Rorate Caeli

For the record: "Lefebvrians: a decision after summer"

The month in which Europe stops is about to begin - and soon after that, the Pope is supposed to be in Lebanon (yes, the great small nation surrounded by Syria and Israel) in September. According to La Stampa's vaticanist Andrea Tornielli, a decision on the relations betweeen the Society of Saint Pius X and the Holy See should come only after summer:

Lefebvrians, a decision after summer
Fellay's response has not yet arrived. ...
Andrea Tornielli
Città del Vaticano
The response of the Superior of the Society of Saint Pius X to the doctrinal preamble delivered to him on June 13 has not yet arrived in Rome. And even if it arrives in the coming weeks, it will not be examined because the Prefect of the Congregation, Gerhard Müller, leaves for his vacation, as do the vice-president and the secretary of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei. Although the general chapter of the Lefebvrians is over, it is possible that Fellay will take some more time before sending his response. ...
Even the request for the freedom to criticize, even publicly, the "proponents of errors or novelties of Modernism, of Liberalism, of the Second Vatican Council, and of their consequences" could in the end be interpreted in a way that is less harsh than it seems. "It will all depend - it is repeated in the Vatican - on the response Bp. Fellay will send to Rome."

20 comments:

El Eremita said...

A "decision"? Bogus. It should read "Dialogue to continue after summer".

Hopefully, Fellay will insist with his "Doctrinal Declaration" of April 17th, which was found "encouraging" by most people at the Vatican. I personally hope also that the aforementioned declaration received the approval of the General Chapter of the society.

If that's the case, then everything is up to Di Noia: he'll have to produce a declaration that satisfies both Fellay and the Pope, i.e, something that keeps the essence of Fellay's declaration but avoiding the use of the controversial expression "errors of the council".

Whats Up! said...

In the meanwhile I pray the HF grants faculties for valid SSPX confessions.

Isaac S. said...

I think the Holy Father should just grant SSPX full faculties and an Ordinariate with three simple conditions:

1. SSPX has to accept that Vatican II was a valid ecumenical council that contained no formal heresy.
2. SSPX has to accept that the Novus Ordo is valid, one can fulfill one's Sunday obligation by attending, and that attending a NO is not forbidden or sinful, even for SSPX-affiliated laity.
3. SSPX has to agree to obey the Holy Father in all things, even in selection of future bishops.

In return, SSPX will have complete freedom to operate independent of local ordinaries. According to their public statements, SSPX believes all three of these conditions anyway, so this shouldn't be an issue.

However, in reality, SSPX will never accept this because a very large part of the society doesn't actually believe these points. Many agree with Bp. Williamson and the other two bishops, so any acceptance of any "deal" whatsoever with Rome that doesn't consist of complete acceptance by the Pope of all society positions will split the society apart.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Woody said...

Ecclesia supplet.

And,even if, for the sake of argument, that did not apply here, in the case where an authorized confessor is not available (and almost none of them ever are, practically speaking, not to mention morally speaking), then confessison to an SSPX priest would certainly have no less efficacy than a confession to another layman, e.g., as Saint Ignatius did before the battle of Pamplona.

Dr. Timothy J. Williams said...

Unfortunately, this leaves Bishop Williamson a few more months to launch his torpedoes.

rodrigo said...

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I will ask again: if the Holy Father himself could write as a theologian in good standing that a document of Vatican II contains "downright Pelagian terminology", why should not the SSPX be permitted to argue in similar fashion about Modernist terminology in other documents?

Perhaps the Society will work that Ratzinger quotation into their response to Rome!

Athanasius said...

Decision? Rubbish. I still remember in 2000 how everyone was chirping the SSPX would be reconciled by Easter. That came and went. Then a new discussion in 2005, came and went. Then of course just after Easter Tornielli gleefully said it is not a matter of months but weeks, months later of course nothing is doing. That is why I stopped trusting this stuff. This kind of speculation just ups the ante, really, puts pressure on both parties and creates more confusion and problems. We don't really know what is occurring on Fellay's end or on the Pope's.

I am not Spartacus said...

What Saint John Chrysostom had to say about another matter is quite pertinent to why Our Holy Father is so persistent in pursuit of a reconciliation with The SSPX so as to bring them back into full communion.

Reading it sure helped me to put events in their proper perspective and made me divorce myself from the desire to have the Pope just fish or cut bait vis a vis The SSPX.

Here is what a Doctor of the Church, whose statue is on the Altar of the Chair of Saint Peter, had to say -


I say this not only to those who are sick but also to you who are in good health. When you who are well see how many are sick, you will show them great care and kindness, you will pick them out, gather them together, and bring them back to their Mother. Whatever they say against us, however they jump at us, no matter what else they do to us, we must not grow weary and stop until we win them back. For there is nothing comparable to peace and harmony.

The Romish Papist said...

Correct me if I'm wrong but, judging by past accuracy, if Andrea Tornielli is saying it will be after summer... that means it will actually arrive tomorrow morning right? Good news then! :)

PEH said...

Souls are at stake and all we see are delays for this or that reason. This is unacceptable and it's about time the principals involved stopped acting like children. Vacations and trips to this or that place stand in the way of the salvation of souls - preposterous! What they need is a good swift boot in the, ahem, posterior. That is, if we are to believe this story.

Anonymous said...

Bishop Fellay has written to the Pope, not to Archbishop Mueller.

So, Msgr. Pozzo, the main source of information of Mr. Tornielli, could not seen it.

Jim said...

It's time for many more Rosaries to be offered to Our Lady asking that the SSPX is given full recognition by Rome, to continue do what they have always done — preserve and defend the Catholic faith.

"Remember, O most gracious Virgin Mary, that never was it known that anyone who fled to thy protection, implored thy help, or sought thine intercession was left unaided.

Inspired by this confidence, I fly unto thee, O Virgin of virgins, my mother; to thee do I come, before thee I stand, sinful and sorrowful. O Mother of the Word Incarnate, despise not my petitions, but in thy mercy hear and answer me. Amen."

Rick DeLano said...

".......something that keeps the essence of Fellay's declaration but avoiding the use of the controversial expression "errors of the council".

Exactly.

The very disturbing comments recently from ++ Mueller concerning "dogmatic implications" of V2 teachings concerning, notably, ecumenism and the Old Covenant, are a matter of great concern to this Catholic.

What is it we are now required to believe, which we were not required to believe before these "non dogmatic teachings" with "dogmatic implications"?

I am beginning to believe the SSPX is truly forcing the bomfoggeries of the postconciliar era out into the clear light of rational view.

I can think of few things more valuable and helpful for the Church at this moment.

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

Part II: P.K.T.P.

The personal Apostolic Administration in Brazil is the sole example of a particular church (diocese or equivalent, cf. Canon 368) erected under Section 2 of Canon 372. Under that section, the structure can be even international. We know this because the Section refers to "the episcopal conferences concerned", in the plural number.

I've said it before and I shall never stop saying it, the answer is not a personal prelature but a particular church, perhaps an exempt and internatnional archdiocese, under this Canon.

Some have argued falsely that Bishop Rifan, the Apostolic Administrator, has been 'forced' to concelebrate the New Mass. Not so. Bishop Rifan CHOSE freely to concelebrate the New Mass, likely to gain access for his priests to the world outside the Diocese of the Campos. Not one of his priests has ever been forced to say the New Mass. Ever.

An international archdiocese "distinguished by the rite of the faithful or by some othe similar quality" (§2, C.I.C. 372) would include lay supporters: they could be solely subject to this 'ritual' archbishop. His archdiocese (e.g.) would be directly subject to the Holy See and could include a number of auxiliary bishops.

The answer is blowing in Section 2 of Canon 372. A subterranean wynd from Hell is blowing in Canons 294 to 297. The structure from Hell is called a personal prelature. The heavenly antidote to Modernism is the ritual international archdiocese. Stars above! It's there: we don't have to invent it. It works: we have a precedent. Just do it!!!!!

Under the arrangement, the S.S.P.X would be erected as a society of apostolic life and its various related religious orders would be affiliated with it in this international archdiocese. The bishops in the new structure would would come from the S.S.P.X. If concordats between the Holy See and some countries (viz. about four) would prevent jurisdiction for the archdiocese in their territories, the S.S.P.X, as a society of apostolic life, could still implant apostolates with the permission of the local bishop. In the case of countries having a large Society presence, territorial ordinariates (like those for mixed Eastern churches) could even be established there if needed in the future.

When the solution is staring you in the face and yet Rome keeps babbling the name of the WRONG structure, like a magic incantation, it makes me very suspcious; no, it convinces me that Rome is once again trying to ensnare traditionalists. The S.S.P.X need not and should not accept that. Any deal must be a fair deal, and any evidence of trickery should convince the Society that Rome is bargaining in bad faith.

P.K.T.P.

George said...

Please may we not have to wait until after the summer, each day I switch my computer on hoping to read that reconcilliation has taken place but no such luck
George

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

George:

It will be after the summer. But the real question is this: How much longer after? I've just read that Müller has said that the Society must accept all dogmatic content in Vatican II. Since the only dogmatic content consisted in repetitions of previous teaching, that should be a piece of cake.

P.K.T.P.

Iratus said...

"We don't really know what is occurring on Fellay's end or on the Pope's."

## Well said. STM that this speculating is pretty pointless. Maybe one should expect a reconciliation (or whatever the word may be)when it happens, & not before.

Matt said...

It's great news the dialogue is continuing. We hope it's actually dialogue and not Müeller barking orders. I'm also waiting to see how the Holy Father is going to handle this after the Lavada fiasco. Interesting though how quickly Müeller was dredged up when Lavada left. He probably didn't even have to turn off the lights.

Tracy Hummel said...

"When the solution is staring you in the face and yet Rome keeps babbling the name of the WRONG structure, like a magic incantation, it makes me very suspcious; no, it convinces me that Rome is once again trying to ensnare traditionalists. The S.S.P.X need not and should not accept that. Any deal must be a fair deal, and any evidence of trickery should convince the Society that Rome is bargaining in bad faith."

P.K.T.P.

P.K.T.P, I couldn't agree with you more! The personal prelature seems the least desirable of the three options suggested. Does anyone know the details of the "military ordinariate" model? Is that basically the same as an apostolic administration? If not, what are the differences?

Matt said...

Tracy Hummel asked, "Does anyone know the details of the "military ordinariate" model? Is that basically the same as an apostolic administration? If not, what are the differences?"

Tracy, my understanding of this is a Military Ordinariate is headed by a bishop whom governs his members in the Military. Catholic-wise, they answer to the Ordinariate's bishop, James Broglio (Washington, DC), not the local bishop where the base may happen to be. This is the same concept for the Anglican Ordinariate. If the AO decided to set up shop across the street from your parish, your pastor nor your bishop couldn't do a thing about it while they may be courteously consulted before hand.

An apostolic admin means something is run by the Holy See but is still subject to the whims of the local bishop. Like the Legionaries of Christ. Right now they are (I think they still are) governed by the Holy See but can't move about unless a local bishop allows them to. This would be nonsense for the SSPX, and why they must have an Ordinariate-type construct. Did I say this understandably? ;-)