Rorate Caeli

Communiqué of the General House of the Society of Saint Pius X

Communiqué of the General House of the Society of Saint Pius X (June 14, 2011) 



On Wednesday, June 13, 2012, Bp. Bernard Fellay, Superior General of the Society of Saint Pius X, joined by the First Assistant General, Father Niklaus Pfluger, was received by Cardinal William Levada, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, who delivered to him the evaluation of his dicastery of the Doctrinal declaration presented by the Fraternity on April 15, 2012, in response to the Doctrinal Preamble submitted by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on September 14, 2011.


In the course of this meeting, Bp. Fellay listened to the explanations and details presented by Cardinal Levada, to whom he presented the situation of the Society of Saint Pius X and exposed the doctrinal difficulties posed by the Second Vatican Council and the Novus Ordo Missae. The desire for supplementary clarifications could lead to a new phase of discussions. [Emphasis added]

At the end of this long audience of over 2 hours, Bp. Fellay received a project of a document proposing a Personal Prelature, in the case of an eventual canonical recognition of the Society of Saint Pius X. In the course of the meeting, the matter of the situation of the three other bishops of the Society was not discussed. 


At the end of this meeting, it was desired that the dialogue will be pursued that will allow the reaching of a solution for the good of the Church and of souls.

Menzingen, June 14, 2012. 


[Source, in French]

137 comments:

Armando Rodriguez said...

Come home! we need you!

Gravitas said...

" ... and exposed the doctrinal difficulties posed by the Second Vatican Council and the Novus Ordo Missae."

I'm sorry, I want unity and all, but I find it very hard to believe that Rome is going to regularize any group who has the courage to say there are actual doctrinal difficulties with the Council and the new mess. While others like the FSSP all believe that, they don't say it publicly.

Alan Aversa said...

Yes, it looks like we're back to square-one again…

New Catholic said...

Yes, we all have to "bend to the marriage" - publicly!

Anna said...

I think this proves that the Bishop Fellay haters on the extreme right have been over-reacting. They should have taken the more charitable and prudent wait-and-see stance, not let's-assume-the-worst-and-panic-first stance.

Alan Aversa said...

Deo gratias that Bp. Fellay doesn't seem to be capitulating!

New Catholic said...

You are naturally right, Anna, and it shows that they have no sense of proportion, respect, or discipline. They have acted shamefully, and, whatever the outcome of the Holy See-SSPX discussions, it has displayed a highly undisciplined group. How can they pretend to be "militant", when, from sabotage to fraud and derision for their commander, they act as no soldier worthy of his name ever would?

Regardless of anything else, it is an embarrassing situation - for the rebels, of course.

NC

Alan Aversa said...

Amen, Anna

Ceolfrid said...

Does anyone, anywhere know exactly what just happened? Looks like a whole lot of nothing...

larios777 said...

Making very difficult for a great group of priests to come "in full communion" I don't know where did Rome got that term from, this society got excommunicated for defending and preserving the Catholic Church and priests and bishops that are in "full communion" that are beyond heretics are not excommunicated

DTC said...

Gravitas: what would be the difference between the FSSPX and Msgr. Gherardini, et.al. questioning the council very seriously?

Tradical said...

My thoughts:
1. Bishop Fellay (as noted) didn't capitulate so the rebels were without a cause.

2. There is something new:

"... evaluation ... of the Doctrinal declaration ...in response to the Doctrinal Preamble..."


So the SSPX responded to the Preamble with a 'Doctrinal Declaration'.


I think we'll be seeing some ping-pong for quite a while yet, sadly maybe not until the next pontificate.

Prayer
Penance
Patience

P^3

Philip Guy said...

Yeah, egg on the face of the klaxons in the Society. But at least now they have revealed their true colours - i.e. they believe that Rome is heretical and needs to convert to true Catholicism.

someone said...

@ NewCatholic, but what with Fr. Lorans word's that bishop Fellay has some days( a week to 10 days) for the response?

Prof. Basto said...

Does anyone, anywhere know exactly what just happened? Looks like a whole lot of nothing...

Yesterday, it was reported here that the Holy Father had objected to the expression "errors of the Council" in the text presented to the Holy See by Bishop Fellay.

So, perhaps the Pope's decision was positive, but with reservations.

And, in spite of the reservations, the Pope decided to formally put forward the idea of the Personal Prelature, thus opening the discussions on the question of the canonical structure.

It would thus seem that we have two stages of the talks, or two parallel discussions, now taking place simultaneously: the still unfinished discussion on the doctrinal preamble; and the discussion on the canonical question.

From the Holy See Press Office communique (in the paragraph regarding the doctrinal preamble and the Vatican's evaluation of the Society's Reply), we learned that an answer is expected from Bishop Fellay. Bishop Fellay promised to deliver one in a reasonable timeframe.

Thus, we can conclude that the Pope's position was not a total acceptance of the SSPX's Reply. If it were, no further response on the part of the SSPX would be necessary.

The Pope replied to the SSPX Reply, and now the SSPX needs to reply back to the Pope. Perhaps with a "yes or no" answer. But the SSPX Press Release mentions the possibility of further talks.

Should Bishop Fellay's response, that is expected within a reasonable time, be not yet a disposition to sign, but yet another exchange of documents, then the new Reply would need to be summited to the Pope afresh.

Of course, Bishop Fellay could at any time spare us the pain by giving a clear and definitive answer. Perhaps the Holy See already proposed replacing the words "errors of the Council" with another formula.

All this being contingent on the speculation about the phrase "errors of the Council" being correct. A lot of "if"s indeed!

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anil Wang said...

@Gravitas

WRT " ... and exposed the doctrinal difficulties posed by the Second Vatican Council and the Novus Ordo Missae."

Note the language, "difficulties" not "heresies". As John Henry Cardinal Newman pointed out, A thousand difficulties does not make a single doubt. Yes there are difficulties with the NO. The Pope pointed them out and is trying to remedy them. Yes there are difficulties in the Vatican II documents. The Pope himself had some misgivings on some documents (e.g. he called article 17 of Gaudium et Spes“downright Pelagian”).

The point is, a true Catholic that thinks and digs deeply enough into the faith, *will* likely have difficulties with some aspects of Catholicism. *But* he trusts in the Church rather than himself and tries to find ways to resolve those difficulties (e.g. with the Pope, it is with the Hermeneutic of Continuity).

Aneas said...

This just shows, again, that SSPX are a bunch of hypocrites:

1. SSPX claim: "we are true Catholics"- Except you don't follow the Holy Father; that's kind of a big deal.

2. SSPX Claim: Marcel Lefebvre's ordinations were necessary to preserve the Tradition of the Church, etc., even though they were done without Papal approval and resulted in the excommunication of the four Bishops- This is essentially the same "freedom of conscience" filth that is so pervasive in the extreme-left wing of the Church. Extremes tend to meet.

3. We have preserved the tradition of the Church- Very ironic, since by preserving the traditions of the Church the SSPX performed an act that traditionally resulted in excommunication. The are essentially à la carte Catholics; not very traditional.

The Vatican needs to drop their discussions with SSPX and kick the dust of their feet. Benedict would be much further ahead promoting tradition within the Church by encouraging the Tridentine Mass to be said more often and taught in the seminaries, and encouraging administration of the sacraments in the traditional form.

At this point, working with the SSPX is a waste of time.

Robert Tuc said...

I don't know how people can now argue that a large portion of the SSPX is not in schism.

While they might SAY that Benedict XVI is pope, he might as well not be in reality.

They've made it clear that whatever kind of formal structure he might offer to them they will reject.

They prefer instead to operate outside of the Church, independently of it, to have nothing to do with it.

Tradical said...

aeas are you a blog-troll?

"... traditionally resulted in excommunication ..."

This is incorrect. Prior to PiusXII, the consecration without Papal mandate resulted in suspension.

The other issues are baseless assertions.

As noted earlier. You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.

Tradical said...

"... large portion of the SSPX is not in schism ..."

Tuc,

It is simple. They are still in discussions implicitly recognizing the Pope.

If they were schismatic, we wouldn't even be writing on this blog.

Brian said...

This is an excellent development.

I hope that Bishop Fellay now works with his fellow Bishops to precisely define what they mean by "errors in the Council," without using the ambiguous term, "error."

I hope, too, that this process assists our Holy Father in precisely clarifying the level of disagreement / dissent which is allowed toward the Council documents.

Cruise the Groove. said...

Yes indeed.
It appears to be back to square one.

We apparantly have to wait till who knows when, to have valid confessions and marriages by the SSPX and meanwhile souls continue to be lost.

Way to procrastinate, whoever is in charge

The Divine Master's student said...

"Veni Sancte Spiritus". . ."At the end of this meeting, it was DESIRED that the DIALOGUE WILL BE PURSUED that WILL ALLOW the REACHING of a SOLUTION for the GOOD OF THE CHURCH AND OF SOULS."

The Holy Spirit is SANCTIFYING His servants as they are escorted step by step by Divine Providence along the Path of Providence which leads to the Eternal Beatitude their patient martyrdom of precise docility will bring them to.

"I will NOT leave you orphans". . ."I will ask the Father, and He shall give you another Paraclete, that He may abide with you forever."

"The Spirit of Truth Whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth Him not, nor knoweth him: but you shall know Him; because He shall abide with you,and shall be in you."

"He that hath My commandments, and KEEPETH THEM, he it is that loveth me. And he that loveth me, shall be loved of My Father: and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him." John 14:16-18,21)

Jesus Christ, the Sacred Heart, is Himself manifesting Himself and His Will to His servant, Bishop Fellay, one step at a time. May this child of Our Father increasingly enjoy the closest union with the Holy Trinity, drawing all attached to his soul to the same confident, peaceful reliance on the Divine Will. As Holy Providence is clearly manifesting that H.E. Bishop Fellay is a true shepherd, the little lambs have a position in Divine Providence to humbly, trustingly follow his illumined lead.

Robert Tuc said...

Tradical wrote: "It is simple. They are still in discussions implicitly recognizing the Pope."

Fellay and Pfluger et al are in discussions. A large portion of the rest of the SSPX meanwhile has been issuing interviews, preaching sermons and leaked letters denouncing these talks and any notion of being regularized. Maybe you missed all that?

Cruise the Groove. said...

Tradical et al:

It is quite apparent there is no recognition or regularization coming as long as Bishop Fellay says there are errors with the VII documents and as long as he questions the sanctity of the NO Missae.
Its unfair and a double standard but it is the way a Vatican that hates tradition operates.

Tradical said...

"... A large portion of the rest of the SSPX ..."

Hi Tuc,

10 priests, 2.5 bishops is not a large portion of 550+ members.

Perception is not truth.

James C. said...

"The Vatican needs to drop their discussions with SSPX and kick the dust of their feet. Benedict would be much further ahead promoting tradition within the Church by encouraging the Tridentine Mass to be said more often and taught in the seminaries, and encouraging administration of the sacraments in the traditional form."

He'll have a heck of a time trying that with modernist bishops smiling at him and then impeding his initiatives while his back is turned. At least Fellay and the SSPX have been honest, which is why Rome threw them under the bus.

Cruise the Groove. said...

Its like a basketball game with both teams afraid to score.

Tradical said...

Hi Cruise,

To put the analogy further, they're being cautious not to score for the opposing team.

Embarassed?Not said...

Many sheep have gone to SSPX because they can't get the sacraments or the faith in Rome. If the Mass was available in Rome, they would not be in SSPX. +Lefebvre broke away because he COULD NOT in conscience accept the new Mass. He died exocommunicate and is STILL excommunicate. If he was wrong, he is in hell. If Benedict is wrong, Benedict (and JPII and Paul VI) will be in hell. For +Fellay to act like the sit has changed and he is now going to accept the New Mass to PERHAPS offer to those who accept the New Mass the mass merely exposes his flock to having to assent to the New Mass or what they hold to be no mass at all. What you in your idle blog chat call "bend to the marriage" we call "IDOL WORSHIP". Our salvation and that of our children is at stake not to mention being forced to offend God. Many of you think it would be nice etc. etc. to have the mass back while you continue to worship at the N.O. You do not truly believe your soul is at stake or that evil is being invoked even as you see the fruit. Your choice is to follow the leader and the one true church to ensure your salvation. I can't say that your choice is wrong--only God knows and there are many arguments on your side. I can only say my choice was not taken lightly and of course I will bleat loud and long when I see my true food built up at such cost by +Lefebvre and others being jeopardized. You'd think +Fellay would appreciate knowing who was behind him and who wasn't before he found himself a shepherd w/out a flock. That is the main problem w/New Mass (and VCII) - it was imposed from the top down, i.e. "they" took out the communion rails...

Cruise the Groove. said...

Embarrassed,

When an excomunicate dies his excommunication is no longer.

Mary Jane said...

@ Embarassed?Not, I don't think anyone should be making predictions as to who is or could end up in hell. Not for any of us to decide or judge.

I pray the SSPX accepts.

Mary Jane said...

@ Embarassed?Not, one more point: You said, "Many sheep have gone to SSPX because they can't get the sacraments or the faith in Rome."

I'd like to point out that "they" can get the sacraments and the Faith in Rome (or wherever). The SSPX is not the final remnant of the faithful. The SSPX is not the only group that has valid sacraments and good catechesis.

Jonvilas said...

I am justing thinking about that PP issue (which is also dealt in another post). There were expressed a lot of opinions about the negative attitude towards Tradition of huge majority of local bishops. That is true. One thing, however, that will change significantly is the following one. One may speak as much as he wants that FSPPX is truly catholic, inside the Church and so on (as we can see on this blog rather often). The problem is that without the 'recognition' and the 'regularization', the local bishops have free hands in claiming that FSSPX is not just in a-non-full-communion with the Holy See, but that they are simply not catholic. One could hear this everywhere.
With the recognition and regularization thing those local bishops will lose any ground for such claims. And a fully catholic bishop Felay will come to such a catholic modernist bishop, the latter will not be able to ignore that the former is not catholic. Thus, the most significant claim of these modernists will be over. Therefore, they will not be able to reject any request of FSSPX or other faithful, saying that we do not deal with non-catholics in the Church matters. This is, I think, really important.

Miles Dei said...

Is this a "Deja vu" from September 14th?

someone said...

I want to ask once again- is it true and actual that Fr. Lorans has told about max. 10 days due date for respond?

A Sinner said...

"+Lefebvre broke away because he COULD NOT in conscience accept the new Mass. He died exocommunicate and is STILL excommunicate. If he was wrong, he is in hell. If Benedict is wrong, Benedict (and JPII and Paul VI) will be in hell."

Oh come now, that's not how it works. People in good conscience can disagree even to the point of (mutual) excommunications and both can ultimately be doing good according to their state. There were Saints on both sides of the Western schism.

"When an excomunicate dies his excommunication is no longer."

Incorrect. Excommunication continues after death, which is one of the reasons it should so terrify a person even if they are convinced their cause is correct. An excommunicated person receives NONE of the benefit of the public prayer of the Church if they go to purgatory. So someone willing to suffer an unjust excommunication of the external forum for a good cause better damn well be sure that God is on their side, and be of great personal sanctity (in the internal forum).

Malta said...

Both sides have to save a bit of face; but I think things are progressing in the right direction.

One thing I know, as a matter of nature, is that both +Fellay and our Pope want to make this happen.

Whether forces inimicable to both the society and to Rome impeded that is yet to be seen.

Carl said...

To me, this is a perhaps this matter is proceeding with professionalism and honesty from a human point of view. From a theological point of view, it is good to remember that God is more patient than we are. Both of these communiques are striking in their good faith, intelligence and sincerity. It seems fit to thank God that the official dialogue is proceeding much more impressively than much of what we've seen in comment boxes and polemical sermons.

These two communiques strongly suggest that a real solution that all can find acceptable is drawing closer. Now is definitely a time for redoubled prayer. Most of us have been praying for years, but now seems like a time when our prayers can be more efficacious than ever before.

New Catholic, I admire and am grateful for your temperance throughout the years that you've run this blog. I am not ashamed to admit that it has annoyed me at times, but that it's something I have come to wish to imitate. God bless you.

dolorosa said...

"In the Church there is no law or jurisdiction which can impose on a Christian a diminution of his faith. All the faithful can and should resist whatever interferes with their faith, supported by the catechism of their childhood. If they are faced with an order putting their faith in danger of corruption, there is an overriding duty to disobey." Archbishop Lefebvre

Peter M said...

I agree with Carl 19.53; things seem to be going well, discussions are frank and honest, aiming at arriving at a solution where both parties know what deal has been reached and how it is meant to work. Modern man has an attention span of 2-3 minutes and knows not how to wait; if His Holiness and Mgr Fellay will have to discuss yet a couple of months to reach a conclusion of this very serious business, is that a problem? On the contrary!

dolorosa said...

The Pope not too long ago went to another Assisi 3 which Archbishop Lefebvre noted was against the First Commandment.
It was a bad sign. Rome still is steeped in modernism and the errors of VII. We still have yet to receive the full third secret. No consecration of Russia has been done as Our Lady of
Fatima requested. The deals with Campos, FSSP, and Papa Stronsay didn't go well and they are silenced to talk about the above. No, we need a good sign and we don't have one yet.

Echoing carl with explanation said...

To Carl:

Your words are worth echoing: "this matter is proceeding with professionalism and honesty from a human point of view. From a theological point of view, it is good to remember that God is more patient than we are. Both of these communiques are striking in their good faith, intelligence and sincerity. It seems fit to thank God that the official dialogue is proceeding much more impressively..."

Your comments reveal the elevation of your perspective to participate in the Omniscient perspective. The Holy Trinity have had ALL ETERNITY to design their Divine Providence to sanctify our souls. They DESIRE souls to increase in all the virtues and are utilizing these situation for growth every virtue including humility, patience, confidence, meekness, fraternal charity and Charity while purifying intentions and souls.

Cruise the Groove. said...

A Sinner,

Rather excommunication ceases on a persons death else we would know for sure that person is in Hell.

All the souls in Purgatory are in communion with the Church as the Church Suffering.
In Heaven as the Church triumphant.

That leaves only Hell, which if someone remains excommunicated from after death, he would surely be in.

Throckmorton P. said...

"New Catholic said...
Yes, we all have to "bend to the marriage" - publicly!"

This ongoing situation reminds me of the marriage of my mother and father way back in 1928. Mom, being Irish Catholic--living on Madonna Place no less--was to be married to my father, a German Protestant. They were allowed no church wedding, no ceremony, no guests, certainly no Mass. Just my mother and father, two witnesses and Fr. Core in the rectory--not even in the church.

I pray the circumstances of the “marriage” which may be forth coming is of higher esteem for the Society than the service was to my parents. If not then it is a line I will not cross.

(To my parents credit they persevered, raising there living children in the Faith all of whom still attend weekly Mass, although only one Traditional.)

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

First, the Pope is proposing, not imposing, a p.p. structure. That is very good news. I would now like to shut up about the form of the canonical structure, satisfied that I have done what I can on this matter. I ask that others here shut up on it as well, as I will not be answering their counter-arguments any longer. So if you don't receive a reply to another counter, do not suppose that I don't have one. But I think it best, at this point, for the experts to decide the matter. By now, Bishop Fellay knows what the problems are with the defective personal prelature structure, and I'm sure that he or others will suggest the correct solution, the Campos writ international. Levada is keeping to the defective structure as a bargaining tool on other matters, I suspect. It is now clear that its acceptance would help dissuade Society leaders from reaching a deal, so it is negotiable, as Bishop Fellay said from the beginning.

On the other matter, it seems as if Levada has gotten his way and has killed a deal for the present. But I see this differently. I think that Rome wants to give Fellay time to meet with his other bishops and have some frank discussions with them. The Pope, I think, wants to avoid the appearance that he is trying to divide the S.S.P.X; also, he really does not want to divide the Society but to bring most of it over--all but the wild extremists and 'anti-semites'.

This proves that H.H. will not be pressured owing to his advanced age. The Holy Father is trusting in God and our Lady, knowing that he will be given the time to finish this work is this is the will of the Almighty Father. We don't refer often enough to the First Person of the Blessed Trinity: May HIS WILL BE DONE.

Bishop Fellay will likely try to ensure soon that these talks continue after the Society Chapter meeting of July. Let's say a few brief prayers and move on. The last of the Anglican ordinariates is to be erected tomorrow morning. Moderators: I request that you make the Aussie Ordinariae a news item. We all need some good news!

P.K.T.P.

P.S. On excommunication: no, it DOES cease with death. This was detailed by an expert some time ago and posted on this blog, I believe. I confess that I cannot remember when or by whom, only the outcome. I has to do with the nature of excommunication and the nature of the papal power, which is only declatorty in regard to deceased persons. I have forgotten the details. Someone here might dig it up: Lefebvre is no longer excommunicated. Moreover, had he been in death, the Pope would have lifted his because the Holy See never admitted that the original excommunications were unjust: they were lifted as an act of mercy.

Matamoros said...

Armando Rodriquez said
"Come home! We need you!"

If you think we need to come home, or go anywhere in fact, you do not really need us.

In Ecclesia Dei circles, especially in English Speaking countries, a kind of Traditionalism has been developong which resembles the Church before the council, especially in English-speaking countries; pious, observant of the norms but accepting of its place in pluralist society/i.e. accepting of the relativisation of Christ the King.

Read again the speeches of Bishop Tissier de Mallerais, of Bishop Fellay, of Archbishop Lefebvre. Traditionalism and liberalism in Europe had already formed camps before the Council because of the question of the Church's place in society. On this subject we are still light years from the Pope.

If you think this is all about smells and bells, you do not need us.

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

Bloggers:

Something has just occurred to me. If you go back to the Holy See's last communiqué, I believe that there was a statement somewhere there that talks not just on the canonical structure but also on the doctinal matters might continue EVEN IF a joint-declaration were signed. In other words, Fellay might sign this latest document but that will not be the end of discussions on the non-canonical theological relation between the Society and Rome.

I think that today's statement is a trick by Levada. His purpose here, I propose, is to prevent a 'triumphalistic' reaction by traditionalists to any coming joint agreement. Assuming that Bishop Fellay signs in the next ten days, we shall not be permitted to pop champagne corks, for that would 'wound the sensibilities' of the commie bastards whom some, to be polite, call 'liberals'. I'm sick of this: we are talking about coddling clowns who break every law in the Church and then complain about us.

So how could this work? Well, Rome could recognise the Society clerics as Catholic if Fellay signs in ten days, but all the canonical effects of this recognition would be either suspended or else permitted only provisionally until he has signed further agreements on doctrinal minimuns. I don't mean the resolution of doctrinal questions per se; I mean further agreements on the 'principles and criteria' of the interpretation of doctrine.

The Pope is not a cheap man; he is generous. Therefore, I suspect that it will be the latter: the canonical effects (e.g. temporary faculties) will be granted temporarily and provisioinally, pending further agreements on these principles of doctrinal interpretation. The provisions might be extended also until a canonical form is decided on.

This would be a way to let down the liberals gently: the poor wusses are so delicate. Rome could say that the provisions granted by her only continue until a conclusion has been reached, and will stop dead should the Society 'not bend' on some doctrinal matters. This would extend the pain and prevent the liberals from losing hope. It would make their defeat probable but not certain, deflating the issue.

That, I suspect, is the real meaning of all of this. The Pope is trying to find a way to avoid major division over a deal with the S.S.P.X.; he is also trying to get Tissier and de Galarreta on board. As for Levada, he prays hard that the talks will fail: so we must pray harder in the opposite direction!

Do we have any saints in our group? Saints are too holy to be bought, but they are not always smart and can therefore sometimes be tricked into praying for something!

P.K.T.P.

The Divine Judge's petitioner said...

To JMR:

Souls secumbing to a TEMPTATION to curiousity and speculation is NOT necessarily a potential point H.E. Bishop Fellay must answer to before the Divine Judge. His responsibility does require discretionary prudence with regard to every word that he speaks which immediately is a point he will be held accountable for.

A sign of sanctity is a habbit of sufficient prayerful reflection prior to speaking that neither the tongue nor fingers offend Our Lord Jesus Christ.

Anna said...

St. Joan of Arc died "excommunicated". She is now a canonized Saint. Therefore it is a clear fact that excommunications can be given out erroneously, and that someone who died under that censure still went straight to heaven.

Tom said...

"Does anyone, anywhere know exactly what just happened?"

What happened is that we should have heeded Bishop Fellay's declaration that in regard to Rome-SSPX matters, we should pay attention only to official statements that flow from Rome and the Society.

But even on this thread there are folks who have informed us as to that which they believe happened in regard to Bishop Fellay's vist to the CDF yesterday.

Their collective analysis as to yesterday's meeting in question is just a lot of hot air.

Tom

Tradition Brazil said...

The only difference to the Protestant radical traditionalist is that makes the first free-examination of the Scriptures, while the second is to free interpretation of the Holy Magisterium.

Greyghost said...

Sorry everyone, I am a believer and will stick with Lefebvre where he says ". . . I am not a pessimist. The Holy Virgin will have the victory. She will triumph over the great apostasy, the fruit of Liberalism. One more reason not to twiddle our thumbs!" (page 251 of They Have Uncrowned Him).

In time, this will pass. Bishop Fellay is not wasting his time or twiddling his thumb. Everything is important and has an impact on the final outcome, full recognition or not.

God loves each of us and we are not alone in the struggle. We know this from everything we believe as Catholics.

Patients.

God Bless.

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

Those here who accuse the Society members of being Protestant in mindset just don't know what a Protestant is: a Protestant is a heretic. They are Catholic. In my view, their disobedience became wrongful disobedience in 2000, when the Holy See offered them regularisation without doctrinal compromise. So they may be wrongfully-disobedient Catholics but that does not give them a Protestant perspective. They merely adhere to all Church teaching and do not reject anything they are required to assent to by divine and Catholic faith. This is an internal Catholic dispute, as the Pope himself has affirmed. They are not heretics and not schismatics but only disobedient to legitimate authority, and such disobedience can, in certain circumstances, even be rightful. Those having the Protestant mindset are most of those who attend the New Mass and worship like Protestants and think like Protestants.

This will get resolved but the Pope won't put the cart before the horse.

P.K.T.P.

JMJ Ora Pro Nobis said...

Oh for the love of... another load of negotiations! Am I the only one that thinks this is just being kicked into the long grass?

I do agree with Anna and NC though it is egg on the face of those who, normally quite irrationally, have been accusing +Fellay of selling out.

@Cruise the groove, spare us the 'waiting for valid confessions etc..', if you want you can call them 'of doubtful validity', you'd be wrong but it can rationally be done, simply labelling them invalid however is nonsensical in the light of supplied jurisdiction and the crisis the church is in. Labelling them 'of doubtful validity' isn't much better but at least it isn't totally absurd.

William said...

For the "we're back to square one" doom and gloom posters, I offer you Father Zuhlsdorf's positive assessment:

"Thus, we were left to wonder what the Holy Father’s decisions were? Positive? Negative?

"I suspect they were positive, since within the VIS story is an important bit of information.

"The SSPX is being offered a Personal Prelature.

"I don’t think that offer would be made had the CDF and Holy Father not have accepted what the SSPX had proposed earlier."

JMJ Ora Pro Nobis said...

@PKTP, right and you of course have evidence of this offer of a deal without doctrinal compromise don't you? I mean I know you wouldn't be silly enough to make such serious accusations without compelling evidence.

JMJ Ora Pro Nobis said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Greyghost said...

Sorry, the word in my previous post is "Patience", not as stated.

Greyghost said...

Sorry, the word is "Patience" in my previous post.

The Divine Master's student said...

To P.K.T.P.:

With regard to your assertion: "Saints are too holy to be bought, but they are not always smart and can therefore sometimes be tricked into praying for something!"

Please contemplate the reality that all saints pray singularly for the accomplishment of the Will of the Holy Trinity as Our Divine Master instructed: "Thy Will be done on earth as it is in Heaven."

Carl said...

PKTP, PKTP, wherefore art thou PKTP - I think a basic doctrinal agreement and canonical recognition have always (dating back to the late 80s) been seen by both sides as a step in the discussions rather than as the conclusion of them. It isn't a trick from Cardinal Levada and it doesn't imply that positive canonical effects will remain in Limbo until every doctrinal difficulty is resolved.

I think you are right that the Holy See wants to do this in phases and wants to avoid any triumphalism. And that's wise, by the way. Rome wasn't built in a day, and it won't be re-built in a day.

Metamoros - I think you misunderstand Armando. When he says "Come home!" I don't think he means to imply that you are some kind of prodigal that has drifted away. I think he means that some of us have been trying to hold down the fort while you've been VISIBLY separated from the rest of the Church. We need the reinforcements.

Are you light years away from the pope on Christ the King? Are you sure?

"The social duty of Christians is to respect and awaken in each man the love of the true and the good. It requires them to make known the worship of the one true religion which subsists in the Catholic and apostolic Church. Christians are to be the light of the world. Thus, the Church shows forth the kingship of Christ over all creation and in particular over human societies" (CCC 2105).

Forgetting the common complaint that traditionalists express with the verb "to subsist" (which is deeply ignorant of the dogmatic history of the term) - focusing on what it says about the SOCIAL REIGN of Christ the King - how can you say that the Society is "light years" away from the Holy Father?

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

William:

With all due respoect, Fr. Z. is wrong. It was made clear by Bishop Fellay that that offer was in the original Preamble. So that has not changed. It is merely repeated. Thankfully, it is only being proposed, not imposed.

However, I agree that the news is positive. Compare today's news with that of the last communiqué. They are not saying that a recognition of the Society by Rome is not imminent. They are only saying that talks even on doctrinal minimums will continue *after* such a recognition. The Pope has signed a recognition which now requires for validity Bishop Fellay's signature in seven to ten days. The fact that it will not resolve all preliminary matters is beside the point. The Pope is ready to recognise them NOW, this week. Presumably, the canonical effects of this recognition will either (1) be suspended until the talks have finished successfully or (2) be granted for now only provisionally and temporarily, until the talks should end successfully or otherwise.

Don't be tricked by Levada. He is trying hard to deflate any triumphalism among us. That is his job. The liberals must not be provoked to rebellion.

P.K.T.P.

NIANTIC said...

Eventhough I too am impatient and wish to see all concluded in a prompt and proper manner this "delay" is a blessing for H.E.Bishop Fellay. Remember it was the Holy Father who started this process, not the Society. Out of respect and obedience Bishop Fellay had to respond and become engaged. However he has stated that he would have preferred to have more time and have a better feel for the situation in the Church. Now this "wish" appears to have been granted. He now has additional time to think, consult, pray and discuss the matter internally. Even if the additional time only is a few weeks it still gives him time which he will spend well I am sure.

All of us Traditionalist have an obligation now to give him space and pray for the Holy Ghost to continue to guide him. The decisions are momentous and cannot be made in haste or under pressure.

So dear friends, calm down, cool off, have a beer or two or another adult beverage of your choice (I stick with Dewar's Scotch myself) and pray instead more urgently. God is in charge and His Will ultimately will be done.
Pax et bonum!

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

J.M.J. Ora pro nobis:

The evidence lies in Bishop Fellay's own assertions about Vatican II documents. He has made it clear that the Preamble does not treat of doctrines directly but, as the C.D.F. itself admitted in a previous communiqué, only in "principles and criteria" of doctrinal interpretation. That is a direct quotation.

The problem is not and cannot be the Society's adherence to previous Church teaching; nor is anything in Vatican II infallible. Therefore, nothing in Vatican II which is new requires the assent of "divine and Catholic faith" (cf. Canon 750).

Some assertions in Vatican II are doctrinal in nature, while others are not: some are merely pastoral directives. The non-infallible doctrinal matters do not require the assent of faith but do require a *relative* submission of mind and will (cf. Canon 751) in accordance with "the norms of theological interpretation ... which [become] known either from the subject matter or from the language employed" (Note of the Theological Commission from the Acts of the Most Holy Second Œcumentical Council, 123rd General Congregation, 16 November, 1964).

So there is no question of doctrinal compromise per se in this agreement. Of course, you are correct if you think that there could be hidden compromise in the principles and criteria of interpretation being defined. Keep in mind, however, that the Society itelf is bound to admit that, ultimately, only the Sacred Magisterium may decide doctrinal matters and the degrees in which doctrines are to be or may be received by the faithful.

So, no, there will be no question of doctrinal compromise here. I think it likely that Rome will treat the Society as she treated the Feeneyites: they will be allowed to adhere to all their positions but Rome will not necessarily impose those positions on all faithful. At the Society's request, Rome might then decide point-by-point to what extent Vatican II liberal positions are to be forbidden (not imposed). It would be a sort of elimination of negatives. It reminds me of the form of the Syllabus of Errors, in which Rome did not define errors but condemned specific errors as they had been expressed by others.

Thank you for your polite question on this. I hope that others will weigh in.

P.K.T.P.

JMJ Ora Pro Nobis said...

No PKTP, I meant vis a vis some sort of deal back in 2000, what were you referring to? I have no recollection of any such deal?

Uncle Claibourne said...

One thing that is quite obvious here: In spite of the disloyalty of his troops (as described above by Anna and New Catholic), Bishop Fellay is literally bending over backwards to preserve the unity of the Society. The Holy Father is giving him every opportunity to do so. Even if a little more time is needed. What else could be meant by the reference in both communiques to discussion about "the current situation within the Society"?

These are both men who truly have the good of the Church, and the good of souls, at heart. These are difficult times for all of us, but in a way, we are truly blessed to witness both of them conducting themselves as they are, despite the vicious attacks to which they have both been subjected. Perhaps this is the lesson the good Lord wishes to teach us.

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

Carl, Carl, why can't you be a Karl, like me? He writes this:

"I think a basic doctrinal agreement and canonical recognition have always (dating back to the late 80s) been seen by both sides as a step in the discussions rather than as the conclusion of them. It isn't a trick from Cardinal Levada and it doesn't imply that positive canonical effects will remain in Limbo until every doctrinal difficulty is resolved."

No, I would not agree with the first statement, and I have followed this business closely since the mid-1980s. In the past, there was no sense of doctrinal steps: that came much later. If you look back to the beginning of this century, all the talk from both Fellay and the Pope was about the canonical form, which Rome offered readily from 2000. That changed in about 2007, when Castrillón Hoyos got involved, but even he was prepared to grant a canonical structure with apparently no doctrinal agreement at all. There are those who say that it was to follow the lifting of the excommunications in 2009 but was spoiled by that interview with +Williamson and the Swedish media. I cannot prove that. I can prove that C.H. was offering them a structure (and not a p.p.) in 2007 with no string attached.

It is the S.S.P.X, not Rome, that has insisted on a doctrinal agreement. Rome long wanted a canonical structure first and all doctrinal discussions to follow.

This certainly is a trick by Levada but you misconceive somewhat my position in your last sentence here. Look, Levada is the enemy of all traditionalists. That is incontrovertible. Shall I furnish the evidence for this all over again? But the Pope wants this, so Levada must bend a bit. However, the Pope also wants to avoid a liberal rebellion. Yes, I think that he will either postpone faculties or else make them provisional & temporary pending a final agreement on the principles and criteria of doctrinal interpretation, and perhaps also a canonical erection. That would make sense. It is not underhanded, but it is a trick in the sense that Levada is trying to take away any sense of victory for trads: this would be too hurtful to Levada's pals, esp. those in France.

However, while faculties may be 'in limbo', if Rome recognises them this week, it will follow in law that their Masses fulfil the Sunday obligation, with or without faculties. So far, this has only been admitted in private letters from the P.C.E.D., binding on only the addressees of those letters. But if the Pope recognises them, either he will openly (even if negatively) admit this status for their Masses, or else we shall be able to prove it by a dubium to the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts. Frankly, if he says, Thou art Catholic, it automatically follows that their 1962 Masses are Catholic in the sense of §1 of Canon 1248.

Once they are recognised as Catholic, even without faculties, their Masses become Masses of 'Catholic rite' under Canon 1248.1. This would be permanent and irreversible even if no subsequent agreement were reached; it would be reversible only be declaring the whole lot of them to be in schism.

P.K.T.P.

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

Dear J.M.J.

I don't know what you mean. Please re-phrase.

P.K.T.P.

JMJ Ora Pro Nobis said...

You said 'Those here who accuse the Society members of being Protestant in mindset just don't know what a Protestant is: a Protestant is a heretic. They are Catholic. In my view, their disobedience became wrongful disobedience in 2000, when the Holy See offered them regularisation without doctrinal compromise. So they may be wrongfully-disobedient Catholics but that does not give them a Protestant perspective.'

I am referring to that.

Anonymous said...

The Pope has been exceedingly generous and patient (for 25 years); the SSPX are trumpeting all over the place that "He wants us, we don't really care-we're fine by ourselves", then let it be. Leave it alone and the Church will survive. Sure it will suffer diminution, trials, be smaller, probably but so be it. Where Peter is, there is the Church. There is no other.

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

Guessing what you might mean, J.M.J., there was a unofficial offer (admitted publicly by Fellay) from Rome in 2000. It was to grant a canonical form first and then discuss doctrinal problems. When the S.S.P.X rejected this, the same offer was extended to the traditionalist priests of the Campos, as their Bishop, Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer, had died and had been succeeded by a new man, consecrated bishop by three of the four S.S.P.X bishops. Surely you must remember this?

De Castro Mayer had refused to modernise his Diocese of Campos and ran it exactly as if Vatican II never happened, with all Masses in Latin. John Paul II tolerated this as long as he could because it was said that he liked and respected him. In 1982, however, he finally made him resign or else dismissed him (I can't remember which). De Castro Mayer then continued to run a parallel diocese in defiance of the Pope. In 1988, he was the co-consecrator of the four S.S.P.X bishops. He died one month after Lefebvre did, in 1991. Then the Society consecrated a Campos priest, Licinio Rangel, to replace him.

Rangel accepted the Campos ritual Apostolic Administration. The Campos priests were never required to change any of their doctrinal positions. They were given what the S.S.P.X had been offered: not a personal prelature but a ritual diocese, in effect, but covering the whole world. The one for the Campos was originally supposed to cover all of Brazil but the Brazilian bishops had a wild fit and demanded that it be limited to a tiny territory.

Rome proposed the same solution for the Society again in 2002, at which point Fellay called it "the Rolls Royce solution". Then it was proposed again under Benedict XVI from 2006 on. Never was the Society required to make doctrinal compromises in any of these proposals.

It is the Society itself which has insisted on a doctrinal accord before a canonical agreement, NOT Rome. One could say that, as a result, this is proving to be difficult for the Society, for now Rome IS demanding a limited doctrinal agreement on "principles and criteria" of doctrinal interpretation.

P.K.T.P.

JMJ Ora Pro Nobis said...

I never heard about this PKTP, still doctrinal discussions of some kind were necessary and its disingenous to think that if Rome is insisting on all this now, it would have insisted on any less 12 years ago. What did the Campos priests say about Assis 2 or 3? Or the various other scandals that have occured since then? Or Pope John Paul II's beatification etc..? Have they said anything in public or officialy? And why did +Rifan end up celebrating the new mass?

Doctrinal agreement or at the very least discussions of some kind were always required since the beginning of this whole saga.

Eternal Wisdom's child said...

To Uncle Claiborne:

Your words which manifest an increase in illumination from the Holy Spirit should be echoed:

"These are both men who truly have the good of the Church, and the good of souls, at heart. These are difficult times for all of us, but in a way, we are truly blessed to witness both of them conducting themselves as they are, despite the vicious attacks to which they have both been subjected. Perhaps this is the lesson the good Lord wishes to teach us."

Blessed is the Mercy of the Holy Trinity Who is drawing you through the "fog" of time closer to Their Eternal perspective!

JMJ Ora Pro Nobis said...

Is there any evidence that it was offered to Campos because the SSPX rejected it? My understanding was that the Campos priests started the discussions and not the other way round.

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

J.M.J.

On your last clarification, there has never been any doubt that Society members are not heretics. There has been a question on a status as schismatics but that was resolved in the Society's favour in 2009, when the Holy See said that, while the 1988 consecrations were a schismatic act, they were not sufficient as such to result in formal schism, as the Society had not created parallel jurisdictions.

According to Canon 751, "Heresy is the obstinate denial or doubt, after Baptism, of a truth which must be believed by divine and Catholic faith". Under Canon 750, this means infallible teachings. So there is no question of heresy and no question of schism in terms of what Rome assumes in the case of the Society members generally. Of course, individuals in the Society might be heretics or schismatics or both, but this is not to be assumed at law until proved. It is possible that Society members may adhere to doctrinal errors but not those serious enough to make them heretics.

In contrast, the 72% of American Catholics who do not believe in transubstantiation are at least material heretics. So, if you want to find a heretic in church, sit in a Novus Ordo pew.

The question in the case of the Society has always been one of disobedience to legitimate authority, and that only. This can still be a very serious offence but it is not the same thing as schism or heresy. There is such a thing as 'rightful disobedience' in a case of necessity. That is what the Society argues under.

I think that their case was rightful to 2000, when they were offered at least discussions on gainnig freedom from the N.O. bishops. When they refused even to discuss it, in my view, their disobedience became wrongful. I have explained this in detail but am too tired to do it today yet again. It would take a bit of typing.

In 2007, Rome liberated the Latin Mass and still offered what Fellay admitted was the 'Rolls Royce' offer. Rightful disobedience can only proceed from necessity, not mere convenience. I admit that they do have a continuing valid argument for a case of necessity (on grounds of being infected by the N.O. disorder) but it is getting thin.

P.K.T.P.

Tradical said...

Hi PKTP,

"... disobedience became wrongful disobedience in 2000, when the Holy See offered them regularisation ...."

A couple things don't agree with my shoddy memory:

I believe the discussions referred too happened in 2002/3. There was no formal 'offer of regularization' as such we almost have ... now.


In 2005, the Pope and Bishop Fellay agreed to proceed by steps.

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

J.M.J.

No, overtures were made to the Campos after the S.S.P.X rejected the offer. To find proof for this, I'd have to do some real digging in my paper files. Take my word for it. I was actively involved at the time. You could always ask Bsp. Rifan. As Fr. Rifan, he was the negotiator on behalf of Bsp. Rangel. I do have paper files showing that an offer was made to the S.S.P.X first, in 2000. I've never seen anyone deny any of this: it isn't a secret or anything like that. Rome proposed and the Society refused, not once but at least thrice: 2000, 2002, 2006.

P.K.T.P.

JMJ Ora Pro Nobis said...

In other words no the Campos priests haven't, +Fellay will only agree to a deal if the SSPX maintains its freedom to preach the truth, this being why previous deals were not accepted.

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

Tradical:

No, in 2002, there was a SECOND attempt made by Rome. The first was made in 2000.

Rome was careful to say that she never made a proposal but only a 'suggestion' for a proposal. You know the deal.

P.K.T.P.

A child of God said...

To NINANTIC - thank you for reaching this destination point: "All of us Traditionalist have an obligation now to give him space and pray for the Holy Ghost to continue to guide him. The decisions are momentous and cannot be made in haste or under pressure. . .pray instead more urgently. God is in charge and His Will ultimately will be done."

The Will of the Holy Trinity will TRIUMPH. . .IF. . .you and everyone pray and sacrifice to evoke the Merciful Gifts and Graces providing illumination and
strength for the Vicar of Christ and H.E. Bishop Fellay along with all interactive in their lives. Divine Justice will NOT revoke men's free will to choose but our prayers can implore a "tall hedged narrow Path of Providence" that chanels souls more easily to make the clear choice to do the Will of the Holy Trinity.

As for a drink while we wait, perhaps a sacrifice of unmitigated painful patience a bit longer will assist in the building of that "tall Providential hedge" on the "path" that leads all safely through the twists of time refuged in the Will of God to the Beatific Vision!

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

J.M.J.

I cannot confirm your surmise but it looks logical to me, yes. I think that the S.S.P.X wants freedom to preach its positions. As far as I know, the Campos priests have not been denied this de jure but they have becomes wondrously less controversial in recent years.

The Campos priests were never required to alter their beliefs one iota. The irony here is that it was the S.S.P.X which insisted on doctrine before structure, while Rome was prepared to grant a good structure (and not a p.p.) before doctrinal agreement. Now it is doctrine, even though only on 'principles and criteria' that is holding up the deal. Some would say that the Society has been hoist by its own petard.

N.C. This robot checker is destroying my eyesight.

P.K.T.P.

JMJ Ora Pro Nobis said...

PKTP, Rome required such in 1988 did it not? And in fact is not the history of the society one long history of requiring assent to Vatican 2 and saying the new mass?

Well as you know a little about Campos, though I suggest you visit the section on their website which explains why they made a deal, its shall we say 'illuminating', you can see why +Fellay like +Lefebvre insisted on doctrinal discussions. Certain pitfalls must be avoided.

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

To add to my last post, a direct cause of heresy has been the New Offertory of the New Mass and especially that scandalous Eucharistic Prayer No. 2. If you don't admit even at the centre of the Sacrifice that it is a Sacrifice with a "Divine Victim", it does not take long before the very meaning of the Mass in undermined by its form.

The Pope should abolish or amend E.P. No. 2. It is a serious scandal. Ditto for that nauseating Offertory with its Lutheran "bread of life" and its Cranmerian "spiritual drink".

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
P.K.T.P. said...

J.M.J.

The Campos website is entirely in Portugese. Please translate for us what you have found that concerns you.

You ask a good question regarding 1988. That matter is more vague. There was a Protocol of Agreement but no requirement to submit to new teachings. The Protocol was vague on the matter of a structure. It is interesting that Lefebvre was willing to sign it and only ripped it up for a purely practical reason (Rome was slow to name a bishop for the Society), whereas Fellay has refused MUCH BETTER offers in 2000, 2002, and 2006.


No, I would not agree that the history of the Society is a long history of refusing the New Mass and Vatican II. It is true that this is central to the Society's spirit but not to what Rome required for an agreement.

P.K.T.P.

Cassock said...

This whole dialogue appears to be more about the Holy Father's imperative as Shepherd to make effort toward reconciliation and reunion, and not about how the Society reacts to his overtures.

John L said...

I think there is a need for discussions of the discussions before proceeding to any further discussions.

Matt said...

I have had it with all of this insipid prelature junk. If the SSPX doesn't get an ordinariate or complete autonomy (whatever the heck anyone wants to call it), then call it quits right now. No need to carry on with this reunion sham, in my opinion. What's the point if they have to be subjec to the whim and caprice of a local bishop every step of the way--and be refused. The SSPX have their own bishops!

I guess we should wait until we see what's really going on before getting all hot and bothered.


Kenneth J. Wolfe said, "They have not done a nice job getting into a good number of American archdioceses... New York. Washington, DC. Philadelphia. Baltimore. Boston. Detroit. Miami. Los Angeles.

These are important places for full-time traditional Latin Mass parishes. None of these archdioceses (and then some, to best of my knowledge) have personal parishes.
"



Kenneth, you are absolutely right. None whatsoever in here Los Angeles.



Gravitas said, "I'm sorry, I want unity and all, but I find it very hard to believe that Rome is going to regularize any group who has the courage to say there are actual doctrinal difficulties with the Council and the new mess. While others like the FSSP all believe that, they don't say it publicly."


You may have a point there, Gravitas. There's one thing I've learned about the FSSP. They are a product of Vatican II. Like the Novus Ordo, they were hand-made. Unlike the SSPX, the Society grew organically out of the mess of Vatican II. Just because the FSSP goes around saying the Tridentine Mass, doesn't mean they embrace Tradition. The FSSP is not an alternative to the Society of Saint Pius X. I've heard the FSSP preach and there's Vatican-II speak in their words. Yes, this is why the FSSP doesn't speak publicly against the Council.

Matt said...

Cassock said, "This whole dialogue appears to be more about the Holy Father's imperative as Shepherd to make effort toward reconciliation and reunion, and not about how the Society reacts to his overtures."

In other words, the Holy Father is being narcissistic? Not sure of your statement.

Matt said...

P.K.T.P. said, "The liberals must not be provoked to rebellion."

LOL. Let them rebel. It's entertainment when liberals have their spastic conniption fits when confronted with truth and Tradition. When the Traditionalists and the conversatives (religiously and politically) just whine and hide, only peering out from behind the drapes, is when liberals are at their worst, uncontested. When their wickedness is confronted, exposed to the light of day, is when they run around with their hair on fire trying to put it out with more lies.

JMJ Ora Pro Nobis said...

Pktp then you disagree with ABL who has stated as much repeatedly, actually ABL criticised the distortion of the faith in Rome very explicitly in the years after 88 and the issue with any agreement. As for the Campos site, one need only run it through google translate, I'll find the exact page later.

Iratus said...

"While they might SAY that Benedict XVI is pope, he might as well not be in reality."

## Can he even be Pope when he issues a thing like the "Ratzinger formula" ? If that formula is valid as theology, then Catholicism must necessarily be, at best, mistaken.

There is *zero* "deeply Catholic" about the RF - it merely continues the Assisi Abominations, without being as public. Which arguably makes it far more dangerous than even them. The SSPX would be most unwise to touch anything from Rome with a barge-pole, until Rome renounces its errors. Which it has not yet done.

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

John L.

What we have from Levada is an evaluation of a declaration regarding a rejection of an amendement to a Preamble. I'm not making this up: that is how many times the ball has bounced back and forth. And what is at issue? Only the "principles and criteria" by which doctrines are to be interpreted. Interpreted by whom? By one party to the dispute. What sort of a referee enters into this sort of a debate with a player? What sort of player agrees that the opposing player should also be the referee?

Now we await a response to the evaluation of the declaration regarding the rejection of the amendment to the Preamble. However, there is no assurance that the Pope will, in turn, respond to this response positively. And what sort of positive response could he deliver? He could recognise the Society while, at the same time, insisting that it continue discussing the 'principles and criteria, during which time he grants them only temporary and provisional faculties.

Grim Reaper: Your time is up, Holy Father.

Pope: You'll have to wait for my response to that Declaration.

Reaper: No can do.

Pope: Excuse me. I did not receive that message. I'll have to adjust my hearing aid, but it's in for repair. You'll have to make an appointment to see me next week. Hey! guards! Unhand me, Reaper!

As for the 'draft document' suggesting a personal prelature, Fellay should have followed diplomatic protocol. Step one: roll the document into a tight ball. Step Two: throw it into Levada's face. Step Three, evade the media upon exit by dressing up as a clown, thereby passing as a Novus Ordo priest. Step 4: Go out for drinks with the other Society bishops.

P.K.T.P.

Shoulda Known. said...

To many issues: Practical problems and, it seems, a request by Rome to agree to indifferentism over the contested issues in VII...

Agreement's off boys. I'll just go and hang my chainmail back in the closet....

Tradical said...

Hi PKTP,

"... Fellay has refused MUCH BETTER offers in 2000, 2002, and 2006 ..."

What were these 'offers'?

Joe K said...

Well, I'd like to go regularly to a Latin mass, and have gone twice. I'd like the Latin mass to be available at every parish.

But I have no problem at all with the Mass of Pope Paul in the vernacular. And I accept the Second Vatican Council in its entirety.

I'd go more often to the Latin mass in my diocese, but I hesitate to join them because some, as also shown by some of the posters on this blog, seem to think I'm almost a heretic because I accept the new mass without any problem and because I accept Vatican Council Two.

The Latin mass is beautiful and should be widely available, and many Catholics such as me would go to it, except there's this feeling that we're not quite welcome because we accept the new mass and VCII without any reservation or critique.

Divine Providence's defender said...

To Iratus:

The words which have been repeatedly written, re-phrased and re-written are again expressed by you:"The SSPX would be most unwise to touch anything from Rome with a barge-pole, until Rome renounces its errors. Which it has not yet done."

The Signified Will of the Holy Trinity is manifest by the Holy Father's words to H.E. Bishop Fellay. This Apostolic Bishop may humbly, prudently speak with the Holy Father, his only superior, as much as is necessary to discern the Will of the Holy Trinity but this chanel can NOT be violated unless a grave sin is potentially required of him to comply with the obedience his position in Holy Providence requires of him.

The Will of God guarantees that the Gates of Hell will NOT prevail. With a widening vision of what is ocurring, may you behold the reality that the SSPX are servants, not the masters. They are instruments of the Holy Trinity who MAY be used as the very ones to correct the errors or collect the endangered lambs in union with the Holy Father as the visible, undeniable, faithful sons of the Holy Catholic Church helping to shepherd them safely to the Heavenly homeland away from all the errors.

JTLiuzza said...

Joe K I'm interested to know how what you claim has manifested itself. After Mass did you engage in conversation with parishioners and proclaim your approval of the Novus Ordo Missae, at which point people walked away from you in disgust or called you a heretic, then walked away from you in disgust?

How is this "feeling that we're not quite welcome" put forth? How do people even know about your position regarding the council, so that they can either decide that it doesn't matter to them or unfortunately decide to express their disapproval?

I would appreciate it if you could clarify.

Judy said...

At the end of the meeting the hope was expressed that this additional opportunity for reflection would also contribute to reaching full communion between the Society of St. Pius X and the Apostolic See.
Holy See Press Office


At the end of this meeting, it was desired that the dialogue will be pursued that will allow the reaching of a solution for the good of the Church and of souls.
SSPX

This is the last sentence presented by each group.

The SSPX wants more "dialogue" in order to reach a "solution," Rome is hoping that time for "reflection" will cause a change leading to "full communion."

These two summations encapsulate the entire situation in one sentence.

SSPX is not moving in the direction of agreement and Rome hopes that more thought and prayer will bring them there. SSPX is hoping that further discussions will discover to everyone the "solution," meaning reintegration without any sort of agreement.

In other words, after three years, nothing has really changed.

But it's about to.

JM said...

Matt,

All the FSSP priests I've met are traditional. Do they go around denouncing specific Bishops or saying "errors of the Council" verbatim? No. But they preach on the Social Kingship of Christ, the errors of religious liberty, modesty, (traditional) Catholic morality, traditional devotions, discipline and the rest.

The only topic, in my experience, that they could preach gently but firmly on and have not is the problems of the New Mass. This is primarily the result of their dependency on the local bishops. The SSPX, thankfully, should be protected from this when they reject the PP (as currently defined) and gain true autonomy with submission to the Roman Pontiff.

Joe K said...

JTLiuzza asks me:

How is this "feeling that we're not quite welcome" put forth?

----------
Well, yes, went to the Latin mass with a friend and his wife. Discussions afterward were about the problems with the "new" mass and Vatican Two. I gained the sense from them that many at the Latin mass shared their view.

From them, I didn't receive the feeling of both/and but either/or.

It wasn't "the new mass, properly celebrated, has its advantages, with three Biblical readings instead of two, and with the vernacular so (some) people understand better, and with more lay responses so people are praying the mass instead of the rosary" AND "the Latin mass has richness and history and beauty."

But it was "Latin mass good, new mass bad and really should be replaced." An either/or view.

I have the both/and view. My feeling was that this is a minority view among those who go to the Latin mass in my diocese.

But that feeling could be wrong. And I do intend to go again to a Latin mass.

JTLiuzza said...

Thanks for clarifying, JoeK. Although the opinions of others regarding the NOM should certainly not make you feel like "almost a heretic."

I avoid the NOM if I can although it is obviously valid and licit. I am blessed to be able to do so in my diocese.

It bothers me that so many good folks don't have the opportunity to regularly assist at the Mass of all the Saints. I'm glad you have the opportunity to do so (and me too) and that you will continue to take advantage of it.

One day, hopefully soon, all Catholics will be blessed with what you and I have.

John said...

Unlike the SSPX, the Society grew organically out of the mess of Vatican II. Just because the FSSP goes around saying the Tridentine Mass, doesn't mean they embrace Tradition. The FSSP is not an alternative to the Society of Saint Pius X.

Oh please. I hung around the SSPX for several years. They are a mess themselves.

The Devil must be overjoyed over his success of convincing so many self-righteous self-defined Traditionalists that they are the sole preservers of the Truth. They pompously and pridefully sit in judgement over anything they think is in opposition to Tradition.
Joe K. was absolutely right about what he said above. There are many good Catholics who attend the Novus Ordo who are simply trying to lead good lives. They take partake in the Sacraments regularly, they pray the Rosary, they go to Mass regularly, they serve others, they believe what the Catechism teaches, etc. Some of them may take Communion in the hand (which I don't agree with) They may listen to happy clappy music that I can't stand and yet they are by and large good people. Many of them are too busy performing the spiritual and corporal works of mercy that they don't have time to sit and sift through the documents of Vatican II looking for doctrinal errors. Better to remember this, 1 Peter 4:8,But before all things have a constant mutual charity among yourselves: for charity covereth a multitude of sins. Unfortunately a lack of charity was one thing I observed during my time around an SSPX chapel

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

Tradical:

I meant much better than the vague Protocol of Agreement of 1988, which didn't guarntee any structure at all, but it was also better than the p.p. This is what I cannot understand: why less now?

The offers were suggested by the C.D.F. but never formalised because the S.S.P.X would not negotiate to begin with. The 'Rolls Royce' structure offered to Bishop Fellay in 2002 and earlier (and also later) was indeed the Campos-type structure: the equaivalent of a diocese existing throughout the world. Castrillón Hoyos wanted to proceed with this structure without any needed doctrinal agreement. Again, it has been the S.S.P.X, not Rome, that insisted on a doctrial agreement. And now it is the Society which is having trouble getting a minimal doctrinal agreement on priniple. There is some irony in all of this.

P.K.T.P.

Matt said...

JM said, "This is primarily the result of their dependency on the local bishops."

I agree with you there. This is the reason why the FSSP still has no presence in Los Angeles. Just about everyone thought things would change when Gomez came here. We're still waiting. Add to that, we never see him, hear of him, except a pastoral letter here and there... Some worry he's just care-taking. ??

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

Joe K.:

At our approved Latin Mass, some regulars also have no problem with the New Mass. Among traditionalists, the regard for the New Mass is mixed. I take a more negative view of it than do some but a more positive view than do some others.

We all seek to be honest. Some people, after having read, for example, Michael Davies's books, realise that there are serious problems with the New Mass. This changes their perspective.

I attend the New Mass on very rare occasions, when it is the only way to fulfil the Sunday obligation. The only N.O.M. I've attended volunatrily was the one at which the Anglican Use people were brought home. I thought it to be important to be there because friends from that community were coming over.

P.K.T.P.

Tradical said...

@PKTP,

"... offers were suggested by the C.D.F. but never formalised because the S.S.P.X would not negotiate..."

From this I understand that you don't agree with the 3 preliminary requirements put forth by the SSPX.

JTLiuzza said...

John you state of your fellow Catholics that "They are a mess," are "self-righteous," "pompously and pridefully sit in judgement,"

And then cite Peter, "before all things have a constant mutual charity among yourselves..."

With respect don't you see a conflict there? Who is sitting in judgement?

We are all sinners and to judge the Society based on one's experience with a person or three in the pews is about the same as those who judge the Church based on the behavior of this or that priest.

John said...

JT, stating that the SSPX is a mess is not a judgement of their intentions but a valid assessment of their actions. I think that several recent posts on the behavior of Bishops and priests of the SSPX is consistent with the personal behavior I have witnessed in the past. My views are not based on the actions of "a person or 3 in the pews" but 4 years of teaching in one of the larger SSPX schools.

Anonymous said...

Tradical:

The three preliminary requirements were not presented to Rome until the time of the present pontificate, and relate only to the 2006+ negotiations. Before then, as far as I know, there were no Society prerequisites. The Society simply would not negotiate owing to the ongoing state of apostasy in NewChurch. I believe that the Society was waiting for gestures from Rome to renounce Assisi and so forth, and simply deemed that now was not the time to proceed.

P.K.T.P.

a faint echo said...

P.K.T.P. said early on in the comments words worth repeating near the close:


"First, the Pope is proposing, not imposing, a p.p. structure. That is very good news. I would now like to shut up about the form of the canonical structure, satisfied that I have done what I can on this matter. I ask that others here shut up on it as well, as I will not be answering their counter-arguments any longer. So if you don't receive a reply to another counter, do not suppose that I don't have one. But I think it best, at this point, for the experts to decide the matter. By now, Bishop Fellay knows what the problems are with the defective personal prelature structure, and I'm sure that he or others will suggest the correct solution, the Campos writ international. Levada is keeping to the defective structure as a bargaining tool on other matters, I suspect. It is now clear that its acceptance would help dissuade Society leaders from reaching a deal, so it is negotiable, as Bishop Fellay said from the beginning.

On the other matter, it seems as if Levada has gotten his way and has killed a deal for the present. But I see this differently. I think that Rome wants to give Fellay time to meet with his other bishops and have some frank discussions with them. The Pope, I think, wants to avoid the appearance that he is trying to divide the S.S.P.X; also, he really does not want to divide the Society but to bring most of it over--all but the wild extremists and 'anti-semites'.

This proves that H.H. will not be pressured owing to his advanced age. The Holy Father is trusting in God and our Lady, knowing that he will be given the time to finish this work is this is the will of the Almighty Father. We don't refer often enough to the First Person of the Blessed Trinity: May HIS WILL BE DONE.

Bishop Fellay will likely try to ensure soon that these talks continue after the Society Chapter meeting of July. Let's say a few brief prayers and move on."

JTLiuzza said...

Well your experience with the Society obviously exceeds mine. And your citation of St. Peter, "before all things have a constant mutual charity among yourselves..." is a good one.

I could be wrong but we are about to see this Society, it's bishops, priests, religious, laity, it's seminaries, schools and so forth recognized and eventually regularized canonically so, one way or the other, they are coming. It is the will of our good Pope.

Let us be charitable, as your citation of St. Peter reminds us, with whatever "mess" they bring with them, which to me is very little compared to the mess they were founded to combat.

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

Tradical:

I have in my notes from 18 April, 2002, mention from a commentator in the know that a certain Cardinal Ratzinger, then Prefect for Doctrine, was considering a worldwide apostolic administration for the S.S.P.X in March of that year, and sent a letter to this effect. Fellay called this 'the Rolls Royce solution'. There were only very minor agreements to be made on the Mass and Vatican II: that the New Mass was valid and that V. II was a valid œcumenical Mass. There was none of this talk about principles and criteria and what parts of Vatican II could be ignored.

The Apostolic Administration is a particular church of junior rank; equivalent to a diocese or archdiocese. The one for the Society was to be international. This idea was being advanced by Cardinals Ratzinger and Castrillón Hoyos both in 2000 and in 2002. Campos got one in January of 2002 and Rome then suggested it a second time in 2002-3.

So this personal prelature offer is a slap in the face. On the other side, the S.S.P.X got itself into this doctrinal mess. Benedict XVI, from the beginning, was willing to offer the structure first with the doc talk to follow.

To close, before my opponents and the liberals can say it, yes, it must be admitted that none of these proposals were ever made official. They were 'suggestions' for discussion.

P.K.T.P.

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

Rome is playing hardball by pushing the p.p. structure. I suggest that the Society respond in kind by abandoning, right now, the 1962 Missal and reverting to the 1920 editio typica with the propers updated to 1958. That will pre-empt Levada's next dirty little trick, which will be to impose a 2012 T.L.M. Missal to replace the one of 1962.

P.K.T.P.

John McFarland said...

My reaction to the idea of a no-strings regularization was: this is nuts. How can be Pope regularize those who consider the major acts of Vatican II as at best erroneous?

But there seemed a great deal to gain and nothing to lose in hearing the Holy Father out, strange as the whole idea seemed.

Well, it's back to reality: the Pope is not going to provide no-strings regularization.

Perhaps, God willing, something can be worked out. But I doubt it. I think that we're still at the same impasse as at the end of the doctrinal discussions. The Society is prepared to keep on talking, but there's no optimism in the letter or tone of the SSPX communique.

P.S. Please remember in your prayers my son and the other deacons who are being ordained in Winona later this morning.

John said...

JT I hope you are right about an eventual agreement between the SSPX and Rome. And yes there are many problems to be fought which is one of the big reasons I left my association with the SSPX. I'm not one to sit on the sidelines and wait for things to change. If people don't like the conciliar Church get in there and work to make it better. I can't worry about why Sr. Joan and the rest of the LCWR haven't been kicked out of the Church. I can only worry about myself. No matter how they want to spin it, the SSPX is not in full communion with the Church and as a sinner I want my confession to be validly absolved, not one where I have to hope their argument of supplied jurisdiction is valid.

Cavaliere said...

Yes, this is why the FSSP doesn't speak publicly against the Council.

So if they don't speak out publicly against Vatican II they are implicitly endorsing it? I heard a great talk given by a SSPX priest to the parish Holy Name society one time on the virtue of prudence. Then like now people needed to be reminded that always running around denouncing something or "getting in one's face" even if you are right is not always the best course of action.

Anonymous said...

I attend the Latin Mass and hope eventually I can attend a daily Latin Mass. While I love the Latin Mass and concur that some of the Vatican II documents break with tradition and should be proscribed, at the same time the Novus Ordo Mass is valid when said following the rubrics. The only thing that actually constitutes the Mass are the words of consecration - all the rest is added. The words of consecration are valid in the NO Mass and with the change of the word from "all" to "many" the words of consecration are the same as in the Latin Mass. No one can bind the Church, except ex cathedra and that was never the case with the Tridentine Mass. SSPX are playing Russian roulette with their souls by choosing to stay outside the Church, as the authority is given to Peter, and not to anyone else. Hence why many have left the SSPX as others, particularly the priests who are illicitly ordained. Who would want to die in that state?

PKTP Fan said...

An apostolic administration and reverting to the 1920 mass. PKTP's ideas are brilliant. SSPX should do this.

PKTP Fan said...

John McFarland,

God bless you, your son, and the Society of Saint Pius X.

Tradical said...

Hi PKTP,

"... three preliminary requirements were not presented ..."

Sorry PKTP, that is an mistake.

Bishop Fellay discussed the Freedom of the Mass and the lifting of the excommunications with Cardinal Castrillon in 2002.

It was at this point that Cardinal Castrillon indicated that the Bishops were opposed to the freedom for the Mass.

Further, you didn't answer the question:
Do you agree with the three preliminary requirements?


Cheers!
P^3

Tradical said...

Hi PKTP,

"... S.S.P.X got itself into this doctrinal mess ..."

That is a gross simplification.

If the root of the crisis of the Church is doctrinal, then who made the mess?

Tradical said...

Nota Bene:

'... Cardinal Castrillon in 2002 ...'

I may be mistaken on the date, but it was definitely in the pontificate of Bl. Pope John Paul II

Matamoros said...

PKTP said: "I think you misunderstand Armando. When he says "Come home!" I don't think he means to imply that you are some kind of prodigal that has drifted away. I think he means that some of us have been trying to hold down the fort while you've been VISIBLY separated from the rest of the Church. We need the reinforcements.

Are you light years away from the pope on Christ the King? Are you sure?

"The social duty of Christians is to respect and awaken in each man the love of the true and the good. It requires them to make known the worship of the one true religion which subsists in the Catholic and apostolic Church. Christians are to be the light of the world. Thus, the Church shows forth the kingship of Christ over all creation and in particular over human societies" (CCC 2105).

Forgetting the common complaint that traditionalists express with the verb "to subsist" (which is deeply ignorant of the dogmatic history of the term) - focusing on what it says about the SOCIAL REIGN of Christ the King - how can you say that the Society is "light years" away from the Holy Father?"

Quite easily unfortunately, because Social Reign (in traditional teaching)does not refer essentially to Christians being the light of the world. At the time of the Diocletian persecution, the Church and Catholics were the light of the world and proclaimed the One True Church, but it was not the Social Reign of Christ.

Of course SSPX is not the whole Church, but we are of the Church (I'm a layman but I like them) and we don't have to "get in " anywhere to oppose liberalism, just continue to do all the things we've done till now and or course, continue to talk to our liberal authorities in Rome in the hope that they get further away from their liberalism, which they seem to be doing slowly.

Why has every other layman (?) on this blog turned into an expert on Canon Law without seeming to know what SSPX and the Church of all time say about the Church in the world? I'm very sorry, but the fort you've been "holding down" for us doesn't seem to include the same understanding of religious liberty and the Reign of Our Lord over society. Read the speeches of Bishop Tissier de Mallerais, Bishop Fellay and Archbishop Lefebvre.

In the earlier comment I said that Ecclesia Dei circles appeared to be recreating the atmosphere of the pre-Conciliar Church, especially as it existed in Anglophone countries, with its pious nature but also its aceptance of religious pluralism. I have to insist: you don't need us for that.

JMJ Ora Pro Nobis said...

Anoynmous, you are simply being 'unreasonable' I could just as easily ask who would want to die in a state of having to take part in a sacrilegous mass, having atrocius spiritual guidance, a potentially invalid confession, communion administered to them by a layman or worse woman and so on? Moreover the SSPX are not and have never been outside the church, there is little point telling people like you of this as you are in bad faith.


The FSSP and others officially within the fold do good work, but the reality is that the SSPX does many times more good simply by preaching the truth both in sermons and talks (which the FSSP and others do as well) but more importantly through the apostolate of Angelus press, their websites and newsletters. Let us not forget their attempts to 'resurrect' various religious orders whose modern day versions have completely abandoned their charisms and many of which are full of heretics, de facto schismatics and cause the loss and not the increase of faith.

PKTP, the society has ALWAYS insisted on doctrinal talks of some kind, from the very beginning of this mess, therefore its pointless complaing about that. Such talks are necessary to gauge the status of the faith in Rome, to try and 'convert' Rome and more relevantly to see whether a deal is possible without the true faith being watered down. A deal with no strings attached in and of itself is not and has neve been enough, Campos received such a deal and has been an unmitigated disaster from the point of view of the SSPX. Bp Rifan celebrates the NO, claims if you don't you are a schismatic and one hears little criticism of the NO or the new mass. Even the institute of the good shepherd managed to do better than that and with a far worse canonical arrangement!

William said...

P.K.T.P. said...With all due respoect, Fr. Z. is wrong. It was made clear by Bishop Fellay that that offer was in the original Preamble. So that has not changed. It is merely repeated.

However, the Society of Saint Pius XI said that during yesterday's meeting with the CDF, "...Bishop Fellay received a draft document proposing a Personal Prelature..."

That is the first time that the Society reported that Bishop Fellay had received such a "document".

Therefore, I believe that Father Zuhlsdorf is correct.

JMJ Ora Pro Nobis said...

Its also worth pointing out the unique complications of any canonical structure, the SSPX not only have lay brothers, sisters, oblates and a third order but also 5 associated religious orders, 14 associated religious congregations (some with several foundations i.e the benedictines have 6, 4 of men, two of women) spread over several continents and of course the Society of St Josaphat is associated with them as well. So the matter is more than a little complicated.

As regards the Society of St Josaphat, I really do hope they are included in any 'deal' they are fighting the same fight as the SSPX but in the east.

Barbara said...

JMJ Ora Pro Nobis said to Anonymous:

"...there is little point telling people like you of this as you are in bad faith. "

That is quite an amazing sweeping statement...so you understand all that about a person from one little "commentino" that he/she made? What if this person is interested in deepening his/her knowledge on Traditional Catholicism and that is why he/she landed on Rorate Caeli? Nice welcome - don't you think?
Barbara

JMJ Ora Pro Nobis said...

@Barbara, Actually yes I can and so can anyone with a backbone and a dose of common sense. Feel free to re-read the original comment and explain what in it denoted good faith.

Gratias said...

SSPX is only part of the spirit of Summorum Pontificum. Great advances have been made by Diocesan priests that offer the TLM. Traditional communities grow around them in the parishes. This includes altar servers and Gregorian choirs. People can come, sometimes by chance, and compare. Benedict's idea is to have both rites coexisting for mutual enrichment. We are making steady progress.

Cruise the Groove. said...

Gratias,

Maybe not in yours, but in maNy diocese's the SSPX is still the only option for many of us to go to a regular TLM.

John said...

I could just as easily ask who would want to die in a state of having . . . a potentially invalid confession,

It's interesting that you mention that @JMJ Ora Pro Nobis as when one goes to a SSPX priest fore confession it is not just "potentially invalid" but absolutely invalid unless that person receiving it was dying.

RogerThat said...

OK, guys. Just one more post for each one to conclude, please. As Mr. T used to say, I've got no time for jibba-jabba.

Barbara said...

Well, JMJ Ora Pro Nobis, I have a limited knowledge about many things in this our favourite subject (Catholic Tradition - and the TLM for me especially) but what I understood from Anonymous' was that he/she has some confused ideas regarding Holy Mass and the state of the souls of individuals. I don't read - BAD FAITH, I read BAD FORMATION - or if you like BAD INFORMATION - which is quite common at the present time in the Church - as you well know.

It has nothing to do with backbone, Ora Pro Nobis, one can state the truth without being presumptious and judgmental, no matter if the other is so. I know I tend to be a bit of a straight-shooter myself in voicing my views - and I struggle to bite my tongue (not always successfully - and with explosive results sometimes!) but I also know a lot of people, (including Our Lord Himself) have had a lot of patience with me or I wouldn't be here on this fine Catholic blog discussing our faith so openly. Mine was a different confusion - but confused I was - until about 5 years ago....and I still scatch my head about a lot of things that are happening in our Holy Church at present ..


Greetings in the Sacred Heart,
Barbara

Carl said...

PKTP - Well, the notorious agreement signed and reneged upon by Archbishop Lefebvre had basic doctrinal statements. These were proposed by Rome and acceptable to the Archbishop. My understanding is that the deal didn't fall through because of doctrinal issues but because of a lack of trust that the pope would follow through on his promises and not take steps that would lead to the dissolution of the Society. This is what I meant when I said that a basic doctrinal agreement has always been seen as a part of canonical recognition. This was the case in 1988, and it is the case today.

Was the position of Cardinal Castrillon back oin 2007 that there was no string attached or no further string than had already been attached (and been found acceptable) in 1988?

The real issues of the agreement, I think are about processes by which succession takes place in the office of Superior General as a well as in the episcopacy. That's where the real future of the Society will be determined, whether the implied leash will come to practical application.

I'm sorry, I have difficulty imagining Cardinal Levada as anything more than a loyal bureaucratic functionary.