M
Melchior_1
Guest
If I add this to “the list” it will be book #16. Might be awhile before I get to it
- Status
M
malphono
Guest
Whether someone other than he himself suggested it, I don’t know, but yes, that’s pretty much what happened. Apparently it was done that way in the expectation of a positive result (whether it was expressed or merely perceived sympathy I wouldn’t begin to guess) from Paul VI. But no, you’re correct that it didn’t end well, as it resulted in the revocation of pio unio status, and that precisely because of what I noted earlier: certain curial quarters with their own agenda.
That I’m not familiar with, unless it’s the “one bishop” offer (see below)…
This was supposedly the offer from Rome at the time, undoubtedly brokered by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger. As I recall the story, Lefébvre rejected it because of internal pressure from within the SSPX. If it’s true, (and I suspect it is), methinks it was orchestrated by one particular vociferous person who is, fortunately, no longer in the good graces of the Society.
L
Lormar
Guest
I don’t think you are right. The reason why it was rejected is because the Vatican wouldn’t give the Archbishop a firm date for the consecration.
Filioque would know for certain. I will see if I can find him…
M
malphono
Guest
Yes, I know about the date controversy. But that doesn’t change the fact of who undoubtedly brokered the deal, nor the stubbornness on both sides that I mentioned earlier. Nor, for that matter, does it impact on the suggestion that the late Archbishop was manipulated by that vociferous person.
L
Lormar
Guest
Malphono, don’t make them worse than they are.
J
Joe_5859
Guest
It does seem unlikely to me that any reconciliation with the SSPX would include Williamson as part of the package (unless he makes some serious clarifications / recantations). But I don’t think that would stop the media from running that type of headline.
M
malphono
Guest
The media has a short memory. By the time this happens (if it ever does), they’ll most likely have forgotten that that vociferous person had ever been involved with the SSPX.
A
Anthony86
Guest
I don’t think that is what happened. If I’m not mistaken, Lefebvre actually accepted the offer and reached an agreement with Rome. The deal turned sour, however, because the SSPX and Rome could not reach agreement on who was to be bishop, and when the consecration would take place. Lefebvre interpreted these delays as acts of bad faith, and began to question Rome’s sincerity. Lefebvre then decided to consecrate bishops without approval from Rome, even against the pope’s express instructions, resulting in Society’s current situation.
malphone:
If you’re referring to bishop Williamson; yes.
J
Joe_5859
Guest
You may be right. I guess we’ll see.
M
malphono
Guest
Yes, that’s part of it. But the unspoken part is that it’s highly likely that the good Archbishop was manipulated from within the SSPX. IOW, did Lefébvre himself make the interpretation of “bad faith” or Rome’s sincerity, or was the whole thing planted in his ear? Could it be that some of those in the SSPX had their own personal ambitions?
And manipulated the good Archbishop to their (his?) own end? Yep that’s the one … fortunately the one and only.
F
Filioque
Guest
Having had the opportunity to view from the sidelines while still at a seminary of the SSPX, I can assure you that there were several issues which produced the actions at Econe. The Archbishop was already in declining health, and had left the day to day responsibilities of the Society and the Seminaries in the hands of others. He had already delt with problems here in the USA, with a number of priests who paid lip service to him and the Society while promoting the Sede Vacante position and refusing to use any Missal or Breviary promulgated after 1954. There were and are many within the SSPX who reflect the same views as Bp. W, and who at the time convinced the Archbishop that the approval of a list of acceptible candidates, and agree on a date in the timeframe they wanted was a sign of the intention of the Holy See to not follow through with the agreement that (then) Cardinal Ratzinger, and the Archbishop had signed. Frequently the Archbishop was misled by those who took a very hardline view, we see them as taking on more authority in the SSPX, and it’s direction. I don’t think we can fault one bishop, or one person in the SSPX, as the clerical membership spans from what we’ve seen of Bishop W to those who are ready to submit tomorrow, and would offer both the EF and OF if they were given the promise that they would not be forced to abandon the EF entirely.
As an aside most see the foundation of the FSSP as something that took place after the Consecrations. The reality is there were a dozen or so seminarians from Econe who could not accept the under-ground Sede and other positions which seminarians and individual professors at Econe had taken. There were attempts to stop the flow to Rome by telling us that these seminarians, (one already a deacon if memory serves me) were allowed to watch television (the implication that things were lax in their new abode) and that Rome would just let them sit there and never allow them to be ordained. It was from this core of former SSPX adherents, and other priests and seminarians who left the SSPX after the consecrations that the FSSP was formed out of.
T
TimothyH
Guest
T
TimothyH
Guest
Again, I don’t think so. I have heard of no talks between the SSPX and Ecclesia Dei in the recent past. Some letters were passed back and forth last year but that is the last of it.
I am open to correction.
-Tim-
P
ProVobis
Guest
This is true.
unavoce.org/resources/protocol-agreement-between-rome-and-saint-pius-x/
It appears from the document the Archbishop and the Cardinal had spent a lot of time “negotiating.” It’s hard to fathom that the Archbishop simply reneged on the deal, which appears very generous, on his own.
O
otjm
Guest
I am saying that they do not hold a sede position publicly. Look through the postings above this one and you will see, from some who have far more knowledge than I , that there are some within the SSPX who do hold such position - or have (whether they are still within the SSPX I can’t say).
And I do not call them heretics. They have, however, said that there is heresy afloat within the confines of the Catholic Church and have said that documents of Vatican 2 do not and cannot be read in continuity with doctrines of the Church. and within the SSPX there are those who still will deny the validity of the OF (and not just the licitness).
That is not how I read some of their statements.
See the other thread I referred to. What they say publicly does not jibe with that. One does not owe allegiance to “Eternal Rome”; one owes allegiance to the Pope.
As I noted, the logic of their arguments carried out ends up there. This goes a little bit deeper than disagreeing about some language in the Vatican 2 documents.
The last letter, which was (I believe) Received from Archbishop DiNoia, and if I recall the details, Bishop Fellay asked if that was edited and/or read by Benedict 16; it set out the minimum they needed to comply with in order to get the process moving forward. The answer to him was that the Pope had personally read and approved the letter.
The SSPX encompass a wide spectrum of individuals within the priests who are members; some appear closer to reconciliation, and others seem to take the position they will never move and Rome has to admit its mistakes - which is nothing short of an alternative magisterium.
C
clem456
Guest
Interesting that even though the Church is not of the world, it has to live in the world. There are practical matters to be considered.
In parish life for example…people want certain things to be certain ways. If somebody wants a certain style of liturgy, or new bells, or hymnals, or a new ministry, the question is asked “who is going to organize and pay for the effort?”
So proponents of this and that cause must go about building awareness and funding. If a cause can’t get support and funding, pretty good bet it won’t come to fruition.
One has to wonder regarding the topic at hand, if there were less public awareness on Catholic internet blogs and less upward flow of cash to support the cause…how long would disobedience remain an attractive option?
The Church as a whole has the guarantee of the Holy Spirit to survive and thrive regardless of awareness or cash flow. Other groups, not so much.
In parish life for example…people want certain things to be certain ways. If somebody wants a certain style of liturgy, or new bells, or hymnals, or a new ministry, the question is asked “who is going to organize and pay for the effort?”
So proponents of this and that cause must go about building awareness and funding. If a cause can’t get support and funding, pretty good bet it won’t come to fruition.
One has to wonder regarding the topic at hand, if there were less public awareness on Catholic internet blogs and less upward flow of cash to support the cause…how long would disobedience remain an attractive option?
The Church as a whole has the guarantee of the Holy Spirit to survive and thrive regardless of awareness or cash flow. Other groups, not so much.
O
otjm
Guest
I don’t know if I would state that some of the Curia had revisionist agendas; I would suspect that some would have had no problem with the society disappearing from the face of the earth.
What I have never seen is how much of this, as it started in France, ties into issues tracing back to the French Revolution and Church/State relations then and subsequently. It started with a French Archbishop; the seminary was in France, secularism was more rampant there than elsewhere (although a good many places have caught up!) and it would appear to me that part of that history may have entered into the mess.
J
Joe_5859
Guest
Yes, that is techinically correct.
I did not mean that they were presently having actual discussions. I just meant that the overall dialogue is ongoing. It is at a bit of a standstill at the moment (it seems to me).
F
Filioque
Guest
A minor point, the first seminary was erected in Switzerland. While there is now a house of studies and a few non-society houses that the Society supplies for in France, the alleged objections of the bishops of France where cited as a reasonfor not founding the seminary there.
While Archbishop Lefebvre was French, and attended the French national Seminary in Rome, (a very learned man, even earned a Doctorate) was the Apostolic Delegate to all of French speaking Africa, and Superior General of the Holy Ghost Fathers, (also known as the White Fathers, because of their white cassocks.) The First Seminary of the SSPX when it was started ad experimentum was and remains in Econe Switzerland. The local ordinary was at first quite supportive and the first seminarians attended classes at the University of Freiburg. Abp. Lefebvre’s stance at least early on was spun by both sides. Some of the supporters of the Society tried to link him with their political and social ideas. Many Francoists in Spain and some who shared Bp. W’s ideas about Jews tried to tie him into their groups. Sad as his own father was himself a victim of the Nazi camps. While one can find things that in retrospect the Archbishop may have been culpible for, many of the ideas about him are spin from those in the SSPX who thought he was too concilitory with Rome, and upset that he and Pope Paul VI on a personal level had been long term friends before the issues blew up.
The Archbishop when he first founded the Seminary had professors who offered what we now call the OF, as well as others who used the 1965 and 1962 Missals. The Archbishop did not reject the New Missal, but as abused developed and the Society felt pushed, it became more reactionary. The first priests ordained when the Society was erected as a Pius Union of the Apostles of Jesus and Mary, were intended to be incardinated into diocese (primarily in Europe) to offer both the old and new rite.
F
Filioque
Guest
As an afterthought. One of the reasons the Archbishop retired from his post as Superior of the Holy Ghost Fathers was he could see that his authority was being second guessed, and undermined by those who wanted things their own way. A bit ironic that his statements and those of the SSPX about and to the lawful Magesterium were in the same spirit toward authority as those who promped him to step down and attempt to retire in Rome.
- Status