Vatican splits negotiations with Pius X Society

May 17, 2012: The Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has announced it will hold separate talks with the superior general of the breakaway traditionalist Society of St. Pius X and each of its three other bishops to try and acheive reconciliation. “The text of the response of Bishop Bernard Fellay, received on 17 April, 2012, was examined and some observations, which will be considered in further discussions between the Holy See and the Society of St. Pius X, were formulated,” said a statement issued on Wednesday. The statement was published after a quarterly meeting of the Ordinary Session of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

The 16-person committee – known as Feria Quarta – met on Wednesday morning to discuss the modifications made by the Superior of the Society of St. Pius X, Bishop Bernard Fellay, to a “doctrinal preamble” prepared last year by the Vatican. The document establishes a framework for agreement on some key issues of Church doctrine, including acceptance of the teachings of the Second Vatican Council. In contrast to Bishop Fellay, the Society’s three other bishops seem hostile to the idea of reconciliation with Rome.

Today’s Vatican communication said the situations of the three other bishops “will have to be dealt with separately and singularly.”

www.radiovaticana.org/in2/Articolo.asp?c=588802

Facebook
Twitter
Google+
http://angelqueen.org/2012/05/18/vatican-splits-negotiations-with-pius-x-society/
Get AQ Email Updates
AQ RSS Feed

18 comments on “Vatican splits negotiations with Pius X Society

  1. James,

    Very nicely formatted, but could you do us a huge favor and edit this post so that it includes the necessary info.. source, (active) link etc?

    Take a quick look at AQ Authors guidelines:
    angelqueen.org/?page_id=1000

  2. It definitely sounds like the Conciliarists are going for a “divide and conquer” strategy; I hope the four Society bishops don’t cooperate with this. And isn’t it funny how none of the reporting mentions any differences of opinion among the 16-man Vatican committee? Sixteen men, one opinion… how convenient. I also marvel at the inability of some to distinguish between hostility and caution.

    • Yes, the modernists have seized the day.

      Of course the rocket scientists that leaked the docs and those that fed the debacle should have seen that would be the outcome when they took it upon themselves to make private discussions public and then go into a feeding frenzy.

      We are the underdogs. It was beyond stupid to play into the modernists hands like this.

      • Columba on said:

        None of the bishops need surrender to the Vatican’s transparent attempt at division and conquest. Certainly, Bishop Fellay can pop this trial balloon.

        • I certainly pray so.

          In the mean time though (and for goodness knows how long thereafter) the modernists are going to use this mess for all it’s worth in an attempt to do as much harm as they can wherever they can.

          We need to pray harder.

  3. According to canon law, since the Society has not had canonical status since 1976 and is technically a voluntary association of priests, it would be the
    General Chapter and senior priests who are the ultimate decision-makers.

    • It seems funny that you keep repeating this. As we all know the SSPX believes that all canonical proceedings against them are invalid it would be my guess that they treat the Fraternity as if it is canonical and would behave accordingly, that is that the Superior is the head.

      • This situation (lack of canical status) was not the result of any canonical proceeding against them, in the first place. Here is the relevant point which you apparently missed from the quote in my original post on the subject: “From 1970-1975, in a trial period, it held a very lowly canonical status within the Church that is called a pious union. That canonical status came to an end and was not renewed.”

  4. If Rome agreed with you, you would have a point.

  5. (That was supposed to be a reply to St. Justin)

  6. I probably should have edited what I posted. I was only concerned with the part of the link that dealt with the formation of the Society and had forgotten about the rest of the stuff at the link.

  7. St. Justin:

    Please get rid of that link.

    We’re can’t be giving a-holes like that traffic.

  8. You don’t see an edit link at your comment?

    If not I’ll do it for you.

  9. Okay so “Authors” can edit their threads but not comments. I’ll have to see what I can do about that.

    As you can see, I’m as clueless as anyone else with the new software.

    Fixed the link.

Leave a Reply