Vatican Confirms SSPX Is Being Offered Personal Prelature

[JReducation]

We’re long overdue a return to rigour which I hope the regularisation of the SSPX will help.

While I understand the thinking of many Traditionalists and don’t see anything wrong with having the SSPX come home, I believe that many Traditionalists are not being realistic. I equate it to the person who is getting married and can only foresee happily ever after . . . until the first crisis hits.

Let’s look at some facts.

The SSPX is being offered a prelature. A prelature gives it the autonomy that the SSPX wants, but it also restricts because its activities must follow a constitution given to it from the Vatican. It cannot write its own constitution, because it’s a prelature, not community. There can be a constitution for the priests and religious, but those constitutions cannot contradict the constitution of the prelature.

A prelature has a defined apostolic mission that must be approved by the pope himself, not by a general chapter alone and not by one of the sacred congregations. We don’t know how broadly or how narrowly Pope Benedict will define the apostolic mission of the prelature.

Then we must look at size. The SSPX has about 500 secular priests, which is a very nice number. The average diocese has less than 300. Maybe the megadioceses have more. That looks good. However, those 500 priests are limited to working inside the prelature, not with diocesan structures. Therefore, they will not be allowed to participate in deanery meetings, diocesan synods, clergy councils or conferences of bishops where pastoral decisions are made. They will not be allowed to contradict those decisions made by the host diocese or the conferences of bishops. In other words, the SSPX can have its own pastoral practices within its jurisdiction, but it cannot tell the people of Diocese X that such and such a pastoral decision is a bad thing. They belong to the prelature.

Let’s remember that 500 secular priests are a large number for a diocese, not for an international organization. The Salesians and the Franciscans each have more than one million members. How many Salesians or Franciscans are in the average diocese? My point is that we’re thinking that the influence of these 500 men is going to turn the Church around. That’s not realistic.

The Church will turn around and problems will be solved. New ones will replace the old ones. The SSPX will bring a much needed charism into the Church, but it will stand side by side with the many other charisms that exist in the Church, as it should be. The SSPX is not being regularized to compete with other secular priests or with religious communities. They are being regularized for their own good and for the unity of the Church.

We truly need to keep this in focus. Let’s forget about ourselves and let’s think about these men and the unity of the Church. My biggest problem with this whole process is the selfish attitude of some people. They’re all excited because what they want and what they like is finally being regularized.

It is nice to get what we want and what we like. Make no mistake about that. But at the end of the day, the Church does provide for our spiritual and sacramental life, without the SSPX. What is of greater value here is that we have almost 1,000 men and women (clergy and religious) who are living outside the fence, but on the same side of the street. They are our brothers and sisters and we should love them enough to want them on our side of the fence where they will be safe and where we can share what each of us has to offer.

Finally, it is a great insult to the more than five million male religious and diocesan clergy to say to us that the SSPX are going to fix the Church, as if we had made no contribution for the good of the Church.

There has to be a balance in our thinking and a greater concern for the good of our brothers and sisters in the SSPX rather than our personal wants and wishes. As St. Francis said to our brothers, “The man who has not detached from his wants and wishes is like the man who cannot pass through the eye of the needle. He is still rich.”

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[severus68]

While I understand the thinking of many Traditionalists and don’t see anything wrong with having the SSPX come home, I believe that many Traditionalists are not being realistic. I equate it to the person who is getting married and can only foresee happily ever after . . . until the first crisis hits.

Let’s look at some facts.

The SSPX is being offered a prelature. A prelature gives it the autonomy that the SSPX wants, but it also restricts because its activities must follow a constitution given to it from the Vatican. It cannot write its own constitution, because it’s a prelature, not community. There can be a constitution for the priests and religious, but those constitutions cannot contradict the constitution of the prelature.

A prelature has a defined apostolic mission that must be approved by the pope himself, not by a general chapter alone and not by one of the sacred congregations. We don’t know how broadly or how narrowly Pope Benedict will define the apostolic mission of the prelature.

Then we must look at size. The SSPX has about 500 secular priests, which is a very nice number. The average diocese has less than 300. Maybe the megadioceses have more. That looks good. However, those 500 priests are limited to working inside the prelature, not with diocesan structures. Therefore, they will not be allowed to participate in deanery meetings, diocesan synods, clergy councils or conferences of bishops where pastoral decisions are made. They will not be allowed to contradict those decisions made by the host diocese or the conferences of bishops. In other words, the SSPX can have its own pastoral practices within its jurisdiction, but it cannot tell the people of Diocese X that such and such a pastoral decision is a bad thing. They belong to the prelature.

Let’s remember that 500 secular priests are a large number for a diocese, not for an international organization. The Salesians and the Franciscans each have more than one million members. How many Salesians or Franciscans are in the average diocese? My point is that we’re thinking that the influence of these 500 men is going to turn the Church around. That’s not realistic.

The Church will turn around and problems will be solved. New ones will replace the old ones. The SSPX will bring a much needed charism into the Church, but it will stand side by side with the many other charisms that exist in the Church, as it should be. The SSPX is not being regularized to compete with other secular priests or with religious communities. They are being regularized for their own good and for the unity of the Church.

We truly need to keep this in focus. Let’s forget about ourselves and let’s think about these men and the unity of the Church. My biggest problem with this whole process is the selfish attitude of some people. They’re all excited because what they want and what they like is finally being regularized.

It is nice to get what we want and what we like. Make no mistake about that. But at the end of the day, the Church does provide for our spiritual and sacramental life, without the SSPX. What is of greater value here is that we have almost 1,000 men and women (clergy and religious) who are living outside the fence, but on the same side of the street. They are our brothers and sisters and we should love them enough to want them on our side of the fence where they will be safe and where we can share what each of us has to offer.

Finally, it is a great insult to the more than five million male religious and diocesan clergy to say to us that the SSPX are going to fix the Church, as if we had made no contribution for the good of the Church.

There has to be a balance in our thinking and a greater concern for the good of our brothers and sisters in the SSPX rather than our personal wants and wishes. As St. Francis said to our brothers, “The man who has not detached from his wants and wishes is like the man who cannot pass through the eye of the needle. He is still rich.”

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

Well said as usual, Brother, thank you. I am all for unity but in fact,there are many of us who attend the OF, have been taught well about Catholicism, try our best to follow the rules and do good and never knew much if anything, about the SPPX.

 

[JReducation]

Well said as usual, Brother, thank you. I am all for unity but in fact,there are many of us who attend the OF, have been taught well about Catholicism, try our best to follow the rules and do good and never knew much if anything, about the SPPX.

A week ago, I went to NYC for a conference of religious superiors of men, not the national conference. This was a type of workshop and the target audience was male superiors. I just wanted to make it clear. There were 38 of us, mostly brothers, some regular priests who are religious superiors.

Anyway, during one of the breaks, I asked another superior if he had been keeping up with the SSPX regularization. I told him that I have a special interest in it, because my area of theological “expertise” (observe quotation marks) is Catholic Spirituality. He smiled and rolled his eyes.

I asked him if he opposed the regularization. His response made so much sense to me. I have to paraphrase it, because it was long. In essence, he said that he did not object to the regularization and that in fact he thinks that the SSPX comes with young blood, fervor, energy and a charism that is much needed, because most societies of apostolic life focus on apostolic and pastoral needs outside of the Church’s infrastructure, while the SSPX would serve the infrastructure itself.

He went on to explain the rolling of the eyes, which made me laugh, because I’ve seen that here on CAF and in our town where we have an SSPX chapel. He proceeded to explain that some people look to the SSPX as if it were the savior of the Church or as if it were the Church herself. Two things were disconcerting. One is that only Jesus is the savior of the Church and second that the SSPX is no more the Church than are the Benedictines, despite the fact that the Benedictines saved Western Civilization. He said that some are treating the SSPX as a religion within a religion and this may be even more confusing rather than helpful. But the problem is not the SSPX’s mission, the problem is how people view the SSPX. When they realize that the SSPX cannot deliver what they hoped for, they are gong to be upset and probably angry at the SSPX. This is what typically happens when we place unrealistic expectations on another. When they are not realized, we don’t blame ourselves for not being realistic. We blame the other for not delivering.

We went on to speak about how to prevent this possible frustration and anger. We agreed that we need to help people be very realistic. All of us, SSPX and those who are on the inside, must help everyone understand that this is not about them. This regularization is for the good of the actual members of the Society. The laity are already in full communion with the Church, except those who are opposing the regularization. They have one foot outside the door.

We agreed that we must teach love for the members of the SSPX. The mainstream Catholic must accept the SSPX as a society with a unique charism and mission that can be beneficial to some and not necessary to others, not unlike say choosing between attending a Franciscan institution and a Jesuit institution or parishes. They are both gifts of the Holy Spirit. We do not look at God’s gifts with disdain, but with gratitude, even if they are not for us as individuals. They are for the good of the Church. I don’t want to be a member of the SSPX. I love being an FFV. But I cannot deny the good that the SSPX can bring.

On the other side, we also discussed that we hope and pray that the SSPX clergy is doing their share in this by helping its faithful understand that the SSPX can benefit from a fraternal cooperation with other institutes and with the Church in general. The SSPX is certainly not perfect and like the rest of our religious orders and societies of apostolic life, it has holes that can be plugged by borrowing. If the regularization comes with an attitude that says “We have everything to give, but nothing to gain from this reunification,” we’re in trouble.

I left thinking about that last statement. I remembered by buddy who is an SSPX priest. On the plane ride home, I thought about how I wished that I could get my buddy to go with me to visit the dying at hospice or to counsel at a crisis pregnancy center for a few hours. There is no doubt that he’s pro-life, but he hasn’t a clue what the voiceless Christ looks like and how much He hurts. When you’re in the same room with Him, the pain is palpable. The few times that I’ve held an aborted baby in my hands, I shook all over and had nightmares for a week.

My point is that regularization is about brothers coming home so that we can share the feast, not to convert each other. Conversion comes through the grace of God and it’s a process not magic.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Oneofthewomen]

I am very confused about this whole situation, and to be honest, not sure how I feel about it. The SSPX is not in my diocese, but they have chapels in each of the adjacent dioceses, and I have an aquaintence who has started to attend one of them, and it has me a little bit concerned.
From the SSPX website

If the Novus Ordo Missae is not truly Catholic, then it cannot oblige for one’s Sunday obligation. Many Catholics who do assist at it are unaware of its all pervasive degree of serious innovation and are exempt from guilt. However, any Catholic who is aware of its harm, does not have the right to participate. He could only then assist at it by a mere physical presence without positively taking part in it, and then and for major family reasons (weddings, funerals, etc).

I just do not understand why this kind of rhetoric is still being allowed, if a reconcilliation is close at hand. This quote (and more of what is written in the link I provided) are actually kind of scarry to me.

Will the SSPX still be allowed to espouse ideas like this, and if so, how is that good for the Church?

 

[JReducation]

I am very confused about this whole situation, and to be honest, not sure how I feel about it. The SSPX is not in my diocese, but they have chapels in each of the adjacent dioceses, and I have an aquaintence who has started to attend one of them, and it has me a little bit concerned.
From the SSPX website

I just do not understand why this kind of rhetoric is still being allowed, if a reconcilliation is close at hand. This quote (and more of what is written in the link I provided) are actually kind of scarry to me.

Will the SSPX still be allowed to espouse ideas like this, and if so, how is that good for the Church?

They are not allowed to peddle such nonsense, even now. In fact, one thing that the Cardinal did say is that the SSPX must stop saying that Vatican II contains errors. This was reported, not by the Cardinal, but by Bishop Fellay. While he may or may not agree with the order, he seems willing to comply.

Having said that, this is the weakness of a secular society of apostolic life. The members of a secular society of apostolic life are not bound by a vow of obedience, as are religious. Let’s look at this more closely. We have religious bound by a vow of obedience who are going around saying nonsense, imagine a person who has made no such a vow. It is going to be a challenge to reign in these folks, just as it is a challenge for religious superiors to reign in some of our problem children.

Nonetheless, just because an institute has problem children, does not mean that we do not want it back. I think of it this way. This is actually true. I have five brothers and one deceased sister. One of my nephews is obnoxious. Sorry . . . but it’s true. He’s our token problem child. He’s never broken the law, done drugs or other really bad things. He’s just plain rude, because he’s spoiled. The “I’m entitled to everything I want” kind of kid.

Anyway, yes that particular household has a problem child, as far as I’m concerned. However, when we have a family gathering, we don’t exclude that household, because we know that my nephew is going to get under our skin. We prepare for it in our own way.

This is what we have to do with the problem children in the mainstream and in the SSPX. We gather for a family reunion, knowing that the problem child may be there and that he may do something that will make the rest of us cringe. Knowing this ahead of time, I just tell myself, “Get ready.” When it happens that I see something like this, I just laugh and say, “I knew this was coming. I’m so smart.”

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[ProVobis]

Will the SSPX still be allowed to espouse ideas like this, and if so, how is that good for the Church?

I’m sure that they will have to promise not to make disparaging comments about Vatican II, the OF, etc. as a condition of the PP. At least those who decide to accept the PP; I don’t know who the PSSPX webmaster is.

 

[pbr7w6]

I can’t help but see that as a reward for disobedience.

The founds of the Priestly Faternity of Saint Peter left the SSPX and returned to communion with Rome. They were allowed to form a priestly society.

The SSPX holds out for a number of years longer and evently are given a personal prelature.

How can it not be viewed as a reward for disobedience?

I pray to God to change my heart and mind on this but as it stands I can not accept this. Yes it will happen but I am unable to support or be happy about it.

So shall the last be first, and the first last. For many are called, but few chosen.

 

[justme]

It was not the pope who intervened. It was the Sacred Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life.

I am sorry. I thought it was understood that all the Congregations in the Vatican are acting under the authority of the pope.

While he may not actually review everything nor put his personal approval on every act, every act is done under his authority.

So there is nothing that a Congregation does that can not be said to have occured becuase the pope wanted it. If he did not agree with it, it would not occur.

He did not. It was just the opposite. They had a superior who wanted to push the celebration of the OF and EF. They elected a new superior at the first possible opportunity. The pope does not replace superiors.

I know that Wikipedia is not an academic source but . . .

Amaud Devillers, FSSP

I also believe that more recently the Vatican (I won’t say pope) removed the superior of the Legion of Christ and put it under the control of Cardinal De Paolis.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

Thanks Br. JR, that is a great analogy!!

I am happy that a reconcilliation is in the works, I am just not sure that I understand how the SSPX could still have rhetoric like this on their website, especially if they know that they should not be speaking this way.

I don’t know…, it just doesn’t seem “right” or “Traditional” for that matter, to speak of Holy Mother Church as if she doesn’t know what she is doing.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I’m sure that they will have to promise not to make disparaging comments about Vatican II, the OF, etc. as a condition of the PP. At least those who decide to accept the PP; I don’t know who the PSSPX webmaster is.

So its kind of like, “you can opt not to agree with it, but you cannot disagree with it”?

 

[Celticnovice]

I don’t see that I agree with you on this one.

When the FSSP was founded they had to be invited, and still have to be invited, by the local bishop to work within a diocese. The SSPX will get to keep a presence in every diocese where they have a current chapel. Yes most likely the pope will force the closure of some of the newer ones but a majority will get to stay open.

Also, it is not like the pope has no control over Societies like the FSSP. He did act against the FSSP when they tried to insert a statue into their constitutiions saying that an FSSP could not celebrate or concelebrate the OF. I also believe that he replaced the superior at that time.

Yes religious who are of pontifical right get to write their own constitutions and elect their superior yet both of those need the approval of the pope to go into effect.

I feel sorry for the FSSP and the other religious communities that are for the celebration of the EF in cities where the SSPX have a presence. One of the two chapels in those cities are going to loose membership.

Remember though not all traditional religious communities are identical to the FSSP and the SSPX…, so those communities will not be affected…There are already Catholics who attend both FSSP and SSPX chapels when the alternative option becomes convenient.

 

[JReducation]

I am sorry. I thought it was understood that all the Congregations in the Vatican are acting under the authority of the pope.

Yes they are.

While he may not actually review everything nor put his personal approval on every act, every act is done under his authority.

Yes it is. It’s called delegation

So there is nothing that a Congregation does that can not be said to have occured becuase the pope wanted it. If he did not agree with it, it would not occur.

Not necessarily. The Apostolic See grants the Sacred Congregations a certain degree of autonomy. It has to in order to function. You can’t delegate and micromanage at the same time. It is either delegation or it’s not.

I know that Wikipedia is not an academic source but . . .

Amaud Devillers, FSSP

I also believe that more recently the Vatican (I won’t say pope) removed the superior of the Legion of Christ and put it under the control of Cardinal De Paolis.

The Legion of Christ was personally handle by the Holy Father.

Now I know what you’re talking about regarding the FSSP. Who ever wrote the article for Wikipedia is using the wrong terminology and missing pieces. Here’s is the little that I know about this situation. Remember, I don’t belong to the FSSP. I hear this and that or read here and there, just as you do.

What I heard was that Fr. Bisig was more pro-OF and it was troubling to many. However, I also heard that Fr. Bisig moved on to become the rector of the seminary and to study for his Doctorate in Theology. If that’s true, then he was not ousted. He resigned. Then the ED Commission appointed an interim superior, which was Fr. Devillers.

The Wiki article does not explain this clearly enough. Canonically, when you appoint someone, because the superior resigns, becomes incapacitated, is removed or dies, that person finishes off the term of the former superior and an election is held when the term is over.

Here is the part that I never understood. Fr. Devillers was superior from 2000 to 2006, which sounds to me like a full term, unless they do like the SSPX. I believe that SSPX elects it superior for 12 years. If that’s the case, then Fr. Devillers was completing the outgoing superior’s term. I don’t know the answer to the question. If he was simply completing someone’s term, Canon Law does not view that as taking the power out of the community, but as stepping in during a time of crisis until the community can recover. It’s not important to me either. Whatever happened, it seems to have worked out well for the FSSP. They seem happy.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[JReducation]

Thanks Br. JR, that is a great analogy!!

I am happy that a reconcilliation is in the works, I am just not sure that I understand how the SSPX could still have rhetoric like this on their website, especially if they know that they should not be speaking this way.

I don’t know…, it just doesn’t seem “right” or “Traditional” for that matter, to speak of Holy Mother Church as if she doesn’t know what she is doing.

It’s not right, but it’s not unusual to have people who do and say inappropriate things.

So its kind of like, “you can opt not to agree with it, but you cannot disagree with it”?

Basically it’s the same rule by which the rest of us live. We can disagree. We can ask questions. We can even try to explain how we understand the documents. But we can’t badmouth them or say that they should be thrown out and never seen again or go around saying that they contain error, because there are apparent conflicts with previous documents. We certainly can’t go around saying, “Oh well, it was JUST a pastoral council.” Pastoral life is the reality of the Church. Canons and dogmas are not what normal Catholics deal with 24/7. I can count on one hand the number of times that I get asked a doctrinal question in one month. But I make pastoral decisions every day. Pastoral is very important. It’s very important to understand what the Church wants us to do in the pastoral domain. Therefore, asking questions cannot be outlawed. Being flippant and dismissive doesn’t get answers.

I keep saying. We’re the Church Militant, not the Church Belligerent.

As I said above, in his last interview, Bishop Fellay said that he had been told this. He explained his point of view, but did not reject the idea of being positive about the Council and the OF. I can’t understand why people want him to be on the attack. The Traditionalist movement has been on the attack for an entire generation and has made no progress with the mainstream Church. Little by little, the Trad communities come to agreements with the Vatican. I’m not saying that tradition is going to disappear. But I think that the bite is disappearing. There is more dialogue and a new generation of Catholic clergy and religious who don’t take Vatican II personally, because we were kids when it happened. We had no dogs in that race. I think I was about 13 and just starting to learn about Catholicism. I was born in 1950. The Vatican II generation was born before WW II.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[TS_Aquinas]

Brother JR,

I didn’t feel this question was necessary for a new thread and is relative to this one. What was the canonical status of the SSPX prior to 1988?

 

[JReducation]

Brother JR,

I didn’t feel this question was necessary for a new thread and is relative to this one. What was the canonical status of the SSPX prior to 1988?

To be honest with you, I have heard different versions.

I know that it was erected as a society of apostolic life of diocesan right. Which is even more than what you need to go. Even a private association of the faithful would give you canonical status.

Then I have heard people say that it was suppressed. This is where it gets confusing. In the code of Canon Law of 1983 it says that only the Apostolic See (the pope himself) can suppress. I have never heard it said that Pope John Paul suppressed the SSPX.

There are several possibilities.

a. It was never suppressed.

b. It never had diocesan right, but was a public association of the faithful, which the bishop can suppress. A bishop cannot suppress a society of apostolic life, even if he’s the one who erected it.

c. It may have lost it’s canonical status when its leadership was excommunicated. Once Archbishop Lefebvre was excommunicated, that left the SSPX without a canonical superior general. Excommunicated persons cannot hold canonical office. If an institute does not have a canonically elected superior, then there is a question as to whether the institute retains juridical personality. Some people say yes, because the institute is not dependent on the superior general. Others say that it loses its legal status, because it’s out of compliance with the law, in fact it would be like suppressing itself. The Church need not do anything.

Not being a Canon Lawyer and not being on the inside, I have no idea how the Vatican looks at this.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[corsair]

And here is the latest via Rorate Caeli blogspot;
youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=fRcoaytPCa0

This is a Cardinal that has an inside track

 

[iloveangels]

The charism of a society of pontifical right is not determined by the Holy See, nor does the Holy See impose limits on societies of pontifical right, quite the opposite.

Under normal circumstances that’s true, but there are exceptions. I’m very familiar with Miles Jesu and they’re an exception. The problems they were having were eventually addressed to the Congregation by one of the priests in the organization. I don’t want to go into the whole thing here, but the Congregation deposed the founder and delegated someone to work with them to basically re-found them. It was that serious, very serious indeed. I’m not sure how close to the action the pope was, it didn’t come up in public and has not gotten the notoriety that the Legionaries of Christ got, however, it’s a much smaller organization and I’m very sure no one involved wanted the negative publicity.

 

[JReducation]

Under normal circumstances that’s true, but there are exceptions. I’m very familiar with Miles Jesu and they’re an exception.

If it’s the Miles Jesu that I know, I don’t think that they are an institute of pontifical right. I think that they are classified under “ecclesial family” as is Madonna House.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[iloveangels]

If it’s the Miles Jesu that I know, I don’t think that they are an institute of pontifical right. I think that they are classified under “ecclesial family” as is Madonna House.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

Maybe. They’re headquartered in Arizona, or at least they used to be, and have a house in Rome. It can be like pulling teeth to get canonical distinctions out of some of these smaller organizations, because a good many of them want to be as big-looking and reputable-looking as possible for obvious reasons.

I do know that the diocese of Rome was involved. They have houses all over the world but the initial attention to the problem actually occurred in the diocese of Rome.

My point being that these things are sometimes not particularly cut-and-dried. Sometimes they can get quite complicated depending on the people and activities involved and what’s at stake, who they know, who believes who, what’s likely and what’s not, and so on.

 

[TS_Aquinas]

To be honest with you, I have heard different versions.

I know that it was erected as a society of apostolic life of diocesan right. Which is even more than what you need to go. Even a private association of the faithful would give you canonical status.

Then I have heard people say that it was suppressed. This is where it gets confusing. In the code of Canon Law of 1983 it says that only the Apostolic See (the pope himself) can suppress. I have never heard it said that Pope John Paul suppressed the SSPX.

There are several possibilities.

a. It was never suppressed.

b. It never had diocesan right, but was a public association of the faithful, which the bishop can suppress. A bishop cannot suppress a society of apostolic life, even if he’s the one who erected it.

c. It may have lost it’s canonical status when its leadership was excommunicated. Once Archbishop Lefebvre was excommunicated, that left the SSPX without a canonical superior general. Excommunicated persons cannot hold canonical office. If an institute does not have a canonically elected superior, then there is a question as to whether the institute retains juridical personality. Some people say yes, because the institute is not dependent on the superior general. Others say that it loses its legal status, because it’s out of compliance with the law, in fact it would be like suppressing itself. The Church need not do anything.

Not being a Canon Lawyer and not being on the inside, I have no idea how the Vatican looks at this.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

I must admit, lifting the excommunication has caused more confusion. Since the excommunication was a charge of canon 1382 (1983 Code of Canon Law) dealing with the unlawful consecration of four bishops, and not their differences with Vatican II and the OF, what is the purpose of this reconciliation then if they were never formally charged with their stance against the council? Unless they’re position is grounds for latae sententiae interdict or suspension?