SSPX leader hopes Vatican will take "first step"

[Fidei Defensor]

[url="http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=43372"]http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=43372[/url]
[quote]Apr. 04 (CWNews.com) - Bishop Bernard Fellay, the superior of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), says that a Vatican initiative allowing wider use of the Latin Mass would be a welcome "first step" to satisfy the demands of traditionalist Catholics. But the leader of the Lefebvrist group says that it is still "premature" to speak about a full reconciliation between the SSPX and the Holy See.

In an exclusive interview posted on the DICI web site, Bishop Fellay acknowledged the widespread rumors that Pope Benedict will soon issue a "universal indult," allowing priests anywhere to celebrate Mass using the Tridentine rite, which prevailed throughout the Roman Church before the liturgical changes that followed Vatican II. The traditionalist leader said such a document could help to "create a new atmosphere in the official Church." He explained: "It would be a first step toward making traditional Catholic life possible again."

In talks with Vatican officials, aimed at restoring full communion between the Holy See and the breakaway traditionalist group, SSPX leaders have demanded that the Vatican allow free use of the Latin Mass throughout the world, and rescind the decrees of excommunication issued against Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and the four traditionalist bishops he ordained in 1988.

Those two steps, explained Bishop Fellay (who is one of the prelates involved), would help restore traditionalists' confidence in the Vatican. "The traditional Mass being no longer on probation and the ministry of traditional priests no longer clouded by the suspicion of excommunication," he said, would give traditionalists reason to trust Vatican negotiators in further talks.

However, the SSPX leader discouraged further speculation about a Vatican move setting up an apostolic administration to serve traditionalists. Such a move, he said, would be "premature" until a climate of trust had been restored.

Bishop Fellay told his interviewer that SSPX leaders believe that they are fulfilling a crucial need for the Catholic Church, by "safeguarding what is first and foremost the patrimony of the universal Church." He said that SSPX leaders are not deterred by the decrees of excommunication issued by the Vatican, "to which we never ascribed any canonical validity." [/quote]

How annoying. Why should Rome take the first step? SSPX needs to come back to Rome, not the other way around.

And what is it with them denying the excommunications? The Pope affirmed their excommunication, so I do not see how they have no canonical validity.

Read the rest of the Bishop's interview [url="http://www.dici.org/actualite_read.php?id=795&loc=US"]HERE[/url]

[Tarcisius]

Rome should take the first step towards making things right because Rome took the first step away from right.

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='Tarcisius' date='Apr 4 2006, 07:29 PM']Rome should take the first step towards making things right because Rome took the first step away from right.
[right][snapback]935842[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]Care to expound upon that?

[Desert Walker]

Have you read what Ratzinger has said about "breaking from tradition?"

He said that there are very good reasons to believe that, after the Council, certain decisions were made that effectively BROKE many people from our Catholic traditions. This was intentional in many cases.

He has said that "we," meaning Roman prelates, need to take steps to make the schism of Marcel LeFebvre OBSOLETE.

How else could Rome accomplish THAT other than taking the "first step?"

[Era Might]

Joseph Ratzinger does not do well in paraphrases. If you have an original source, please cite it. His comments are usually well thought out and nuanced.

The Church is always willing to foster unity. The problem is not the Holy See. The problem is the SSPX and its rebellion against the Catholic Church.

Edited April 5, 2006 by Era Might

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='Desert Walker' date='Apr 5 2006, 08:19 AM']How else could Rome accomplish THAT other than taking the "first step?"
[right][snapback]936412[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]Have you read [i]Ecclesia Dei[/i]? The first two paragraphs show that the Church was indeed attempting to prevent this.

[Era Might]

The SSPX beef is doctrinal. As I've said before, it is NOT about externals. They cannot accept the legitimate authority of the Magisterium, and the teaching of the Second Vatican Council.

A greater permission for the Tridentine Mass will not reconcile the SSPX. They will still accuse the Holy See of "modernism". What it may do is get people attending a lawful Mass, and make the SSPX irrelevant. Hopefully, it will die out, and legitimate orders (FSSP) will fill that gap.

[jezic]

I think part of this is that a proclamation of a universal indult wouldn't hurt anyone. I think that the SSPX is just using this opportunity to draw a little more attention to itself.

I don't think that the pope would do this only for the sake of reconciliation with the SSPX but rather for the Church as a whole. If the SSPX just happens to be sitting a little closer to the Church because of it, i don't think we should complain.

A debate about who should move first is not even relevant because i this is not necessarily about the SSPX.

[Era Might]

[quote name='jezic' date='Apr 5 2006, 10:32 AM']I think part of this is that a proclamation of a universal indult wouldn't hurt anyone. I think that the SSPX is just using this opportunity to draw a little more attention to itself.

I don't think that the pope would do this only for the sake of reconciliation with the SSPX but rather for the Church as a whole. If the SSPX just happens to be sitting a little closer to the Church because of it, i don't think we should complain.

I don't think that a debate about who should move first is even relevant because i don't think this is necessarily about the SSPX.
[right][snapback]936434[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Well said.

While I don't think a "universal indult" will be issued, based on the Holy Father's comments in the past, perhaps something creative can be arranged. For example, if the FSSP is made into a personal prelature or an apostolic administration, maybe it can establish roots in a diocese without the permission of the local Bishop. That way, FSSP parishes would be available, and the Bishop wouldn't have to worry about approving or not approving an indult. He also wouldn't have to worry about using diocesan resources for Tridentine communities. The FSSP would staff their own parishes.

Edited April 5, 2006 by Era Might

[Desert Walker]

You're exactly right. It's not just about the SSPX. But it is about what the SSPX represents in Church history, regardless of Marcel's doctrinal errors or misunderstandings. And THAT is "staunch faithfulness to tradition."

[Desert Walker]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Apr 5 2006, 08:21 AM']Joseph Ratzinger does not do well in paraphrases. If you have an original source, please cite it. His comments are usually well thought out and nuanced.

The Church is always willing to foster unity. The problem is not the Holy See. The problem is the SSPX and its rebellion against the Catholic Church.
[right][snapback]936417[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

My source is his address to the bishops of Chile.

[url="http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=3032"]Ratzinger in Chile[/url]

Perhaps I've mis-represented his remarks. I don't THINK I have.

[b]Edited to include this quote from above linked address:[/b]

[quote][b]One of the basic discoveries of the theology of ecumenism is that schisms can take place only when certain truths and certain values of the Christian faith are no longer lived and loved within the Church.[/b] The truth which is marginalized becomes autonomous, remains detached from the whole of the ecclesiastical structure, and a new movement then forms itself around it. We must reflect on this fact: that a large number of Catholics, far beyond the narrow circle of the Fraternity of Lefebvre, see this man as a guide, in some sense, or at least as a useful ally. It will not do to attribute everything to political motives, to nostalgia, or to cultural factors of minor importance. These causes are not capable of explaining the attraction which is felt even by the young, and especially by the young, who come from many quite different nations, and who are surrounded by completely distinct political and cultural realities. Indeed they show what is from any point of view a restricted and one-sided outlook; [b]but there is no doubt whatever that a phenomenon of this sort would be inconceivable unless there were good elements at work here, which in general do not find sufficient opportunity to live within the Church of today.[/b][/quote]

[b]Edited again to put above sections in bold[/b]

Edited April 5, 2006 by Desert Walker

[Era Might]

Thank you. I didn't mean to suggest you were misrepresenting him. Just that a lot of his thought can be "lost in translation", so to speak. He's very elaborative.

oops: same link.

Edited April 5, 2006 by Era Might

[Cam42]

[quote name='Tarcisius' date='Apr 4 2006, 09:29 PM']Rome should take the first step towards making things right because Rome took the first step away from right.
[right][snapback]935842[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Rome has nothing to make right. The Church is correct in her interpretation of Tradition. As has been stated, it is the SSPX which has the contradictory notion of Tradition.

This has been stated and defended since 1988. If you would care to actually refute them as opposed to side stepping it as EVERY other SSPX supporter has, then please show me.

[quote name='Ecclesia Dei #4']The root of this schismatic act can be discerned in an incomplete and contradictory notion of Tradition. Incomplete, because it does not take sufficiently into account the living character of Tradition, which, as the Second Vatican Council clearly taught, "comes from the apostles and progresses in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. There is a growth in insight into the realities and words that are being passed on. This comes about in various ways. It comes through the contemplation and study of believers who ponder these things in their hearts. It comes from the intimate sense of spiritual realities which they experience. And it comes from the preaching of those who have received, along with their right of succession in the episcopate, the sure charism of truth".

But especially contradictory is a notion of Tradition which opposes the universal Magisterium of the Church possessed by the Bishop of Rome and the Body of Bishops. It is impossible to remain faithful to the Tradition while breaking the ecclesial bond with him to whom, in the person of the Apostle Peter, Christ himself entrusted the ministry of unity in his Church.[/quote]
[i]Vatican Council II. Const. Dei Verbum, n. 8.
Cf. Vatican Council I, Const. Dei Filius, cap. 4: DS 3020.
Cf. Mt. 16:18; Lk. 10:16;
Vatican Council I, Const.
Pastor Æternus, cap. 3: DS 3060.[/i]

It is not Rome, but rather the SSPX who needs to come to what is right...not vice versa.

[jezic]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Apr 5 2006, 08:35 AM']Well said.

While I don't think a "universal indult" will be issued, based on the Holy Father's comments in the past, perhaps something creative can be arranged. For example, if the FSSP is made into a personal prelature or an apostolic administration, maybe it can establish roots in a diocese without the permission of the local Bishop. That way, FSSP parishes would be available, and the Bishop wouldn't have to worry about approving or not approving an indult. He also wouldn't have to worry about using diocesan resources for Tridentine communities. The FSSP would staff their own parishes.
[right][snapback]936436[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

while this is true, again i don't think that is one of the main issues. I would like to see this for the sake that rogue bishops would then not be able to silence traditionalists in their diocese. (While we might not like to admit it, there are some bishops whose decisions may not have been the best for their people.)

It would also allow priests that want to do a traditional Mass a little bit more freedom, but in reality i don't think that it changes a whole lot.

My point was more about the SSPX argument. It is moot because i don't think that is the point of a universal indult.

People could debate over who should move first until the cows come home and get nowhere. Is it even productive to do so? Reconciliation is great, but then lets work on that and not crow to each other from yards away about who should cross the line first.

[Cam42]

Universal Indult is an oxymoron. If it is universal, then there is no need for an indult.

For an indult is a faculty granted by the pope to deviate from the common law of the Church. If that is the case, then something that is universal is not a deviation.