FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: SSPX-Rome Agreement Terms
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
From the Kankakee TLM blog

"From Radio Cristiandad blog (translation of Kankakee TLM):  “Radio Cristiandad is in a situation to be able to confirm the following information which sheds many lights (darkness?) on the contents of the canonical statutes which the Vatican has offered the  FSSPX:

  1.- El Papa decidirá quienes serán los obispos de la FSSPX que reemplazarán a los que salgan o no quieran llegar al acuerdo. Estos obispos serán libres para irse y serán reemplazados.

1.  The Pope will decide who the bishops of the FSSPX will be to replace those who leave or do not want to reach an accord.  These bishops will be free to leave and they will be replaced.

2.- No se permiten nuevas construcciones sin la aprobación del obispo diocesano.

2.  No new constructions will be permitted without the approval of the diocesan bishop.

3.- Los edificios que tengan menos de tres años deberán ser cerrados, los que tengan más de tres años quedarán en funcionamiento.

3.  The buildings that are less than three years should be closed; those that are more than three years shall remain in use.

4.- Monseñor Fellay dijo que el Capítulo General no será para discutir la aceptación del acuerdo, sino simplemente para tomar conocimiento de cuáles serán los nuevos Estatutos de la FSSPX conforme al acuerdo canónico con Roma.

4.  Monsignor Fellay said that the General Chapter will not be to discuss the acceptance of the accord, but to simply make known what will be the new Statutes of the FSSXP in conformity with the canonical agreement with Rome."

---

#2 and #3 especially seem to fly in the face of what the SSPX has long suggested would be required for an accord. Perhaps #1 too if they have little say in who the Bishops will be.
I've heard this is supposedly drawn from conversations with Bishop Fellay in Austria. Not much to go on there. I think we're in for a long wait for official news.

C.
(05-31-2012, 12:51 AM)MRose Wrote: [ -> ]From the Kankakee TLM blog

2.- No se permiten nuevas construcciones sin la aprobación del obispo diocesano.

2.  No new constructions will be permitted without the approval of the diocesan bishop.

#2 and #3 especially seem to fly in the face of what the SSPX has long suggested would be required for an accord. Perhaps #1 too if they have little say in who the Bishops will be.

No way.  Bp Fellay knows this is not an option.  It'll strangle the SSPX.
I believe these are just rumors.  I know some SSPX priest mentioned these points and he did say they were rumors -- but then said that all previous rumors were true, so he had no reason to believe these aren't.  I guess we'll see, but it seems improbable to me.
Seems to be suicide of Tradition to me! :(
What is this nonsense?  "Radio Cristiandad is in a position to confirm the following information?"  I'd think trads would be more skeptical.  All this speculation from left and right is starting to get outrageous.  I don't think radio cristiandad knows a damn thing about it, not anymore than anyone else. 
(05-31-2012, 12:51 AM)MRose Wrote: [ -> ]From the Kankakee TLM blog

"From Radio Cristiandad blog (translation of Kankakee TLM):  “Radio Cristiandad is in a situation to be able to confirm the following information which sheds many lights (darkness?) on the contents of the canonical statutes which the Vatican has offered the  FSSPX:

   1.- El Papa decidirá quienes serán los obispos de la FSSPX que reemplazarán a los que salgan o no quieran llegar al acuerdo. Estos obispos serán libres para irse y serán reemplazados.

1.  The Pope will decide who the bishops of the FSSPX will be to replace those who leave or do not want to reach an accord.  These bishops will be free to leave and they will be replaced.

2.- No se permiten nuevas construcciones sin la aprobación del obispo diocesano.

2.  No new constructions will be permitted without the approval of the diocesan bishop.

3.- Los edificios que tengan menos de tres años deberán ser cerrados, los que tengan más de tres años quedarán en funcionamiento.

3.  The buildings that are less than three years should be closed; those that are more than three years shall remain in use.

4.- Monseñor Fellay dijo que el Capítulo General no será para discutir la aceptación del acuerdo, sino simplemente para tomar conocimiento de cuáles serán los nuevos Estatutos de la FSSPX conforme al acuerdo canónico con Roma.

4.  Monsignor Fellay said that the General Chapter will not be to discuss the acceptance of the accord, but to simply make known what will be the new Statutes of the FSSXP in conformity with the canonical agreement with Rome."

---

#2 and #3 especially seem to fly in the face of what the SSPX has long suggested would be required for an accord. Perhaps #1 too if they have little say in who the Bishops will be.

No way this is real.  The Holy Father knows Bishop Fellay wouldn't and couldn't accept these terms, which would mean he's either negotiating in bad faith or he's merely paying lip service to the idea of reconciliation.  I don't think either is true, which leaves only the conclusion that this is false.

I think the translation of the first sentence is poor.  If you look at the original text for yourself, I believe a more accurate translation is "Radio Cristiandad is in a situation to be able to drive a wedge further between what are being perceived as two camps within the SSPX. This will allow us to further undermine any attempts at regularization."

Answering each point in turn:

1.)  This presupposes at least one bishop would split from the SSPX, which might not have seemed likely a couple of months ago when the "conditions" would probably have been settled upon.  As to "these bishops will be free to leave," I'm not sure the Holy Father would use such language, as it would seem to grant them permission to "stay on the outside," which is clearly not the Holy Father's wish.  That the Holy Father would select the replacements is logical, as Rome's approval has typically been required anyway.  Bishop Fellay would probably want at least veto power.

2.)  This is definitely a deal-breaker.  I would expect any "personal prelature" to include pretty much full autonomy from the local diocese.  Clearly most diocesan bishops would deny any requests for new chapels.  If permission would be required, it should come from the Pope directly.  Ideally, they would not need direct permission.  Just a blanket "go and do your work for the Church" would be ideal.

3.)  This doesn't make much sense, unless the Pope suspects the SSPX of "beefing up" their building count in anticipation of the doctrinal discussions yielding a restrictive agreement.  Otherwise, why close new parishes?  I cannot see Bishop Fellay agreeing to this.

4.)  So this is to be the Superior General's decision, and no one else can discuss it?  Hierarchically I can understand it, but it seems rather extreme to expect them not to discuss it at all.

It really does seem like someone thought of the most abrasive terms imaginable, and reported them as "confirmed."  I just don't see it.
Yeah, this is crazy.  Anything like #2 and #3 would have +Fellay backpedalling like crazy, and Il Papa knows it.
If Fellay agrees with an agreement without the 3 other Bishops on board, the overwhelming majority of SSPX people will stay put.
Hold fast boys, get out your rosaries and lay down suppression fire so Bishop Fellay will get there. All of these reports are for one purpose and that's trouble.

tim
Pages: 1 2