Rorate Caeli

Op-Ed (English - français)
SSPX: Last-minute hurdles?
FSSPX: obstacles de dernière heure?


a guest-post by Côme de Prévigny

On April 18, Andrea Tornielli titled on his blog Sacri Palazzi: "Fellay's response is positive". For him, the agreement had been made. Always well informed by the Romans responsible for the dossier, he deemed himself authorized to write: "the text of the preamble delivered by Bp. Fellay proposes some minor modifications of the version sent by the Vatican authorities." And, every day that followed it, the most optimistic rumors spread out. In support of what was known within the Vatican, from the very prelates in charge of the affair, Jean-Marie Guénois, always well informed, said from his corner: "It is a matter of days, and not of weeks anymore [...]. These last few weeks, the final points have been settled between Rome and Écône in order to better respond to the demands of 'clarifications' asked for by the Vatican on March 16." 

Yet, two months later, a thick fog descends upon the religious landscape. While all observers thought that they saw the Roman Pontiff decide once and for all the matter to which he had dedicated a good part of his pontificate upon the delivery of a new document to Bishop Fellay on June 13, the communiqué of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith of June 14 foresaw an "additional moment of reflection". The one from the Society of Saint Pius X, of the same day, gave rise to the same uncertainty by evoking a "new phase of discussions". Even if it is known that this kind of rebound is usual in the end of difficult negotiations, one can only speculate, particularly since the number of Roman prelates who thought that the agreement would be formalized is quite larger than than those who seemed to want this new postponement. It is as if those who accused Bp. Fellay of never being able to decide suddenly found themselves with a beam in their eyes. 

Already within the Society, those spirits for whom an agreement with the Apostolic See is unthinkable began to delude themselves by imagining that their action had dealt a fatal blow to this fateful process which intended, in their view, to destroy them. If their reasoning were to be followed, it should rather be imagined that Rome would have taken advantage of the division of the four bishops to deal a fatal blow to the work of Abp. Lefebvre by moving on with the process until the end. The rebound of June 13 makes them look mistaken in every scenario. 

What was it then that happened between April and June? In the month of May, according to several agreeing sources, the feria quarta [Wednesday] meeting of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, aware that they acted according to the will of the Pope, endorsed the final draft proposed by Bp. Fellay, following several movements of the text between Rome and Menzingen. The Pope imagined it - the Cardinals accomplished it. Despite a certain number of absentees and of some restriction of placet iusta modum, the text had finally had the consent of their Eminences, probably aware that they would not have to meet forever. On that day, the agreement was virtually concluded. On the basis of clearly defined positions on the occasion of the doctrinal discussions that had delineated the differences, Pope Benedict XVI was ready to grant to the Society that which Abp. Lefebvre had tirelessly asked from Cardinal Ratzinger: the assurance of a traditional episcopate independent from the pressures of the local conferences. 

If the internet offers a magnifying effect to the fiery sermons of some Traditionalist priests who think  they can undermine their hierarchy by having their words propagated by Sedevacantist websites, the web does not say anything of the real issues afflicting the Church. Bp. Fellay reached in mid-April the limits of the line granted to the Society by Abp. Lefebvre, at the very risk of causing dismay to some of his colleagues who increased the manifestations of their fears. Those Roman interlocutors who have provoked this rebound have probably not really perceived this. It is also likely that they feared the increase of the silent opposition of the German episcopate, who presented their own ultimatums to the Successor of Peter. The extreme reluctance of Bp. Fellay seemed to suggest that they hid themselves behind formulas that created an impasse upon several months of clarifications and discussions, thus risking their own disavowal.

Paradoxically, they have rendered a great service to Bp. Fellay, by allowing him to show that, while doing his utmost for the canonical recognition of the eminently Roman work of Abp. Lefebvre, his firmness remained intact, as is shown by the way by a letter of Father Thouvenot fraudulently released on the internet. The fact remains that  only the Pope has the power to bind and loose. Faced with all opposition - the strongest of which being that of those closes to him -, it is to him that belongs, in fine, the right to decide. After twelve years of discussions, at the end of seven years of pontificate, this man, who a few weeks ago said that enough injustices had been committed against the Society, will set in place the endpoint which he alone, as head of the Church, has the right to set in place.
____________________________________________

[French version:]



un post par notre invité Côme de Prévigny

Le 18 avril, Andrea Tornielli titrait sur Sacri Palazzi : « Fellay a dit oui ». Pour lui, l’alliance était conclue. Toujours bien informé par les responsables romains du dossier, il s’autorisait à écrire : « Le texte du préambule envoyé par Mgr Fellay propose quelques modifications mineures de la version donnée par les autorités vaticanes ». Et tous les jours qui suivirent, les bruits les plus optimistes se répandirent. A l’appui de ce qu’il savait au sein du Vatican, de la part des mêmes prélats chargés de l’affaire, Jean-Marie Guénois, toujours bien renseigné, avançait de son côté : « C'est une affaire de jours et non plus de semaines […] Ces dernières semaines, les ultimes réglages ont été finalisés entre Rome et Écône pour répondre au mieux aux demandes de « clarifications » sollicitées par le Vatican, le 16 mars dernier. »



Et deux mois plus tard, un brouillard épais s'abat sur le paysage religieux. Alors que tous les observateurs pensaient voir le pontife romain trancher une bonne fois pour toutes ce dossier sur lequel il avait misé une grande partie de son pontificat, après la remise d’un nouveau document à Mgr Fellay le 13 juin, le communiqué de la Congrégation pour la Doctrine de la Foi du 14 envisageait finalement un « moment supplémentaire de réflexion ». Celui de la Fraternité Saint-Pie X , en date du même jour, laissait planer le même doute en évoquant une « nouvelle phase de discussions ». Même si l’on sait que ce genre de rebondissement est classique en fin de négociation difficile, on se perd en conjectures, d’autant que le nombre des prélats romains qui pensaient que l’accord serait formalisé est bien plus important que la poignée de ceux qui paraissent avoir voulu ce nouveau retardement. Comme si ceux qui accusaient Mgr Fellay de ne jamais savoir se décider, se retrouvaient soudain avec une poutre dans l’œil.

Déjà, au sein de la Fraternité, les esprits pour lesquels un accord avec le Siège apostolique est inenvisageable, se prenaient à rêver en imaginant que leur action avait porté un coup fatal à ce funeste processus qui visait, d’après eux, à les anéantir. Si on suivait leur raisonnement, on aurait plutôt dû imaginer que Rome aurait profité de la division des quatre évêques pour porter un coup fatal à l’œuvre de Mgr Lefebvre en menant la démarche jusqu’au bout. Le rebondissement du 13 juin leur donne donc particulièrement tort dans tous les cas.

Que s’est-il alors passé entre avril et juin ? Au mois de mai, d'après plusieurs sources concordantes, la feria quarta de la Congrégation pour la Doctrine de la Foi aurait, sachant qu’elle agissait selon la volonté du pape, avalisé la dernière mouture proposée par Mgr Fellay, au terme de plusieurs navettes du texte entre Rome et Menzingen. Benoît XVI l’avait rêvé - les cardinaux l'auraient fait. Malgré un certain nombre d’absences et de quelques restrictions de placet juxta modum, le texte aurait finalement eu l’assentiment de leurs éminences probablement conscientes qu’elles n’auraient pas à se réunir éternellement. Ce jour là, l’accord était virtuellement conclu. Sur la base de positions clairement définies à l’occasion de discussions doctrinales qui avaient cerné les différends, le pape Benoît XVI s’apprêtait à concéder à la Fraternité ce que Mgr Lefebvre avait inlassablement demandé au cardinal Ratzinger : la garantie d’un épiscopat traditionnel indépendant de la pression des conférences locales.

Si Internet offre un effet loupe aux prêches enflammés de quelques vicaires traditionalistes qui pensent ébranler leur hiérarchie en voyant leurs propos diffusés par les sites sédévacantistes, la toile ne dit mot des réels enjeux qui secouent l’Église. Mgr Fellay avait atteint à la mi-avril les limites de cette ligne de crête assignée à la Fraternité par Mgr Lefebvre, au risque même de provoquer le désarroi de certains de ses confrères qui multipliaient les manifestations de leurs craintes. Ceux de ses interlocuteurs romains qui ont provoqué ce rebondissement, ont sans doute peiné à le percevoir. Il est par ailleurs vraisemblable, qu’ils ont craint que n’enfle la sourde opposition de l’épiscopat allemand qui posait ses propres ultimatums au successeur de Pierre. Les extrêmes réticences de Mgr Fellay semblent indiquer qu’ils se sont réfugiés derrière des formules qui faisaient l’impasse sur plusieurs mois de clarifications et de pourparlers, risquant ainsi leur propre désaveu.

Paradoxalement, ils ont rendu un immense service à Mgr Fellay, en lui permettant de montrer que tout en faisant le maximum pour la reconnaissance canonique de l’œuvre éminemment romaine de Mgr Lefebvre, sa fermeté restait entière comme le montre au reste une lettre de l’abbé Thouvenot frauduleusement divulguée sur Internet. Il demeure que le pape seul a le pouvoir de lier et de délier. Face à toutes les oppositions – les plus redoutables étant celles des plus proches, qui se veulent plus papistes que le pape –, c’est à lui que revient, in fine, le droit de trancher. Après douze ans de pourparlers, au bout de sept ans de pontificat, cet homme, qui disait il y a quelques semaines qu’il y avait eu assez d’injustices portées à l’encontre de la Fraternité, va poser le point final car il est, en tant que chef de l’Église, le seul à pouvoir le poser.

41 comments:

Dr. Timothy J. Williams said...

Nothing new in this article. Summary: those of good will want to see the accord; the modernists continue to try to undermine it; it is up to the Pope to make a decision.

Spike said...

I disagree, Doc. Lots of new insights to take away. For instance...referring to His Excellency Archbishop Lefebvre as "eminently Roman". IF my translator serves me correctly.

Referring to the pope, "...this man, who said a few weeks ago that it has had enough of injustices brought against the Fraternity,...". Now I would like to hear more about this. The injustices against the SSPX were many. And they were committed by Catholicism loathing clerics who despise The Church but love Protestantism, Paganism, Pantheism, Communism, ANY ism as long as it is not the ism give the world by Jesus Christ and handed down by His Apostles, faithfully preserved and handed on WITHOUT compromise by the Society of Saint Pius X.

Jonvilas said...

Wow, Spike, are you claiming that the One True Church is FSSPX? Well, at least the last sentence sounds very much like that...

Anonymous said...

There are saints on both sides of this argument. In regards to the SSPX and the Holy Father, Deus Vult! should again become the battle cry for Catholics of good will the world over.

Spike said...

Jonvilas, what an absolutely vile thing to think. What would possess you to say such a thing?? What kind of eyes do you read with??

John H said...

The last sentence here makes no sense whatsoever. The ball is no longer in the Pope's court, but in that of Bishop Fellay and his collaborators. They are the ones whose response we await. The Pope has had his say and has invited. The SSPX has to figure itself out. Stop putting this on popes and cardinals. Now it is all on the SSPX. But we all knew this would happen when the moment came down to it. Some in the SSPX are and have always been Sedevacantists.

john H said...

The last sentence makes no sense, as it implies that somehow we await the Pope's movew on something, when in reality the ball is now squarely in the SSPX court. This deal would have been done months ago were it not for the Sedevacantist element within the SSPX. They need to figure themselves out before time runs out on them.

Jason C. said...

If [the anti-agreement hardliners'] reasoning were to be followed, it should rather be imagined that Rome would have taken advantage of the division of the four bishops to deal a fatal blow to the work of Abp. Lefebvre by moving on with the process until the end. The rebound of June 13 makes them look mistaken in every scenario.

I agree with this reasoning.

JMJ Ora Pro Nobis said...

John you are simply talking nonsense, if this deal is rejected by Bp Fellay, who is liberal compared to others in the SSPX the deal was unacceptable and required too much compromise from them. To remain true to ones charism and the Catholic faith is not sedevecantisn.

vivailpapa said...

I no longer know what to think.

God bless Bishop Fellay and our Holy Father.

AS said...

I am one of the less erudite readers here and, in charity, I am hoping that someone could summarize what this article is trying to say here; I have now read it three times, and I have no clue.

Also, how does this square with the now-disclosed letter also posted here? That letter seems to suggest that at the 11th hour the CDF has re-introduced all kinds of language to the preamble that has previously been negotiated away. Unless I havealso misnderstood that post.

Thanks....

Long-Skirts said...

Côme de Prévigny said:

"If the internet offers a magnifying effect to the fiery sermons of some Traditionalist priests who think they can undermine their hierarchy..."

CRISTERO
WANNABEES

They're wannabe Cristeros
Playing in their made up war -
Pretending they are soldiers
Each one of them a czar.

The battle is ahead
But in their house they stay -
No Officers or Captains
To guide them while at play.

They love to shout their battle cries
"Viva Cristo Rey!"
Forgetting true Cristeros -
Their general-priest obey.

And laying down their arms
At the Holy Father's word -
Yes, they suffered martyrdom
But Cristo Rey's forever heard!

Athelstane said...

I deplore all of these leaks. What a tawdry affair this is becoming.

But having said that, I am mightily curious just what sort of ultimatum that the German bishops must have sent to Rome. We knew things were very bad there. But would they really go into formal schism over an SSPX deal?

Malta said...

As I've said before, the interim solution (or, reconnoitering, whatever word you choose) is simple at this point: lift the suspensión ad divines against the Societies' priests!

NIANTIC said...

Bishop Fellay has given his response some time ago and this appears to have had the approval of the Holy Father.
Levada et all have thrown a road block up.
Now it is up to the Holy Father to put an end to it. Enough is enough.
Lord have mercy.

NIANTIC said...

And what is up with the German episcopate. Where do they get the gall to give an ultimatum to the Holy Father. Just like after the Regensburg address they did not give support to the Holy Father. Truly the Church has gone in an awful wrong direction and needs a complete reversal as soon as possible.
The Pope is the Vicar of Christ. His word and decision is the final authority. He should not fear the wolves. Please....Holy Father.

Prof. Basto said...

If Bp. Fellay's proposed text was approved by the CDF, why was it modified?

I consider it unthinkable that the CDF would approve a text, that the Pope would approve a text, and that the CDF Prefect would then on his own modify that approved text, thus presenting to Bp. Fellay something other than what was approved by the Feria Quarta Meeting and Pope.

If a modified text was submitted to Bishop Fellay on 13 June, that's because the Feria Quarta Meeting asked for modifications and the Pope decided to include them.

It seems, though, that the Holy See believed that the modifications were considered minor, and it was taken for granted that Bp. Fellay would be ready and willing to sign the altered text. He wasn't.

The Holy See was so confident that its altered text would be accepted that it even moved to the next stage of negotiations, by formalizing the proposal of a canonical structure (proposing a personal prelature, in the form of a draft document that was handed to Bishop Fellay).

But Bishop Fellay was not ready to sign what the Holy See asked of him to conclude the doctrinal agreement.

Now, we have arrived at an impasse. If negotiations are to continue, and it Bp. Fellay cannot accept the present doctrinal document, another round of back-and-forth of documents needs to take place: Bp. Fellay needs to modify the doctrinal preamble once again and send it to the Pope, hoping for an acceptance of the brand new version.

New Catholic said...

Nothing is unthinkable, Basto. This is the age of Vatileaks...

NC

backtothefuture said...

Pray for people on both sides who sow discord. They will have God to answer to for their grave sins against the church.

Jack Reynolds said...

I wonder if the letter supposedly by Thouvenot is a fake. I wonder also if, fake or no, its being circulated now is to sabotage the regularization of the SSPX.

Kathleen said...

I have been very grateful for Côme de Prévigny's insights through this process and am again with this one.

I haven't read any of the private documents, thankfully New Catholic has structured things so they can be easily avoided. As a result though my view may be ill-informed, for which I beg pardon.

But I'm going to scrap back together my hope that the Society will come through this ok again after reading this.

I've known this was going to be a serious trial. That small vocal group that is seething at two forums in particular has been seething for a good few years. I expected them to act up. Yet I was still caught off guard that their behavior could be this deplorable.

Their simple mindedness combined with their arrogance is breathtaking. Their failure to see the strong likelihood that their arm chair war will bring about precisely what they fear is astonishing.

I will continue to pray that Our Merciful Lord resolve the difficulties between the Society and Rome in a manner pleasing to Him.

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

Oddly, I agree with the conclusion here but not with any of the premises. Yet again, this commentator is like the eternal optimist, refusing to see the facts as they are. However, I don't discount the possibility that the German (and French) episcopates may have interfered. I don't like all this emphasis on the German episcopal conference. Yes, yes, I know: they deliver the money. But, in terms of numbers, they are of little importance. It's France that counts in the Church, not Lutheran Germany. I'm betting that the German episcopate could not have prevented a deal solo: they had to have the support of some of the other conferences, esp. that of France.

P.K.T.P.

New Catholic said...

"I've known this was going to be a serious trial. That small vocal group that is seething ... has been seething for a good few years. I expected them to act up. Yet I was still caught off guard that their behavior could be this deplorable."

Same here, Kathleen. I am shocked not by the difference in opinion, which is to be expected and can be quite healthy, but by the troubling methods. We should expect better from Catholics, and particularly from priests. Yes, they are men - that does not mean they have to act like rascals.

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

I agree with Prof. Basto. Also, I cannot see how, at the very last minute, after the C.D.F. and the dicsteries had given the Pope what he wanted for approval, some Koch or Müller was able to derail it all.

P.K.T.P.

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

John H.:

The Pope is always free to act, no matter where the ball is.

P.K.T.P.

Erik said...

It is positive to see the official leadership of the SSPX persevering to work out a deal despite some fear from within their ranks. It is quite clear to me that the SSPX recognizes the Apostolic Succession of priests & Bishops ordained in the Novus Ordo, or else they wouldn't be wasting their time seeking an agreement with Pope Benedict XVI. They may need to make some public affirmation of this though to push out the minority sedevacantism from within their ranks. The conditional re-ordinations and conditional re-confirmations which occurred from time to time in Winona during Bishop Williamson's time there did not help to dispel in my mind the impression of a closet sedevacantism being tolerated to some extent.

Matt said...

P.K.T.P. said, "I don't discount the possibility the German (and French) episcopates may have interfered."

How very curious about this as it begs a bigger question. If it's so, how incompetent are the prelates of the Curial offices letting others from the outside convince them to change their minds in the middle of a negotiation? Perhaps these prelates are that spineless, but at the same time nefarious comes more to mind.

Erik said, "It is positive to see the official leadership of the SSPX persevering to work out a deal despite some fear from within their ranks. "

Yes, this is positive; and despite the fears and hesitations within the ranks, the governing body of the SSPX as consists now speaks for them officially. In that regard, the work goes on in spite of their reservations.

"The SSPX recognizes the Apostolic Succession of priests and Bishops ordained in the Novus Ordo, or else they wouldn't be wasting their time seeking an agreement with Pope Benedict XVI."

That's correct.

"They may need to make some public affirmation of this though to push out the minority sedevacantism from within their ranks. The conditional re-ordinations and conditional re-confirmations which occurred from time to time in Winona during Bishop Williamson's time there did not help to dispel in my mind the impression of a closet sedevacantism being tolerated to some extent."

They have no need to make any public comment regarding this because it won't change anything. Additionally, forget about any of this conditional re-anything. There is nothing Canonically or Sacramentally valid or required about doing such a thing. What a sede-vacantist thinks means nothing as it has nothing to with the negotiations. It's his own conscience and personal reconciliation he needs to remedy; and no diferent than any wacko liberal.

One thing needs to be made clear, if the SSPX reunites with the Church, and we are all praying they do so, all comes in at once. If there are any nay-sayers in their crowd then too bad for them. They separate themselves individually. Those unfornately who may do so do not get to keep any of the SSPX assets or propoerty to carry on on their own unless the Society divvies up anything and this, IMO, is 99.99 percent unlikely. Just like if a business decides to merge. A nay-saying unit or division doesn't get to opt out and carry on on their own. To wit, the Vatican is going to recognize it the SSPX reunion the same way. Let's drop the angst over the sede-vacantists and the Williamson-worriers.

!

Prof. Basto said...

NC:Nothing is unthinkable, Basto. This is the age of Vatileaks...

Indeed.

But is there any evidence, or any reason to believe at this point, that a FRAUD was commited by the CDF Prefect?

Because, the hypothesis of the text of a document being altered by the CDF Prefect on his own power AFTER the approval of an unmodified version by the Supreme Pontiff would constitute nothing but fraud.

If Bp. Fellay proposed a text, if this text was submitted to the Ordinary Session (feria quarta meeting) of the CDF; if the Congregation approved the text; if the document and votes were then placed before the Pope; and if the Pope then confirmed the CDF's action, accepting the document, then the CDF Prefect would have no authority to change that document and present an altered version to Bp. Fellay. All that would be left for him to do is: inform the Bishop that his document had been accepted.

Also, even if the Cardinal were immoral, it would be too risky for him to alter the text and submit it to Fellay, if no alteration had been decided by the Holy See regarding Fellay's proposal. How to explain Fellay's refusal to the Pope and CDF members, if he had nothing new to accept or refuse (because his original proposal was already approved)?

Also, if the Pope decided on a few modifications, it would be too risky for Levada to add other alterations without papal authority.

Even if we are to assume that there are immoral people at the Vatican (and the Vatileaks scandal authorizes that assumption), we cannot assume that they would be that stupid in commiting fraud.

No, the more probable scenario is that the text that was submitted to Fellay was cleared with the Pope, and that the Holy See misjudged what Fellay's reaction would be.

Everybody hoped for acceptance, and instead the text could not be accepted. Now, the Holy See is deploying Di Noia in an attempt to bring the negotiations back on track.

Augustinus said...

Prof Basto, there is one passage in the article that you overlooked in the course of your latest analysis:

"Those Roman interlocutors who have provoked this rebound have probably not really perceived this. It is also likely that they feared the increase of the silent opposition of the German episcopate, who presented their own ultimatums to the Successor of Peter."

Read between the lines.

Sixupman said...

+++Levada was a problem from the outset, look at his history!

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

Prof. Basto:

There is also the possibility that the Pope expected Fellay to reject the text but was playing 'hardball' with him--trying to get as much as he could. The Pope wants to make it look as though the S.S.P.X has compromised with Vatican II, even if a little bit.

P.K.T.P.

Picard said...

Not only Levada is the problem. Remember, also Bf. Müller and Card. Schönbor work for the CDF.

And, Prof., Basto, according what Fr. Pfluger has reported recently (in a speach in Hattersheim, reported here on rorate) and what is said by Menzingen now, the storry seems to go that way:

the modified answer of Bf. Fellay was delivered to the Vatican (to the CDF). Aslo the Pope got it an INOFFICIALY, PRIVATELY he suggested that the text of the answer is ok. (And as seemigly beforehand was negotiated as sufficient) - but then the CDF officially alterd the text - and the Pope seems to have apporved this alteration!

And as remarked above, if you consider who works for the CDF - not only Levada - this was very likely to happen!

LeonG said...

"last minute hurdles" is somewhat understated.

1917 said...

Disgusted! Having written a comment yesterday and to see nothing of it here beggars belief!

In a hurry so it went anonymous, but having seen other anonymous posts before and with he option given below, you'd think it would be posted. Or perhaps a biased site pro Bp Fellay who has kept secrets.

He expects loyalty but keeps secrets - you can't have it both ways.

I believe in trust and honesty and this is not happening. Yet Bp Fellay keeps asking for trust while he gives none. Even my children know that trust is earnt especially when you have broken the rules on trust first!

If the Curia can't be trusted by the Pope, then how can we trust the Curia? If the Curia disobey the Pope, then how can you expect obedience? If the Bishops of England disobey the Pope, then how can you expect them to obey the Pope regarding the SSPX.

Be honest, the SSPX will be swallowed up and that is the only intention of this agreement - that the SSPX will disappear - the only real thorn left.

Loyal and obedience: How can Bp Fellay refuse to ordain? So much time, money and effort spent by many families ... and for what reason? For loyalty! Sorry, but no Bishop asks for loyalty before he ordains. You only refuse ordination for reason of grievous sin.

This probably won't get posted like the last one!

The truth is not what is appearing - the truth is that the majority of SSPX are not sedevacantist, the truth is that the majority of SSPX pray for our Pope, Benedict XVI and realise the fight he has on his hands, the truth is that we are part of the SSPX because we believe in the fight for Tradition in all aspects of life and Church! The truth is that we very much hope no deal will happen!

And Matt, I very much hope you are wrong and that Bp Fellay will not take away our Churches - there would be no where to go to Mass! Or perhaps he doesn't really care about our souls?

To expel a priest because he doesn't agree with you is scandalous! To silence another Bishop who continues to say the same thing since the SSPX was set up is scandalous! There is nothing here requiring obedience to silence except that the truth is being spoken!

Our Pope perhaps has more reason than most to expel some for serious issues but has greater charity and honesty than others!

Rant over ...

Prof. Basto said...

P.K.T.P:"And, Prof., Basto, according what Fr. Pfluger has reported recently (in a speach in Hattersheim, reported here on rorate) and what is said by Menzingen now, the storry seems to go that way:

the modified answer of Bf. Fellay was delivered to the Vatican (to the CDF). Aslo the Pope got it an INOFFICIALY, PRIVATELY he suggested that the text of the answer is ok. (And as seemigly beforehand was negotiated as sufficient) - but then the CDF officially alterd the text - and the Pope seems to have apporved this alteration!

And as remarked above, if you consider who works for the CDF - not only Levada - this was very likely to happen!"


Yes, that's a way more probable explanation of what happened.

The Pope cleared Bp. Fellay's document informally, then Fellay presented it officially, it was examined by the CDF, the vote in the CDF was not entirely positive, instead requesting some alterations, and the Pope, either believing that the alterations were minor or wanting to play hardball, approved the alterations, so that Cardinal Levada, with authority from above, presented an altered text to Bp. Fellay.

That's more likely. And, of course, in the CDF's decision not to approve the text unconditionally, the influence of liberal members such as the Cardinal from Vienna cannot be dismissed.

Matt said...

Prof. Basto said, "The Pope cleared Bp. Fellay's document informally, then Fellay presented it officially, it was examined by the CDF, the vote in the CDF was not entirely positive, instead requesting some alterations, and the Pope, either believing that the alterations were minor or wanting to play hardball, approved the alterations, so that Cardinal Levada, with authority from above, presented an altered text to Bp. Fellay.

That's more likely. And, of course, in the CDF's decision not to approve the text unconditionally, the influence of liberal members such as the Cardinal from Vienna cannot be dismissed.
"


In the end, it's all speculation. We may never know but I think +Fellay would be the most reliable source on this. Rome, doubtfully, would admit to anything.

Prof. Basto said...

Sorry, my reply was to Picard, but I wrote PKTP.

Picard said...

Yes, exactly Prof. Basto.
That´s the scenario.

Again, do not forget the players here: Not only Levada, but also Schönborn - as youselfe pointed to - and Bf. Müller, who both work for the CDF, and many other neo-cons and liberals.

Matt - it is not just speculation. That is what we get from the remarks of Fr. Pfluger, Fr. Nely and now Fr. Thouvenot, all well-informed and (supposedly) trust-worthy.

Matthew M said...

All of this truly saddens me.:-(

New Catholic said...

1917,

There is moderation - and that demands moderation from us and from our commentators.

The language of "selling out" seems so inappropriate, even though it is repeated often. This is not about business ventures or mergers, and words such as selling or buying should be avoided in our comment threads: you can make the same point without being so aggressive.

Thank you.

Marty Jude said...

1917 said:
"...The truth is not what is appearing - the truth is that the majority of SSPX are not sedevacantist, the truth is that the majority of SSPX pray for our Pope, Benedict XVI and realise the fight he has on his hands, the truth is that we are part of the SSPX because we believe in the fight for Tradition in all aspects of life and Church! The truth is that we very much hope no deal will happen!..."

I agree with most of what you say, but not all the faithful attached to the SSPX in England are against a 'deal' with Rome.

"And Matt, I very much hope you are wrong and that Bp Fellay will not take away our Churches - there would be no where to go to Mass! Or perhaps he doesn't really care about our souls?"

Bishop Fellay is the Superior General; the Houses and chapels/churches are the legal properties of the SSPX [look at that sad debacle in The States...!]. True, most properties have been acquired through the 'digging into the pockets' of the faithful. For some this has been more than the 'widows mite'! Some through generous benefaction of now dearly Departed Faithful.

However, these properties were acquired/are officially owned for, and in the name of the FSSPX. Why would the FSSPX 'give away' property that will be be used by more sede-vacantist elements. That's a dangerous road to travel.

"To expel a priest because he doesn't agree with you is scandalous! To silence another Bishop who continues to say the same thing since the SSPX was set up is scandalous! There is nothing here requiring obedience to silence except that the truth is being spoken!"

Are you so certain? I feel [of course that's subjective of me - as it is of you] that the Archbishop would have behaved in a similar manner, although it would have grieved him, as I'm sure it has Bishop Fellay.

We need to remember the FSSPX is a Congregation, primarily of Priests, with Brothers and Sisters. We layfolk are far from members of the Congregation itself - merely attendees. Sure, we [mostly]attend FSSPX Mass centres only, but we cannot claim such properties as ours, even if we contributed to their purchase.

The members of the FSSPX should follow Holy Obedience or ship out and start afresh, just as the FSSPX had to in the early 70's.

Yours in the love of Our Lord and His Holy Church