SSPX communique to Rome

[Oneofthewomen]

Wait, does the SSPX have valid sacraments?

Wasn’t Bishop Lefebreve a valid bishop that ordained his church validly with sacraments?

The sacraments are valid, but illicit, except in the case of confession (and I think marriage), because the ordinary must grant faculties. Confession to an SSPX priest is only valid in an emergency situation.

Yes, AB Lefebreve was a Bishop, but a Bishop cannot ordain another Bishop (let alone 4) without the approval of the Holy Father, which the AB did not have, so by doing so, he basically created all the problems the SSPX has had to deal with since then.

 

[ProVobis]

Yes, AB Lefebreve was a Bishop, but a Bishop cannot ordain another Bishop (let alone 4) without the approval of the Holy Father, which the AB did not have, so by doing so, he basically created all the problems the SSPX has had to deal with since then.

The agreement was that AB was permitted to consecrate one bishop in 1988.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

The agreement was that AB was permitted to consecrate one bishop in 1988.

And he broke that agreement by ordaining 3 more, hence all the problems.

 

[curlycool89]

That said, I incline toward #2. Last we heard, Fellay was prepared to sign the preamble, but it was changed last-minute to reinsert controversial content that earlier discussions had removed. I could very easily imagine the statement being to the effect of: “If you will agree to abide by the terms we’d agreed on earlier, then the SSPX submits” – forcefully pushing the ball (for the last time) back into Rome’s court and making clear that any schism would be the result of Rome’s capriciousness and not obstinacy on their own part.

The problem with that strategy would be that the last official communication from Rome said “You’re going to accept this preamble or else your in schism and it’s your (ie. Bp. Fellay’s) fault”.

 

[sw85]

Well, I’ll ask again, as I’d really like to know. Who in the Curia derailed this, and how?

(and BTW, I’m not a big fan of the Curia in some cases, so I’m not asking in blind defense - I’d really like to know …)

We only have rumors, but supposedly Card. Levada went behind the Pope’s back and reinserted some language into the Preamble that the SSPX had earlier objected to and the Pope had agreed to remove. This is the SSPX’s take, anyway.

If this is the core of the dispute, I think it would be foolish of the SSPX to walk away. Better to insist that the terms agreed to earlier be agreed to again.

The problem with that strategy would be that the last official communication from Rome said “You’re going to accept this preamble or else your in schism and it’s your (ie. Bp. Fellay’s) fault”.

What Rome was not “you must accept this preamble” but “you must clarify your position on it.” They did so, supposedly an agreement was reached, and then Rome (well, Levada) reneged on the agreement and insisted on language that had earlier been removed by consensus.

So the SSPX would be in the position of saying that Rome’s treachery forced them into an impossible situation.

 

[ProVobis]

And he broke that agreement by ordaining 3 more, hence all the problems.

It seemed like a pretty good agreement too.

unavoce.org/resources/protocol-agreement-between-rome-and-saint-pius-x/

 

[curlycool89]

We only have rumors, but supposedly Card. Levada went behind the Pope’s back and reinserted some language into the Preamble that the SSPX had earlier objected to and the Pope had agreed to remove. This is the SSPX’s take, anyway.

It’s unfortunate that we never get a balances view on this since Rome never says anything.

 

[sw85]

It’s unfortunate that we never get a balances view on this since Rome never says anything.

And given the speciousness of all the leaks and such, it’s doubtful we can rely on what we’ve heard, anyway.

But since that’s all we have to go on at the moment, well, the situation doesn’t look good.

Again, my intuition is that it would be monstrously imprudent for the SSPX to walk away right now. Levada may have screwed the pooch here (or so their thinking goes), but Muller is not Levada.

 

[Melchior_1]

Cardinal Levada was chosen by the Pope, and represents the Pope in this case. This needs to be considered on all things. For all we know the Cardinal went back to Pope Benedict, and Benedict ASKED him to change things up.

Besides, to me this is an elegant test on if the SSPX will be obedient in the future.

SSPX; “The document you presented to us has changed!”
Rome: “Yeah, the document has changed a bit. But it’s still a good document. You going to sign?”
SSPX: “We can’t sign this”.
Rome: “I don’t recall this being a negotiation, guys. Dialogue doesn’t mean ‘negotiation’, it means we’ll listen to what you have to say and then decide what the terms are. The terms you need to accept. And you need to accept our leadership and authority, since we have the Pope”.
SSPX: “We can’t accept this”.
Rome: “How can we accept your promise of obedience when as soon as we change a document you say ‘won’t sign it’? None of the other Societies or Religious do this”.
SSPX: “Seriously, we can’t accept this”.
Rome: “SIGH. Come back when you’re ready. Oh, and you’re no longer within the Church. God bless”.

 

[sw85]

Cardinal Levada was chosen by the Pope, and represents the Pope in this case. This needs to be considered on all things. For all we know the Cardinal went back to Pope Benedict, and Benedict ASKED him to change things up.

Yes, there’s lots we don’t know. But we can infer some things with reasonable confidence. For instance we know that Pope Benedict is deeply, personally invested in reconciliation. Is there any particular reason that, having reached an agreement about a month ago, he would suddenly jeopardize this thing he’s desired for decades and now has within his grasp by reinserting controversial language he had agreed to remove, for no particularly good reason, knowing full well this would alienate the SSPX to the point of schism and jeopardize his desired legacy?

Or is it more likely that someone/some people in the Curia (maybe Levada, maybe someone else – lots of people are part of the CDF) acted on his/their own, out of animus toward the SSPX and a deliberate desire to derail the discussions, without the Pope’s approval?

(Speaking of which, Card. Levada’s departure was unexpected on my part – wasn’t he supposed to stick around to see the negotiations through? What happened there?)

Right now we’re all speculating. Once there’s resolution here, I think we’ll start to see more information come to light. Presumably, the Doctrinal Preamble will be made available, and the SSPX will clarify its objections to the document and the process surrounding it. We’ll know what it is the SSPX objected to and, hopefully, we’ll know why it was reinserted.

 

[Moore11]

Cardinal Levada was chosen by the Pope, and represents the Pope in this case. This needs to be considered on all things. For all we know the Cardinal went back to Pope Benedict, and Benedict ASKED him to change things up.

Besides, to me this is an elegant test on if the SSPX will be obedient in the future.

SSPX; “The document you presented to us has changed!”
Rome: “Yeah, the document has changed a bit. But it’s still a good document. You going to sign?”
SSPX: “We can’t sign this”.
Rome: “I don’t recall this being a negotiation, guys. Dialogue doesn’t mean ‘negotiation’, it means we’ll listen to what you have to say and then decide what the terms are. The terms you need to accept. And you need to accept our leadership and authority, since we have the Pope”.
SSPX: “We can’t accept this”.
Rome: “How can we accept your promise of obedience when as soon as we change a document you say ‘won’t sign it’? None of the other Societies or Religious do this”.
SSPX: “Seriously, we can’t accept this”.
Rome: “SIGH. Come back when you’re ready. Oh, and you’re no longer within the Church. God bless”.

Well I think it is reasonable to assume it went nothing like this.

 

[TheExorcist]

For those who may be interested; check Rorate-Caeli Blogspot again. There is an unofficial announcement that tomorrow the District Superiors of the SSPX will have a letter read to their flocks stating that the SSPX thanks Rome for the opportunity to reconcile BUT they will pass this time. The cannot accept Vatican II in its entirety.

This is NOT an official release just the word from the Spanish press. ???:sad_bye:

Makes me want to go to an SSPX Mass tomorrow. Is it a sin to attend SSPX Masses?
I went to one before I was baptized.

 

[ImmaculataFides]

Makes me want to go to an SSPX Mass tomorrow. Is it a sin to attend SSPX Masses?
I went to one before I was baptized.

Of course not! That is ridiculous.

 

[ImmaculataFides]

And he broke that agreement by ordaining 3 more, hence all the problems.

He never accepted the agreement. The priests who left and accepted the agreement (the FSSP) were to receive one bishop. It’s been over 20 years and they’re still yet to be given one.

 

[ImmaculataFides]

SSPX: “Seriously, we can’t accept this”.
Rome: “SIGH. Come back when you’re ready. Oh, and you’re no longer within the Church. God bless”.

Ridiculous. The SSPX is inside the Church. Always have been.

 

[ProVobis]

He never accepted the agreement. The priests who left **and accepted the agreement **(the FSSP) were to receive one bishop. It’s been over 20 years and they’re still yet to be given one.

That’s an interesting point, something I hadn’t thought of before.

unavoce.org/resources/protocol-agreement-between-rome-and-saint-pius-x/

 

[sw85]

Makes me want to go to an SSPX Mass tomorrow. Is it a sin to attend SSPX Masses?
I went to one before I was baptized.

At the moment, you can go and still fulfill your Sunday obligation. It’s probably unwise to receive communion there.

If they go into schism, you can still go to their Masses, but it cannot fulfill your Sunday obligation and you are pretty much definitely forbidden to receive communion there.

 

[Mark1970]

At the moment, you can go and still fulfill your Sunday obligation. It’s probably unwise to receive communion there.

If they go into schism, you can still go to their Masses, but it cannot fulfill your Sunday obligation and you are pretty much definitely forbidden to receive communion there.

If the SSPX were to go into schism, is it possible that Rome would indicate that the laity shouldn’t even go to their Masses? And that you shouldn’t use an SSPX Mass to fulfil Sunday obligation?

 

[ImmaculataFides]

If the SSPX were to go into schism, is it possible that Rome would indicate that the laity shouldn’t even go to their Masses? And that you shouldn’t use an SSPX Mass to fulfil Sunday obligation?

That’s not going to happen so you don’t have to worry about anything.

 

[sw85]

If the SSPX were to go into schism, is it possible that Rome would indicate that the laity shouldn’t even go to their Masses? And that you shouldn’t use an SSPX Mass to fulfil Sunday obligation?

If they go into schism, it will automatically be the case that SSPX Masses cannot be an object of Sunday obligation; no announcement to that effect would be needed.

I don’t think they’d forbid people to attend their Masses. They don’t forbid attendance at Orthodox liturgies, for instance. They might discourage it, but that’s about it.