More on Flavigny (Possible SSPX Reconciliation with Rome)

WITL ^ | January 31, 2006 | Rocco Palmo

[NYer]

Tomorrow, as previously reported here, representatives of all the religious groups which form the aggregate Lefevbrist movement are meeting in Flavigny, France.

It is widely believed that the convocation is being held in an attempt to unite the groups and brief them on a proposed reconciliation between the Holy See and the Society of St. Pius X, the flagship splinter-sect which broke communion with Rome in 1988 at the ordination of four bishops without papal approval by the Tridentine renegade Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.

In exchange for the return to full communion of the Lefebvrist bishops -- which by no means could come immediately, but toward which goal tomorrow's summit is oriented -- and other, unspecified conditions, it's said the Holy See could be prepared to grant:

• an acknowledgment that the Pian, or Tridentine, rite was not abrogated in the liturgical reforms following the Second Vatican Council;
• an acknowledgment of the Old Mass' place and value in the life of the Latin church;
• an acknowledgment that the SSPX never sought on its own accord to enter into schism;
• an Apostolic Administration, subject to the Congregation for the Clergy, for the Society to maintain administration of its chapels, seminaries and other apostolates

Before anything is sealed, however, several questions do remain.

The first is whether, if the plan as sketched out goes forward at all, the four SSPX bishops return in unison. Two of them are said to be publicly noncommittal: Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, and Richard Williamson, who last night was reported to be "obstinate." Alfonso de Galarreta is said to be more aligned with Fellay's pro-reconciliation stance.

The timetable for all this has been expedited by the exigencies of the SSPX leadership. Fellay's term as Superior General expires later this year, and as he is perceived as the most-amenable of the four to a reconciliation, an accord hammered out with him as a principal would likely provide the best possible outcome, both for Rome and Econe.

While promotions and sacramental titles would not be part of any deal, as Popes do not bargain their office, Schmidberger -- the last of Lefebvre's closest aides still in the Society's upper echelon of leadership -- is seen as the Society's likely future head, particularly given the moderation with which he has handled the issue of its potential return; he was in the room with Fellay on 29 August as the SSPX leadership met with a Pope for the first time since the 1988 excommunications.

Lastly, one would be led to wonder what Rome seeks in return for the concessions it seems prepared to grant the Society. In a word, as one source puts it, all Rome wants is "the four bishops back," and in communion. (Of course, in order to do so, they must profess to accept the validity of the teachings of the Second Vatican Council as part of the Magisterium, etc.)

Even if a splinter, or more than just a few, of the SSPX's priests and faithful remain outside the church, the Society's sources of sacramental life vis a vis the ordination of priests and the consecration of churches are cut at the knees if the bishops return to Rome in one piece. But many variables remain in the air and are changing by the hour.

More as it comes....

[NYer]

SSPX and Rome: Reconciliation At Hand?

[patent]

To any who want to come back, welcome back. That said, I'd be seriously surprised to see all four bishops return, given the rather strong comments of the one in the past. Even if he did return though, there are other "bishops" out there, and the traditionalist movements will continue. Too much pride and power for that not to be the case. The Church will welcome back any who want back, and we will be better off for it.

patent

[Thorin]

Let us hope and pray for reconciliation.

[Antoninus]

Praying for reconcilliation. Praying that bishops like Williamson and Tissier have a change of heart.

[Theophane]

Just a couple of quick thoughts on my lunch break here:

1) When we see epithets like "splinter-sect" and "renegade" we can very well wonder why the SSPX and its followers would want to return to full communion with such uncharitable, not to say hostile and judgmental people as Rocco and his ilk. Why, for that matter, would traditional Anglicans or others want to?

2) The supposed reluctance of Bishop Tissier is rather surprising, if true, given that he was (according to his own biography of Archbishop Lefebvre) in favor of the original 1988 deal with Rome.

3) Fr. Schmidberger is one of the very level-headed people at the SSPX and a man of great abilities and considerable charm, as I can personally attest. I think the answer to Rocco's question what does Rome gain, is simply that it gains the full (and more closely directed) application of the considerable missionary energies of people like Fr Schmidberger, Bishop Fellay and others. At its best the SSPX is an essentially missionary society that was modelled, I feel sure, by Archbishop Lefebvre after the Holy Ghost Fathers [now called "Spiritans"] for whom he was a dynanmic (and in many respects forward-looking) missionary priest in Africa in the 1930's and '40's, and whom he headed in the early 1960's. They were one of the truly great missionary congregations coming from France in the 19th century, re-founded by Ven. Francis Mary Liebermann, one of Israel's greatest gifts to Rome and to humanity.

We can only hope and pray for the reunion.

[ELS]

Tridentine renegade Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre

I didn't know that Archbishop Lefebvre was at the Council of Trent. ;-)

[nickcarraway]

I really know nothing about it, but I do have a friend who was at the seminary in the 80s and he said that he is sure that Williamson will reunite if the group does. He's a pretty good judge of character and he thinks Williamson's reputation is a little off from how he really is. I have no idea, but this person thinks all four bishops will act in unison, and I think he knows what he is talking about.

[nickcarraway]

1) When we see epithets like "splinter-sect" and "renegade" we can very well wonder why the SSPX and its followers would want to return to full communion with such uncharitable, not to say hostile and judgmental people as Rocco and his ilk. Why, for that matter, would traditional Anglicans or others want to? Probably because they could care less what Rocco thinks, and that he has no impact on the salvation of their souls. People like Rocco have plenty of disdain (maybe more so) for fully regularized, canonical members of the Church.

[nickcarraway]

Rocco's question what does Rome gain

It was a stupid question in the first place. The Pope and the Vaticans mission is to save souls, so if it is able to do that, nothing else is required. Remember the story of the prodigal son, and that bringing anyone closer to the Heavenly Father is a reward greater than any amount of wealth. Rocco seems to ignore that the point of bringing any group into full Communion is not so that they are under the Pope's discipline, but the salvation of souls.

[patent]

>>>>1) When we see epithets like "splinter-sect" and "renegade" we can very well wonder why the SSPX and its followers would want to return to full communion with such uncharitable, not to say hostile and judgmental people as Rocco and his ilk. Why, for that matter, would traditional Anglicans or others want to?

I've met a number of SSPX folks for whom you could say the same, they were uncharitable, hostile, and plainly overly judgmental, yet I still want full communion with the society. In part because I've also met more than a number of people whom I considered very holy, and good friends. One cannot judge the fruits of a reunion by those who resist the reunion.

patent

[ELS]

I have no idea, but this person thinks all four bishops will act in unison, and I think he knows what he is talking about.

FWIW, New Catholic over at Rorate Caeli agrees with your friend.

"I would add the most important information that reports of a division among the four bishops consecrated by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and co-consecrated by Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer in 1988 are wrong -- there is no such division."

[Hermann the Cherusker]

I often think all the knocks against Bishop Williamson come from people who would object to and be scandalized by the following statement:

"To train their children in the practice of virtue and to pay particular attention to their domestic concerns should also be especial objects of their attention. The wife should love to remain at home, unless compelled by necessity to go out; and she should never presume to leave home without her husband's consent. Again, and in this the conjugal union chiefly consists, let wives never forget that next to God they are to love their husbands, to esteem them above all others, yielding to them in all things not inconsistent with Christian piety, a willing and ready obedience."

(Roman Catechism, "Duties of a Wife")

The sort of objections you sometimes hear about Williamson - that he panned some pop-culture movie or said women should wear dresses normally, seems right up there with objecting to the Church saying of wives: "she should never presume to leave home without her husband's consent", which I imagine many modern Catholics would.

[Talking_Mouse]

Prayers for reconciliation, that all might be in unity.

[nickcarraway]

My friend says he definitely has eccentricities in that department and would get too caught up in things like that. But that he wasn't as extreme on the council/Rome issue as he was protrayed.

[blu]

"she should never presume to leave home without her husband's consent",

I think the statement means that women should not take jobs outside the home unless it is necessary and the husband approves. I'm sure it doesn't mean we can't run to the mall without DH's permission! I know that sounds terribly retro...but you'd be surprised how many women, in many faiths, follow that advice.

[Frank Sheed]

I have been praying for this for over six months non-stop and following these developments all day. For a more recent update, check Whispers in the Loggia again. Rocco has updated again about one hour ago. Also, check out Dom Bettinelli at http://bettnet.dyndns.org/blog/index.php He has at least 3 postings today. Amy Wellborn's blog has a good long thread going and there is a link on one of Dom's threads to another blogger who had this story yesterday.

In short, Bishop Williamson seems adamantly opposed. To those of us who love the Tridentine Mass, this is a key moment since all would be regularized under this agreement if I understand correctly including the ability to attend Mass at any SSPX chapel. In other words folks, the Vatican seems to be offering a Universal Indult.

Frank

[NYer]

In other words folks, the Vatican seems to be offering a Universal Indult.

I'm confused. Didn't the Vatican already give a universal indult that was ignored by many bishops? How does this change the landscape? Would the pope demand accountability or would the 'universal indult' now be celebrated in SSPX Chapels?

[Maximilian]

I often think all the knocks against Bishop Williamson come from people who would object to and be scandalized by the following statement:

"To train their children in the practice of virtue and to pay particular attention to their domestic concerns should also be especial objects of their attention. The wife should love to remain at home, unless compelled by necessity to go out; and she should never presume to leave home without her husband's consent. Again, and in this the conjugal union chiefly consists, let wives never forget that next to God they are to love their husbands, to esteem them above all others, yielding to them in all things not inconsistent with Christian piety, a willing and ready obedience."

(Roman Catechism, "Duties of a Wife")

Full bonus points for hitting the nail squarely on the head! According to many, Bishop Williamson is that "kook" who actually believes what is taught in the Roman Catechism. Can you get any kookier than that?

What is most amusing is the agreement between the neo-Catholics and the sedevacantists regarding Bishop Williamson's "split" from the rest of the SSPX bishops. Both groups fantasize about an imaginary split, and for very similar reasons.

Time will tell (and it probably won't be too much time). I am notoriously unable to predict the future even when it involves only myself and only what I'll be doing an hour from now, so I make no predictions about what Bishop Fellay or Bishop Williamson will be doing in the future.

[Maximilian]

My friend says he definitely has eccentricities in that department and would get too caught up in things like that.

Hermann was posting a quote from the Roman Catechism. This "eccentricity" is actually Catholic teaching.