts from it were published in the preceding issue of DICI.


This study, entitled “A Crucial Question”, responds to the article by Msgr. Fernando Ocariz published in the December 2 issue of L’Osservatore Romano; both authors participated in the doctrinal discussions about Vatican II that took place in Rome from October 2009 to April 2011.

Rather than speculate on the nature of Bishop Fellay’s response, it is better to study the entire text by Fr. Gleize in Le Courrier de Rome [“The Mail from Rome”, a French-language newsletter of the SSPX], the December issue of which was transformed into “Courrier à Rome” [“Mail to Rome”].
Fr. Alain Lorans

15 comments:

Miles Dei said...

News in DICI!

Catholic said...

I don't think Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos will be the next prefect of the CDF. I mean, he's older than Levada by five years. Come on !

Restituo said...

The first thing that came to my head was "Doctrinal Preamble". But who knows? Hopefully this means we'll get some kind of news within the week or two.

Matt said...

As Restituo said, we can only hope. We need some good news after all this consistory junk and the several curiously odd appointments the Holy Father has made. Things seem pretty bleak right now. I really do hope some good news for us is on the way.

Matt

Mike B. said...

Fr. Jean-Michel reflecting the scholarship of SSPX lacks authenticity to Faith and Reason, and the Magisterium of Roman Catholicism.

As I look back we have always had this type inside Catholicism who often by drive and conviction dominated while not reflecting the Church's passion for the logic of God's mercy. They were tolerated and prayed for.

I fear the SSPX pursues a judgmental modus operandi, 'more Catholic than the Papacy'. This is a sad loss, but we may be better with them outside the Church. For example, to blatantly attack how Pope Benedict XVI, John Paul II, and Paul VI determines and interprets collegiality is beyond the pale. All power inside the Papacy is suicidal in today's universal church.

In addition, it is for the bishops and the Pope assembled at Vatican II to determine their relationship among themselves. Who has the gall to question that authority?

Michael F Brennan
St Petersburg, Florida

Lopes said...

Mike B knows very little about Church history. Having said, under the present circumstances, the SSPX may be better off staying exactly in the same gray area that they have been for four decades or so.

Where I live in California, the previous bishop could never authorize the FSSP to set up a parish (they have to drive a few hours to say Mass every Sunday) and the new one is even less likely to do so.

Protestants (and their other 'faith traditions'), Muslims, etc... are always welcome, though. And, obviously, all sorts of liturgical abuse are tolerated. But, hey, they do have jurisdiction.

Ecclesia Militans said...

Mike B. said:

"I fear the SSPX pursues a judgmental modus operandi, 'more Catholic than the Papacy'. This is a sad loss, but we may be better with them outside the Church."


So you don't think it is possible to be more Catholic than the Pope?
Then you obviously do not know enough of the history of the Papacy.

If the Church to which you are reffering above is the Conciliar Church, I couldn't agree more.

"All power inside the Papacy is suicidal in today's universal church."

Are you are contradicting the doctrine that the Pope already and always has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church and that he has no need of the bishops to use it? That is a dogma of the Faith, so you should be careful where you tread.

"In addition, it is for the bishops and the Pope assembled at Vatican II to determine their relationship among themselves. Who has the gall to question that authority?"

How about the teachings of all the holy apostles, popes, bishops, saints, doctors throughout the history of the Church = Catholic Tradition?
Or can Vatican II disregard that altogether?
Isn't that why we are in this mess to begin with?

If you are of the modernist kind, you may have your cake for some more time. But you shouldn't rejoice, the future, you see, belongs entirely to Tradition, as does the past.

Mike B. said...

Ecclesia Militans points out:

"Are you contradicting the doctrine that the Pope already and always has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church and that he has no need of the bishops to use it? That is a dogma of the Faith, so you should be careful where you tread."

Response: You are correct in that the Pope has universal power and I might add his Curia has 'balance of power' corrective force on a region/diocese. Frankly, you make my point. What is the SSPX beef?

In addition, it is right and just that regional/diocesan input are relevant, and requires adjustments within the Universal Church. 'The Church of Constantine' needed correction. The bishops and Papacy of Vatican II were/are valid leadership to adjust the structure of the Apostles successors. That 'check and balance' may prove beneficial with a Milanese or Mahoney type papacy.

This may have required updating 'pastoral dogma', but binding and loosing was given to the Apostles for good reason.

Michael F Brennan
St Petersburg, Fl

Ecclesia Militans said...

Neither the bishops nor the popes have authority to change what Christ has instituted.
Collegiality is a heresy which tries to make the Church into a democracy and thereby change her divine institution.

"Collegiality is the application to the Church of the principles of democracy, founded on the freemasonic revolutionary slogan of "liberty, equality, fraternity." It is an alternate, brought about since Vatican II, to the monarchical and hierarchical structure instituted by Christ, based upon personal responsibility of priests, bishops and popes standing in Christ’s place. In fact, at the present time two parallel authorities exist for the government of the Church. On the one hand is the divinely instituted hierarchical authority, expressed through the pope and the Roman Congregations over the entire Church, the bishops over their dioceses, and the priests in their parishes. On the other hand is the revolutionary and democratic authority, a human creation imposed since Vatican II, according to which the episcopal college also has the authority to govern the entire church, the episcopal conferences of each country also have the authority to tell the bishops how to govern their dioceses, the presbyteral council also counterbalances and limits the authority of the bishop in his diocese, and the parish council makes the important decisions in parish government. Needless to say, there is a direct contradiction between these two authorities, and any authoritative government of the Church, including condemnation of heresies, is entirely paralyzed.

The most dangerous aspect of collegiality is this theory as it applies to the supreme authority of the Church in matters of Faith and Morals. Previously it was taught that this authority was entirely in the person of the Sovereign Pontiff, Vicar of Christ, who can share this authority with the entire episcopate at the time of an Ecumenical Council. The Vatican II document on the Church, Lumen Gentium, teaches the novelty that an episcopal college exists at all times, and that the bishops throughout the whole world make up that college, which, together with the pope, has the supreme authority. The college is consequently established as an alternate authority to that of the pope alone, and this at all times, regardless of the pope’s will. The pope is consequently not able to go against the democratic majority of bishops, whose authority is equal to his, provided that these bishops are in communion with him. It is in these words that Lumen Gentium states this:

The order of bishops is the successor to the college of apostles in their role as teachers and pastors, and in it the apostolic college is perpetuated. Together with their head, the Supreme Pontiff, and never a part from him, they have supreme and full authority over the universal Church (§22).

We thank God that this denial of the primacy of the pope is contradicted by the Nota Explicativa that the more traditional Fathers at Vatican II forced Pope Paul VI to add to Lumen Gentium. However, the liberal theologians do not take this explanatory note into account, and all they retained is the new collegiality, and its paralysis of personal authority. Romano Amerio in Iota Unum [Available from Angelus Press] has this comment to make:

There is a conflict between a process of democratization and the divinely constituted nature of the Church.…The Church …did not form itself, nor did it establish its own government; in its essentials it was established in toto by Christ, who established its laws and laid down its constitution before summoning mankind to join it…. The Church is therefore a unique kind of society, in which the head exists before the members and authority exists prior to the community. Any view that sees the Church as being based upon the people of God, conceived of in a democratic sense ...is at odds with the reality of the Church. (Romano Amerio, Iota Unum, pp.522-523)"


(http://www.sspx.org/Catholic_FAQs/catholic_faqs__theological.htm#collegiality)

Ivan K said...

Lopes said: 'Where I live in California, the previous bishop could never authorize the FSSP to set up a parish (they have to drive a few hours to say Mass every Sunday) and the new one is even less likely to do so.'

THis is fairly typical, and reveals the attitude of most of the current bishops: V2 was a fundamental break with tradition, and the FSSP and other such groups don't belong. Actions like this prove that all of the talk of our bishops, cardinals, and other 'shepherds' about the continuity of V2 with tradition is just talk, nothing more. They don't really believe it.

JFM said...

"What is the SSPX beef?"

IF you have to ask this, you are, well, willfully ignorant, or belong writing speeches in Washington. They have been excruciatingly clear in their critiques and concerns, using simple sentences and basic language. Rome on the other hand has responded with its trademark ambiguities. Those who can't see that would never pass Logic 101.

Mike B. said...

Ecclesia Militans said:
Neither the bishops nor the popes have authority to change what Christ has instituted.
Collegiality is a heresy which tries to make the Church into a democracy and thereby change her divine institution.

Say it aint so, Joe.

For example, as reported by his primary theologian at Vatican II, a German Cardinal [Frings] strayed into a closed door in the basement of St. Peter's.

As the Cardinal reported to Paul VI, he overhead a conversation between two periti stars about the corruption of Papal power with the status quo document. The correction followed by Paul VI who was entirely innocent and could not see the trick in the wording (neither could most everyone else).

A second point is to note that Bishop Bruskewicz some years ago settled the matter of who was the power in his diocese. He publicly and openly objected to USCCB guidance and direction and refused to cooperate. Rome followed with affirmation that only the Papacy could direct an American bishop. The regional bishop conferences CANNOT dictate to diocesan bishops.

Frankly, I continue to read hosts of holes and curious distortions in the SSPX problems with Vatican II. It is amazing to hear that the Church has been assaulted by democracy. We have more clericalism than we ever had. Yes, the USCCB can stall corrections with their clerical tactics, but inevitably Rome's power reigns.

Michael F Brennan
St Petersburg, Fl

New Catholic said...

I know it is standard procedure for many traditional-minded Catholics, but I am confounded by the use of "Rome", simply Rome, as opposed to something else, when we are dealing with things inside the Church, as if one is speaking about what is outside, what is extraneous to oneself. I know it is done with no malice, and I fully understand why it is done, but it just sounds too Protestant, let us try to avoid it. The Vatican, the Curia, the Congregation, etc., are almost always preferable in this context.

Maybe we should write a post about this?...

NC

Mike B. said...

AE, for your contemplation.

"ROMA LOCUTTA EST. CAUSA FINITA EST!"
i.e. ROME HAS SPOKEN. THE CASE IS CLOSED. [St Augustine, circa 350 A.D.]
Among many this is a universal beloved thought. Our blood lines died carrying the thought. Many will be called to do it again.

Michael F Brennan
St Petersburg, Fl

PEH said...

Mr. Brennan,

Your accusation that the SSPX pursues "a judgmental modus operandi, 'more Catholic than the Papacy'" is not supported by the facts. Why is it that you judge them while calling us to believe that they judge others? Is this not the pot calling the kettle black?

You well know that the SSPX has defended traditional interpretations of the Church's teaching authority, or the Magisterium, and you refuse to say why that position is not fully in accord with the Faith. You accuse them of being such egotistic individuals that in your own words "we may be better with them outside the Church'". Do you really believe that your remarks are helpful to the cause of Tradition? I, for one, do not!