Rorate Caeli

COMMUNIQUÉ OF THE PONTIFICAL COMMISSION "ECCLESIA DEI"
UPDATE: SSPX COMMUNIQUÉ

Communiqué
of the Pontifical Commission "Ecclesia Dei"

The text of the response of His Excellency Bp. Bernard Fellay, Superior General of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X, requested during the meeting in the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith of March 16, 2012, was delivered on April 17, 2012. This text will be examined by the Dicastery and submitted afterwards to the judgment of the Holy Father.

[Source: original texts in Italian and French]
_________________________________

[Update: Apr. 18, 1220 GMT:] Father Lombardi, head of the Holy See Press Office, offers his comments (transcript provided by the French service of Radio Vaticana - oral style kept):

"Today's news means that yesterday Bp. Fellay's response, that had been requested by Cardinal Levada at the last meeting, was delivered to the Congregation, to the Ecclesia Dei Commission, to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Now, this response, it is a reponse that, according to the words of those who could see it, is a very different response from the previous one, and this is encouraging, we proceed forward. But, naturally, we also find in the response the addition of some details or integrations to the text of the doctrinal preamble that had been proposed by the Congregation for a doctrinal agreement, and this response will be discussed, it will be examined first by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in one of its meetings of the next few weeks and, afterwards, it will also naturally be examined directly by the Pope. It can be said that steps forward have been taken, that is to say, that the response, the new response, is rather encouraging, but there are still developments that will be made, and examined, and decisions that should be taken in the next few weeks. I think the wait will not be long because there is the desire to reach a conclusion in these discussions, in these contacts."
_________________________________________

[Update: Apr. 18, 1300 GMT - SSPX General House communiqué:]

Communiqué
of the General House of the Society of Saint Pius X
The media are announcing that Bishop Bernard Fellay has sent a “positive response” to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and that consequently the doctrinal question between the Holy See and the Society of St. Pius X is now resolved.


The reality is different.


In a letter dated April 17, 2012, the Superior General of the Society of St. Pius X responded to the request for clarification that had been made to him on March 16 by Cardinal William Levada concerning the Doctrinal Preamble delivered on September 14, 2011. As the press release dated today [April 17] from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith indicates, the text of this response “will be examined by the dicastery then submitted to the Holy Father for his judgment”.


This is therefore a stage and not a conclusion.


Menzingen, April 18, 2012. [1300 GMT]

[Update: Apr. 20, Statement from Fr. Alain Lorans on DICI Newsletter # 253:]


At the hour when DICI is being published 

At the hour when DICI is being published, despite all the hypotheses and predictions of the international press about the imminence of a canonical recognition of the Society of Saint Pius X by the Holy See, nothing is certain. An allegedly sensational article by the Vatican-watcher Andrea Tornielli announced on the evening of April 17 that a “positive response” from Bishop Bernard Fellay arrived at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. In reality it was a set of written clarifications that Cardinal William Levada had requested of the Superior General of the Society of Saint Pius X, which now must be studied by that dicastery and then submitted to the judgment of Benedict XVI. In this issue we review the commentaries by journalists who stir up among some people hope one minute and apprehension the next, and among other people—fear or joy. But it is important to remember that all these commentaries, like the sentiments or resentments that they provoke, have to do with mere speculations. DICI, for its part, will not discuss facts until they have been verified. 

[Update: Apr. 20, Rome – Society of Saint Pius X: Press Review published on DICI]
__________________________________________
[For main news post and updates, click here.]

78 comments:

Not Patient said...

Boy, they're really dragging this thing out.

Miles Dei said...

I think this is a dig diplomatic game (releasing step by step) to give time avoid oppositions and rebellions on each side.

Timothy Mulligan said...

Rome wasn't built in a day.

Kribensis said...

Deo gratias, it is true! What a blessing for the Church!

Anonymous said...

Hang on guys we are still where we were when the Holy Father sent back the preamble for a response,
The Holy Father could see it again and see the modifications and refuse to consent to it, lets put the bubbly back on the ice.
Scott

JMJ Ora Pro Nobis said...

So we now we know for sure something was signed, lets just see how it all plays out

marcel said...

I find it fascinating that for the most part, worldwide media has not caught onto this story... yet. It is the most significant news story in the world.

I have often told my friends that if one were to draw up a top 10 most influential (living) personages list, a la Time Magazine, from the persective of salavation history, Mon. Fellay would probably be in the top three by virtue of his position and inheritance alone. This moment may have profound consequences on the direction of the Ark of Salvation, Holy Mother Church.

Ferraiuolo said...

Rorate coeli desuper et nubes pluant justum

Luka said...

We must pray for pope like never before! Wolves are many, and he is but an old man... with Almightly on his side :-)

Sancte Michael, defende eum in proelio!

Francis said...

Marcel said: "I find it fascinating that for the most part, worldwide media has not caught onto this story... yet. It is the most significant news story in the world".

Don't worry, they will. Some have already. The others are probably waiting for the Vatican to confirm this agreement. Then the attacks on the SSPX, The Holy Father, The Catholic Church and on traditional Catholicism will begin.

Timothy Mulligan said...

We know from Mr. Tornielli that the text signed by Bishop Fellay was approved by the Holy See, via emissaries, before Bishop Fellay signed it. There is no real uncertainty here. The Holy See is proceeding properly. Let's use this brief time of waiting to offer prayers, including prayers of gratitude and prayers for the Holy Father.

gerard said...

It's unsurprising that the memorandum will go through the usual Vatican channels- but there's little question that Pope Benedict will take a close interest in how it is received. I suspect the bureaucratic process in this case will be a means of enforcing papal policy within the curia.

We may have to wait for a while, and the decision is hardly certain, but it is a good sign that PCED confirmed this news, and likely a sign that PCED expects approval.

Matthias said...

Any agreement remains uncertain, but we can hope that, if the response has in fact been accepted, any perceived delay will be used to plan for the next stages (especially the battle in the media which is surely coming).

Francis said...

"It can be said that steps forward have been taken, that is to say, that the response, the new response, is rather encouraging, but there are still developments that will be made, and examined, and decisions that should be taken in the next few weeks".

And this bureaucratic saga continues...

KnotWilbur said...

We do as we have: pray, hope, and wait.

Peterman said...

"I find it fascinating that for the most part, worldwide media has not caught onto this story... yet. It is the most significant news story in the world."

Agreed, I predict two days after agreement that Drudge will have something on his site probably about "Pope welcomes radical" or "hardliner" group back into the Church.

In the US at least, making Drudgereport is the standard by which all cultural, news, or media events are measured.

Ric said...

PING !..............PONG !

WJHB said...

The way I understand it is that now that MGr. Fellay has signed, bar a few non-substantial issues, that Mgr. Fellay has accepted the proposals already agreed by the Vatican. The 'non-substantial issues' are only there to allow the Vatican to change its mind on the issues it has already agreed on - if they wanted to.

But I am sure this is a done deal.

Hugh said...

What wasteful speculation there is both here and elsewhere on this issue. How can anyone make concrete assumptions based on press reports and on not knowing the actual details? This is truly absurd.

Kribensis said...

This entire development is a preamble in itself, it seems to me, to a very interesting period in the life of the Church. Just think of the pontential it should have to further the demise and abbreviation of the last fifty years or so of sacrilege and folly. It seems quite hopeful now that the canonical structure spoken of will become a reality relatively soon: a fitting prospect for seventh anniversary of the truly great Pope Benedict XVI!

Bernonensis said...

"There is a will to reach a conclusion .." --as though this hadn't been taken for granted by all parties concerned from the very beginning! Vapor like this only serves to make the Vatican look ridiculous. If you have nothing to say, say nothing.

Joseph the 3rd said...

We have to wait a few weeks to find out if the Pope accepts. I'm on pins and needles.

Elizabeth said...

Hugh, I'm in agreement with you! This is all still uncertain, at least the way I'm reading the report from Tornielli and the Vatican. Honestly, with many of the comments here and on other sites, I keep wondering if everyone's reading something I'm not? I don't see anything official ~ why is so much credence given to a reporter?

Suburbanbanshee said...

If the Vatican doesn't take its own sweet time, there's something wrong. :)

This is pretty darned positive, especially right after the holidays and all the busy time right after Easter Week.

Cruise the Groove. said...

May we now go to confession validly to an SSPX priest?

I am not Spartacus said...

What wasteful speculation there is both here and elsewhere on this issue. How can anyone make concrete assumptions based on press reports and on not knowing the actual details? This is truly absurd.

Dear Hugh. This potential reconciliation is, other than the daily Holy Sacrifice of The Mass, the most important action taking place on this planet.

It is an event about as far from absurd as I can imagine.

This ecclesiastical romance is being played-out before our very eyes and those of us who are fervently praying for the nuptials to be successfully concluded find it inexplicable that others would not have the same level of passion and interest that we have and would not care to express their opinions about the course of the romance.

This romantic drama is far superior in importance to the contest twixt the Kenyan and the Mormon as to which of them will be the next errand boy of the establishment.

Matt said...

This is a wonderful break-through anyway. We still need to pray. We still need to see the details and what structure the Society will be afforded. Bux's letter said they will be protected. I would hate to think the Society has come all this way only to find out it was a gimmick.

Keep praying, folks.

Matt

Matt said...

Cruise the Groove said, "May we now go to confession validly to an SSPX priest?"

Not just yet. Once Rome releases the details of their Canonical structure and thus their faculties then have at it. I'll probably be the first in line. ; )

Matt said...

SSPX said, "This is, therefore, a stage and not a conclusion."

Okay, folks. Let's slam on the brakes again.

Not Patient said, "Boy, they're really dragging this thing out."

No kidding!

Matt

Cruise the Groove. said...

Now my simple mind is utterly confused.
Have Rome and the Society reached an agreement and can we expect some form of regularization soon?

Let your yes mean yes and your no mean no.
This lukewarm back and forth nonsense is for the succubi.

querite said...

Matt said...

Cruise the Groove said, "May we now go to confession validly to an SSPX priest?"

Not just yet. Once Rome releases the details of their Canonical structure and thus their faculties then have at it. I'll probably be the first in line. ; )

Caution: The lines are already VERY long!

Francis said...

Well, Marcel Here you go. The leftwing, secular and masonic media is on the attack. Now it starts.

http://news.yahoo.com/vatican-breakaway-traditionalists-near-agreement-133820575.html

JMJ Ora Pro Nobis said...

You could always go to an SSPX priest for confession/marriage etc... supplied jurisdiction, though I guess most people on here think that the SSPX made that up?

Also it appears tornelli was a little premature, the SSPX has denied that there was a positive response but insists this is only a 'stage'

Augustinus said...

"Well, Marcel Here you go. The leftwing, secular and masonic media is on the attack. Now it starts.

http://news.yahoo.com/vatican-breakaway-traditionalists-near-agreement-133820575.html"

It is very mild compared to what I would have expected.

Uncle Claibourne said...

I agree with Adfero. Indications point to an agreement; the groundwork is simply being laid. Let us hope, and continue to pray that Our Lord's will be done.

But let us also be realistic. When this agreement is finally announced, the furies of Hell will be released to an extent we have not seen in our lifetimes. The Enemy will not take this lying down. Our Holy Father will indeed have much to suffer, and we must be ready to support and defend him, and each other.

As I mentioned last night, the tide is turning, but many battles lie ahead. I'm 52, and I don't believe I'll live to see the final victory, but I know that it's assured.

This is the time for us to gird our loins and prepare for the battles that are to come.

Francis said...

"It is very mild compared to what I would have expected".

They're just warming up. It's going to get alot worse.

P.K.T.P. said...

Timothy Mulligan points out that Rome wasn't built in a day. No, but it was demolished in just ten years, from 1965 to 1975. For that reason, resolution of this problem is urgent.

What we are seeing now is a series of delaying tactics on the part of both sides. These are designed to release tension from among potential opponents of a deal on both sides. Liberals and Society hardliners may be red hot angry today but they cannot fully vent it because they still really do not know what Bishop Fellay has agreed to. Now begins a period of expectation: will the Pope find this new revision to be acceptable? U.S.W.

P.K.T.P.

Hugh said...

Dear Spartacus - it is the futile and often ill-informed speculation that is absurd. Read what I have written accurately.

The SSPX process with The Vatican will follow a particular course that no useless speculations will be able to influence. This is because it is as important as that.

Until the precise details are known most of the brouhaha is merely just that.

Moreover, my family have been involved with The Confraternity from the outset in UK. Therefore, nothing stated here or elsewhere changes the actual reality very much.

Thank you.

P.K.T.P. said...

I predict one of two immediate outcomes. Bear with me.

First, Benedict XVI will accept the revised Preamble but 'with reservations' to be be considered in further discussions. This outcome will follow if the Pope feels that he's running out of time. The Grim Reaper is a very punctual gentleman.

A second possibility is that the Pope will reject the revised document but say that it is 'almost' good enough and only needs just one or two very minor changes. Then the nail-biting continues, as people wonder if the last hurdles will be o'erleaped.

All of this is a grand distraction from the fact that Bishop Fellay promised not to accept a canonical structure until all doctrinal disputes had been resolved. Here we see that not even one doctrinal dispute has been resolved, and they are only arguing over the "principles and criteria" according to which such issues are to be considered.

I am not trying to make trouble here. I am only determined to respect the strict truth. What are the facts? If we abandon the truth, then we may remain good politicians but we become bad Catholics. The Pope has tried, yet again, to reach an agreement on jurisdiction before any consensus on theology has been achieved. Is this a wise and prudent course for the S.S.P.X?

There was another possibility suggested by Bishop Fellay, at least indirectly, and which is now being forgotten. It is, in my view, the more prudent course, as we do not want a split in the S.S.P.X over this, and we do want an arrangement which is grounded in justice and in truth. I mention the possibilty that Rome could recognise the Society and its members as Catholic, and could recognise that it administers all the Sacraments validly and licitly owing to a case of perceived necessity. The Pope could then issue a solemn and urgent request that faithful not repair to Society chapels until full regularisation has been achieved, howsoever long that may take.

I have a very good knowledge of the 'numbers' in this matter. As a result, I can predict that very few people would repair to Society chapels under such an outcome(above those who already do), and it would have the effect of helping to increase approved T.L.M.s as bishops scramble to prevent the Society from moving in on their bailiwicks and challenging their authority.

In such an outcome, the Pope could stlll create a universal personal diocese for the Ecclesia Dei communities, or he could require that each diocese offer the T.L.M. at least once every Sunday, or both. The Society would remain united and strong but would be limited by the reach of T.L.M.s approved by legitimate authority. Full regularisation would come at the right time, and not at any time. The outcome would not include a Society split right down the middle.

Consider what Levada has done to the TAC. It is now divided into an ordinariate group, a stay-on continuer group, and a group that has moved, in reaction, to a more Protestant position. Those in the ordinariates, as a result, are at the mercy of whoever controls the Holy See.

P.K.T.P.

Miles Dei said...

You can see a cue on the selected date for give the answer. Nobody send the answer on Pope's birthday if it is not a gift for him.

RedGoat said...

There is the impression given, and taken, that Bishop Fellay signed some sort of deal or agreement. I don't think this is anything of the sort. The Vatican requested the SSPX make a profession of faith of sorts and they did. They had to do it in good faith and Bishop Fellay said the SSPX would sign the creed with their blood. All of this is just a simple prerequisite to larger questions which could or could not allow for the SSPX to exercise a 'legitimate' ministry. So for now it looks to me this is step one of a simple acknowledgment that the SSPX is indeed Catholic which Bishop Fellay described as a 'take us as we are or don't take us at all' approach.

Malta said...

I mention the possibilty that Rome could recognise the Society and its members as Catholic, and could recognise that it administers all the Sacraments validly and licitly owing to a case of perceived necessity.

B-I-N-G-O, B-I-N-G-O, B-I-N-G-O, Bingo was his name-O!

I have long thought that lifting the suspensions a divinus of the priests of the SSPX, in the interim, might be the best course. That is, if a PP or other structure can't be implemented, just yet.

Like Adfero, I've dealt with politics and politicians, and I agree with him that some of this blustering, this positioning, this back-and-forth is necessary given the time that SSPX has been out of full communion.

But make no mistake: Pope Benedict XVI is the greatest friend SSPX has in Rome (maybe sans Msgr. Gherardini. Also remember that Pope Benedict XVI, as then Cardinal Ratzinger, was a good friend of Michael Davies. The latter said that the then Cardinal was firmly on the side of Traditionalists.

There is no doubt that our Holy Father loves the FSSPX. The sinister Cardinal Villot, whose very face is vile to behold, and the possibly-masonic Bugnini, exiled to Tehran, were the personalities +Lefebvre had to deal with.

Pope Benedict knows all this, of course, which is why such a tiny society, representing only .001% is being give such prominence.

I am not Spartacus said...

Dear Hugh. I have not read in any of the comments of the write-backders here, or elsewhere, that their commentary is thought to be influential one way or the other but if those write-backers desire to comment I doubt that your description of their commentary as absurd will influence them to stop creating and posting their commentary.

Quietism during this captious climate is a legitimate option for those desirous of taking that route; but, we handsome and beautiful traditionalists quite enjoy thinking aloud in print even if these posts never do seem to attain to the sort of rebarbative ruction those of us of Irish-Injun extraction are most comfortable with.

El Eremita said...

P.K.T.P.,

You say that "Bishop Fellay promised not to accept a canonical structure until all doctrinal disputes had been resolved".

Well, for a doctrinal dispute to be resolved, it's not necessary for both parties to agree... only for neither party to consider the other heretic (a theological dispute would be another matter). As I said before, if the SSPX admits that the doctrines they uphold are not "de fide" or that they are but that the problem presented by Vatican II and/or post-conciliar magisterium is not that of a strict logical contradiction, then theological dissent may subsist without being an obstacle to unity.

If Rome and the SSPX agree upon everything which is "de fide" there is no justification to reject unity (assuming that the canonical structure satisfies the pastoral needs of the SSPX, based on mons. Fellay words). On the other side, if they don't agree in the Faith, then one position is necessarily heretic.

Francis said...

Once this agreement is signed and a structure is set up for the SSPX it wouldn't surprise me if the FSSP tried to get something similiar for themselves. Whether Rome will allow it is another question, yet it would take the proverbial handcuffs off some of these FSSP priests who have to look over their shoulder for unfriendly modernist bishops when preaching the traditional Catholic faith.

Fajardo said...

"Nobody send the answer on Pope's birthday if it is not a gift for him."

The response was officially given the day after the Pope's birthday, and only because the Holy See itself required the answer around that time.

Miles Dei said...

That is th point Eremita. A point that was set by Card. Castrillon when he concludede that he could not agree with the FSSPX but he could not say that they were not catholics.

The big diplomatic game begun there.

Miles Dei said...

Fajardo, in the big game all is set for that. This dates are significative. Birthday, anniversary... Perhaps the second more significativ and important than the first.

Ora et Labora said...

I think we must sit tight and remain in prayerful vigil on this one.

Anxiety can take the best of us!

We have to realized that the dicastery is examining Bishop Fellay's response.

The Holy Father is just finishing the celebrations of his birthday and the anninversary since being elected to the Seat of Peter. He is also tired and frail, and even though the Preamble might be one of the most important documents on his bureau we must think first of all in his health; give the Discastery the time to study the response and then submit it to our Holy Father.

I won't mind if we have to wait for a few more days or even a week or two for the answer.

His Holiness will be the one who makes the final decision and he must meditate on it.

Let us trust and let's continue praying.
I hope you guys don't mind if I suggest like I have done before to Pray to Our Lady and the Holy Angels and Saints.

And the let us say the St. Michael Prayer often because the enemy doesn't take vacation time off.

Prof. X said...

Fortunately, Rome appears to have dropped the hammer on the U.S. women's religious order. This is good news for a variety of reasons, one of which is that it should distract the media from the SSPX story. Personally, I think the less mainstream media coverage of the SSPX-Holy See situation (prior to the consummation of any full reintegration), the better.

Malta said...

@El Eremita:
Well, for a doctrinal dispute to be resolved, it's not necessary for both parties to agree...


Very, very true! One need only think of the St. Benedict Institute in MA, and Fr. Feeney (or, for that matter, the reconciliation of St. Athanasius some 1,600 years ago)!

On the other side, if they don't agree in the Faith, then one position is necessarily heretic.

Here I think you are confusing doctrine with dogma; I've seen Bishops do it, some accusing those denying a tenant of Vatican II with heresy!

Though no canon lawyer, I am a lawyer, and I can swear and affirm that denying, say, Lumen Gentium 16, is not heresy, otherwise the Saint Benedict Center could have never been regularized, because they flatly deny that cannon.

Sooo, Econe and Rome can certainly disagree on doctrine, but not dogma, and Econe and Rome do not disagree as to one single dogma. Sooo, this whole preamble thingamajig, to me, is much ado about nothing (perhaps it's more about pride, on both sides?)

Remember, we are dealing with fallible, prideful, men on both sides of the divide.

+Levada is a bad choice to head the effort of reconciliation, but who am I to challenge the Pope on this choice?

Having said that, this Pope really desires rapprochement; +Felley should run with it! Things will never, EVER, be ideal; and things have never been ideal in the Church: from our first Pope denying Christ thrice down to our days. Certainly Pope St. Pius X was better than Pope Paul VI (whose cause for sainthood was shelved as soon as they looked into his files, btw.) and the Borgia Popes, but just because we are living in a dark period in Church history doesn't mean we abandon Catholic unity.

I attend FSSPX chapels, and I hope and pray by brothers in faith, particularly the three dissident bishops, will humble themselves and acquiesce: the struggle has been noble and good, but like any other must end. And this struggle has been won!

(Not without concessions, but won nonetheless!

El Eremita said...

Malta,

On the contrary, when I say "if they don't agree in the Faith, then one position is necessarily heretic.", I am referring to "de fide tenenda" or "de fide credenda" doctrines.

You use the best example: Feeneyism. Baptism of desire is a "sententia fidei proximae", that is, a non-infallible doctrine but with the highest degree of theological certainty among non-dogmatic propositions. Rome and Feeneyites disagree on this, but neither of them consider the doctrine as pertaining to the Deposit of Faith.

But in any case, baptism of desire is magisterial teaching of the highest authority among non-infallibe doctrines, "obsequium religiosum" is owed to it. We can't simply "choose" to believe or not, we are obliged to do our best to conform our intellect to it. Only if one fails to do this, provided that there is a will to not to dissent, one may be excused to uphold it.

A clear definition of this "obsequium" is needed more than ever.

Ora et Labora said...

Malta well said!!!

Brian said...

PTKP wrote: Rome could recognize the Society and its members as Catholic, and could recognize that it administers all the Sacraments validly and licitly

It seems to me that would be a wisest and safest course.

El Eremita wrote: for a doctrinal dispute to be resolved, it's not necessary for both parties to agree... only for neither party to consider the other heretic (a theological dispute would be another matter).

I agree.

We do not know what the preamble says. If, however, the preamble addresses the theological balance between obedience to the magisterium vs. allowable criticism of Vatican II, then it is matter far beyond mere politics / diplomacy / and stalling for time. If that is what is being discussed, it is an issue that has confronted the Church for the past fifty years and one that needs to be given slow and careful consideration.

Kathleen said...

Skeptico,

Before shouting in all caps it might be a good idea to review the simple requests made by Rorate Caeli regarding our use of this forum.

To wit:

"Please, DO NOT assume that RORATE CÆLI contributors or moderators necessarily agree with or otherwise endorse any particular comment just because they let it stand."

"This is our living room, in a deeply Catholic house, and you are our guest. Please, behave accordingly."

Alan Aversa said...

@P.K.T.P.: What about with the Lateran Treaty?

Judy said...

I wanted to give them the benefit of the doubt, but SSPX states that "in a letter dated April 17."
Now if the Pope in Rome, the Vicar of Chirst on Earth, the visible Head of the Holy Roman Catholic Church, gave you until April 15 to answer his question, would you actually wait until April 17 and turn in the answer 2 days late.
Just seems like very intentionally oppositional defiant behavior. "We absolutely HAVE to clearly indicate that we will NEVER COMPLY with anything you say." Really disrespectful and does not bode well at all. No matter what they signed.

JoseMaria Roncalli said...

Thanks Rorate Caeli for these early updates.

Malta said...

@El Eremita:

Baptism of desire is a "sententia fidei proximae"

Not necessarily, my friend. I would say the opposite is true, but that's a debate I will not engage in here, with due respect to the blog administrators.

But I would just re-iterate that FSSPX has never denied, refuted, or even questioned one dogma.

Contrariwise, many modernist bishops in Rome question dogmas all the time, and are rewarded with red hats for doing so, or otherwise rewarded for doing so.

Can Kung Casper Mahoney and Schonborn be taken serious? They diminish the Church.

A Sinner said...

Malta...do you mean opposite in the direction of being MORE de fide, or LESS de fide??

Matt said...

Cruise the Groove said, "Now my simple mind is utterly confused.
Have Rome and the Society reached an agreement and can we expect some form of regularization soon?"

Cruise, in explicit terms, no, an agreement has not been reached yet. The SSPX and Rome, however, have achieved a very positive "next step."

I agree this is getting to be annoying. We need patience. I was talking with friends and we came to the conclusion it's silly to get upset over a few days when this war has been fought for thirty years.

It's all being reviewed and then will be sent to the Holy Father for his final decision, hopefully in the positive.

Prayers,

Matt

Prof. Basto said...

In my opinion, this delay is not as complicated as Mr. Perkins suggests, or else Tornielli of all people wouldn't have vouched for the existance of a positive outcome.

It seems to me that what happened was this:

1) as we all know, the first response to the preamble was not even considered a response, but just documentation. The second response, or the first response to be regarded as a response, was not accepted, and the Holy See demanded clarifications, and a more positive reply. A due date was set for April 15. On April 17, the SSPX's new response arrived, as the Holy See had requested in March.

2) This new response could be an acceptance of the Doctrinal Preamble proposed by Rome, it could be a rejection of that Preamble, or it could be an acceptance with qualifications and/or reservations. The text of the Preamble itself was open to requests for change.

3) According to the present reports, the SSPX's response of April 17 amounted to an acceptance of the Preamble, but with a few requests for changes in the text of that Preamble. Vaticanists describe the desired changes as "minor".

4) In describing the desired changes to the preamble as minor, those sources indicate that the proposed changes are likely to be accepted.

5) So we have two different Preambles, or two different texts of the Preamble: one that was originally proposed by the CDF, and another (a slightly different version), that contains the changes desired by the SSPX, described by journalists as minor.

6) Although the points of difference between the two versions are being described as minor, the Holy See still needs to decide if it considers that those changes are indeed minor. That is, the "ball" is now on the Holy See's "court", and it needs to decide wether or not it accepts the proposed changes. So the "game" isn't over yet.

7) Still, the next step is a response on the Holy See's part. In order to reach a decision, the Holy See will formally examine the version of the preamble presented by the SSPX, with the modifications desired by it. Such examination will be conducted by an ordinary session of the Congregation for the Docrine of the Faith (on a Wednsday, feria-quarta). Any decision, positive or negative, or with further proposals of change, adopted by the CDF will need to receive the approval of Pope Benedict XVI.

8) The positive aspect is that there was a substantial acceptance of the Preamble by the SSPX, at least in the view of the Vaticanists such as Tornielli, and the requested alterations proposed by the Society (described as minor) are such that the acceptance by Rome of the SSPX's version of the preamble is considered likely and imminent.

9) On the other hand, the Holy Father is known to be personally directing the conduct of the Holy See in this affair, to which he devotes time and direct attention. This has a crucial role in sustaining the efforts and the goodwill of Rome, and so if the April 17 response by the SSPX is acceptable, the Pope will make sure that it clears the CDF stage with a positive vote, and then he will confirm the decision of the CDF, approving the SSPX response as sufficient for reconciliation.

Prof. Basto said...

continued...
10) In a nutshell, we only have this additional stage of Holy See decision (the "ball" again in Rome's "court") because the SSPX reply was not COMPLETELY positive; in that it contains requests for change. Ergo, the Preamble signed by Bishop Fellay is different, if only in minor points, from the Preamble that was presented to him by the CDF. The Holy See now needs to decide if the version of the Preamble that Bishop Fellay signed (containing the minor edits proposed by him), can be accepted. If it is accepted by Rome, then this present text of the Preamble (presented in Bishop Fellay's reply of 17 April) replaces the text of the Preamble originally proposed by Rome, and becomes officially sanctioned text of the Holy See, with the result that Bishop Fellay will have signed a Preamble now accepted by the Holy See, effecting the doctrinal agreement. If the Holy See cannot accept Fellay's latest version, then eiher the ping-pong of versions will continue, or a breakdown of talks would take place. But a brakdown is not expected by observes, and the Vaticanists are also not talking of further back-and-forth. So, it seems that we have reached decision time, and that the Holy See is likely to end this dialogue by saying "yes" to the latest version of the preamble, the one presented by the SSPX and containing minor changes to Rome's initial text. One indeed could not expect Rome to make a decision overnight, so this final delay is perfectly normal.

Perhaps by May 13 we will have further news...

Jonvilas said...

Judy, according to some earlier informations, the letter was sent already either on April 13 or 14. Usually, it takes few days to arrive to certain destinations. Thus, it is very normal timing for the letter to arrive in 3 or 4 days. While the official communique indicates only the date of delivery, i.e. the date when the letter arrived to the Ecclesia Dei. Therefore, your statement is irrelevant and erroneous.

Timothy Mulligan said...

Prof. Basto, thank you for your measured and rational summary of the situation.

I suppose that's why they call you Professor!

Prof. Basto said...

Jonvilas,

To be fair to Judy, the SSPX's own press release, issued in the English language and posted on their website, mentions "a letter DATED April 17".

So if the letter bears that date, it seems that postal timing is not responsible for the delay. If the letter was dated April 15 or 14 then it would seem that the delay had been caused by the time it takes for the mail to arrive, but that is not the case.

I found that strange, too. Why would they want to breach the due date set by the Successor of Peter?

Anyways, the response arrived, and, although it arrived two days late, it was still accepted by Rome for consideration, and will now be examined by the CDF.

Gratias said...

How will this affect the FSSP, ICK, IBP and other traditional orders? Will they now be allowed to have every-Sunday masses? In the immediate future it seems that the bishops will be inclined to approve requests just to give the SSPX a hard time. The FSSP has been very loyal and deserves a bishop. There should also be a Cardinal dedicated to the Forma Extraordinaria. Let us pray that the resistance of the bishops to the TLM will break down and a new era for the Church will start. The Year of Faith promises to be a happy one. Benedict XVI will have achieved the main objectives of his well planned pontificate. Pray it will be a long one, but when he leaves this remarkable Pope will leave the Catholic Church a much better institution than what he inherited. The entire liturgy will be more reverent and we will have all his writings as part of our heritage. Vielen Dank Heilige Vater.

Adfero said...

Gratias, I think you are a little confused.

All the traditional orders you just mentioned already have every Sunday Masses. The only Masses they have are TLMs every day -- they don't say the NO, ever. They don't need a bishop's approval to do this. Once they're in a diocese, they're in.

sam said...

It seems that we have the following positions being held by people on either side:

-Crossing the Tiber.
-Crossing the Lefebvricon.
-Shipwrecked and stranded just off the island of Malta.

Bartholomew said...

Prof. Basto:

(1) Tornielli has made the point that there has been ongoing contact and negotiations behind the scenes between the SSPX and the Vatican. Therefore, it probably came as no surprise that the response would be late.

(2) It was never the assumption of many that post April 15th was a "drop dead" date.

Prof. Basto said...

Bartholomew,

Indeed. And, in any case, what matters is that it has been accepted and will be examined on its merits.

I continue to wait in prayer and in blessed hope, but now with a softer spirit, given the good news and the happy predictions.

Mary Most Holy will grant Tradition this victory, for the greater glorification of her Divine Son, who triumphed over death and over all evil.

Adam Michael said...

Prof. Basto,

Thank you for the clear and concise explanation of the situation as it stands!

Marty Jude said...

We can speculate all we like, but the SSPX is standing firm on their prudence in this situation. Namely, they are not providing any information publically, as I believe agreed with the Vatican.

In the latest [subscribed newsletter of DICI, the SSPX news website] Fr Lorans says 'At the hour when DICI is being published, despite all the hypotheses and predictions of the international press about the imminence of a canonical recognition of the Society of Saint Pius X by the Holy See, nothing is certain.

An allegedly sensational article by the Vatican-watcher Andrea Tornielli announced on the evening of April 17 that a “positive response” from Bishop Bernard Fellay arrived at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. In reality it was a set of written clarifications that Cardinal William Levada had requested of the Superior General of the Society of Saint Pius X, which now must be studied by that dicastery and then submitted to the judgment of Benedict XVI.

In this issue we review the commentaries by journalists who stir up among some people hope one minute and apprehension the next, and among other people—fear or joy. But it is important to remember that all these commentaries, like the sentiments or resentments that they provoke, have to do with mere speculations.

DICI, for its part, will not discuss facts until they have been verified.' [ see DICI 253, http://www.dici.org/en/news/romesociety-of-saint-pius-x-press-review/ ].

We have our ideas of what we would like to happen and what potential solutions may be available to the Holy Father, but, if this is upsetting people in one form or another, then it is not good. We have waited this long - almost 24yrs since the Episcopal Consecrations,40 yrs [I think] since the original 'suspensions'. We need to be patient and take care.

God bless us and save us

JMJ Ora Pro Nobis said...

Sam, I have to say thats pretty funny!

Barbara said...

Dott. Tornielli strikes again!

While reading the latest update from DICI, I remembered the following from "Little Collection of Devout Meditations on the Mysteries of the Rosary" by Pope John XXIII - 5th Joyful Mystery:

"In this fifth decade of Hail Marys, which is the last of the joyful mysteries, we reserve a special invocation for the benefit of all those who are called by God, through their natural gifts, through their state in life and through the requests of their superiors, to serve the truth in the fields of research and education, as well as in the diffusion of traditional sciences or of new technology, through books or audio-visual means. Even they are invited to imitate Jesus. They are the intellectuals, the professionals and the journalists. It is the journalists in particular, who everyday, have the bounden duty to honour truth. They must transmit it with religious fidelity as well as great wisdom, without resorting to fanciful distortions and falsehood.

Yes, indeed, for all of them we pray, whether they are priests or lay. We pray that they know how to heed the truth, and for this, great purity of heart is vital. That they may know how to interpret it, and for this, deep intellectual humility is required. That they may know how to defend it, and here, the virtue that was Jesus’ strength as well as that of the saints is needed – obedience. Only with obedience, can peace that is victory, be attained."


Barbara

pclaudel said...

We know with certainty that François de Sales, the patron of journalists, is in heaven. He is, after all, a canonized saint. We are free, however, to maintain a healthy skepticism that the set he oversees is anything but null.

someone said...

http://www.facebook.com/events/223537107745829/ here is again our action- receiving Holy Communion on 6th May for a good solution for the whole Church after SSPX- Vatican talks. Welcome!!!

Encouragement said...

The Holy Father's words on April 19, 2012 on the "Apostles' Response to Persecution" are a sign of the Holy Spirit's interaction in his soul. He reflects that the Apostles: "In the face of trial, they pray."

Throughout His Holiness' address are encouraging reflections, signs of his prayerful approach to current situations, which culminate in: "And we too want to renew the request for the gift of the Holy Spirit, that warms the heart and illumines the mind, to see how the Lord realizes what we plead for according to His Will of love and not according to our ideas. Guided by the Holy Spirit of Jesus Christ, we will be able to face every situation of life with serenity, courage and joy..."

http://www.zenit.org/article-34630?l=english

"Veni Sancte Spiritus"