O
otjm
Guest
It is interesting how the article is stated. Certainly there is no guarantee that every letter the Pope writes is public; and I do not presume in any way to suggest that a comment by Bishop Fellay is inaccurate.
However one would think that Rome would be particularly careful to state what has or has not been done between the SSPX and Rome in any particulars regarding permissions.
And again, we hear in the news release (of three years ago - May 2017) “and informed sources have indicated that an agreement is close to establish the SSPX as a personal prelature.”
According to further discussions after that, it was acknowledged that such a discussion was DOA - Dead On Arrival - consistent with the the last 40+ years or so of discussions between the SSPX and Rome.
I don’t follow the matter closely as it, s well as I, are both growing older.
So: I don’t accuse the bishop of creating something out of whole cloth; but what Rome said is in the letter - which may or may not be in the public sphere at this point; and the letter, not any interpretation of it or spin on it, is the deciding factor.
In the article itself, the comment is made: “Bishop Fellay reported. He said that the move indicated that although the status of the SSPX remains irregular…”
And while the bishop focuses on permission which Pope Francis has given, it would appear that the issue remains, as noted by Pope Benedict, that the heart of the irregularity between the SSPX and Rome is, in the Pope’s words “doctrinal”, and that is what has to be resolved.
However one would think that Rome would be particularly careful to state what has or has not been done between the SSPX and Rome in any particulars regarding permissions.
And again, we hear in the news release (of three years ago - May 2017) “and informed sources have indicated that an agreement is close to establish the SSPX as a personal prelature.”
According to further discussions after that, it was acknowledged that such a discussion was DOA - Dead On Arrival - consistent with the the last 40+ years or so of discussions between the SSPX and Rome.
I don’t follow the matter closely as it, s well as I, are both growing older.
So: I don’t accuse the bishop of creating something out of whole cloth; but what Rome said is in the letter - which may or may not be in the public sphere at this point; and the letter, not any interpretation of it or spin on it, is the deciding factor.
In the article itself, the comment is made: “Bishop Fellay reported. He said that the move indicated that although the status of the SSPX remains irregular…”
And while the bishop focuses on permission which Pope Francis has given, it would appear that the issue remains, as noted by Pope Benedict, that the heart of the irregularity between the SSPX and Rome is, in the Pope’s words “doctrinal”, and that is what has to be resolved.
Last edited: