Rorate Caeli

CDF Prefect wants to break all contact with the SSPX?

German weekly FOCUS reports this Sunday that Archbishop Müller, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, wants to break contact with the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX). A statement to that effect is about to be published, according to a source of FOCUS within the CDF.

The reason for ending contacts with the SSPX is the recent declaration of the three SSPX Bishops, in which they not only criticize the texts of Vatican II, but also the Magisterium, "a magisterium resolved to reconcile Catholic doctrine with liberal ideas". Furthermore, they state that the church is "imbued with this liberal spirit which manifests itself especially in religious liberty, ecumenism, collegiality and the New Mass."

According to FOCUS's source, the reaction of Archbishop Müller was: "That's it!" ("Jetzt reicht's!", i.e., "enough!")

(Tip: Reader; First source: Focus; Second source: Pius.info)

Rorate note: what exactly happened one year ago, anyway? What caused the unbelievable turn between April and June 2012? We will try to explain it in a specific post on the matter.

14 comments:

skladach said...

Same routine as when Abp. Mueller was ordinary in Regensburg: liberal journalists ask leading questions, he makes gruff remarks about the SSPX and NOTHING HAPPENS. The SSPX dossier is dealt with directly by Abp. Augustine Di Noia, who reports to Abp. Mueller but, as an archbishop, has seniority over him.

Michael Ortiz said...



Well, all I am gleaning from these two posts is that forces within the Vatican, hostile to Benedict's desire to regularize the SSPX, won on 2/11.

I am still not at all clear how and why the SSPX refused over "licety" and "accepting" Vatican II.

Over at Chant Cafe, there is a very interesting account of the Sacra Liturgia Conference held in Rome in June. The writer makes a point that many of the old ideological battles around the TLM were not present, though the TLM was both offered, and defended, and indeed, the "Benedictine revolution" is still "on" in Rome.

I pray for the SSPX, but as has said many times here, the Traditional movement is larger than they are.

Crouchback said...

Fingers in ears.......

Na...Na,,,,Na.Na ....Na.......!!!!

Won't hear you.....???

What a pillock.

Johannes de Silentio said...

Müller already shamelessly tried to undercut Cardinal Cipriani Thorne. What would prevent him from trying to undercut Di Noia? I doubt he has developed more scruples since then.

Robbie said...

For someone clearly concerned about reconciliation with traditional elements, Benedict certainly appointed some prefects antagonistic to traditional causes.

Jeremiah Thomas Walker said...

Is the specific reason that the SSPX believes the NO Mass to be illicit is because the NO Mass doesn't explicitly declare the Eucharist to be a sacrifice?

signed, someone wanting a clarification

Renel B. Peña said...

DICI: What are your thoughts on the appointment of Archbishop Mueller as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith?

Bishop Fellay (SSPX Superior General): It is nobody’s secret that the former bishop of Regensburg, where our seminary of Zaitzkofen is located, does not like us. After the courageous action of Benedict XVI on our behalf, in 2009, he refused to cooperate and treated us like as if we were lepers! He is the one who stated that our seminary should be closed and that our students should go to the seminaries of their dioceses of origin, adding bluntly that “the four bishops of the SSPX should resign”! ( cf. interview with Zeit Online, 8 May 2009).
For us what is more important and more alarming is his leading role at the head of the Congregation for the Faith, which must defend the Faith with the proper mission of fighting doctrinal errors and heresy.
Numerous writings of Bishop Mueller on the real transubstantiation of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ, on the dogma of Our Lady’s virginity, on the need of conversion of non-Catholics to the Catholic Church… are questionable, to say the least! There is no doubt that these texts would have been in the past the object of an intervention of the Holy Office, which now is the very Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith presided by him.

New Catholic said...

This was answered in the other thread.

"The matter of "liceity" may be complex or not, the problem is that not even the May 5, 1988, Protocol (the one linked in the post, at the FSSP website) demanded that. That Protocol mentioned merely the "validity" of both rites, and this was what was repeated in all negotiations regarding this matter. Then, all of a sudden, on June 13, 2012, "liceité" was mentioned as a condition. So we are not trying to explain theological details, but merely to present how things developed. It should not be expected that was not demanded in 1988 would have been suddenly demanded in 2012, if there had not been a desire from some quarter to derail the negotiations."

Philosoraptor said...

"Is the specific reason that the SSPX believes the NO Mass to be illicit is because the NO Mass doesn't explicitly declare the Eucharist to be a sacrifice?"

I hope not, cause if it is, it means the SSPX can't read. The language of sacrifice is all over the Missal and the General Instructions thereof; particularly in the Canon (well duh) and Eucharistic Prayer III and IV, if I remember right.

jeff said...

I thought +Fellay accepted the Novus Ordo's liceite a year ago?

Alan Aversa said...

Wow, that Rome isn't apathetic with respect to the SSPX is certainly better than their staying mum. Deo gratias!

Jack said...

\\Is the specific reason that the SSPX believes the NO Mass to be illicit is because the NO Mass doesn't explicitly declare the Eucharist to be a sacrifice? \\

Inasmuch as the Ordinary Form of the Roman rite specifically uses the word "sacrifice" in the Orate fratres, I find it difficult to believe that this is not explicitly declaring the Eucharist to be a sacrifice.

How many times does it need to say this for it to get the point across?

John L said...

The doctrinal preamble submitted by Bp. Fellay to the CDF has been leaked on the internet, and the authenticity of the leaked document has been conceded by an official explanation of the preamble by the SSPX leadership. (I can confirm from an independent source that the document is genuine.) In this preamble, Bp. Fellay commits the SSPX to acceptance not only of the Catholic faith but of all the noninfallible but authoritative teachings of Vatican II and the postconciliar popes - on the explicitly stated understanding that these teachings are not interpreted in a sense that contradicts any earlier magisterial teachings.

This means that there is no canonical basis for sanctions against the SSPX on account of its doctrinal position. Canon law provides for penalties for the denial of both infallible teachings and noninfallible but authoritative teachings. Bp. Fellay's doctrinal preamble thus committed the SSPX to all the infallible and noninfallible statements of the magisterium, and hence rules out any canonical penalty - unless it is maintained by the Roman authorities that the conciliar and postconciliar teachings must be understood in a sense that contradicts earlier teachings; and that has not only not been maintained, but explicitly denied.

It thus seems improbable that Abp. Muller will proceed to any measures. I do not know how far the CDF has the authority to pronounce canonical penalties without explicit approval from the pope, or in what venue a legal appeal against such penalties can be pursued; if other readers can provide information on these questions, that would be ver helpful.

The Pope's decision would of course be crucial in the end on this issue. On the basis of very limited information I do not have the impression that Pope Francis is very interested or concerned about the SSPX (I note that this is a different question from his attitude to the old mass): Fr. Bouchacourt, former SSPX superior for Argentina, said he found him fairly sympathetic but not substantially helpful. At a guess he will not lend his authority to attacks on the Society, but will not exert himself greatly to prevent attacks by his subordinates.

New Catholic said...

I am closing comments here, I ask you please to comment on the linked, latest post.

NC