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

Morning and Evening and other sundry Prayers

+ JMJ Along the theme of P^3 (Prayer, Penance, Patience), and for my own reference ... here is a collection of Morning and Evening prayers from the Ideal Daily Missal along with some additional prayers. In this crisis of the Church, I do not think it is possible to do too much prayer, penance and have patience. P^3

Benedict XIV, Encyclical Annus Qui 1749

 + JMJ At Mass today I started reading some of the commentary added to the Ideal Daily Missal, as I listened to the Gregorian Chant and Hymns, this is what my eyes fell upon. There is certainly no one who does not desire a certain difference between ecclesiastical change and theatrical melodies, and who does not acknowledge that the use of theatrical and profane change must not be tolerated in churches. Benedict XIV, Annus Qui, 1749 In my experience what is forbidden is what actually happens in Modern Catholic Churches (Latin Rite - Novus Ordo). P^3

Dogmatic Fact or Fancy III

+ JMJ Recently, I've been engaged in a 'dogmatic fact' discussion / argument and a thought occurred to me. Based on what reading I had done, I had concluded that the dogmatic fact of who is Pope was fixed in time - meaning that acceptance of the Pope at the time of election provided infallible surety that the election was valid and that indeed the elected Cardinal/Bishop was Pope at that moment. Then I realized that some people believed that the dogmatic fact meant they were always Pope.  At the time I thought they meant that the understanding of the doctrine was that the one time recognition made that person infallibly the Pope until he either abdicated or died. A light went on this morning. Does the continual acceptance of the Pope by the hierarchy continually 'refresh' the dogmatic fact - meaning we can be certain that the Pope is'still' Pope etc? I asked a friend (a real theologian) and he pointed out that the Pope is already elected. The...

De Veritate - St. Thomas Aquinas - What is necessary to believe explicitly?

I was recently introduced to a work of St. Thomas De Veritate ( Source ) in the course of an argument concerning the minimum content of explicit faith.  When I submitted the following quote as proof: Theological faith, that is, a supernatural faith in Revelation, is necessary, and this is an effect of grace (D 1789); nemini unquam sine ilIa contigit iustificatio (D 1793). As far as the content of this faith is concerned, according to Hebr. 11, 6, at least the existence of God and retribution in the other world must be firmly held, necessitate medii (by the necessity of means) with explicit faith. In regard to the Trinity and the Incarnation, implicit faith suffices. The supernatural faith necessary for justification is attained when God grants to the unbeliever by internal inspiration or external teaching a knowledge of the truths of Revelation, and actual grace to make the supernatural act of faith. Cf. De verite 14, I I.Ott - Fundamentals of Dogma p241 In response my opponent ...

SSPX and the Resistance - A Comparison Of Ecclesiology

Shining the light of Church Teaching on the doctrinal positions of the SSPX and the Resistance. Principles are guides used to aid in decision making.  It stands to reason that bad principles will lead to bad decisions. The recent interactions between Rome and the SSPX has challenged a number of closely held cultural assumptions of people in both sides of the disagreement. This has resulted in cultural skirmishes in both Rome and the SSPX. Since it is the smaller of the two, the skirmishes have been more evident within the SSPX.  The cultural fault-line that Bishop Fellay crossed appears to be linked to two points of Catholic Doctrine: Ecclesiology and Obedience.  The cultural difference of view points is strong enough that it has resulted in the expulsion of a number of members.  It should also be noted that some other priests expelled since the beginning of the latest interactions (starting in 2000) held the same view points and have joined with the l...