Comments on: The Holy Office and the SSPX

By: SeiboNoKishi

SeiboNoKishi — Sat, 17 Sep 2011 12:22:57 +0000

Saint Joseph Chaste Spouse of Mother of God, terror of daemons pray for us,
Saint Michael Archangel defend us in the day of battle(…) !
Jesus i trust in You!
Blessed always Virgin Mary, Holy Mother of God Immaculate Conception, Queen of The Rosary and Scapulars, assumed to Heaven Body and Soul, Mediatrix of all graces, Sorrowful Mother Co-Redemptrix said in Fatima, 1917 : “pray The Rosary every day in order to obtain peace for the world”
“In the end My Immaculate Heart will triumph”.

By: Fr Angelo

Fr Angelo — Fri, 16 Sep 2011 16:07:24 +0000

In reply to Tantumblogo.

Tantumblogo,

I agree with you. I was not implying more wiggle room. I think the blogs, and Voris, for example, are expressing far more optimism than is warranted. I don’t see anything in the communiqué that goes beyond what Pope Benedict said in 2005. The SSPX’s expressed position is hardly reconcilable with that. The communiqué’s expression of the openness to discuss the meaning of certain statements of the Council does not in any way appear to be a concession on the infallible doctrine/pastoral opinion distinction.

By: Tantumblogo

Tantumblogo — Fri, 16 Sep 2011 15:55:10 +0000

Fellay certainly did make those statements. I was unaware of the statements of the SSPX superior in Italy, but I’m not surprised. It’s essentially what the Society has been saying for decades. Given that, it’s quite generous of the Holy See to extend some kind of offer, but perhaps what it amounts to is a final attempt, but if the ‘preamble’ requires full acceptance of VII without much or any question, then I’m skeptical that SSPX will accept. You seem to allude to more wiggle room than that above, but I don’t know – I could easily see another split, with some in SSPX accepting this offer and some not.

Thanks for the updates! You need to come back to Greenville, TX again, Fr. Geiger! Or to Mater Dei in Irving! May God bless you and your apostolate!

By: Fr Angelo

Fr Angelo — Thu, 15 Sep 2011 23:55:53 +0000

The following is from a source that needs to be watched, but the information is factual. It provides a bit of context that might help to assess what is actually happening:

Though introduced to considerable fanfare, the talks appeared to stall in 2010 when Fellay gave a controversial interview in which he said that for the traditionalists, the aim of the sessions wasn’t finding compromise but rather explaining to the Vatican the “contradictions” between eternal Catholic teaching and the innovations introduced at Vatican II. That interview apparently produced some tension at the final session in April 2010. Speaking on background, a participant told NCR that at one point Pozzo, who chaired the meetings, asked one of the Vatican delegates if he’d like to contribute something. The delegate reportedly replied: “Bishop Fellay has said that the purpose of these talks is for the society to explain what it means to be Catholic. Do I actually need to speak?” In the same interview, Fellay also said that two new stumbling blocks to reunion had emerged: the May 1 beatification of Pope John Paul II, whom traditionalists considered excessively liberal, and Benedict’s plan to host an interreligious summit in Assisi, Italy, this October. Just before the last session of talks in April 2010, one of the Vatican participants said on background that he had quietly spoken with Levada about whether the time had arrived to pull the plug, given what he saw as a lack of movement on the traditionalist side. Most signals suggest that little has changed in the last year to suggest a new concession by the traditionalists is in the offing. For instance, Fr. Davide Pagliarani, superior of the Society of St. Pius X in Italy, recently said, “The canonical situation in which the society presently finds itself is a result of its resistance to the errors that infest the church.” Consequently, reconciliation “does not depend on us, but on the hierarchy’s acceptance of the contribution that tradition can make to the restoration of the church,” Pagliarani said in an interview published in English Aug. 13 on the society’s Web site.

By: Why the SSPX ‘deal’ matters « A Blog for Dallas Area Catholics

Why the SSPX ‘deal’ matters « A Blog for Dallas Area Catholics — Thu, 15 Sep 2011 21:11:58 +0000

[…] 2 years are lagubrious, but a good summation of the recent offer and what it may mean can be found here, at the helpful Franciscans of the Immaculate blog. Michael Voris has some thoughts on the issues […]

By: Tantumblogo

Tantumblogo — Thu, 15 Sep 2011 15:13:34 +0000

I don’t know who “Wolfeken” is, although I have seen him comment for some time on Fr. Z’s blog, but I am fairly skeptical of his comment. Having been attached to a traditional community for some time, I suspect there is a fair number who may reject Vatican II in toto, especially among the laity, but I’m less convinced that many priests in FSSP or any other groups with an attachment to the TLM and Tradition feel similarly. I think they, like many of us, would like to see Vatican II in the light of Tradition, but have a hard time doing so. There simply hasn’t been enough exegesis, if you will, on Vatican II in the light of Tradition to really get a firm grasp for some of the more……..I’ll use the term, problematic………statements and sections of the recent council. It’s simply been hard to reconcile much of what has come from VII, irrespective of the ‘hermeneutic,’ with Tradition. Perhaps this new environment will foster the development of that study of Vatican II to clarify the documents and produce a solid theological, philosophical, and liturgical framework to tie VII with Tradition. That is certainly my prayer.

Personally, I favor Bishop Athanasius Schneider’s recommendation, along with Msgr. Gherardini and others, to produce a syllabus of errors or some sort of Magisterial document which formally examines VII in the light of Tradition, reviewing those ‘rupture’ trends which have developed, defining them and rejecting them formally. But, any such attempt could be fraught with danger – it would have to be done exceedingly carefully and under total submission to the Holy Spirit.