SSPX Privately Recognized by Rome?

[ag_28]

Okay, does the Catholic Church support pedophilia? What are you going to believe, actions or words. Did the Catholic Church in the middle ages support adultery and fornication? Do we judge by what the Church teaches or what the clergy does?

The Catholic Church is authoritative. She is infallible. She is not indefectible. The mistake of Martin Luther was to think that “actions speak louder that words,” choosing to look at the sin of the clergy, rather than at the promises of Christ concerning His Bride.

Does this clarify what I meant and why I reject the premise that actions speak louder than words? I mean not insult to the Church. Rather I want to focus on that which is guided by the Holy Spirit and that which is not.

Since the beginning of Church history when Christ founded her, popes have incessantly preached against false ecumenism, to take an example. For two thousand years, the Holy Ghost has guided the Church in this.For the past few decades, this has changed, and ecumenism is paramount, i.e. the scandalous interreligious meeting at Assisi in "87. (Does this action speak louder than words?) This is a contradiction, in that the Holy Ghost cannot work against Himself. We see two different standards.
So if actions don’t speak louder than words, what are we to make of this?

 

[pnewton]

Since the beginning of Church history when Christ founded her, popes have incessantly preached against false ecumenism, to take an example. For two thousand years, the Holy Ghost has guided the Church in this.For the past few decades, this has changed, and ecumenism is paramount, i.e. the scandalous interreligious meeting at Assisi in "87.

I am sorry, but if you are going to go off the rails, you go by yourself. I am not going to jump off topic with you. There are plenty of other threads that discuss Assisi and this alleged false ecumunism. We have been asked not to do this very thing.

 

[ag_28]

I am sorry, but if you are going to go off the rails, you go by yourself. I am not going to jump off topic with you. There are plenty of other threads that discuss Assisi and this alleged false ecumunism. We have been asked not to do this very thing.

Once again, why is this going “off the rails?” You quoted examples of scandal in church history, why can’t I? Your statements pose actual problems in the Church, do mine not? I am equally sorry, because I don’t see how this is deviating from the subject line.

 

[pnewton]

Once again, why is this going “off the rails?” You quoted examples of scandal in church history, why can’t I? Your statements pose actual problems in the Church, do mine not?

I only did so to clarify and answer your question. If you go back to post 46, you will note the question mark in your post. The topic here is the SSPX and the Remnant article about Fellay. Post what you want.

I will not argue with you on this. If you want to be The Remnant (what an arrogant name), then do so. I will restate my position of belief in the One Holy Catholic Church, not any Remnant of that Church. I consider that particular magazine to be highly unreliable exercising what I consider to be yellow journalism.

 

[Denise1957]

It has been mentioned on this thread that perhaps the the Remnant article isn’t accurate as to what bishop Fellay may have actually said. But since the article is four weeks old, and there’s been no clarification or correction issued from Menzingen as far as I know, I think it’s safe to assume that the article is accurate to what the Bishop said.

So…what was Bp. Fellay’s purpose in giving this article in which he defines Rome’s supposed contradictions concerning the SSPX? Just my opinion here, but he could be trying to call Rome’s hand, in order to force a clarification of the Society’s status. I don’t know if this would be done to appease certain factions in the Church who say the the Society is definately not reconciled, or if it’s to show to the world that the Society is reconciled and just as legitimate as any other fraternity of priests in the Church. It just isn’t formally reconciled…no big deal. If the latter is the case, then there may not need to be a formal recognition (in the mind of the SSPX). The Society could proclaim that it is in the Church without formal recognition, and therefore carry on as usual, with no constraints as to its activities. But since Rome has not yet issued, to my knowledge, any clarifications as yet, then nothing has really changed. The Society is still in an irregular status, and not fully reconciled.

Regarding Bp. Williamson, and I don’t want to derail the thread on this issue, but even though I find the Bishop’s revisionist views to be repellent, I think that he is useful in this situation in that he forces the SSPX to remain humble. And that’s a really good thing, given that the Society believes that it alone holds the true traditions of the Church.

 

[pnewton]

So…what was Bp. Fellay’s purpose in giving this article in which he defines Rome’s supposed contradictions concerning the SSPX?

If you note in the article, it was not given by Bp. Fellay at all. This is an article from one writer based on what he heard from a two hour speech by Fellay, and then subsequent questioning at other events. It is a hodge-podge, and there is no indication that the part reported is the main thrust of the message, or a few comments taken out of context.

 

[Denise1957]

Thank you for the clarification, pnewton, but even given that these comments may have been taken out of context, there’s still enough information given, IMO, so as to see the thinking of Bp. Fellay. What isn’t exactly clear, however, is why he would state these things.

If you can provide info that shows that what was presented in the Remnant article was what not really what he intended to say, then I would gratefully appreciate it. Again, there’s been no correction or clarification from Menzingen regarding this, and the Remnant is considered to be a major source of information for SSPX adherents (I was once a subscriber to this publication myself).

 

[ag_28]

I only did so to clarify and answer your question. If you go back to post 46, you will note the question mark in your post. The topic here is the SSPX and the Remnant article about Fellay. Post what you want.

I will not argue with you on this. If you want to be The Remnant (what an arrogant name), then do so. I will restate my position of belief in the One Holy Catholic Church, not any Remnant of that Church. I consider that particular magazine to be highly unreliable exercising what I consider to be yellow journalism.

And I will also restate my position to adhere to the One, Holy, Catholic , and Apostolic Church, outside of which there is no salvation.
And just to add, I am not a subscriber to the Remnant. I don’t appreciate the personal attack in that you insinuated that I refer to myself as “the remnant.” I am a Catholic same as you just trying to get to Heaven. I apologize if any of my comments were uncharitable, but this one of yours is just that.
I believe that part of the rules of the forum require Charity to be kept.
“yellow journalism” interesting. i haven’t heard that one before.

 

[pnewton]

And I will also restate my position to adhere to the One, Holy, Catholic , and Apostolic Church, outside of which there is no salvation.
And just to add, I am not a subscriber to the Remnant. I don’t appreciate the personal attack in that you insinuated that I refer to myself as “the remnant.”

For that I apologize. It honestly was a mistake. What I was thinking, and what I meant to type, is “if you want to believe The Remnant… that is up to you.” Again, that is truly a mistake. I would change it if I could. What I typed was rude *and *made no sense.

“yellow journalism” interesting. i haven’t heard that one before.

In modern times, this has just been shortened to “journalism”.

Yellow journalism is characterized by sensationalism, questionable headlines and little research, btw.

 

[At_Trent]

Recognized by the Bishop of Rome

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

So many are jealous

 

[MarkThompson]

Isn’t that picture from back in 2009, though? So yeah, I don’t think so.

Big surprise! The Holy Father and the Curia are not a pack of liars; the SSPX has no canonical standing in the Church.

 

[JReducation]

Isn’t that picture from back in 2009, though? So yeah, I don’t think so.

Big surprise! The Holy Father and the Curia are not a pack of liars; the SSPX has no canonical standing in the Church.

I’m wondering if what is being confused as people read this article is recognnizing that the SSPX is real and has real needs as well as something to offer vs the SSPX having canonical status. While no one would argue the former, they do have real needs and certainly have a lot to contribute, the latter still remains true. They do not have canonical status.

That will only come after Cardinal Levada gathers all of the information from these talks and presents the commission’s recommendations to the Holy Father. We’ll just have to wait and see what the canonical status is going to be and what the parameters are going to be. We should not try to rush to conclusions or to rush the process. Let’s allow them the room and time to work through these details carefully and quietly. Impatience can lead to problems.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[ag_28]

For that I apologize. It honestly was a mistake. What I was thinking, and what I meant to type, is “if you want to believe The Remnant… that is up to you.” Again, that is truly a mistake. I would change it if I could. What I typed was rude *and *made no sense.

In modern times, this has just been shortened to “journalism”.

Yellow journalism is characterized by sensationalism, questionable headlines and little research, btw.

I apologize as well.
In Charity,

ag 28

 

[ag_28]

I’m wondering if what is being confused as people read this article is recognnizing that the SSPX is real and has real needs as well as something to offer vs the SSPX having canonical status. While no one would argue the former, they do have real needs and certainly have a lot to contribute, the latter still remains true. They do not have canonical status.

That will only come after Cardinal Levada gathers all of the information from these talks and presents the commission’s recommendations to the Holy Father. We’ll just have to wait and see what the canonical status is going to be and what the parameters are going to be. We should not try to rush to conclusions or to rush the process. Let’s allow them the room and time to work through these details carefully and quietly. Impatience can lead to problems.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

This makes sense. I like this post. Thank you for it.

In Christ,

ag 28

 

[giuseppeTO]

Thank you for the clarification, pnewton, but even given that these comments may have been taken out of context, there’s still enough information given, IMO, so as to see the thinking of Bp. Fellay. What isn’t exactly clear, however, is why he would state these things.

If you can provide info that shows that what was presented in the Remnant article was what not really what he intended to say, then I would gratefully appreciate it. Again, there’s been no correction or clarification from Menzingen regarding this, and the Remnant is considered to be a major source of information for SSPX adherents (I was once a subscriber to this publication myself).

I was at Bishop Fellay’s conference in Kansas City and I also have a recording of the conference. The Remnant article accurately reflected what Bishop Fellay said. These remarks were contained in possibly the last 20 minutes of a 2.5 hour conference. He made these comments while giving an update on the progress of the talks from his perspective. Generally, he felt the discussions were “bearing fruit” but not to expect any imminent and significant announcements. I’m sure everyone understands the confidentiality that all parties agreed to be bound by so I didn’t expect a more detailed update than this.

In conveying the challenges of the situation, H.E. remarked that while the official announcements have consistently maintained that the SSPX has no canonical mission, which has led to much speculation on the validity of sacraments, the internal and intrapersonal dealings between the SSPX and the Curia, and Ecclesia Dei reflect a sort of “understood internal mission” (these are my words, not Bshp Fellay) whereby Rome understands the SSPX has at least a mission to those whom it provides sacraments and in that context, Rome has no objection. I know that sounds very vague but it is hard to verbalize. The best example I could give was Bshp Fellay’s example of the certain sins which a priest can only conditionally absolve without permission from Rome (i.e., desecration of the Blessed Sacrament). The process is that a petition is made to Rome describing the sin, the counsel provided, and penance assigned and Rome responds back with a concurrence. This has occurred several times and each time, Menzingen has sent the case to Rome and the response has always been that the absolution was in order and approved. The response has never been that the sacrament was illicit.

So, by these remarks, H.E. was not making a case for the SSPX enjoying a “stealth” regularity. Rather, he was remarking on how difficult and complex the situation is.

I see it as just more encouragement for more prayer!

 

[JReducation]

I was at Bishop Fellay’s conference in Kansas City and I also have a recording of the conference. The Remnant article accurately reflected what Bishop Fellay said. These remarks were contained in possibly the last 20 minutes of a 2.5 hour conference. He made these comments while giving an update on the progress of the talks from his perspective. Generally, he felt the discussions were “bearing fruit” but not to expect any imminent and significant announcements. I’m sure everyone understands the confidentiality that all parties agreed to be bound by so I didn’t expect a more detailed update than this.

In conveying the challenges of the situation, H.E. remarked that while the official announcements have consistently maintained that the SSPX has no canonical mission, which has led to much speculation on the validity of sacraments, the internal and intrapersonal dealings between the SSPX and the Curia, and Ecclesia Dei reflect a sort of “understood internal mission” (these are my words, not Bshp Fellay) whereby Rome understands the SSPX has at least a mission to those whom it provides sacraments and in that context, Rome has no objection. I know that sounds very vague but it is hard to verbalize. The best example I could give was Bshp Fellay’s example of the certain sins which a priest can only conditionally absolve without permission from Rome (i.e., desecration of the Blessed Sacrament). The process is that a petition is made to Rome describing the sin, the counsel provided, and penance assigned and Rome responds back with a concurrence. This has occurred several times and each time, Menzingen has sent the case to Rome and the response has always been that the absolution was in order and approved. The response has never been that the sacrament was illicit.

So, by these remarks, H.E. was not making a case for the SSPX enjoying a “stealth” regularity. Rather, he was remarking on how difficult and complex the situation is.

I see it as just more encouragement for more prayer!

This makes much more sense. What is happening here is that they are talking and in the meantime, they have come across situations in which they have asked for Rome’s blessign and it has been granted. That’s not unreasonable, nor does it abrogate the fact that they have no canonical standing. A mission and a canonical standing are not the same thing. The bishop is not saying that they have been given a canonical standing, only that their mission to the people whom they serve is acknowledged. The answer to the OP is, no they have not been privately recognized by Rome. They have received Rome’s support in specific situations where they asked for it. It also makes sense for Rome to do this, because that’s how this whole mess began in the first place. When people did not do what Rome wanted, the fireworks began. If the Society is doing what Rome says should be done, then there should be no reasons for fireworks.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Denise1957]

I was at Bishop Fellay’s conference in Kansas City and I also have a recording of the conference. The Remnant article accurately reflected what Bishop Fellay said. These remarks were contained in possibly the last 20 minutes of a 2.5 hour conference. He made these comments while giving an update on the progress of the talks from his perspective. Generally, he felt the discussions were “bearing fruit” but not to expect any imminent and significant announcements. I’m sure everyone understands the confidentiality that all parties agreed to be bound by so I didn’t expect a more detailed update than this.

In conveying the challenges of the situation, H.E. remarked that while the official announcements have consistently maintained that the SSPX has no canonical mission, which has led to much speculation on the validity of sacraments, the internal and intrapersonal dealings between the SSPX and the Curia, and Ecclesia Dei reflect a sort of “understood internal mission” (these are my words, not Bshp Fellay) whereby Rome understands the SSPX has at least a mission to those whom it provides sacraments and in that context, Rome has no objection. I know that sounds very vague but it is hard to verbalize. The best example I could give was Bshp Fellay’s example of the certain sins which a priest can only conditionally absolve without permission from Rome (i.e., desecration of the Blessed Sacrament). The process is that a petition is made to Rome describing the sin, the counsel provided, and penance assigned and Rome responds back with a concurrence. This has occurred several times and each time, Menzingen has sent the case to Rome and the response has always been that the absolution was in order and approved. The response has never been that the sacrament was illicit.

So, by these remarks, H.E. was not making a case for the SSPX enjoying a “stealth” regularity. Rather, he was remarking on how difficult and complex the situation is.

I see it as just more encouragement for more prayer!

Thanks for providing your perspective, since you were present at this talk. One of things that concerns me, which I’ve already mentioned on this thread, is that Bp. Fellay is hoping for recognition without actually being formally recognized by Rome.

There’s a paragraph in the original Remnant article which wasn’t posted on the OP, no doubt due to the length of the article, but this paragraph, located about two-thirds of the way down on the article, says that…“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 de facto recognition, while the Vatican/SSPX talks continue.”

GiussepeTO, do you recall if the comment regarding de facto recognition is something that Bp. Fellay actually stated? It isn’t clear as to whether or not this comes from Bp. Fellay, or from the author of the article. Thank you.

 

[giuseppeTO]

Thanks for providing your perspective, since you were present at this talk. One of things that concerns me, which I’ve already mentioned on this thread, is that Bp. Fellay is hoping for recognition without actually being formally recognized by Rome.

There’s a paragraph in the original Remnant article which wasn’t posted on the OP, no doubt due to the length of the article, but this paragraph, located about two-thirds of the way down on the article, says that…“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 de facto recognition, while the Vatican/SSPX talks continue.”

GiussepeTO, do you recall if the comment regarding de facto recognition is something that Bp. Fellay actually stated? It isn’t clear as to whether or not this comes from Bp. Fellay, or from the author of the article. Thank you.

It came from the author. Bishop Fellay didn’t make a statement to that effect. He did relate that the Pope is under enormous anti-tradition pressure from several members of the episcopacy. He related, for instance, that an Italian Bishop remarked that he would resign if the Pope celebrated the Extraordinary Form in public and he wouldn’t be alone. While he confided that the SSPX certainly has its supporters in both the episcopacy, the college of Cardinals, and the Curia, he did quip that the SSPX was still very “hot” and anyone (in the hierarchy) who give the impression of “getting close” to the Society risks “getting burned”.

 

[JReducation]

It came from the author. Bishop Fellay didn’t make a statement to that effect. He did relate that the Pope is under enormous anti-tradition pressure from several members of the episcopacy. He related, for instance, that an Italian Bishop remarked that he would resign if the Pope celebrated the Extraordinary Form in public and he wouldn’t be alone. While he confided that the SSPX certainly has its supporters in both the episcopacy, the college of Cardinals, and the Curia, he did quip that the SSPX was still very “hot” and anyone (in the hierarchy) who give the impression of “getting close” to the Society risks “getting burned”.

Can I just calll you Joe?

I like your honesty. This is what I was thinking after I read the article. I’ve met Bishop Fellay. We’re not buddies. We’ve met, not played tennis. He gave me the impression of being a man who has some common sense. I could not see him saying everything the way that the author wrote it. I can see how the author takes talking points that the Bishop made and weaves them together for his article. It’s journalism.

I’m glad to hear you say, “The Bishop said this and he did not say that.” If you tell me that the Bishop said that he has supporters and antogonists in the hierarchy, I would say, “Yeppers”. That’s no big secret. If someone tells me that the Bishop has let some cat out of the bag, then I would say, “He’s not as credible as I thought” or “Someone is spinning something that he said.” I prefer to think that he is a credible man, even if I disagree with him on the flavor of chocolate. Honest disagreements are still honest.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[giuseppeTO]

Can I just calll you Joe?

I like your honesty. This is what I was thinking after I read the article. I’ve met Bishop Fellay. We’re not buddies. We’ve met, not played tennis. He gave me the impression of being a man who has some common sense. I could not see him saying everything the way that the author wrote it. I can see how the author takes talking points that the Bishop made and weaves them together for his article. It’s journalism.

I’m glad to hear you say, “The Bishop said this and he did not say that.” If you tell me that the Bishop said that he has supporters and antogonists in the hierarchy, I would say, “Yeppers”. That’s no big secret. If someone tells me that the Bishop has let some cat out of the bag, then I would say, “He’s not as credible as I thought” or “Someone is spinning something that he said.” I prefer to think that he is a credible man, even if I disagree with him on the flavor of chocolate. Honest disagreements are still honest.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Br,

Feel free to call me Joe, although Giuseppe is the Third Order name I took in honor of the great saint who bears that name, as well as the given name of a sainted Pope.