From a sermon pronounced on November 1, 2012, in Écône, Switzerland - with his view of all details of what happened in the August 2011-October 2012 period between the Holy See and the Society of Saint Pius X (FSSPX / SSPX), and of how matters stand today. A very important document for the future record of events.
Showing posts with label Decision 2012. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Decision 2012. Show all posts
Should the SSPX be excommunicated? An Apostolic Nuncio's thoughts
As the possibility of an imminent regularization of the canonical status of the Society of St. Pius X seems increasingly remote, calls for their mass excommunication or for the formal acknowledgment of their alleged "schismatic" status once and for all, are again beginning to be heard. As if preparing for a tide of such comments, Archbishop Thomas Edward Gullickson, Apostolic Nuncio to Ukraine, published the following article on his blog a week ago:
The Clear and Distinct as Gift
With a genuinely upright enthusiasm, I wish to thank RORATE CAELI for posting the YouTube video interview in German with Fr. Schmidberger. This priest has always distinguished himself for his clear and distinct ideas, for the noble and profound way he makes his analysis. This video is no exception.
As much as it pains me to hear him step back from the path of full communion with the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church, where only it is to be found, Ubi Petrus, Ibi Ecclesia, I can deal with and appreciate his level-headed-ness.
As I was listening to the interview, however, it came to me that the possibility of renewing the excommunication and extending it to all who adhere to the brotherhood if they refuse the Holy Father's extended hand, ought perhaps to be excluded for another reason and that on ecumenical (within or without the Church) grounds. Excommunication, as an imposed penalty today, should be salutary in its intent and working. Excommunication should work for the Church today like it did in the words of St. Paul. I turn the man (cohabiting with his father's wife) over to Satan in hopes of saving his soul and in the meantime eliminating a cause of great scandal within the body of the Church. After so many years away from us, you would have to find arguments for convincing me that a renewed or extended excommunication would bring the brotherhood to its knees and home to Peter, or that the brotherhood's continued separate existence through scandal, by reason of our acquiescence to the separation, risks the kind of scandal among Catholics which could put the eternal salvation of members of the Catholic Church at risk.
Ecumenical, I say, because I doubt if the penalty of excommunication could be effectively used today to return anyone who is still separated from us to full communion. The question for me and I think for Fr. Schmidberger is always the same: What happens when that clear-headed elite of which he is the stellar example passes from the scene? Who will steer the course? Whence comes the indefectibility or infallibility?
We must redouble our prayers for the unity of Christ's Church cum et sub Petro.
The Archbishop explains his views in greater detail in the comments section to his original post.
Many thanks to Archbishop Gullickson for noting our post!
Rome-SSPX - Important - With the Pope's own signature: Vatican II and the post-conciliar Magisterium must be accepted in full
"[T]he agreement considered in 2011-2012 lasted for six months, it has not been blessed by the Blessed Virgin. (We had prayed rosary after rosary, and we keep doing that, that is very good.) But the Blessed Virgin was clearly not behind this idea. She did not walk this path, because on June 30 (it's a secret that I reveal to you, but it will be made public), on June 30, 2012, the Pope wrote with his own hand a letter to our Superior General, Bp. [Bernard] Fellay, signed personally: 'I confirm to you in fact [that], in order [for you] to be truly reintegrated into the Church [Tissier says:] (let us move beyond this expression), it is necessary to truly accept the Second Vatican Council and the post-conciliar Magisterium.'
"It is, as a matter of principle, a stopping point, because we could not accept it anyway; we would not sign it anyway. One can enter into details, because the Council is so vast one can find good things in it, but this is not the essence of the Council."..."Evidently, we could not sign it. Because we are required to sign it, the agreements do not move forward. I would say that [if] on this point there is no agreement, there will be no agreement.
"This is all I can tell you, I do not think Rome will let us go. The Modernist Rome [sic] will come close to us [once again], it is inevitable. They are determined, they are persistent, they want to lead us to the Council, therefore pray. Personally, I would never sign things like that, that is clear."
In Gianluigi Nuzzi's book filled with Vatican leaks published earlier this year, Sua Santità, a specific chapter was devoted to the 2009 "Williamson crisis", and, in it, mention was made of the note of the Secretariate of State made public by L'Osservatore Romano on February 4, 2009 (we provided a translation of the Italian original text as soon as it was published). Nuzzi included this in his book:
It is unclear if this same content was merely mentioned by Pope Benedict XVI with a reference to the 2009 note in the June 30, 2012, letter mentioned by Tissier de Mallerais, or if the 2012 letter has more precise demands on the matter.
[French forum content also reported by Andrea Tornielli for La Stampa - in Italian]
"...[T]he entire phrase 'the Holy Father does not intend to leave aside an indispensable condition' [in the Secretariat of State's draft] was cancelled by Benedict XVI and replaced with, [in his own handwriting,] 'For a future recognition of the Fraternity of Saint Pius X, the full acknowledgment of the Second Vatican Council and of the Magisterium of Popes John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, and of the same Benedict XVI is an indispensable condition'." (Gianluigi Nuzzi, Sua Santità, Chiarelettere, 2012, page 208)
[French forum content also reported by Andrea Tornielli for La Stampa - in Italian]
SSPX-Rome: Important - Father Schmidberger speaks on conditions and current status of negotiations with Rome
Updated: video with subtitles
Fr. Andreas Steiner, spokesman of the German District of the Society of Saint Pius X (FSSPX / SSPX), interviewed Germany’s current District Superior and former Superior General of the Society Fr. Franz Schmidberger.
Fr. Schmidberger spoke on the most recent General Chapter, the current situation of affairs between Rome and the SSPX, and on the relationship with Abp. Müller (head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith - and President of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei).
Fr. Schmidberger spoke on the most recent General Chapter, the current situation of affairs between Rome and the SSPX, and on the relationship with Abp. Müller (head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith - and President of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei).
[Click on "captions" for English subtitles]
Following is an adapted, but reasonably accurate, summary of the 17:21-long video.
On the first question, dealing with the General Chapter, Fr. Schmidberger remarks about the gain for the SSPX itself: “the General Chapter has provided us with a new unity within our own ranks, [a unity] which had suffered a bit in recent times; and that is a big grace of God, I would say”. Concerning the external aspect of the General Chapter, Father remarks that there are three points which must be demanded from the authorities if a visible union with Rome will be established. These are: firstly, that the SSPX will be given the freedom to expose the errors of Vatican II; secondly, that the SSPX will be allowed to only use the liturgical books of 1962; and thirdly, that there must always be a bishop in the Fraternity from within its own ranks.
The second question deals with the situation between Rome and the SSPX. Around Pentecost (of this year) people thought that a visible union was close, but, as Father remarks, the meeting of Cardinal Levada and Bishop Fellay changed this. The proposal that was presented by the Cardinal contained not only the proposal [translator's note: for a doctrinal preamble] that Bishop Fellay had sent to Rome earlier, but it added to that proposal new requirements to be fulfilled by the SSPX, but which the Bishop deemed unacceptable for the Fraternity.
These additional requirements consist, according to Father, of the recognition of the “licitness” [in German: Lizeität - translator's note: see also the foreword to the SSPX’s German District’s Mitteilungsblatt nr. 404 of September 2012, in which the same word is used, strengthening the belief that this words stems directly from the proposal of Cardinal Levada] of the new liturgy [translator's note: Father firstly presents the term Lizeität as “permissiveness”, but he then immediately interprets it as meaning “rightfulness”]; and also of the recognition of the uninterrupted continuity between Vatican II and all former councils and doctrinal statements of the Church. And that is impossible, according to Father, as there undeniably are ruptures with Vatican II and “we therefore cannot accept the hermeutic of continuity as such” [emphasis added by translator].
Following on that meeting, Bishop Fellay sent a letter to the Pope, asking him whether these additional requirements were wished for by His Holiness, or that they were his co-workers's demands. The Pope assured Bishop Fellay that he really wishes these requirements to be fulfilled.
The SSPX will send its concerns about these additional requirements to Rome in the hope that they can be resolved. Already with the doctrinal discussions it became clear that there are big differences between the teaching of the Church during the last centuries (represented by the SSPX) and the doctrinal concepts of the representatives of the current authorities in the church. As long as these are not resolved, Father says he believes that there will be no real exodus of the Church out of the current problems.
The third question, then, deals with the relation between Archbishop Müller, the current prefect of the CDF, and the SSPX. The Archbishop has not been very favourable of the SSPX when he was the local ordinary of the diocese in which the SSPX has its German seminary; however, what worries Father much more is the heterodoxy of the Archbishop in certain points of the Faith [translator's note: see this Rorate post, at number 2], whereas the head of the CDF is supposed to watch over the Faith and protect it.
Father Steiner then asked whether Fr. Schmidberger expects new excommunications if the SSPX does not fulfil the two abovementioned requirements. Father Schmidberger, however, thinks that that is very unlikely. He sees the Fraternity not only as a community of about 570 priests, some sisters and some Catholic schools, but – without wanting to come across as pretentious – he also believes that the SSPX is in a certain way the backbone of all those who want to keep the Tradition of the Church alive. For all those, the SSPX is in a certain way a point of reference. If this point of reference would be discredited in such a way, this would mean a huge “demoralisation” of the traditional and conservative forces in the Church. It would therefore be a tremendous catastrophe, not so much for the Fraternity, but for the Church itself.
Finally, the last question sought the opinion of Fr. Schmidberger as to whether the talks with Rome have had any benefit. Father believes that the talks have had huge benefits. Firstly, they have proven that the SSPX really does search a normalisation; that the SSPX regards its current situation in light of the current crisis, as being not normal; and every abnormality lingers for a normalisation. The current abnormal situation is, however, not the fault of the Fraternity; it is a necessity in the current crisis if one wants to keep the ancient liturgy, the ancient doctrine, the ancient discipline integrally and if one wants to live homogeneously as a Catholic on this fullness.
On the other hand, the discussions have shown that there exist doctrinal differences; and the deviations do not exist on the side of the Fraternity, but on the side of – one has to, sadly, admit this – those representatives of the Church that organise the Assisi meetings, that practise that which has been explicitly condemned in the past by the Church, by the Popes, by the councils.
And thirdly, the talks have led to a process of clarification within the Society. The Society does not agree with those that, out of principle, reject talks with Rome. Father ends the interview by saying: "The Fraternity has never worked for itself; it has never regarded itself as an end in itself, but it has always striven to serve the Church; to serve the Popes. Archbishop Lefebvre has always said this: we want to be at the disposal of the Bishops, of the Popes; we want to serve them, we want to help them lead the Church out of this crisis, to restore the Church in all her beauty, in all her holiness; but this can, of course, only happen outside of any compromise, of any false compromise. That is of great importance to us and we have in truth tried to resettle this treasure in the Church, to give it right of residence again. And maybe one or another has worked out in a certain way. The Fraternity has also, through these doctrinal discussions which I have mentioned, certainly made people think about the Second Vatican Council and about certain statements of this Council.”
[Translation: IM. Source: Pius.info]
For the record: Williamson: the la(te)st straw?
SSPX-Asia District Superior: "the present situation is going to continue as it is for many more years"
One of the four bishops of the Society of Saint Pius X (FSSPX / SSPX), Richard Williamson, visited Brazil in late August to administer the Sacrament of Confirmation to nearly 100 faithful who go to masses of "friendly communities" (communautés amies) of the SSPX, especially some traditional Benedictines.
The District Superior of the Society for South America, Father Christian Bouchacourt, released the following communiqué:
Fraternidad Sacerdotal San Pío X
Distrito América del Sur
El Superior
+Martínez [Province of Buenos Aires, Argentina], September 6, 2012
At the invitation of Dom Tomás de Aquino, prior of the monastery of the Holy Cross of Nova Friburgo [state of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil], Bishop Williamson came to confer the sacrament of confirmation and give some lectures.
I would like to clarify that this trip was organized independently of the SSPX. Indeed, according to the directives left by our founder Archbishop Lefebvre, only the Superior General, Bishop Fellay in this case, issues mandates to the auxiliary bishops to undertake a pastoral visit. This procedure has not been respected, which is a serious act against the virtue of obedience, but also an attack upon the most elementary demands of courtesy. In addition, the District Superior's agreement was not requested as required by the statutes of our Fraternity. The harmonious collaboration that existed between the SSPX and the Monastery of the Holy Cross has been broken by this act of great gravity, so the organizers must take responsibility before God. Indeed, many faithful were deceived and attended the announced ceremonies and conferences believing that they had been organized by the SSPX.
After reading the article of Dom Tomás de Aquino, "Honor and Glory to Bp. Williamson", I firmly denounce the indirect accusations which were made suggesting that the SSPX would agree with Modernism and cease fighting in defense of Catholic Tradition .
Such insinuations are gratuitous, false, hurtful and injurious to our Superior General and to the members of the SSPX. I cannot remain silent. If Bishop Fellay rejected the outstretched hand of Rome on June 13, it was for doctrinal reasons. And it is because we reject the Modernism-influenced Vatican II which is the main cause of the ruin of the Church today and we want to continue saying this, it is also because we reject the Novus Ordo Missae that departs from both Catholic doctrine "entirely and specifically", that no practical agreement has been signed with Rome. This was the position of Archbishop Lefebvre yesterday and this is the position of Monsignor Fellay today. The General Chapter last July confirmed this [position]. Any other assertion is nothing more than a manipulation or lie. Any prophecy of a future practical agreement reveals an unhealthy imagination.
In early December, Bishop de Galarreta will come to visit and confer the sacrament of Confirmation in Brazil and other countries in our district as our Superior General planned for many months.
I invite the faithful of Catholic tradition in Brazil not to pay attention to rumors, to continue to support their priests with their sacrifices, prayers, and generosity, and to beg God to send numerous and ardent vocations to defend and extend the reign of Christ the King under the noble banner of Catholic tradition and the protection of the Most Blessed Virgin Mary. God bless you!
Father Christian Bouchacourt
District Superior
[French; tip: Chris Gillibrand]
Two days after this document was published, the SSPX District Superior for Asia, Fr. Daniel Couture, published an "Appeal to the SSPX Korean faithful" which begins with the following passage:
An appeal to the our SSPX Korean Faithful
September 8, 2012
Dear Faithful,
May the peace of Our Lord Jesus Christ and of His Immaculate Mother be with you all ! Our Korean mission is very close to their Hearts since the devil is now at work to try to undermine the work of more than 20 years. It is my duty to clarify many things to understand what is happening now.
A deal with modernist Rome?
Bishop Fellay said recently, in many public conferences in Australia, that nothing new would happen for the SSPX under the present pope. And if we consider the appointment last June of the German Archbishop Müller at the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith – he considers Vatican II as infallible - the present situation is going to continue as it is for many more years.
Some however thought and prophesised that Bishop Fellay was going to surrender the SSPX to the modernist authorities, to the conciliar errors and to the new mass. They were certain this was going to happen in June. But it didn’t. They then announced it was going to happen in July. It didn’t. Now they say it will be in October, or November, it will not. Or in 5 or 10 years. It will not! They are like the false prophets announcing repeatedly that the end of world is imminent, and that we should store food in our houses in preparation. As a consequence people live in constant fear of what might happen soon. Those who are doing this today are leading souls by fear and away from Catholic Tradition.
...
1. Our Holy Faith
We profess as we have always done to maintain the Catholic Faith in line with the famous Declaration of Archbishop Lefebvre, in 1974:
We hold firmly with all our heart and with all our mind to Catholic Rome, Guardian of the Catholic Faith and of the traditions necessary to the maintenance of this faith, to the eternal Rome, mistress of wisdom and truth.
We refuse on the other hand, and have always refused, to follow the Rome of Neo- Modernist and Neo-Protestant tendencies, which became clearly manifest during the Second Vatican Council, and after the Council, in all the reforms which issued from it. … This is what we are, and, by the grace of God, what we will remain.
For the record: "Lefebvrians: a decision after summer"
The month in which Europe stops is about to begin - and soon after that, the Pope is supposed to be in Lebanon (yes, the great small nation surrounded by Syria and Israel) in September. According to La Stampa's vaticanist Andrea Tornielli, a decision on the relations betweeen the Society of Saint Pius X and the Holy See should come only after summer:
Lefebvrians, a decision after summer
Fellay's response has not yet arrived. ...Andrea Tornielli
Città del Vaticano
The response of the Superior of the Society of Saint Pius X to the doctrinal preamble delivered to him on June 13 has not yet arrived in Rome. And even if it arrives in the coming weeks, it will not be examined because the Prefect of the Congregation, Gerhard Müller, leaves for his vacation, as do the vice-president and the secretary of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei. Although the general chapter of the Lefebvrians is over, it is possible that Fellay will take some more time before sending his response. ...
Even the request for the freedom to criticize, even publicly, the "proponents of errors or novelties of Modernism, of Liberalism, of the Second Vatican Council, and of their consequences" could in the end be interpreted in a way that is less harsh than it seems. "It will all depend - it is repeated in the Vatican - on the response Bp. Fellay will send to Rome."
Op-Ed (English - français)
The basis for the future relations of the SSPX with Rome
La base des prochaines relations de la FSSPX avec Rome
a guest-post by Côme de Prévigny
The Spanish observers should be careful. This is not the first time they are mistaken on the Society of Saint Pius X (FSSPX / SSPX) by way of ready-made titles and misunderstood information. A few months ago, a colleague of José Manuel Vidal had affirmed that the discussions between Rome and Écône had ultimately failed. He was forced to turn around due to his rashness.It is true that, on June 13, Cardinal William Levada had delivered to Bp. Bernard Fellay, Superior of the Society, a text to be ratified. Against every expectation, considering that the predictions had been optimistic, new and surprising demands had een added to the text and created an impasse following nine months of negotiations. Even before the General Chapter had assembled, the Secretary General of the SSPX had been driven to state, in a letter dated June 25, that the Roman proposal was "unacceptable". Less than 48 hours later, the man responsible for the dossier, Mgr. Guido Pozzo, Secretary of the Ecclesia Dei Commission, had been placed under a Vice-President who took charge of the matter from then on. One week later, it was Cardinal Levada who took the path to retirement.That the SSPX would state that the proposal of the predecessor did not suit it is clear. To affirm it is to force an open door. And the Pope already took it into consideration several weeks ago because he changed the interlocutors of the SSPX, admitting that the previous ones had failed on that famous June 13. By submitting the affair to an Archbishop Vice-President with whom he has direct communication, and not anymore to a Monsignor secretary, he reshapes relations with the Society on different bases.The latest SSPX communiqué stated that it will address a declaration to Rome. This text will undoubtedly serve as grounds for the upcoming relations. Those who think that this is the endpoint, that those in charge of the Fraternity have definitively given up on the idea of putting an end to the injustices that burden them, and of fulling restoring the Tradition of the Church to Rome, risk being disappointed in the days and weeks ahead. Abp. Lefebvre said that the solution would come from Rome. It is precisely for this reason that he never stopped going there.
______________________________________________________
un post par notre invité Côme de Prévigny
La Croix on the SSPX General Chapter
The midterm General Chapter of the Society of Saint Pius X (FSSPX /SSPX) is under way in Écône, Switzerland. The semi-official daily of the French Episcopate, La Croix, has a good overview of the event.
Rapprochement with Rome divides LefebvristsA General Chapter of the Society of Saint Pius X begins on Monday, July 9, in Écône (Switzerland), while the Lefebvrist movement is crossed by strong tensionsThe doctrinal preamble proposed by Rome for discussion is the object of lively debates. One third of the Society is supposed to be opposed to Bp. Bernard Fellay, their Superior General, and to any agreement.Officially, there are "no dissenssions": "No group or priest has announced that he would leave the Society," Father Grégoire Célier, spokesman of the French District, affirms. However, deep divisions have appeared these last few weeks between the majority led by Bp. Bernard Fellay, the Superior General, favorable to an agreement with Rome, and a hardline wing, hostile to him and that could attempt a coup of force during the Chapter.That is shown by the exchange of letters made public on May 10 on the internet displaying the lively disagreement between the leader of the Lefebvrists and the three other bishops of the Society, who have condemned any practical agreement. Or, more recently, the putting aside of Bp. Richard Williamson, due to "his stand calling to rebellion."According to several observers, "Bp. Fellay unquestionably wants an agreement, and has moved forward considerably." In his June 29 sermon, he certainly recognized: "We have returned to the point of departure, in which we said we could not sign." But he also reminded: "We are Roman, and this we cannot put behind us. Even if we have to suffer from the Rome of today, we cannot renounce Rome, head of the Church."One third of the Society opposed to the agreement
More on Abp. DiNoia's prayer request to his confreres
From the Order of Preachers Vocations blog, which is run on behalf of the Dominican Province of St. Joseph in the USA:
Via our provincial, Archbishop Augustine DiNoia sent an email to the friars, sisters and Dominican fraternities to pray the Litany of the Dominican Saints for the reconciliation of the Society of St. Pius X.
For the record: Important interview with Ecclesia Dei VP Di Noia
"The Pope doesn't want this division to continue"
Archbishop J.A. Di Noia granted an interview to the National Catholic Register on his new position as Vice-President of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, which we post here for the record of events.
What stage has the Vatican reached in its talks with the SSPX?
To be honest, I don’t know. I have a steep learning curve in terms of the issues as they have developed in the dialogue. When I came here, I studied the history of the reform and took a close look at the council, so I’ve learned a lot about the objections that come from that world. I’ve read books by Romano Amerio and Roberto de Mattei on the [Second Vatican] Council, and, of course, I’ve been studying the Council for years; so, in that sense, I have a framework out of which I can talk with them about their problems.
Another factor of great importance, autobiographically for me, is that I had lived my entire religious life, until I came here to Rome, in a Dominican priory, mostly in Washington or in New Haven, Conn. In those places, the hermeneutic of continuity and reform, if I may put it that way, was lived. I never experienced the Council as a rupture. It’s interesting — only as I’ve begun to read this traditionalist literature and interpretation have I begun to understand that, in a certain sense, there are problems that are real. But if you cease to believe that the Holy Spirit is preserving the Church from error, you cut your moorings.
The councils cannot — whatever their interpretations may be by the left or right, or whatever the intentions of the authors were of the council documents — be led into error. All of the documents stand. Schism is not the answer. So I’m sympathetic to the society, but the solution is not breaking off from the Church.
That being the case, why do you think some Catholics have decided to stick to “frozen” tradition, as it were, rather than coming into full communion?
Schmidberger: some "people in the Vatican" have attempted to derail reconciliation
The district superior of Germany [of the Society of Saint Pius X (FSSPX / SSPX)], [Father Franz] Schmidberger, says to this newspaper that he knows that there are "people in the Vatican" that, against the will of the Pope, have thrown a wrench in the works.
Yet, Schmidberger described the nomination of the American Archbishop Joseph Augustine Di Noia last Tuesday as vice-president of the Ecclesia Dei commission as a "good sign". This commission operates under the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and is responsible for the dialogue with the SSPX. Schmidberger assumes that Di Noia will advance the case according to the will of the Pope.
The Vatican spokesman Lombardi, however, told this newspaper that the Pope is indeed "in favour of reunion, but only under clear theological conditions". These conditions had not changed. The Dominican Di Noia was until recently secretary of the Congregation for the Sacraments.
Thouvenot claims in his letter that circulates the internet that the pope approves of the version of the doctrinal preamble as presented by Bp. Fellay in April.
(...) While the Pope had approved of Fellay's version, Cardinal Levada would have proposed a version to Bp. Fellay mid-June that was "rolled back a couple of months". Accepting this version is "clearly unacceptable", according to Thouvenot [in the leaked internal correspondence]. Fellay would have reported this to Levada immediately.
(...)
The Vatican demands from the Society the recognition of the doctrinal positions of the bishops and the Pope since Vatican II. This requirement retained in the (unpublished) "doctrinal preamble", which was formulated by the CDF last September as a fundament for a possible reconciliation. The Vatican has rejected the first two responses of the Traditionalists for being "insufficient". The Society does not want to profess religious freedom or ecumenism.
Op-Ed (English - français)
SSPX: Last-minute hurdles?
FSSPX: obstacles de dernière heure?
a guest-post by Côme de Prévigny
On April 18, Andrea Tornielli titled on his blog Sacri Palazzi: "Fellay's response is positive". For him, the agreement had been made. Always well informed by the Romans responsible for the dossier, he deemed himself authorized to write: "the text of the preamble delivered by Bp. Fellay proposes some minor modifications of the version sent by the Vatican authorities." And, every day that followed it, the most optimistic rumors spread out. In support of what was known within the Vatican, from the very prelates in charge of the affair, Jean-Marie Guénois, always well informed, said from his corner: "It is a matter of days, and not of weeks anymore [...]. These last few weeks, the final points have been settled between Rome and Écône in order to better respond to the demands of 'clarifications' asked for by the Vatican on March 16."
Yet, two months later, a thick fog descends upon the religious landscape. While all observers thought that they saw the Roman Pontiff decide once and for all the matter to which he had dedicated a good part of his pontificate upon the delivery of a new document to Bishop Fellay on June 13, the communiqué of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith of June 14 foresaw an "additional moment of reflection". The one from the Society of Saint Pius X, of the same day, gave rise to the same uncertainty by evoking a "new phase of discussions". Even if it is known that this kind of rebound is usual in the end of difficult negotiations, one can only speculate, particularly since the number of Roman prelates who thought that the agreement would be formalized is quite larger than than those who seemed to want this new postponement. It is as if those who accused Bp. Fellay of never being able to decide suddenly found themselves with a beam in their eyes.
Already within the Society, those spirits for whom an agreement with the Apostolic See is unthinkable began to delude themselves by imagining that their action had dealt a fatal blow to this fateful process which intended, in their view, to destroy them. If their reasoning were to be followed, it should rather be imagined that Rome would have taken advantage of the division of the four bishops to deal a fatal blow to the work of Abp. Lefebvre by moving on with the process until the end. The rebound of June 13 makes them look mistaken in every scenario.
What was it then that happened between April and June? In the month of May, according to several agreeing sources, the feria quarta [Wednesday] meeting of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, aware that they acted according to the will of the Pope, endorsed the final draft proposed by Bp. Fellay, following several movements of the text between Rome and Menzingen. The Pope imagined it - the Cardinals accomplished it. Despite a certain number of absentees and of some restriction of placet iusta modum, the text had finally had the consent of their Eminences, probably aware that they would not have to meet forever. On that day, the agreement was virtually concluded. On the basis of clearly defined positions on the occasion of the doctrinal discussions that had delineated the differences, Pope Benedict XVI was ready to grant to the Society that which Abp. Lefebvre had tirelessly asked from Cardinal Ratzinger: the assurance of a traditional episcopate independent from the pressures of the local conferences.
If the internet offers a magnifying effect to the fiery sermons of some Traditionalist priests who think they can undermine their hierarchy by having their words propagated by Sedevacantist websites, the web does not say anything of the real issues afflicting the Church. Bp. Fellay reached in mid-April the limits of the line granted to the Society by Abp. Lefebvre, at the very risk of causing dismay to some of his colleagues who increased the manifestations of their fears. Those Roman interlocutors who have provoked this rebound have probably not really perceived this. It is also likely that they feared the increase of the silent opposition of the German episcopate, who presented their own ultimatums to the Successor of Peter. The extreme reluctance of Bp. Fellay seemed to suggest that they hid themselves behind formulas that created an impasse upon several months of clarifications and discussions, thus risking their own disavowal.
Paradoxically, they have rendered a great service to Bp. Fellay, by allowing him to show that, while doing his utmost for the canonical recognition of the eminently Roman work of Abp. Lefebvre, his firmness remained intact, as is shown by the way by a letter of Father Thouvenot fraudulently released on the internet. The fact remains that only the Pope has the power to bind and loose. Faced with all opposition - the strongest of which being that of those closes to him -, it is to him that belongs, in fine, the right to decide. After twelve years of discussions, at the end of seven years of pontificate, this man, who a few weeks ago said that enough injustices had been committed against the Society, will set in place the endpoint which he alone, as head of the Church, has the right to set in place.
____________________________________________
[French version:]
For the record: Rome-SSPX: Against the Rumors. Part 3 of Angelus Press Interview with Fr. Arnaud Rostand
Part 1
Part 2
Part 2
PART 3:
Part 3 reviews the personal prelature, the Rosary Crusade, this year’s General Chapter of the SSPX, as well as appeals to the faithful.
SSPX-Rome divinations
From Jean-Marie Guénois for Le Figaro (June 15, main excerpt, with our emphases):
Bp. Fellay, Superior of the Society of Saint Pius X, will consult his General Chapter in July before responding to the Pope. Between Rome and Écône, things get more detailed but more complicated at the same time. Bp. Bernard Fellay, Superior of the Society of Saint Pius X, came back to Menzingen (Switzerland), its admistrative center, on Thursday, with a Roman dossier that is heavier than what had been foreseen. From which, the first information: the signature of an agreement with the Holy See is not for tomorrow. Both in the proper and in the figurative sense. It is now certain that Bp. Fellay will not be able to give a response to these last Roman proposals before the end of the General Chapter of the Society of Saint Pius X, that will take place in [Écône,] Switzerland on July 7-14.
Contrary to certain rumors, this meeting will not see the calling into question of Bp. Fellay from his position of Superior: he is in the middle of a twelve-year term. But capital decisions will certainly be taken: to continue negotiations? To suspend them? To discontinue them? Or to continue [reaching out to] this outstretched hand of Benedict XVI, who wishes to see the disciples of Abp. Marcel Lefebvre reintegrate into the Catholic Church? In expectation, as seen from Rome, the ball is on the Lefebvrists's field. And they are divided on the subject.
From an article by Summorum Pontificum Observatus, whose handling of the initial publication of the correspondence of the SSPX bishops partly sparked the current mess (June 15, main excerpt, with our emphases):
When everything seemed ready for a final agreement between the Holy See and the Fraternity of St. Pius X, Bp. Fellay, its Superior General, returned to Menzingen this Thursday with a new document in hand. According to several sources, it is assured that this document does not correspond to the one that had been expected, and that several important modifications had been added to it. From the Roman side, three people met with the Superior of the Society of St. Pius X, Cardinal Levada, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Mgr. Pozzo, secretary of the Commission Ecclesia Dei, and Abp. Luis Francisco Ladaria Ferrer, SJ, Secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, who would have played a part that one day will have to be taken into consideration. In this state, Bishop Fellay could not sign the "doctrinally modified" document, leading to the postponement announced in both communiqués, that of the Holy See followed by one of the Society of Saint Pius X for an external [audience].
Several serious vaticanists had announced the final agreement as certain [before the June 13 meeting] and, for this time perhaps, there was no exaggeration on their part. But it might be that there was a crisis at the very heart of the Curia, even if at present there is no evidence to seriously confirm this. From his side, faithful to the line he has chosen, determined to abdicate nothing doctrinally (and it would seem that the difficulties of a doctrinal order have been added at the last moment), Bp. Fellay will continue his reflection and his consultation, within the frame of the General Chapter and certainly more widely. It is currently clear that the response will take time and that time, either in a positive or in a negative sense, will also play its part.
Both articles should be taken with a large amount of salt. We in Rorate, in the analysis of all aspects of the situation, somewhat agree, though, that
something happened in the Curia. Is the will of the Pope being
distorted? Did he himself change his mind from a specific moment in
the recent past to the present? This is the key to what may have
happened within the Palace of the Holy Office in the days that led to
the June 13 meeting. The influence and eventual pressure of the Cardinals and Bishops who attended the crucial Wednesday (Feria IV) meeting of May 16, or the action of some episcopal conferences, should not be discounted either.
Cardinal Burke: "with the leadership of Pope Benedict XVI and Bp. Fellay this reconciliation can take place"
Speaking to the Catholic News Service of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (CNS) in an interview recorded a few hours ago, Cardinal Burke has remarkable words on the ongoing process:
It is to be hoped that Cardinal Burke will personally intervene in this matter. Once again, as it happened in the case of the almost-full-approval of the Neocatechumenal liturgy, dark and hidden agents in the Curia could perhaps be trying to distort the will and words of the Holy Father, and good men like His Eminence may have to act forcefully.
Communiqué of the General House of the Society of Saint Pius X
Communiqué of the General House of the Society of Saint Pius X (June 14, 2011)
On Wednesday, June 13, 2012, Bp. Bernard Fellay, Superior General of the Society of Saint Pius X, joined by the First Assistant General, Father Niklaus Pfluger, was received by Cardinal William Levada, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, who delivered to him the evaluation of his dicastery of the Doctrinal declaration presented by the Fraternity on April 15, 2012, in response to the Doctrinal Preamble submitted by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on September 14, 2011.
In the course of this meeting, Bp. Fellay listened to the explanations and details presented by Cardinal Levada, to whom he presented the situation of the Society of Saint Pius X and exposed the doctrinal difficulties posed by the Second Vatican Council and the Novus Ordo Missae. The desire for supplementary clarifications could lead to a new phase of discussions. [Emphasis added]
In the course of this meeting, Bp. Fellay listened to the explanations and details presented by Cardinal Levada, to whom he presented the situation of the Society of Saint Pius X and exposed the doctrinal difficulties posed by the Second Vatican Council and the Novus Ordo Missae. The desire for supplementary clarifications could lead to a new phase of discussions. [Emphasis added]
At the end of this long audience of over 2 hours, Bp. Fellay received a project of a document proposing a Personal Prelature, in the case of an eventual canonical recognition of the Society of Saint Pius X. In the course of the meeting, the matter of the situation of the three other bishops of the Society was not discussed.
At the end of this meeting, it was desired that the dialogue will be pursued that will allow the reaching of a solution for the good of the Church and of souls.
At the end of this meeting, it was desired that the dialogue will be pursued that will allow the reaching of a solution for the good of the Church and of souls.
Holy See Press Office communiqué
On the afternoon of Wednesday 13 June, Cardinal William Levada, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and president of the Pontifical Commission 'Ecclesia Dei', met with Bishop Bernard Fellay, superior general of the Society of St. Pius X who was accompanied by an assistant. Also present at the encounter were Archbishop Luis Ladaria S.J., secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and Msgr. Guido Pozzo, secretary of the Pontifical Commission 'Ecclesia Dei'.
The purpose of the meeting was to present the Holy See's evaluation of the text submitted in April by the Society of St. Pius X in response to the Doctrinal Preamble which the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith had presented to the Society on 14 September 2011. The subsequent discussion offered an opportunity the provide the appropriate explanations and clarifications. For his part, Bishop Fellay illustrated the current situation of the Society of St. Pius X and promised to make his response known within a reasonable lapse of time.
Also during the meeting, a draft document was submitted proposing a Personal Prelature as the most appropriate instrument for any future canonical recognition of the Society.
As was stated in the communique released on 16 May 2012, the situation of the other three bishops of the Society of St. Pius X will be dealt with separately and singularly.
At the end of the meeting the hope was expressed that this additional opportunity for reflection would also contribute to reaching full communion between the Society of St. Pius X and the Apostolic See.
Bishop Tissier de Mallerais: "The irregularity is that of Rome, a Modernist Rome."
Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais is one of the four bishops of the
Society of Saint Pius X (FSSPX / SSPX) consecrated by Abp. M. Lefebvre
in 1988. He will ordain 8 new priests (6 for the SSPX and 2 for the Traditional Benedictines) and 13 deacons (all SSPX) on Friday, June 15, in the SSPX seminary in Winona, then preside over 3 confirmation ceremonies from June 17 to 24.
Rivarol, a French periodical mostly dealing with political matters, published the following interview with him today. The interview itself was conducted on the first of June.
Rivarol, a French periodical mostly dealing with political matters, published the following interview with him today. The interview itself was conducted on the first of June.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)