Article: Lefebvrians. Reaching an agreement / SSPX agrees to reunite with Rome

[Papist]

For those that are interested...
"Fellay replies. The Society of St. Pius X might be awarded the status of “Personal prelature” by the pope himself
 Andrea Tornielli
Vatican City

 "The Holy See and the Society of St Pius X, founded by Mgr. Marcel Lefebvre, might come to an agreement in matter of days, or even hours. The Superior General of the Society, Bishop Bernard Fellay, apparently signed a new version of the doctrinal preamble, which he had been given last September by cardinal William Levada, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and president of the pontifical commission Ecclesia Dei.
Officially the Vatican is still waiting for Fellay’s reply. On the 16th of March the bishop had been asked to make a final decision. But according to the information gathered by the Vatican expert Jean-Marie Guenois, who works for the French magazine Le Figaro, unofficially negotiations have moved significantly forward and an agreement will soon be reached..."
Full Article: http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/homepage/the-vatican/detail/articolo/lefebviani-lefebvrians-lefebvrianos-14317/
 

[biro]

Well, that'll be an achievement, if it works.

[JamesRottnek]

I wonder if there will be any attempt to merge FSSP and SSPX if this happens, since they have the same exact purpose (well, they would if SSPX were in the Catholic Church) and FSSP even emerged out of SSPX.

[Peter J]

Well, that'll be an achievement, if it works.

Yes, it would be quite remarkable.

[Peter J]

I wonder if there will be any attempt to merge FSSP and SSPX if this happens, since they have the same exact purpose (well, they would if SSPX were in the Catholic Church) and FSSP even emerged out of SSPX.

Since you don't consider the SSPX to be Catholic, I take it that you define Catholic to be only those is full communion with Rome?

[TheMathematician]

I wonder if there will be any attempt to merge FSSP and SSPX if this happens, since they have the same exact purpose (well, they would if SSPX were in the Catholic Church) and FSSP even emerged out of SSPX.

if the sspx were not in the catholic church, then these negogiations would be so much easier. the fact that they are is what makes this really, really hard to overcome. they are in the rcc, but yet not 100%, but yet not in schism. just suspended priests, really

[Peter J]

I wonder if there will be any attempt to merge FSSP and SSPX if this happens, since they have the same exact purpose (well, they would if SSPX were in the Catholic Church) and FSSP even emerged out of SSPX.

if the sspx were not in the catholic church, then these negogiations would be so much easier. the fact that they are is what makes this really, really hard to overcome. they are in the rcc, but yet not 100%, but yet not in schism. just suspended priests, really

I would compare the situation of the SSPX and Rome with, say the relation between Rome and Constantinople in 865 -- or, if you like, the relation between the ROC and ROCOR in 2005. That is to say, not in full communion but still recognizing each other as being part of the Church.

[Alpo]

Thank you for the link. It's nice to see that the Catholic Church seems to be turning Catholic again. Not that SSPX would define Catholicism but Rome and the Catholic Church in general seem to be valuing their Tradition i.e historical Catholicism again.

[Papist]

I wonder if there will be any attempt to merge FSSP and SSPX if this happens, since they have the same exact purpose (well, they would if SSPX were in the Catholic Church) and FSSP even emerged out of SSPX.

if the sspx were not in the catholic church, then these negogiations would be so much easier. the fact that they are is what makes this really, really hard to overcome. they are in the rcc, but yet not 100%, but yet not in schism. just suspended priests, really

I would compare the situation of the SSPX and Rome with, say the relation between Rome and Constantinople in 865 -- or, if you like, the relation between the ROC and ROCOR in 2005. That is to say, not in full communion but still recognizing each other as being part of the Church.

Agreed. I would also argue that if one's diocese is so infected with modernism that all one hears from the pulpit is heresy, it would be perfectly fine to regularly attend and commune in an SSPX chapel.

[JamesRottnek]

I didn't write what I meant, evidently.  My statement clearly says that SSPX is not Catholic.  That wasn't my goal; rather I just meant to say that SSPX is anything but regular, canonically speaking, and as a consequence I wonder if they will merge with FSSP since the two have essentially the same purpose (except that the FSSP is fully canonical).  Honestly, when I've attempted to look at the status of SSPX, as understood by the Vatican, I am left quite confused.

[TheMathematician]

I didn't write what I meant, evidently.  My statement clearly says that SSPX is not Catholic.  That wasn't my goal; rather I just meant to say that SSPX is anything but regular, canonically speaking, and as a consequence I wonder if they will merge with FSSP since the two have essentially the same purpose (except that the FSSP is fully canonical).  Honestly, when I've attempted to look at the status of SSPX, as understood by the Vatican, I am left quite confused.

it's really confusing, to be honest. i like the ROCOR-MP analogy, it seems to be the best one that has been offered, and what I can think of myself

And, i dont think the two will merge. From what i know from reading(and know, i cant back this up, so take my words with a grain of salt), some people in the SSPX view the FSSP as "selling out" so to speak, because they just went along with Rome in the beginning, and left the SSPX when it happened.

[Aindriú]

http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2012/04/for-record-latest-tornielli-fellays.html

Lefebvrists: the positive response has arrived
17.09.2012 (1900 GMT - 2100 Rome)

The Superior of the Society of Saint Pius X has signed the doctrinal preamble proposed by the Holy See, even if with some slight modifications

ANDREA TORNIELLI
CITTÀ DEL VATICANO

The response of the Society of Saint Pius X has arrived in the Vatican and it is positive: according to the informal information gathered by Vatican Insider, Bishop Bernard Fellay would have signed the doctrinal preamble that the Holy See had proposed last September as a condition to reach full communion and canonical regularization.

[biro]

Thanks be to God.

[jewish voice]

well all I have to say is the Pope better sleep with one eye open  these guys won't have to much of a problem doing away with his half Germen/ Jewish butt.

[Paisius]

This is just going to cause a schism within the SSPX itself I'm afraid. Unless there were some serious changes to the doctrinal preamble I expect Bishop Williamson may not accept it and will take a portion of the Society with him.

[Ortho_cat]

Kudos to the Pope for going after his "lost" sheep...

[lubeltri]

It's interesting that one of Archbishop Lefebvre's demands during the 1988 negotiations is just what Benedict XVI gave us in 2007: the definitive liberation of the traditional Roman rite for all priests and bishops. In 1988 that demand was refused. In other words, he didn't want traditional Catholicism to be stuck in a ghetto. As a general principle, he didn't want to make significant compromises for regularization, confident that Rome would eventually move back in the traditional direction as the revolutionaries started to retire/die off.

And wasn't he right! It doesn't seem like they will have to give up anything now. And good on that. What heresy did they ever espouse? They never should have been cast out in the first place, back in the 1970s.

[stanley123]

It's interesting that one of Archbishop Lefebvre's demands during the 1988 negotiations is just what Benedict XVI gave us in 2007: the definitive liberation of the traditional Roman rite for all priests and bishops. In 1988 that demand was refused. In other words, he didn't want traditional Catholicism to be stuck in a ghetto. As a general principle, he didn't want to make significant compromises for regularization, confident that Rome would eventually move back in the traditional direction as the revolutionaries started to retire/die off.

And wasn't he right! It doesn't seem like they will have to give up anything now. And good on that. What heresy did they ever espouse? They never should have been cast out in the first place, back in the 1970s.

However, the Traditionalists within the Roman Church take a hard line toward ecumenism.

[Papist]

Praise God!!! As soon as this situation is resovled, I will become a regular parishioner at the local SSPX chapel.

[podkarpatska]

It's interesting that one of Archbishop Lefebvre's demands during the 1988 negotiations is just what Benedict XVI gave us in 2007: the definitive liberation of the traditional Roman rite for all priests and bishops. In 1988 that demand was refused. In other words, he didn't want traditional Catholicism to be stuck in a ghetto. As a general principle, he didn't want to make significant compromises for regularization, confident that Rome would eventually move back in the traditional direction as the revolutionaries started to retire/die off.

And wasn't he right! It doesn't seem like they will have to give up anything now. And good on that. What heresy did they ever espouse? They never should have been cast out in the first place, back in the 1970s.

However, the Traditionalists within the Roman Church take a hard line toward ecumenism.

They use the same dictionary with regard to this term as to our Orthodox hard-liners. In other words, " Sure, we will talk to you, here are the terms of surrender for you to sign. Thank you."

[Peter J]

I didn't write what I meant, evidently.  My statement clearly says that SSPX is not Catholic.  That wasn't my goal; rather I just meant to say that SSPX is anything but regular, canonically speaking, and as a consequence I wonder if they will merge with FSSP since the two have essentially the same purpose (except that the FSSP is fully canonical).  Honestly, when I've attempted to look at the status of SSPX, as understood by the Vatican, I am left quite confused.

it's really confusing, to be honest.

That it is.

One thing to keep in mind is that there's a strong tendency to sharply divide everyone into 2 categories: those who are in full communion with Rome, and those who aren't. (Just consider that the Catholic Answers Forum has a section called "Non-Catholic Religions".  )

[lubeltri]

Of course, with the SSPX it is a matter of paperwork. All the SSPX Masses I've ever been to include the local RC bishop and Pope Benedict in the Canon (equivalent to the diptychs, in Byzantine terms).  Clearly an internal church matter here, which is why this is taking place under the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and not the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity (the organ that deals with the EO and OO and Western schismatic bodies like the Anglicans and Old Catholics).

[Papist]

Of course, with the SSPX it is a matter of paperwork. All the SSPX Masses I've ever been to include the local RC bishop and Pope Benedict in the Canon (equivalent to the diptychs, in Byzantine terms).  Clearly an internal church matter here, which is why this is taking place under the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and not the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity (the organ that deals with the EO and OO and Western schismatic bodies like the Anglicans and Old Catholics).

Absolutely. I agree. Given the facts, anyone who argues that the SSPX is not Catholic, doesn't know what he is talking about.

[primuspilus]

So does that mean that SSPX recinds all of its arguments against Vat II? Or will they just be "Contentious, yet loyal"?

PP

[Papist]

So does that mean that SSPX recinds all of its arguments against Vat II? Or will they just be "Contentious, yet loyal"?

PP

VII is not a dogmatic council. It was a pastoral council. Even the Pope recognizes some room for discussion and interpretation with regard to this council.

[podkarpatska]

So does that mean that SSPX recinds all of its arguments against Vat II? Or will they just be "Contentious, yet loyal"?

PP

VII is not a dogmatic council. It was a pastoral council. Even the Pope recognizes some room for discussion and interpretation with regard to this council.

I do have to say, that 'youse guys' confuse me with your lingo from time to time......?

[Papist]

^
Haha. VII declared no dogmas. It merely tried to explain the faith in modern terms. We are free to argue about how successfully it did so. I think it was fine for the most part. Pope Benedict has criticized some of the language in one of the documents as being "semi-pelagian". The SSPX has bigger problems with it. I'm fine with that.

[primuspilus]

VII declared no dogmas

I think that was the problem.

Pope Benedict has criticized some of the language in one of the documents as being "semi-pelagian". The SSPX has bigger problems with it. I'm fine with that

Thats my question though. If SSPX is going to have their rift repaired with the vatican, is the SSPX still going to be public with their problems with v 2?

PP

[Peter J]

VII declared no dogmas

I think that was the problem.

Pope Benedict has criticized some of the language in one of the documents as being "semi-pelagian". The SSPX has bigger problems with it. I'm fine with that

Thats my question though. If SSPX is going to have their rift repaired with the vatican, is the SSPX still going to be public with their problems with v 2?

PP

Keep in mind that the society was in full communion with Rome from its founding in 1970 until 1988.

[Papist]

VII declared no dogmas

I think that was the problem.

Pope Benedict has criticized some of the language in one of the documents as being "semi-pelagian". The SSPX has bigger problems with it. I'm fine with that

Thats my question though. If SSPX is going to have their rift repaired with the vatican, is the SSPX still going to be public with their problems with v 2?

PP

I suspect that they will maitain their critique but with some nuance.

[primuspilus]

VII declared no dogmas

I think that was the problem.

Pope Benedict has criticized some of the language in one of the documents as being "semi-pelagian". The SSPX has bigger problems with it. I'm fine with that

Thats my question though. If SSPX is going to have their rift repaired with the vatican, is the SSPX still going to be public with their problems with v 2?

PP

I suspect that they will maitain their critique but with some nuance.

That is what I was thinking, but Im outside looking in so I thought maybe there was more too it.

PP

[Papist]

VII declared no dogmas

I think that was the problem.

Pope Benedict has criticized some of the language in one of the documents as being "semi-pelagian". The SSPX has bigger problems with it. I'm fine with that

Thats my question though. If SSPX is going to have their rift repaired with the vatican, is the SSPX still going to be public with their problems with v 2?

PP

I suspect that they will maitain their critique but with some nuance.

That is what I was thinking, but Im outside looking in so I thought maybe there was more too it.

PP

One thing that they are required to assent to is the teaching that the Catholics must assent to all teachings of the Pope and Magesterium that are proposed for universal belief, even when there is no infallbile statment.

[primuspilus]

One thing that they are required to assent to is the teaching that the Catholics must assent to all teachings of the Pope and Magesterium that are proposed for universal belief, even when there is no infallbile statment

So would that assent have an asterisk beside it then?

PP

[Schultz]

VII declared no dogmas

I think that was the problem.

Pope Benedict has criticized some of the language in one of the documents as being "semi-pelagian". The SSPX has bigger problems with it. I'm fine with that

Thats my question though. If SSPX is going to have their rift repaired with the vatican, is the SSPX still going to be public with their problems with v 2?

PP

I suspect that they will maitain their critique but with some nuance.

That is what I was thinking, but Im outside looking in so I thought maybe there was more too it.

PP

One thing that they are required to assent to is the teaching that the Catholics must assent to all teachings of the Pope and Magesterium that are proposed for universal belief, even when there is no infallbile statment.

This is probably the most confusing thing you've ever said about the nature of dogmatic authority in the RCC. 

It's statements like this that make someone like Isa accuse Catholicism of doublespeak.

[Papist]

VII declared no dogmas

I think that was the problem.

Pope Benedict has criticized some of the language in one of the documents as being "semi-pelagian". The SSPX has bigger problems with it. I'm fine with that

Thats my question though. If SSPX is going to have their rift repaired with the vatican, is the SSPX still going to be public with their problems with v 2?

PP

I suspect that they will maitain their critique but with some nuance.

That is what I was thinking, but Im outside looking in so I thought maybe there was more too it.

PP

One thing that they are required to assent to is the teaching that the Catholics must assent to all teachings of the Pope and Magesterium that are proposed for universal belief, even when there is no infallbile statment.

This is probably the most confusing thing you've ever said about the nature of dogmatic authority in the RCC.  

It's statements like this that make someone like Isa accuse Catholicism of doublespeak.

So you say.

[podkarpatska]

VII declared no dogmas

I think that was the problem.

Pope Benedict has criticized some of the language in one of the documents as being "semi-pelagian". The SSPX has bigger problems with it. I'm fine with that

Thats my question though. If SSPX is going to have their rift repaired with the vatican, is the SSPX still going to be public with their problems with v 2?

PP

I suspect that they will maitain their critique but with some nuance.

That is what I was thinking, but Im outside looking in so I thought maybe there was more too it.

PP

One thing that they are required to assent to is the teaching that the Catholics must assent to all teachings of the Pope and Magesterium that are proposed for universal belief, even when there is no infallbile statment.

This is probably the most confusing thing you've ever said about the nature of dogmatic authority in the RCC. 

It's statements like this that make someone like Isa accuse Catholicism of doublespeak.

Actually it is statements like that which make the heads of most of us non-Catholics spin - be we Orthodox or Protestant.

If you are saying that in order to be a Catholic, you must subscribe to and profess all of the dogmatic teachings of the Church - I get it. We require the same discipline of the Orthodox.

But you seem to be adding a 'slight' caveat - if the Pope speaks on matters of faith - even if he does not 'proclaim' the same 'ex cathedra' or whatever has to be done to make his utterances infallible, i.e. dogmatic(?) - you must buy into them anyway. So, if he takes issue on aspects of say, Novus Ordu without condemning the same in its entirety, a good Catholic MUST agree?

Do I misunderstand you?

[primuspilus]

Double speak, like your communion's differing views on holy communion, the reception of converts, etc?

Dogmatic authority does not come from one man though, so for us, it seems far more confusing in light of ex cathedra, the nature of supremacy, etc.

PP

[Papist]

VII declared no dogmas

I think that was the problem.

Pope Benedict has criticized some of the language in one of the documents as being "semi-pelagian". The SSPX has bigger problems with it. I'm fine with that

Thats my question though. If SSPX is going to have their rift repaired with the vatican, is the SSPX still going to be public with their problems with v 2?

PP

I suspect that they will maitain their critique but with some nuance.

That is what I was thinking, but Im outside looking in so I thought maybe there was more too it.

PP

One thing that they are required to assent to is the teaching that the Catholics must assent to all teachings of the Pope and Magesterium that are proposed for universal belief, even when there is no infallbile statment.

This is probably the most confusing thing you've ever said about the nature of dogmatic authority in the RCC. 

It's statements like this that make someone like Isa accuse Catholicism of doublespeak.

Actually it is statements like that which make the heads of most of us non-Catholics spin - be we Orthodox or Protestant.

If you are saying that in order to be a Catholic, you must subscribe to and profess all of the dogmatic teachings of the Church - I get it. We require the same discipline of the Orthodox.

But you seem to be adding a 'slight' caveat - if the Pope speaks on matters of faith - even if he does not 'proclaim' the same 'ex cathedra' or whatever has to be done to make his utterances infallible, i.e. dogmatic(?) - you must buy into them anyway. So, if he takes issue on aspects of say, Novus Ordu without condemning the same in its entirety, a good Catholic MUST agree?

Do I misunderstand you?

If he were to propose that for belief for the universal Church, we would have to agree with him. We only have to agree with him with regard to faith and morals when he is speaking as the Pope. We don't have to agree with him when he is acting as a private theologian.

[Papist]

Double speak, like your communion's differing views on holy communion, the reception of converts, etc?

Dogmatic authority does not come from one man though, so for us, it seems far more confusing in light of ex cathedra, the nature of supremacy, etc.

PP

For us it does come from one man, the God-man, Jesus Christ.

[podkarpatska]

VII declared no dogmas

I think that was the problem.

Pope Benedict has criticized some of the language in one of the documents as being "semi-pelagian". The SSPX has bigger problems with it. I'm fine with that

Thats my question though. If SSPX is going to have their rift repaired with the vatican, is the SSPX still going to be public with their problems with v 2?

PP

I suspect that they will maitain their critique but with some nuance.

That is what I was thinking, but Im outside looking in so I thought maybe there was more too it.

PP

One thing that they are required to assent to is the teaching that the Catholics must assent to all teachings of the Pope and Magesterium that are proposed for universal belief, even when there is no infallbile statment.

This is probably the most confusing thing you've ever said about the nature of dogmatic authority in the RCC.  

It's statements like this that make someone like Isa accuse Catholicism of doublespeak.

So you say.

But those issues come from within different autocephalous Churches and are not reflective of dogma per se. They represent strains of somewhat opposing 'theological opinion.' After all, 'it depends' is one of our favorite answers as opposed to Rome's 'it is so. (...well...maybe it is so...)'

[podkarpatska]

Double speak, like your communion's differing views on holy communion, the reception of converts, etc?

Dogmatic authority does not come from one man though, so for us, it seems far more confusing in light of ex cathedra, the nature of supremacy, etc.

PP

For us it does come from one man, the God-man, Jesus Christ.

ah - Christ's Vicar on Earth? You know we have had a problem with that in the east since about the 9th century or so...maybe even a bit before that...

[Papist]

VII declared no dogmas

I think that was the problem.

Pope Benedict has criticized some of the language in one of the documents as being "semi-pelagian". The SSPX has bigger problems with it. I'm fine with that

Thats my question though. If SSPX is going to have their rift repaired with the vatican, is the SSPX still going to be public with their problems with v 2?

PP

I suspect that they will maitain their critique but with some nuance.

That is what I was thinking, but Im outside looking in so I thought maybe there was more too it.

PP

One thing that they are required to assent to is the teaching that the Catholics must assent to all teachings of the Pope and Magesterium that are proposed for universal belief, even when there is no infallbile statment.

This is probably the most confusing thing you've ever said about the nature of dogmatic authority in the RCC.  

It's statements like this that make someone like Isa accuse Catholicism of doublespeak.

So you say.

But those issues come from within different autocephalous Churches and are not reflective of dogma per se. They represent strains of somewhat opposing 'theological opinion.' After all, 'it depends' is one of our favorite answers as opposed to Rome's 'it is so. (...well...maybe it is so...)'

I'm sorry but this argument does not carry much weight when it comes from an Eastern Orthodox Christian whose church teaches that contradictions are just fine and dandy in theology, and calls them "mysteries".

[Papist]

Double speak, like your communion's differing views on holy communion, the reception of converts, etc?

Dogmatic authority does not come from one man though, so for us, it seems far more confusing in light of ex cathedra, the nature of supremacy, etc.

PP

For us it does come from one man, the God-man, Jesus Christ.

ah - Christ's Vicar on Earth? You know we have had a problem with that in the east since about the 9th century or so...maybe even a bit before that...

No, I said Christ. But, yes His vicar is an icon of Christ.

[primuspilus]

Double speak, like your communion's differing views on holy communion, the reception of converts, etc?

Dogmatic authority does not come from one man though, so for us, it seems far more confusing in light of ex cathedra, the nature of supremacy, etc.

PP

For us it does come from one man, the God-man, Jesus Christ.

*sigh* you know what Im referring to.

PP

[podkarpatska]

VII declared no dogmas

I think that was the problem.

Pope Benedict has criticized some of the language in one of the documents as being "semi-pelagian". The SSPX has bigger problems with it. I'm fine with that

Thats my question though. If SSPX is going to have their rift repaired with the vatican, is the SSPX still going to be public with their problems with v 2?

PP

I suspect that they will maitain their critique but with some nuance.

That is what I was thinking, but Im outside looking in so I thought maybe there was more too it.

PP

One thing that they are required to assent to is the teaching that the Catholics must assent to all teachings of the Pope and Magesterium that are proposed for universal belief, even when there is no infallbile statment.

This is probably the most confusing thing you've ever said about the nature of dogmatic authority in the RCC. 

It's statements like this that make someone like Isa accuse Catholicism of doublespeak.

Actually it is statements like that which make the heads of most of us non-Catholics spin - be we Orthodox or Protestant.

If you are saying that in order to be a Catholic, you must subscribe to and profess all of the dogmatic teachings of the Church - I get it. We require the same discipline of the Orthodox.

But you seem to be adding a 'slight' caveat - if the Pope speaks on matters of faith - even if he does not 'proclaim' the same 'ex cathedra' or whatever has to be done to make his utterances infallible, i.e. dogmatic(?) - you must buy into them anyway. So, if he takes issue on aspects of say, Novus Ordu without condemning the same in its entirety, a good Catholic MUST agree?

Do I misunderstand you?

If he were to propose that for belief for the universal Church, we would have to agree with him. We only have to agree with him with regard to faith and morals when he is speaking as the Pope. We don't have to agree with him when he is acting as a private theologian.

So when the Pope decided in Ea Semper for example that the rules regarding the rights of the Eastern Churches in Union with the Holy See were only applicable in the lands in which the faithful first resided when entering into communion with Rome all Eastern Catholics were obliged to accept this and take whatever was sent their way?

So, if the Pope were to determine that none of those rights were hereafter to be applicable to any Eastern Rite catholic, anywhere in the world - for the good of the greater Church - agreements made with self-governing Orthodox churches notwithstanding - those affected have no choice but to submit until penalty of their immortal souls? Be careful with your answer....

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > General Forums > Christian News (Moderator: serb1389) > Topic: Article: Lefebvrians. Reaching an agreement / SSPX agrees to reunite with Rome