Pope Has Responded to Bishop Fellay

[Aelred_Minor]

I have been asked to clarify what is or is not allowed.

Whatever the outcome is, some people will be upset and others will be delighted. Both sides are free to express those feelings and thoughts.

No one is allowed to call into question the Holy Father’s decision on this forum. I can be pleased or displeased with his decision and I can say why. I cannot say that I’m right and he’s wrong.

No one will be allowed to attack Bishop Fellay or the SSPX. Disagreeing can happen without name calling and without calling into question another person’s integrity.

We will respond with honesty that is tempered by good manners and great love for all involved.

This is my own attitude as well, and is what I intended to express in my own post. I apologize if it came across differently, though perhaps the editing was to preempt foreseen responses from people with strong feelings that it should be one way or another.

Those in the Vatican, including the Holy Father, no doubt have much more information on the situation than any of us do, and it is ultimately the Holy Father’s call what action the situation warrants.

 

[Moore11]

Looks like more waiting maybe a week or so.
This rollercoaster ride is killing me.

 

[Dirt]

Patience! And Prayer! Lots of Prayer!

 

[Megan7]

Guiseppe is not that type of person.

Also, the first place to cross-check is Rorate.

Thanks!

PAX

 

[ProVobis]

You can also do a google search on “SSPX” and select past hour/24 hours (Show Search tools first.) I got 100 hits on just the last hour alone.

 

[RogerDeCourcy]

I think everyone should just calm down. I sincerely hope the blogosphere echo-chamber will have no ill effect on the discussions.

But I’ll lay odds there’ll be an Infernal response if the SSPX are reconciled. Like when the excomunications were lifted, didn’t Bishop Williamson co-incidentally get ‘outed’ as a ‘Holocaust denier’?

Action → reaction.

 

[JReducation]

I think I’m just going to take Fr. Lombardi and the SSPX PR person and knock their heads together.

On the one hand they say, “The final step. yadda yadda yadda”

Then they come out and say, “This is just a step in the process.”

Which is it? Both sides are beginning to sound like typical journalists who don’t want to be wrong so they tell both possibilities as if they were facts.

A final step is certainly a step in the process; however, the converse is not always true. A step in the process is not always the final step.

Where did this folks study advanced mathematics and logic? :

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[JReducation]

I think everyone should just calm down. I sincerely hope the blogosphere echo-chamber will have no ill effect on the discussions.

But I’ll lay odds there’ll be an Infernal response if the SSPX are reconciled. Like when the excomunications were lifted, didn’t Bishop Williamson co-incidentally get ‘outed’ as a ‘Holocaust denier’?

Action → reaction.

Part of that “internal response” has already been voiced by the Holy See. It seems that the three other bishops are not under this umbrella. Each of them will have to make an individual profession of obedience or be penalized again. If the Vatican sticks to its plan when the letter of the three bishops was exposed, the three bishops were going to be separated from Bishop Fellay. Bishop Fellay comes in with the SSPX. The others would dealt with individually.

Believe it or not, I actually understood the logic behind that position. First, if you erect a prelature, you can only have one prelate who is chosen by the pope. The four bishops, who is the mostly that the pope will choose? That leaves us with three bishops. Where do we put them. You can’t just have unemployed bishops running around, unless they’re retired. Even retired bishops must be incardinated into a diocese or a religious order.

If they follow the only model of prelature that we have, Opus Dei, a prelature does not have auxiliary bishops, because the prelate is not a diocesan bishop. He is the pope’s vicar. Would the other three become the Vicar’s vicars? Kind of a strange arrangement.

Then there are their statements, which were meant only for Bishop Fellay’s ears, but unfortunately, everyone heard them. They’ll have to go before Cardinal Levada and explain themselves so that he has something concrete to take to the Holy Father.

In my opinion, Bishop Williamson is going to have the more difficult time getting readmitted. He has developed a following that is adamantly against reunification at this time. The question will be whether he breaks with his “constituency” or does he uphold their position. If the does the latter, how will the Holy See take it?

Many interesting questions for the months ahead.

One thing for sure . . . the whole event is going to add a new chapter to ecclesiology.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[catharina]

Because sometimes people post things like that (not necessarily here) as a joke to get people going.

That’s why.

NO joke.
In NEWS thread on CA:

Link is
cathnews.com/article.aspx?aeid=31721&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+cathnews%2FRSS+%28CathNews%29

"Pope makes final offer to SSPX"

**"The leader of the traditionalist Society of St Pius X met for more than two hours with officials from the Vatican’s doctrinal office on Wednesday, as negotiations to end a decades-old split in the Roman Catholic Church draw to an end after almost three years of talks, reports the Catholic News Service.

The breakaway group rejects the modernising reforms of the Second Vatican Council, including the acceptance of religious freedom and ecumenism.

According to the Vatican Insider website, Pope Benedict XVI reviewed a final draft of a reconciliation proposal aimed at bringing the SSPX back into “full communion” with the Vatican.

The draft was then submitted to Bishop Bernard Fellay, the SSPX superior general, during Wednesday’s meeting by American Cardinal William Levada, who heads the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

An SSPX spokesman, Fr Alain Lorans, told Agence France-Presse that it will be “a few days” before Fellay decides whether or not to accept the Vatican’s final offer. Its contents, he said, won’t be made public “before the end of this week or the beginning of the next,” adding that the Wednesday meeting was “just a step.”"**

A time for prayer.

 

[Joe_5859]

Today’s VIS news brief has some further info about yesterday’s meeting:

**BISHOP FELLAY VISITS THE CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH **

Vatican City, 14 June 2012 (VIS) - “On the afternoon of Wednesday 13 June, Cardinal William Levada, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and president of the Pontifical Commission ‘Ecclesia Dei’, met with Bishop Bernard Fellay, superior general of the Society of St. Pius X who was accompanied by an assistant. Also present at the encounter were Archbishop Luis Ladaria S.J., secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and Msgr. Guido Pozzo, secretary of the Pontifical Commission ‘Ecclesia Dei’”, according to a communique released today by the Holy See Press Office.

"The purpose of the meeting was to present the Holy See’s evaluation of the text submitted in April by the Society of St. Pius X in response to the Doctrinal Preamble which the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith had presented to the Society on 14 September 2011. The subsequent discussion offered an opportunity the provide the appropriate explanations and clarifications. For his part, Bishop Fellay illustrated the current situation of the Society of St. Pius X and promised to make his response known within a reasonable lapse of time.

"Also during the meeting, a draft document was submitted proposing a Personal Prelature as the most appropriate instrument for any future canonical recognition of the Society.

"As was stated in the communique released on 16 May 2012, the situation of the other three bishops of the Society of St. Pius X will be dealt with separately and singularly.

“At the end of the meeting the hope was expressed that this additional opportunity for reflection would also contribute to reaching full communion between the Society of St. Pius X and the Apostolic See”.

 

[sw85]

Br. JR, is it true that a personal prelature would require the SSPX to seek the local ordinary’s approval for moving into a diocese? (My understanding is that Opus Dei does this but I’m unclear if they do it out of canonical obligation or just courtesy).

If so, it’s hard to imagine Bp. Fellay agreeing to this arrangement without modifications. I certainly don’t see the other three bishops agreeing to it, much less many (if not most) SSPX priests and a sizable swath of the laity.

On the other hand, the fact that a canonical structure has definitively been offered (and has been stated as being offered) suggests that a resolution has been achieved and we’re just haggling over technical details now. I have a hard time thinking that Bp. Fellay and the Holy Father would all this work to be derailed by implementation details.

 

[Joe_5859]

Whispers in the Loggia speculates that Fellay’s response probably will not come until after the next SSPX general chapter meeting in July.

That just goes to show how much further I have to go to be of one mind with the Church. When I heard that Fellay “promised to make his response known within a reasonable lapse of time,” I started thinking, “Oooh, maybe we’ll hear something by this weekend!” I should know better.

 

[jwinch2]

Vatican proposes personal prelature to Fellay

vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/homepage/the-vatican/detail/articolo/lefebvriani-lefebvrianos-lefebvrians-vaticano-vatican-15992/

Very interesting. I hope it works out.

 

[JReducation]

Br. JR, is it true that a personal prelature would require the SSPX to seek the local ordinary’s approval for moving into a diocese? (My understanding is that Opus Dei does this but I’m unclear if they do it out of canonical obligation or just courtesy).

If so, it’s hard to imagine Bp. Fellay agreeing to this arrangement without modifications. I certainly don’t see the other three bishops agreeing to it, much less many (if not most) SSPX priests and a sizable swath of the laity.

On the other hand, the fact that a canonical structure has definitively been offered (and has been stated as being offered) suggests that a resolution has been achieved and we’re just haggling over technical details now. I have a hard time thinking that Bp. Fellay and the Holy Father would all this work to be derailed by implementation details.

Canon Law requires that a prelature consult a diocesan bishop before entering his diocese. In this situation, the SSPX has chapels and other institutions up and running. An determination has to be made as to what remains open and what closes. The law itself would take effect from the day of the erection of the prelature.

Bishop Fellay has already publicly expressed that he is comfortable with the idea of consulting the local bishop. He said nothing about the existing facilities other than to say that those that are with the SSPX will enter the prelature and those what are not, will be left out. He did not use the word schism, but that becomes pretty obvious. Everyone would be excommunicated, end of story.

As to the permissions, he did say something that is very true. A prelate consulting a local bishop is not like a religious superior. This would be a case of a bishop dealing with another bishop. The religious superior of men would carry clout, but not the superior of women. That’s the distinction that Bishop Fellay is making.

In other words, a bishop is very unlilkely to deny permission to a prelate than he would be to Mother Superior. This would be an ordinary dealing with an ordinary.

As to the existing SSPX facilities, there are rumors going around that those younger than three years must close and older ones can remain open. Those are rumors. No one has seen any official document that says this. I do not rule out that this may have been a suggestion. We can all make suggestions, can’t we? But some people have already announced it as a fact. It cannot be a fact, because this conversation is not over.

To conclude, yes the new prelature will have to consult with the ordinary of the diocese and Bishop Fellay has already publicly expressed that he’s comfortable with this, because of the reasons that he stated. “It’s a bishop talking to another bishop.”

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[ProVobis]

To conclude, yes the new prelature will have to consult with the ordinary of the diocese and Bishop Fellay has already publicly expressed that he’s comfortable with this, because of the reasons that he stated. "It’s a bishop talking to another bishop."

Br JR, it would be different in one respect moving forward. Both would be in full communion with Rome.

That said, this seems to have been the same situation for all the “independent” chapels out there employing their own priests, whose bishops in most cases serve outside those dioceses. This obviously has its downsides.

 

[JReducation]

Br. JR, is it true that a personal prelature would require the SSPX to seek the local ordinary’s approval for moving into a diocese? (My understanding is that Opus Dei does this but I’m unclear if they do it out of canonical obligation or just courtesy).

If so, it’s hard to imagine Bp. Fellay agreeing to this arrangement without modifications. I certainly don’t see the other three bishops agreeing to it, much less many (if not most) SSPX priests and a sizable swath of the laity.

On the other hand, the fact that a canonical structure has definitively been offered (and has been stated as being offered) suggests that a resolution has been achieved and we’re just haggling over technical details now. I have a hard time thinking that Bp. Fellay and the Holy Father would all this work to be derailed by implementation details.

Br JR, it would be different in one respect moving forward. Both would be in full communion with Rome.

That said, this seems to have been the same situation for all the “independent” chapels out there employing their own priests, whose bishops in most cases serve outside those dioceses.** This obviously has its downsides.**

Nothing human is ever perfect.

Priests who operate chapels independent of the SSPX will be out of this loop. Bishop Fellay implied, they will not be part of the SSPX. We’re looking at the possibility of a much smaller SSPX. Some priests have already said that they will not cooperate with the prelature. The Vatican has already said that such an action will be interpreted as a rupture. Such a rupture means schism.

On the other hand, if a priest operates a chapel in Diocese X and is an extern (from another diocese) he must have permission from the local bishop to function. If he does not, he is automatically suspended in that diocese. It makes no difference if he has permission from another bishop.

Take the case of Fr. Z. Father belongs to an Italian diocese. Right now he’s working on his PhD in the USA. He has faculties from his bishop. Those are only good for his home diocese. He has no faculties in the diocese where he lives. However, he does not need said faculties, because he does not minister to the laity. He’s in perfectly good standing with the local bishop and his own bishop.

The problem arises when you minister to the laity. Then the local bishop enters the picture, even if you’re a prelature.

Given the nature of the SSPX, this prelature will probably work like the Military Ordinariate. The Miliatary Ordinariate is an Archdiocese. It can open chapels on any military base in the USA without the permission of the local bishop, because the base is not within the diocese. However, if the priests of the Military Ordinariate want to celebrate mass or hear confessions outside the base, they must get the permission from the local bishop. If the Military Ordinariate wants to open a chapel or other institution outside of a base, it must get the permission of the local bishop. There has to be a coordination. It is understood that families in the military belong to the Military Archdiocese. There is no need to get permission to serve them on any base. If the Military Archdiocese has permission to open a chapel off base, it is understood that those families can avail themselves of its services without further involvement of the local bishop.

The same is true for the Eastern Catholic dioceses. They have ordinary jurisdiction over their people. However, they do not go around opening parishes within the area of a Latin Catholic diocese without informing the local Latin Catholic bishop. The Eastern Catholic bishop has the same authority as does the Latin bishop. The issue is not one of authority, but of Church unity and mutual respect between bishops.

A prelate and the local bishop are expected to show mutual respect and to be cooperative with each other. The unity of the college of bishops is far more important than the local diocese and the SSPX put together. Once this regularization takes place, Bishop Fellay will become part of the college of bishops. Right now, he’s outside of it. He has no voice or vote there. With the grace of God, he will have that soom.

I’m very excited. As I have always said, I disagree with Bishop Fellay on many points, but I have always admired and respected his kindness, sincerity, intelligence and his love for the Church. I believe that he will bring many great gifts and many challenges too. Some of his ideas will be challenged. The great thing about him is that he does not seem to get bent out of shape when he is challenged. I get the impression that this is a very humble man and if you can prove him wrong, even if you can’t prove that you’re right, he will accept that he’s wrong. This often happens in a dialogue, trust me. It’s happened to me. I have proven someone else wrong, but have not proven that I’m right. In the end, we were both wrong. The wonderful thing about that situation was that we had to join our heads to find the right answer. Bishop Fellay, more than his confreres strikes me as the man who is willing to do that.

I believe that this may be one reason why the other bishops are not being brought into full communion, but each has to ask for it individually. There are one or the other who are not so willing to be proven wrong or to be team players. They want a perfect Church, which has never existed. The Church had its first conflict its first year of life. Let’s not forget this. We tend to have a less than realistic image of the past. If one wants to see heresy, abuses, apostasy and more, one need look no further than the first 500 years of the Church’s history.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[catharina]

Nothing human is ever perfect.

Priests who operate chapels independent of the SSPX will be out of this loop. Bishop Fellay implied, they will not be part of the SSPX. We’re looking at the possibility of a much smaller SSPX. Some priests have already said that they will not cooperate with the prelature. The Vatican has already said that such an action will be interpreted as a rupture. Such a rupture means schism.

On the other hand, if a priest operates a chapel in Diocese X and is an extern (from another diocese) he must have permission from the local bishop to function. If he does not, he is automatically suspended in that diocese. It makes no difference if he has permission from another bishop.

Take the case of Fr. Z. Father belongs to an Italian diocese. Right now he’s working on his PhD in the USA. He has faculties from his bishop. Those are only good for his home diocese. He has no faculties in the diocese where he lives. However, he does not need said faculties, because he does not minister to the laity. He’s in perfectly good standing with the local bishop and his own bishop.

The problem arises when you minister to the laity. Then the local bishop enters the picture, even if you’re a prelature.

Given the nature of the SSPX, this prelature will probably work like the Military Ordinariate. The Miliatary Ordinariate is an Archdiocese. It can open chapels on any military base in the USA without the permission of the local bishop, because the base is not within the diocese. However, if the priests of the Military Ordinariate want to celebrate mass or hear confessions outside the base, they must get the permission from the local bishop. If the Military Ordinariate wants to open a chapel or other institution outside of a base, it must get the permission of the local bishop. There has to be a coordination. It is understood that families in the military belong to the Military Archdiocese. There is no need to get permission to serve them on any base. If the Military Archdiocese has permission to open a chapel off base, it is understood that those families can avail themselves of its services without further involvement of the local bishop.

The same is true for the Eastern Catholic dioceses. They have ordinary jurisdiction over their people. However, they do not go around opening parishes within the area of a Latin Catholic diocese without informing the local Latin Catholic bishop. The Eastern Catholic bishop has the same authority as does the Latin bishop. The issue is not one of authority, but of Church unity and mutual respect between bishops.

A prelate and the local bishop are expected to show mutual respect and to be cooperative with each other. The unity of the college of bishops is far more important than the local diocese and the SSPX put together. Once this regularization takes place, Bishop Fellay will become part of the college of bishops. Right now, he’s outside of it. He has no voice or vote there. With the grace of God, he will have that soom.

I’m very excited. As I have always said, I disagree with Bishop Fellay on many points, but I have always admired and respected his kindness, sincerity, intelligence and his love for the Church. I believe that he will bring many great gifts and many challenges too. Some of his ideas will be challenged. The great thing about him is that he does not seem to get bent out of shape when he is challenged. I get the impression that this is a very humble man and if you can prove him wrong, even if you can’t prove that you’re right, he will accept that he’s wrong. This often happens in a dialogue, trust me. It’s happened to me. I have proven someone else wrong, but have not proven that I’m right. In the end, we were both wrong. The wonderful thing about that situation was that we had to join our heads to find the right answer. Bishop Fellay, more than his confreres strikes me as the man who is willing to do that.

I believe that this may be one reason why the other bishops are not being brought into full communion, but each has to ask for it individually. There are one or the other who are not so willing to be proven wrong or to be team players. They want a perfect Church, which has never existed. The Church had its first conflict its first year of life. Let’s not forget this. We tend to have a less than realistic image of the past. If one wants to see heresy, abuses, apostasy and more, one need look no further than the first 500 years of the Church’s history.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

Long life to you, Brother!
(Just saying …!)

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

The same is true for the Eastern Catholic dioceses. They have ordinary jurisdiction over their people. However, they do not go around opening parishes within the area of a Latin Catholic diocese without informing the local Latin Catholic bishop. The Eastern Catholic bishop has the same authority as does the Latin bishop. The issue is not one of authority, but of Church unity and mutual respect between bishops.

I do not believe this is so. It is unnecessary for an Eastern Bishop to inform the local Latin Bishop that he is opening a new parish as it is his territory that he is opening the parish in. The local Latin Bishop does not inform all of the Eastern Bishops who territories overlap with his when he opens a new parish.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

As I have always said, I disagree with Bishop Fellay on many points, but I have always admired and respected his kindness, sincerity, intelligence and his love for the Church. I believe that he will bring many great gifts and many challenges too. Some of his ideas will be challenged. The great thing about him is that he does not seem to get bent out of shape when he is challenged. I get the impression that this is a very humble man and if you can prove him wrong, even if you can’t prove that you’re right, he will accept that he’s wrong. This often happens in a dialogue, trust me. It’s happened to me. I have proven someone else wrong, but have not proven that I’m right. In the end, we were both wrong. The wonderful thing about that situation was that we had to join our heads to find the right answer. Bishop Fellay, more than his confreres strikes me as the man who is willing to do that.

Thank you, Brother, for this perspective. I admit that while I have followed this subject more recently with some interest, it has been difficult for me to fully appreciate the parties and the personalities involved, likely because much of what I have been exposed to has been from the more dissident crowd, so to speak. In the end, I pray that a peaceful solution can be found, without compromising the truly good intentions of either party, but with obedience to the Church and Her mission intact. It sounds like Bishop Fellay is precisely the type of person that can accomplish just that, and hopefully contribute to a stronger Church in the process.

 

[JReducation]

I do not believe this is so. It is unnecessary for an Eastern Bishop to inform the local Latin Bishop that he is opening a new parish as it is his territory that he is opening the parish in. The local Latin Bishop does not inform all of the Eastern Bishops who territories overlap with his when he opens a new parish.

Believe it or not, there is communication between the bishops of East and West, moreso in the USA. We’re not speaking of either of them needing permissio. As I said, both are equal ordinaries. It’s about unity not about authority. They are very cordial toward each other, which is great to see.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV