Rorate Caeli

BREAKING
Fellay received in the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith last Friday

The Spanish religious website Religión en Libertad reports:

Bishop Bernard Fellay received on Friday at [Congregation for the] Doctrine of the Faith
...
Last Friday, rumors about a possible arrangement between the Vatican and the Fraternity of Saint Pius X [FSSPX / SSPX], founded in 1970 by French Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre (1905-1991) reappeared in Rome. It all began with the news of the presence in the Eternal City of the Superior of the society, Bishop Bernard Fellay, who last Wednesday had an appointment in the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
The remainder of the article merely describes the events of the past few years, including the letter of the Supreme Pontiff which placed the Pontifical Commission 'Ecclesia Dei' under the authority of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
____________
Note: Picture from the meeting of August 29, 2005.

86 comments:

Rick DeLano said...

Here is hoping-sincerely- that my instincts will be proven dead wrong, and that Bishop Fellay will be able to guide the SSPX back into full canonical regularization.

Time is of the essence here, I think. Too much delay and the opposition to reconciliation in both camps will harden and the opportunity could easily be missed.

Any notion of "decades" of "theological discussion" is balderdash.

Either the SSPX want to be reconciled and restored to canonical faculties, or they don't.

They will probably never have a more receptive hearing from the Chair of Peter than they will have now.

BC said...

"Theological discussions" regarding Vatican II are not the issue here. Bishop Fellay realizes the important issue and he has cut to the chase. The real issue is the Consecration of Russia by the pope and the world's bishops as requested by Our Lady of Fatima and he has directed the current Rosary Crusade to that end.

Anonymous said...

I agree.

Now is the time.

Mike B. said...

Ditto, Rick

MFB
St Petersburg, FL

Pablo the Mexican said...

Oh, Oh!

Is that the Secret Freemason handshake? And what about the Cardinal with his right hand on his head while they are handshaking?

Bishop Fellay is one of the Catholic Bishops that is under the authority of the Holy Father.

I for one am happy the Holy Father acts like a Father to Bishop Fellay. This picture should give the world's Bishops, Priests, and laypeople a good example; the Traditional Bishops and Priests of Holy Mother Church demand respect.

I have seen an awful lot of venom spit at them by 'good' Catholics. Many Bishops have refused to allow their faithful or Religious (Nuns) to attend traditional masses, even though there were no other masses available. And, Holy Mother Church had stated the Faithful fulfill their obligation by going to those masses.

I guess that's why Saint John said the road to Hell is paved with the skulls of Priests, with the skulls of Bishops as signposts.

Pray for the Holy Father.

Anonymous said...

Rick,
Or until after Bishop Fellay delivers the 12 Million + rosaries to His Holiness next Spring asking Our Lady for the Grace to Consecrate Russia to Her Immaculate Heart!

Parmenides said...

Bishop Fellay is in a tough spot because more and more clearly there are (at least) two different tendencies in SSPX circles: that which accuses Bishop Fellay of "betrayal" every time he takes any step towards Rome, and that which wishes to see an agreement worked out. I wonder to myself if he isn't hoping for a warming of the collective mentality of SSPX circles over time, and this could explain his very slow approach. The alternative is to move quickly and see a split within the ranks of those for whom he is a moral head.

Anonymous said...

I hope they can arrange a temporary situation to grant them faculties ASAP and the presence of SSPX members moving about Rome becomes common and un newsworthy..Once they are able to sit on commissions and get represented in the Curia concrete things will begin to take hold and reshape the faith. Balance is what is lacking in Rome in recent decades. I pray for the Holy Father that he may accomplish all that he wishes in regards to the SSPX. I believe this is one of his primary missions to accomplish during his Pontificate and I hope Bishop Fellay can be the one to get the process done with this Holy Father..

Anonymous said...

I don't think that Bishop Fellay is in any position to agree to a full regularisation. He'd face a rebellion in his own Society. He doesn't want that; the Society hardliners don't want that; and the Pope doesn't want that.

However, once again, there are some possibilities:

(a) The Pope could declare that the Priestly Union of St. Pius X was never suppressed lawfully in 1976, and then he could make it international and extend faculties to all its priests internationally. If it has standing as a canonical structure in even one diocese, the Pope can extend that howeversomuch he wishes.

(2) The Pope could simply grant the faculties directly, declaring that the Society is subject to him immediately and personally throughout the world.

Keep in mind that the Code of Canons establishes norms, not absolutes. Canon Law is an extension of the Pope's authority. There could be an arrangement in which the Pope 'recognises' the Society as Catholic while the Society continues to operate de facto independently pending resolution of talks.

Damn these people. I'm an insomniac to begin with. Now I shan't be able to sleep a wink.

P.K.T.P.

SamGamgee said...

With Our Lady's help he cannot fail.

"Who is she that comes forth as the morning rising, fair as the moon, bright as the sun, terrible as an army set in battle array".

Anonymous said...

A canonical solution is nice, for outer appearances. If our Holy Father Benedict XVI would die, and some other, not tradition-friendly person would become pope, then the FSSPX is back in trouble. Better: both them and the church are back in trouble.

What is important is a sound doctrine. Is Faith. "But seek first His kingdom and His righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well." (Mat. 6,33)

IM

Melchior Cano said...

Frbom BC: "Theological discussions" regarding Vatican II are not the issue here. Bishop Fellay realizes the important issue and he has cut to the chase. The real issue is the Consecration of Russia by the pope and the world's bishops as requested by Our Lady of Fatima and he has directed the current Rosary Crusade to that end."

Devotion to Our Lady of Fatima and compliance with her requests at Fatima is certainly an important thing. But this sort of comment highlights the caricature that many of us in the traditional movement have made of ourselves. Lets rework your insanely stupid comment: "Theological Discussions (i.e. those things which pertain to the Deposit of Faith which must be believed by Catholics) regarding Vatican II (the precise issue over which many disputes about Revelation exist) are not the issue here.

Really???? And if you are correct, and for the sake of the Church I hope you are not, then why the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith?

In your comment you place private revelation (and yes, thats what it is, even though Our Lady appeared publicly, no matter what certain Fatima devotees say) above the Divinely revealed Public Revelation to which all Catholics are required to assent. Its the height of insanity.

Anonymous said...

Well, my family and I have personal reasons for wanting the FSSPX to recieve at least immediate faculties to hear confessions.

We have no choice but to occasionally assist at an FSSPX Mass and we really need to be able to go to the Sacrament of Penance there, since to go to confession at a diocesan church we would have to drive close to two hours round trip, on the weekdays to get there, which we do now.
Also, I get excellent advice on how to combat my sins from the FSSPX priest, which I rarely get from the Diocesan priests in confession.
I am eternally grateful for the Diocesan priests that are giving their lives to God, but it would make things much much easier if we could go to confession, right before Holy Mass, at the FSSPX chapel as opposed to a seperate two hour drive during the week, to another parish.

Please Holy Father, allow the good FSSPX priests to have faculties, like their Diocesan brethren.
It would be so salutary for souls in great need.
God bless you.

Iakovos said...

BC and others: I thought John Paul II already consecrated the World, including Russia, to Mary and Sr. Lucy acknowledged it. The fall of Communism in the Soviet countries as proof. No?

Borromeo said...

The obvious seems to be eluding everyone here. Bishop Fellay knows his upcoming illicit ordinations of priests are a slap in the face to the Holy Father after the lifting of the excommunications. Fellay knows he has to get some sort of "temporary okay" to ordain these priests otherwise what was the point in accepting, with jubilation, the lifting of the ex-communications as he did? It makes no sense. Either he is under the Pope as are his fellow bishops and priests, or they are not. Very simple.

Paul Haley said...

P.K.T.P. said:

"The Pope could simply grant the faculties directly, declaring that the Society is subject to him immediately and personally throughout the world."

That would certainly be what I would prefer but I don't believe the NO bishops would accept it and would work to undermine the process in secret. People like Bishop Müller and others like Cardinal Mahony et al would still be permanent impediments to unity. Then too, there is the position of Bishop Fellay which is to not agree with regularization before the doctrinal difficulties are overcome, if ever.

Nevertheless, I really do hope His Holiness does this because it would put the entire matter of faculties and jurisdiction to rest and leave the doctrinal discussions for what they should be - routine matters of the submission of dubias and responses following envisioned by canon law. It would also prove to the entire Catholic world that He alone is in charge and that his will for unity will not be circumvented by anyone, bishops, archbishops, cardinals, members of the curia, outsiders, members of other religions, whomever. Oh, would I dearly love to see this firm and resolute action.

As for the visit to the CDF, I wouldn't put too much emphasis on it as Bishop Fellay has said that when the Roman authorities call, he is obligated to respond.

Any member of the Roman hierarchy with even a modicum of Justice and concept of Tradition can see that Bishop Fellay is a decent man with the best of intentions and wants to see his Society as a force for Good rather than disunity. They must know that the Society being led by others not so inclined would be a disaster of the most, excuse the pun, extraordinary kind.

Prodinoscopus said...

Surely this visit to the CDF must pertain to the doctrinal discussions, not canonical regularization. Although ... is Ecclesia Dei now merged with the CDF? I cannot keep track.

Prodinoscopus said...

Or perhaps the appointment has to do with the upcoming ordinations. What if the CDF orders Bishop Fellay to put a stop to them?

PKTP is right, this is not a good time to be an insomniac.

Anonymous said...

This is my theory: There will be no agreement/compromise with modern Rome. After the Pope consecrates Russia (it will be done in 2010 as soon as the Rosary Crusade is finsihed) the SSPX will be back in full canonical regularization and the Holy Catholic Church will make a steady recovery.

We must have faith that the Rosary Crusade which will bring about the consecration of Russia will solve all problems within the Church. Why now would the SSPX specifically offer a Rosary Crusade for the consecration of Russia if it were not a solution to their problems and that of modern Rome?

Confitebor said...

is Ecclesia Dei now merged with the CDF? ***

The Holy Father’s March 10 letter says, “it is my intention henceforth to join the Pontifical Commission ‘Ecclesia Dei’ . . . to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.” I’m not sure if that means a “merging” of the PCED with the CDF – it would have to mean putting the PCED under the CDF, or at the very least linking them together so that the PCED works closely with the CDF. I take it that since he said “henceforth,” it would appear that “joining” has already taken place.

Anonymous said...

It would seem that the timing of this meeting would indicate that it pertains to the upcoming ordinations in Germany and perhaps Switzerland and America.

The German bishop is threatening excommunication to Bishop Galaratta and the priests ordained, and this would not sit well with the Holy Father who just recently lifted His Excellencys excommunication.

If the fresh excommunications occur it would be a monumental setback for the FSSPX.
If not, then we must understand that the FSSPX ordinations are licit.
Either way the Holy Father has to make a definitive statement.
Something big is about to occur.

God bless Him and the FSSPX.

Joe B said...

A request from the Mother of God is a command to those who believe in the authenticity of the revelation, be they pope or layman. Unless this pope doesn't believe in the authenticity of the Fatima apparitions, he risks the wrath of God at failing to heed His loving messenger. And if he doubts the authenticity of the Fatima apparitions, something is bad in his mind. I don't believe that is the case.

Conditions may change, but for now SSPX doesn't need anything from this pope. An unjust decree was promulgated against them because of their resistance to modernism and their fidelity to the preservation of Catholic tradition, even if it was done by an extraordinary application of withstanding Peter to the face, as was their right and even duty. And time has more than confirmed the need for and efficacy of their actions. Indeed, we are all indebted to them, as the "freeing" of our beloved mass should sufficiently show, and since those orders who have agreed to canonical arrangements with the Vatican have seen their cases filed away and their significance in the battle neutered, not increased. Can FSSP even confirm children yet? How many years has it been? But since God hath nothing to do with iniquity, the decree against SSPX never had force of law. Hence, SSPX had supplied jurisdiction out of charity right from the start.

You really had best keep disparaging comments about the Mother of God in your heads. She may well be greatly offended by the dismissal of her significance by you who should know that her requests are for the good of souls, and that her wisdom is supremely superior to any pope's - and even more so to insolent laymen. So resist the temptation to publicly discourage devotion to our all-powerful Queen (by God's will, of course).

Show courage, not nervousness or doubts. You know SSPX is achieving much good that nobody else has been able to achieve. That should be sufficient to show that God is with the Holy Father and with SSPX. You need have no fear of SSPX's sacraments.

And yes, Jordanes, I've read books on both SSPX and the Mother of God, so by your definition I'm competent, and therefore you can't object to anything I've said.

Anonymous said...

On Borromeo's comments:

Borromeo is not the first person to say that the upcoming ordinations are a "slap in the face" to the Holy Father, and others have called them a "provocation". I can't agree with these assessments, assessments promoted especially by Bishop Müller. Look, the rate at which seminarists train is normal, and the Pope could not possibly have interpreted Bishop Fellay's thank-you note for the January Decree as an acceptance of the original excommunications. Fellay said right in his note that the Society had never accepted the validity of the 1988 excommunications in the first place. He was merely thanking the Pope for a gesture of reconciliation. Period.

Could any reasonable person think that Fellay would intend, by his thank-you note, to delay indefinitely the ordination of his own clerics? That is absurd.

So Fellay's ordinations are in no way a provocation or a slap in the face to anyone. That is a fantasy dreamed up by Bishop Müller.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Prodinoscopus writes:

"Surely this visit to the CDF must pertain to the doctrinal discussions, not canonical regularization. Although ... is Ecclesia Dei now merged with the CDF? I cannot keep track."

Well, we don't know if Bishop Fellay was summoned or not. I suspect that he was asked to come in order to deal with the Regensburg issue. But I don't agree with one blogger here who thinks that Rome will limit it to that. Rome will not want more of these Regensburg-type problems to pop up every time the Society has men to ordain. No, the Pope is looking for a catch-all solution, like a grant of faculties or a declaration that the Pious Union of S.S.P.X was never lawfully suppressed in 1976. This Pope wants a solution which can last until the doc talks end. He is not the sort of man who wants an indefinite limbo to persist. Remember, he has other issued to deal with as well, such as reform of the reform.

P.K.T.P.

Prodinoscopus said...

In light of the above comments by Jordanes and Dan, I'm beginning to think that the CDF meeting might very well have been about the granting of temporary faculties.

Anonymous said...

He (D. Fellay) went there to ASK.

Confitebor said...

Unless this pope doesn't believe in the authenticity of the Fatima apparitions, he risks the wrath of God at failing to heed His loving messenger. ***

That's assuming, of course, that Our Lady's request has not already been honored. If it already has been honored, or if he sincerely believes it already has (and it does seem that's what he believes), then he has nothing to fear. If his belief is mistaken, however, he will have to be convinced of that.

Conditions may change, but for now SSPX doesn't need anything from this pope. ***

Nothing except for canonical recognition and approval by the Church, and approved ministries for their illicitly consecrated bishops with a lifting of their priests' suspensions.

An unjust decree was promulgated against them ***

You may be right, but the Church has not yet said so.

But since God hath nothing to do with iniquity, the decree against SSPX never had force of law. ***

It is for the Church, not individual Catholics, to make that determination. At this time, however, the presumption must be that the decree was valid and therefore SSPX sacraments would be illicit and in some cases invalid (though with exceptions depending on particular circumstances).

You really had best keep disparaging comments about the Mother of God in your heads. ***

No one here has made any disparaging comments about the Mother of God.

And yes, Jordanes, I've read books on both SSPX and the Mother of God, so by your definition I'm competent, and therefore you can't object to anything I've said. ***

Not on those grounds I couldn't.

Anonymous said...

Commenting on my words, Mr. Haley writes this:

"That would certainly be what I would prefer but I don't believe the NO bishops would accept it and would work to undermine the process in secret. People like Bishop Müller and others like Cardinal Mahony et al would still be permanent impediments to unity. Then too, there is the position of Bishop Fellay which is to not agree with regularization before the doctrinal difficulties are overcome, if ever."

On the first part, Mr. Haley might be right but I think, rather, that the atmosphere has changed in light of the January decree. There is now an expectation in the air that the Pope will 'resolve' this matter. Call me too suspicious but the Müller issue looks like a planned pretext to me. It is as if someone in the Vatican engineered all of this to provide an excuse so that the Pope can say, "I had no choice but to grant faculties". After all, we can't have re-excommunications which would foul up everything.

On Cardinal Mahony et al., a grant of faculties to the Society would put pressure on him to stop obstructing "Summorum Pontificum". If he stops obstructing it, he can 'keep the S.S.P.X at bay'. *That* is what Rome can tell him if he complains. Rome can say, "Look, Baloney, if you don't want the Society spreading in your back yard, you have an easy way to prevent it: ask some of your own priests to celebrate the T.L.M." Hah! (This Pope is no fool.)

As for Fellay, he would be in no way breaking his word if the Pope did something unilaterally. Remember, we are not talking here about the final diocesan structure: that will only come at the end of the doc talks.

The best option, in my view, is for the Pope to have Burke declare that the 1976 suppression of the Society was unlawful in the first place. I note that many canonists claimed this at that time. If the suppression was unlawful, the Pope could simply say, Whoops! You exist canonically and have standing! You've had it all along! Now I shall extend it as a matter of justice for the unlawful suppression. . . . Remember Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz? She had the means to get back to Kansas on her feet all along. The beauty of this solution is that, in 1976, Archbishop Lefebvre rejected the suppression as illegal. How could Society hardliners object to such a 'finding' without expressing disagreement with their grand and saintly founder? This would put Fellay in the driver's seat within the Society. Only a handfull of extremists would leave and the Pope doesn't want them anyway. The Pope wants to bring across the bulk of the Society: 90% but perhaps not 100%.

Benedict XVI used this tactic dramatically once before: Whoops! Paul VI's Insruction "De Missali Romano", 1971, was unlawful because he neglected to abrogate the old Mass. Whoops! That means that the old Mass was never lawfully suppressed in the first place! Whoops! That means any priest may celebrate the old Mass as a matter of principle.

I love it!

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

LETS NOT READ TOO MUCH INTO THESE GOING ON. ALL IN GODS TIME.

Anonymous said...

Seems too much is being made of this. Bishop Fellay said they would be entering into theological discussions and this could be the start of those discussions, or at least the outlining of how to proceed.

Or, this could relate to the upcoming ordinations and the Regensburg Bishop who is trying to cause a stir.

Of course, I do see how Fr. Arnaud Rostand's June 2009 District Superior's Letter to Friends & Benefactors might make some think otherwise. I personally do not think his letter is meant to have some secret underlining meaning as I have seen some suggest.

Anonymous said...

Jordanes quotes another writer:

"But since God hath nothing to do with iniquity, the decree against SSPX never had force of law."

Jordanes goes on to say, correctly, that it is for the Church to interpret whether or not the suspensio a divinis and suppression of the Society was unjust in 1976.

However, the original writer has a very good point. In 1976, some canonists argued that the suppression of the Society was unlawful owing to defects in process or form. These are entirely matters of positive law. But we must also consider the possibility that the 1976 suppression was immoral. A finding of immorality would cover the suspensions as well as the suppression. St. Thomas Aquinas taught that an ordinance which is unjust is not bad law; rather, IT FAILS TO QUALIFY as ANY law. At this point, I comment no further but leave the matter up to the experts. Archbishop Burke, as Prefect of the Apostolic Signatura, no doubt gets advice both from canonists and experts in Moral Law. I wonder if the Pope has asked him to investigate the Vatican actions of 1975 and 1976? Hmm. Notice how his appoitment over a year ago neatly corresponds to all these events? The last Prefect, Vallini, I think, was said to be against traditionalists. Burke is the contrary.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Jordanes - What do you have to say about the following info taken from a traditional Catholic message forum:

'Today I received the May Issue of the Fatima Crusader in the mail along with a letter from Father Gruner. Of particular interest is the following from the letter, which is dated May 25, 2009:


"I have recently returned from Rome, where we continue to meet Cardinals and bishops in the hope of pointing out to them the necessity of reaching the Holy Father"

"During our recent trip to Rome, at least one Cardinal and one Archbishop told us that Pope Benedict has only one reason for not doing the Consecration of Russia.

He is afraid of offending the Orthodox!

That fear is groundless, as we have explained again and again, particularly in our last Issue, No. 91, of The Fatima Crusader.

But, unfortunately, we are not allowed an audience with the Holy Father, to explain this to him.

Please pray and ask Our Lady insistently that we soon can.

"SECRET" Papal Commission on Fatima

During our extensive lobbying of Cardinals and bishops, we learned that Pope Benedict, for over 3 years now, has had a secret Commission working on Fatima.

Only a few people know about it. Two bishops from two different countries - thousands of miles apart - have both confirmed to us that this commission does exist.

And so, it was as we thought - but now it has been confirmed definitively, that Pope Benedict, himself, wants to consecrate Russia but has not done so because the Russian Orthodox church actually indicated they would be gravely offended if he did it!

In the secular world, perhaps that excuse would pass muster.

But for any Catholic, regardless of rank, to actually ignore the words, the plea, the warning of the Mother of God is ludicrous.

To ignore the stupendous stamp of approval and authenticity provided by God, Himself, so all would believe - in preference to "NOT offending the Orthodox" - is de facto suicide for Pope Benedict."'

Hmmm ... It would seem that the Holy Father does believe there is more that needs to be done with regards to the Fatima message.

Confitebor said...

What I have to say is that we should always be cautious about rumors . . . but especially cautious about rumors from the Grunerite camp.

Borromeo said...

"What I have to say is that we should always be cautious about rumors . . . but especially cautious about rumors from the Grunerite camp."

AMEN! Jordanes!

Paul Haley said...

Well, whatever the reason I'm glad Bishop Fellay is going to visit with the Roman authorities. And, I hope that the reason is that the holy father has decided to act on his own authority and grant faculties and jurisdiction to the FSSPX. That, to me, would take care of the Regensburg flap.

I would much prefer that than for the CDF to ask that the ordinations be postponed or moved. The concept that it's just for more doctrinal discussions doesn't make much sense to me in light of recent developments.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous writes:

"Seems too much is being made of this. Bishop Fellay said they would be entering into theological discussions and this could be the start of those discussions, or at least the outlining of how to proceed."

He also said that the doctrinal difficulties would be resolved in private and BY POST. No, this visit by Fellay is being made to resolve the Regensburg problem. But I'm betting that he was privately *asked* to come to resolve it. Fellay, you see, could have resolved the Müller problem as he said he would do, by moving the ordinations to Ecône. Again, this looks to me like the artificial creation of a problem in order to find a pretext to solve another, much bigger, problem. The other problem is how to bring the Society into association with Rome without causing a huge schism within it. Fellay cannot, given his recent words, accept a proffered apostolic administration--equivalent in law to to a diocese, not even a temporary and provisional one. But he could hardly refuse to accept faculties or to recognise membership in a Society which Rome declares has existed all along. Remember, supplied jurisdiction only applies if one is *unable* to work under regualar jurisdiction. If legitimate authority offers you Sacramental jurisdiction and you refuse it, you *LOSE* your claim of supplied jurisdiction. With no claim of supplied or normal jurisdiction, the S.S.P.X would suddenly become schismatic.

So Fellay is in a corner or, rather, he can legitimately claim to be in a corner he secretly wants to be in! It's a corner which has chocolate mousse that only he knows about! The people who are really in a corner are the Society hardliners. Notice how this applies to *them*. If they leave the Society to avoid accepting faculties, they lose supplied jurisdiction and become schismatics.

None of these blokes can claim a need for supplied jurisdiction because the Pope is not proposing to run the Society. Even if the Pope declares invalid the suppression of 1976, it is obvious that he will not try to run the Society. The moment he tries to modernise or wreckovate it, the Society would have the excuse to return to rightful disobedience. The Society will remain de facto independent until doc talks are resolved, and that could take thirty years.

I suspect that this entire scheme has been worked out in advance. Rome can't wreckovate the Society because until the S.S.P.X is granted the promised apostolic administration (which is MORE than regularisation: it is diocesan status), Fellay could just ignore any papal command he didn't like. On the other side, if declared to be regularised as a society of apostolic life enjoying universal jurisdiction from the Pope ex cathedra, all the real issues would evaporate like dew before the morning sun.

We must keep in mind at all times the fact that Archbishop Lefebvre never wanted an irregular situation and was prepared to take far far less than what Fellay is being offered here. Lefebvre only broke with Paul VI in a legitimate case of necessity.

Although I almost daren't mention this, what the Society would be getting is the closest juridical thing possible to paradise on earth: de facto indepdendence even from the Pope together with recognition from the Pope as a legitimate organisation having faculties. Bishop Fellay would be having his chocolate mousse and eating it too.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Anon. wrote:

LETS NOT READ TOO MUCH INTO THESE GOING ON. ALL IN GODS TIME.


I wonder, why did Fr. Charles Moulin, the S.S.P.X prior in Nice, resign his post in protest over Bishop Fellay's negotiations with Rome. If the reason was the doc talks, he waited rather long, since that has been part of the Society progamme now for years. Was it to avoid a declared or imposed regularisation?

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

"Bishop Fellay would be having his chocolate mousse and eating it too."

Mr Perkins,

What if His Excellency likes chocolate cake better?

Anonymous said...

Mr. Haley asks:

"What if His Excellency likes chocolate cake better?"

Impossible! He's from Suisse Romande!

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

P.K.T.P. -

Bishop Fellay's known arrival at the CDF does not necessarily mean that it could not be related to doctrinal matters just because doctrinal discussions are to take place privately. We can see Bishop Fellay's arrival and the discussions can still be held in private at the same time.

However, I do agree - as I stated already - that this could be related to Regensburg and the upcoming Ordinations. If that is the case, we should know very soon because the Ordinations are just around the corner.

We shall not have long to wait!

Anonymous said...

Small correction: the suppression of the Society took place in 1975; the suspension a divinis was in 1976. It makes little difference, of course.

An argument that the suppression was unlawful can be found as the last appendix in Michael Davies's Volume I of "Apologia pro Marcel Lefebvre", pp. 443-450. He delivers there the opinion of the Reverend Dr. Boyd A. Cathey who, in turn, cites Count Neri Capponi. Both are learned in canon law. Davies concludes on p. 450 that, even if the canonical argument is wrong, the suppression was a violation of natural justice, and he explains why. Remember that any ordinance which is unjust fails to qualify as valid law.

If the Society was never lawfully suppressed (owing ultimately to the intervention of Cardinal Villot, the archenemy of tradition), then it exists to this day and has legal standing. The Pope could simply lift the 1976 suspensions and then extend the Society internationally, directly under its own authority.

P.K.T.P.

Borromeo said...

"I wonder, why did Fr. Charles Moulin, the S.S.P.X prior in Nice, resign his post in protest over Bishop Fellay's negotiations with Rome."

There are many French traditional Catholics who are unhappy with Fellay, not just SSPX.

Anonymous said...

"What if His Excellency likes chocolate cake better?"

"Impossible! He's from Suisse Romande!"

Mr Perkins,

I quess I was only speaking for myself.
God bless.

Anonymous said...

Anon.:

"Bishop Fellay's known arrival at the CDF does not necessarily mean that it could not be related to doctrinal matters just because doctrinal discussions are to take place privately. We can see Bishop Fellay's arrival and the discussions can still be held in private at the same time."

While this is logically sound, I don't see why Bishop Fellay felt a need to pay a visit to Rome at this time regarding doctrine. He just lost his superior in Nice, who has resigned in protest. This would not be the best time to be seen snuggling up to Rome. It would be better for him to circulate among his priories to express reassurances.

So, while I admit that it may be a doctrinal call, I don't buy that. No way. Regensburg is looming and he wants to avoid a re-excommunication of his confrère, Bishop de Galarreta.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

"There are many French traditional Catholics who are unhappy with Fellay,..."

Borromeo,

Why?

Anonymous said...

"Remember that any ordinance which is unjust fails to qualify as valid law."

Mr Perkins,

Even taking into account Peters divine ability to bind and loose?
Backed up by Christs promise that heaven would do the same?

I do believe that the '75 suppresion was unjust, but why do we have to even discuss any kind of papal lifting or acknowledgement of no suppresion in the first place, if it does not exist?

I hope that I made myself perfectly murky.

Peter said...

The doctrinal discussion was agreed to take place in writing, so I suppose that Msgr Fellay just delivered the documents to the CDF...

PKTP:
Remember that the situation was different when Msgr Lefebvre was alive. The Church was not as devastated as now. BTW, he wanted that a commission be established, under the CDF, as the issues are a matter of doctrine, not discipline. The commission took name "Ecclesia Dei" after the 1988 consecrations. So the Holy Father fulfilled Archbishop's demand after 21 years. Also, you forgot that even if the SSPX wasn't legally dissolved, it is in canonical void since its canonical foundation was approved only for the experimental period of 5 years.

Dan Hunter: the Pope is not infallible in juridical or administrative matters.

Anonymous said...

Dear Mr. Haley:]

Even Peter must bind in loose in conformity with divine law. Read your Gratian on this: the Pope can change his own laws at will, but, until he does so, he is bound by them as well; otherwise, he would be contradicting himself.

The papal power presupposes action in conformity with the principles of natural justice.

Lastly, Paul VI arguably was not the one who suppressed the Society; it was Cardinal Staffa and Cardinal Villot.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Peter:

The canonists dealt with the five year limit question in their analysis. I haven't read this recently but the gist is that the five year limit which *would* have come into effect was suspended after a illegal suppression. So the Society continues to exist . . . . (This might be what you are saying, in which case, we are in agreement.)

You say that conditions are worse today than in 1975. In what respect? We now have a Pope who wants to regularise the Society and has offered to do so under its OWN bishops. The situation today might be worse in terms of theology or œcumanicalism, for instance, but not in the matter which is relevant here.

Sorry, old boy, Fellay and company have even *more* reason to reconcile than Archbishop L. did: Fellay and company are being offered what is needed to keep tradition thriving.

P.K.T.P.

Joe B said...

"In your comment you place private revelation (and yes, thats what it is, even though Our Lady appeared publicly, no matter what certain Fatima devotees say) above the Divinely revealed Public Revelation to which all Catholics are required to assent. Its the height of insanity."

Now, exactly what "divinely revealed Public Revelation to which all Catholics are required to assent" does insisting that the Fatima consecrations be done violate?

"Insanity." Good thing that isn't disparaging, because if it was, I might have to respond again, and I'm running out of competence.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Haley writes:

"I do believe that the '75 suppresion was unjust, but why do we have to even discuss any kind of papal lifting or acknowledgement of no suppresion in the first place, if it does not exist?"

Essentially, Cardinal Secretary of State Villot, our very worst enemy since Adam, used his authority to *prevent* Archbishop Lefebvre's appeal of Cardinal Staffa's decision. The matter was never decided because Cardinal Villot intervened "to interdict any further consideration of the matter" (Davies). I am wondering if Benedict XVI has reversed that autocratic and unjust decision and has revived the appeal, sending it on to Abp. Burke. I wonder.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

What was the Society's mode of legal operation prior to the 1976 suspension of Archbishop Lefebvre? How did they operate and to whom did they answer?

C_of_D

Confitebor said...

"Insanity." Good thing that isn't disparaging, because if it was, I might have to respond again, and I'm running out of competence. ***

It might be disaraging to your opinions, Joe, but it's not disparaging to the Mother of God. Don't conflate your interpretation of the Fatima message with the honor that all are obliged to render to Our Lady. Disagreeing with your interpretation doesn't mean one is disparaging Our Lady.

Anonymous said...

Dear C. of D.:

The Society was canonically erected in the Diocese of Lausanne, Geneva, and Fribourg in 1970, and it was admitted shortly thereafter to the Diocese of Sion, where its seminary was put with its motherhouse (at Ecône). With the permission of local bishops, it was also admitted to the Archdiocese on Réunion (Indian Ocean), the Diocese of Martinique (Caribbean) and the Diocese of Cayenne, French Guiana. Perhaps one or two others. From 1970 to 1975, it was a Pious Union of diocesan right to my recollection. It was founded in 1970 by Archbishop Lefebvre.

P.K.T.P.

Paul Haley said...

Mr. Haley writes:

"I do believe that the '75 suppresion was unjust, but why do we have to even discuss any kind of papal lifting or acknowledgement of no suppresion in the first place, if it does not exist?"

Essentially, Cardinal Secretary of State Villot, our very worst enemy since Adam, used his authority to *prevent* Archbishop Lefebvre's appeal of Cardinal Staffa's decision. The matter was never decided because Cardinal Villot intervened "to interdict any further consideration of the matter" (Davies). I am wondering if Benedict XVI has reversed that autocratic and unjust decision and has revived the appeal, sending it on to Abp. Burke. I wonder.

P.K.T.P.

I did not write the post in question concerning the '75 suppression. While I do put the proverbial foot in my mouth many times, that is not the case, thankfully, in this instance. Cheers.

Paul Haley

M.A. said...

"What I have to say is that we should always be cautious about rumors . . . but especially cautious about rumors from the Grunerite camp." - Jordanes

Out of charity to souls who are susceptible to deception, could you please tell us specifically to which "Grunerite" rumors you are referring, and about which one must be cautious?

With regard to Fatima, a priest who has devoted most of his priestly life to studying Fatima, certainly must have more competence in the field than you, Jordanes.

Biggus Headdus said...

Anonymous said, Remember, supplied jurisdiction only applies if one is *unable* to work under regualar jurisdiction. If legitimate authority offers you Sacramental jurisdiction and you refuse it, you *LOSE* your claim of supplied jurisdiction. With no claim of supplied or normal jurisdiction, the S.S.P.X would suddenly become schismatic.

I don't think that is a correct understanding of canon law and I believe they would still have supplied jurisdiction regardless of whether they accept any agreement or not because of factual common error and the provisions of canon 1335.

John McFarland said...

Well, since everyone else appears to be running true to form, let me do the same.

If it is a matter of excommunication, Bishop Fellay might well agree to moving the ordinations. But I can't conceive that he would call off the ordinations. We're still in a state of necessity, after all.

The recently defections from the SSPX can fairly be described as noisy but few. There is really no serious opposition to Bishop Fellay's approach, and hasn't been since it was formulated the best part of a decade ago. If Bishop Williamson is on board, where is any serious opposition going to come from?

As regards the consecration of Russia, I would think that if the consecration takes place, that would mean that the Pope is converted. So if it happens quickly, then the conversations between the Vatican and the SSPX will be pretty much moot. If it happens slowly, then the conversations might provide the occasion for the beginning of the Pope's conversion.

In at least one of his interviews, Bishop Fellay has compared the Society to the boy who provided the loaves and fish for the feeding of the five thousand. He is quite well aware that the matters at issue really lie in other hands than his or the Pope's, and we all would do well to share that awareness.

Last but not least, unless and until all of this gets settled, Bishop Fellay is about as much concerned with the Society's canonical status as I am with the question of who has the best claim to the French throne.

P.S.

Mr. Perkins: if the Pope is worried about the reaction of the Archbishop of Regensberg to SSPX ordinations, how can one believe that he, a stout devotee of collegiality since before you were out of short pants, would establish a status for the SSPX that would give bishops episcopacy zero power over the Society in their dioceses?

Louis E. said...

As I have said,the Pope should direct all bishops to grant faculties to all SSPX priests who request them.Thus forcing all SSPX priests too sedevacantist to make the request and all bishops too disobedient to grant it to expose themselves,and enabling the others to continue in amity.

Confitebor said...

Out of charity to souls who are susceptible to deception, could you please tell us specifically to which "Grunerite" rumors you are referring, and about which one must be cautious? ***

The ones found in the above comment to which I had responded, obviously.

With regard to Fatima, a priest who has devoted most of his priestly life to studying Fatima, certainly must have more competence in the field than you, Jordanes. ***

In theory, except his "study" of Fatima seems more on the lines of obsession, and anyway he is suspended a divinis and his Fatimist work is not approved by the Catholic Church. Grunerite rumors and gossip might be true or it might be false, and since we're not in any position to tell which, it's best to be cautious and take what the Grunerites say with a few shakersfull of salt.

Anonymous said...

Biggus Headus writes:

"I don't think that is a correct understanding of canon law and I believe they would still have supplied jurisdiction regardless of whether they accept any agreement or not because of factual common error and the provisions of canon 1335."

But the point, Biggus, is that they needn't accept anything at all. If the Pope grants faculties unilaterally or declares that the Pius Union of 1970 still exists, neither Fellay nor any other Society priest need register acceptance. They need only not refuse the faculties. It's an entirely different matter than refusing to accept a proferred jurisdiction.

I note in closing that, pace Fr. Cériani, expressing *thanks* for the Pope's grants DOES NOT mean admitting that such grants were ever necessary in the first place. Note that, in reacting to the January Decree, Fellay specifically added that the Society had never accepted the validity of the excommunications in the first place. The same would apply here.

P.K.T.P.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Mr. McFarland writes:

"Mr. Perkins: if the Pope is worried about the reaction of the Archbishop of Regensberg to SSPX ordinations, how can one believe that he, a stout devotee of collegiality since before you were out of short pants, would establish a status for the SSPX that would give bishops episcopacy zero power over the Society in their dioceses?"

First of all, I don't believe that the Pope gives a Shadwell what Müller thinks. What I think is that this entire Müller nonsense has been engineered from the Vatican to give the Pope and Fellay an excuse to make the ideal arrangement, one which will leave the Society 100% de facto independent and yet recognised by Rome.

As to the jurisdiction, both this Pope (as Fellay admitted recently) and the last one have offered the Rolls Royce structure, what I call an exempt international and ritual apostolic administration under Canon 372.2. This cuts out Müller and all the bishops 100%. It does not contradict collegiality. I read up on this a few years ago. Collegiality refers to power sharing between the Pope and the diocesan bishops but does not say that every diocese must be territorial in nature. We now have the PRECEDENT of a particular church (diocese or equivalent) which is NOT territorial: the a.a. of St. John Mary Vianney. What will be granted once the talks are over is a Campos writ large, one that covers most of the world.

In the mean time, this is what the Society will have de facto but not de jure. In fact, the Society will presumably enjoy the ultimate deal *before*, not after, the talks are concluded. If the Pope grants faculties ex cathedra now, he cannot wreckovate the Society before a particular church has been granted. Any wreckovation any pope might try before then would simply be ignored by Fellay. What are they going to do? Excommunicate everyone all over again?

I literally must run now for dinner.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

"I did not write the post in question concerning the '75 suppression. While I do put the proverbial foot in my mouth many times, that is not the case, thankfully, in this instance. Cheers."

Mr Haley,
I wrote the post in question, and I did not put my proverbial foot in my mouth.
I was asking a question.

I would kindly ask you not to insult me in the future in such a manner.

God bless you.

Mike B. said...

I am certainly among those who are fixated on the historical developments between the Papacy/Vatican and the SSPX. However that places me within those .1 percent of Catholics who consider the issue of some importance. That is a sobering reality which is significant to contemplate.

Michael F Brennan
St Petersburg, FL

Anonymous said...

On Fatima:

I remember a time when one could believe entirely in Fatima, as I do, and yet not be a Fatima lunatic following Fr. Gruner.

While it might be a private revelation, I believe in it *entirely*. Anyway, the very possibility of it being true means that we should cover our bases. I also know with 'moral certitude' (not absolute certitude) that the Pope has not done the consecration as directed. Those of us who can read English can see this clearly enough. It doesn't matter if Lucy says otherwise.

Look at this from another point of view. Communism is the ultimate evil of our time. The errors of Russia are now spreading and America is now going socialist under the new god, Barry Soetero (B.S.), alias Barak Obama (B.O.).

We don't play games with our Lady. The consecration needs to be done AS DIRECTED. Period.

Having said that, I refuse to become a 'Fatima fanatic'. This will all happen by the grace of God. Join the Rosary crusade to co-operate in it. As for Gruner and company, they need to get a life. This is the sort of thing which will be resolved by prayer, not action. Action has its place; prayer has its place. Judgement tells us when to resort to which or to both.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Can you imagine if there is an agreement with the SSPX which is not hard-line pro-Vatican II the liberal nutjob Cardinals, bishops, priests, and nuns will have collective nervous breakdowns and hissy-fits.

I hope any agreement with the SSPX hardly even mentions Vatican II, but rather upholds traditional Catholicism, and is a huge denunciation of the novelties and "reforms" that have ruined the Catholic Church and caused the SSPX to "go it's own way" for 35+ years in the first place.

Basically, I hope any agreement with the SSPX is in large measure a repudiation of much of what has come from Vatican II. Then the liberals would have no legs to stand on, and no defense for their actions.

Anonymous said...

"I wonder, why did Fr. Charles Moulin, the S.S.P.X prior in Nice, resign his post in protest over Bishop Fellay's negotiations with Rome. If the reason was the doc talks, he waited rather long, since that has been part of the Society progamme now for years. Was it to avoid a declared or imposed regularisation?"

I was told he resigned for health reasons and it has nothing to do with the negotiations.


"There are many French traditional Catholics who are unhappy with Fellay, not just SSPX."

Don't believe all the lies that are appearing on Traditio. this evil site is just trying to cause trouble among SSPX supporters.

Anonymous said...

Jordanes said...
"What I have to say is that we should always be cautious about rumors . . . but especially cautious about rumors from the Grunerite camp."

When you say to be cautious with rumors from the 'Grunerite' camp, just who are you referring to specifically? The person who posted the text from Fr. Gruner's letter, or Fr. Gruner himself? Surely you do not mean to hint that Fr. Gruner is less than truthful? Mind you he is a priest. I have never met Fr. Gruner, but from all accounts he seems to be a very holy priest. Which is more than I can say about many of the NON suspended NO priests I have met.

Just for the record, if I meet a good priest, I recognize him as such - whether he says the NO or not. And I do know many good NO priests. However, I know many who should not only be suspended, but possibly excommunicated for the truly blasphemous teachings they are spreading about Our Lord and the Blessed Mother.

Iakovos said...

Jordanes said..., etc. Allow me to congratulate Jordanes whose comments in this long and sometimes contentious thread reveal a calm, sober and grounded voice of Catholic mind and heart. Also, for the rest of the bloggers, recall that your Brothers in the Eastern churches characteristically do not enter into the fray of Fatima revelations and other apparitions of the Mother of God revered by the West, not from disparagement, but from a longer and quieter history of Her honor and mystery and intercession via the holy icons associated with Her feasts. But, Jordaes, you have been blessed with what seems to me the calm and steady voice that I would associate with the spirit of Theotokos who ponders first these things in her heart.

Picard said...

Grandiouse comments, P.K.T.P.!!

GOD bless.

Paul Haley said...

Dan Hunter,

What I was trying to say is that it seemed I was being accused of being the author of the post in question. In this thread I did not say anything about the '75 suppression and I certainly did not intend to insult anyone, most of all you, for whom I have great admiration and respect. If you were asking a question of me, I did not realize it at that time.

I have no authority to say anything about the '75 suppression except, perhaps, that it did happen and seems to be an impediment even to this day. As part of my daily rosary intentions I pray that all traditional priests in union with the holy father will receive from him the faculties and jurisdiction they need to work in the Lord's Vineyard for the salvation of souls. This includes the FSSPX and its offshoots as well as the independent priests who refused to submit to the novelties imposed on them in the aftermath of Vatican II. Am I clear now about my intentions?

Prodinoscopus said...

Interesting statement from the rector of the SSPX seminary in Zaitzkofen, quoted in a diocesan newspaper in the USA:

In a statement, the Zaitzkofen seminary rector, Father Stefan Frey, said the society now had “provisional legal status” in the Catholic Church pending a “definitive canonical ruling” on its future, and had not been told to “put a stop to ordinations.”

http://tinyurl.com/m2etj6

Now, I do not think that the lifting of the excommunications gave the SSPX any "provisional legal status", so Fr. Frey must be referring to something else.

Surely this has something to do with Bishop Fellay's meeting at the CDF.

Cooperator said...

http://wdtprs.com/blog/2009/06/doctrinal-talks-between-the-holy-see-and-sspx-closer/

http://blog.ilgiornale.it/tornielli/2009/06/10/ecclesia-dei-passa-allex-santuffizio-dialogo-con-i-lefebvriani/

Biggus Headus said...

P.K.T.P. Wrote:

But the point, Biggus, is that they needn't accept anything at all. If the Pope grants faculties unilaterally or declares that the Pius Union of 1970 still exists, neither Fellay nor any other Society priest need register acceptance. They need only not refuse the faculties. It's an entirely different matter than refusing to accept a proferred jurisdiction.


PKTP, Sorry, I'm not the brightest bulb on the tree but now I see what you were saying and upon second reading of your initial post I find it very insightful.

God Bless!

Anonymous said...

Mr Haley,

I am sorry about the misunderstanding.
I often have a hard time figuring out the meaning behind someones personal statements on these com-boxes.
They tend to be so impersonal.

Again, I apologise for any misunderstanding, as I greatly respect what you have to say as well.
Everything is clear.
God bless you.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
"Seems too much is being made of this. Bishop Fellay said they would be entering into theological discussions and this could be the start of those discussions, or at least the outlining of how to proceed. "



http://translate.google.com/translate?prev=hp&hl=en&js=n&u=http%3A%2F%2Fsecretummeummihi.blogspot.com%2F2009%2F06%2Fdialogo-roma-fsspx-comienzan-fijarse.html&sl=es&tl=en&history_state0=

Wednesday, June 10, 2009

Diálogo Roma-FSSPX, comienzan a fijarse las reglas de juego Roma-FSSPX dialogue, they begin to set the rules of the game

La agencia francófona con base en Roma I.MEDIA reporta hoy que esta mañana en la Congregación para la Doctrina de la Fe se ha discutido sobre cómo comenzar el diálogo doctrinal con la Fraternidad de San Pío X (FSSPX/SSPX). The French agency based in Rome I. Media reported today that this morning at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has been discussed on how to start a dialogue with the doctrinal Fraternity of Saint Pius X (FSSPX / SSPX).

Según refiere I.MEDIA , los cardenales de la Congregación para la Doctrina de la Fe, a quienes Benedicto XVI ha confiado este diálogo con la FSSPX/SSPX en vistas a una total regularización a futuro, han discutido un texto “cuyo objetivo es precisar el marco del diálogo doctrinal con la Fraternidad”. According to I. MEDIA, the cardinals of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, to whom Benedict XVI has entrusted this dialogue with FSSPX / SSPX in a total adjustment to the future, have discussed a text whose purpose is to clarify the doctrinal dialogue with the fraternity. " Este diálogo debe partir de la “necesidad de la aceptación del Concilio Vaticano II y del Magisterio de los Papas” posteriores al Concilio Vaticano II. This dialogue must begin with the "need for the acceptance of Vatican II and the Magisterium of the Popes" after Vatican II.

I.MEDIA confirma que el viernes pasado, Jun-05-2009, Mons. Bernard Fellay, el Superior General de la FSSPX/SSPX fue recibido en la Congregación para la Doctrina de la Fe, y aunque todavía no se ha definido quienes representarán a cada parte, en efecto habrá un diálogo del cual probablemente formen parte, del lado de la Santa Sede, el dominico suizo P. I. MEDIA confirms that last Friday, Jun-05-2009, Bishop Bernard Fellay, Superior General of the FSSPX / SSPX was received at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and although not yet defined who will represent each party, in effect a dialogue which will probably form part of the side of the Holy See, the Dominican Swiss P. Charles Morerod, nuevo secretario de la Comisión Teológica Internacional, y por parte de la FSSPX/SSPX el P. Morerod Charles, secretary of the International Theological Commission, and by the FSSPX / SSPX Fr Grégoire Celier, coautor recientemente (junto con Olivier Pichon) del libro “Benoît XVI et les traditionalistes” Grégoire Celia, recently co-authored (with Olivier Pichon) book "Benoît XVI et les traditionalistes"

Al final de la nota I.MEDIA señala que entre tanto, la FSSPX/SSPX continúa con la intención de ordenar a 21 nuevos sacerdotes en desafio a Roma. At the end of the note I. Media points out that in the meantime, FSSPX / SSPX continues with the intention to order 21 new priests in defiance of Rome.

Posted by SECRETUM MEUM MIHI at 5:35 AM Posted by SECRETUM MEUM mihi at 5:35 a.m.

Labels: Benedicto XVI Labels: Benedict XVI

Confitebor said...

When you say to be cautious with rumors from the 'Grunerite' camp, just who are you referring to specifically? ***

The vagus priest Father Nicholas Gruner and his Fatimist associates, and those who pass along such unsourced and unverifiable rumors and gossip.

Surely you do not mean to hint that Fr. Gruner is less than truthful? ***

"Less than truthful," sure. We all are at times. Deliberately or knowingly untruthful? That's something I can't and won't say. I only know that rumors should always be treated with caution, and in the case of the abovequoted rumors, certainly we have to be hesitant, as we have no way of knowing if they have any basis in fact.

Mind you he is a priest. I have never met Fr. Gruner, but from all accounts he seems to be a very holy priest. ***

I can't say how holy he is or isn't. I only know that he exercises no legitimate ministry in the church, and that his Fatimist operation is unapproved and tends to focus on conspiracy theory with an unhealthy emphasis on end-time scenarios. I had more than my fill of that way of looking at the world when I was a heretic and a Protestant, and have no desire to return to it now that God's grace has brought me to the Catholic faith.

Anonymous said...

Has it occurred to any of you that Bishop Fellay may have gotten the go-ahead from Pope Benedict and it was not made public to avoid a massive uprising among the novus ordo lunatic fringe? After all, who in their right mind would get this far and then jeopardize the whole thing by blatant, in-your-face disobedience?

Delphina

Anonymous said...

"Has it occurred to any of you that Bishop Fellay may have gotten the go-ahead from Pope Benedict and it was not made public to avoid a massive uprising among the novus ordo lunatic fringe?"

Delphina,
I assume you mean the go-ahead to have the ordinations take place.
Yes that is possible, but as far as not making it public, I would question that.
If in fact the Holy Father allows the ordinations, then may I assume that the Holy See would also grant faculties to the priests? The faitful would be notified of this so they can go to confession and have marriages witnessed by FSSPX priests.

Anonymous said...

Anon. (I love that Shakespearean abbreviation) said:

"Anonymous said...
"Seems too much is being made of this. Bishop Fellay said they would be entering into theological discussions and this could be the start of those discussions, or at least the outlining of how to proceed."

I don't think that discussions can proceed unless the Society has some canonical standing. I have explained this before. Imagine that the Society bishops are four robber barons poaching deer in the King's forest (from the King's point of view, that is). The King cannot answer their 44 questions before righting them in the law. If he does so, he undermines his own law and makes others wonder if the law does not apply equally to everyone.

It is Prodinocopus's news which is really exciting here. It is amazing! Let's review it:

"In a statement, the Zaitzkofen seminary rector, Father Stefan Frey, said the society now had “provisional legal status” in the Catholic Church pending a “definitive canonical ruling” on its future, and had not been told to “put a stop to ordinations.”

Then Prodinoscopus draws exactly the right conclusion (and makes me wonder what Bishop Müller has not yet been told):

"Now, I do not think that the lifting of the excommunications gave the SSPX any 'provisional legal status', so Fr. Frey must be referring to something else.

"Surely this has something to do with Bishop Fellay's meeting at the CDF."

Right on! That is exactly right. A lifting of the excommunications would not, in itself, confer any jurisdiction to administer faculties. Damn you, Prodinoscupus, now I shan't sleep a wink again!

If we compare Fr. Frey's statement with the Pope's distinction between spiritual and canonical communion as laid out in the Compendium on the Chinese Patriotic Association, I see another possibility here. If the Society has entered into a course of 'dialouge' which foresees its own canonical regularisation (esp. if this pertains to its suppression in 1975), Rome may have chosen to recognise temporary juridical status pending a determination of its legal status. It may also be that the Society has quietly challenged its suppression in 1975. Remember, what makes the S.S.P.X different from other unapproved groups is that it was initially founded by legitimate authority (1970).

But public notice of the change is needed because souls are at stake. For example, I know of a family which cannot easily get to the Gregorian Mass unless it drives over 100 miles every Sunday--or else repairs to a Society chapel. Time for an announcement!

P.K.T.P.

Isabelle said...

I know this doesn't seem terribly important, but isn't that an old photo which accompanies this story? I seem to remember seeing it in years past.

Anonymous said...

"...cannot easily get to the Gregorian Mass unless it drives over 100 miles every Sunday--or else repairs to a Society chapel"

Mr Perkins,

I only wish 100 miles is all my wife and I have to drive to a Gregorian Mass.
Try 200 miles.
The FSSPX chapel is 55 miles from ou home making it only a 110 mile drive.

How far do you live from a Gregorian Rite Mass?
Please Holy Father give the Society faculties!

Paul Haley said...

With respect to the Fatima message Bishop Fellay in part II of his interview in April at St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary in Winona raised the eyebrows of his questioner a little when he said with a twinkle in his eye that he was thinking of starting another Rosary Crusade. When asked what the intention would be, he replied: "for the consecration of Russia". So, it would appear that Bishop Fellay believes, as many of us do, that the consecration of Russia is still pending.

Confitebor said...

Yes, that was self-evident when he announced the second Rosary Crusade for the consecration of Russia.

M.A. said...

Regarding Fatima, one can believe like a "Grunerite" without even being aware of this priest's existence. All it takes is much reading and common sense because he is not the only one contradicting the "Foxites"! This is what I tell people who, like Jordanes, object to Fr. Gruner. A dislike of the priest only serves to keep ones mind closed to the facts.

Anonymous said...

In response to the person who said:

"Having said that, I refuse to become a 'Fatima fanatic'... As for Gruner and company, they need to get a life. This is the sort of thing which will be resolved by prayer, not action..."

I have to agree that the Fatima Crusader focuses too much on conspiracy theories and often has the feel of a Union Workers magazine. However, to quote your own words “…This…sort of thing…will be resolved by prayer” and not by slandering Our Lady’s consecrated son and good minded Catholics who believe ’action’ is the way in obtaining the consecration of Russia.