Skip to main content

SSPX and Rome - It isn't over ... Updated

+
JMJ
An update to the update:
Bishop Fellay gave a conference today that corroborated the I.Media / Vatican Insider version of the story. This casts doubt upon the source of Rorate Caeli - which, in my opinion, appears to have been exaggerated.

P^3


Of course we knew from Bishop Fellay that he would never cut all ties with Rome because they would cease to be Catholic.

Rorate Updates:
UPDATE (05/11/14)I.Media reports that Bishop Fellay came to the Vatican with Frs. Niklaus Pfluger and Alain-Marc Nély (respectively the First and Second Assistants to the Superior General of the SSPX). On this occasion, the two assistants of the Superior General of the SSPX were present at the daily Mass celebrated by Pope Francis at St. Martha House. Afterwards Bishop Fellay dined with Abp. Guido Pozzo and Abp. Augustine Di Noia (respectively the Secretary of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei and the Adjunct Secretary of the CDF) at the refectory of the same House. At the end of the meal, Bishop Fellay briefly met the Holy Father.

Vatican Insider has another account, with further details -- and an acknowledgment of Rorate's initial report.

Rorate has learned and can exclusively confirm that Bishop Bernard Fellay, the Superior General of the Society of Saint Pius X (Fraternité Sacerdotale Saint Pie X - FSSPX / SSPX), was received by Pope Francis in the Domus Sanctae Marthae sometime in the past few months. In order to protect our sources, we cannot detail the date and persons involved in the meeting, but only generally locate it in time - if the current pontificate so far can be divided into two halves, the meeting took place in the second half.

We can also add as part of this exclusive information that it was not a merely fortuitous event - that is to say, many off-the-record meetings with His Holiness have taken place since his election precisely because his being at Saint Martha's House make him much more accessible and available than many previous pontiffs. No, that was not the case at all - the pope was previously duly informed and duly met Bishop Fellay. The meeting was apparently short and cordial.

The Pope has a true interest in resolving this situation, it seems to be understood by our sources.

____________________
Note to new readers: the Society of Saint Pius X is a society of common life for priests and the formation of priests founded by Abp. Marcel Lefebvre in 1970, and it was involved in the controversial episcopal ordinations of 1988, in Écône, Switzerland. The penalties incurred by the living parties with that act were rescinded by order of Pope Benedict XVI in 2009. Doctrinal talks were conducted with the Vatican between 2009 and 2011, and the discussions fell through at the last moment on June 13, 2012. The Holy See considers the canonical situation of the Society as irregular and that, "as long as the Society does not have a canonical status in the Church, its ministers do not exercise legitimate ministries in the Church."


[When mentioning the content of this item anywhere and in any language, please mention Rorate by name and link to us, as a matter of courtesy. Thank you.]

A few days ago this appeared on Suscipe Domime in a discussion on Bishop Williamsons latest EC355 predictions of doom and gloom:
Bishop Fellay spoke about this a couple weeks ago at his talk in Dillwyn, Va and seemed to at least state that this was a real possibility. It certainly seems credible that this is going to be the route that Rome and the SSPX takes. 
+Fellay mentioned that Francis is not a "doctrine" guy but a "pastoral" guy. In his estimation this was a good thing in that Rome will "tolerate" the SSPX in the spirit of pastoral sensitivity. source
I wasn't certain what would happen, however with the way this pontificate vascillates back an forth who know.


In response to any 'cries of woe', I answer pray!

As I just told a friend who implied that I trust the authority in Rome:

I trust in God, that as long  as the SSPX does not deviate from the principles we have been discussing, God will not allow them (us) to come to harm.


P^3
Prayer
Penance
Patience 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

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 mass (ie the Novus Ordo Missae

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

Regarding Post: Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer no longer ... now Bishop Joseph Pfeiffer (Can't see this being a problem...)

 + JMJ   I've been watching the popularity of the post about Fr. Pfeiffer's attempted episcopal consecration and its continued top listing on the 'popular posts' list at the bottom of posts.  After some thought, I decided that I don't want to be responsible for anyone joining Fr. Pfeiffer's 'group', however unlikely that would be at this time. So I have reverted the article to the draft state. If anyone wants it reinstated, I would ask that they comment on this post with a rationale for reinstatement. 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

The Vatican and SSPX – An Organizational Culture Perspective

Introduction The recent and continuing interactions between the Vatican and the SSPX have been a great opportunity for prayer and reflection.  The basis for the disagreement is theological and not liturgical. As noted by Dr. Lamont (2012), the SSPX theological position on the four key controversial aspects of the Second Vatican Council are base on prior theological work that resulted from relevant magisterial pronouncements.  So it is difficult to understand the apparent rejection of the theological position of the SSPX.