FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: SSPX spokesman: "Agreement with Rome would solve the canonical situation"
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3
[Image: pastors_corner_masthead.jpg]

Fr. Lorans, spokesman of the SSPX, speaks of the Roman press release

Second Sunday of September 2011:
Thirteenth Sunday after Pentecost


Are we moving towards the end of a schism, the reconciliation between the heirs of Archbishop Lefebvre and Rome? Today it seems as if the ball in the Society of St. Pius X’s court.

Is this a historical moment or is it a mere rebound?

This is a step. After the preliminaries which Bishop Fellay asked from the Holy Father on the traditional Mass, the canonical sanctions against the bishops of the Society, the doctrinal meetings on the Council Vatican II, one could foresee future perspectives. This was done on September 14. It is worth noting the great candor of the theologians of the Society during these meetings in which they made very clear the doctrinal difficulties presented by some conciliar texts. This frankness did not prevent the new step. Obviously, Rome knows exactly our positions, and it is with this clear knowledge that Cardinal Levada presented this doctrinal preamble to Bishop Fellay.

Will the Society follow Bishop Fellay if he gives his agreement to this preamble?

An agreement with Rome would solve the canonical situation of the Society of St. Pius X. But this is not as important as to give back to Tradition—often scorned, or persecuted for the last forty years—its right of existence within the Church. This process already began with the motu proprio Summorum pontificum which declared that the traditional Mass had never been abrogated. If, after the thorough reading which Rome wants him to have, Bishop Fellay may give his agreement, the Society will certainly be favorable to it.

What is the legitimate margin of debate around the texts of Vatican II?

This is the question! The doctrinal preamble being confidential, I can add nothing to the official press release: “leaving open to a legitimate discussion the theological study and explanation of expressions or particular formulations present in the texts of the Council Vatican II and of the magisterium which followed.” Some explain this to mean that the points of contention in the Council could be open to discussion without putting into question the adherence to the Church: this would be to recognize that these litigious texts do not require the adhesion demanded for dogmas. Others insist on the fact that this doctrinal preamble—which is not public, mind you—would demand the respect of the entire Council, of its authenticity and of the legitimacy of its teaching. For them… the mere possibility of a discussion of Vatican II would appear a little much… What we can see is a clear difference between the press release of Sept 14, 2011 and the note dictated by the Secretary of State of February 4, 2009 which was saying: “The indispensible condition for a future recognition of the Society of St. Pius X is the full acceptance of the Council Vatican II and of the magisterium of Popes John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II and Benedict XVI himself.” Between these declarations, there are two years of theological discussion which allowed to “dig out and clarify the doctrinal problems” in the words of Bishop Fellay. Has there been an evolution of Rome between 2009 and 2011? Has the exposition of the theologians of the Society contributed to it? I leave it to you to reply.

http://www.sspx.org/pastors_corner/pasto...#fr_lorans
obviously. but wont solve the plm. the canonical situation is NOT the fundamental plm
(09-23-2011, 03:24 PM)devotedknuckles Wrote: [ -> ]obviously. but wont solve the plm. the canonical situation is NOT the fundamental plm

spot on
(09-23-2011, 03:24 PM)devotedknuckles Wrote: [ -> ]obviously. but wont solve the plm. the canonical situation is NOT the fundamental plm

But can the fundamental problem be solved without the canonical situation being addressed?
:doh:  I wish weren't ever in this mess to begin with. 


Did the bishops know what was going on in the council?  why did we even need a second vatican council? 
(09-23-2011, 03:41 PM)Someone1776 Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-23-2011, 03:24 PM)devotedknuckles Wrote: [ -> ]obviously. but wont solve the plm. the canonical situation is NOT the fundamental plm

But can the fundamental problem be solved without the canonical situation being addressed?

In other words, if this part really turns out to be true:

Quote:This is the question! The doctrinal preamble being confidential, I can add nothing to the official press release: “leaving open to a legitimate discussion the theological study and explanation of expressions or particular formulations present in the texts of the Council Vatican II and of the magisterium which followed.” Some explain this to mean that the points of contention in the Council could be open to discussion without putting into question the adherence to the Church: this would be to recognize that these litigious texts do not require the adhesion demanded for dogmas.

then by signing it, the SSPX is in a sense forcing an admission on Rome's part that the problematic parts of VII aren't any sort of binding dogma and that it's okay for everyone to question the council.
Fr Lorans' answers suggest to me that regularisation is more likely than not. Curious to know what others think.
(09-23-2011, 03:54 PM)archdiocesan Wrote: [ -> ]Fr Lorans' answers suggest to me that regularisation is more likely than not. Curious to know what others think.

I agree. All the signs since the announcement of the 14th September interview seem to go in that direction.

I also find it significant that the closed-door meeting of the SSPX leadership will take place in Albano, Rome. Perhaps to foster a sense of Romanitas?
(09-23-2011, 03:56 PM)nisidominus Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-23-2011, 03:54 PM)archdiocesan Wrote: [ -> ]Fr Lorans' answers suggest to me that regularisation is more likely than not. Curious to know what others think.

I agree. All the signs since the announcement of the 14th September interview seem to go in that direction.

I also find it significant that the closed-door meeting of the SSPX leadership will take place in Albano, Rome. Perhaps to foster a sense of Romanitas?


I pray this happens for the sake of the Church and the good influence the SSPX can have, but I also want to see Foxman and the ADL go ballistic
(09-23-2011, 03:32 PM)matthew_talbot Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-23-2011, 03:24 PM)devotedknuckles Wrote: [ -> ]obviously. but wont solve the plm. the canonical situation is NOT the fundamental plm

spot on

Yes.  Spot on.
Pages: 1 2 3