Rorate Caeli

Tornielli: A two-page document in
"Judgement day" for SSPX and the Vatican

Main excerpts of Andrea Tornielli's article for La Stampa/Vatican Insider (adapted according to Italian original):
The superior of the Fraternity of Saint Pius X [FSSPX / SSPX], Bishop Bernard Fellay, will enter the Palace of the Holy Office accompanied by his collaborators, Father Niklaus Pfluger and Father Marc-Alain Nely.

Cardinal William Levada, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and the Secretary of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, Monsignor Guido Pozzo, will be there to greet them.

Vatican Insider has learned that the Lefebvrian superior will be handed a two-page document, containing the Church’s appraisal of the doctrinal discussions held in recent months between the Vatican and the Fraternity, approved by the Pope. It is an altogether brief but accurate document, which contains the answers to the problems raised in the discussions regarding the interpretation of the Second Vatican Council’s texts on religious freedom, ecumenism, and ecclesiology.

...

The former Holy Office will ask him to take his time in evaluating it and to then offer a response within a reasonable space of time, if not immediately. In short, the Lefebvrians will have to adopt a position: they may ask the Holy See for further clarifications, but they cannot beat around the bush any longer.

The Holy See considers the acceptance of the document as an essential condition for full communion, which would also provide for a legal settlement for the Fraternity founded by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, probably through the constitution of a similar ordinariate to the one expected for the Anglicans.

32 comments:

  1. The Faith will not be compromised on the part of the SSPX.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Such document should contain only THE CREDO and Mons. Fellay should immediately reply "I BELIEVE!".

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous5:18 PM

    Looking for an answer to a question. Under current Canon Law, can a priest forbid communion in the hnd at his parish or is this only the prerogative of the bishop? I know that this is an indult but who has the right to revoke it? Only a bishop? Or can a priest revoke it for his individual parish? Thanks for your help.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous5:23 PM

    Just waiting to see now. Does anyone know if this document will be released online?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous5:30 PM

    Things are still so "messy" in the Chruch regarding even the Mass. How is all of this to be worked out?

    ReplyDelete
  6. That's going to go a long way.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anonymous6:03 PM

    Universae Ecclesia #28 makes it possible, theoretically, for a priest to forbid communion in the hand in the Extraordinary Form; but in the Ordinary Form I don't think an individual priest can forbid it in a place where the indult has allowed it.

    ReplyDelete
  8. So, it comes down to where the rubber meets the road.
    The Pope will not abolish or disavow the Second Vatican Council (or even those most damaging parts of it even if he could).
    I do not know what the SSPX will do. If they do not submit they will be cut off completely methinks. What a tragedy this would be for the whole Church Catholic.
    Oh that they would accept Ordinariate status as the Anglicans are doing and remain a strong witness for Tradition within the Church rather than standing outside the Body of Christ.
    This is all very sad and heartbreaking.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Will the two-page document be published immediately tomorrow?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Anonymous6:29 PM

    Two pages.

    That'll work.

    ReplyDelete
  11. rodrigo6:32 PM

    It is an altogether brief but accurate document, which contains the answers to the problems raised in the discussions regarding the interpretation of the Second Vatican Council’s texts on religious freedom, ecumenism, and ecclesiology.

    This document sounds extremely exciting. Whatever the outcome, I just hope we'll get to see it.

    ReplyDelete
  12. "Br. Anthony, T.O.S.F. said...
    The Faith will not be compromised on the part of the SSPX."

    Right, Nor on the part of the Holy Office.

    It comes to this.

    Prayers

    ReplyDelete
  13. rodrigo6:38 PM

    Addendum:

    The Faith will not be compromised on the part of the SSPX.

    How can you say this with such certainty, Br Anthony? Do you believe in the indefectibility of pious unions of priests?

    ReplyDelete
  14. "Thy will be done."

    Time is short. It is late.

    Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Anonymous6:50 PM

    I would caution anyone not to read into this anything other than the SSPX representatives will meet with Cardinal Levada and be given a summation of the doctrinal discussions from Rome's point of view. Anything else is speculation and we have been cautioned against that by Bishop Fellay himself. Remember, this is one journalist's concept of what is going to take place and the whole tone of Tornielli's remarks is that wayward children are being given their comeuppance. He would make a good PR person for the modernists IMO.

    He says: "The Holy See considers the acceptance of the document as an essential condition for full communion, which would also provide for a legal settlement for the Fraternity founded by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, probably through the constitution of a similar ordinariate to the one expected for the Anglicans." Since when does he speak for the Holy See?

    PEH

    ReplyDelete
  16. Watch carefully for the details - with the post-conciliar papacies they are never straightforward. There will be a customary call for clarification.

    ReplyDelete
  17. If the Anglicans and Fr Feeney can become regular and the former were never Catholic before and the latter did not believe in baptism of desire and blood, then
    the SSPX which has always been Catholic and believes in Baptism of desire and blood can most definitely be regularised and soon.

    I believe this document states truths that have no strings attached.
    This is just a formality.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Anonymous7:17 PM

    "Collaborators"

    "Lefebvreans"

    "Full communion"

    What's with this rhetorical nonsense? He thinks he can get away with it. In other words, he assumes that his readers are idiots.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Anonymous8:08 PM

    Will the SSPX "accept" it, or will it be a "joint declaration"?

    ReplyDelete
  20. Anonymous9:11 PM

    I agree with the commentator who said the Andrea Tornieli only speaks for Andrea Tornieli. I don't think that there is anything wrong with speculation, though, as long as we acknowledge that status.

    Also, given how far apart the two parties seem to be, we should not regard a failure to reconcile as a disaster; it might be just 'more of the same'. It will be interesting to see if Rome makes any declarations about the status of the Society or its members--or of its Masses.

    Be very careful in analysis. Given how controversial the Society is, any great gift to it might be disguised by Rome as censure.

    P.K.T.P.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Anonymous9:31 PM

    Perhaps the simple solution in regard to the Society is the "Father Feeney Solution":

    With Church officials present, Father Leonard Feeney professed the Athanasian Creed.

    That is all that was required by Holy Mother Church to determine that Father Feeney was in "full communion" Holy Mother Church.

    Would that approach apply to the bishops and priests of the Society?

    Tom

    ReplyDelete
  22. This is not good. The Credo doesn't take two pages.

    I cannot see any acceptable answer to SSPX objections that would fit on two pages. What broad and general explanations have they (and we) not heard before, only to be contradicted soon after?

    Either this speculation is wrong or the two pages must be a surrender ultimatum, in which case we haven't seen ugly yet.

    ReplyDelete
  23. What's with this rhetorical nonsense? He thinks he can get away with it. In other words, he assumes that his readers are idiots.

    Or perhaps he knows that most of his readers aren't traditionalists?

    ReplyDelete
  24. Either this speculation is wrong or the two pages must be a surrender ultimatum, in which case we haven't seen ugly yet.

    Do we really know enough to be able narrow it down to just those two options?

    ReplyDelete
  25. Can't say that with certainty, of course, but the two page description sure seem to narrow down the options. Two pages is a summary paper, not a theological explanation of significant issues. A summary paper suffices if you are 95% in agreement and have confidence you can work out the minor differences and put out the detailed documents later - or - we're not getting anywhere so sign or walk. I just didn't get the impression that they were 95% in agreement.

    Hope I'm wrong, of course. It just sounds more like walking papers than 'close enough, let's go do the photo-ops'.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Anonymous12:39 AM

    I hope that they acquiesce - it's now or never because the Pope is not getting any younger.

    ReplyDelete
  27. We just don't know what the two-page document is or says. Could it not reference "chapter and verse," so to speak, of the transcripts of the previous sessions of the dialogue between the Holy See and the FSSPX? Could there not be several other documents and communiques, the existence of which has been kept entirely secret, that have laid the groundwork for the document rumored to be presented tomorrow?

    Let us have faith, and seek contentment and peace with whatever God shows us tomorrow. There is never any valid reason to worry. God will never abandon His children.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Anonymous3:14 AM

    A two page document sounds to me more like Joe B said...an ultimatum.


    We have about 2 or 3 hours before this meeting happens I suggest those still awake let's get down on our knees so that the Holy Will of the Almighty might be done.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Meanwhile, nonsense like the following continues to be spewed forth:

    http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/homepage/world-news/detail/articolo/pace-peace-paz-dialogo-dialogue-dialogo-monaco-munich-san-egidio-7988/

    Quote from Andrea Riccardi:
    "Finally, the Catholic leader spoke of citizenship for all, without religious, gender and ethnic distinctions. “After all, it is in the interests of both Christians and Muslims. The faithful are called to focus on what unites us, under the flag of the Second Vatican Council.”

    I hope that the SSPX will be reconciled soon. We need every priest we can get to man the barricades versus modernism.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Anonymous1:56 PM

    "Given how controversial the Society is, any great gift to it might be disguised by Rome as censure."

    That is unimaginable as the Holy Father is not into playing games, which is the scenario that you portrayed.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Anonymous2:58 PM

    Tornielli was right in what he reported. He had inside information.

    ReplyDelete

Comment boxes are debate forums for readers and contributors of RORATE CÆLI.

Please, DO NOT assume that RORATE CÆLI contributors or moderators necessarily agree with or otherwise endorse any particular comment just because they let it stand.

_______
NOTES

(1) This is our living room, in a deeply Catholic house, and you are our guest. Please, behave accordingly. Any comment may be blocked or deleted, at any time, whenever we perceive anything that is not up to our standards, not conducive to a healthy conversation or a healthy Catholic environment, or simply not to our liking.

(2) By clicking on the "publish your comment" button, please remain aware that you are choosing to make your comment public - that is, the comment box is not to be used for private and confidential correspondence with contributors and moderators.

(3) Any name/ pseudonym/ denomination may be freely used simply by choosing the third option, "Name/URL" (the URL box may be left empty), when posting your comment - therefore, there is no reason whatsoever to simply post as "Anonymous", making debate unnecessarily harder to follow. Any comment signed simply as "Anonymous" will be blocked.

Thank you!