I thought it was the Pope who decides if there is a reconciliation, not Bishop Fellay.
It is the Holy Father. That’s the way Preambles work. The process that they’re using is the same that they used to bring back some of the Eastern Catholic Churches that were in schism. There is a theological dialogue. Then there is a preamble, which both sides get to comment on. When both are satisfied with what it says, the affected party, in this case the SSPX, has to sign that it agrees to it. Then it goes back to the Holy Father.
This takes them into the next step, which does not involve dialogue at all. The Holy Father issues his conclusions in which he states what will happen next and how.
At that point, if the other party (SSPX) backs down, everything is over. There are no further discussions. It was to this that the Vatican was referring to when it said that if the SSPX did not agree, this could lead to a schism. The statement is a very nuanced way of saying that the conversation is over.
I believe that many people are imagining that it’s a type of democratic egalitarian process, but it’s really not. It’s very hierarchical. That’s why Bishop Fellay repeats that the pope wants this to happen now and that it is the pope who is making this happen. He also said that he wished he had more time. It was clear, without him saying so, that the Holy Father did not give Bishop Fellay more choices than agree or disagree. On-going discussion and further discernment was not on the table.
He does not mention anyone but the pope. He makes no references to the dicastry. Apparently, they are past that stage. A dialogue would be between the SSPX and the dicastry, not with the pope. Popes don’t engage in these dialogues. That’s the job of the sacred congregations and the prefects. Popes approve or disapprove what is reported to them.
Not exactly. Bishop Fellay can still reject the Pope’s offer.
There are yet discussions to come.
He can reject it, but there will be no more discussions or further attempts at a reconcilation. That’s why they put it in the language that they did “Sign or there will be a rupture.” If one is willing to go on with more dialogue, one does not use this kind of strong language.
Also, Bishop Fellay’s letter to the SSPX bishops says, “Rome will no longer tolerate this.” That’s not him speaking. That’s Rome speaking through him.
The SSPX Masses are valid at this time because they do not preach heresy. Will they suddenly become invalid if the reconciliation does not come through?
Masses celebrated by suspended priests are always illcit (illegal), but they are valid. If they go into schism. the status of their masses will be the same as it was with the Orthodox until 1968. Catholics may not attend and may not receive Holy Communion there, even if there is no Catholic mass around. It remains that way until the anathema is lifted, as was the case with the Orthodox. Once you go into schism, you’re an independent Church. You’re no longer Catholic.
What’s murky here is that the message said that if they did not sign “IT COULD” cause a rupture. It does not exactly threaten with an anathema; but it does not rule it out. At this point, it’s all a matter of praying that the everyone will do whatever is the will of God and waiting until the Holy Father speaks.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
