Bishop Fellay's (SSPX) response to reunification

[Old_Salt]

It is because is is far easier to point out the sins of others than examine our own. Yet still, there is a place to exhort each other to grow in holiness and humility.

Correct.
Two of the Spiritual Works of Mercy, given us by Christ are
“Admonish the Sinner”
“Instruct the Ignorant”

 

[CatholicSensei]

Personally I think this applies more to Catholics who chose not to worship God at all. There are far more of them than those who attend the FSSPX Masses.

Perhaps that is the source of sin in those who refuse to worship. However, that was not my point. I was speaking to the original post in this thread. I, when speaking about myself, use the word “observant.” I once was having breakfast with a truly loving and orthodox Priest, when I was a younger man. My dream was to be a Papal Gendarme npatrol:, as I was born in the United States of America, I cannot join the Pontifical Swiss Guard. :knight1: I was telling him that I had written to the Holy See, a letter. I described myself in the letter as a “devout” Catholic.

Father challenged me immediately. He asked me, “How do you know?! You should let others say that about you. You should not say that about yourself.” So from then on I use the word that I believe is more correct because I know that I am a sinner like the rest of mankind. :imsorry: The word is observant.

 

[CatholicSensei]

We must always remember the wise words of Teresa of Avila to her nuns, “We have all betrayed Him. Why the competition?”

Fratenally,

Br. JR, OSF

Well said Brother! Thank you.

 

[True_Mass]

First, Fr. Z’s headline was very misleading. There is no other way to say it. Compare it with this headline and Bishop Fellay’s actual words…

Bishop Fellay to Rome: “We are ready.”

As one of the moderators says in the comments:

New Catholic said…
No, they are not at odds. Catholic Culture, following some distorters in the Italian media and also in some English-speaking blogs, is WRONG. Not merely mistaken, but wrong.
We are right: it was never supposed to be seen as a no to the Holy See. Let us give the Bishop, and the Vatican negotiators, some credit: after all these years of negotiations, instead of saying no to the face and directly, he would say no in a sermon thousands of miles away?..

And Côme de Prévigny, our guest, presents his editorial view on the matter - which appears to be as close to the essence of the matter as one can possibly get.

“He who has ears to hear, let him hear.”

NC

Next, this was a section of a sermon where Bishop Fellay tried to explain what was happening with Rome to his flock in words they would understand. It was then reported out of context by the media and bloggers and then commented upon judgmentally by posters on message boards. The Society’s official response was sent to Rome and is unknown. Part of that response include’s Fr. Grisez’s excellent explanation of the conflicting visions of the Magisterium offered before and after Vatican II. It goes to the heart of the matter. It deals with the subject and object and is a great read. Some excerpts can be found here: dici.org/en/documents/debate-about-vatican-ii-fr-gleize-responds-to-msgr-ocariz/

He is the one who gave the SSPX the Preamble. I bring up the Cardinal, because if the SSPX bishops get too mouthy, the Cardinal has the authority to slam and dunk them. The pope will back him up. He will report to the Pope his impressions and make his suggestions and they will carry a lot of weight.

“Slam and dunk them”?? This is not exactly BXVI’s approach or that of VCII. And can we read the Pope’s mind? The Pope has the final say in this matter and is free to reject whatever Cardinal Levada offers him. In fact, the Pope acted almost alone in issuing the Motu Proprio, the remitting of the excommunications, and starting doctrinal discussions. There is absolutely no evidence that the Society has gotten too “mouthy”, that Cardinal Levada ever stated this opinion, or that the Pope will back Cardinal Levada up if he did.

The full text of Bishop Fellay’s Sermon extract relevant to Rome is here: rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2012/02/fellay-you-can-be-certain-that.html#more

Bishop Fellay is summarizing what happened in terms his flock will understand. People take the word “Modernist” out of context and accuse Bishop Fellay of name calling. They somehow fail to mention, this is in response to those on the commission calling the Society Protestants! It is a technical theological word used to describe exactly what the Society sees as some of the Roman members of the committee are saying. Namely pretending that the teaching of today can be different from the teaching of yesterday. Frankness and honesty is called for during the discussions. The priests on the commission are not the Society’s “superiors.” They are not the Pope. The entire point of the discussions is to get everything on the table in an open manner. In an assembly of apostles in scripture St. Paul even rebuked the Pope to his face, much less a Roman commission of equals. So Bishop Fellay is by no means crossing the line or being uncharitable. His comments must be read in context and considering his audience and the vehicle he’s saying this within: a sermon to Society faithful.

Also there is still the impression of some that this is a negotiation. There is no negotiation. There is a discussion to explain to the commission the problems the Society and many others in “full communion” have with VCII ecclesiology and apparent doctrinal novelties. Seeing as how those already in “full communion” such as Msgr. Ghehardini, Bishop Schnieder, Bishop Ranjith hold the same positions as the Society, I am still puzzled how the Society is not regularized “as is” and allowed to hold their opinions as Catholics just as the far leftists in the Church are allowed to hold their opinions as Catholics in disagreement with Rome on certain points. Bishop Fellay in this very talks says they are ready to come in right now, as is!

Bishop Fellay never “got in the Holy See’s face and called it Modernist.” He referred to doctrinal discussions with a commission, some of whose members called the Society “Protestant.” If the Holy See is offended by Bishop Fellay’s remarks, I’m sure they will make it known to him through proper channels and not have it be assumed or implied by those on message boards or in the media.

It is important to note that Hans Kung rejects almost every Catholic dogma which has been solemnly defined. Yet he is a Catholic in good standing with absolutely no canonical impediments. He is only disallowed from calling himself a “Catholic theologian.” Even though this man denies Catholic defined dogma and has criticized the Pope publicly(!) he is in “full communion” while the Society, who believes nothing other than what was believed by all Catholics prior to Vatican II must pass through a crucible of examination and demanded to sign statements before being permitted to exist in the Church.

 

[True_Mass]

Regardless, they minced no words in chewing up Rome and spitting it out.

The Bishop chewed up Rome and spit it out?? Neither the Pope or even Cardinal Levada or anyone on the commission has in any way said this. They have said the discussions were very cordial.

Meanwhile, Rome has acted like a lady. She has not said a single negative word about the SSPX. I don’t believe that it’s because the SSPX is so perfect, behaved so well during these discussion and impressed the Holy See so much that it left the Holy See in awe. If that were the case, the Holy See would have given the SSPX a welcome home party last September and not a Preamble.

Is regularization to be based on how nice one is and how well one behaves? The regularization will be based only on a doctrinal agreement. The Pope will not judge the issue on p’s and q’s but substance. Bishop Fellay has respected and acknowledged the Pope and was the one who asked for the excommunications to be lifted and asked for the discussions. There are disagreements he and his priests are discussing with Rome.

Bishop Fellay was truthful with his congregation and spoke from the heart. I encourage everyone to read the excerpt in full before judging. He explained the frustrating contradictions he saw in words his flock would understand. Liberal prelates and priests speak against Catholic teaching in sermons every day and they are not broadcast as dissent across the world and no discipline ever befalls them. We need to use the same standard of charity in judging the words of all bishops.

 

[JReducation]

The Bishop chewed up Rome and spit it out?? Neither the Pope or even Cardinal Levada or anyone on the commission has in any way said this. They have said the discussions were very cordial.

Is regularization to be based on how nice one is and how well one behaves? The regularization will be based only on a doctrinal agreement. The Pope will not judge the issue on p’s and q’s but substance. Bishop Fellay has respected and acknowledged the Pope and was the one who asked for the excommunications to be lifted and asked for the discussions. There are disagreements he and his priests are discussing with Rome.

Bishop Fellay was truthful with his congregation and spoke from the heart. I encourage everyone to read the excerpt in full before judging. He explained the frustrating contradictions he saw in words his flock would understand. Liberal prelates and priests speak against Catholic teaching in sermons every day and they are not broadcast as dissent across the world and no discipline ever befalls them. We need to use the same standard of charity in judging the words of all bishops.

You’re operating out of two assumptions that are mistaken.

First, Cardinal Levada is the papal delegate in these discussion. He will report to the Holy Father the conclusions of the committee, it will not be Bishop Fellay who will report. His role and his opinion are not to be taken lightly.

Second, your argument that the SSPX went to this table as equals. Among the men sitting at the table were Cardinal Levada. Other than the Holy Father, no one else can is his equal in authority and rank. There was a Dominican Friar, an Opus Dei Priest, a Jesuit Priest, a Franciscan Friar and others. These and the SSPX priests are not equals either. They may all be scholars, but these men have a canonical place in the Church, the SSPX delegation does not have a canonical place. They are not in the same position. They are equal in dignity and probably education, but not in their standing with the Church.

On another point I used the expression “slam dunk”. I did not say that Cardinal Levada used it. I said that he has the power to slam and dunk them if they get mouthy. This is not falsehood. This happened before. It was with Cardinal Ratzinger. He broke off discussions with Archbishop Lefebvre, it was not Pope John Paul II. Pope John Paul took his advice.

The point is that the Prefect for the Sacred Congregation for the Faith is to be treated with respect, not as an equal. He is not Bishop Fellay’s equal or that of any of the theologians at that table. He can close the door on anyone who pushes inappropriately. That was my point. One can express one’s questions and concerns without using such terms as “Modernists”. The argument that the committee called them Protestant does not hold water. The committee is not asking to be regularized, these men are. They want to be regularized as they are and the committee has obviously told them that they have to drop certain points and agree to discuss others. This is not what they want. Which is fine. They don’t have to want it. That’s their choice. We have to treat them with respect even if we disagree with their choice.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[pnewton]

First, Fr. Z’s headline was very misleading. There is no other way to say it. Compare it with this headline and Bishop Fellay’s actual words…

Bishop Fellay to Rome: “We are ready.”

As one of the moderators says in the comments:

Like that is not misleading? They have always been ready as long as they get to state the terms. They are not ready to agree and come back on the terms of the Holy Father. If they were, this would not even be an issue by now. I think Fr. Z’s headline is far more accurate that Bishop Fellay’s.

 

[True_Mass]

I don’t believe my assumptions are mistaken, with all due respect.

First, I don’t think it is right that the doctrinal discussions are meant to be a sort of Inquisition with Cardinal Levada as Grand Inquisitor. This would be a situation where the Society’s delegates cannot speak freely and candidly, as well as the other priests from Rome, about the problems that each faces without incurring the immediate shut down of talks by Cardinal Levada. This is not a situation where the Society needs to come in sack cloth and ashes begging and imploring those on the committee to forgive them. Pope Benedict never couched the discussions as such.

Rome doesn’t even require this of Protestants who want to discuss regularization much less those inside the Church, as the Society is, though Canonically irregular. Rome “dialogues” with Protestants as if they were equals, even if in the objective order, they are not equal. I’m certain there were free and frank discussions with the Anglicans and Lutherans and the Roman representative did not show an attitude, such that if the Proestants started getting “mouthy” he would “slam dunk” them. That would not be a very charitable or ecumenical attitude and not at all within the spirit of Vatican II.

Second, I think the idea that Cardinal Levada represents and is equivalent to the Pope in this commission is mistaken. Cardinal Levada was put in charge of overseeing the talks. He is like the chairman of a committee who runs the administrative side of things. He also contributes when he wants to. He will report to the Pope and so will others like the Ecclesia Dei folks with a stake in this. In the end the Pope himself will make decisions. BXVI has definitely shown he is willing to make controversial decisions almost alone against the advice of Cardinals as is evidenced by the MP and remitting of excommunications as I referred to before.

Also, an historical correction. Cardinal Ratzinger did not cause Rome to break off discussions with Archbishop Lefebvre. Rome was in communication with ABL until the last minute before the consecrations of 1988.

No Roman official has ever claimed that Bishop Fellay treated Cardinal Levada with anything but respect. The two are cordial to each other. I think it is prudent not to assume a lack of charity when none has been alleged by Rome.

If a priest on the committee calls a position of the Society “Protestant” it is absolutely valid for a priest of the Society to call a position of the current Vatican “Modernist” in the precise theological definition of the term, not as an insult. These men are trained theologians and they know what these terms means in their strict sense. They are not trading barbs at each other, though this is what gets blown out of proportion by the press who does not want a reconciliation to happen. The picture that the Society is using the discussions to insult the Holy See is simply not supported by evidence. The paper that the Society priest prepared that was sent to Rome along with Bishop Fellay’s second response shows just how seriously the Society takes these talks and the intellectual level they are on. I’d encourage you to read it and give your thoughts.

Just as the Society should and does (as far as we know) treat the commission with respect, I think we should treat Bishop Fellay with respect and assume the best about both his words and intentions.

I’d like someone to comment on the fact that Hans Kung, a known heretic, in the precise theological meaning of the term (denies multiple defined dogmas) is in “full communion” while Bishop Fellay is not. Fr. Kung has also publicly criticized the Holy Father. Is it not fair to ask why Fr. Kung is not made to sign a preamble as well in order to maintain regular standing within the Church? Do the rules not apply the same to all Catholics?

 

[True_Mass]

Like that is not misleading? They have always been ready as long as they get to state the terms. They are not ready to agree and come back on the terms of the Holy Father. If they were, this would not even be an issue by now. I think Fr. Z’s headline is far more accurate that Bishop Fellay’s.

There are religious orders, priests, bishops, who are in full canonical standing with Rome who contradict articles of Faith and are not required to agree to any terms to maintain good standing.

The Society has a legitimate argument to ask why they, who hold the positions of Msgr. Gheradini, Bishop Schneider, and Bishop Ranjith, who are all three in full communion, cannot be accepted as is into the Church. Is the Church big enough to have Fr. Kung in full communion, but not Bishop Fellay? Does only the Society have to be in lock step with the Vatican’s current view of VCII and the Magisterium? Is there not room for honest differences of opinions? There certainly seems to be room on the left for such differences.

 

[maurin]

Like that is not misleading? They have always been ready as long as they get to state the terms. They are not ready to agree and come back on the terms of the Holy Father. If they were, this would not even be an issue by now. I think Fr. Z’s headline is far more accurate that Bishop Fellay’s.

The Society’s position hasn’t changed in 40 years. The Society does not dictate terms to the Holy Father. The Society is content with its status until the Church returns to Tradition.

An over simplification of the situation might be stated this way: I have the legal right to keep all that which is mine even if all around me are starving. I do not have the moral right to do so.

Most Traditionalists would agree that the “conciliar” Popes had the legal right to make the changes which have lead to the silent apostasy Pope John Paul II referred to. Until the question of whether they had the moral right to do so has been settled, I don’t see the situation changing anytime soon.

 

[Sean_O_L]

Vatican Council II stated that there were “Ecclesial Groups” (as opposed to “Churches”) which were “not in full communion” with the Catholic Church.

“Ecclesial Groups” such as:

The Anglican/Episcopal “Church”
The Methodist “Church”,
The Presbyterian “Church”
The United “Church”
The Salvation Army - in fact, ALL Protestant “Churches” AND
The Society of St Pius X AND
Sedevacantionists and Sedeprivationists

ALL are “not in full communion” with the Catholic Church.

This term is a “nice” “ecumenical” term - which, in times past, meant precisely “to be in a state of schism”!

Whether either term is used, the facts are that the Society of St Pius X lost ALL priestly faculties following the cessation of their “ad experimentum” status in the mid-1970’s. Since then, they have illicitly performed Masses and invalidly heard Confessions, and invalidly performed Marriages, etc.

Many “traditionalists” have been seduced by the performance of the Mass, using Latin and the pre-Vatican II liturgy.

Let me say that, 65 years ago, when I was an Altar-boy in the Diocese of Sale, I observed many priests perform the “Blessed Mutter of the Mass.” In other words, many of the words were slurred and imperfectly pronounced; sometimes even almost asleep.

Did THAT really matter? Not at all. For all that the Church requires of Her minsters is that they be 1. validly ordained, 2. possess the right intention (or possess the residual intention that they had when originally ordained) 3. that they use the correct matter for the consecration of the species, and 4. that they use the prescribed form of words for the consecration.

Two extreme scenarios:

1. Cardinal Mindzenty (for example) has been jailed in a Communist prison and is closely guarded. Nevertheless, somehow he has a crumb of bread and a single drop of wine. He is validly ordained, intends to consecrate, has bread and wine, and says: “This is My Body…” and “This is My Blood…”, and he consumes both.

Within 10 seconds, and under the very nose of the guard, he has said Mass!

1. Fr. Joe Blow was ordained 15 years ago. At the time he was an ideal candidate. In the meantime, he has become Parish Priest of of Somewhereville, and has become a Satanist. His congregation is not aware of the latter situation, and turn up for Mass.
   He too, is validly ordained, still has the intention to consecrate (albeit for nefarious purposes), uses the bread and wine, and says the prescribed words.

He, too, has said Mass (blasphemously) - but graces DO flow to the congregation, and they DO receive the Body and Blood of the Lord.

The point? “traditionalists” like the SSPX and other “Independents” do not see the forrest for the trees, emphasizing externals, and falling into or remaining in a state of “not being in full communion” when there is no “good” reason for remaining in that state.

 

[ProVobis]

Vatican Council II stated that there were “Ecclesial Groups” (as opposed to “Churches”) which were “not in full communion” with the Catholic Church.

“Ecclesial Groups” such as:

The Anglican/Episcopal “Church”
The Methodist “Church”,
The Presbyterian “Church”
The United “Church”
The Salvation Army - in fact, ALL Protestant “Churches” AND
The Society of St Pius X AND
Sedevacantionists and Sedeprivationists

At the time of Vatican II there was no Society of St. Pius X.

I stopped reading at this point.

 

[JReducation]

At the time of Vatican II there was no Society of St. Pius X.

I stopped reading at this point.

I believe the point that the poster was making is that the term “not in full communion” was born at Vatican II and referred to the Protestant communities. This term has been applied to the SSPX as well. That was the connection.

There is a misunderstanding here. The term does not mean the same as “schism” Protestants cannot be in schism, because they are not real Churches. The SSPX cannot be in schism, because they are not a Church. The term arose out of need to describe those who have some degree of communion with the Church without being in schism.

Observe how we make the distinction when we speak of the Orthodox. The term used is Communion In Sacris (Communion in the Sacred/Sacraments).

In all the above cases, the term is used because the classical terms did not apply and failed to describe the relationship between the subject and the Church.

To respond to the question about Fr. Kung. First of all, the only person in authority to label Fr. Kung a heretic is his bishop or the pope and neither has ever done. Secondly, Father Kung has not a violated a canon law that excommunicates you. While Canon Law defines heresy and heretic, it does stops at saying that a person who speaks heresy is automatically excommunicated. There are laws that carry the penalty of excommunication, but heresy is not one of them.

None of the popes have chosen to excommunicate Father Kung nor has he violated any laws the incur an automatic suspension. If the law does not impose a penalty, then it’s up to the authorities to decide whether a penalty is necessary and what it should be.

The pope can excommunicate a person because he doesn’t like the color of his toothbrush. We have seen in Church history the number of excommunications for reasons ranging from heresy to politics. They are all valid, because the pope is the final authority.

The difference here is that the SSPX situation is imposed by the law, not by the pope. It is the law that says that you are excommunicated if you ordain a bishop without a papal mandate. It is the law that says that if you’re ordained a deacon or priest by a bishop who does not have the canonical authority to ordain you, the ordination is illicit and you’re automatically suspended, if you knowingly allow that bishop to ordain you.

Here is simple example of how this works. I belong to a religious community. If I request that Bishop Smith of the Diocese of Somewhere ordain me and he does so, he and I are both automatically suspended. Now, Bishop Smith is in good standing with the Church. He’s a diocesan bishop. Why are we suspended? Bishop Smith does not have the authority to ordain me. Only the religious superior can grant permission for an ordination of a professed religious. The bishop knows this and so do I; but we proceeded without the mandate to ordain.

The penalty does not mean that either of us have committed a greater error than someone who questioned ABC. The penalty is built into the law, whereas there is no law that carries a penalty for questioning ABC.

Communion has degrees and there are different areas of communion, we have seen in the above situations: SSPX, Fr. Kung, Protestants, Orthodox and the religious who is ordained without a Dimissorial Letter.

Laws carry different penalties and some carry no penalty, leaving it up to the person in authority to decide what to do.

I hope this helps.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[srp643]

.

I’d like someone to comment on the fact that Hans Kung, a known heretic, in the precise theological meaning of the term (denies multiple defined dogmas) is in “full communion” while Bishop Fellay is not. Fr. Kung has also publicly criticized the Holy Father. Is it not fair to ask why Fr. Kung is not made to sign a preamble as well in order to maintain regular standing within the Church? Do the rules not apply the same to all Catholics?

Exactly my thought. Another good example is the Chinese Patriotic Catholic Church, or whatever it is sadly called. Hundreds of illicit bishop ordinations never approved by the Vatican but yet the Church has never declared this “church” to be in schism. A total double standard any way you look at it based on the facts. I’m not in the SSPX but Rome should be ashamed of itself. The modernists are just trying to save face but in the end they have no legs to stand on. I look at the SSPX as if they were John at the foot of the Cross - they stayed next to our Blessed Mother (look at all of their rosary crusades). Peter unfortunately ran away but eventually came around. Sounds eerily familiar.

 

[JReducation]

Slow down here. You’re making some serious allegations that put you on a slippery slope, on which you probably don’t want to be. Let’s take these one at a time.

Exactly my thought.

I already answered this point. Did you read above? Some laws carry a penalty and some do not. When the law does not carry a penalty, it’s up to the pope, the bishop or religious superior to decide what is an appropriate penalty, if any at all. None of us has the authority to dictate to them, because they are Ordinaries and we’re not.

Another good example is the Chinese Patriotic Catholic Church, or whatever it is sadly called. Hundreds of illicit bishop ordinations never approved by the Vatican but yet the Church has never declared this “church” to be in schism.

The popes have never declared them to be in schism, because they’re not in schism. They are in the same situation as the SSPX was a few years ago. They are guilty of a schismatic act and the bishops are excommunicated. That has been clear and public for decades.

There is now one case that is under investigation, because the candidate that was ordained did have a papal mandate and the ordaining bishop did have the authorization to do so, but there was present a excommunicated bishop from the Chinese National Catholic Church. The question on the table is whether the ordination is licit or not, because there was an excommunicated bishop present, although the presider was a bishop with canonical authority and the candidate has the papal mandate. Also, why was the excommunicated bishop present? I have no idea if they resolved this. As you well know, the news only tells you when someone is accused of something, but never tells you what happened at the end.

A total double standard any way you look at it based on the facts. I’m not in the SSPX but Rome should be ashamed of itself. The modernists are just trying to save face but in the end they have no legs to stand on.

In this paragraph is where you step onto the slippery slope. When you say Rome has a double standard “shame on them”, you may as well say “Pope Benedict has a double standard, shame on him.” That places you in a position where you’re passing judgment on someone that no Catholic can judge.

Only the pope can excommunicate. Only the pope can dispense with Canon Law. Only the pope decides to whom the law applies and to whom it does not apply. Only the pope decides to what degree the law applies.

The Signatura, which is the highest court in the Church only interprets the law. However, when the pope bypasses the law or says that it is not applicable, the Signatura cannot overrule him. It’s not like the Supreme Court and the President. When the law does not specify a penalty, no one can force the pope to make up a penalty, as in the case of Fr. Kung and others. He imposes whatever penalty he believes will help the person or he allows the immediate authority to do that.

The pope can excommunicate, suspend and impose whatever penalties he wants on you or me for whatever reason he wants. St. Boniface declared that God is the Law Giver. However, he places that law into the heart of the pope, so that the pope is not subject to the law, but becomes the Living Law. Therefore, all Canon Law flows from the pope and applies to whomever the pope decides, when he decides, to the degree that he decides and no one has the right to doubt or question it.

Read below. It may answer your concerns and explain why the pope can apply the law as he believes to be best and it is not up to us to call it into question.

**The sovereign pontiff is the most fruitful source of canon law;

1. 
   *]he can abrogate the laws made by his predecessors or by Ecumenical councils;
   
   *]he can legislate for the whole church or for a part thereof, a country or a given body of individuals;
   
   *]he is not legally obliged to obtain the consent of any other person or persons, or to observe any particular form;
   
   *]his power is limited only by Divine law, natural and positive, dogmatic and moral.
   
   Furthermore, he is, so to say, the living law, for he is considered as having all law in the treasury of his heart (“in scrinio pectoris”; Boniface VIII. c. i, “De Constit.” in VI).**
   
   Since the law is in the treasury of the pope’s heart, when he applies it and how he applies it is not for us to question, because the law has not been given to us. In addition, Canon Law itself says that the beyond the pope there is no appeal. The interpretation given to this by the Signatura is that once the pope applies a law as he sees fit, the case is over. There is no use going on and on about it, because we’re just ranting. The pope has spoken and that’s it.
   
   Fraternally,
   
   Br. JR, OSF

 

[pnewton]

There are religious orders, priests, bishops, who are in full canonical standing with Rome who contradict articles of Faith and are not required to agree to any terms to maintain good standing.

The Society has a legitimate argument to ask why they, who hold the positions of Msgr. Gheradini, Bishop Schneider, and Bishop Ranjith, who are all three in full communion, cannot be accepted as is into the Church. Is the Church big enough to have Fr. Kung in full communion, but not Bishop Fellay? Does only the Society have to be in lock step with the Vatican’s current view of VCII and the Magisterium? Is there not room for honest differences of opinions? There certainly seems to be room on the left for such differences.

I was not addressing their questions, just their readiness. I do not accept the argument that, “It’s not fair. Others don’t have to do this” from adults or children. If the Holy See wants a different path for bishops that were illicitly ordained and been operating outside of canon law, that is her perogative.

 

[pnewton]

The Society’s position hasn’t changed in 40 years. The Society does not dictate terms to the Holy Father.

You say this,but yet they remain in this dilemna. Note I did not say the dictate terms, but that they will not return except on their own terms. They are still in a status of rejecting what the Holy Father is offering. This is not in dispute. Thus, I question their readiness to act, except on their own terms.

 

[Filii_Dei]

The Society’s position hasn’t changed in 40 years. The Society does not dictate terms to the Holy Father. The Society is content with its status until the Church returns to Tradition.

So you’re saying that the Society would prioritize ritual and tradition over loyalty and unity with the Church? I’m pretty sure you don’t speak for Bishop Fellay.

 

[Melchior_1]

The Society is content with its status until the Church returns to Tradition.

This line encapsulates everything wrong with the situation, IMHO.

 

[maurin]

So you’re saying that the Society would prioritize ritual and tradition over loyalty and unity with the Church? I’m pretty sure you don’t speak for Bishop Fellay.

I’m pretty sure I don’t speak for HE Fellay, either.

It isn’t clear from your response that you understand what is meant by a return to Tradition. It has very little to do with ritual. And please be careful you don’t hurt your eyes rolling them in that way!