1
- Status
T
tradcathusa
Guest
For the latest read Roarte Caeli
rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/
It is the BEST web page out there for us tradittional Catholics. Bishop Fellay has just talked to the CNS and it appears he will sign and there is going to be a split
rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/
It is the BEST web page out there for us tradittional Catholics. Bishop Fellay has just talked to the CNS and it appears he will sign and there is going to be a split
T
TrueLight
Guest
I don’t know if this was written with full knowledge that it would become public NOW, although of course it is an official letter which will go into the Society’s annals and become public at some point. It’s a part of history.
It’s also not a letter between friends. It is a letter to three Bishops who oppose reconciliation and who have been making trouble for Bishop Fellay. It is a letter admonishing them while also justifying his decision.
This man has a tremendous amount of pressure on him and I’m going to keep praying for him and the Society - that there won’t be some big rupture.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Not really surprising is it? Let’s just hope we don’t have 1988 all over again.
T
TrueLight
Guest
Hmm.
It will be a sad thing if they have to give up their adherence to traditional practices and teachings.
J
JReducation
Guest
It’s my job. As of Pentecost Sunday, I become superior general of my community. I get many questions from our brothers about what to think about this. It’s my intention to guide them to remain well within Franciscan tradition, which includes everything that is Catholic, but is not Traditionalist in the popular sense. In our tradition, absolute and unquestioning obedience, except in case of sin, is a must. Part of a superior’s role is to teach his men to think with the Church. It is very hard to obey when there are so many voices speaking at the same time and they all sound reasonable, yet they don’t all agree. That leads to the second level of the same ministry of the superior to his brothers. He must sort through all that is being said and give his brothers that which is true and point out that which is in error, as well as that which is not in error, but is in conflict with the charism of order. In these times, the most important part of a superior’s ministry to his brothers is to do what Christ said to Peter. If you’re going to tell someone what to think and what to avoid, you must discern the spirits and lead your brothers, not push them.
JR, you are all over this like white on rice!
The split is no surprise. The question is whether the split will be gentlemanly or will there be fireworks. Many communities subdivide. If they can part company, but find one unifying point, it may minimize the rhetoric and leave the door open for a fraternal relationship. If one keeps that door open, many good things can happen.
I’m remembering when the Franciscans and the Jesuits parted company and the Franciscans did everything possible to have the pope, who was a Franciscan, suppress almost every Jesuit province, except for two. The fraternal dialogue between the Franciscans and the Jesuits was never closed. Eventually, the Franciscans recanted and the Vatican reinstated the Jesuit provinces that it had suppressed. As long as there is a fraternal contact, there is hope. If they part company as antagonists, a reunion looks bleak.
Usually internal documents of religious orders and societies of apostolic life, even though they are part of history, are sealed and never revealed to anyone except to their scholars and superiors general. This letter looks like one of those that belongs in such a file along with the other letters that were leaked.
We have historical documents about the world that go as far back as the 13th century and they are sealed in the archives. Most of them, we don’t know what they say. No one has ever seen them except the archivist.
Actually, if one is used to reading letters from superiors general, this is definitely one of them. The message is quite simple. It has the three essential parts that every superior general gives to his subordinates.
a. [Commands] You need to step down. Your behavior is damaging and has consequences.
b. [Corrects] I don’t have to explain myself to you. I am the superior general. I have the authority and power to make unilateral decisions or consult with whom I trust, so get over it.
c. [Informs] This is what is going to happen. End of story.
What they will be asked to give up is not their customs, but their rhetoric. They will have to be as respectful and tolerant toward mainstream Catholicism as are the FSSP and other communities. They will be allowed to ask questions and invited to share ideas on Church life and the application of the Council, but they will not be allowed to go around saying, “It’s the greatest tragedy since Hiroshima.” I heard from one of them that they have also been told to droop the rhetoric about the Jews and the Holocaust. They must accept the Vatican’s position. I believe this happened at the time of the Williamson issue. Bishop Fellay told them to back down, because the Holy Father was not happy. This remains a standing order, which makes some of them very unhappy.
There are little things, not major things. Most of it has to do with the way that they say things, which tends to be rather dogmatic. They have to remember that none of us are the Magisterium; therefore, none of us has the right to be dogmatic. We have to think and speak with the Church, not opposing her at every turn. There is a big difference between asking questions and questioning. The latter exudes an authority that we do not have.
I will say this, the more I here from Bishop Fellay, the greater my respect for him, even if we do disagree. I don’t know why people can’t look at the relationship between Cardinal Ratzinger and Pope John Paul. These men disagreed on many things. However, there was such love, admiration and respect between them, that their disagreements did not affect other people. That’s how Catholic scholars and gentlemen should behave.
Bishop Fellay has my prayers.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
1
1AugustSon7
Guest
Let us be frank and realistic:
Considering the situation of the Bishops in respect to effective control of the Society, if all, some or one of them does choose not to go along with it, he (the dissenting bishop(s)) will almost be forced to make “fireworks”.
The reason for this is, as I alluded to, the reality of effective control of the Society. +Fellay has it; the others do not. If there is but a whimper or something like, “Well, that’s okay, it’s within your rights to do this” then the splitting bishop will have to start practically from scratch. Hardly a promising or an easy task.
This will require a lot of labour, energy, fundraising and the like and - to be frank - people are more likely to open their wallets and dedicate their time and energy to a fireworks show rather than for, say, a “gentlemanly” policy.
It could be that, because of the above mentioned realities, that some of the bishops reluctantly go along and choose a “wait and see” policy: i.e., wait and see how the Society’s general priests, religious or laity react. If there is discernable dissent then they might ally with and make themselves the leaders of such dissent; however, from a Machiavellian point of view, and also (more importantly) a historical one, the laity tend to be sheared like sheep, so to be brutally frank, when they do not see any of their visible leaders protesting or dissenting.
This is what happened, tragically, in England under Henry VIII. Rome was silent and the leadership in England almost entirely went along with Henry’s revolution, however reluctantly. Very few of the hierarchy dissented.
Of course, these two situations are very different but similar in respect to how Catholic laity tend to react to things. They tend to look to their leaders as, I’m sure, your subordinates would look up to you for guidance and leadership, JR.
So, if the bishops know their history, they would likely dissent immediately and probably already have their reasons and speeches, as it were, outlined; otherwise, the dissent is likely to be minimal.
But of course, we shall have to wait and see!
1
1AugustSon7
Guest
Here’s a web-poll I found from a small SSPX forum site in regards to the reconciliation. Of course, this could only possibly reflect the English speaking SSPX at best and the laity specifically. Seems to confirm my above speculations:
**WHERE WILL YOU GO? **
Follow +Fellay into Rome 4 ] [9.52%]
Follow ALL four Bishops into Rome 3 ] [7.14%]
Stay with Bishop(s) who don’t follow +Fellay 23 ] [54.76%]
Independent 2 ] [4.76%]
Sedevacantist 4 ] [9.52%]
Be a “home aloner” 0 ] [0.00%]
Other (please specify in post) 3 ] [7.14%]
Undecided 3 ] [7.14%]
**WHERE WILL YOU GO? **
Follow +Fellay into Rome 4 ] [9.52%]
Follow ALL four Bishops into Rome 3 ] [7.14%]
Stay with Bishop(s) who don’t follow +Fellay 23 ] [54.76%]
Independent 2 ] [4.76%]
Sedevacantist 4 ] [9.52%]
Be a “home aloner” 0 ] [0.00%]
Other (please specify in post) 3 ] [7.14%]
Undecided 3 ] [7.14%]
W
wasserfall
Guest
I read the letter a bit differently than 1AugustSon. It seems to me that Bishop Fellay is still leaving open the possibility that there will be no agreement. He says, for example, that it is yet to be seen what guarantees the society will be offered with respect to their teaching, etc.
What I see Bishop Fellay saying is that this is not a time to outright reject the offer of the Holy See, without even seeing what the offer is. He says, instead, that the SSPX must desire regularization and that, the Holy See having fulfilled the preconditions requested by the SSPX, the SSPX is now obligated in good faith to move towards regularization, provided that certain guarantees are given.
What guarantees would the society desire? Well I suspect here they will zero in on the poor treatment of the FSSP, and IBP in various past situations and request guarantees that these things will not happen to them.
For example, I suspect they will desire (among other things):
What I see Bishop Fellay saying is that this is not a time to outright reject the offer of the Holy See, without even seeing what the offer is. He says, instead, that the SSPX must desire regularization and that, the Holy See having fulfilled the preconditions requested by the SSPX, the SSPX is now obligated in good faith to move towards regularization, provided that certain guarantees are given.
What guarantees would the society desire? Well I suspect here they will zero in on the poor treatment of the FSSP, and IBP in various past situations and request guarantees that these things will not happen to them.
For example, I suspect they will desire (among other things):
- a guarantee that they can teach the non-infallibility of (some or all of) the documents of Vatican II, thus admitting the possibility of error
- a guarantee that no priest of the SSPX will ever be required to celebrate mass or administer the sacraments in any of the postconciliar forms, and the right to expel any priest who does so.
- a guarantee that the SSPX may establish new priories without the express permission of local bishops (although with consultation).
W
wasserfall
Guest
Those persons will have a hard time doing this when they don’t have a priest or a chapel anymore.
And if they manage to keep their priest, they’ll be back to the days of the garage masses.
Even if all three other bishops refuse to regularize (which I personally doubt), they will have few priests. They will have no seminaries and no chapels, no organization and no structure.
Well, unless they all go join the SSPV or something.
1
1AugustSon7
Guest
Yes. That is what I meant by +Fellay’s having effective control of the Society.
Seeing as Sedevacantism was an option (the SSPV are sedevacantist right?); and that option was largely ignored (cf. the poll again), I doubt this will be the case.
Sedes do not have “una cum” Masses, which will likely gnaw (to say the least) at the conscienses of those who recognise Benedict XVI, even though they espouse “recognise-and-resist” theology.
T
TrueLight
Guest
They certainly will have to give up some of the rhetoric from the pulpit.What they will be asked to give up is not their customs, but their rhetoric.
Br. JR, FFV
In my limited experience with a couple of different traditional societies, although they don’t say the OF is invalid, you won’t find that much of a difference in views between them and the SSPX where it concerns the efficacy of the Novus Ordo. It’s not just a preference.
This is so important. We all know there is not going to be a great welcome of the SSPX by the Bishops.
J
JReducation
Guest
In an interview today or yesterday, Bishop Fellay said that this is going to happen, because the Holy Father wants it to happen now. Those are his exact words. I don’t believe that he has been given much wiggle room by the Holy Father. From his own statements, it sounds like the Holy Father may have put out the olive branch and said, “Take it or leave it.”
We do know that the Bishop received a letter with the preamble in which Rome placed the burden of a schism on Bishop Fellay, if he did not sign it. It does not sound like he’s calling as many shots as people would like to think.
He’s certainly been asked what he wants. Rome has not been rude or inflexible. He says so himself. But he also said that this is the time to do this, because there are rogue elements in the SSPX that are dangerous. He’s looking at what Rome is offering and at the prospects if he does not accept the offer. The prospects are not good. When a superior general has to tell his men that they are bullying him, threatening him and undermining him, that does not bode well for the unity of any institute. Superiors general rarely have to say such things, unless the institute is in danger of imploding. If that’s the case, which I’m not privy to details, then the best choice is to take the olive branch, even if it has some thorns. At the end of the day, the primary ministry of any superior general is the protection and preservation of his institute. Bishop Fellay knows this is his primary duty, not to the laity and not to the other bishops, but to the society of apostolic life. He stresses that point when he speaks of the role of the superior general.
It sounds as if he has been given the rules and the dialogue is concluded. Now he has to decide. He apparently has decided. Whatever the Holy Father says now, we don’t know. Being the Holy Father, he can say whatever he believes is best and the rest of us have to follow. There are no other choices.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
E
EcceAgnusDei
Guest
I really liked this statement by Fr. Simoulin in the letter (emphasis mine):
Bishop Fellay has said that Pope Benedict called Archbishop Lefebvre a great son of the Church. I’m glad Father reminded his readers in this letter that the SSPX is to serve the Church, and I believe the society will do that quite well once it is regularized.
As a side note, I found out this morning that the priest at the SSPX chapel I attend is fully on board with Bishop Fellay and whatever he decides. I rejoice at this for many reasons, a selfish one being that I didn’t want to see rupture in my chapel if/when the SSPX regularizes.
May God bless our Holy Father and Bishop Fellay as they navigate these delicate waters.
- PAX
E
EcceAgnusDei
Guest
It seems that Father Simoulin also tries to make this point when he emphasizes in his letter what the “fundamentals” of the SSPX are:
An army formed for the Church and waiting to be unleashed under Her auspices!
- PAX
J
JReducation
Guest
I had to chuckle with that quote, not because I disagree, but because it’s also in our constitution, not the part about the priesthood, but the part of being founded not for any apostolic purpose or for any project, but for the sole purpose of living the Gospel in obedience and poverty Then our constitutions go on to say that the patrimony of our Holy Father Francis must be preserved at all cost.It seems that Father Simoulin also tries to make this point when he emphasizes in his letter what the “fundamentals” of the SSPX are:
An army formed for the Church and waiting to be unleashed under Her auspices!
- PAX
What caused me to chuckle was to read an SSPX priest and former superior saying the same thing we say for which many SSPXers have criticized us. The institute has a purpose, be it the Franciscans or the SSPX or the Jesuits. It’s purpose is not the purpose of the individuals or the laity. It’s defined by the founder and that can only be changed by the pope. Even the superior general cannot change that. In fact, he has to protect its purpose.
If the SSPX purpose is the priesthood and the priesthood is in danger, because the priests are not exercising their priesthood in communion with the bishops and the pope, then the superior general has the moral duty to change courses to align the activities of the institute with the charism of the institute. I found it interesting, because Father did not mention the word “tradition” in this paragraph. He speaks about priesthood.
To many people out there, this is going to come as a shocker, because they have always believed that the primary mission of the SSPX is tradition and now they’re saying, “it’s the priesthood, nothing more and we don’t want more.” This statement allows the superior room to negotiate in the area of tradition in order to protect the charism. I don’t mean negotiate in Revealed Tradition. No one has the authority to do that.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
W
wasserfall
Guest
That’s all true Bro. JR, but if the line from Rome were: “Here’s the deal, you have to celebrate the new mass at least once per year and you have to accept the infallibility of every text of the Second Vatican Council, and you have to close all of your chapels and priories unless you receive express permission from the local bishop”, then Bishop Fellay would walk away.
Now I’m sure that’s not what Pope Benedict is offering, but the point remains that there is or will be a discussion about what is being offered vs. what the SSPX requests. If the offer is not acceptable to both sides, the SSPX will not regularize, even if that means new excommunications.
To put a more hopeful note on it, however, Fr. Niklaus Pfluger, 1st assistant to the Superior General, stated recently in a talk that the SSPX will be offered almost everything they have asked for, so it seems that regularization is very likely.
And the reason I think that one or more of the other bishops will eventually come around is that their resistance at the moment is a resistance of ignorance. They don’t know what the offer is and they are fearing the unknown. (Remember they are not part of the leadership of the SSPX). Once they know what the deal is, I suspect that one or more of them will find it acceptable.
W
wasserfall
Guest
I sometimes think that people who are sympathetic to the SSPX in some way, but who are not “insiders” – that is, don’t attend their chapels, etc. are often more knowledgeable about some aspects of the SSPX than the “insiders” are.
The SSPX was founded with the explicit goal of saving the Catholic priesthood. Seminarians came to Archbishop Lefebvre and told him that their seminaries had begun teaching error since the council. The Archbishop founded a seminary (Econe) to provide the traditional formation that these seminarians wanted (and that they had received in the first part of their formation at their diocesan seminaries). That was the start of the SSPX.
Rorate has posted today a sermon by Archbishop Lefebvre in 1987 in which he reports his words to the Holy See about the priesthood and the SSPX seminary:
“If I follow the current that you yourselves are following, well, I will have the same results; that is to say, your seminaries are closing, your seminaries are being sold, and the priests whom you are forming do not have any longer the priestly spirit. The best proof is that a good number of them, three or four years after ordination, get married and abandon the priesthood. I do not want to arrive at that situation with my seminarians! I want authentic priests, priests of Our Lord Jesus Christ, who believe, who have the Faith, and who are ready to suffer for their Faith, who are ready to renounce all those worldly habits that have been introduced into the interior of the Church and that have invaded even the sacristies and the priesthood!”
J
JReducation
Guest
I believe that you’ve nailed it on the head on a number of things. Bishop Fellay has said that the Vatican has been accommodating. This does not mean that the SSPX will get everything that it wants. On the other hand, we don’t know what they asked for.
Remember, they were talking for two years. It was at the conclusion where each side put on paper its final stance. If the Bishop feels that Rome was being reasonable, even though there are thorns on that olive branch, he would also be reasonable and drop some of his demands. I feel that Bishop Fellay is a reasonable man.
They’re not going to be asked to close their houses only to ask for permission to open them again. First, it’s a violation of Canon Law. You can’t deprive someone the use of his property. These are secular men, not consecrated men. They own these properties. Second, it would make no sense. If they follow the pattern that Opus Dei had to follow, the houses that already exist are given faculties and from this point forward, they must comply with Canon Law and ask for permission to open new houses. That’s the current law for prelatures.
The issue of the OF is not going to be allowed and the Bishop knows this. SP clearly says that no priest can refuse to celebrate the OF just out of principle. The pope is not going to say to them, “You’re the exception.” However, the fact that no one can refuse to celebrate the OF out of principle, does not mean that one has to celebrate it at all. The issue becomes one of attitude. They can celebrate the EF exclusively, but they cannot continue to compare and contrast the two forms of the mass and reject the OF. We do that in our order with the FI. They voted to celebrate the EF. That’s fine as long as you don’t throw stones at the OF.
The policy with preambles is that there is no more dialogue. A preamble means that this is the first article of your new statutes. You must respond to it, but the Holy See will not discuss it with you. The discussions are over. Otherwise, it’s not a preamble, it’s just another offer. That’s why the preamble was sent back to Bishop Fellay to clarify what he added to the preamble. Rome did not send back a response. That would have perpetuated the dialogue. People had better not hold their breadth for more dialogue. It ain’t gonna happen. A preamble has been issued.
I believe that you’re right on the money that the other bishops are intimidated because they don’t know what is being said or done. However, this is what blows my mind. The man is the superior general or is he not?
I read on Fisheaters where some lay people were saying that Bishop Fellay “owes us an explanation.” I was thinking, “Says who?” Since when do superiors general owe anyone explanations other than the pope. The term superior general means that he is everyone’s superior, not a politician.
Either you trust your superior general or you leave, but you don’t threaten the man, insult him and undermine his work . . . unless he’s doing evil, then you can lynch him.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
E
EcceAgnusDei
Guest
Great post
And thank you for sharing the quote from Archbishop Lefebvre. He makes a good point, especially considering the general state of seminaries in the 1980s when he said it. If someone doesn’t want to listen to what the SSPX has to say about that, you can go check out Father Z. He shares his experience of being in the seminary in the 1980s:
Can you imagine being expelled from a seminary for saying the rosary in public? Unbelievable. Perhaps this will help us better understand where Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX were coming from back then.
- PAX
- Status