SSPX Privately Recognized by Rome?

[Archie_Leech]

remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2010-1031-mccall-fellay.htm

…With specific references to the Society, Bishop Fellay explained that the Holy See has been pursuing a two-pronged policy – an official de jure policy contradicted by de facto actions. He noted how the official line is embodied in the document released by the Secretary of State after the 2009 decree nullifying the excommunication of the Society’s bishops. According to this unsigned document, the Society does not exist legally and enjoys “no legal standing in the Church”, with the SSPX priests exercising their ministry “illicitly.” Yet, the Holy Father speaks and takes concrete actions that run contrary to this, oftentimes even recognizing the legal and valid existence and ministry of the Society priests.

His Excellency described this situation as the “principle of action” which refers to a mode of interpreting and applying legal norms…

Bishop Fellay demonstrated the application of this “principle of action” in the case of the Society through several examples, most of which have never been previously publicized. First, he mentioned the issue of SSPX confessions. As most Catholics know, there are certain grave sins, the remittance of which is reserved to the Holy See alone. Under Church law if a priest hears the confession of a person who has committed one of these reserved sins, he is obligated to report the matter to the Holy See within thirty days to receive permission to absolve as well as guidance for the imposition of an appropriate penance. His Excellency indicated that from time to time Society priests have heard such confessions, and that, in every case, the required notification was sent to the Holy See. In each of these cases, the response received from the Vatican was that “all was good and licit” and that the permission for the SSPX priest to absolve was granted.

What inference are we to draw from this? Obviously, the Society priests can validly hear confessions. If the Society priests lacked any form of jurisdiction to hear confessions, the Holy See would have replied that the penitent needed to confess to a priest with legal jurisdiction to hear confessions. By definition, we are here dealing with grave matter and hence mortal sin (assuming all other conditions are present). Yet even still, the Holy See replied to the SSPX that “all is good and licit.” The Holy See is thus making a de facto recognition of SSPX jurisdiction to hear confessions, a position that the Society and a number of canonical experts have maintained for years in the face of what is obviously a difficult legal situation.

The second example cited by Bishop Fellay related to those priests who leave the Society of St. Pius X after having received ordination from one of her bishops. According to Church law and practice, a priest who receives Holy Orders outside the Church (i.e., from a bishop who though validly possessing the episcopal powers has nevertheless separated himself from the Catholic Church) is prohibited (upon return to the Catholic Church) from ever exercising the priestly powers conferred at his illicit ordination. He retains the indelible mark of the priesthood but is permanently forbidden to exercise the related powers.

Yet, Bishop Fellay explained, whenever a priest ordained by a Society bishop left the Society but wished to remain a priest, the Holy See allowed him to exercise priestly powers. Again, the legal conclusion is inescapable: The SSPX priests were not ordained “outside the Church”. Although His Excellency did not mention any names, we know from the case of the founders of the Fraternity of St. Peter, to the priests of the Institute of the Good Shepherd, to the priests of St. John Vianney in Compos, Brazil, to a long list of individual priests ordained by a SSPX bishop—that they all have been permitted to exercise their priestly power. They were not, therefore, ordained “outside the Church” in the eyes of the Holy See. (This is not the case with one or two isolated priests being granted an exceptional derogation from this norm, but rather the consistent practice of allowing all these priests to exercise their priestly functions.)

 

[Archie_Leech]

…The third example His Excellency relayed was in connection with the ordinations scheduled to take place in Germany in March 2009. As reported in The Remnant at the time, the bishops of Germany were capitalizing on the media’s attempt to sabotage the Holy Father’s lifting of the SSPX decree of excommunication and a then-recent interview of Bishop Williamson (“coincidentally” released on the eve of the announcement of the Holy Father’s historic decision). As previously reported in The Remnant, the Holy See contacted Bishop Fellay to request that the ordinations be moved to another location in order to ease tensions between the Holy See and the German bishops. In his address to the Angelus conference, Bishop Fellay revealed further details of this extraordinary intervention.

The Vatican asked Bishop Fellay to move the ordinations out of the jurisdiction of the German bishops. If Bishop Fellay would do so, the Vatican Cardinal bargained, the Society “would be legally recognized until Easter.” This was to cover the two-week period in which the ordinations would occur. Bishop Fellay explained that he had asked the Cardinal why this was being requested since, according to a recent document of the Secretary of State, the SSPX does not “even exist legally.” The Cardinal replied that “the Pope does not believe that.”

As we know, Bishop Fellay did comply with the Vatican request to move the ordinations (demonstrating once again his willingness to obey the Pope). There was a collective gasp in the room when His Excellency told this story.

The discussions that evening including plenty of questions as to whether we had all misheard or misunderstood what His Excellency had said earlier that day: “Did he really mean the Vatican acknowledged the legal existence of the Society for two weeks last March?” When I later spoke personally with His Excellency, I repeated his own words back to him from my notes and asked him if he had misspoken or if I had misheard him. He said “That is what I said, you heard me correctly.” I then asked: “What does that mean, since there is no precedent for such a statement? How can you be legal for two weeks and then illegal again?” He shrugged his shoulders and said that this is what the Cardinal had said.

Ah, to live in interesting times!..

 

[pnewton]

Trust what Rome says over what The Remnant says. I promise you, the Holy See will not release information through that channel. Bishop Fellay does after all have a vested interest in hearing things the way he wants them to be, and the Remnant does have SSPX subscribers. Follow the money.

 

[Archie_Leech]

Yes, there’s so much money in publishing a Traditionalist newspaper.

There is no reason for Bishop Fellay to publicly lie. He has documents from them regarding the confessions. Rome could contradict this story officially at any time, but they have not.

 

[ag_28]

With respect, I like to take all aspects into account.
Rome’s actions, specifically those of the the Holy Father, speak louder than words; namely of nullifying the decree of 1988 on the Bishops, going so far as to say that the declaration “at that time” also being nullified, saying that the excommunications were invalid from the start, the obvious de facto practice contradicting the de jure practice, etc. It’s not just the Remnant releasing this. The entire Traditional Catholic world is witnessing the heroic actions of the Holy Father.

To say that the Remnant is releasing this information to “follow the money,” seems a bit judgemental and biased.

In Charity,
ag 28

 

[ag_28]

So yes, Rome does, at least privately, recognize the Society.

 

[At_Trent]

Yes, there’s so much money in publishing a Traditionalist newspaper.

There is no reason for Bishop Fellay to publicly lie. He has documents from them regarding the confessions. Rome could contradict this story officially at any time, but they have not.

I agree. He isn’t lying. No way he would state falsehoods to his flock.

And to any who would entertain the thought H.E. might lie. Do you honestly believe Rome would be silent on the matter if he were lying ? There are surely those churchmen who would seize the opportunity to rebuke the statement if it were indeed false.

The man has given his life to the service of Holy Mother Church. He has never preached a single heresy or anything questionable. The SSPX’s concerns on matters of Doctrine are of some substance, or Rome would not bother to enter discussions with the SSPX. Even the consecrations were a sincere act of support for Tradition. Were they wrong ? Perhaps there could have been another way if more time were given a chance, but in the end it was not for personal gain, but for the love of HMC.

In these days of documented occurrences of atrocities, dissidence, and disobedience committed by a few other clergy, some Bishops, a fact acknowledged by H.H. himself, the Econe consecrations pale in the shock factor category.

Let Rome and the Society be. God’s will be done.

 

[runningdude]

It does seem Rome is making overtures to reward “good behavior” and obedience. Rome seems to recognize all that is good and valid in the organization, yet still hold it at arms length to discourage what is problematic.

Rome doesn’t want to lose the holy and pious priests in the order, pushing them towards more extreme groups such as sedevacantes. While still in the church, albeit somewhat irregularly, they still enjoy much of its protection. If pushed outside the visible walls of the Church, then no amount of piety and devotion to tradition can protect them from corruption.

Given them private, perhaps provisional recognition despite some of the difficulties the group presents helps Rome supervise their spirituality and protect the membership from extreme influences. Its still perhaps not perfectly licit to receive absolution or even the Eucharist from a Pius X priest, but Rome does not seem to want to rub salt into these wounds by rigorously enforcing this.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

What are the canons that support the assertion of the fifth paragraph, that a priest ordained by a renegade bishop may never exercise that ministry should he return to the Church?

As for confessions, it is within the juridicial power of the Holy See to hold that the priests of the Society do not licitly exercise the proper faculties and yet permit them to absolve for a sin reserved to the Holy See. That is, of itself, the granting of a faculty, but it doesn’t mean that faculties have then been *generally *permitted. It would be no different from the authority of a laicized priest to grant absolution in in emergency. In such a situation, the Church supplies the necessary faculty immediately.

As for the Holy See recognizing the Society, the Holy See recognizes the Orthodox Churches. That does not mean she has unity with the Orthodox Churches.

And as people have gone to bat for Bishop Fellay, I think the same applies to the Holy Father. In reason, he would “privately recognize” the Society, but not publicly? I doubt it, since the faitful are already confused about this very thing. Benedict XVI has never seemed the type of man or the type of pope who would leave his people in doubt.

And finally, could the poster who stated that the Holy See had admitted that the excommunications were invalid at their inception please provide documentation via links to the Holy See that they said that? I missed that, apparently (and I am asking in good faith).

 

[ProVobis]

Trust what Rome says over what The Remnant says. I promise you, the Holy See will not release information through that channel. Bishop Fellay does after all have a vested interest in hearing things the way he wants them to be, and the Remnant does have SSPX subscribers. Follow the money.

Whatever channel it is, we can be certain we won’t hear any good news through the same channel that brought us communion-in-the-hand. Bias works both ways.

 

[At_Trent]

Whatever channel it is, we can be certain we won’t hear any good news through the same channel that brought us communion-in-the-hand. Bias works both ways.

That made my day !

 

[At_Trent]

What are the canons that support the assertion of the fifth paragraph, that a priest ordained by a renegade bishop may never exercise that ministry should he return to the Church?

As for confessions, it is within the juridicial power of the Holy See to hold that the priests of the Society do not licitly exercise the proper faculties and yet permit them to absolve for a sin reserved to the Holy See. That is, of itself, the granting of a faculty, but it doesn’t mean that faculties have then been *generally *permitted. It would be no different from the authority of a laicized priest to grant absolution in in emergency. In such a situation, the Church supplies the necessary faculty immediately.

As for the Holy See recognizing the Society, the Holy See recognizes the Orthodox Churches. That does not mean she has unity with the Orthodox Churches.

And as people have gone to bat for Bishop Fellay, I think the same applies to the Holy Father. In reason, he would “privately recognize” the Society, but not publicly? I doubt it, since the faitful are already confused about this very thing. Benedict XVI has never seemed the type of man or the type of pope who would leave his people in doubt.

And finally, could the poster who stated that the Holy See had admitted that the excommunications were invalid at their inception please provide documentation via links to the Holy See that they said that? I missed that, apparently (and I am asking in good faith).

Don’t make me call the flying monkeys

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Don’t make me call the flying monkeys

LOL, I won’t push it that far.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Whatever channel it is, we can be certain we won’t hear any good news through the same channel that brought us communion-in-the-hand. Bias works both ways.

Communion in the hand is a discipline, possibly practiced in the Apostolic Church (which means that channel that brought it to you may well have been the Peter, James, and John Broadcast Corporation). It has no bearing on the reality of Truth. Surely you aren’t saying that the Holy See would lie to the Faithful?

 

[Chatter163]

With respect, I like to take all aspects into account.
Rome’s actions, specifically those of the the Holy Father, speak louder than words; namely of nullifying the decree of 1988 on the Bishops, going so far as to say that the declaration “at that time” also being nullified, saying that the excommunications were invalid from the start, the obvious de facto practice contradicting the de jure practice, etc. It’s not just the Remnant releasing this. The entire Traditional Catholic world is witnessing the heroic actions of the Holy Father.

When did B16 ever state that JP2’s excommincations were invalid from the get-go? Please provide a source. I recall his lifting the excommunications on the four surviving bishops, nothing about JP2’s actions ever being invalid.

 

[laszlo]

…With specific references to the Society, Bishop Fellay explained that the Holy See has been pursuing a two-pronged policy – an official de jure policy contradicted by de facto actions. He noted how the official line is embodied in the document released by the Secretary of State after the 2009 decree nullifying the excommunication of the Society’s bishops. According to this unsigned document, the Society does not exist legally and enjoys “no legal standing in the Church”, with the SSPX priests exercising their ministry “illicitly.” Yet, the Holy Father speaks and takes concrete actions that run contrary to this, oftentimes even recognizing the legal and valid existence and ministry of the Society priests.

The SSPX exists as reality in the word, 4 bishops, 500 priest several associates

The SSPX does not exists legally inside the Roman Catholic Church, they are w/o jurisdiction

 

[MarkThompson]

When did B16 ever state that JP2’s excommincations were invalid from the get-go? Please provide a source. I recall his lifting the excommunications on the four surviving bishops, nothing about JP2’s actions ever being invalid.

You’re right, the excommunications were valid, and were lifted for the four surviving bishops. Father Z has a discussion about this here. The confusion is over the portion of BXVI’s decree that says “as of today’s date, the [1988] Decree issued at that time no longer has juridical effect.” First, BXVI did not state that the 1988 decree was void ab initio; he stated that it “no longer” has effect, though clearly it did during the intervening two decades. Second, and more importantly, the 1988 decree did not excommunicate the SSPX bishops, it merely confirmed officially that they were already excommunicated. The bishops were excommunicated from the moment of their schismatic act, so overturning the formal recognition of that fact does not, by itself, affect their status. (That is why the Holy Father also had to decree explicitly, “I remit the penalty of excommunication” against the four surviving bishops.)

 

[pnewton]

Whatever channel it is, we can be certain we won’t hear any good news through the same channel that brought us communion-in-the-hand. Bias works both ways.

Are you referring to the Holy Catholic Church? I have heard the best of Good News from them.

I am not so naive that I do not take the source into account, whatever it is. You are right. If some magazine like U.S. Catholic denied this report, I would not take it too seriously. However, the Catholic Church has said at this time they have not canonical status. Until that changes, why would I believe the Remnant over the Church?

From the article:

His Excellency set the context by describing the Vatican’s policy as a process of “contradictions.” He characterized the recent history of the relations as a process of saying one thing publicly but having to speak and act differently in practical application. He seemed to be preparing his listeners to expect this dynamic of contradiction to continue, at least for the foreseeable future.

I never said that Bishop Fellay lied, or that the Remnant lied, by the way. I said i do not believe the story, or at least the way it is spun. In other words, I do not believe the Holy Father to be a liar, saying one thing privately to Bishop Fellay and another thing in public. I think it is far more likely that right now, as can be documented, the SSPX has no canonical status and talks are in progress between the Holy See and the SSPX. I also believe that when a decision is made, it will be made public.

Call me crazy.

 

[Archie_Leech]

You’re right, the excommunications were valid, and were lifted for the four surviving bishops.

The “excommunications’” were remitted, not lifted, and for ALL 6 of the Bishops involved. not just the four surviving. See below…

At the Angelus conference, Bishop Fellay also drew our attention to a related indication found in the wording of the Vatican decree nullifying the decree of SSPX excommunication. The final paragraphs of this decree reads:

On the basis of the powers expressly granted to me by the Holy Father Benedict XVI, by virtue of the present Decree I remit the penalty of excommunication latae sententiae incurred by Bishops Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta, and declared by this Congregation on July 1988. At the same time I declare that, as of today’s date, the Decree issued at that time no longer has juridical effect. (Emp. added)

Bishop Fellay pointed out what should have been obvious to us all. Notwithstanding the fact that the first sentence mentions only four of the six bishops subject to the former decree, the final sentence clearly states that the former decree “no longer has juridical effect.” That means the former decree ceases to legally exist.

If the decree claiming Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop de Castro Mayer are excommunicated latae sententiae has no juridical effect, the declaration with respect to them has been withdrawn as well. To avoid this obvious conclusion, the language needed merely to say “with respect to these four bishops only,” the former decree has no juridical effect; or “except as regards Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop de Castro Mayer” the former decree has no juridical effect.

I must admit that I felt rather stupid for not having noticed at the time what was clearly but subtly accomplished by this clever wording. The declared excommunication latae sententiae against Archbishop Lefebvre and his trusted ally in 1988 was removed without mentioning either of them by name. To do so would likely have elicited another episcopal rebellion.

 

[Archie_Leech]

Making sense of it…

How can we interpret this incident? First, we have a Cardinal in the Vatican claiming that the Pope does not believe the assertions of a document appearing to come from an official organ in the Vatican. The document released by the Secretary of State says the Society does not exist in the Church, and yet the Pope believes the Society does. The Vatican then agrees to temporarily recognize the Society in exchange for a change in venue for a SSPX ordination. How seriously does the Pope take this lack of legal recognition when it can be offered thus as a mere bargaining chip?

Bishop Fellay attempted to make some sense of these contradictions but all he could tell us is that this is the reality we have to accept for the present. The policy of the Vatican seems to be a contradictory policy which vacillates between “condemnation and admiration,” His Excellency noted. He seems convinced that where the personal sentiments of Benedict XVI himself are concerned, admiration for the SSPX is the word. He explained that in his first meeting with Pope Benedict XVI, His Holiness twice referred to Archbishop Lefebvre—first as the “venerated Archbishop Lefebvre” and, later in the conversation, as “Archbishop Lefebvre, this great man of the universal Church.”

So are we to believe that the Pope believes a schismatic excommunicant is venerable and a great man of the universal Church? This would be nonsensical. The only logical explanation is that the Pope recognizes the Archbishop for the loyal son of the Church that he is. His Excellency also contends that Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos expressed this same attitude when in reference to the work of the Society, His Eminence said that “the fruits are good hence the Holy Ghost is there.”

Now we know that Our Lord gave us this of who is in the Church and who is not— “judge them by their fruits.” The Holy Ghost cannot be outside the Church; hence if He is with the Society, the Society is in the Church. The logic is irrefutable.

How can it be that the Pope and the Vatican can have this policy of saying one thing but doing another? How can they allow clerics to claim confessions heard by Society priests are invalid and then make it clear by their own actions that the SSPX confessions are “all good and licit?” How can the Society be legally recognized for two weeks and then cease to be thus recognized after that time? Does this not manifest a Vatican dismissal of the seriousness of the issue of the SSPX’s “legal” recognition?

The answer His Excellency led us to see is that for political reasons, Benedict XVI feels that, given the situation in the Church today and the “wolves” within, that he cannot recognize the Society de jure. Yet, since he knows they are “inside the Church” and “bearing good fruit” he will recognize their legitimacy de facto as much as possible. As Father Scott Gardener remarked in his conference earlier in the day, the error of collegiality has prevented the correction of the errors and abuses produced by the Council. Father Gardner reported that a high ranking Cardinal had admitted to him that Collegiality has effectively made the Church “ungovernable.”

An American Cardinal admitted the same thing to me in a private conversation back in May of 2010. Benedict XVI has learned through experience that he will lose what little influence he has over the bishops of most of the world united in their collegial disobedience and disregard of his authority if he goes too far in doing the right thing.

Bishop Fellay illustrated this point with concrete examples. He recounted how, back in 2003, a group of Cardinals, including Joseph Ratzinger, had met to decide what was to be done about the Society and Tradition. They agreed that an apostolic administration had to be organized in order to give legal standing and independence to Traditional groups. There was a disagreement about whether the Society should form the “spine” of this structure with the other groups attached to it, or whether it should just be set up independently within the current Ecclesia Dei communities.

When Benedict XVI was elected in 2005, he started to implement this plan. Bishop Fellay relayed more details of his initial meeting with His Holiness. The meeting included Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos, the Holy Father, Bishop Fellay and Father Schmidberger. The Pope asked Cardinal Castrillon “where do things stand.” The Cardinal replied, “Today you can recognize the Society of St. Pius X. I have sent you a document which would do this.”

The Pope replied that he had received the document and sent it on to the Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts to determine if it was “right with the Church.”

Bishop Fellay remarked that it must have contained something unusual if it needed to be thus examined. Yet, for whatever reason, the Pope was evidently blocked and so far this document—prepared by Cardinal Hoyos and approved in principle by the Pope (and sent for technical study)— has not seen the light of day. Why not?

Bishop Fellay explained that in 2006 the bishops of Germany went to the Vatican and vigorously opposed the project. So what did the Pope do? He freed the Mass and lifted the decree of excommunication of the SSPX bishops. We all remember what happened to the Pope after that. Literally, all hell broke loose. The world turned on him.

Bishop Fellay further directed our attention to the recent incident when the Pope had appointed the conservative Fr. Gerhard Maria Wagner to become Bishop of Linz, Austria. The Pope again was attacked in the media for this “ultra-conservative” appointment. Clearly the Pope has concluded that the costs of provoking disobedience and rebellion from the world’s bishops are not worth giving de jure recognition to the Society. The only solution is to grant recognition de facto, while the Vatican/SSPX talks continue.