Op-Ed: The basis for the future relations of the SSPX with Rome
A guest-post by Côme de Prévigny
Posted by New Catholic at 7/15/2012
rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2012/07/op-ed-english-francais-basis-for-future.html
The Spanish observers should be careful. This is not the first time they are mistaken on the Society of Saint Pius X (FSSPX / SSPX) by way of ready-made titles and misunderstood information. A few months ago, a colleague of José Manuel Vidal had affirmed that the discussions between Rome and Écône had ultimately failed. He was forced to turn around due to his rashness.
It is true that, on June 13, Cardinal William Levada had delivered to Bp. Bernard Fellay, Superior of the Society, a text to be ratified. Against every expectation, considering that the predictions had been optimistic, new and surprising demands had een added to the text and created an impasse following nine months of negotiations. Even before the General Chapter had assembled, the Secretary General of the SSPX had been driven to state, in a letter dated June 25, that the Roman proposal was “unacceptable”. Less than 48 hours later, the man responsible for the dossier, Mgr. Guido Pozzo, Secretary of the Ecclesia Dei Commission, had been placed under a Vice-President who took charge of the matter from then on. One week later, it was Cardinal Levada who took the path to retirement.
That the SSPX would state that the proposal of the predecessor did not suit it is clear. To affirm it is to force an open door. And the Pope already took it into consideration several weeks ago because he changed the interlocutors of the SSPX, admitting that the previous ones had failed on that famous June 13. By submitting the affair to an Archbishop Vice-President with whom he has direct communication, and not anymore to a Monsignor secretary, he reshapes relations with the Society on different bases.
The latest SSPX communiqué stated that it will address a declaration to Rome. This text will undoubtedly serve as grounds for the upcoming relations. Those who think that this is the endpoint, that those in charge of the Fraternity have definitively given up on the idea of putting an end to the injustices that burden them, and of fulling restoring the Tradition of the Church to Rome, risk being disappointed in the days and weeks ahead. Abp. Lefebvre said that the solution would come from Rome. It is precisely for this reason that he never stopped going there.
“Mgr. Guido Pozzo, Secretary of the Ecclesia Dei Commission, had been placed under a Vice-President who took charge of the matter from then on.”
The unnamed Vice-President is apparently Archbishop DiNoia; and he has made it clear in no uncertain terms that the SSPX must swallow Vatican II hook, line and sinker.
Don’t hold your breath.
The “hook, line and sinker” part seems to be the rub, though I honestly wonder just what minimal level both parties would tolerate. At times, usually with the same frequency as some rabid Medjugorie fan hijacks all conversation, somebody cries out “Repeal the Council” and then looks out, arms crossed, triumphant expression and thinks this is the_perfect_solution. Won’t happen. On the flip side, somebody insists the council_clearly taught_Doctrine X and then expects to be taken seriously after having insisted said council said anything clear other than the date. Getting around this obstacle seems a significant stumbling block. I wonder, might the Society simply try submitting a dubium and get clarification on what seem to be the 3-4 stumbling blocks – ecumenism, religious liberty, collegiality – and get them defined in clear language – something that noone can say with a straight face about the council in truth – in favor of tradition. This would seem to get around insisting on “errors” in the council, as I understand the Society position, while allowing “face to be saved.”
Don’t hold your breath.
I’m certainly not. Learned not to the hard way.
That said, this author makes a very good point that has gotten past most of us here. That is; two of the very top “heavies” involved in the discussions were essentially fired immediately after they fell apart.
That in itself is qutie something, given the way NOTHING moves in Rome – especially the curia – very quickly. Either the Holy Father was acting very swiftly and harshly or it’s some type of HIGHLY unlikely comedy of coincidence.
Whether or not anything comes of it is hard to say, but it is rather extraordinary looking at it in the light this author puts on it.
Oy, McDee! Oy! Oy! Oy!
When I get a free month, I’ll try to address some of your claims in greater detail, all made in the absolute best of faith, I am certain.
But for now….
Pope Benedict XVI, God love, bless and keep him, is METAPHYSCIALLY OPPOSED TO TRADITIONALISM! HE INTENDS TODAY WHAT HE TOLD HIS FRATERNITY OF BROTHER BISHOPS LONG AGO THAT HE AND THEY ALL HAD TO DO – TO FIRMLY RESIST the integralists! He has NEVER ONCE PUBLICLY WRITTEN OR SPOKEN OTHERWISE!
Got that? You can look it up and one heckuva good place to start is the Catholic Family News website. There was just recently yet another fact-filled summary of the PUBLIC WORDS AND DEEDS OF BENOIT XVI, happily reigning in Sunny Nova Roma. It is shocking but those are the real words of the Boss himself.
Further, Orthodoxy is pantheistic. That means, it looks like Christianity but at its core it is ultimately paganistic and riddled with all kinds of idiotic superstitions. It also is irretrievably schismatic and positively HATES THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH. But don’t take my miserably inept word for it. Ask St. Pius X, who said that the Orthos were not only schismatic, they were HERETICS, too!
Had enough? Hope so.
And, again. My apologies if this came off as a personal assault. I do use street jargon from time to time to make a point. I know that what you wrote is widely believed and is sincerely held by many, many fine Catholics – among which I have no reason whatsoever to doubt that you are one of the truly very, very best ones. You would not be on this forum if it were otherwise. So, please forgive my venting and that it came down so suddenly and with a vengeance on something you wrote with the best of intentions.
I’ve spent weeks and weeks anguishing over what has been going on and it just seems that tonight is my “Howard Beal moment”….
What is so frustrating is that there is SO MUCH MISINFORMATION out there and so many terrific people are relying on it to shape their own understanding.
So may I posit two undeniable truths of Catholic life as it really is today?
First, Trads have NO FRIENDS IN ROME or anyplace in the world. So, whatever takes place in Rome is going to end up going 99 times out of 100 AGAINST traditionalists. That won’t change until every last liberal in the Vatican croaks or is thrown out of office after being apprehended in flagrante delicto for violating some civil law.
Second, if that isn’t bad enough, Rome itself – as in the Church thereof – ALSO HAS ABSOLUTELY NO FRIENDS ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD. All shapes and sizes look the same to the world, too! Nervous Ordeal? Trad? Neo-Cate-Comical Way? Opie Dopie Cultist? Medjugoogoo headcase? Doesn’t matter to the world! You say “catholic” and all hell will break loose, either today orfor sure by tomorrow.
So, folks, that’s where it sits. May we now please get on with doing what can be done to patch up the Trad movement’s self-inflicted wounds to regroup, for battles ahead, instead of a- hopin’ an’ a-prayin’ for what just ain’t ever gonna happen – a place at the table in the Vatican or an ounce of respect for the Catholic Faith from, oh, 84% of the world’s population?
gpmtrad,
“… Trads have NO FRIENDS IN ROME…”
That’s a fairly absolute statement. Are you certain of its veracity? In fact your 99 out of 100 ratio indicates that there are some friends somewhere helping – just very very very … very few.
“… instead of a- hopin’ an’ a-prayin’ for what just ain’t ever gonna happen – a place at the table in the Vatican …”
This sounds like a despair. Decidedly unCatholic.
“… respect for the Catholic Faith from, oh, 84% of the world’s population?…”
Ahhh, here we have agreement. The ‘world’ per se is the enemy of the Church. So we know that they’ll never ‘respect’ the Catholic Faith because they want to destroy it.
“… May we now please get on with doing what can be done to patch up the Trad movement’s self-inflicted wounds …”
Ok, what are the nature of the self-inflicted wounds and how do you propose to ‘patch’ them? I suspect that I have a wildly different viewpoint than yours as to the nature of the wounds and how to go about the mending.
Tradical is quite right, gpmtrad. All of the recent appointments made by His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI are not only friends of The True Catholic Faith, but each and everyone of them are vociferously orthodox and have shown themselves to be reformers of a brave ilk.
Shame on you, gpmtrad, for giving voice and heed to naysayers who dig around in the past. We are certainly not atwar with Eurasia. We have. Ever been at war with Eurasia. (what’s the maaaaaatter with you?)
I can’t imagine what came over me, Quo. Really, I can’t.
Gosh! Must have been that guy playing the accordion next door. Same tune, day and night for weeks: “Put On A Happy Face!”
Btw, I checked with the ER doc and he said that they will have to do at least a few more surgeries on my neighbor to remove the last bits of accordion keys and valves from his nether regions. The boot, however, was successfully removed on the first go!
Anyway, I thought it might be a good idea to send tradical ( who is a heckuva guy, btw, and realizes I’m just joshin’ him ) a little “Let’s Be Friends – Again” greeting. I hear its the same one +F is sending to +W, too!
www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIMKAkSFSdQ
Cute attempt at sarcasm gentle people.
So how about answering the serious question at the end of my post:
“… May we now please get on with doing what can be done to patch up the Trad movement’s self-inflicted wounds …”
Ok, what are the nature of the self-inflicted wounds and how do you propose to ‘patch’ them?
quomodo said, “All of the recent appointments made by His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI are not only friends of The True Catholic Faith, but each and everyone of them are vociferously orthodox and have shown themselves to be reformers of a brave ilk.”
ROTFLMAO
As Elvis once said “A little less talk, a little more action…”
When a Pope publicly offers just one TLM I will drink all the Kook Aid in Eurasia.
One TLM would be nice, but to regularly offer it would be major signal.
I suspect that it may not happen in this Pontificate, as well as the consecration of Russia, but in the next.
And what living cardinal do you think would do that, if he was elected Pope?
Regarding conclaves, it is not an absolute that only the Cardinals can be elected Pope. Bishop’s can as well. It doesn’t happen regularly but it can.
In this case, the two that I would pick would be:
Cardinal Burke
Bishop Scheider
There are a couple other ones that I’m aware of, but their names escape me at this time.
Of course the list of which Cardinals I believe wouldn’t do the consecration would be quite long.
I should mention, that I focused on Bishops that are ‘canonically regular’.
If any of the SSPX Bishops were elected Pope, I’m confident that they would perform the consecration.