Rorate Caeli

For the record: With a grain of salt

[Update: Read Côme de Prévigny's special op-ed: The basis for future relations of the SSPX with Rome.]
[Second Update: No "no" announcement after all, says disappointed Liberal reporter.]
[Third Update, July 16, 2000 GMT, from the Spanish SSPX website: Father Juan María de Montagut, Superior of the Society of Saint Pius X in Spain and Portugal, will send a fax tomorrow [Monday] to the director of Religión Digital, Señor José Manuel Vidal, demanding him to retify the information dated July 14 and titled "Lefebvrians will announce tomorrow that they say 'no' to Rome", in which he disclosed the supposed intent of Father Montagut of publicly announcing an official response of the Society regarding a possible agreement with the Holy See. Madrid, July 15, 2012.]

Spanish ultra-"progressive" religious news correspondent José Manuel Vidal reports the following tonight from Madrid:

Lefebvrians will announce tomorrow [Sunday] that they say "no" to Rome
They thank the Vatican for the rapprochement and for the possibility of dialogue that was offered to them


José Manuel Vidal, July 14, 2012, at 2102 [9:02 PM, CEST, 7:02 GMT]

(José Manuel Vidal).- There will be no return to Rome. The Superior of the Lefebvrians for Spain and Portugal, [Fr.] Juan María Montagut, will inform the faithful, after the 11 AM Mass, that the hierarchy of the SSPX, assembled in Écône, has decided to say "no" to the Vatican.

The followers of [Abp.] Marcel Lefebvre do not return to the Roman fold. Mainly because they are not willing to accept the Second Vatican Council in all its farthermost points.

The Vatican, by way of the [then] Prefect for the Doctrinal of the Faith, Cardinal Levada, had asked from them "the full acceptance of the Council". And the Lefebvrians are not willing to return under this condition. They believe that accepting the Council would imply accepting its errors that, according to them, are particularly centered in the chapters on "religious liberty, ecumenism, and conciliarism" [? - Collegiality?...]

The decision of their hierarchy has been well received among the followers of the Lefebvrians, who did not look kindly upon a return to Rome conditional on the acceptance of the Council, to which they impute a good part of the problems of the current Church. Yet, they do thank Rome for the rapprochement and for the possibility afforded to them of being able to present their doctrinal viewpoints.

Tomorrow, the territorial superiors of the SSPX will read the communiqué in which they will put forward the reasons and the circumstances of their refusal to return to Rome and reintegrate the Catholic Church.

We are posting this for the record of events. Since this has not been confirmed or presented by official sources, and considering its source (a journalist in the most extreme liberal edge of the Church in Spain), we ask you to consider it with a grain of salt while we await for actual documents, and to be reserved in your comments.

[Source, in Spanish: Religión Digital; tip: Chris Gillibrand]

28 comments:

Stijn R.A.J. Calle said...

I do not take serious sources that label the FSSPX as Lefebvrians. It is subjective to start with, so it will be subjective to end with.

Big Daddy said...

If this is true, it would be a tragedy for all Catholics, I think.

David said...

At some point in this process the Preamble needs to be made public.

Gregory said...

This will have a very deleterious effect upon the Holy Father.

Adfero said...

Reminder: keep your comments civil and avoid wild speculation and pretending to have insider knowledge, which has been running rampant in these comms boxes recently. If someone truly has information, email us. If you just want to speculate, pray instead.

Br. Anthony, T.O.S.F. said...

If this is true, the General Chapter made the right decision.

Rick DeLano said...

If true, then I think those of us attached to the Latin Mass are in for a very emphatically improved degree of pastoral sensitivity.......inside the Church.

I second David above.

If this is really how it ends, then we, the faithful, can benefit very much from being able to review the contents of the preamble, as was promised at the beginning of the discussions.

I want to know what it is to which I am bound, authentically, by the heaven-protected magisterium of the Catholic Church.

And especially that to which I am bound, and the Society has rejected.

It may be possible at long last to know just exactly what new thing Vatican II proposes as doctrinally binding.

We already know it proposed nothing (new) that was dogmatic.

How very strangely this all fell apart- if it has.

Brian K said...

I pray that one day this Pope, or a future one will issue an ex cathedra document stating exactly what must be believed by Catholics concerning the controversial aspects of Vatican II.

Johnny B. Goode said...

I wonder how the situation went from seeming like the two sides basically agreed to this?

Timothy Mulligan said...

Fortunately, these frogs have heard the story of the frog and the scorpion.

Kribensis said...

Doubt it. Too knee-jerk and public to be consistent with things thus far. And anyway, is it not Bishop Fellay who is to respond to the Holy See privately about the response of the General Chapter? More like liberal wishful thinking, I'd say.

Hassenpfeffer said...

So, if this is true, then when, exactly, will this end?

Peter said...

If this is true, the General Chapter made the right decision.

Standing outside the Church is never the right decision.

I pray that one day this Pope, or a future one will issue an ex cathedra document stating exactly what must be believed by Catholics concerning the controversial aspects of Vatican II.

The Compendium already exists.

servusmariaen said...

I would have hoped that as an outcome of these discussions there would be an official interpretation or a new syllabus on Vatican II. Clearly and precisely stating the position of a Catholic regarding the controversies of Vatican II. Unfortunately, 'the powers that be' are too deeply entrenched in a Vatican II as superdogma mentality and as such is a 'sacred cow' (even if it's unclear as to what it teaches). Therefore the continued free reign of thought and ambiguous teaching in "the spirit of the Council" shall continue on. Unfortunately, I think this will only be resolved when everyone who was involved in the Council and/or are the product of its ambiguity have passed from the scene. I hope I am wrong.

Br. Anthony, T.O.S.F. said...

"Fortunately, these frogs have heard the story of the frog and the scorpion."

Deo gratias for Fr. Damien Fox.

El Eremita said...

Even if this is true, it would be no news actually! Fr. Thouvenot already expressed in his leaked letter that +Fellay's opinion regarding the text given by Levada was that it couldn't be accepted.

I really hope that Fellay presented his own Doctrinal Declaration to the general chapter and received the green light to continue the negotiation under those terms. If that were the case, then an agreement would be only a matter of time: Di Noia is not Levada, and Müller, as hostile to tradition as he is, seems to be way more loyal to the Pope than most of the curia.

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

This is very good news. I hope that it be true. Of course, it was expected.

The question now is how the Pope will respond, assuming that the Society's letter is extremely cordial and as welcoming as possible. If he excommunicates the lot of them for schism, he will look like a fool, especially with the likes of Raymond Gravel prancing about pretending to be priests. And he won't do that. If he agrees to continue discussions (they use another word beginning in d but I hate that word), then we can all go back to sleep, since there is either nothing to discuss or so much to discuss that will take several pontificates to do it. If the Pope recognises that they are Catholic as well, then the whole Church will be able to move forward on the needed corrections. The clown show will go on but at least, then, we can begin to remove the orange hair and the motorcycles.

P.K.T.P.

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

Rick DeLano said...
If true, then I think those of us attached to the Latin Mass are in for a very emphatically improved degree of pastoral sensitivity...

So are we to assume that the "talks" between Rome and the SSPX were a kind of sensitivity training for the Modernists?

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

Peter:

It is true that one must never stand outside the Church. Pray, then, that most of the Novus Ordo heretics and clowns will convert and become true Catholics instead of nominal Catholic frauds.

P.K.T.P.

Mike said...

I certainly hope this is false. The Council happened; it was legitimate; accept that, accept with docility the ordinary Magisterium in the light of Tradition, and then what is the problem?

Adfero said...

Again, leave the wild speculation for another day. And let everyone take a turn. One or two people need to fill every comms box with their opinions.

Athanasius said...

I've heard the opposite from a trusted source, that priests within the chapter reported to him that a deal is on for later in the year and it has been agreed upon. Granted that is 3rd hand info, but I'm not sure what's really going on. Just pray.

Scott Quinn said...

Mike is correct. I say let's beat these modernists at their own game. We can battle over the correct interpretation of Vatican II forever. If the can twist words around, why can't we twist them back into shape?

Francis said...

I tend to agree that there will be no agreement between Rome and the SSPX anytime soon. Which in my opinion helps both the SSPX and the whole Catholic Church. Why? Because the Vatican II, Novus Ordo catholic church is slowly dying, its adherents are aging and its religious ranks are shrinking, especially in the west. That's good for traditional minded Catholics who want orthodox Catholicism found in the SSPX, the FSSP, ICKSP and other traditional societies. It will take 20 or 30 more years before the conciliar generation is history, and IMHO there will be more traditional Catholics than there will Vatican II modernist Catholics. The numbers bare this out. It's a shame that people like Levada and others sabotaged this reunion now. But eventually God will restore tradition to His Catholic Church.

misericordia said...

Above all else, I am rejoicing that there is no split in the Society and that they stand united. They are men of such courage and integrity.I am full of admiration for them.
We do need them in the Church, but undivided. They will be so much stronger in unity. Perhaps, one day ...

Lily said...

If this story is true, it is the result of treachery of the highest order. One need only look at the chronology of the negotiations.

March 15..Fellay summoned to Rome by Levada and is told to "submit in writing what the SSPX needs to come into union with Rome."

April 15...Fellay delivers his document with requirements for an agreement. Levada speaks to the press almost immediately that "the SSPX document is acceptable. The Holy Father will accept this and very soon...."

June 15..Fellay is in Rome and the newly drafted document is slid across the table to him by Levada with modifications Levada had to know were unacceptable. Fellay slides it back to him "no and no."

So here we are. Now Muller and Di Noia are in place who each have strong negative opinions about the SSPX already made public before any talks begin.

The CDF deceit of the last two months is leveled against both the Holy Father and Bishop Fellay. As a parishioner in the SSPX for a very long time, I was extremely hopeful this agreement would come to pass. I lost several friends who were anti-accord. But the SSPX was deliberately misled, most likely not by the Holy Father. The pope must suffer greatly with deceivers around him.

I can't wait to see what is announced.

Therapo said...

Gregory, this need not have a deleterious effect on the Holy Father. He could unilaterally regularize the SSPX. He's refused to do so up to now. But he still can.

Thomas said...

I predict--gasp!--a statement promising more talks in the future. I know, I know, *hugely* risky prediction, not corroborated in the *slightest* by the past 42 years, but what the heck, I'm putting my money on it. I just have this feeling--no idea where it came from--that this inane back and forth is going to continue until the cows come home. Go ahead, call me crazy.