Rome losing interest in reconciliation with SSPX?

DAILY NEWS BRIEF FROM CATHOLIC WORLD NEWS ^ | June 5, 2006

[NYer]

Jun. 05 (CWNews.com) - The Vatican has shown a declining interest in restoring normal ties with Lefebvrists, according to the head of the traditionalist Society of St. Pius X (SSPX).

Bishop Bernard Fellay, speaking to the French newspaper Le Figaro during an annual pilgrimage from Chartres to Paris, said that he thought "the enthusiasm for the reconciliation that the Pope wants has abated." He conceded, however, that Vatican officials might be waiting for the outcome of this summer's chapter general, at which the SSPX will elect its leader, before reviving active discussions.

Rumors about Vatican plans to regularize the status of the SSPX circulated freely earlier this year. The topic was reportedly on the agenda for the consistory of the College of Cardinals on March 24. But any plan for reconciliation will have to overcome considerable opposition, both within the Roman Curia and within the ranks of the traditionalist group.

In a homily preached to participants in the SSPX pilgrimage, Bishop Fellay illustrated the extent of Lefebvrist disaffection from Rome, saying that the modern Church leadership was engaged in "suicide" because Catholicism had renounced its missionary spirit.

[Slugworth]

ping

[Theoden]

I'll reply to you when I get home from work later. I will cede some points to you, but not everything.

As for your last sentence, yes, I am on your side, and you are on mine, but I don't like the fictionalizing of the Church, or the manner in which some vocal SSPX members attack Vatican II and the Popes. That is probably how I should have stated my original post.

[steadfastconservative]

"On what authority can some layperson speaking from behind a screen name on some dopey internet forumdeclare that anyone has broken from the Body of Christ?"

No layperson can make such a declaration, but Pope John Paul II did when he excommunicated Bp. Lefebvre and the four bishops who were ordained by the latter. Thus any layman can state with certainty that these four bishops are outside of the Church and that their not-so-saintly leader, Lefebrvre, died outside the Church.

[Slugworth]

The document(s) mention six men by name. Assuming the excommunications were legal/valid, that still would not justify anyone (especially a layman with an admittedly dim grasp of the subject) to say in general terms that "the SSPX is excommunicated," especially since Rome can't seem to make up its mind.

[reductio]

Here you assume correctly, provided you're being truthful. I can't even stand up without the aid of a cane...

I admire your use of the cane. I'd like to borrow it sometime, as it seems potent for greater purposes than walking. More important things, like telling the truth about salvation. I'd use it on myself, then proceed to use it on others per the pattern outlined in the 51st Psalm.

What a mess of fiction we live in. Thanks for doing your part to straighten people out.

[reductio]

Scratch that. It was Psalm 50, my mistake. Douay.

[reductio]

Thus any layman can state with certainty that these four bishops are outside of the Church and that their not-so-saintly leader, Lefebrvre, died outside the Church.

Are you absolutely sure? Because if they died outside the Church, it would be without question that they are in Hell at this very instant. Will you go on record stating that you are absolutely sure that they are roasting in Hell as we type?

[Slugworth]

I admire your use of the cane. I'd like to borrow it sometime, as it seems potent for greater purposes than walking.

It is. Oddly, it was in the midst of trying to figure out how to move Heaven & earth to set it down that I learned to love it. Without it, I fall.

More important things, like telling the truth about salvation.

...and dragging the remote closer, and fetching toys out from under the sofa, and re-opening elevator doors a half second away from slamming shut & forcing you to wait for the next one.

What a mess of fiction we live in. Thanks for doing your part to straighten people out.

And also with you. Everything, every jot and tittle of what people need to straighten out is so out there, which is the good news. The bad news being, of course, that everyone will be held that much more accountable.

There's a price to pay for this internet stuff.

[steadfastconservative]

I said that Lefebvre died outside the Church; the four bishops he ordained are still alive. I don't know whether or not Lefebvre's soul is in hell. Only God knows that. But isn't ironic, though, that someone who preached that there is no salvation outside the Church, ended up dying outside the Church?

[steadfastconservative]

I didn't say "SSPX is excommunicated." I said that Lefebvre and the four bishops were excommunicated. SSPX is in schism, however.

[steadfastconservative]

BTW, Michael Matt is not a reliable authority on anything. He is practically in schism himself since he is a shameless mouthpiece for SSPX and a rabid critic of the Catholic Church.

[Theoden]

Heres my overdue reply:

The SSPX as a group is antisedavacantism, but, there are many individuals in it who support sedevacantism themselves. That is how I should have phrased my original post.

I was wrong about the excommunication, only Archbishop Lefebvre and the four Bishops he elevated were excommunicated. Whatever the reasons were that he cited from cannon law, something to do with dire necessity, the final say goes to the Pope, and he bypassed the Holy Father, and was duly excommunicated. The SSPX members are still in schism.

The Norseman thing is more of a confidence thing than anything else, but still is the truth none the less. People are less likely to challenge you when you stand six inches taller than they on average. When I type here, I view my words as being in a conversational tone, not threatening at all, and with no anger.

The Crusades/Inquisition statement was meant as a parallel for the present. 600 years ago, the SSPX types definitely would have been the ones conducting them.

The Orthodox have justifiable conflicts with the Roman Church in terms of the power of the Papacy, the Roman calendar, etc... and this is recognized by the Papacy. The Orthodox and Rome are actively trying to reconcile with each other in good faith, as the SSPX takes a stance of all or nothing, and refuses to make concessions to reconcile with Rome. Heresies was the wrong term to use.

Legitimate authority, as you put it, is exactly what I mean, and is justified in Scripture. The Pope has final say in the appointing of Bishops.

If what Pope St. Pius X stated was held all throughout our history, we would not have many of the traditions we have today. Change and modernism. We would still be speaking Aramaic, not Latin or the vernacular. It was not just the Pope who brought about Vatican II, it was the College of Cardinals at the Vatican council who developed the changes in the Church's dogmatic positions. To me, that is the will of God, as the Holy Spirit guided the Church to make these changes. I have FAITH that the Catholic Church will always stand with Christ, as the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Getting hung up on dogma helps no one.

Again, I am on your side, and I would love for the SSPX to be reconciled with Rome, and I would love for greater use of the Tridentine Mass and the use of Latin, but I do not believe Vatican II needs total reversal, as Pope Benedict is setting things straight in how it should be interpreted. Rome has made concessions, now it is time for the SSPX to do the same.

[reductio]

I said that Lefebvre died outside the Church; the four bishops he ordained are still alive.

I wrote too quickly, and so did you. I'll correct my error first, and then yours. Mine: of course they are still alive, my duh; I meant it to write it so as to refer to Lefebvre alone. Now for yours:

I don't know whether or not Lefebvre's soul is in hell.

Sure you do, if he really did die outside the Church.

But isn't ironic, though, that someone who preached that there is no salvation outside the Church, ended up dying outside the Church?

No. What is truly ironic is that the Church clearly teaches that there is no salvation outside the Church, yet when someone dies outside the Church, no one can make up their minds where they went. The question isn't so much whether he's in Hell. The question is rather whether he really died outside the Church. You seem certain of some things you perhaps ought not be, but then seem unsure of others which are of themselves quite sure.

[Slugworth]

The SSPX as a group is antisedavacantism, but, there are many individuals in it who support sedevacantism themselves. That is how I should have phrased my original post.

I suppose it's possible for indiviuals to hold all sorts of errors while maintaing an outward adherance to something which contradicts that error. All you have to do is look at the statistics on the numbers of people calling themselves Catholic who disregard Church teaching with respect to abortion, birth control, and divorce. Still, you can't know the minds and souls of individuals. Here again, you're throwing your own personal assumption up as fact.

Whatever the reasons were that he cited from cannon law, something to do with dire necessity, the final say goes to the Pope, and he bypassed the Holy Father, and was duly excommunicated.

Can the Pope bypass Canon law? Is Papal authority limitless?

The SSPX members are still in schism.

There you go again. What is a SSPX member? Who is in schism, and what, exactly, makes them schismatic?

The Crusades/Inquisition statement was meant as a parallel for the present. 600 years ago, the SSPX types definitely would have been the ones conducting them.

But you said previously:

The crusades/inquisition statement was just a bit of venting of what used to happen to groups such as the SSPX over 600 years ago.

I'll buy that you were "venting," but not that you meant to say the same thing in two contradictory statements; that it's not what you said that's changed, but that you've arrived at a new and deeper understanding of what you said. Come now.

The Orthodox have justifiable conflicts with the Roman Church in terms of the power of the Papacy, the Roman calendar, etc... and this is recognized by the Papacy.

So the Orthodox have doctrinal issues with the primacy of the Roman Pontiff (to say the least), meaning that they do not believe that he's the Vicar of Christ, that he's a false leader of a false Church. Yet their beefs are "justifiable" and "recognized" whereas the SSPX, which does recognize the Pope as the Vicar of Christ are vilified as "outside the Church." See what's going on here? Those who don't want to be inside are being brought in by hook or by crook. Those who wish to stay are being kicked out.

The Orthodox and Rome are actively trying to reconcile with each other in good faith, as the SSPX takes a stance of all or nothing, and refuses to make concessions to reconcile with Rome.

Two things that stand against each other can't be reconciled without the death of one or the other. In this case, either the Pope will have to agree that it's not necessary for the Orthodox to submit to his authority (the death of Catholicism, and, in fact,a heresy), or the Orthodox will have to convert to Catholicism (the death of Orthodoxy). Even if the two can be nice to each other and agree to disagree, that doesn't mean that anyone's actively trying to reconcile wth anybody. This is false ecumenism. It's an error.

Legitimate authority, as you put it, is exactly what I mean, and is justified in Scripture. The Pope has final say in the appointing of Bishops.

You're right. He does. There's an important distinction to make, however. The 4 bishops of the SSPX have no authority in terms of territorial jurisdiction. They have the episcopal dignity, the fullness of Holy Orders, the power to validly ordain & confirm, but that's it. They have no ordinary jurisdiction. Only the Pope can give that. Had Archbishop Lefebvre attempted to bestow jurisdiction on the bishops he consecrated, that would have been the establishment of a parallel church, a truly schismatic act. The Archbishop couldn't give them any jurisdiction, as he had none to give. His intent was to ensure the perpetuation of valid Orders and sacraments, not to found a new religion.

If what Pope St. Pius X stated was held all throughout our history, we would not have many of the traditions we have today. Change and modernism.

If any Pope said anything that wasn't consistent with what has always been believed, that would be an error. Modernism is not a tradition. It's a heresy.

It was not just the Pope who brought about Vatican II, it was the College of Cardinals at the Vatican council who developed the changes in the Church's dogmatic positions.

Which dogmatic positions were changed at Vatican II?

I have FAITH that the Catholic Church will always stand with Christ, as the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

So do I.

Getting hung up on dogma helps no one.

To depart from dogma makes one a heretic, and is the very definition of heresy. Did you evn know that? I dare say it's extremely helpful to be hung up on dogma. Your eternity depends on it. To ignore dogma is to place onesself outside the Church, the very thing you accuse the SSPX of having done!

Again, I am on your side, and I would love for the SSPX to be reconciled with Rome, and I would love for greater use of the Tridentine Mass and the use of Latin, but I do not believe Vatican II needs total reversal, as Pope Benedict is setting things straight in how it should be interpreted. Rome has made concessions, now it is time for the SSPX to do the same.

What either of us want may or not be what God wants. We have to wait & see what He allows, do good and avoid evil, and tell the two apart by their fruits. If one holds the Catholic Faith, there's nothing to concede to anyone. Ever.

Q: How many of the martyrs, when faced with either making concessions or having their heads removed from their bodies, chose to make concessions?

A: None.

Let's pray for each other.

[Theoden]

I will humbly stand corrected by you on many of the SSPX views. I am no theologian or expert on canon law, and don't have the time to search for the articles I've read that would support a couple of my arguments. I don't like the conflict, and I would hope that Rome and the SSPX can reconcile with each other.

And pray I shall:

Eternal Father,

We praise you for sending your Son

to be one of us and to save us.

Look upon your people with mercy,

for we are divided in so many ways,

and give us the Spirit of Jesus to make us one in love.

We ask this gift, loving Father,

through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Amen.

[steadfastconservative]

As far as I know, Lefebvre was not received back into the Church before he died. Therefore, he died outside the Church. But only God knows what the state of this man's soul was at the time of his death. Therefore, only God knows whether or not Lefebvre's soul is in hell.

Dying "inside the Church" is no guarantee of salvation just as dying outside of it doesn't mean that the individual is necessarily damned.

[reductio]

Dying "inside the Church" is no guarantee of salvation...

I agree. Of course not. In fact, to whom more is given, more will be expected.

...just as dying outside of it doesn't mean that the individual is necessarily damned.

This statement, however, conflicts with Catholic dogma, as the Church has infallibly taught that outside the Church there is no salvation.

Back to Lefebvre, though. There is also the matter of the possibility of an unjust excommunication, as they have happened before, and to canonized saints. There is the possibility of an invalid or wrongful excommunication, which never truly took place in reality or in the eyes of God let's say.

Furthermore, in the matter of Lefebvre there is the very real distinction that his was not a formal excommunication, but rather, a supposed state of pre-existing self-excommunication, latae sententiae. If he was indeed outside there Church when he died, there was no chance for him unless he had access to reunion with the Church before death, or if he wasn't really in a bad way to begin with. Both situations are quite possible.

We don't know that Lefebvre is in Hell any more than we know that John Paul II is in Heaven.

[Slugworth]

There is the possibility of an invalid or wrongful excommunication, which never truly took place in reality or in the eyes of God let's say.

Also worth considering is the possibility that at some point in the future, the decree of excommunication may be rescinded, or rather nullified - declared never to have been valid from the start.

[reductio]

Right; that's what I was getting at. Possible, as such situations have happened before. Of course, the only way it could be rescinded would be for it to be declared that it was never a reality, in the same way an annulled marriage never really was a marriage to begin with. Which has also happened plenty of times. Certainly a revocation of an excommunication will not reach down into Hell, pull the Archbishop out, and place him square in front of the Beatific Vision.

[Slugworth]

Thanks for the prayer. Here's a favorite of mine:

Come, Holy Ghost, Creator, come
From Thy bright heavenly throne,
Come, take possession of our souls,
And make them all Thine own.

Thou who art called the Paraclete,
Best gift of God above,
The living spring, the living fire,
Sweet unction and true love.

Thou who art sev'nfold in Thy grace,
Finger of God's right hand;
His promise, teaching little ones
To speak and understand.

O guide our minds with Thy blest light,
With love our hearts inflame;
And with thy strength, which ne'er decays,
Confirm our mortal frame.

Far from us drive our deadly foe;
True peace unto us bring;
And through all perils lead us safe
Beneath Thy sacred wing.

Through Thee may we the Father know,
Through thee th'eternal Son,
And Thee the Spirit of Them both,
Thrice-blessed Three in One.

All glory to the Father be,
With his co-equal Son:
The same to Thee, great Paraclete,
While endless ages run.

Amen.