Rorate Caeli

Rome-SSPX: Against the Rumors. Part 1 of Angelus Press Interview with Fr. Arnaud Rostand

From SSPX.Org:


Fr. Arnaud Rostand (USA District Superior) sat down with Angelus Press’ editor, James Vogel, to discuss the current situation between Rome and the SSPX. No subject was left off the table. From rumors, to open attacks, to the state of the SSPX at large, and in the USA District - this interview covers everything!

PART 1:

Part 1 examines the state of the SSPX in the United States, as well as the history of discussions with the Vatican authorities, and discussing some of the rumors related to a possible recognition of Rome by the Society.




42 comments:

rodrigo said...

The last point of the interview is perhaps the most important. As someone has transcribed over at Angelqueen:

Father, there are those who argue that the Society is simply looking for a practical agreement, even contrary to the wishes of Archbishop Lefebvre himself. What would you say to that argument?

Well, I think first of all we must make it clear that Bishop Fellay is not really looking for an agreement. Rome is proposing a regularization of the Society. So, the term “agreement” is confusing. It’s not clear. It’s too vague. An agreement would be mainly on doctrine, which is not the case. But a recognition of the Society: that’s what we are talking about today. The Society [has existed] for more than forty years. It was founded, erected, within the Church in the normal way of the Church. And because of the circumstances, because of the crisis of the Church, where we were kind of kicked out – in a way, not that we are outside of the Church, but we are…

- in an irregular situation -

…yes, pushed into an irregular situation – it would be an act of justice in fact to be just reintegrated in a more visible way in the Church. That’s all we are talking about here.


This is the point repeatedly made by Bishop Fellay: while the Society has certainly played its part in responding to the Holy Father, this process is a papal initiative, not a "Menzingen sell-out" (as some have tried to spin it). When the Supreme Pontiff decides to regularize you, without imposing any onerous conditions, there is no excuse for ignoring him.

Fr Levi said...

as the initiative for this 'reintegration' comes from the Holy See, it would seem to me that it is a duty of all faithful Catholics to pray for its progress, take all actions within their means to work for its success, & to joyfully accept SSPX members home when the time comes ...

Cruise the Groove. said...

The decision to recognize the Society, by the Holy Father, seems inevitable, but when?

Matthew M said...

Very good video. Anxious for the others.

RedGoat said...

It's never been anything but a unilateral recognition that the SSPX is Catholic. Those who continue to use the word "agreement" or "reconciliation" do so at the expense of truth.

Those in the society who do not want Rome to recognize they're Catholic - well, that says it all....

Edgar said...

RedGoat's last point is correct... those in the society that oppose the regularization most of the times are cripto sedevacantist that don´t recognize the Pope nor want anything to do with the rest of the church.

Inquisitor said...

Perhaps, someone could enlighten my understanding of the issue. Under what conditions MUST a Catholic obey the pope, and when is he free to disobey the Holy Father?

If I understand correctly, the Council of Florence and Vatican I, have both dogmatically defined that the pope has absolute, universal jurisdiction over the entire Church. This universal power means that all Catholics are bound to assent to that power in all spiritual matters that do not constitute sin.

The agreement with the SSPX does not, as far as I am aware, require the SSPX to do anything sinful or accept any false doctrine. Therefore, aren't all good Catholics morally obliged to obey, even if it isn't politically convenient to do so? To disobey the pope would seem to be a de facto denial of the dogma of the pope's universal jurisdiction, would it not?

The only justification for disobeying the Holy Father in an ecclesiastical matter, would be if his command required someone to commit some form of sin, right? In what way would accepting this papal initiative be sinful?

I am sure the issue is far more complex than I am aware, but if the SSPX accepted this agreement in good faith, and then the Vatican tried to double cross the SSPX later on, couldn't the SSPX just resist the Vatican, as it did in the 70's and 80s and go back to the same status in which they currently find themselves?

Is there something that would prevent the SSPX from returning to its current irregular status, if it accepts an agreement with the pope and later rejects it?

BroHenry said...

Is to willfully remain in an "irregular situation," sinful?
If yes, Mortally?

Cruise the Groove. said...

I do not think the Society has any choice in this matter but to be recognized by the Holy See, if indeed Pope Benedict XVI is doing this unilaterally.

Peter said...

In reply to the question from BroHenry, I would say "No", but the word "schismatic" is hovering nearby . . .

A. M. D. G. said...

...those in the society that oppose the regularization most of the times are cripto sedevacantist that don´t recognize the Pope nor want anything to do with the rest of the church.

For argument's sake, Edgar, do you know what a sedevacantist really is? I'm not posting here to score points, but only to make a point.

Alsaticus said...

Thanks. Fr Rostand's tone is way different from Bp Tissier de Mallerais' June 3 homily.

It's interesting to see the return into full communion is presented with a minimalist rhetoric.

I've also noticed the last image ... a Vatican flag. Maybe it's a decision from Angelus press but the choice of this symbol is interesting.

Alsaticus

Mary Kay said...

Inquisitor,

You have expressed my thoughts exactly. All of the speculation,while at times interesting, seems pointless. We should continue watching & praying.
We live in interesting times!

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

Once again, there are three distinctions to be made here:

1. An agreement implies an accord on doctrine. While this is mostly out, there is apparently at least an agreement on the "principles and criteria" of doctrinal interpretation, already signed by Bishop Fellay and now awaiting the Pope's response.

2. A recognition pertains to persons, not organisations: the clerics who are members of the Society are to be recognised as Catholic. The Pope might also recognise the Society itself as Catholic by vacating the suppression of 1975 and suspensions of 1976.

3. A regularisation means giving a new canonical form to the S.S.P.X, or a new form for it and perhaps a larger structure into which it and its affiliated religious orders may be incorporated and associated. That is more than a mere recognition.

Fr. Franz Schmidberger has made it clear that a recognition will come first and then he adds that it should not be difficult after that to reach agreement on a canonical structure.

So we are currently waiting for the recognition, which few are against. The four bishops, even Williamson, are not opposed to a recognition from Rome. What they are opposed to is conferral of a canonical structure (regularisation) before doctrinal problems have been solved. There's the rub.

P.K.T.P.

Bartholomew said...

Mr. Perkins,

What are your thoughts as to whether after recognition of the SSPX that diocesan priests could form let's say, an Oratory, and request to be admitted to the SSPX "umbrella"?

TIA.

Magdalena said...

As usual, P.K.T.P. has made the critical distinction:
"So we are currently waiting for the recognition, which few are against. The four bishops, even Williamson, are not opposed to a recognition from Rome. What they are opposed to is conferral of a canonical structure (regularisation) before doctrinal problems have been solved. There's the rub."

As opposed to Mr. Edgar:
"RedGoat's last point is correct... those in the society that oppose the regularization most of the times are cripto sedevacantist that don´t recognize the Pope nor want anything to do with the rest of the church."

Edgar, how many lay supporters of the Society who oppose regularization have you canvassed? Do you know any personally? I expect the number is zero. How do you know whether they are "crypto sedevacantists?" Any self-respecting sedevacantist attends Mass at an independent chapel with like-minded persons. It's a human impulse. Now do stop being silly and labeling persons about whom you know nothing.

John McFarland said...

Dear Mr. Perkins,

1. In his interview released today, Fr. Rostand describes Bishop Fellay's statement as a "doctrinal declaration." He also says that there is no doctrinal agreement. It seems that almost everyone but the Society itself -- and Rome -- speaks of an "agreement."

2.You say that "recognition pertains to persons, not organisations." What of diplomatic recognition of one nation by another? As for your suggested examples of recognition, they would be exercises in exhumation, not recognition. Abp. Lefebvre (RIP) has no need of his faculties, and the Society no more wants the status of 1975 back, than Rome does not want to give it back. If the Holy Father were interested in recognition without regularization, he could simply declare that based on Bishop Fellay's doctrinal declaration, it is clear that the SSPX is in full communion with the Church, and soon we'll begin dealing with the canonical status. That could certainly happen; but no one seems to think it will. Since his February 2 speech in Winona, recognition/regularization/ whatever seems tied up with granting a new canonical status.

3. If Rome went on from regularization of the Society to propose arrangements to deal with congregations and even individual priests allied with the SSPX, one could call it either expanded regularization or something else. But again I see no sign that it is in the works. Our best non-Roman source of information is Bishop Fellay; but in talking about the possible effect of SSPX recognition on its allies, he neither has said nor implied that any such thing is or may be in the works, as surely he would have done if he had reason to believe that it was or might be in the works.

As the Society's spokesmen have been saying, we're just waiting on the Holy Father. I suppose it does no harm to do a little spinning of hypotheticals while we're waiting; the trick is to avoid starting to believe them.

Edgar said...

A.M.D.G.

Yes I know what a sedevacantist is and what they think (I have met and spoken with quite a few as there are several Sede groups here in Guadalajara and in the spanish speaking tradi internet world) and I have also met some FSSPX followers that even though will not openly deny that his holiness Benedict XVI is not the Supreme Pontiff they will act and speak as he was not.

So if you care to make your point I will be happy to answer you.

Gratias said...

Edgar,

It would be nice to get updates on the state of traditional Catholicism in Mexico in the future.

Gratias

I am not Spartacus said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
New Catholic said...

"I am not Spartacus": if you insist on keeping this tone in your interventions, you are not welcome to post comments here anymore.

Brian said...

In the following statement, it seems to me that Fr. Rostand does not make a distinction between regularization and recognition.

Rome is proposing a regularization of the Society . . . a recognition of the Society: that’s what we are talking about today.

Floreat said...

Magdalena posted: "Edgar, how many lay supporters of the Society who oppose regularization have you canvassed? Do you know any personally? I expect the number is zero. How do you know whether they are "crypto sedevacantists?" Any self-respecting sedevacantist attends Mass at an independent chapel with like-minded persons. It's a human impulse. Now do stop being silly and labeling persons about whom you know nothing".

It may well be that any self-respecting sedevacantist attends Mass at an independent chapel, however, I would entirely concur with Edgar that there are indeed crypto-sedevacantists within the SSPX, including the lay faithful, and that they are, to a man, opposed to any closer association with Rome.

Whether any individual who refuses obedience to the office of Supreme Pontiff can call themselves truly Catholic is a question that has intrigued me for some time. Non serviam has a rather different nuance, wouldn't you say?

Peter said...

There is no question of a "sell-out" of the SSPX by Bishop Fellay.

Who on earth seriously thinks there is ?

A. M. D. G. said...

Edgar,

Obviously you don't know... and I can't explain it to you here either! None the less, I consider you to be a Catholic and my brother in Christ!

magdalena said...

Quote: "I have also met some FSSPX followers that even though will not openly deny that his holiness Benedict XVI is not the Supreme Pontiff they will act and speak as he was not."

Words have meaning and it's not allowable to arbitrarily change the meaning of a word according to one's own liking. To be a sedevacantist means to deny that the man ostensibly filling the office is not really the pope.

There is a failure to make necessary distinctions. It is one thing to deny that your father is your father, it is another thing to be disobedient to your father.

For decades now the SSPX and its lay supporters have declined to be obedient to the Holy Father ONLY in matters that are contrary to the faith.

To use in imperfect analogy, they have refused to live under the same roof with him because they see how their brothers who made the same choice have fared poorly, as could be expected.

If there is a disagreement among the members and supporters of the SSPX as to whether it is now safe to live under the same roof with their father, it is a matter of prudential judgment and not a dividing line between sedevancantists and wary sons.

Roger Marshall said...

Magdalena wrote: "To use in imperfect analogy, they have refused to live under the same roof with him because they see how their brothers who made the same choice have fared poorly, as could be expected."

The biblical analogy of the Church as an arc is a better one. According to this analogy the Church is sailing the high seas with Peter at the helm. Meanwhile, the SSPX is out on its own, being swept this way and that on a piece of driftwood.

Long-Skirts said...

Roger Marshall said:

"According to this analogy the Church is sailing the high seas with Peter at the helm. Meanwhile, the SSPX is out on its own, being swept this way and that on a piece of driftwood."

Who battened down
The hatch of the Barque?


SACERDOS

“They have abandoned the Fort, those
who should have defended it.” (St. John Fisher)

Who held the Fort
Till the Calvary came
Fighting for all
In His Holy Name

Who fed the sheep
As the pastures burned dry
A few Good Shepherds
Heeding their cry

Who led the charge
Gainst heresy’s Huns
Defending the degreed
To His lowliest ones

Who battened down
The hatch of the Barque
To warm cold souls
From shivering-seas dark

“Who?” mocks Satan
Delighting in doubt
Fills you with questions
Never lets you find out

“Hoc est enum
Corpus meum…
…and for many” who kept
The dead words – Te Deum!

Long-Skirts said...

Long-Skirts wrote:

"Calvary"

I know, I know, it's supposed to read "Cavalry" but sometimes "I speak (and write) TWICE before I think!" (Smurfette, circa 1985)

Hilltop said...

Inquisitor asked:
Under what conditions MUST a Catholic obey the pope, and when is he free to disobey the Holy Father?
If I understand correctly, the Council of Florence and Vatican I, have both dogmatically defined that the pope has absolute, universal jurisdiction over the entire Church. This universal power means that all Catholics are bound to assent to that power in all spiritual matters that do not constitute sin.

This is a necessarily central question not only for Holy Bishops and Priests of the SSPX, but, in a most particular way, for the Bishops, Priests and Faithful of the Post-Conciliar, NO Church.

For His Holiness's much-prayed-for re-cognition (parse that magnificent word) of the SSPX is the sword of Peter and it cuts both ways:

The anticipated rapprochement needs to work both directions, and methinks the greater reluctance (and, yes, passive/aggressive resistance) will come not from the bulk and core of the SSPX and it's Faithful adherents, but from the fully-invested Vat 2 Bishops and Priests who, it must be accurately and justly observed, are motivated by their own internal, temporal fears.

And yet, Christ Jesus, through His Angels, through His Saints, and with His own voice (and echoed by His Excellency, Bernard Fellay) directs us all: BE NOT AFRAID!

True Obedience said...

Inquisitor and others,

Obedience sometimes demands disobedience. See this by Abp. Lefebvre:

http://www.sspx.org/miscellaneous/canonical/can_obedience_oblige_us_to_disobey.htm

Long-Skirts said...

Hilltop said:

"And yet, Christ Jesus, through His Angels, through His Saints, and with His own voice (and echoed by His Excellency, Bernard Fellay) directs us all: BE NOT AFRAID!"

Here! Here!!

Catherine of Siena said...

At about 3 minutes 46 seconds into the interview, Fr. Rostand talks about the graces and prayers that the SSPX priests receive from their faithful, which is a great support to them in "this war." I'm just wondering to what "war" he is referring - their "war" with Rome? against the Holy Pontiff?

Tradical said...

Roger Marshall said:
"... the Church is sailing the high seas with Peter at the helm ..."

I believe it would be more apropos to invoke the imagery of St. Don Bosco's dream of the two pillars.

From where I'm sitting, the Church is anything 'but' 'sailing the high seas ...', for the past 40 years the Church has been tossed about by the waves of change and heresy.

All that we need now is for Pope X (assuming that Benedict is the first Pope of Don Bosco's dream) to firmly re-attach the Church to the pillars of the Eucharist and Our Lady.

The Paraclete's petitioner said...

"Veni Sancte Spiritus". . . for the children of God the Holy Spirit grants yet another sign of His direct involvement in the soul of the U.S. district superior of the SSPX.

Rev. Fr. Rostand is visibly composed, peaceful, articulate and imbued with patience. "The fruit of the Spirit is: charity, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faith , modesty, continency. Gal. 5:22

The opening words are to convey an impact and they do: "Today we are in a waiting phase." "We are waiting the decision of the Pope."

Could anyone ask for a more definitive sign of the SSPX seeking the Will of the Holy Trinity than their humble, prayerful patience awaiting the decision of the Vicar of Christ?

"Veni Sancte Spiritus" - in His time, through His means that His Will be accomplished as He desires!

Lamentably Sane said...

Catherine of Siena,
NO! He did not mean a war against the Pope, for crying out loud! He meant the war against modernism and all the forces of self-demolition in the Church.
Yes, Fr Rostand is doing a great job in the U.S. District repairing the damage done by Bishop Williamson, who got more than a little carried away by the adulation he received there as a Cambridge graduate with a plummy accent.

Edgar said...

Magdalena, I have known FSSPX priests and laity since 1987 both in the US as well as in Mexico so please spare me your attitude.

That there have always been sedevacantist elements within the FSSPX is an uncontested truth. May I remind you where did the original members of the FSSPV ( Cekada, Sanborn, Dolan, Kelly, etc.) came from? or all the "independent" priests that have left the fraternity over the years including many teachers and seminarians in 1989 in La Reja. Here in Mexico we have many of those "independents" SV so don't try to close you eyes to the facts please.

As for why some of these people still attend FSSPX chapels? well, it might be the only Traditional Mass in that area, it might be that they have attended that chapel for many years and don´t want to change, it might be because they like father X's preaching or ars celebrandi, maybe as it happens in my country questioning the Pope openly will create such a great scandal among most catholics so they will avoid the topic altogether (this even happens in some "independent" chapels serviced by Sede priests) or it could be a combination of all these.

How do I know they are crypto sedevacantists?? There are many ways to spot them: Many will not refer to Pope Benedict as such or with any of the Papal titles (his holines, supreme pontiff, etc.) but will ONLY refer to him as Mr. Ratzinger; others will openly accuse him of espousing and teaching heresies and others will disrespect him with names you wouldn't even call your worst enemy.

Just listen to some of the anti-reconciliation sermons by some of the FSSPX priests's (like Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer, Fr. Ceriani, Fr. Cardozo, Meramo and others) or stop around Radio Cristandad and you will see them in action.

I would agree that not all of the people that oppose the recognition are Sedes (in my original post I said "most of the times") but deeds count even more than words so if a person talks, writes and acts like a Sede even if he does not openly presents himself as such (thats why I call them crypto-sede as otherwise they would be Sedevacantists period) we can safely question his loyalty towards the Pope and the Church.

AMDG:"Obviously you don't know..." so will I have to take your word on that? Could I ask you about all the other things I don´t know because you seem to know more about me than myself. But then you "can´t explain to me either" so I will have to solve this one by myself.

Our Lady of Guadalupe's little child said...

To Edgar,

Your words reveal an interior intensity which evokes the only response this soul has to share. You will have the sufferings and prayers of my day offered in union with Our Divine Crucified Lord imploring Mercy for you and yours.

I have no more to give to you than every breath except to request: Please REST your battle-scarred soul before the Throne of Our Lady of Guadalupe that "she who crushes the serpent" may relieve you from venomous attacks and refresh you with her celestial peace.

Pax Christi!

Edgar said...

Thanks little child of Guadalupe for you prayers, they are always welcome. I will also pray for you and your people. Please if you have the time also pray for the Holy Father, for his intentions, for bishop Fellay & the FSSPX so they have the strength to weather the attacks they will receive from within and from outside during these days. And also for all the Sedevacantists brothers so they renounce of their error and return to the one and only true Church of Christ where they will be saved.

Our Lady of Guadalupe's little child said...

To Edgar,

You have the assurance that the same breaths offered for you in union with Our Divine King, are also offered as you requested. It is the Holy Spirit Who has put that request into your soul and already placed it in mine.

Rest in the refuge before the throne of Our Lady of Guadalupe and be refreshed by Our Mother's maternal solicitude for you, her dear son. She will intercede with you for your perfect request that the Will of the Holy Trinity be accomplished in the lives of the Sovereign Pontiff and H.E. Bishop Fellay, also her sons, that they may guide all attached to their lives.

Pax Christi!

Edgar said...

Gratias, yes it would be nice to publish more about the tradi world in Hispanoamerica and I am in debt with N.C. for not having been able to do so but I will try to send something soon God willing.

Catherine of Siena said...

Lamentably Sane:

Sorry to have to open your eyes to this sad reality, but I just read an exerpt from an interview given with SSPX Bishop Tissier de Mallerais a few days ago, and I quote, "This status that is proposed to us, of a personal prelature, analogous to that of Opus Dei, is a status for a state of peace. But we are currently in a state of war in the Church. It would be a contradiction to wish to "regularize the war"."

I beg to differ, these leaders of the SSPX, including the US District Superior, DO believe that they are in a state of war - against ROME, that is, against the ROMAN Catholic Church. Please, and I say this in all charity, wake up and smell the coffee.