Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

SSPX: What Rome Gets (Update from Rocco Palmo's sources)
WITL ^ | February 14, 2006 | Rocco Palmo

Posted on 02/14/2006 9:01:32 AM PST by NYer

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021 next last

1 posted on 02/14/2006 9:01:34 AM PST by NYer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: american colleen; Lady In Blue; Salvation; narses; SMEDLEYBUTLER; redhead; Notwithstanding; ...

Yet one more perspective.


2 posted on 02/14/2006 9:02:40 AM PST by NYer (Discover the beauty of the Eastern Catholic Churches - freepmail me for more information.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
From Catholic News Service

VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- Pope Benedict XVI presided over his first major meeting with top Roman Curia officials, an encounter that sources said focused on a proposal to reconcile with followers of the late French Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.

More than 20 heads of congregations and pontifical councils attended the Feb. 13 meeting, which was to be followed up by a similar session in late March. No details of the February meeting were made available by the Vatican press office.

A Vatican source said the pope and other department heads listened as Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos outlined a possible solution to the 18-year-long impasse with the Society of St. Pius X, a self-styled traditionalist order founded by Archbishop Lefebvre. Its members reject modern liturgical practices and several teachings of the Second Vatican Council.

One possible step being discussed at the Vatican was establishing an apostolic administration, a special juridical structure that would allow the Lefebvrites to offer pastoral care to their followers around the world.

Another element being discussed was the possibility of granting wider permission to use the Tridentine Mass, the pre-Vatican II liturgy, the source said.

For its part, the society would have to make clear its acceptance of Vatican II's basic teachings on ecumenism, religious liberty and other matters.

Several Vatican sources said that while Cardinal Castrillon strongly supported a solution based on these points opinions were sharply divided among curial members on any concessions to the Lefebvrites.

Cardinal Francis Arinze, head of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments, said in a recent interview with Catholic News Service that while he favored reconciliation it could not be offered at any price.

"(The pope) cannot disown Vatican II in order to make the Lefebvrites happy," Cardinal Arinze said.

The pope met last August with Bishop Bernard Fellay, superior general of the Society of St. Pius X and one of four bishops ordained against papal orders in 1988 and declared excommunicated by the Vatican. The papal audience prompted a flurry of speculation about reconciliation.

Afterward, Cardinal Castrillon said in an interview with the Italian magazine 30 Giorni that the Lefebvrites should not be made to fear that they would be silenced if they reconciled with the Vatican. He said they were rightly concerned about liturgical abuses in the post-conciliar period.

"The critical contributions that can come from the society in this sense could, I believe, be a richness for the church, if expressed under the charism of Peter," Cardinal Castrillon said.

Others at the Vatican said they believed Pope Benedict has no illusions about the Lefebvrites. As Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, he unsuccessfully tried to reconcile with them in 1988 and later said the group had closed itself off in a type of "fanaticism of the elect."

One Vatican source who participated in the February meeting of curial heads said he thought the pope wanted to make one big push for reconciliation at the beginning of his pontificate.

"I think it's now or never for the Lefebvrites. As time passes, an agreement will become much more difficult," he said.

3 posted on 02/14/2006 9:34:43 AM PST by NYer (Discover the beauty of the Eastern Catholic Churches - freepmail me for more information.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

It is doubtful that the SSPX would be willing to meet the three conditions that Rome is setting out here. After all, these are precisely the areas where they disagree most strongly with the Church. But thanks for the update.


4 posted on 02/14/2006 9:47:40 AM PST by steadfastconservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Prayers for reconciliation, love hopes all things.
5 posted on 02/14/2006 9:59:42 AM PST by Talking_Mouse (Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just... Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer
(seemingly as a valid ecumenical council whose decrees carry weight in terms of Tradition, as opposed to a simply pastoral one which lacked force).

I'm a little confused because I thought that the Second Vatican Council explicitly was proclaimed a patoral council at the time. I also seem to recall reading a statement by Pope Benedict in the last month calling it a pastoral council.

6 posted on 02/14/2006 10:11:58 AM PST by nickcarraway (I'm Only Alive, Because a Judge Hasn't Ruled I Should Die...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer
The validity of the postconciliar liturgy

My understanding is the SSPX doesn't question it's validity, they just don't think it's appropriate. Also, how can you have strict obedience to VII and the the new Mass at the same time, when the new Mass is in opposition to the Second Vatican Council's liturgical document?

7 posted on 02/14/2006 10:14:01 AM PST by nickcarraway (I'm Only Alive, Because a Judge Hasn't Ruled I Should Die...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

Nick, a little off on a tangent here. Would you happen to know a link where I can find the "transitional Mass" before the Novus Ordo one. I seem to recall a blog or website that compared the TLM, transitional, and NO. I thought I had bookmarked the site, but can't find it. Thanks in advance.


8 posted on 02/14/2006 10:24:32 AM PST by Carolina
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Carolina

Off the top of my head no, but I will ask, because I know you can find it.


9 posted on 02/14/2006 10:29:54 AM PST by nickcarraway (I'm Only Alive, Because a Judge Hasn't Ruled I Should Die...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

That caught my attention, too. AFAIK, Vat II has always been considered a pastoral council. Furthermore, no doctrines were defined and there really doesn't seem to be anything to accept, in that sense.

Other than that, I don't see anything very positive above. Asking that the bishops just get another polite request from Rome to permit the old rite is hardly encouraging.


10 posted on 02/14/2006 10:53:24 AM PST by livius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: NYer
This is rapidly becoming a soap opera.

Episode CCXXV. "The wily Bernard contacts Josef, the manager of his father's estate. He wants back into the family business. Meanwhile Richard, Bernard's long time associate is planning a double cross. Francis, Josef's leading hand, warns of trouble brewing........"

11 posted on 02/14/2006 10:53:35 AM PST by marshmallow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Carolina; nickcarraway

PMFBI, Carolina, but are you thinking of the Liturgia blog?

http://centroliturgia.blogspot.com

There haven't been any posts since August, 2005.


12 posted on 02/14/2006 10:55:18 AM PST by Mike Fieschko
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

lol


13 posted on 02/14/2006 11:03:40 AM PST by jecIIny (You faithful, let us pray for the Catechumens! Lord Have Mercy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Mike Fieschko

Thanks, Mike. That's the one! It's too bad it hasn't been updated lately.


14 posted on 02/14/2006 11:10:12 AM PST by Carolina
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Arinze is a disaster. His proposals are as meaningless as the toothless enformcement of liturgical discipline in the Church under his watch.


15 posted on 02/14/2006 11:16:14 AM PST by Hermann the Cherusker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hermann the Cherusker
I agree, Hermann. I can't imagine that a "new indult" which encourages bishops to allow a generous application of the TLM is going to make one iota of difference. It will be business as usual, meaning the TLM will continue to be hard to find and require a long journey for most Catholics.
16 posted on 02/14/2006 2:11:58 PM PST by k omalley (Caro Enim Mea, Vere est Cibus, et Sanguis Meus, Vere est Potus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: NYer; All; sandyeggo

Rocco has an update which is not here as yet so I'll post it. You'll all recall "Papabile" who had a very good blog and then disappeared (it is rumored he was called back to Rome). In any case, he makes further points below that add to the matter above.

I have been reading this material all day. I believe there are two "factions" or arguments being waged. One is via Cardinal Arinze and the other by Cardinal Castrillo-Hoyos. I believe Cardinal Castrillo wants the SSPX back in the fold and is willing to make accommodations. I further believe that the Holy Father sides with him and not Arinze in this discussion. The Holy Father simply wants the Western Patrimony back in force and that includes the Tridentine Mass. This would have no bearing on those countries in which it did not catch on widely although in time, that would change. This is my 2 cents.

==Frank

SSPX: Papabile Speaks
One of our most-trusted sources on things SSPX has been our dear friend Papabile, currently on blog hiatus....

Here are some historical-practical points he raises in light of Cardinal Arinze's reputed intervention yesterday.

Rome, with Prot # 1411 "forced" the Fraternity of Saint Peter Priests to concelebrate on Holy Thursday to indicate 'unity' with the local Bishop.

This caused a big division in the Fraternity, because they originally thought they were under particular law so that they didn't have to ever offer the Pauline Rite.

Important to Remember is that they are a Society of Apostolic Life under the regional/geographic Bishop, not independent of him. To some extent, they were treated differently, and in exception to Canon 902 because of their role.

Now, with the Apostolic Administration in Campos, they were exempted from this because a) They are affirmatively under a particular [ordinary], Bishop Rifan, and b) They are held under [the Congregation for the Clergy].

Arinze yesterday suggested that the SSPX Priests would have to concelebrate to indicate unity.

1) I don't think it's unreasonable for them to have to be more explicit about their intentions of unity with the local Geographic Bishop, even if they are in a seperate Apostolic Administration. After all, they are a hell of a lot more obstinate that the Campos group was.

2) They way to do this is to require SSPX Priests attend in choir the Holy Thursday Liturgy and to receive the Eucharist from the geographic bishop.

3) Let's face it. The idea that concelebration with the Bishop is required to be in unity with the Church is a) ahistorical, b) uncanonical ( c.f. CIC 902) and c) will fundamentally, in an effort to achieve unity, prevent real unity.

Making them attend in choir, and receive the Eucharist, demands that they recognize the Pauline Rite of the Mass in itself is valid and that they are in communion with the wider Church.

I don't think Arinze is approaching this from a point of view that allows for their views. Ratzinger was one of the main causes for CIC 902 because so many Priests at the time had problems with the issue of concelebration. It was, to a certain extent drafted to protect precisely them.

This is solely for the benefit of our readers who are superlatively invested in the SSPX-Pian-Gallo-Germanic question. I don't know whether to make up or down of it.

Then again, that's why SSPX is Papabile's beat, and I'm just a fill-in....

-30-

posted by Rocco Palmo at 12:56


17 posted on 02/14/2006 4:19:20 PM PST by Frank Sheed ("Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions." ~GK Chesterton.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

Comment #18 Removed by Moderator

Comment #19 Removed by Moderator

To: sandyeggo

You have the issue well in hand. In fact, this will not fly as he has constructed it, I suppose. I have heard Pope Benedict yearn for Gregorian Chant and insist that Europe must reinherit its roots. That suggests a greater use of Latin and how much more so than in the Mass itself. However, the objection from Cardinal Arinze seems to be that this will not fly in Africa and other countries without a Latin background. That seems odd in that the NO Mass is only 40 years old and the Tridentine goes back to the early Saints. I think there is a cultural thing here, perhaps, and there is no one but groups like the SSPX which will insist on reestablishing that vital link since we have been left without it for almost 40 years.

The Holy Father may be hoping that the tradionalist Mass will, of necessity, cause drastic changes in the NO Mass. To use an old axiom, "pas d'ennemis a droit", i.e., no enemies to the right.

F


20 posted on 02/14/2006 6:14:22 PM PST by Frank Sheed ("Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions." ~GK Chesterton.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson