Pope makes final offer to SSPX [CNAU]

  • Thread starter Thread starter Catholic_Press
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Catholic_Press

Guest
Jun 13, '12 6:00 am
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.http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/cathnews/RSS/~4/qZDwzdnUD_Q

More…
 
The Holy father has been more than generous with Fellay. I cant see any legitimate reason why bishop Fellay could refuse these accomidations.

Oremus my friends!
 
NickVA said:
The Holy father has been more than generous with Fellay. I cant see any legitimate reason why bishop Fellay could refuse these accomidations.

Oremus my friends!
Click to expand...
Well, there’s one. It would subject the SSPX’s mission to the discretion of diocesan bishops, for whom they have intense distrust.

Personally, I don’t see them accepting such an arrangement without modifications intended to protect their autonomy from local ordinaries.
 
sw85 said:
Well, there’s one. It would subject the SSPX’s mission to the discretion of diocesan bishops, for whom they have intense distrust.

Personally, I don’t see them accepting such an arrangement without modifications intended to protect their autonomy from local ordinaries.
Click to expand...
I don’t get the impression from Bishop Fellay’s comments that he sees this as an insurmountable problem. He admits that there will be challenges and that he has informed the Vatican of those possible challenges. He also admits that it is Church law and he’s not calling for a change to the law or saying that they new prelature will not comply with the law.

It is still true—since** it is Church law—that in order to open a new chapel or to found a work, it would be necessary to have the permission of the local ordinary. We have quite obviously reported to Rome how difficult our present situation was in the dioceses, and Rome is still working on it. Here or there, this difficulty will be real, but since when is life without difficulties? Very probably we will also have the contrary problem, in other words, we will not be able to respond to the requests that will come from the bishops who are friendly to us. I am thinking of one bishop who could ask us to take charge of the formation of future priests in his diocese.

In no way would our relations be like those of a religious congregation with a bishop; rather they would be those of one bishop with another bishop, just like with the Ukrainians and the Armenians in the diaspora. And therefore if a difficulty is not resolved, it would go to Rome, and there would then be a Roman intervention to settle the problem.
Let it be said in passing that what was reported on the Internet concerning my remarks on this subject in Austria last month is entirely false.**

Interview with Bishop Bernard Fellay

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV 🙂
 
JReducation said:
I don’t get the impression from Bishop Fellay’s comments that he sees this as an insurmountable problem. He admits that there will be challenges and that he has informed the Vatican of those possible challenges. He also admits that it is Church law and he’s not calling for a change to the law or saying that they new prelature will not comply with the law.

It is still true—since** it is Church law—that in order to open a new chapel or to found a work, it would be necessary to have the permission of the local ordinary. We have quite obviously reported to Rome how difficult our present situation was in the dioceses, and Rome is still working on it. Here or there, this difficulty will be real, but since when is life without difficulties? Very probably we will also have the contrary problem, in other words, we will not be able to respond to the requests that will come from the bishops who are friendly to us. I am thinking of one bishop who could ask us to take charge of the formation of future priests in his diocese.

In no way would our relations be like those of a religious congregation with a bishop; rather they would be those of one bishop with another bishop, just like with the Ukrainians and the Armenians in the diaspora. And therefore if a difficulty is not resolved, it would go to Rome, and there would then be a Roman intervention to settle the problem.
Let it be said in passing that what was reported on the Internet concerning my remarks on this subject in Austria last month is entirely false.**

Interview with Bishop Bernard Fellay

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV 🙂
Click to expand...
Br. JR,
I notice from your posted link that your congregation does not have the sanction of your diocese or the pope. Is your order in the same position as these guys, or did I read it wrong?
 
ellipsis2 said:
Br. JR,
I notice from your posted link that your congregation does not have the sanction of your diocese or the pope. Is your order in the same position as these guys, or did I read it wrong?
Click to expand...
Actually, we did get it on March 16, 2012. The site has not been updated. We’re not in the same situation. We are in full communion with the Church with permission to open houses, receive men, and exercise our ministry freely. There are steps that communities go through to become pontifical. We’re on the first rung. Some communities, such as the FSSP, are grandfathered in and don’t have to go through those steps.

I don’t know how familiar you are with the story of Mother Teresa and the Missionaries of Charity. If you know the story, we’re at the first step, diocesan recognition. That is when you first get independence from your community and you’re approved to live, work, have communities, make vows, and have formation programs in a diocese without having to ask for further permission. It’s like a time of observation.

There are parts to a permanent diocesan erection, then it goes to Rome.

First Part: You must have something to offer that the Church needs and no one offers.

We met that criteria

Second Part: You must have vocations.

We met that criteria.

Third Part: You must have a constitution approved by the local bishop

We met that criteria

Fourth Part: You must submit yourself to the Vicar for Religious

We met that criteria

Fifth Part: You must have a superior general in already in vows

We met that criteria

Sixth Part: You must be self-supporting.

We met that criteria.

Seventh Part: You must grow

That’s what we have to do now, before proceeding to permanent erection. If we grow large enough, then the bishop can submit the case before the Holy See. There are a number of communities at different stages of this process.

Check out: Franciscans Missionaries of the Eternal Word, Sisters of Life, Dominican Sisters of Mary, Franciscans of the Renewal, Servants of the Pierced Hearts of Jesus and Mary, Franciscan Brothers Minor, Franciscan Brothers of the Eucharist and a few others.

There are many new communities in the USA. The last one to get pontifical right were the Franciscans of the Immaculate. I believe they had to wait about 20 years. Don’t quote me on that number. I think they began in the 80s and were finally pontifical after 2,000.

It’s a very long process, but an exciting one too. So pray for us and for the people whom we serve.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV 🙂
 
I beleive this will happen. But what i fear for the SSPX, is that regardless of the wording on any document establishing the Prelature, local Ordinaries will ignore it just as many have ignored Summorum Pontificum and the instructions from the CDF for the institution of the Document. That will be one of the greatests points of contention as Bishop Fellay attepts to “sell” this to the other SSPX Bishops.
 
Dirt said:
I beleive this will happen. But what i fear for the SSPX, is that regardless of the wording on any document establishing the Prelature, local Ordinaries will ignore it just as many have ignored Summorum Pontificum and the instructions from the CDF for the institution of the Document. That will be one of the greatests points of contention as Bishop Fellay attepts to “sell” this to the other SSPX Bishops.
Click to expand...
There will be rough spots. There is no doubt. But it’s also quite uncharitable of us and unfair to always expect the worse from our bishops. There are many very holy men out there. Even holy men can fail to understand something or feel uncomfortable with it. It’s going to take a while.

Let’s not forget that we reap what we sow. The SSPX has been very disrespectful to local bishops, openly hostile, and at times slanderous. They have managed to make some enemies along the road. Just last year, one of the bishops in the Philippines asked the local SSPX superior not to open a house in his diocese. The superior sent him back a scathing letter. The bishop again wrote and cited Canon Law, which says that you must have permission to enter a diocese. The superior wrote back snubbing the bishop and the law. An attitude like that is going to make some people very hesitant to welcome you into their neighborhood.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV 🙂
 
JReducation said:
Actually, we did get it on March 16, 2012. The site has not been updated. We’re not in the same situation. We are in full communion with the Church with permission to open houses, receive men, and exercise our ministry freely. There are steps that communities go through to become pontifical. We’re on the first rung. Some communities, such as the FSSP, are grandfathered in and don’t have to go through those steps.

I don’t know how familiar you are with the story of Mother Teresa and the Missionaries of Charity. If you know the story, we’re at the first step, diocesan recognition. That is when you first get independence from your community and you’re approved to live, work, have communities, make vows, and have formation programs in a diocese without having to ask for further permission. It’s like a time of observation.

There are parts to a permanent diocesan erection, then it goes to Rome.

First Part: You must have something to offer that the Church needs and no one offers.

We met that criteria

Second Part: You must have vocations.

We met that criteria.

Third Part: You must have a constitution approved by the local bishop

We met that criteria

Fourth Part: You must submit yourself to the Vicar for Religious

We met that criteria

Fifth Part: You must have a superior general in already in vows

We met that criteria

Sixth Part: You must be self-supporting.

We met that criteria.

Seventh Part: You must grow

That’s what we have to do now, before proceeding to permanent erection. If we grow large enough, then the bishop can submit the case before the Holy See. There are a number of communities at different stages of this process.

Check out: Franciscans Missionaries of the Eternal Word, Sisters of Life, Dominican Sisters of Mary, Franciscans of the Renewal, Servants of the Pierced Hearts of Jesus and Mary, Franciscan Brothers Minor, Franciscan Brothers of the Eucharist and a few others.

There are many new communities in the USA. The last one to get pontifical right were the Franciscans of the Immaculate. I believe they had to wait about 20 years. Don’t quote me on that number. I think they began in the 80s and were finally pontifical after 2,000.

It’s a very long process, but an exciting one too. So pray for us and for the people whom we serve.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV 🙂
Click to expand...
Thank you so much for your kind and informative explanation.
 
ellipsis2 said:
Thank you so much for your kind and informative explanation.
Click to expand...
BTW . . . I did go back in there to see what’s there. I wrote the part that says 'Who are we?" This was a long time ago. I guess about two-years ago. Embedded in some sentence is mention of our relationship with the Archbishop at that time. As I read over it, I must admit that I spent more time on writing about our charism and mission than our relationship with the Church. I should have put that in a paragraph by itself.

Eventually, I’ll get back to that page and redo it. The whole site needs to be redone. It’s pretty old fashioned . . . so I’m told. Hey, I know nothing about webpage design.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV 🙂
 
mafh said:
I was reading the Southern Poverty Law Center hate group list for another reason, and I came across this entry called Radical Traditional Catholicism.

An essay on the group talked about how many who subscribe to this view are associated with SSPX:

splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/ideology/radical-traditional-catholicism/the-radical-traditionalist

I’m assuming that this is a different SSPX than what this thread is discussing?

Confused…
Click to expand...
The Southern Poverty Law Center calls them out by name:

"If radical traditionalists belong to a particular sect – and many do not – it is typically the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX). This sprawling international group, based in Kansas City, Kan., has published reams of anti-Semitic writings. In the late 1980s, Pope John Paul II excommunicated all SSPX priests and declared the sect formally in schism. Nevertheless, it has continued to grow. The sect reportedly has 20,000 to 30,000 members in the United States.

In 2009, Pope Benedict XVI moved to regularize SSPX with the church, though his announcement was marred by revelations of Holocaust denial by SSPX Bishop Richard Williamson. SSPX ordered Williamson to stop articulating his historical views about the Holocaust and, in the months after the pope’s announcement, began purging its website of anti-Semitic material."

This can’t be good.
 
There are a few factual errors in the report here.
ellipsis2 said:
"If radical traditionalists belong to a particular sect – and many do not – it is typically the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX). This sprawling international group, based in Kansas City, Kan., …
Click to expand...
A quick search of Wikipedia will tell you that the SSPX is headquartered in Menzingen, Switzerland. Maybe their US District is based on Kansas City, I’m not sure.
ellipsis2 said:
In the late 1980s, Pope John Paul II excommunicated all SSPX priests and declared the sect formally in schism.
Click to expand...
  1. Only the bishops who participated in the illicit consecrations in 1988 were excommunicated, along with those who were consecrated as bishops (latae sententiae, it’s illicit to consecrate bishops without a Papal mandate)
  2. The priest are under suspension for being illicitly ordained by a society without any status. The priests are not (and were never) excommunicated
  3. The society (at the time of this reply being posted) is not in schism. They are in suspension and exercise no canonical ministry in the Church.
ellipsis2 said:
In 2009, Pope Benedict XVI moved to regularize SSPX with the church, though his announcement was marred by revelations of Holocaust denial by SSPX Bishop Richard Williamson. SSPX ordered Williamson to stop articulating his historical views about the Holocaust …"
Click to expand...
Pope Benedict has actually said (and I’m stealing this from Br. JR, username JReducation) that if he had known about Bishop Williamson’s views, he would not have lifted his excommunication. The Pope is extremely concerned with Catholic-Jewish relations.
 
Wow!

The article has a number of facts confused or things attributed to the wrong people. The SSPX is not a sect as it has never declared itself to be a church or Church. It has never been in schism. The Church called the act of ordaining bishops illegally a schismatic act, because such an action can lead to a schism. Once you have bishops of your own, you can drift off without having to start your own church as did the Protestants. Once you have your own bishops, you retain your Apostolic Succession, therefore you have a valid Church, even though it is illegal, hence in schism. Since the SSPX never became an independent church, it was never in schism. The act of bishop Lefebvre and the four bishops remains a schismatic act. They can argue that it’s not until they die and it will never matter, because in law the word of the lawgiver is final. That’s the pope. It was the two popes who called them Lefebvrists. Maybe, that is where the writer is getting the wrong impression that the SSPX is a schismatic group. Who knows . . .

The other piece that is incorrect is that the SSPX has nothing to do with Feeneism. They may share some of the same positions, but the one did not influence the other. They grew independently. In fact, Archbishop Lefebvre’s position on EENS is very much in line with that of Bl. John Paul II. Fr. Feenys position was different.

As for ant-antisemitism, the SSPX has been under the Vatican microscope, because of remarks made by many of its priests that are a hairline away from antisemitism. However, the only person whom the Church has actually called antisemitic by name and license plate is Bishop Williamson. In the book Light of the World, Pope Benedict pulls no punches. He said that he found out about the bishop’s antisemitic remarks the day after he had lifted the excommunications. He said that had he known the day before, he would have separated Bishop Williamson from the rest of the SSPX. He pulls no punches in saying that the pope can sustain an excommunication, regardless the cause. In other words, if he denies the bishop the right to receive the sacraments, because his a biggot or because he questions the Shoah, Tradition is on the side of the pope, because popes have traditionally protected the Jews from antisemiticsm.

There are many papal documents on the matter and many orders given by the popes to bishops and laity alike to leave the Jews alone. The Holy Father also said of him that Bishop Williamson had never been part of the Great Church. When he was told that Bishop Williamson had been a Catholic layman between his life as an Anglican and his life as an SSPX, Pope Benedict refused to acknowledge that he was part of the Catholic Church during those years, based on the absence of “sentire cum ecclesiam”. In other words, he was received into the Church, but he never really belonged to it.

Psychologically, he never thought with the Church. From the time that he entered, he was already in conflict with the Church. It’s a rather interesting position that makes theological sense. It has never happened before, as far I know. Most converts are very happy in the Church as they find it.

The Holy Father, speaking of himself and the Jewish and Christian leaders around the world said, “Everyone who knows me knows that I would never introduce an antisemite into polite society.” That was the kiss of death for Bishop Williamson with many of the bishops and major religious superiors. When the pope himself says that he would not introduce you into polite society, no one wants to be in the same room with you.

But the Church has never charged the SSPX as bigoted. The charge has only been levied against Bishop Williamson. Some believe that Bishop Williamson is one of the reasons for separating the other bishops from the SSPX. If the regularizaton goes through, Bishop Fellay comes in with the SSPX. The rest of the laity and clergy who choose not to follow him are declared excommunicated and in schism, but the three remaining bishops would only be excommunicated if they chose not to ask to be readmitted into the College of Bishops. Actually, admitted. They were never part of the college, since they were not part of the Church from the moment they were ordained bishops. An excommunicated person is not canonically part of the Church.

It is a shared belief of many, that one reason to separate them is to give Bishop Williamson an opportunity to have to retract some of his positions and to promise that he will never subscribe to them again or speak of them again.

Finally, I don’t remember if it was in the same interview for this book or in another that the Pope was asked what he thought of Bishop Williamson. He responded, “A difficult man . . . a very difficult man.”

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top