« When Churches Close | Main | Oh, before I forget... »
August 29, 2005
More on the Trad Confab
Whispers at the Loggia has the text of the Pius X' s society comment on the meeting, as well as this observation:
Today's Bollettino of the Press Office of the Holy See (found here) did not list an audience with Bernard Fellay, even though Joaquin Navarro-Valls issued a statement about it at its close. This emphasizes the personal nature of the meeting and it wasn't one of the official engagements of the Pope's day with bishops, heads of state and others. And Fellay was strictly referred to as "Mons. Bernard Fellay" -- Eccellenza and/or Vescovo were nowhere to be found.
Posted by Amy Welborn | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451be0d69e200d8348ca2a669e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference More on the Trad Confab:
Comments
Don't let the "Mons." v. "Vescovo" fool yah! As the title "Monseigneur" literally means "My Lord", it is a common European practice (Holy See included) to refer to any bishop in such a manner.
Incidentally, a Trad bishop consecrated in Brazil by the "Lefebvrite Four" (Bp. Rangel) later reconciled with Rome, and his episcopal orders were recognized.
Personally, I think one of the Four (Bp. Richard Williamson)should be referred to as "His Insanity". He is a raving loon whom the SSPX should disavow before ANY reconciliation with Rome.
Posted by: TonyDoc at Aug 29, 2005 4:21:10 PM
Rocco brings up the many difficulties with the SSPX, but there are difficulties with every partner in dialogue.
If the East is a "priveleged" partner in dialogue, the SSPX is preeminent. We should manifest the same good will and opennenss to dialogue with the SSPX that we do with everyone else (and, thankfully, I think the Holy Father has).
Posted by: Jason at Aug 29, 2005 4:23:23 PM
Hmm... I wonder how the Pope's schedule lists the Orthodox or Nestorian bishops?
Posted by: Ian at Aug 29, 2005 4:23:24 PM
Regaurdless of small details of what the Vatican called Bp. Fellay, the big news was he met Pope Benidict XVI, and the initial announcement sounded fairly positive.
I pray that certain members of the SSPX and in the Vaticans curia put aside their egos to regularise the SSPX again, it would be a great day for the church.
Posted by: John Bianco at Aug 29, 2005 4:24:20 PM
pray that certain members of the SSPX and in the Vaticans curia put aside their egos to regularise the SSPX again
This I think, is the comment that's made the most sense today.
For all the talk about VII and liturgy and how much Bishop Williamson's monthly medication bill runs, John hit on the big reason for the trouble between the Vatican and the SSPX.
If I had to put down money, this is exactly how the whole situation started back in 1988. Ego.
Posted by: Der Tommissar at Aug 29, 2005 4:33:12 PM
Sadly, I agree with those who don't think that the Society will ever be fully reconciled with the Church, but I am hopeful that most SSPXers will find their way back home.
Posted by: TT at Aug 29, 2005 4:42:09 PM
Sorry O/T
Test
Posted by: TT at Aug 29, 2005 4:43:26 PM
I have said before that it is of interest that the Vatican has never challenged the validity of the Lefevbre consecrations, where it could have been argued had Rome wanted that the Archbishop was as Alzheimer-y at the time he took this action as poor Bishop Thuc was when he made half the male population of Europe a bishop at one time or another.
The whole "were the excommunications legal" discussion has never made a whole lot of sense to me either. It isn't as if Canon Law were something sent down from God to which the Church is held accountable by a third party. The Church creates it, and will interpret it in a way that secures the goals it has in mind. If the Vatican were to "revoke the excommunications" it would 1. be repudiating the authoritative teaching of the Pope it is currently putting on the fast track to sainthood, and 2. give the world the impression that the SSPX line on this affair was correct, i.e., that a situation of emergency created by the dereliction of the late Pope did exist. I cannot see any possible way Pope Benedict will agree to this.
I have always viewed this whole affair as God mysteriously bringing good out of what was not so good. Anybody with the true "mens Catholica" would have trembled for the fate of his soul if he were one of the people referred to in "Ecclesia Dei Afflicta". The SSPX is indeed afflicted with a Protestant mentality, and the longer it is out of humble communion with Rome the worse things will get. If they were to be reconciled will the Holy Father have to submit his future writings to the SSPX bishops for approval or risk them bolting again? I find the whole scene impossible.
As for Bishop Williamson, people have neglected one aspect of his voluminous writing that must be appreciated. He is tremendously funny, whether consciously or not, I don't know. Try reading the archive of his famous missives. Trust me, you will be laughing out loud. Sort of a cross between P.G. Wodehouse and Ronald Firbank.
Posted by: David Kubiak at Aug 29, 2005 4:58:44 PM
(While I know more than the average American, I don't put myself forth as an expert.)
"Don't let the "Mons." v. "Vescovo" fool yah! As the title "Monseigneur" literally means "My Lord", it is a common European practice (Holy See included) to refer to any bishop in such a manner."
If someone is a Mons. but is not a Bishop isn't that even more of a confusion, since it implies that they are a.) some sort of honorary prelate by virtue of special attachement to the Holy See (chaplain of his holliness/prothonotary apostolic numerary or supernumerary) or b.) a judicial or general vicar (which would make absolutely no sense).
Posted by: Samuel J. Howard at Aug 29, 2005 4:59:29 PM
I never met a member of SSPX that wasn't grumpy.
Posted by: Dan LaHood at Aug 29, 2005 5:14:03 PM
I never met a member of SSPX that wasn't grumpy.
You should look harder.
Posted by: Der Tommissar at Aug 29, 2005 5:28:51 PM
I read so many comments from contributors hoping that the Society of St. Pius X reconciles with the Church.....as if the Society has done something greviously wrong.
What the Society has done over these past 35 years is try to preserve the Roman Catholic Church. As much as liberal radical Catholics, or the EWTN John Paul II We-Love-You Vatican II Rah Rah Squad Catholics would disavow it, the Society of St. Pius X which adheres to everything of the pre-Vatican II Church has practically the most seminarians for an Order of its size than any other in the Church. The Society has almost 200 seminarians, and nearly 500 priests.
The Society has also attemped to restore and preserve all the time honored Catholic liturgical traditions and treasures which gave birth to our greatest Saints, the greatest of Church music and art and architecture, the thoousand of religious Orders, and a missionary spirit which held firm and uncompromising in Faith right up until 1965.
I and millions of other Faithful Catholic applaud Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, the founder of the Society of Saint Pius X and the expanding and flourishing network of Catholic tradition built up by Him and the Society.
By His lifework and untiring holy example, and by the great outpouring of Grace and acheievment for the Faith in His own lifetime, Archbishop Lefebvre could legitimatly be called a saint.
The same, alas can not be said of John Paul II, who presided at the greates destruction of the Catholic Church since the Protestant Reformation, and did nothing to halt its decomposition. In fact, many of HIs initiatives (inter-religious dialog, ecumenism, liturgical changes, lack of resolve in liturgical and disiplinary matters including the clergy sex-abuse cases) actually has hastened the collapse of the Church. And they call this man a saint.....NOT!!
I pray that Benedict XVI has the Grace and the will and the courage to stand up to the liberals in the Church and issue a proclaimation giving an unconditional and free return to the Tridentine Latin Mass everywhere in the Catholic Church.
Posted by: Kenjiro Shoda at Aug 29, 2005 5:32:57 PM
"The whole 'were the excommunications legal' discussion has never made a whole lot of sense to me either. It isn't as if Canon Law were something sent down from God to which the Church is held accountable by a third party."
Nobody considers their excommunications "legal." The Lutherans don't, nor do the Orthodox. For that matter, the "Uniates" (I hate that word) don't believe they were ever excommunicated! They believe that the Pope and the Western bishops recanted their heresies in the 16th century and became Orthodox!
Posted by: Ian at Aug 29, 2005 5:48:52 PM
David,
I think the entire validity of the excommunications discussion is very relevant. Obviously, the Church creates canon law, but the Church is bound by its terms and it has to follow its own procedures. At a minimum, there is a colorable argument that the excommunications were not valid. As for lifting the excommunications, I would hope that Pope Benedict would be motivated in his actions more by charity and justice than by the concerns of the keepers of the flame of John Paul the Great.
Posted by: Bill at Aug 29, 2005 6:02:04 PM
I think it's those who ordain bishops by appealing to "necessity" over the pope's head who have the problem with justice and charity.
"Ubi Petrus, ibi Ecclesia." The idea of "preserving" the Church by going into schism simply doesn't work.
Posted by: Kevin Miller at Aug 29, 2005 6:37:22 PM
"Sort of a cross between P.G. Wodehouse and Ronald Firbank."
How DARE YOU accuse Bishop Williamson - a man of God - of being a filthy sodomite! After all, a man who won't even name the sin, calling it by "the sin of H," would never be caught dead doing such an evil thing!
http://www.sspx.ca/Documents/Bishop-Williamson/May-2002.htm
Posted by: CampCatholic at Aug 29, 2005 6:43:22 PM
Kevin,
I don't think even you could deny that there were profound problems in the Church during the last pontificate. I doubt that Lefebvre's recourse to "necessity" was meant as a personal affront to Pope John Paul.
Regardless of whether Lefebvre's disobedience was justified, it's hard to see how it could constitute a "schism." However, arguing the matter at this late date is a little like pointing out that the War Between the States/Second American War of Independence doesn't really fit the definition of what most people would consider a Civil War.
Posted by: Bill at Aug 29, 2005 6:57:09 PM
There were profound problems during Peter's Pontificate as well. Corinthians were sleeping with their father's wife, for Pete's sake.
Posted by: Jason at Aug 29, 2005 7:04:47 PM
What the Society has done over these past 35 years is try to preserve the Roman Catholic Church.
While in reality, I don't believe the majority of Catholics, conservatives included, have even missed them. Sorry, but the true test of holiness throughout history has been one of obedience. And, if the excuse is that one is obedient to their personally chosen higher authority than the Vicar of Christ, then what would Christ's choice or will even matter in the mix?
Speaking of the title of Monsignor, before moving to eastern PA I had never encountered so many monsignors. In the 5 surrounding parishes there is at least one in each. Does it merely have something to do with serving at the chancery at one time or another? We had one in the family too. My father-in-law had red bedroom slippers and when he wished to put them on, he would call for his "monsignor" slippers. Anyone familiar with that movie, "Monsignor Quixote"? Great little film.
Posted by: chris K at Aug 29, 2005 7:14:19 PM
Jason,
But Peter never presided over any ecumenical shindigs at Assisi. When Peter was rebuked, it was merely for pretending to keep kosher. And Peter took fraternal correction.
Posted by: Bill at Aug 29, 2005 7:35:55 PM
Peter never called for a Crusade either. Peter never did a lot of things. That's why Peter's office didn't die with the man.
Posted by: Jason at Aug 29, 2005 7:40:53 PM
Jason,
Who knows, I guess if Peter had done some outrageous things, there may have been the necessity at that time for episcopal ordinations without the first-century equivalent of a papal mandate. That's the way it is with counter-factual history. (But, just so you are aware, there have been some popes who actually have done some very nutty stuff.)
Posted by: Bill at Aug 29, 2005 7:53:19 PM
As for lifting the excommunications, I would hope that Pope Benedict would be motivated in his actions more by charity and justice than by the concerns of the keepers of the flame of John Paul the Great.
Very well said.
I don't see why it isn't possible to say that the late Pope made mistakes in prudential judgment. We say the same thing about Popes who have already been beatified or canonized. So why can't we question the prudential/pastoral judgment of a Pope who is not (yet) beatified or canonized? Shouldn't there be a serious examination of Pope John Paul II's legacy anyway, if he really is on the "fast track" to sainthood? Shouldn't that examination include topics on which serious Catholics disagreed with him?
Posted by: dcs at Aug 29, 2005 7:54:42 PM
I have said before that it is of interest that the Vatican has never challenged the validity of the Lefevbre consecrations, where it could have been argued had Rome wanted that the Archbishop was as Alzheimer-y at the time he took this action as poor Bishop Thuc was when he made half the male population of Europe a bishop at one time or another.
Has the Holy See ever challenged the validity of the consecrations done by the late Abp. Ngo (in Vietnam the surname comes first and his name was Ngo Dinh Thuc -- his brother was Ngo Dinh Diem)?
Posted by: dcs at Aug 29, 2005 7:58:10 PM
...the Society of St. Pius X which adheres to everything of the pre-Vatican II Church...
Except, of course, obedience to Peter. We do well to consider the sad case of England, which began by repudiating papal authority, and within 50 years, their religion was thoroughly Protestant.
Posted by: Ken at Aug 29, 2005 8:07:36 PM
