Rorate Caeli

Rome-SSPX - Decisive moments? Pope's response to be delivered to Bp. Fellay today [Updated]

[June 14 - SEE HOLY SEE PRESS OFFICE COMMUNIQUÉ]
[June 14 - SEE COMMUNIQUÉ OF THE GENERAL HOUSE OF THE SOCIETY OF SAINT PIUS X]

Bishop Fellay, the Superior General of the Society of Saint Pius X (FSSPX / SSPX) will receive in the upcoming hours the papal response in Rome.* From Vaticanist Andrea Tornielli, writing for La Stampa - the excerpt below includes all new information:

After having studied with attention the text of the doctrinal preamble, with the modifications requested by the Superior of the Society of Saint Pius X, Benedict XVI would have made his decision and had delivered it to Cardinal William Levada, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and to the Secretary of the same Dicastery, Archbishop Luis Ladaria Ferrer, during the audience granted to both last Saturday.

The text of the doctrinal declaration is a top secret, but it will be published - this was assured from the beginning - if an agreement between the Holy See and the Society founded by Archbishop Lefebvre is formalized. It is not possible to know, therefore, if modifications or clarifications were added to the text that Bishop Bernard Fellay had sent to Rome in mid-April and that the Cardinals had examined and discussed on May 15, in the Feria Quarta [Wednesday meeting] of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. In the upcoming hours, the papal response may be delivered to the Lefebvrian superior. It will be up to him to give final assent to the preamble. ...  If Fellay, after having received the Vatican response, signs the doctrinal declaration, the agreement will be officially announced.

In any event, the matter concerning the other three Lefebvrian bishops will remain open ... . Even if the Superior of the [Society of] Saint Pius X signs the doctrinal declaration, the positions of the three bishops will be examined individually by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
_____________________________________

*[Update:] French religious news agency I.Media confirms the information that the Superior General is in Rome and adds the following (it is now 1430 in Rome):

The Superior of the Society of Saint Pius X (FSSPX), Bp. Bernard Fellay, was called to the Vatican to meet, in the afternoon of June 13, 2012, the officers of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), I.Media has learned. Following this meeting, the Prefect of this Dicastery, Cardinal William Levada, will deliver to the FSSPX authority the conclusions of Benedict XVI at the end of the discussions aiming at bringing the Society to full communion with Rome. [Via Le Salon Beige]
_____________________________________

[1630 Rome - Update] From Austrian Catholic news agency Kathpress:
Lombardi: Negotiations with the Society of Saint Pius X still in progress
Vatican City, 13.06.2012 (KAP) - The reintegration process between the Vatican and the "Society of St. Pius X" (SSPX) is, in the words of Vatican spokesman Federico Lombardi, "still underway". Currently, there is no information on a decision, he told "Kathpress" on Wednesday.
_____________________________________

[1700 Rome - Update:] "SSPX +Fellay entered Cong for Doctrine of Faith bldg at 5 p.m. Rome time for meet with Card. Levada" (Catholic News Service Twitter feed)

And also: from La Croix, the semi-official daily of the French Episcopate:

[In the final text of the preamble] there remained however formulations judged non-acceptable by Rome, notably the mention of the "errors of the council": to put it clearly, the Society may have reservation on this or that point of Vatican II (freedom of conscience, interreligious dialogue, ecumenism), but they cannot speak of the "errors of the council". This preamble should be made public once the final agreement of Bp. Fellay is given. On the other hand, the original version proposed by Rome, around which the discussion revolved, will not be known.

_____________________________________

[1730 Rome time] Just a Rorate reminder: new ecclesial structures in the Latin Church are usually established by Apostolic Constitutions. That was also the case of the first and still only Personal Prelature ever established, the Personal Prelature of the Holy Cross and Opus Dei, to which the previously-existing Priestly Society of the Holy Cross, "erected as a clerical Association" was "intrinsically united", by way of the Apostolic Constitution Ut sit, of John Paul II (November 28, 1982).

[1902 Rome - Update]  "Bishop Fellay meeting CDF perfect Cardinal Levada at the Vatican has now been running for two full hours SSPX" (A. Speciale Twitter feed).


[1930 Rome time - Update] "Vatican meeting w/ +Fellay reported over after 2.5 hours. He went other direction to avoid press. No word yet on if anything resolved." (Catholic News Service Twitter feed)

[1950 Rome time - Update] "The response of Benedict XVI to the 'Lefebvrists' not to be known before the weekend." "Bp. Fellay will have some days to put his signature on the text"  (SSPX spokesman Fr. Lorans, to Agence France Presse - LB2S Twitter feed (La Croix religion journalist) Lorans added that "it will be a week-10 days before further moves, today was just a step in the process" (A.Speciale Twitter feed)

175 comments:

poeta said...

Time for more prayers.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
sacristy_rat said...

Many IF's in the post! May IF's

Miles Dei said...

Praying too...

Matt said...

Anxioiusly praying...

Matt

David Werling said...

St. Anthony of Padua, pray for us!

Ora et Labora said...

I am praying too!!!

May God's Holy Will Be Done!!!

Mary Help of Christians pray for us!!!

St. Anthony pray for us!!!

Matt said...

On an aside, WHEN (thinking positively here) the Society comes back into the Church, is Tornielli going to drop his pejorative reference to the SSPX? Lefebvrists! It is condescending, plain and simple.

1917 said...

I pray for SSPX unity. There can be no agreement where three of the bishops are excluded.

I would not intentionally break up my family! Perhaps there are many who would...

1917 said...

Anyone who leaves their brothers and children behind is not a father.

Dr. Timothy J. Williams said...

There is a more important question than a formal reconciliation, which is nothing but an exterior sign that the SSPX has always been Catholic. No, the real issue is whether the Pope will enforce his own decrees and make it possible for the SSPX to send priests where they are needed and wanted, in opposition to the 90% of "catholic" bishops who are openly schismatic. Of this I am highly dubious. I think an agreement, if it comes, will change virtually nothing.

JMR said...

Dear Matt, I think calling the bishops "Lefebvrists"is part of the tactic to alienate them as a fringe group .
It is the same tactic used to describe people who refuse to believe in man-made global warming as "deniers' and people who doubt the qualifications of the current president of the USA as "birthers".
I certainly know from which school this tactic originates.

JMR said...

1917. I totally agree.

Irony said...

Praying... Hoping there are no unacceptable changes thrown in at the last minute by the Vatican. Hoping too, that Bishop Tissier de Mallerais and Bishop de Galarreta are actually onboard. No real comments from either so far, with the exception of the one letter (which was never meant for public view anyway). I know Bishop Tissier de Mallerais gave a recent sermon which some like to interpret as still being against the agreement but truth is he declared nothing in the sermon, and much could also be interpreted in the opposite direction. So, we shall see. I can't imagine that he would be conferring the Ordinations in Winona this year if they were worried about him acting as a loose canon.

Martyjo said...

1917, Bishop Fellay is not the one who is breaking the family up. If there is any split in the family, it will be because the recognised authority in the family has been rejected. Let us hope and pray that the other Bishops of the SSPX do not become obstinate in their refusal to trust the Superior General.

Archbishop Lefebvre would have been most disappointed with this wrangling between the Bishops, whose principle duty it is to display mutual charity and unity of purpose in the preservation and expansion of the mission of the SSPX. It is unthinkable that a split might arise because, of all things, the Bishops are unable to sit down with each other and resolve these differences.

This having been said, we should not speculate too much at this time. We still don't know what the Pope will formally propose in relation to the SSPX so it is pointless trying to assume anything until the details are known. Prayers are the order of the day just now!

Maricruz said...

I am not lefebvrist but from my point of view those who refuse to sign will be treated later individually from what I can´t conclude that someone is leaving behind.

No father will choose that for his children unless them freely choose to reject his fatherhood guidance.

It´s is time for brave people, definetively.

Anil Wang said...

Dr. Timothy J. Williams,

Don't be too sure. Remember most of the parables speak of starting small (yeast, mustard seeds, etc) and glowing enormously (100 fold harvest).

Remember, all of Mexico was gained from a single peasant and one apparition.

At a very minimum, the chastening of the LCWR and acceptance of the SSPX is a clear sign to the entire Church that the "Spirit of Vatican II" is dead. Eventually that will filter down to the less informed laity that for the most part want to be faithful, but have been given nothing substantial and little true to be faithful to.

Martyjo said...

I should have added to my post above that the liberals in the Roman Curia will seek to make full use of any apparent disagreement between the Bishops of the SSPX. I think we can already see this in various statements that seemingly rule out all SSPX Bishops other than Bishop Fellay from these present negotiations. The Pope, however, has not said as much so we'll wait and see.

I just wish the imprudent person who sinfully published that private exchange of letters between the SSPX Bishops had thought of the consequences that would result from his illicit action. But, then, maybe he did! Either way, may God forgive him.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Martyjo said...

Anil Wang,

I agree with you 100%

Cosmos said...

Martyjo said...

"Archbishop Lefebvre would have been most disappointed with this wrangling between the Bishops . . . It is unthinkable that a split might arise because, of all things, the Bishops are unable to sit down with each other and resolve these differences."

Unthinkable? I have no animosity for the SSPX at all, but they have been walking a very fine line for years. The society was founded on the principle of standing for the Truth even against God-appointed authority. When hierarchical structures actually existed in society, this would have been a difficult and extremely uncomfortable thing for a Catholic to do. It seems as if B. Lefebvre understood how to do this in a Catholic spirit. On the other hand, our entire generation has been brought up in secular, protestant-based, democracies. Following one's will at all moments is the basis of our entire civilization, and standing one's ground against any authority that would thwart it is the most natural thing in the world to us. In fact, it is the great virtue of our individualistic age.

While we all work to reconform ourselves to the structure of the Church, allowing one's self to be led against one's will goes against every fiber of our modern revolutionary beings. Should anyone be suprised at all if these bishops "stand their ground"?

Now unifying behind an obscure Creed with a demanding moral code at the mercy of men who do not always see eye-to-eye with you, that sounds more "unthinkable" to me!

We should pray for a spirit of charity for our Pope, discernment and courage for B. Fellay, and humility and obedience for the other bishops.

Ceolfrid said...

I wouldn't get wrapped around the axle about the term "Lefebvrist" right now. Afterall, no one seems to spaz about terms like "Benedictine" or "Ignatian". It's just a description. It's only perjorative if "Lefebvrist" implies "non-Catholic", which it does not.

Doc said...

Regarding leaving his confreres, IF refusing recognintion and canonical integration would amount to a real act of schism on his part, and they choose to refuse, then he must leave them.

Luke 14:26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Martyjo said...

someone,

"On Saturday is the Feast of the Immaculate Heart of the Virgin Mary. May Her Heart triumph!!"

It most surely will, and very soon!!

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
AppleJuice said...

It's a sad state when Abshp Lefebvre left the superior general in charge as the principle of unity of the SSPX and trusted he would know what to do at a time like this and yet have others disregard his office. It is also unfortunate that there are some people who view the SSPX as a sort of democracy between the four Bishops when this has never been the case and anyone of it's Priests in the society is eligible to be it's superior and all four Bishops would be subordinate to him (think Fr. Schmidberger days). There doesn't have to be a majority vote between the Bishops - sure it would be nice - but their duty is to follow their superior. Unfortunately the fine line SSPX has walked these years consists of members who were not able to walk it and went too far off into rebellion mode where all concept of Catholic obedience, Divine Providence, humility and hierarchy have been forgotten. Do those who wish to separate themselves from the SSPX really expect the 'faithful' to be true and submit to them? The endless fracturing is a fruit of wrongdoing.

But God's Holy Will be done - let the wheat and the chaff (inside the SSPX and outside)make their decisions and live with them and their consequences. As long as their is God's Mercy and forgiveness their is always hope.

NIANTIC said...

Come Holy Ghost and fill the heart of H.E.Bishop Bernard Fellay with Your wisdom. May God's Will be perfectly clear and done!

Brother Juniper said...

The Church needs SSPX. I pray that loyalty to the Church, loyalty to Christ, rules the day. Thy will be done.

Short-Skirts said...

And so the decisive moment,

When Benedict's choice is cogent,

When all will see if it be,

Whether +Fellay is his opponent.

Cruise the Groove. said...

Will Bishop Fellay make amendments to this latest proposal and send it back to the Holy Father?

Round and round, back and forth.
I wonder when it will end?

rodrigo said...

Champagne on ice.

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

After reading this announcement, I have trouble remembering my own name. Who is signing what again?

P.K.T.P.

Cruise the Groove. said...

"After reading this announcement, I have trouble remembering my own name. Who is signing what again?
"

I think it is Thomas Jefferson and Napolean Bonaparte, but I could be wrong.

Persevering prayerfully said...

While we WAIT for OFFICIAL announcements from the Vicar of Christ and H.E. Bishop Fellay, the Holy Spirit Himself consoles us with the significant sign of His interaction in the Holy Father's soul by the words the Holy Father - TODAY. "Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks." Matt. 12:34.

"The principal focus of the Pope’s remarks this Wednesday was the Apostle’s testimony to his own experience of contemplative prayer.
Defending the legitimacy of his apostolate, Paul appeals above all to his profound closeness to the Lord in prayer, marked by moments of ecstasy, visions and revelations (cf. 2 Cor 12:1ff.). Yet he speaks too of a trial which the Lord sent him lest he become conceited: a mysterious thorn in the flesh (v. 7). Paul therefore willingly boasts of his weakness, in order that the power of Christ might dwell in him (v. 10).
Pope Benedict went on to say that, through this experience of mystical prayer, Paul realized that God’s Kingdom comes about not by our own efforts but by the power of God’s grace shining through our poor earthen vessels (cf. 2 Cor 4:7).
We see that contemplative prayer is both exalting and troubling, since we experience both the beauty of God’s love and the sense of our own weakness. Paul teaches us the need for daily perseverance in prayer, even at times of dryness and difficulty, for it is there that we experience the life-changing power of God’s love."
(News.Va)

"Veni Sancte Spiritus" - When the Holy Father exhorts us to "DAILY PERSEVERANCE IN PRAYER", the Holy Spirit is not just near - He is here.

For the Sovereign Pontiff and H.E. Bishop Fellay, may Our Blessed Mother intercede for all they need in order that they may definitively DO the Will of the Holy Trinity.

MK said...

If Rome decides to "opt-in" the three bishops, high possibility the bishops may not want to join, because they would have to be actively requesting to join. Why don't they just decide to include the bishops automatically in the structure and they can "opt-out" if they don't want to be part of it? By the way rumour said that agreement will be announced on Friday June 15.

Kumquat said...

1917, you said, "Anyone who leaves their brothers and children behind is not a father."

This contradicts what Jesus said about loving family more than Him. You can look that up for yourself in the Gospels.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
MJ said...

So does this last piece of news mean Fellay didn't sign the Pope's doctrinal declaration?

Spero said...

"Still underway" does not tell us much. Even if they had decisively concluded the doctrinal dealings, it is possible that the matters pertaining to canonical structure would be ongoing.

Cruise the Groove. said...

This latest update from 'Kathpress" leads me to believe more strongly that the back and forth "doctrinal hotpotato agreement" continues.

The Holy Father has to put a stop to this procrastination.

Alcibiades said...

Can we all just accept that nothing Tornielli says is true? Let's stop getting excited by these false alarms. Face it--if anything ever happens, it will happen out of the blue, with little preceding announcement, and that only from the Vatican itself.

LILY said...

Bishop Fellay is indeed in Rome. de Mallereais will Ordain into SSPX, 8 young men in Winona, Mn on Friday. I hope his sermon on Friday will be about the priesthood and not wasted criticizing the negotiations.

Carl said...

Exsurgat Deus et dissipentur inimici eius

Carl said...

Exsurgat Deus et dissipentur inimici eius

Ferraiuolo said...

"Still underway" as in what? This will conclude today? More days? More weeks? Months? Years?

Where is the end to all of this?!

Cruise the Groove. said...

Thats why Pope Benedict XVI has to step in and put an end to this now.

Or maybe his authority ends at the doorway of his audience hall?

Antoñana. said...

Last news!

http://www.intereconomia.com/blog/cigueena-torre/hoy-se-cierra-laus-deo-20120613

Steve H. said...

"SSPX +Fellay entered Cong for Doctrine of Faith bldg at 5 p.m. Rome time for meet with Card. Levada"

https://twitter.com/CatholicNewsSvc/status/212924237382557696

Lamentably Sane said...

”Bishop Fellay is indeed in Rome. de Mallereais will Ordain into SSPX, 8 young men in Winona, Mn on Friday. I hope his sermon on Friday will be about the priesthood and not wasted criticizing the negotiations."
Hear Hear! Ever time Bishop Williamson makes snide remarks about his superior's actions it brings shame on him and scandal to the faithful. I hope Bishop Tissier can just do his job.

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

We must distinguish between two steps here. The Pope may or may not have amended yet again what Fellay has already signed. So Fellay is apparently being asked to sign again. I can't understand why he must sign yet again unless the Pope has amended the document he's already signed. So this is not over.

The second step is to determine a canonical arrangement. That is the last reference, I presume, from the Austrian source. That mattar is separate and distinct. Fr. Schmidberger has said, however, that it should not be difficult if the first part can be settled.

Pray.

P.K.T.P.

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

Dr. Timothy J. Williams:

Thank God for men like you, Dr. Williams, who actually make some sense. First of all, this is why the form of the canonical arrangement will be crucial; it is why a personal prelature would be deadly if Canon 297 is left to stand. Secondly, you are dead right that S.P. has not been enforced. It was effective only for its first eleven months. Before the baby could take its first steps, the bishops smothered it under their Marxist-red pillows. Why won't the P.C.E.D. enforce it, esp. after U.E. gave it the authority it needs. Why can a da Cruz Policarpo of Lisbon still keep all T.L.M.s out of his Archdiocese and out of Portugal, save for the exception at Fatima? I could go on and on. Why has there been 'negative growth' in terms of American and, to a lesser extent, French dioceses having every-Sunday Latin Masses? The idea was to increase provision for our Mass. The liberals misread the motu proprio? They seem to think that Benedict XVI wants them to stamp it out.

Perhaps Pozzo should spend less time re-re-re-reforming our Mass than doing his job with the bishops. Perhaps he should spend less time forcing Vatican II nonsense down the throats of the Institute of the Good Shepherd than doing his job with the bishops. If he wants to 'do a study' on the effects of the Vatican II ambiguous doctrine, he need only 'study' the empty seminaries and the collapse of the Church from Ireland to Poland, from America to Peru. A tree that bears bad fruit will be cut down and cast into the fire.

P.K.T.P.

Praydor said...

Bishop Fellay asked for a Novena to the Sacred Heart. The feast is Friday...

JabbaPapa said...

La Croix is reporting that it's positive :

http://www.la-croix.com/Religion/Urbi-Orbi/Rome/Mgr-Fellay-a-recu-la-reponse-de-Benoit-XVI-pour-la-reintegration-de-la-Fraternite-Saint-Pie-X-_NG_-2012-06-13-818090

(I've no idea if they're being premature, or not)

Carl said...

What does it really mean that the other bishops will be treated separately and individually? LILY's comment bringings up an important practical aspect. It is not as though they are going to stop exercising their ministry in the Society. They will continue confirming and ordaining, preaching and teaching, advancing the harder line, doing what they do. Neither Rome nor any local bishop can do anything about that. So what does it really mean on a concrete level whether their ministry is recognized?

It seems to me that not recognizing them yet allows the matter to continue to proceed in steps. Both sides can (correctly) emphasize the limitedness of what has been done, that problems remain, the need for ongoing discussions, the affirmation that this can better be accomplished IN the Church ("ad intra"), in an atmosphere of greater mutual trust and respect.

What a wonderful thing it would be for the long prayed for day - a day that seemed impossible not long ago - to be accomplished on the feast of St. Anthony, one more glory accomplished by his intercession.

St. Anthony, pray for us,
Hammer of Heretics, pray for us,
Professor of Miracles, pray for us,
Evangelical Doctor, pray for us,
Beloved of the Infant Jesus, pray for us,
Glory of the Friars Minor, pray for us,
Tamer of Tyrants, pray for us.

Hugh said...

"This preamble should be made public once the final agreement of Bp. Fellay is given. On the other hand, the original version proposed by Rome, around which the discussion revolved, will not be known."

Significant.

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

It was, as I said, the problem with Tissier's Sermon: this reference to 'the errors of the Council'. This has been deemed to be unacceptable because Rome alone can determine if there were errors, not only doctrinal errors but even expressive errors. We might have a right to contend that there are expressive errors, at least, but this wiil not be admitted by Rome in an official document. If Rome is to clarify and even correct some expressions, it is she who must do this to make any changes official.

On the last point, I wish that Rorate had not referred to that particular structure yet again. We should do what we can to discourage its adoption. It would be best not even to mention it. It is true, however, that an apostolic constitution would be likely. When the Anglicans' structure was created, the personal ordinariate, this was done by apostolic constitution in 2009. The one for the military ordinariates was also created that way in 1986. However the territorial ordinariates were created only by apostolic letter (viz. "Officium Supremi Apostolatus"), but that was 'way back' in 1912. So I think that Rorate is right: a new ordinariate or ritual church sui juris, for instance, would likely come by apostolic constitution.

P.K.T.P.

Hugh said...

L.S.

Bishop Tissier does do a splendid job - he was right to intimate the major weaknesses of the conciliarist church the other day. Convenience was never a hallmark of Christ's mission on Earth. There is no reason why Bishop Williamson should do any other than speak plainly. When all is said and done in a fraternal relationship one would have expected all four bishops to have been discussing these issues gathered together in confidence and not just one person making a very major decision without his confreres being properly informed. This is not a religious order whose superior has a predetermined hierarchical role.

Excited? said...

Good gracious, I'm on the edge of my seat :) Someone please translate the summary of what this all means in a few simple minded English sentences for me please! :) Thanks!

Johannes de Silentio said...

I sincerely hope I'm wrong, but it might be ominous if it is true that the Society will not be able to speak of the "errors" of the Council. On the one hand, this would explain Bishop Fellay's recent statements, such as many understandings of the Council are not the proper understanding, and so on. It would also explain why Cardinal Koch et. al. have continually said that the Society must "accept" Vatican II. But how would this square with Bishop Fellay's statement that acceptance of Vatican II is not a precondition to reintegration? I guess it depends on what one means by the term accept.

Dr. Timothy J. Williams said...

The report in La Croix, if accurate confirms my suspiscions:

"Une prélature personnelle est une sorte de diocèse sans territoire, qui donnerait donc à la Fraternité autorité sur ses membres, à condition d’obtenir l’accord de l’évêque du lieu pour s’implanter dans tel ou tel endroit."

Thus, the SSPX will NOT be able to go where they want or where they are needed. They will have to wait for an invitation from the local bishop. We can judge from the success of the FSSP how long that wait will be!

Personally, I hope Fellay rejects this agreement.

Hugh said...

"Errors of the council" is an appropriate expression whether one wants a regular situation for The SSPX or not. The bitter fruits of those errors are there for us all to see and they have been discussed in many places being exposed for what they are.

Just because many now want a regularisation of The SSPX, it does not alter the nature of those conciliar errors, their deleterious effects nor the need to have them corrected as soon as possible.

rodrigo said...

According to the latest update at Angelqueen, Bp Fellay has now been in the CDF offices for over an hour and a half.

rodrigo said...

Corrected link -> HERE.

sam said...

-Response giving to SSPX Bishop Fellay.
-The CDF was surprised that the last paper submitted by the SSPX to the CDF no longer judged the VII Council harshly. But seemed to accept most of it.
-The CDF or the Pope seem to have an issue with the SSPX using the word "error of the council". And stated that they can only use the word "we have a reservation about such and such" part of the Council document.
-It's now up to Msgr Fellay to sign it or ask for a delay to think.

Alsaticus said...

La Croix is reporting that it's positive :

http://www.la-croix.com/Religion/Urbi-Orbi/Rome/Mgr-Fellay-a-recu-la-reponse-de-Benoit-XVI-pour-la-reintegration-de-la-Fraternite-Saint-Pie-X-_NG_-2012-06-13-818090

(I've no idea if they're being premature, or not)

Not excatly.
La Croix (F. Mounier) says a new version of the Preamble, modified after the CDF plenaria, has been given to Bp Fellay and that he has some delay to think about it and sign it.

The journalist doesn't say anything about the canonical status and a previous article was letting hear the personal prelature would be a duplicate of the 1982 one for the Opus Dei : that would raise many problems. However at that stage, we don't know.

Finally La Croix is voicing with caution the huge fears among French bishops upon this reconciliation and advising the Society to drop down any "triumphal" presentation.
La Croix is adding they feel likely for the 3 other bishops to break down and go into a real schism but once again nobody knows they say at that moment what is their decision.

Alsaticus

sam said...

That was in response to "Excited?"

Hugh said...

let us hope that Bishop fellay is not on the verge of signing away the necessity for The Confraternity to continue to expose conciliar error for what it is - liberal modernism

1531 said...

First of all, four Bishops were consecrated, and the four are equal.

The Superior General was elected in 2006 on the understanding that he would take no decisions affecting the SSPX without first consulting all Superiors of the SSPX and of course his colleagues the three other Bishops.

This he has not done.

Regarding the letters, I am not displeased at their publication. The laity in this instance is very much affected and we should not be kept in the dark. The letter from the three Bishops was perfectly charitable, however, the response from B Fellay was aggressive in tone.

Let us remember that B Fellay, apart from having been elected Superior, is not in any sense "superior" to the other three bishops who are of equal standing.

Last September, when the doctrinal preamble was presented to all the SSPX Superiors it was rejected out of hand by virtually all. Why was there no consultation??? Why were no details released to ALL the SSPX Superiors and the other three Bishops???

These are important questions which are not being answered. B Fellay's actions have been totally contrary to the spirit of the SSPX and underhand. These may be strong words, but there are many priests and laity out there who shocked at these unilateral developments.

The Romish Papist said...

Sam,
Where did you get that from?

sam said...

The La Croix article posted earlier

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

Dr. Williams:

I have just been over to La Croix. This is only the recycled trash of journalists. It is mostly speculation. They don't know what Levada and Fellay are saying before the meeting is even over.

As Bishop Fellay has already said, no matter what Rome proposes, the canonical form will be "negotiable" (his word) and will be decided in a separate process. Fr. Schmidberger has also said so. The media and the liberal bastards will now do their utmost to force a p.p. on the Society by, as usual, repeating its name over and over again like parrots. If the p.p. is accepted without waiving the restriction in Canon 297, it would indeed be a disaster. But now is the time for prayer on this. The canonical form will not be decided today. I imagine that the first step is for Bishop Fellay to accept or reject the document given by the Pope. Does this document impose a canonical form? We don't know if it is imposed or only suggested. And nor does La Croix.

P.K.T.P.

Tradical said...

Hi 1531,

The superior general is called that for a reason.

While you are entitled to your own opinion, you are not entitled to your own facts.

JabbaPapa said...

Angelqueen posted this photo, taken just before the start of the meeting :

https://cnsblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/fellay1.jpg

Cruise the Groove. said...

Right,
After the Holy Father, Bishop Fellay calls the shots in the FSSPX,
not the other 3 bishops.
There is no collegiality there.

JabbaPapa said...

La Croix is reporting that it's positive :
http://www.la-croix.com/Religion/Urbi-Orbi/Rome/Mgr-Fellay-a-recu-la-reponse-de-Benoit-XVI-pour-la-reintegration-de-la-Fraternite-Saint-Pie-X-_NG_-2012-06-13-818090

(I've no idea if they're being premature, or not)

Not excatly.
La Croix (F. Mounier) says a new version of the Preamble, modified after the CDF plenaria, has been given to Bp Fellay and that he has some delay to think about it and sign it.


Well, when I said "it's positive", that was necessarily a simplification :-)

La Croix is reporting though that the Pope has basically approved the reconciliation, and that it's now up to the SSPX to accept the offer or not.

The French journalists are hedging their bets, obviously, in the manner that you have yourself described...

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Lamentably Sane said...

1531
Your position on these matters is totally wrong. The SSPX is a priestly society with a Superior General. What he decides for the Society is, quite frankly, NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS. The other bishops are of ZERO relevance to the authority structures of the SSPX, much as it may gall you.

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

...After the Holy Father, Bishop Fellay calls the shots in the FSSPX,
not the other 3 bishops.
There is no collegiality there...

Well as things stand it appears there soon will be!

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

1531:

You have legitimate points, although a correction is in order. Bishop Bernard Fellay, under the S.S.P.X Constitution, has acted lawfully in these negotiations. The Society is not a democracy.

However, fairness requires us not to censor two facts. First, Fellay did undertake not to negotiate apart from the other bishops, saying that Rome would never manage to divide them. He said this emphatically and more than once. It cannot be denied. He has not abided by this.

Secondly, he said very clearly that there would be no acceptance of a practical arrangement without first having achieved doctrinal agreement on the major points at issue. Not even one of these problems has been resolved.

However, he has clearly made a decision for the good of the Society and the good of the Church. If the other bishops do not stand with him, they will do great damage, breaking the unity of the Society. We need a strong and united Society and a canonical structure which is 100% independent of the local bishops, not ever requiring that the Society must obtain their permission to open new apostolates in their sees. That should now be the focus. A refusal by the other three bishops would be very damaging.

As for Bishop Fellay *apparently* breaking his word on not one but two undertakings, as mentioned by me here, it is for him and for him alone to explain himself. He is free to do so. Keep in mind that circumstances may have changed since he made those undertakings, or perhpas he did not intend them as I have interpreted them here. That's fair enough. I'm sure that he will explain himself in due course. It may have been that he was threatened with excommunication. We all remember the Pope's warning of 'unfortunate and serious consequences'.

P.K.T.P.

Anil Wang said...

The "spirit of the SSPX"? Is that similar to the "Spirit of Vatican II"?

I'm sorry to be facetious, but the Church is not a democracy. Traditionalists should know that more than anyone else.

Even the Orthodox which reject the Pope out of hand recognize the need of a Patriarch and even though the Patriarch is "just another bishop", nonetheless the Patriarch has some authority over the bishops under him.

I wouldn't read too much into the reaction of the other SSPX Superiors. They're families. Families argue, but often stick together and defend each other to the death when push comes to shove.

All will be revealed soon. When it does and assuming the response is positive, the bishops and the laity will have an opportunity to decide where they stand. People have always had a choice. It goes back to at least Exodus 32:26 and Joshua 24:15 .

Jack O'Malley said...

The La Croix article says that the anticipated structure will be a PP.

Le texte remis ce mercredi prévoit aussi les conditions pratiques de cette réintégration, avec la création d’une prélature personnelle, semblable à celle créée par Jean-Paul II pour l’Opus Dei.

Timeo Latios et dona ferentis!

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

JabbaPapa:

The Pope's response is presumably positive in his own eyes but not necessarily in the eyes of Bishop Fellay. Were it not positive in the Pope's view, we'd be hearing again that Bishop Fellay's document was 'insufficient' and that 'serious consequences might follow'.

From what we've heard, the Pope's amendments are minor, but we just don't know that yet.

P.K.T.P.

Uncle Claibourne said...

1531,

There was discussion about the Preamble amongst Bishop Fellay, his assistants, and the district superiors. As you correctly pointed out, it was rejected, and Bishop Fellay communucated that rejection to the Vatican. This is why we there have been ongoing "back and forth" discussions to refine it, and try to make it acceptable to both sides. That's how negotiations generally work. I'm not sure why any of that should be considered "underhanded."

Bishop Fellay has indicated why he did not feel able to share the preamble with Bishop Williamson. We may or may not agree with his judgement, but he had his reasons. Again, nothing "underhanded" here.

On the question of expressing "reservations" vs. "condemning errors," it may sound like a "technical" issue, but Rome is never going to formally recognize the authority of any group within the Church to "condemn errors," outside the divinely-constituted hierarchy, on any topic, be it Vatican II or something else.

The SSPX can express its reservations, and with the good Lord's help, those reservations will help resolve the crisis. But again, Rome is never going to grant authority to anyone to formally criticize and condemn the errors of the Council, or any other act of the Magisterium. Nor should we want them to. That's Rome's job, and Rome's alone.

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

Jack O'Malley:

The meeting isn't even over, so the La Croix report is bull: it is recycled garbage being cast as new information. We already knew that Rome had 'proposed' a p.p. But Fellay said that this was "negotiable". It may be that this latest document from the Pope imposes the p.p. and closes all negotiation. But how could La Croix know this when Fellay has not even left the meeting? This is just the usual media specularion and rumour. I'm not sure if the journalists hope to affect the outcome by spreadind disinformation or whether they are just plain incompetent. The latter seems to be more likely.

P.K.T.P.

rodrigo said...

Tabbing between Rorate Caeli and Angelqueen can only do so much to alleviate the stress of waiting. Let's hope the gentlemen in Rome cast out some crumbs before everyone has gone to bed!

Canisius said...

I am a traditionalist and I could affirm, without hesitation and doubt, that there are no errors in the texts of the Vatican Council II.

The contrary statement is unacceptable from a catholic mindset, and the Holy Father is right in deleting such a phrase from the Preamble.

Kind regards,

misericordia said...

If the canonical structure were to remove the SSPX's autonomy and require them to be answerable to the local Ordinary, what would be the situation regarding heir current apostolates?
Could a hostile Bishop force the SSPX to close down an existing chapel in his diocese if he did not want it there?

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

Uncle Claiborne:

While most of what you write is correct, you fail to notice that Fellay did indeed undertake not to make any agreements with Rome without the full consent of the other bishops. He said several times in public that Rome would never succeed in dividing the bishops in the negotiation, which is precisely what has happened.

As I've written, it could be that circumstances have changed since he made this undertaking, but he did make it, and it does us no good not to recognise the legitimate point raised by the naysayers. What they must now ask themselves, however, is how a refusal to accept an agreement will help tradition. Will they help keep tradition strong and influential, or will they help the cause of the liberals by dividing the Society, for Fellay will likely sign this, I think, and they cannot prevent it. Should he sign it, the property will go with him, and so will most of the Society priests. The naysayers might number 50; the others, 500.

P.K.T.P.

Francis said...

I just got home from work and clicked on Rorate, wow it looks like some good news might come out of this. When something good is verified a cold Samuel Adams will be in order. Forty years is a long time to wait. St. Anthony of Padua pray for us!

JabbaPapa said...

La Croix could OTOH be basing their description of the document on a copy of a recent draft that was leaked to them by some enterprising fellow or other.

Whatever the truth of the matter, we'll shortly see what's what. (I'd not have published that article myself, not before the actual details of the meeting were known)

Cristo Vence said...

P.K.T.P:

The report from La Croix mentions the state of things as the meeting started; it doesn't claim to mention what has developed since the meeting began at 5 PM Rome time

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

... Canisius said...
I am a traditionalist and I could affirm, without hesitation and doubt, that there are no errors in the texts of the Vatican Council II.

The contrary statement is unacceptable from a catholic mindset, and the Holy Father is right in deleting such a phrase from the Preamble.

Whew, glad that settled the discussion. Should have told ABL that a long time ago and saved all of us a lot of time and trouble!

Matt said...

My post above. Sorry.

"[In the final text of the preamble...] Really?! Wasn't the Preamble supposed to be kept in the strictest confidence until AFTER the agreeement had been formalized?


La Croix said, "There remained however formulations judged non-acceptable by Rome, notably the mention of the 'errors of the council:' to put it clearly, the Society may have reservation on this or that point of Vatican II (freedom of conscience, interreligious dialogue, ecumenism), but they cannot speak of the 'errors of the council.' This preamble should be made public once the final agreement of Bp. Fellay is given."

Firstly, what the heck are they doing releasing sound bites of it then?

Secondly, why should the Society be restricted on speaking of the errors of the Council? If something is wrong, it's wrong. I'll speak of errors of the Council then!


Dr. Timothy J. Williams said, "There is a more important question than a formal reconciliation, which is nothing but an exterior sign that the SSPX has always been Catholic. No, the real issue is whether the Pope will enforce his own decrees and make it possible for the SSPX to send priests where they are needed and wanted, in opposition to the 90% of "catholic" bishops who are openly schismatic. Of this I am highly dubious. I think an agreement, if it comes, will change virtually nothing."


Williams, formal reconciliation would not merely be an external. The SSPX's Catholicity is not in question, but a Canonical issue regarding faculties (so very important). This would assert to rest of the Church, yes, the SSPX is definitely Catholic.

In regards to whether the Society can operate unimpeded by the Locals is the greater concern. I agree with you there. In the last interview +Fellay gave, he stated there was the need to be able to conduct themselves within their own jurisdictions, i.e., like a "military ordinariate." People need to drop this "prelature" and "Opus Dei" routine. It's the likes of the Anglican Ordinariate I think would be quite right for the SSPX. Why not them also? If this is not granted, then all these past thirty years of grief was for naught. What good would it do anyone if the SSPX was thwarted every step of the way by viscious bishops and pastors. It would then be no different for them than us mere Traditional laymen who get kicked around from parish to parish, being denied, denied, denied.

If the Holy Father does not grant this autonomy to the SSPX then the Society will be reduced to nothing more than an highly organized prayer group, and will be the biggest waste of the Church since the Second Vatican Council!

.

RC, if you want to, delete the orig post. Save space. :)

Brian said...

Given, as P.K.T.P. indicates that Bishop Fellay has not honored his commitment to not allow division between the bishops in his negotiations with Rome and that he has proceeded without having achieved a doctrinal agreement, if he now accepts an arrangement that does not allow the SSPX priests and bishops to use the well-worn SSPX phrase “errors in the council” and he accepts a structure that requires local ordinary permission before the SSPX can set up a Church, school, seminary, etc., I would expect that many within the SSPX will have difficulty accepting such an arrangement.

Given that the SSPX and Bishop Fellay have for decades justified disobeying the Vicar of Christ, I have difficulty understanding how those same SSPX members now insist that all priests and bishops must blindly obey Bishop Fellay in whatever agreement he accepts -- even if they believe the agreement violates the principles they have fought for during these many, many years.

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

misericordia:

To answer your question, absolutely not. The Society will be allowed to keep all its current apostolates (those which include real estate). When the Campos structure was erected in 2002, despite the Brazilian Bishops' intervention, they were allowed to keep all their chapels which existed outside the Campos territory. There were only two or three of these, and they were close by the Diocese of Campos. One was in the Diocese of Volta Redonda. They continue to staff it to this day and I check it from time to time on-line. I did so this Monday. I believe that another was in the Diocese of Niteroi. They kept them and Rome simply used the Pope's universal authority to make these exceptions.

In the case of travelling to apostolates which do not include real estate, recognised priests can say Mass at least privately in such cases for invited guests under Articles 2 and 4 of S.P., and they can keep open the doors for others. They may not publish the Masses in accordance with a regular schedule but could publish a weekly bulletin saying, each week, T.L.M. at 10.00 a.m. next Sunday at this address. The P.C.E.D. made a decision on this after 2008.

Still, what is needed for long-term growth is the ability to open new apostolates in the territory of hostile bishops. At the moment, they could do this in the case of the U.S.A., England and Wales and Australia (as at this Friday) by going to the Anglican ordinaries for jurisdiction. But those personal ordinaries would be reluctant to go against the powerful local bishops. We need more than a personal prelature or, at the very least, an exemption from Canon 297.

P.K.T.P.

The Romish Papist said...

"Thus, the human race has passed from a rather static concept of reality to a more dynamic, evolutionary one.”


Error

(though one might argue that this is a neutral statement about something that has happened outside of the church in man's thinking. The point however is that if you read Gaudium Et Spes, the council was EMBRACING this new concept which is an error, not condemning it)

Miles Dei said...

Observing the last actualizations at 19:30 we must pray with force.

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

Cristo Vence:

La Croix has no way of knowing the wording of the final document *before* Bishop Fellay receives it today. So they are only recycling their tosh. Again, we already knew that Rome as proposed a p.p. What La Croix cannot know is that this proposal has been imposed as a necessary condition.

By the way, N.C., this robot-checker is destroying our eyes. I am so sick of it. I must be a robot, since I cannot make out these letters half the time.

P.K.T.P.

Irony said...

PKTP said ... Fellay did undertake not to negotiate apart from the other bishops, saying that Rome would never manage to divide them. He said this emphatically and more than once. It cannot be denied. He has not abided by this.

PKTP -

Rome did not divide the other 3 bishops, nor did Bishop Fellay - they divided themselves. They ar the ones who separated themselves. They are the ones who have acted in a revoltingly, rebellious manner. There is only so much one can do when your children wish to rebel and act on their own.

Miles Dei said...

Thinking better:

It is obvious that is a step, but a final step. The long time is for the discussing of matters of the canonical form. Now is time for put all in the paper. Perhaps we must to way untill a document of the Pope (Decree and Apostolic Constitution) making all public.

JabbaPapa said...

Well, just a wait for a Press Release from the Vatican now -- SSPX is apparently reported as preparing to respond in 7-10 days' time.

Uncle Claibourne said...

Mr. Perkins,

Is it accurate to say that Rome has divided the four bishops? Apparently divided they are; but from my perspective, that's attributable to them, not Rome.

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

No, Irony, you are wrong.

Fellay negotiated alone and refused to consult with the others in his dealings with Rome. I refer to the several versions of the Preamble. The other bishops were kept in the dark. Do you deny this?

As I've written here before, this baboon idea of some (I don't mean Irony), this beating on the chest and saying that 'we right, dem wrong' is counter-productive. It is better to admit the legitimate points of the other side and then deal with them logically, one by one. We are ensouled men, not gorillas. Shooting down the *legitimate* points of the naysayers will not bring them over; rather, it will only alienate them further and give them reason to become entrenched in their position.

The one solid argument in favour of +Fellay is decisive: a need for unity. As long as he has not bargained away the Society's doctrinal position, it is needful to support him now and then press for a useful and adequate canonical provision, which means something the press would hate.

P.K.T.P.


P.K.T.P.

Fra said...

After the "Motu Proprio fever" of 2006/07, I have now the "agreement fever", fanatically researching for news on the internet, and there will be more 10 days before further moves?
Can I write a dirty word?

Uncle Claibourne said...

Vatican II, whether we like it or not, agree or disagree with parts of it or not, was a valid act of the Extraordinary Magisterium of the Church. If we do not accept that, we are sedevacantists.

Now, if we accept that, we also have to accept the fact that Rome is never going to allow any group within the Church to start judging acts of the Magisterium. When the clarifications and corrections in regard to Vatican II come, it will be from the Magisterium, not from this or that group, no matter how correct or well-intentioned they may be.

The Society has the opportunity to participate in that process. We should all hope and pray that it does. There's no reason for any of us to fear this apparent modification of the Holy Father. He is never going to allow even the slighest appearance of Rome's "final authority" to identify and condemn error to be ceded to an authority outside itself.

Red said...

I'm going to place money down on that it's over... Rome is wanting B. Fellay to soften his "errors" of V2 terminology - a number of his subordinates are insubordinate - Irreparable damage has been done to the unity of the Bishops - B. Fellay avoided the media because there are some wounds to be licked... As much as I wanted this to happen I think it's done; Bishop Fellay has realized he's stepped in a little over his head and us wishful thinkers was entertaining the thoughts that the Pope would look the other way and unilaterally grant acceptance...

Let me see how much I've got in my wallet to put down on this... And personally, I'm sickened to the point of almost not caring seeing the behavior of the insubordinates in the SSPX as well as that of the Vatican. As a laymen my task is to attain sanctity through the sanctifying of my daily duties - not worry about the political moves of the SSPX - Vatican. We're not going to be judged by that. Sometimes I think the faithful (myself included) identify too much with the SSPX to the detriment of our own spirituality and sanctification.

Allan said...

Here's a second vote for nixing that annoying robot checker thing. I get it wrong 10 times before guessing correctly.

The Divine Master's student said...

[1930 Rome time - Update] "Vatican meeting w/ +Fellay reported over after 2.5 hours. He went other direction to avoid press. No word yet on if anything resolved."

This review of H.E. Bishop Fellay's PRUDENTIAL comportmant is a consolation. Often Christ Himself "went aside from the multitude standing in the place." John 5:13.

Let us persevere in prayer humbly pleading that Christ may speak now to His servants in silence manifesting His Will to both the Vicar of Christ and H.E. Bishop Fellay - A.M.D.G.

Tradical said...

Hi Uncle C,

"...Extraordinary Magisterium of the Church. If we do not accept that, we are sedevacantists. ..."

Pope Paul VI and Benedict XVI disagree with you. Paul VI referred to is a supreme, but not extraordinary.

If it was extraordinary magisterium, then the council fathers would have invoked the power of infallibility etc.



P^3

Red said...

PKTP,

The other Bishops exercise NO authority whatsoever in the SSPX. Bishop Fellay alone is the Superior General; he might as well consult all of his subordinates prior to making decisions according to your take. I agree it might look better publicly if he had the other three Bishops behind him but it's neither necessary, nor was it intended by Abp. Lefebvre (from I understand) that they have any say in anything, this is reserved to the Superior General alone.

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

...There's no reason for any of us to fear this apparent modification of the Holy Father. He is never going to allow even the slighest appearance of Rome's "final authority" to identify and condemn error to be ceded to an authority outside itself...

Then what the heck have we been doing for the past forty years? Rome has "out waited" the SSPX, and in the meantime found a way to sink it too. The moto proprio, Summorum Pontificum, "allowing" the TLM - as if that was all there is to it. Sadly, in the minds of all too many it's all about smells and bells and not doctrine.

This is a sad, sad time in the Church's history. The remnant grows even smaller!

Excited? said...

@Fra: Very Funny! :) My thoughts too!

@Sam: Thanks for "splaining" that to me. I appreciate it :)

Uncle Claibourne said...

Tradical,

"Extraordinary" does not automatically mean infallible. It's not a case of "ordinary can err, extraordinary cannot."

I stand by my terminology. I'd provide a link for further reading, but am at work and don't have time to dig it up now. Perhaps someone else can do so?

Tradical said...

Hi Uncle C,

I'm also at work. The appropriate references would be Catholic Dogma by Ott and I believe Vatican 1.

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

Red:

You miss the point entirely. It is not about his authority. It is about his clear and often repeated undertakings. Guess what? We are still bound by our commitments even if we made them voluntarily.

As for Abp. Lefebvre, what he intended in consecrating four bishops was a mechanism for keeping any one of them from taking over completely, for, should the superior-general break with the other three, they keep the power of orders. That is a real problem from Rome, which is why she is negotiating with them one by one.

Lefebvre wanted to avoid the possibility that the superior-general would be co-opted and then lose the entire Society. That's why he often said that the s.-g. should not even be one of the bishops. Schmidberger, the second superior-general--the one named by L. himself, is only a simple priest.

++Lefebvre was a clever man. He was also saintly.

P.K.T.P.

Tradical said...

Hi Uncle C,

Just reread your post:
"... not a case of ordinary can err, extraordinary cannot..."

Both extraordinary and 'ordinary and universal' magisterium are infallible.

An ecumenical council is normally a work of the extraordinary magisterium of the bishops under the Pope. However, as noted, by Paul VI and Benedict XVI, they did not make any new infallible declarations that are binding at the level of faith.

John Lamont wrote a good paper on some related elements "A theologian's questions".

P.K.T.P. said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Hugh said...

As I have stated correctly before -this is a fraternal association - this does not give Bishop Fellay the absolute authority to do as he pleases. Archbishop Lefebvre entrusted the care of The Society to the bishops gathered around the Superior General for the advancement of the Traditional Sacraments and Holy Mass. It is only common sense that in making decisions about the future of The Society that all 4 bishops should be on the same page as ascertained beforehand by mutual honesty and open discussion which is clearly not the case here. The important factor is to protect The Society and its freedom to advance the cause of Sacred Tradition in The Church which it has been doing very effectively so far otherwise Rome would have not even given them the time of day.
I certainly hope along with many other Society lay members that Bishop Fellay is not trying to sell us short. The fact that the three other bishops are not apparently convinced by the current state of affairs so far suggests a lack of mutual trust based on events preceding the stage at which we find ourselves now.
This is not just any old issue for one person to assume entire control within a fraternal context. In a religious order it would be a different matter but this is definitely not the case here whatever others may attempt to claim.

Dr. Timothy J. Williams said...

P.K.T.P. is correct about the superior of the order. In the 1980s, I spoke with Lefevbre himself about this very issue. He was clear in stating his intention that the superior general of the society should NOT be a bishop. He wanted one or more bishops only to make more priests, to confirm, etc. His unambiguous view was that having a bishop as superior would complicate discussions with Rome. In this, as in everything else, he has been proven correct. Still, I give thanks to God that Fellay is in charge. He is a wise and saintly man.

Aneas said...

Seems like the SSPX want to be their own little Church, condemning error and canonizing their leader. Both sides have to eat some humble pie, but nobody seems to have the appetite.

Aneas said...

*Correction: Leader should be founder, Bishop Marcel Lefebvre.

Tradical said...

Hi PKTP

" ... Uncle Clairborne is right on the doctrinal matter ..."

Please explain where I'm in the weeds because the part that I questioned was "... was a valid act of the Extraordinary Magisterium of the Church..."

My understanding is that it was a valid council but its novel teachings did not reach the level of 'extra ordinary magisterium'.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Hugh said...

Yes when I say the bishops gathered round the Superior General I mean one who is not necessarily a Bishop. Thank you Dr Williams

Carl said...

On January 12, 1966, Paul VI stated, "In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided any extraordinary statements of dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility, but it still provided its teaching with the authority of the supreme ordinary magisterium which must be accepted with docility according to the mind of the Council concerning the nature and aims of each document."

See the original in Italian: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/audiences/1966/documents/hf_p-vi_aud_19660112_it.html

Paul VI regarded the Council as an act of the ordinary Magistierium and was not, as far as I am aware, a sedevacantist.

JMJ Ora Pro Nobis said...

I hope it is only from the agreement that 'errors of the council' must be removed, though even that may be a compromise too far, I'm undecided. But if they must also remove it from all their literature etc.. well firstly I cannot see +Fellay agreeing with such a thing and secondly it would be a total disaster, that is an essential part of the SSPX's identity. Their ability to fearlessly and openly proclaim the truth.

Brother Juniper said...

Francis said: "When something good is verified a cold Samuel Adams will be in order. Forty years is a long time to wait."

I could not wait 40 years for a Sam Adams. Francis, you must be a Saint! Your humble servant, Brother Juniper.

St. Anthony, Hammer of Heretics, pray for us said...

"Rome did not divide the other 3 bishops, nor did Bishop Fellay - they divided themselves. They are the ones who separated themselves. They are the ones who have acted in a revoltingly, rebellious manner. There is only so much one can do when your children wish to rebel and act on their own."

This, and other postings, really is over the top. There is a glaring irony in adopting an absolutist line on the respect and obedience owed to Bishop Fellay while simultaneously disrespecting and calumniating three bishops (or you can refer to them as princes) of the church against whom it is impossible to charge with moral or dogmatic transgressions. The level of venom ought to be taken down a notch.

A second irony is that those here who incessantly beat the drum of the primacy of obedience are blind to the fact that disobedience to legitimate authority is the sine qua non of the existence of the SSPX. Bishop Fellay, who is treated by these posters as a gold standard of behavior, has been practicing that disobedience from the moment of his ordination as bishop, lo these 20-plus years. If you condemn the other three bishops for following their consciences, then you must condemn Bishop Fellay as well.

Victor W. said...

"Errors of the Council" does not seem to be the issue. If it were the issue, then Rome would believe that each word, phrase and sentence of the Council documents is infallible. That would make the Council an idol for worship.

St. Anthony, Hammer of Heretics, pray for us said...

Two outcomes of an agreement that seem most likely are 1) Rome will have, in an aggressive and preemptive manner, separated for further scrutiny and vetting three of the four bishops from the rest of the society. If the three don't pass muster, either the society is left without the resources to maintain their existing apostolate, or Rome must approve replacements; and 2) Rome will have extracted from the society the necessity of local bishop approval for further expansion, anywhere in the world.

Whom would a disinterested observer say was the winner in this negotiation? Will the Society emerge from the agreement stronger or weaker?

The Protestants, who were contracepting themselves into a minority and faced with a Catholic population producing large families, did their best to level the playing field by breaking up Catholic cultural ghettos in the cities and absorbing Catholics into the Protestant suburban culture where they would more readily absorb Protestant values and contraceptive practices.

The analogy is imperfect, but the strategy is the same.

LILY said...

I don't know Bishop Fellay extremely well, but I do know him well enough to say this: He will NEVER agree to anything that puts the SSPX under any local bishop anywhere. They have been making that offer to him for 20 years and he has always walked away. Not even a chance.

The Romish Papist said...

Uncle C,

Do you even know what the word sedevecantist means? It has nothing to do with what type of magisterial act the Council can be categorized as.

David, Glasgow said...

Canisius said...
I am a traditionalist and I could affirm, without hesitation and doubt, that there are no errors in the texts of the Vatican Council II.

The contrary statement is unacceptable from a catholic mindset, and the Holy Father is right in deleting such a phrase from the Preamble.


The doctrinal statements in the documents of the Second Vatican Council can be broken down into two categories:

1- Statements of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium (that which has been taught "always, everywhere, and by all" cf St Vincent of Lerins, Comminitorium) which for that very reason are infallible and irreformable and to which are due the assent of faith.

2- Statements of the authentic magisterium which are not infallible or irreformable but to which we are required to give religious assent due to the authority of the members of the magisterium.

Teachings in the second category, not being protected from being erroneous by the Holy Ghost, may therefore be erroneous and may contradict previous magisterial teaching, including teachings of the Infallible Magisterium.

Think, for example, of John Paul II stating in a Wednesday Audience (1999) that Heaven is not a place (but merely a spiritual state). This is clearly an erroneous teaching since it contradicts the dogmas of the Ascension and the Assumption. Otherwise words have no meaning. This was a teaching of the authentic magisterium that was quite simply wrong.

A great many of the doctrinal statements of Vatican II were at precisely the same level, that is, of the authentic magisterium. Therefore, since the authentic magisterium may teach errors and since many of the doctrinal statements of Vatican II were taught at level of the authentic magisterium it is not against Catholic teaching to assert (with due and grave reasons) that Vatican II may contain errors.

You might find the following helpful: Papal Authority and Vatican II: A Defense of Those who say Vatican II taught errors.

Finally, put it this way. If we are permitted by the Church to assert
that the Council of Florence taught an error (the form and matter of the rite of ordination) then we must be surely permitted to assert that the Second Vatican Council taught errors if we have reason to believe that).

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

St. Anthony Hammer of Heretics is spot on, and I say that as coming from one who does not come from his perspective. I salute the moderators for letting this on this blog. We have heard enough from the obtuse papolaters who beat their chests and scream every day.

However, Hammer, I point out that the canonical outcome has not been decided yet. I repeat: the C.D.F. has proposed a personal prelature, but, to this date, we have not been told that that this will be imposed. All we know is that Bishop Fellay has called it "negotiable". It is true that, in his latest statement Fellay did appear to accept the p.p. This remains to be seen, however. I wonder if a better deal canonically might bring over one or two more bishops? Who knows. I find it hard to believe, though, that all four will agree to let the Mahonys of this Church block their new apostolates. Would you give your worst enemy a veto over your own policy?

P.K.T.P.

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

No matter how all this is being sold, the fact remains that the Pope has changed the Preamble yet again (4th time now?) and has bounced it back to Fellay. Will Fellay now make some minor changes to the Pope's changes and bounce them back in ten days' time? Sooner or later, one party will be unable to bounce anything back because the Grim Reaper will catch the ball in mid flight. However, I'm beginning to think that most of us on this blog will die of old age before Fellay or the Pope does. This is interminable.

P.K.T.P

dcs said...

[Bishop Fellay] said very clearly that there would be no acceptance of a practical arrangement without first having achieved doctrinal agreement on the major points at issue.

Mr. Perkins,

Would you be so kind as to provide a citation of His Excellency making a statement to that effect? I know that Bp. Tissier has stated as much, but I do not recall Bp. Fellay stating so.

TenkaiStar108 said...

I propose the shortest but most intense Prayer Crusade in Catholic history. Whatever your views on the SSPX, which I have the most respect for, please join. The next two (possibly 3) days should be days of prayer, especially the Rosary, but add your own devotions, too! Extra Paters and Aves, Chaplets of Divine Mercy/Holy Wounds/Seven Sorrows. Fasting and other sacrifices. Holy Communions. enlist the prayers of the Holy Souls in Purgatory. Ask even those Catholics who barely think about the SSPX-Holy See relations to pray. Contact as many religious houses and monasteries as possible and ask them to pray.

No totals, just total unity with all those praying for the will of God to be done in this regard.

Carl said...

Victor W - When one contradicts an infallible teaching, the result is not merely "error" but "heresy." But even the ordinary teaching of the pope is protected from error, according to Vatican I: "this See of St. Peter remains unblemished by any error."

PKTP speaks of "expressive errors" (which I'd argue, ironically, might itself be an "expessive error"). He means not that the statement is false, but that it is very poorly stated, imprudent, giving latitude to misinterpretation and abuse. Certainly the pope is not protected from malapropisms and other imprudent decisions. I agree with him, but I think "expressive deficiencies" is a more accurate term than "errors" to describe such things.

Canons 752 and 1371 forbid rejecting the teaching of the ordinary and universal Magisterium, even when it is not proclaimed by a definitive act (such as is the case in Vatican II). Because "errors of the Council" implies doctrinal rejection not merely a criticism of expressions, it could very well be "the issue." This doesn't make the Council an "idol for worship," but merely an object to be received with "religious submission of intellect and will." "Obsequium" (submission) is a very, very different thing from "latria" (worship).

JMR said...

I prefer it being bounced back and forth to "St.Anthony's Hammer etc" predicted outcome.At least the staus quo will be maintained.
I have only been a member of an SSPX parish for 3 years and I have never felt so wretched in my whole life.

Francis said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Tradical said...

Hi Carl,

"... ordinary and universal Magisterium ..."

Now you need to define what constitutes "ordinary and universal magisterium".

Tradical said...

Hi Francis, PKTP,

When the SSPX is regularized and before the 'real work' begins, I'm not going to stop at just popping a cold one, I'm going to have a party of like minded (and some not-so like minded) Catholics!!!!!!!

David, Glasgow said...

But even the ordinary teaching of the pope is protected from error, according to Vatican I: "this See of St. Peter remains unblemished by any error."

How about the case of John XXII? He taught error in his ordinary teaching.

The ordinary teaching of the Pope consists of two kinds: infallible (where we speak of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium> and non-infallible (where speak of the authentic magisterium). A teaching of the Pope falls into the former when reiterates a perennial ("always, everywhere, and by all")truth of the faith. It falls into the latter when, even though speaking in his authority as Roman Pontiff, he teaches something that is not a perennial (i.e. a novelty such as ecumenism) truth of the faith.

What are you asserting (the infallibility in his every statement as Roman Pontiff) is simply not the Catholic faith but a kind of disturbing idolatory of his authority.

Donald McCarrick said...

I hate Vatican II

David, Glasgow said...

Canons 752 and 1371 forbid rejecting the teaching of the ordinary and universal Magisterium, even when it is not proclaimed by a definitive act (such as is the case in Vatican II). Because "errors of the Council" implies doctrinal rejection not merely a criticism of expressions, it could very well be "the issue." This doesn't make the Council an "idol for worship," but merely an object to be received with "religious submission of intellect and will." "Obsequium" (submission) is a very, very different thing from "latria" (worship).

Carl, what you are omitting to mention is that this religious assent is not unconditional. How could it be? Since the teaching in question is not infallible i.e. it is reformable and theoretically capable of being erroneous. Now, of course, in normal times we give this assent (which is always of a prudential/conditional nature) based on the habitual prudence with which the members of the magisterium are assumed to act. We can usually trust the members of the magisterium not to deviate from Sacred Tradition.

But these are not normal times. It is very rare that any modern magisterial document quotes any other magisterial document before the Second Vatican Council. That is very telling. Previously the Popes and the Congregations always took great care to demonstrate that what they were teaching was in conformity with the perennial teaching of the Church and their documents were replete with quotes from 2,000 years of Catholic Tradition.

If we have proper grounds we are obliged by our Baptism to ask for clarification of novel teaching that appears to contradict previous magisterial teaching and how it can cohere with the perennial teaching. If the members of the magisterium refuse to give such clarification (think of what Abbe de Nantes tried to for over 40 years and was greeted with deafening silence) then we are permitted to withhold assent to the novel teaching.

Now, if we were to apply what you have asserted, then John XXII was justified in excommunicating the Dominican theologians who criticised his erroneous teaching!

Careful: you are digging a pit for your faith to fall into.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Matt said...

Fra said, "After the "Motu Proprio fever" of 2006/07, I have now the 'agreement fever,' fanatically researching for news on the internet, and there will be more 10 days before further moves?"

It is quite an exciting moment, but save yourself the time and effort at 'trolling the Web. Right here on Rorate-Caeli is the best source for up-to-date info on this Great Matter. You can check out the sources they use, but here is the most cogent and informed place on the Web right for what is going on, with the widest background on it. Most other sites just give blurbs and without a really informed depth. The sites of the SSPX themselves are not updated as readily as here.

I have no comment on the "dirty word" part. :o

Simple Simon said...

Some of the people on here and other forums give the impression that one must be well versed in Cannon Law in order to save one's soul. If that were the case, there would be no salvation for me and who knows how many others. I really don't believe Jesus intended this to be as complicated as some argue it to be. I think some people just like hearing the sound of their own words with some of these discussions :) ...Praying for the will of God.

Canisius said...

David Glasgow says:

"Think, for example, of John Paul II stating in a Wednesday Audience (1999) that Heaven is not a place (but merely a spiritual state). This is clearly an erroneous teaching since it contradicts the dogmas of the Ascension and the Assumption. Otherwise words have no meaning. This was a teaching of the authentic magisterium that was quite simply wrong.

A great many of the doctrinal statements of Vatican II were at precisely the same level, that is, of the authentic magisterium. Therefore, since the authentic magisterium may teach errors and since many of the doctrinal statements of Vatican II were taught at level of the authentic magisterium it is not against Catholic teaching to assert (with due and grave reasons) that Vatican II may contain errors."

Could you tell me which are those erroneous statements of the Vatican Council II?

I can repeat: there are no errounus statements or teachings in the Vatican Council II. Debatable statements or teachings, it could be. Erroneous, no.

I think it is sad for some people (the 3 bishops namely) to recognize the aforementioned affirmation. Moreover when you have passed all your life demonizing the Council.

I can not remember or quoting even the same Monsignor Lefebvre assessing that the texts of the Vatican Council II have erroneous statements or teachings.

This is a novelty of the heretic and schismatic tendencies withing the SSPX and the traditionalism.

Regards,

Regards,

Canisius said...

David Glasgow:

Did you remember this agreement? At that important juncture, Monsignor Lefebvre had never spoken of "errors of the Council". Such an statemente is written now only to satisfied traditionalist spirits absolutely ideologized by an anti-Council mentality.

Regards,

"I. Text of the Doctrinal Declaration

I, Marcel Lefebvre, Archbishop-Bishop emeritus of Tulle, as well as the members of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X founded by me:

1. Promise to be always faithful to the Catholic Church and the Roman Pontiff, her Supreme Pastor, Vicar of Christ, Successor of Blessed Peter in his primacy as Head of the Body of Bishops.

2. We declare our acceptance of the doctrine contained in number 25 of the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium of the Second Vatican Council on the ecclesial Magisterium and the adherence which is due to that magisterium.

3. With regard to certain points taught by the Second Vatican Council or concerning later reforms of the liturgy and law, and which seem to us able to be reconciled with the Tradition only with difficulty, we commit ourselves to have a positive attitude of study and of communication with the Holy See, avoiding all polemics.

4. We declare in addition to recognize the validity of the Sacrifice of the Mass and of the Sacraments celebrated with the intention of doing that which the Church does and according to the rites indicated in the typical editions of the Roman Missal and the Rituals of the Sacraments promulgated by Popes Paul VI and John Paul II.

5. Finally, we promise to respect the common discipline of the Church and ecclesiastical laws, especially those contained in the Code of Canon Law promulgated by Pope John Paul II, without prejudice to the special discipline granted to the Society by particular law."

Carl said...

Greetings Tradical - Exercises of the permanent and ongoing teaching office of the pope with or without bishops united together, as addressed not to an individual or group, but to the entire Church. Christ did not say to Peter, "the gates of Hell may prevail against the Chruch at any point except those rare instances when you are speaking infallibly." Infallibility is a special category of indestructibility or indefectibility, to which the vast majority of Vatican I's Pastor Aeternus is dedicated.

Let me be clear. Just as calling it "valid" is hardly great praise of the new Mass, so "not erronous" is hardly great praise of the texts of Vatican II. For the most part, these texts were poorly written, and have allowed objective heresies, errors and apostasies to pass themselves off as valid Catholic opinions. I would like to say that the disaster of these texts could hardly be overstated, but for the fact that the disaster of the texts is so very often overstated.

Donald McCarrick - I'm not particularly fond of Vatican II myself.

Carl said...

Greetings Tradical - Exercises of the permanent and ongoing teaching office of the pope with or without bishops united together, as addressed not to an individual or group, but to the entire Church. Christ did not say to Peter, "the gates of Hell may prevail against the Chruch at any point except those rare instances when you are speaking infallibly." Infallibility is a special category of indestructibility or indefectibility, to which the vast majority of Vatican I's Pastor Aeternus is dedicated.

Let me be clear. Just as calling it "valid" is hardly great praise of the new Mass, so "not erronous" is hardly great praise of the texts of Vatican II. For the most part, these texts were poorly written, and have allowed objective heresies, errors and apostasies to pass themselves off as valid Catholic opinions. I would like to say that the disaster of these texts could hardly be overstated, but for the fact that the disaster of the texts is so very often overstated.

Donald McCarrick - I'm not particularly fond of Vatican II myself.

JulieColl said...

I may be missing a great deal of the technical details in this latest development, but I can't help but compare Bishop Fellay's heroic attempts to effect reconciliation with Rome to Senator Rand Paul's recent decision to endorse Gov. Romney here in the U.S.

In both cases, it seems a decision has to be made whether or not one must join forces and try to coordinate the best deal possible with a major power structure, or to remain independent and pursue ideological perfection with a comparative handful of dedicated followers.

Sen. Paul, I believe, as painful and distasteful as it was did what had to be done in order to secure the future success of his father's movement. He made the barest minimum of concessions and maintained his political and personal integrity throughout, even though many supporters were enraged by his apparent compromise.

On the other hand, he has gained instant credibility and status within the Republican Party which will allow his movement to accomplish far more than they would have by themselves.

It's good to remember that political alliances are practical arrangements and not blanket endorsements of the other party.

I imagine if Bishop Fellay is able to pull off a similar alliance with the Vatican, he will, like Sen. Paul, be the target of intense praise and blame on all sides.

But when it all subsides, he no doubt be able to effect much more WITHIN the Church than by remaining outside.

Kenneth J. Wolfe said...

What are the odds of this!?:

"Interestingly, on his way into the building, Bishop Fellay crossed paths with Swiss Cardinal Kurt Koch, president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity and president of the Pontifical Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews."

http://cnsblog.wordpress.com/2012/06/13/sspx-bishop-fellay-arrives-at-vatican/

Dan said...

When and if the SSPX gets a canonical situation in order the term Lefebvrite will become a huge compliment, especially to the founding Archbishop. I'm a proud Lefebvrist, myself!

Carl said...

David, Glasgow, first post - My understanding is that John XXII's scandalous opinions on the Beatific Vision were contained in sermons, which are not generally considered acts of the ordinary magisterium, but of personal theology. They were not documents proceeding from his office as pope.

You are right that nowadays "ordinary and universal" is almost always used in conjunction with "definitive acts." But, strictly speaking, Vatican I's Pastor Aeternus didn't use the terms that way, and neither does John Paul II in his audience of 3/25/1993.

I am not at all proposing that every statement of the pope is infallible ("irreformable"). Most are quite reformable - all of Vatican II included - but that's different from erroneous.

Second post - Submission is NOT assent, it merely means receiving the text with good will, and trying to understand it with a Catholic mind and heart. One may still think it's poorly formulated and advocate for a clearer formulation. For example, I think "pilgrim Church," while not erroneous, is a very poor substitute for the old expression of the "Church militant." Saying this does not offend against the submission I give to the term "pilgrim Church."

I agree entirely with your second paragraph about too rarely quoting preconciliar documents. If Pope Benedict is serious about advocating for a "hermeneutic of continuity," this deficiency must be corrected. The Catechism tract on Religious Liberty (CCC 2104-2109) made some significant progress in a very major area of concern.

I agree with the third paragraph as well, but again, withholding assent is not the same as withholding submission. I'd argue that when one does not see the continuity of a new formula with an old, the best attitude is to withhold assent while 1) being clear about what you see as the contradiction and 2) remaining open to the possibility that such continuity may exist. This would more than meet the threshold of submission.

Thank you for your fraternal concern and criticisms of my expressions and what you see as pitfalls for my personal faith. It does you credit. God bless you.

The Divine Master's student said...

To Simple Simon:

Your comments are best responded to by the Divine Master Himself:

"Amen I say to you, unless you be converted, and become as little children, you shall NOT enter into the kingdom of Heaven."Matt. 18:3

And the "Alpha and Omega" immediately continues:

"Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, he is the greater in the kingdom of heaven." Matt 18:4

Finally He teaches us the prayer He has placed in your soul to echo forward: "Thy Will be done."

Thank you for your refreshing simplicity and supplication! "Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of Heaven.""Blessed are the pure of heart for they shall see God."

Edward said...

If Bishop Fellay signs without the other three bishop's on board he will not come in with the majority of the priest's and faithful in my opinion.

Alsaticus said...

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

No matter how all this is being sold, the fact remains that the Pope has changed the Preamble yet again (4th time now?) and has bounced it back to Fellay. Will Fellay now make some minor changes to the Pope's changes and bounce them back in ten days' time? Sooner or later, one party will be unable to bounce anything back because the Grim Reaper will catch the ball in mid flight. However, I'm beginning to think that most of us on this blog will die of old age before Fellay or the Pope does. This is interminable.

P.K.T.P

I hope not ...
For you and me.

Anyhow I see this ball bouncing as the proof the plenaria of CDF must have been steaming hot and anti-SSPX cardinals and members have probably been very vocal, if not screaming to the top of their lungs.

So the pope had 2 options : moving ahead without hearing the CDF howling of pain from the Spirit of Vatican II lobby or ... trying to appease the lobby with a few words. It seems His Holiness opted for the appeasement.
The question is now to what extent ? How to appease the Martinian/Koch/Schönborn/Vingt-Trois/Zollitsch/Danneels etc. lobby without alienating Fellay and the Society ?

You need to be a good player but the point finally is not to keep the ball in the air; it will land sooner or later within or outside the line ... we'll see.

Alsaticus

Concerned Conscience said...

Dear Edward,

If your opinion honors the Holy Trinity. . .you are safe to speak it. If NOT, may you tremble and seek refuge in silence.

The communication of thoughts is a PRIVILEGE granted to help move other minds toward TRUTH. It is an awesome responsibility with grave accountability.

Let us beg Divine Wisdom to enlighten and strengthen all of the Apostolic Bishops of the SSPX so that the Will of God be done!

JTLiuzza said...

Kenneth J. Wolfe said, "What are the odds of this!?:

"Interestingly, on his way into the building, Bishop Fellay crossed paths with Swiss Cardinal Kurt Koch..."

It's amazing those two crossing paths didn't result in some kind of matter/anti-matter explosion.

New Catholic said...

They are both Swiss, and Koch is considered a "conservative" on most matters, and he also spends much of his time at the Palace of the Holy Office. So they certainly were mutually kind, and the odds would have been quite high of it taking place.

Matt said...

Critic said, "I would put forth the following VII teachings show a strong possibility, at the very least, of constituting error if we use Holy teaching from Tradition as our yardstick:

1) That people have a right within minimal due limits to be free from restriction in publicly peddling any theological error against the Catholic faith. [DH]"


Right to teach error, no. To questions, yes, by all means, ask.

"2) That material schismatics build up the Church of God with their sacrilegious celebration of the Eucharist. [UR]"

That's false teaching right there. How does falsehood add to truth?

"3) That we have a real but imperfect communion with material heretics. [UR]"

How does that happen? Material heretics have already separated themselves de facto from the Church with their material heresies. Another Vatican II moment, folks.

"4) That the Church has no interest in any involvement in the affairs of state or for state recognition. [AG]"

Really? What's a Nuciature for? Why accrediting of ambassadors to the Holy See? Why the lawsuits of the several entities of the Church regarding ObamaCare?

"5) That there is no form of accursedness that pertains to Jews who have not accepted Christ. [NA]"

In reality, NA fails to state they are no diferent than anyone who has not accepted Christ, but affords them an opposite catagory, and the present Church carries on with them as though this was a truth.

Good yardstick, Critic.

Carl said...

Critic - You must use the REAL propositions from the council and make sure they are properly translated. What you have here is five straw men. Five propositions never stated by the Council.

1. "Minimal" isn't said in DH and is contradicted by the clarification in CCC 2109. "Right to error" also isn't said and is contradicted by the clarification in CCC 2108.

I agree that the text of DH is written in a way that easily gives rise to these misinterpretations, but they are not contained in the text.

2-3. What paragraphs are you referring to in UR. I have no idea from what texts you drew these propositions.

4. You've got a misunderstanding built on a bad translation of AG 12, which says that the Church has no desire to become involved or to intrude in the "moderamen" of the earthly city. This term implies management, the direct running of things. This is an entirely different matter than having no involvement in the "affairs of state" and has absolutely nothing to do with whether states should recognize the Catholic religion.

The text is essentially saying that the Church respects the temporal authority of civil governments.

5. It doesn't say "there is no form of accursedness." It says that they shouldn't be presented ("exhibeantur") as accursed, as if it followed from Scripture.

In the Church's tradition, "false" and "erroneous" are different grades of ecclesiastical censure. The idea of laity or even priests and bishops applying these censures to official acts of the pope or a council - I've never heard of such a thing. To withhold assent or criticize a formula for some deficiency or another, sure. But to apply a theological censure, to make an accusation of error, what precedent is there for this? When has the Church ever said such activity is acceptable?

Carl said...

Critic - Sorry, add to number 5 - When has the Church ever officially taught that Jews who have not yet converted are accursed? If the Church has never officially taught it, then the matter would have remained an open question until Vatican II closed it. At the same time, the question of whether "any form" of accursedness exists is a more nuanced question than that which was dealt with by the Council.

If some forms of accursedness exist and others do not, the Council text should not be accused of error but of silencing an important theological truth in the same manner as poor Pope Honorius.

La Paloma Alegre said...

We're getting there! More anxious but hopeful praying. Orate, Fratres!

Critic said...

Carl,

I believe my points 1-4 still hold up quite well, and do not see anything that calls for a revision of my views. My no. 2 is from UR 15 and my no. 3 is from UR 3.

I do wish to ask you to clarify your thoughts on my Point 5. Different forms of accursedness? How so? Honestly, I'd like to know. Does the NA text mean that we can present them as accursed so long as it's not based on scripture? Or does it mean we can believe they're accursed, but we simply cannot present them as such?

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

Jesus said: Luke14:26
If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

Prof. Basto said...

First of all, four Bishops were consecrated, and the four are equal.

No. They are not. One of them is the current Superior General, the others aren't.

The society has its statutes; they have been approved by Archbishop Fellay. Under them, the Society is led by the Superior General, elected for a twelve year term of office.

The organs of the general govenrment of Society are the Superior General, General Council (the General Council has three members: the Superior General, who chairs it, and two assistants, also elected for twelve year terms), and the General Chapter.

The Superior General and the two assistants that form the General Council are elected by the General Chapter. The Superior General is aided in his governance of the Society by a Treasurer (Econome) and by a General Secretary.

As for the Bishops of the Society, the Founder and Consecrator, Archbishop Lefebvre, never intended them to have a jurisdictional role in the government of the society.

Indeed, the Bishops cannot claim any jurisdiction in the Church, because jurisdiction can only be bestowed by the See of Rome, and no law or act of the Holy See grants the SSPX Bishops jurisdiction.

For the four SSPX Bishops to claim that they have jurisdiction would be to set up a parallel hierarchy, and that would constitute schism.

Thus, the Archbishop, when he consacrated four Bishops, he did not entrust the government of the SSPX to them. Rather, he made them subject to the Superior General, who at the time was a simple priest. To the Superior General was the government of the Fraternity entrusted.

As for the Bishops, they had one and only precise role: to provide the Sacraments; to prevent the SSPX from dying due to the lack of Sacraments, and, especially, due to the lack of Bishops willing to ordain priests formed by the Society.

The Society's main purpose, since its foundation, was the formation of traditional Priests. The role of the Bishops of the Society as Bishops is thus only that of providing the Sacraments, and especially the Sacrament of Holy Orders. That is the "Operation Survival".

Thus, the role of the SSPX Bishops, qua Bishops, and in view of the fact that they were ordained without pontifical mandate as part of a desperate act aimed at the survival of tradition (that the Archbishop himself called Operation Survival), is only that of providing the necessary Sacraments.

But the government of the Society is discharged under the statutes of the SSPX by the Superior General and his Council, and that Council backs the decisions that have been taken by Bishop Fellay in his contacts with Rome.

So, there is no question of equality among the Bishops. They need to start obeying someone, either the Pope, or the Superior of their own organization.

"La Fraternité sacerdotale Saint-Pie X est une société de vie commune gouvernée par un Supérieur général élu pour un mandat de douze ans. Il est assisté dans son gouvernement par les membres de son Conseil où siègent les Assistants généraux, également élus pour une période de douze ans".

Prof. Basto said...

CORRIGENDUM.

When I wrote Archbishop Fellay, I meant to say Archbishop Lefebvre.

Prof. Basto said...

The Archbishop could, after he consacrated the four, have established a "Bishops Council".

He could have proposed an amendment to the Statutes of the Society so as to give the four Bishops a formal role in the government of the organization.

He could, but he chose not to. Instead, the SSPX statutes provide for a Superior General, and they do provide for a Council, of two assistants, but that Council is elected by the General Chapter.

And not only no provision was made for a goverment role for the Bishops as such in the Society, but also the Founder decided that one priest would be nominated as his sucessor in the office of Superior General, and four other priests, but not the Superior General, would be made Bishops during "Operation Survival".

So, the Bishops became subject to a Superior General that was a priest.

Thus stressing that the role of the SSPX Priests is that of guaranteeing the survival of a traditional priesthood, especially by means of the dispensation of the Sacrament of Holy Orders, but that the position of the four Bishops in virtue of their consecration DOES NOT entitle them to govern the society. Instead, that government is vested in the Superior General, who needs not be one of the bishops.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
JabbaPapa said...

Carl describes "infallible" as meaning "irreformable" -- this definition is not actually correct.

The word "infallible" actually means "non-falsifiable by a Catholic" -- ie no Catholic may deny an infallible teaching.

The great majority of infallible teachings is also straightforwardly irreformable -- for starters no Catholic member of the Magisterium and no Pope may deny them either.

However, there are in fact degrees of infallibility, and some doctrines are more or less infallible than others -- which is directly determined by the degree of Authority whereby and with which the infallibility of a doctrine has been declared.

So that technically, a doctrine declared infallible by a simple (but binding, and authoritative) opinion of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, but without a formal association with this decision by the Pope, may not be contradicted by Catholics, but retains a (so slim as to be 95% theoretical) possibility of future reforms by a higher Authority than the CDF.

The status of such doctrines is *similar* to that of doctrines provided with very high Authority, but stopping short of infallibility as such -- with the difference being that denying an infallible doctrine is Heresy, and places the Catholic in a state of immediate excommunication, whereas denying an authoritative teaching is simply an Error, and does not incur instant loss of the Grace of Communion with the Church.

The doctrine forbidding the ordination of women is NOT an example of this, but the recent history of the doctrine can help to illustrate these rather arcane points -- the doctrine evolved in three stages, following the original late 5th century forbidding of the ordination of women, by Pope Gelasius I.

1) Pope John Paul II declared this teaching to be doctrinal rather than disciplinary in nature -- but he did not at this time imbue it with explicit infallibility.

This *should* have been enough to stop the rebellious agitation, and this is an example of the highest degree of Authority just short of infallibility. Of course it wasn't, because authoritative teachings are reformable.

2) The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith declared that the doctrine was to held infallibly. This *should* have ended the story, except that it didn't -- not only because the CDF's declaration of infallibility was presented as in the form of an authoritatively binding opinion (but without specific papal assent), but also because higher doctrinal Authorities exist than the CDF, who could not exactly directly overturn the doctrine, but who could denounce the interpretation of the CDF that it were infallible as being "flawed" (or whatever).

(this is exactly where my arcane technical clarifications above are at their most valid)

3) Pope Benedict XVI at this year's Chrism Mass declared the infallibility of the doctrine to be "irrevocable". Now *this* truly is the end of the affair -- This is not technically the highest degree of infallibility acheivable, it stops short of an ex cathedra declaration of infallibility, or of a full declaration of infallibility by a sitting Council of the Church -- and of course, it stops well short of teachings directly provided by the Christ or in the Tablets of the Law -- but it would actually take some sort of Act of God to overturn the dctrine at this stage -- because the Pope's declaration of irrevocability formally denies that the Magisterium or any Council or any Pope can of their own Authority even *discuss* reversing Pope John Paul II's doctrinal statement.

(to get even more technical, it is actually Pope Galasius I's original teaching of March 494 that is imbued with irrevocable infallibility -- as I'm sure he's quite pleased about, given the tone of his original letter to the bishops)