27-Jun-08 - Bishop Fellay Rejects Vatican Conditions for Reconciling Split [via EWTN]

[Catholic_Press]

Winona, Jun 26, 2008 (CNA).- Bishop Bernard Fellay, the leader of the Society of St. Pius X, has rejected the terms offered by the Vatican for rejoini…

Full article…

 

[Auntie_M]

Is anyone REALLY surprised by this. If the SSPX accepts the 5 things, wouldn’t they then have to accept having to turn over maybe 5.000,000 dollars in cash and property!!! not in this lifetime…They like it just as it is. Money talks

(If they ever do, I’ll certainly owe them an apology, which I will gladly do.)

 

[ProVobis]

On Fr. Z’s blog, Bishop Fellay attempted to clarify a little bit.

Bp. Bernard Fellay had an interview on the Radio Svizzera:

The interviewer put the first question in terms of the SSPX having rejecting the offer, that on Friday for an ordination, it was announced that the SSPX rejected the ultimatum. But Fellay corrected him saying that that is not quite accurate. Fellay said that it is perhaps false to say that “reject”.

"Maybe it is false to say so directly that I reject, that I have made a complete refusal. That’s not true. Rather, I see in this ultimate something very vague and confused.

But isn’t this the last chance to reunite with Rome, during this favorable time with Pope Benedict XVI?

Fellay repeated that this ultimatum makes no sense (non ha senso) because they do, in fact, have a dialogue with Rome,even if it is slow. Rome wants to speed things up.

Fellay claims that they want to continue dialogue. SSPX wants to continue the dialogue. For Fellay dialogue might be “chilly” right now but it is not over.

The interviewer asked if Rome will lose patience, is the the SSPX at risk, will be it more and more marginalized?

Fellay said that more more people are coming to the SSPX. They don’t want to break with the Church. They desire to be accepted into the Church and do good for the Church. They are defenders of tradition.

This interview is in Italian. Maybe someone will make a transcript.

The bottom line:

The leadership of the SSPX are afraid of an internal rupture more than anything else. They can’t explicitly reject the Conditions offered by the Holy See. Therefore they are trying to steer a middle course by rejecting a seconday premise of the conditions which was explicitly state (Don’t speak disrespectfully about the Pope and put on airs about their own “magisterium”) without rejecting the true premise underlying them (Who is the Bishop of Rome and who are you without him?).

The code language to listen for in future comments by the leadership of the SSPX will be things like “the conditions don’t make sense – we do have dialogue even though it is slow – what’s the hurry”.

 

[ProVobis]

If the SSPX accepts the 5 things, wouldn’t they then have to accept having to turn over maybe 5.000,000 dollars in cash and property!!!

You’re probably right, but it’s not enough to get some of the U.S. dioceses out of bankruptcy.

But, seriously your point is very well taken. It doesn’t seem to be a matter of theology or liturgy anymore.

 

[AdvanceAlways]

I was slightly understanding of the sspx before but now I pray the Pope decalres them in schism.

 

[ProVobis]

I was slightly understanding of the sspx before but now I pray the Pope decalres them in schism.

Praying that they’re declared in schism?

Sounds very mean to me.

And then how would they get that $5 million?

 

[ac_claire]

Aren’t they already in schism?

 

[ProVobis]

Aren’t they already in schism?

Bishops are currently excommunicated and priests are currently suspended. Their Masses are valid, but their confessions and marriages and annulments aren’t, or, at least that’s the consensus here, I think.

 

[piouswoman]

Is anyone REALLY surprised by this. If the SSPX accepts the 5 things, wouldn’t they then have to accept having to turn over maybe 5.000,000 dollars in cash and property!!! not in this lifetime…They like it just as it is. Money talks

(If they ever do, I’ll certainly owe them an apology, which I will gladly do.)

Your kidding right? You honestly think that five million would even scratch the surface of the amount of money owed by the Church to countless victims of sexual abuse around the world? If you think that would make the least bit of difference, you are fooling yourself.

 

[piouswoman]

Read this:
newsmax.com/us/church_abuse_headquarters_sale/2008/01/22/66598.html

It is a joke to think that five million would help in any way this enormous debt owed by ONE archdiocese alone…to the tune of 660 million dollars…please spare us any more silly remarks.

 

[EddieArent]

Is anyone REALLY surprised by this. If the SSPX accepts the 5 things, wouldn’t they then have to accept having to turn over maybe 5.000,000 dollars in cash and property!!! not in this lifetime…They like it just as it is. Money talks

(If they ever do, I’ll certainly owe them an apology, which I will gladly do.)

Personally, I don’t want my local bishop or the vast majority of bishops out there having their name on the property. They would probably destroy the altar & rails just like the past bishops. BTW, $5 mill is probably very low.

 

[EddieArent]

Bishops are currently excommunicated and priests are currently suspended. Their Masses are valid, but their confessions and marriages and annulments aren’t, or, at least that’s the consensus here, I think.

Truth isn’t built on consensus. The majority of SSPX based confessions are valid due to supplied jurisdiction. The Good Shephard Insitute’s superior, a former SSPX priest, stated this. I’m sure he knows what he is talking about. Likewise, marraiges of couples from Campos, Brazil weren’t somehow automatically “validated” by their agreement.

The Society has stated time and time again what is needed for “reconcilliation.” That is the “lifting” (more like saying they are invalid, but that is another topic) of excommunications and fruitful discussion on the topics of Vatican II, etc. What the Holy Father is trying to do it seems, is contrary to the notion of when St. Paul told the then Holy Father, St. Peter to watch out (publicly) when he was out of line. What Pope Benedict seems to want is having this fraternal rebuking to stop, even when it is for the good of His Holiness’ soul and those of other Catholics. That is why Bishop Fellay has stated that the Society will not shut up. What is being discussed from the pulpit is not lies against the Holy Father, but true concerns that Catholics must be careful of. This is why we must pray for the Holy Father, as our Lady commanded us.

 

[Auntie_M]

Your kidding right? You honestly think that five million would even scratch the surface of the amount of money owed by the Church to countless victims of sexual abuse around the world? If you think that would make the least bit of difference, you are fooling yourself.

I was not referring to WHAT the Roman Catholic Church could do with that money. I was referring to the “sad” day for the SSPX of losing all that money/property

 

[GerardP]

Both EWTN and Fr. Z have their own agendas.

For one thing, EWTN never actually tells the whole story.

Fr. Z is a traditional wanna-be who is doing his darndest to create factions among traditionalists and particularly in the SSPX.

Anytime he posts anything about Bishop Williamson he titles it “Excommunicated Bishop says…” in which he then adds snarky commentary because he’s not the intellectual match of Williamson. And when it’s Bishop Fellay he comes off all “sympathetic” and wants prayers for him because he’s under such pressure from the “money” people in the SSPX.

He even expressed on Hugh Hewitt’s radio show the other day how he had a job in Rome that specifically dealt with issues concerning the SSPX.

This week more than any other he’s exposed his cards for all to see.

No matter what the SSPX is going to emerge from this series of events in a better position. The anti-SSPX haters have drawn the long knives and shown their colors to a lot of innocent faithful Catholics.

 

[Auntie_M]

Personally, I don’t want my local bishop or the vast majority of bishops out there having their name on the property. They would probably destroy the altar & rails just like the past bishops. BTW, $5 mill is probably very low.

EddieArent; How would you feel if the deed was in the name of the Roman Catholic Church.
So what you are really saying is that YOU don’t want the reconcillation BECAUSE you think the “bishops” would own it. Is that right. Forgive me if I am reading something into this wrongly.

 

[GerardP]

Nobody seems to want to address the absolutely amazing thing to this whole scenario, namely, why does the Holy Father want some kind of paper unity without unity of belief?

What kind of unity does the Holy Father have on his mind if He and the SSPX don’t believe the same things?

Doctrinal discussions before any paper unity.

 

[Auntie_M]

Truth isn’t built on consensus. The majority of SSPX based confessions are valid due to supplied jurisdiction. The Good Shephard Insitute’s superior, a former SSPX priest, stated this. I’m sure he knows what he is talking about. Likewise, marraiges of couples from Campos, Brazil weren’t somehow automatically “validated” by their agreement.

The Society has stated time and time again what is needed for “reconcilliation.” That is the “lifting” (more like saying they are invalid, but that is another topic) of excommunications and fruitful discussion on the topics of Vatican II, etc. What the Holy Father is trying to do it seems, is contrary to the notion of when St. Paul told the then Holy Father, St. Peter to watch out (publicly) when he was out of line. What Pope Benedict seems to want is having this fraternal rebuking to stop, even when it is for the good of His Holiness’ soul and those of other Catholics. That is why Bishop Fellay has stated that the Society will not shut up. **What is being discussed from the pulpit is not lies against the Holy Father, but true concerns that Catholics must be careful of. This is why we **must pray for the Holy Father, as our Lady commanded us.

You see, this is what I really don’t understand, (and I have heard these conversations also) is where in Tradition does it allow for priests to “preach” disunity AT MASS. These “problems” **are **being discussed FROM THE PULPIT just as you say.

 

[Auntie_M]

Nobody seems to want to address the absolutely amazing thing to this whole scenario, namely, why does the Holy Father want some kind of paper unity without unity of belief?

What kind of unity does the Holy Father have on his mind if He and the SSPX don’t believe the same things?

Doctrinal discussions before any paper unity.

I would think the Holy Father knows what he is doing. It is not “Paper unity” (never heard of such a thing anyway). Is that just a “nice” way of saying they “join” together only for appearances…maybe like a “common law” marriage?

 

[preV2tradcath]

Both EWTN and Fr. Z have their own agendas.

For one thing, EWTN never actually tells the whole story.

Fr. Z is a traditional wanna-be who is doing his darndest to create factions among traditionalists and particularly in the SSPX.

Anytime he posts anything about Bishop Williamson he titles it “Excommunicated Bishop says…” in which he then adds snarky commentary because he’s not the intellectual match of Williamson. And when it’s Bishop Fellay he comes off all “sympathetic” and wants prayers for him because he’s under such pressure from the “money” people in the SSPX.

He even expressed on Hugh Hewitt’s radio show the other day how he had a job in Rome that specifically dealt with issues concerning the SSPX.

This week more than any other he’s exposed his cards for all to see.

No matter what the SSPX is going to emerge from this series of events in a better position. The anti-SSPX haters have drawn the long knives and shown their colors to a lot of innocent faithful Catholics.

Amen. Another great post from you, Gerard.

 

[GerardP]

I would think the Holy Father knows what he is doing.:

Perhaps but his job is to protect the deposit of faith. After watching him give Communion to non-Catholics and never punish liberals it is within the bounds of any Catholic to question his behavior.

It is not “Paper unity” (never heard of such a thing anyway). Is that just a “nice” way of saying they “join” together only for appearances…maybe like a “common law” marriage?:shrug

Well, what kind of “unity” is it? If he doesn’t engage in the doctrinal discussions first, why would he invite possible heretics into a false communion in the Church that he would be obliged to excommunicate them later if they don’t recant some heresy?

There must a profession of faith in order for their to be unity. The SSPX insists that they must have assurances that their positions are truly Catholic. He must validate the correct and incorrect interpretations of the Council.

My suspicion is that he would be forced to condemn certain positions that are incorrect but useful for ecumenical and political purposes.

When it becomes clear that the Council literally did not change anything about the Catholic Church’s teaching, then that will destroy relations with the Jews and the Protestants and probably win some points with the Muslims and the Orthodox.

But it won’t fly with the majority of the bishops in the Church and that’s where the real apostasy is.

If you read Augustin Cardinal Bea’s writings and speeches on “unity” He plainly stated that “unity” meant the same beliefs, the same sacraments and all under the leadership of the same man, the Pope. Cardinal Bea was the point man for John XXIII and Paul VI on Ecumenism. He would not even recognize it today.