Kindness from Ecclesia Dei on the SSPX Discussions

My translation of a good article from Roberto of Messa in Latino on 30/10/2012 about the recent optimistic Declaration from the Ecclesia Dei Commission regarding the SSPX discussions. It’s quite long, but please bear with it, because it's well worth reading.


“We thank a reader for having drawn our attention to this Declaration of last Saturday, 27th October 2012, which had escaped our notice, through no fault of our own, on account of bad weather.

Having read the Declaration, we side with those who are optimistic, and with those who trust in God and in Benedict XVI. (We do not side with the naïve ones; we well know that we are dealing with priests, and with Rome). But certainly one cannot fail to notice that in general the tones of the Declaration are peaceable and conciliatory, and that the focus of the message is the Pope’s desire, and that of the Fraternity, for the “reconciliation” which is so greatly wished and hoped for.

In order to achieve this, on the one side we read that the Fraternity needs to prepare, with study and reflection, its own response to the proposals of the Holy See (it is not said that the FSSPX must decide whether to accept or not: but that the Fraternity has to prepare the response, as though to say: “we hope that the response will be positive”); and on the other side the Holy See declares itself well disposed to wait, and to understand the need for reflection on the part of the Lefebvrian superiors, in order to arrive at the meeting-point.

Certainly, there is silence on a serious fact which was the real motive for the brusque halting of the Fraternity’s reconciliation with Rome. Mgr Fellay’s revisions had been brought to the doctrinal declaration before June, having already been personally approved by the Pope, which would thus have permitted an immediate acceptance on the part of the FSSPX of the canonical recognition that had been proposed to it. Nothing is said about the fact that these revisions were unexpectedly removed by the Ecclesia Dei Commission, which thus, on 13th June 2012, had re-proposed the original text to Fellay, causing by this means the reversal of the agreements that had been in progress.

The action was serious, and easily explainable. Let us hazard a guess as to one reason for it: perhaps in the year which was to see the 50th anniversary of the Council, the wolves of the Curia would never have allowed the Lefebvrians to be granted the right to challenge and criticise the Council, or even merely certain expressions in certain conciliar documents.

But all is not lost. We note that Ecclesia Dei wants to make it known officially to the Fraternity that things are on standby, and that the Commission remains ready. And it does this, speaking in peaceable terms, to express the best intentions, and to announce a pause (and not a rupture!) and to hold out its hand. Hence the door is not closed (as certain birds of ill omen strive to croak to the four winds).

Certainly substance is more important than form. But in the communications – especially from the Holy See – even the form can enclose important contents.

One could say, a little mischievously, that last Saturday’s Declaration was not written by Müller - who some informed sources say is categorically opposed to the possibility of a reconciliation between the Holy See and the Fraternity. He has been dealt a bad hand!* Because having missed out on the cardinal’s biretta at the forthcoming consistory, he is likely to have even more of a toothache.

On the other hand, the Declaration seems to be imprinted with the diplomatic and benevolent style of the Vice-President of Ecclesia Dei. Under the guidance of Mgr Di Noia, there are grounds for hope, if he succeeds once more in sharpening up the doctrinal document, and in finding thereby a form and a substance that are welcome to both sides, and the resulting canonical recognition of the Fraternity which guarantees her freedom both of action and of speaking. (And the fact that the Fraternity has freed itself from Mgr Williamson may be a good point.)

Let us perhaps wait until next year, when the euphoria and excitement of the 50th anniversary of the Council have waned, and it will once again be possible to do business. There is indeed so much need for “patience, serenity, perseverance and trust” in God, and let us add, for prayer.”


*Only guessing at this phrase – DB

An attractive proposition?

The Holy See Press Office's communique* on the subject of the Society of St Pius X concludes as follows:

“Regarding the positions taken by the other three bishops of the Society of St. Pius X, their situations will have to be dealt with separately and singularly.”

How can it be otherwise? Perhaps the broadcast of the exchange of letters in the public domain was intended as a spoiler by a person or persons in the SSPX, as some have suggested. Whether it was or not, the fact that we all know about it is probably irrelevant. If the exchange had not been leaked, I cannot imagine that Bishop Fellay would have withheld from the CDF his fellow-bishops’ disagreement with important aspects of the reconciliation process.

I have only read Bishop Fellay’s reply to their letter, but its contents are enough to indicate that if the views he laments remain the same, it will surely not be exclusively up to those three whether they, as individuals, return to indisputable and visible unity in the Church. It will be for Rome to decide whether she regards them as an attractive proposition. They seem to be very different characters. All the more reason, then, for the CDF and indeed the Holy Father to weigh them very carefully, “separately and singularly”.

 
*Link:  http://www.vis.va/vissolr/index.php?vi=all&dl=5eb79266-fc2a-d4b5-5855-4fb39d6467dc&dl_t=text/xml&dl_a=y&ul=1&ev=1

Gathering us in, soul by soul

This SSPX business is constantly in my mind at present, whether at the surface or just beneath it. The Holy Father has shown himself capable of taking astonishing initiatives, going beyond what was imagined: for example, in enabling the establishment of Anglican-use Ordinariates. I hope it may be so in this case.

If a split occurs in the wake of any proposal, it will not be neat, but messy. It will be rather like a bloodless version of the partition of a country, with people fleeing in one direction colliding with others who are fleeing in the opposite direction. We cannot know at this stage how many of each type there will be. I think there will be a good deal of pain.

Our dear Pope Benedict has a great ambition, it seems: to gather us in, as many of us as possible, of all spiritual shapes and sizes and colours, as long as we have a Catholic heart and Catholic faith; to ensure that we of the wild olive shoot are all securely grafted into the true olive where the Good Lord intended us to be. This, I think, is meant to include, quietly but most ambitiously of all, the branches which really belong to the olive but were once, long ago, broken off*. Institutions and groups are one thing, and important; but I believe that in the last resort we are meant to be gathered in as individuals, soul by soul.


* Romans 11: 17-24

Rome and the SSPX: another fascinating news item

Many of you will have read the following, which appeared today on the Rorate Caeli blog:

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has accepted as valid the repudiation of schism of a former Orthodox priest accomplished by the Superior-General of the Society of Saint Pius X (FSSPX /SSPX), Bp. Bernard Fellay. Cardinal Levada also reportedly informed that the priest would have been named a domestic prelate in recognition of his former rank in the Orthodox Church. (News provided by the Polish district of the SSPX, translated by Laodicea). Rorate has been able to independently confirm this information. Archimandrite Athenagoras Bogoridi-Liven, a Bulgarian, is currently living in the monastery of Bellaigue, France, of Benedictines alligned with the SSPX.

This is really interesting. A great step for the formerly Eastern Orthodox priest, and may he be richly blessed. But to be received into Catholic communion by Bishop Fellay of the SSPX; and to have his reception accepted as valid by Rome; and to be named as a domestic prelate – which I think gives him the title of Monsignor, but I’m happy to be corrected on that point - is an extraordinary piece of news.

May I refer you to a post of mine from October 2010, entitled The SSPX: Vatican recognition de facto and ad hoc. This latest news seems to make a further intriguing contribution to the story of the SSPX . What next, I wonder?

Rome and the SSPX: Two recent news items

Readers may recall a post I published in October last year, The SSPX: Vatican recognition de facto and ad hoc. In recent days a couple of new items have appeared about Rome’s relations with the Society. They are both rather interesting and indeed intriguing, and in view of this it seems quite a good time to gather the three pieces together in one place.

The first new item is that Bishop Bernard Fellay and other leading figures of the Priestly Society of St Pius X have been summoned to a meeting at the Vatican. The date of the meeting will be 14th September, the Feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross and the fourth anniversary of the coming into effect of Summorum Pontificum. The sources of this information are Rorate Caeli, Andrea Tornielli and La Stampa’s Vatican Insider (English version here).

Beyond these facts, there is an understandable element of speculation. Briefly, it is thought that a memorandum may be put to Bishop Fellay and his companions, clarifying certain doctrinal points. Subject to the doctrinal difficulties being overcome, the next step is thought to be “a proposal for a canonical adjustment”, which may be along the lines of the Ordinariate established for Anglicans.

The second item, courtesy once again of Rorate Caeli, concerns a Sister of the "mainstream" Congregation of the Dominican Sisters of New Zealand, who has transferred to the Dominican Sisters of Wanganui, a congregation established by Bishop Fellay. And this is the interesting bit: her transfer was given special permission from the Congregation for Religious and Secular Institutes in Rome.

It’s fascinating to note these manifestations of a practical relationship in anticipation of what I hope will eventually (and soon, God willing) become a full restoration of unity in all respects.

The SSPX: Vatican recognition de facto and ad hoc

Here is a fascinating article by Brian McCall in The Remnant newspaper, dated 20th October. My source, acknowledged with thanks: Rorate Caeli.

The occasion was an Angelus Press conference held from 12th – 17th October this year to celebrate the 40th Anniversary of the Founding of the Society of St. Pius X. Bishop Bernard Fellay of the SSPX gave an address to the conference, at the end of which he provided “a survey of the SSPX’s political and legal relations with the authorities in Rome”.

Bishop Fellay referred to what he termed the “principle of action” in his explanation of the Vatican’s present dealings with the SSPX. He said: “The Holy See has been pursuing a two-pronged policy – an official de jure policy contradicted by de facto actions.”

I strongly recommend the entire article; but for the general whetting of appetites I have extracted the following extraordinary details.

Firstly:

According to the standard understanding, the priests of the SSPX cannot validly hear confessions or grant absolution. However:

“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 …” [Bishop Fellay went on to say] “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.”

Secondly:

The SSPX had arranged to ordain a number of priests in Germany in March 2009. This provoked great tensions between the German hierarchy and the Vatican.

“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.” “

Truly, we live in adventurous times.

The Vatican-SSPX talks are being filmed

How’s your Italian? There’s a very good blog called messainlatino.it, which I like to visit to supplement my Italian studies. It has many fascinating articles. Today they have some interesting information about the talks between the Vatican and the SSPX. Here are some extracts:

The composition of the Lefebvrian delegation could change in future, to allow for participation by those with different areas of expertise.

The discussions are not in Latin. They appear to be in French and Italian; all those participating understand these languages, but since none is completely at home in one or other of the languages, they are provided with simultaneous translation.

The SSPX delegation is staying at the Domus Sanctae Marthae, where the cardinals have lodged for papal conclaves.

Since all the altars at the Domus are already booked for Masses, the SSPX’s Masses are celebrated in St Peter’s Basilica.

Lastly, and I think most interestingly, the proceedings are being filmed, so that the Holy Father can watch them.

Vatican II and the SSPX: Discussions set to begin

Two linked problems of the greatest importance are, at long last, about to be tackled: the interpretation of the Second Vatican Council, and the position of the Society of St Pius X in regard to it. The following recent articles have caught my attention: from Fr Finigan's blog -


http://the-hermeneutic-of-continuity.blogspot.com/2009/06/opening-up-question-of-vatican-ii.html


- all of which is of great interest; and from the Rorate Caeli blog - http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/ - , the text of an interview with Fr Schmidberger of the SSPX, posted on June 25 and entitled "Important Interview". (There is probably a way to link directly to this, but I'm afraid don't know how to do that yet.)


In response to some quite no-holds-barred questions from the journalist, Fr Schmidberger provides straightforward information, among which is this:

KNA: What should the theological dialogue between the society and Rome regarding the council look like?

Schmidberger: As far as the external form goes, it could be both oral or written, but primarily it should be written. We have selected representatives from our side and Rome also has chosen its people. The discussions will consider: what is ambiguous in the council? What contradicts the traditional doctrine of the Church?

It looks as if things have come to the crunch. Facts must be faced about the state of the Church and the weakening of Her message since the Council. Let us hope that good things are achieved from this dialogue.