Skip to main content

SSPX, "Full Communion" and the Lastest Meeting Between Rome and the SSPX

+
JMJ

After 2009 the critics of the SSPX were in need of a new derogatory label, since Benedict XVI has taken away their favorite epithet.

It didn't take long for them to turn to 'Not in Full Communion', which for them meant: Schismatic.

Now the latest official interaction between Rome and the SSPX has presented the critics with a curious problem.

The SSPX is no longer stated as needing to find the path to 'Full Communion' but:

During the meeting, various problems of a doctrinal and canonical nature were examined, and it was decided to proceed gradually and over a reasonable period of time in order to overcome difficulties and with a view to the envisioned full reconciliation. (source)

So what will the critics say now?  Maybe they're disobedient, usurping the authority of the local Bishop.

Here's an excellent article from Rorate (a site that I highly recommend for its balanced perspective on this crisis of the Church):

P^3

Understanding the Vatican Statement
SSPX Already is in "Full Communion", but in a State of "Imperfect Reconciliation"

One of the wisest clerics in the traditional Catholic world, Father Claude Barthe, wrote a short note for the highly regarded French Catholic periodical L'Homme Nouveau on the Holy See communiqué on the meeting between Cardinal Müller and Bishop Fellay yesterday. He paid attention to the key words, and how they represent a high point in the evolution of relations between the Apostolic See and the Society of Saint Pius X.

Father Barthe, by the way, is the main chaplain of the remarkable Populus Summorum Pontificum pilgrimage to Rome, taking place a month from now -- if you can, please join it, there's still time.


The Society of Saint Pius X in a state of "Imperfect Reconciliation"

by Father Claude Barthe, on September 24, 2014

On the day following the meeting in Rome between Cardinal Müller, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith,and Bp. Fellay, Superior of the Society of Saint Pius X [FSSPX / SSPX], Father Claude Barthe was willing to provide us with his analysis of this event, and of its possible repercussions.

Towards a canonical recognition?

It was therefore yesterday, Tuesday, September 23, that, at the Palace of the Holy Office (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) took place the meeting that had been announced without a date between Cardinal Müller, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and President of the Pontifical Commission "Ecclesia Dei", and Bishop Fellay, Superior-General of the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX). Present in the meeting: on the side of the Congregation, Abp. Pozzo, Secretary of the Ecclesia Dei Commission, Abp. Ladaria, Secretary of the Congregation of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and Abp. Di Noia, Adjunct Secretary; and on the side of the SSPX, Bp. Fellay's two assistants, Frs. Pfluger and Nély. The canonical recognition of the SSPX, in case it took place in the times ahead, would not have anymore the appearance and interest of an earthquake that it would have had within the Church at the end of the Benedict XVI pontificate. On the other hand, it has paradoxically become much easier to accomplish, from the moment the current pope - it's the least we can say - does not have the reputation of traditionalism that his predecessor did.

Several comments can be made:

- One notes a kind of solemnity given to the meeting by the Holy See that, after having kept hermetic silence on its date, had it followed by an official communiqué of the Press Office, in the form of a diplomatic document with duly considered terms.

- The second point is the return to the fore of the tiny Ecclesia Dei Commission and its Secretary, Abp. Pozzo. With the leaks that had made known the short interview of Bp. Fellay with the Pope, at Domus Sanctae Marthae, over six months ago, observers had reached the conclusion that discussions intending to grant a canonical status to the SSPX, interrupted in June 2012, had once again been established. The very Ratzingerian Abp. Pozzo shows himself to be an effective craftsman, having not hesitated, let us say, to pay [the price of] boldness in certain occasions.

- The content of today's [yesterday's] communiqué picks up, by the way, almost word by word [the contents] of the one of 2005. In 2005, "the meeting took place in an environment of love for the Church, and the desire to reach perfect communion. Though aware of the difficulties, the will was made clear to proceed by degrees, step by step, and in a reasonable time." Today [yesterday]: "it was decided to proceed gradually and over a reasonable period of time in order to overcome difficulties and with a view to the envisioned full reconciliation." We remark the difference: the qualification of the theological status of the SSPX is the object of a concept created for the occasion. Reaching "full communion" is not mentioned for it anymore, assimilating it by this fact, more or less, to the separated communities to which is reserved the expression "imperfect communion" (mistaken, by the way, because communion is not marked by degrees). But the communiqué states that the SSPX must find "full reconciliation". The SSPX, already in full communion, is not yet in full reconciliation.

- Regarding this, we recall that Cardinal Castrillón, when he was in charge of the dossier, was eager to affirm that the SSPX was not at all schismatic. We can venture the hypothesis, aware of the workings of the governance of Pope Francis, who loves to shortcircuit the official paths of information in the Curia with those of his own, that the long verbal report made by Cardinal Castrillón to him in October 2013 had a great influence.

- The most important aspect unveiled by today's [yesterday's] communiqué is "political". It's clear that Abp. Pozzo could not have acted in this new phase, very discreet up to today, if not with the express approval of the Pope. According to the uses of the Holy See, and under Pope Francis more than ever, a communiqué of this nature receives his personal approval before publication. If we add that, in a recent so-called "secret" meeting of the Italian Episcopal Conference (CEI), presided by the Pope, that is, one of the CEI meetings that do not lead to informations to the press, the Pope, in response to a bishop's questions, affirmed that the regulations regarding the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum (the Apostolic Letter and the application Instruction [Universae Ecclesiae]) remained in force, we can say that we find ourselves here in the "continuity" portion of the current pontificate with that of Benedict XVI. Francis, the "Progressive", would not be upset to succeed there where Benedict the "Fundamentalist" failed.

- A major point remains surrounded by a profound mystery, unknown by all, including those who are closest [to him]: what does Bp. Bernard Fellay wish to do, or, which is the same, what does he believe to be in a position to do?

[Source, in French. The somewhat informal tone was kept - slightly adapted where necessary for better comprehension.]

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Count Capponi - RIP

+ JMJ I had heard of Count Capponi over the years and was happy to hear a voice crying in the wilderness. I suspect that his conscience was clearer than many. This part of the article caught my attention: Capponi defended the right of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre to continue his work without the label “schismatic,” which term Capponi rejected, saying: “You cannot apply the standards of the new code of canon law and the mentality of the old code. According to the new code, Lefebvre could do what he did with a Catholic intention, and he did what he did in ‘sincerity’ and invoked the ‘state of emergency’ argument, which the new code permits. You might not like the new code, but it’s what governs the Church.” I know a few people who tried to stir up a fuss when the SSPX cited the New Code in one of the documents with Rome.  Yet, the truth is what it is --- the New Code was promulgated by a reigning Pope and flawed as it is ... there are some benefits to its liberality. ...

Is it sinful to attend the Novus Ordo (New Mass) - Is it Sinful to Not Attend the Novus Ordo on Sunday?

+ JMJ A non-SSPX Catholic is upset over the SSPX statements on not attending the Novus Ordo Missae. Ladies and gentlemen, what the SSPX, or at least its website editor, is advocating is a mortal sin against the Third Commandment.  Unless the priest deviates from the language of the Sacramentary, the consecration, and thus the rest of Mass is to be considered valid.  No one may elect not to attend Mass simply because abuses are occurring therein.  Might I suggest that such absenteeism is its own abuse?  The Third Commandment binds under mortal sin.  Father So-And-So from the SSPX has no authority whatsoever to excuse attendance at Mass, be that Mass ever so unpalatable. Source:Restore DC Catholicism Well, this is interesting. First why does the SSPX issue this statement? Because it is sinful to put your faith in danger by attending a protestant service.  It is likewise dangerous to put your faith in danger by attending a protestantized ma...

Those who return to the past are not outside the Church - Rorate Caeli

+ JMJ I had been thinking about putting together a post explaining some of the history of how the SSPX has arrived at its current position. Now I see that Rorate has posted a translated editorial that shows the roots of the SSPX principles. In reading these words, I see patterns and themes that were put forward by Archbishop Lefebvre decades ago. Perhaps his sight was clearer than most. P^3

Fr. Burfitt on Fr. Pfeiffer's Attempted Consecration

 + JMJ   Amidst the shadows cast by the publication of Traditionis Custodes, I am working on a map of the 'resistance' splinters to put their reaction in contrast with that of the SSPX.  In the midst of this, I just came across Fr. Burfitt letter on the attempted consecration. Breaking it down (see below)  items 2 and 3 are key.  Just as the consecrating bishop is 'doubtful', even if he hadn't muffed the first attempt, Fr. Pfeiffer remain doubtful and therefore this impacts those men is attempts to 'ordain'. There were rumours that Fr. Pfeiffer was seeking episcopal consecration for years as he cast about for various bishops (also doubtful) to help him achieve this goal. I wonder how he convinced the 'doubtful' bishop to provide (twice) the doubtful consecration. What a mess!  This creates a danger to the souls of his followers and wonder where it will end. Will he go full sede and have himself 'elected' pontiff as others have done before him...

SSPX Transfers

+ JMJ Eponymous flow posted the following list of transfers etc. Source: http://eponymousflower.blogspot.com/2020/04/castling-of-leadership-at-sspx.html The departures Bishop Bernard Fellay, the third Superior General until 2018, leaves the General House in Menzingen and moves to the Seminary of St. Thomas Aquinas in the USA. Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, suffering from ill health, is being referred to the Seminary of St. Pius X in Ecene as a retreat. Fr. Christian Thouvenot, until now Secretary General of the General House, becomes a professor at the seminary in Ecene. Fr. Franz Schmidberger, until now Rector at the Seminary of the Heart of Jesus in Zaitzkofen, moves to the district of Germany. Fr. Jürgen Wegner, until now district superior of the DISTRICT USA, moves to the district of Austria. Fr. Philippe Brunet, until now Superior of the Autonomous House of Spain-Portugal, becomes professor at the Seminary U.L.F. and co-saviour of La Reja in...