Recent Activity Between Rome and Society Saint Pius X (SSPX)

Diocese Report blog ^

[Polycarp]

Msgr. Bernard Fellay, superior general of the Saint Pius X Society, declared in an interview that there is a two way rapproachment of the Holy See in regard to theSociety. He indeed received a letter of March 18 from Cardinal Ratzinger, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, where the Cardinal proposes a working group where theologists of the Vatican and Society will study the problem of the Mass. Another letter, April 5 and signed by Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos, prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy, proposes to make contact with Mgr Fellay. This last he is said to be ready " to answer positively ". On the New Mass, Bishop Fellay reiterated that he regards it as valid, if there are the matter, form and intention required by the Church, but that it is " dangerous for the faith ". On the statutes of the apostolic administration that Rome proposes, Mgr Fellay declared: " It is a splendid Rolls-Royce, since we would have ordinary jurisdiction, but we hesitate because of the many bumps in the road... ". With the question of knowing if Jean-Paul II would ignore the opposition of the majority of the European bishops, who do not want an agreement to take place, Bishop Fellay answered: " the true solution is in the supernatural means, in fidelity to doctrine, the Truth which does not change ".

(Translated from Monde et Vie, April 18, 2002).

[narses]

I agree, I pray for that daily. I must have misunderstood your intent. Mea culpa.

[Catholicguy]

The Latin Mass Magazine is no longer a reliable source of Catholic information, IMO

Link is to a site that includes FSSP response to Latin Mass Magazine articles

imo.http://www.cin.org/archives/ci ngreg/200010/0011.html

[narses]

If your concern is the negotiations, why anonymously trash those not publicly involved in them?

[Catholicguy]

Some good news of a lay organisation and the "Traditional Mass"

http://www.cin.org/archives/ci ngreg/200010/0006.html

[maryz]

I've never seen black vestments worn at an ordination. Not a good sign.

Wow, the color of the vestments bothers you, . . .

Liturgical colors have meanings; they are meant to reflect something about the nature of the Mass of the day. I don't know how old you are, but pre-Vatican II black vestments were worn at funeral Masses and Requiem Masses and only there. I've never seen them at any other time (or for the past 30-odd years, at all).

[narses]

I've never been to an ordination myself, so I don't know what colors are the norm, nor do I know what colors are in that picture. They appear black, but they could be deep purple or blue or the color setting on either the camera or my monitor may be off. A friend of mine was ordained there this year and when I see him, I'll ask about the vestments.

[maryz]

They appear black, but they could be deep purple or blue or the color setting on either the camera or my monitor may be off.

Purple is for repentance, i.e., Lent and Advent. Blue is not a liturgical color, except in Spain, which last I heard (some years back) had special permission to use it for Marian feasts. I would expect an ordination to have white (for joy, if I remember right) -- or gold, which counts as white liturgically, I think.

Do ask when you have the chance, though, and let us know.

[maryz]

A classic example of confusing the accidents of history for the substance of Tradition.

Well, you could argue it with Sr. Sylverius, 'cause that's how I learned it in high school; unfortunately, she's dead, so you'll have to wait.

It is passing strange though that a group that purports to be traditional would buck not only the traditional liturgical colors but the fact that in Western culture, black symbolizes death and mourning. (I know that there are nowadays brides who consider black a good color for their bridesmaids' dresses, but this new custom is not yet widespread, and I think some of them just like to shock the old folks, who consider it bad luck.)

Maybe because it's 92 degrees out, but I don't see any direct connection between your post and our little discussion. We're discussing tuna mixed with mayo vs. tuna mixed with mustard (ugh!), and you want to discuss the rationale behind the USDA food pyramid.

[narses]

You say, "Beware the charismatic ones...". Have you MET Bp. Williamson? LOL, he is NOT charismatic. And yes, the SSPX has been trying for years for a resolution, as have elements in Rome. They are getting close, which is a good thing. I still don't see how that unverified, anonymous letter in any way reflects anything regards the topic of this thread.

[narses]

Friends who wrer there said no black vestments were worn. Scarlet and gold were the colors they recall. I'll see pictures later this week and let you know.

[narses]

Even after your post, I see little point or value beyond calumny to your posting of that alleged letter. Certainly I see no charity. Further, Bp. Fellay has made it clear that the quarrel is NOT with the Catechism, not with Vatican II nor is the SSPX denying the validity of the Novus Ordo Mass -- it is with Modernism and the permutations of those same things that are so harming the Church.

Recall, when approached with one of the last letters from Bp. Fellay wherein HE described the reasons for the SSPX position -- the fight against modernism, heresy and freemasonry, HH replied with words to the effect "That is us!", meaning HH identifies himself with the same aims. The disagreements between Rome and the Society are on the cusp of resolution.

Reread the article -- He indeed received a letter of March 18 from Cardinal Ratzinger, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, where the Cardinal proposes a working group where theologists of the Vatican and Society will study the problem of the Mass. Another letter, April 5 and signed by Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos, prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy, proposes to make contact with Mgr Fellay. This last he is said to be ready " to answer positively ".

Rome acknowledges real, substantial problems with the New Mass (look at the ICEL scandals), Rome acknowledged every sacramental and juridical act of the Diocese of Campos (the SSJV) who were in the identical position the SSPX is now and Rome now says they are ready to " to answer positively " the last SSPX letter. Since the only thing holding the SSPX back is the issue regards the Indult, I read that as Rome is ready to allow all priests of the Roman Rite everywhere access to the Tridentine Mass just as they have (against their own agreements) made the Novus Ordo Mass available to all priests of the FSSP.

In my humble opinion, this should be cause for great joy amongst Catholics, not a cause for calumny and slanders.

[patent]

Apologies for my late reply, I’ve been traveling a bit and unfortunately will be again over the next week. I asked you to document that the FSSP was:

(1) Promised. . ., their own Superior and eventually Bishop and

(2)freedom from the New Mass,

And to support you claim that Rome was taking away the missal and pushing Communion on in the hand:

Moreover, the 1962 Missal is being taken away, Communion in the hand is being pushed

You provide evidence that the FSSP Superior General was changed from one FSSP priest to another. None of that supports your claim number 1, above. You also provide support that Rome has ordered that FSSP priests are allowed to concelebrate the Novus Ordo. This, of course, is not forcing the Mass on them, but allowing a priest who wants to say it to do so. That is not the same thing. Nor is it the same thing as taking the 1962 Missal away, or forcing Communion in the hand (which is not required in the Novus Ordo, in case you didn’t know that.)

You have not supported any of the claims you made. You may not like how the FSSP has been treated, but be honest about what it is that is bothering you. The things that bug me are that the Superior General was changed. Should a Bishop force the Novus Ordo on a FSSP priest, that would also bother me, but I have never seen that happen.

ELS, What is it that you know has happened? I trust you, and if you tell me that you have seen X or Y, I will believe that. If you can only state that you have heard rumors of X or Y, that isn't worth any more than my stating that. If you tell me that many FSSP parishioners are annoyed by the things pushed on them by Rome, that I also believe. But a rumor that Communion in the hand is being pushed just isn't credible until a credible person comes forward and vouches for exactly that. Rome doesn't dictate how Novus Ordo Catholics recieve Communion, much less how its recieved in the various orders.

patent