Official SSPX Statement Re: Ultimatum

  • Thread starter Thread starter Paradox2080
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

Paradox2080

Guest
sspx.org/discussions/concerning_ultimatum_cardinal_castrillon_hoyos.htm

CONCERNING THE ULTIMATUM
of Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos
Released on July 1, 2008 from DICI.

On June 4, 2008, at the request of Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos, President of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, the Superior General of the Society of St. Pius X, His Excellency Bernard Fellay, went to Rome accompanied the Second Assistant General, Fr. Alain-Marc Nely.

During the interview, he was given a memorandum in the form of an ultimatum, demanding an answer by the end of the month of June. On June 23, contrary to the established custom, the Italian daily Il Giornale revealed the existence of the ultimatum and, the next day, published its content in its online edition. In the days following, the information was broadcasted by all of the international press. Thus, to the urgency of the ultimatum was added media pressure.

Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos’ document expressed five demands: besides a positive answer requested before the end of June, the Society of St. Pius X, in the person of its General Superior, had to commit itself (1) “to give a response proportionate to the pope’s generosity”; (2) “to avoid any public comment which would not respect the person of the Holy Father and would have a negative impact upon ecclesial charity;” (3) “to avoid claiming a magisterium superior to the Holy Father’s and not to set the Society in opposition to the Church;” (4) “to demonstrate its will to act in all honesty and ecclesial charity, and in the respect of the authority of the Vicar of Christ.”

We must observe that the very general — not to say vague — character of the demands singularly contrasts with the urgency of the ultimatum. The conditions seem to be meant to obtain an atmosphere favorable to a further dialogue, rather than imply any precise commitment on definite issues. The Society of St. Pius X wishes that the dialogue be on the doctrinal level and take into accounts all the issues, which, if they were evaded, might jeopardize a canonical status hastily set up. The SSPX considers that the preliminary withdrawal of the 1988 decrees of excommunication would foster serenity in the dialogue.

The SSPX does not claim the exercise of a magisterium superior to the Holy Father’s, nor does it seek to oppose the Church. Following in the footsteps of its founder, it wants to hand down what it has received, namely “what has always been believed everywhere and by all.” It claims as its own the profession of faith addressed by Archbishop Lefebvre to Paul VI on September 24, 1975: “Jesus Christ has entrusted to His Vicar the charge of confirming his brethren in the faith, and has asked him to make sure that every bishop faithfully keep the deposit of the faith, according to St. Paul’s recommendation to Timothy.”

In a letter to Pope Benedict XVI, dated June 26, 2008, Bishop Fellay answered in this sense. Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos acknowledged receipt of the letter the next day.

Until further details are available, we will make no comment.
 
sspx.org/discussions/concerning_ultimatum_cardinal_castrillon_hoyos.htm

CONCERNING THE ULTIMATUM
of Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos
Released on July 1, 2008 from DICI.

On June 4, 2008, at the request of Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos, President of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, the Superior General of the Society of St. Pius X, His Excellency Bernard Fellay, went to Rome accompanied the Second Assistant General, Fr. Alain-Marc Nely.

During the interview, he was given a memorandum in the form of an ultimatum, demanding an answer by the end of the month of June. On June 23, contrary to the established custom, the Italian daily Il Giornale revealed the existence of the ultimatum and, the next day, published its content in its online edition. In the days following, the information was broadcasted by all of the international press. Thus, to the urgency of the ultimatum was added media pressure.

Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos’ document expressed five demands: besides a positive answer requested before the end of June, the Society of St. Pius X, in the person of its General Superior, had to commit itself (1) “to give a response proportionate to the pope’s generosity”; (2) “to avoid any public comment which would not respect the person of the Holy Father and would have a negative impact upon ecclesial charity;” (3) “to avoid claiming a magisterium superior to the Holy Father’s and not to set the Society in opposition to the Church;” (4) “to demonstrate its will to act in all honesty and ecclesial charity, and in the respect of the authority of the Vicar of Christ.”

We must observe that the very general — not to say vague — character of the demands singularly contrasts with the urgency of the ultimatum. The conditions seem to be meant to obtain an atmosphere favorable to a further dialogue, rather than imply any precise commitment on definite issues. The Society of St. Pius X wishes that the dialogue be on the doctrinal level and take into accounts all the issues, which, if they were evaded, might jeopardize a canonical status hastily set up. The SSPX considers that the preliminary withdrawal of the 1988 decrees of excommunication would foster serenity in the dialogue.

The SSPX does not claim the exercise of a magisterium superior to the Holy Father’s, nor does it seek to oppose the Church. Following in the footsteps of its founder, it wants to hand down what it has received, namely “what has always been believed everywhere and by all.” It claims as its own the profession of faith addressed by Archbishop Lefebvre to Paul VI on September 24, 1975: “Jesus Christ has entrusted to His Vicar the charge of confirming his brethren in the faith, and has asked him to make sure that every bishop faithfully keep the deposit of the faith, according to St. Paul’s recommendation to Timothy.”

In a letter to Pope Benedict XVI, dated June 26, 2008, Bishop Fellay answered in this sense. Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos acknowledged receipt of the letter the next day.

Until further details are available, we will make no comment.
Notice no one is commenting on the latest developments.

This isn’t as positive as I’d hoped, but it’s not exactly negative either. It’s good to get this out of the way.

Maybe by this time next year things will be cleared up?
 
Notice no one is commenting on the latest developments.

This isn’t as positive as I’d hoped, but it’s not exactly negative either. It’s good to get this out of the way.

Maybe by this time next year things will be cleared up?
I’m praying that this is signals the beginning of some serious talks between the two and we get a positive outcome within the coming months.
 
I have a mixed reaction. What has irritated me both about Fellay and Williamson has been their media-mongering, airing their complaints to the public. I think Rome should not have followed suit. In this sense, I believe the letter has a valid point. However, the inclusion of a deadline may be necessary. The SSPX can not go forever as a loose cannon. They either need to be brought under authority, disbanded or declared in schism. (hopefully not the last choice).
 
I have a mixed reaction. What has irritated me both about Fellay and Williamson has been their media-mongering, airing their complaints to the public. I think Rome should not have followed suit. In this sense, I believe the letter has a valid point. However, the inclusion of a deadline may be necessary. The SSPX can not go forever as a loose cannon. They either need to be brought under authority, disbanded or declared in schism. (hopefully not the last choice).
My thoughts exactly. I applaud the Holy Father for moving this forward, one way or another, instead of just leaving things in limbo.
 
I have a mixed reaction. **What has irritated me both about Fellay and Williamson has been their media-mongering, airing their complaints to the public. I think Rome should not have followed suit. ** .
I have re-read the release, and nowhere does it state who released this information to the Italian press. Do you have any information that says this?
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

PS I have read Fr Z’s response and it, in itself, is not clear who released the information. If they have done this is the past, could they not have done it again. I am not saying they did. What I am saying is that there is no positive evidence either way that I see having been presented.
 
I have a mixed reaction. What has irritated me both about Fellay and Williamson has been their media-mongering, airing their complaints to the public. I think Rome should not have followed suit. In this sense, I believe the letter has a valid point. However, the inclusion of a deadline may be necessary. The SSPX can not go forever as a loose cannon. They either need to be brought under authority, disbanded or declared in schism. (hopefully not the last choice).
I just found some more information of Fr. Z’s blog which offers a little more insight:

wdtprs.com/blog/2008/07/tornielli-on-the-sspx-reponse-to-rome-more-time/

Tornielli on the SSPX reponse to Rome: more time
Fr. John Zuhlsdorf @ 11:43 am

"The intrepid Andrea Tornielli of Il Giornale, an Italian daily, has this piece on his blog. My translation, emphases.

“I have learned from a certain source that, contary to what has emerged in certain articles, the response of the [SSPX] to Card. Castrillon’s letter has not been at all negative. The Cardinal was pleased with it, responded to Fellay, and immediately passed the SSPX’s letter to Benedict XVI. Beyond the dead line of the end of June, the Lefebvrites asked for some time – it seems – to seek a way to adhere to the five points.”

This is very good. It is consistent with what my own sources have sent me.

However, I am not sure why it should take more time to sign off on things like, “don’t pretend to have a Magisterium above that of the Pope.” Bp. Fellay affirmed that he doesn’t think that way and, in a sense, that begins to fulfill that condition.

We wil only know in the future what the SSPX intends to do about the conditions.

If we hear and read harsh rhetoric about the Holy Father, or overarching judgments about the Pope’s ordinary Magisterium, or constant negativity about reunion, that will tell us what they think about the conditions and about dialogue.

But I wager that we are not going to see the SSPX continue according to the status quo ante.

I suspect that if they need time, they are going to use that time to try to muster together the whole leadership of the SSPX into the same orderly rank. I suspect that they are talking intensely, arguing, discussing, persuading on this side and that, how they are going to speak and write in public for the foreseen future.

The SSPX’s negotiations are not just with Rome, but also amongst themselves and with their base of followers.

Pray for them! Pray now!

The old Enemy, the father of lies and divisions will attack them with subtle fury."
 
I totally agree with your request for prayer. I have been holding this up in prayer for quite some time and ask that all do the same.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top