FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums
bishop williamson 7/14 column - Printable Version

+- FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Church (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=2)
+--- Forum: Catholicism (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=10)
+--- Thread: bishop williamson 7/14 column (/showthread.php?tid=69530)



bishop williamson 7/14 column - a83192 - 07-14-2014

On December 13 of last year, in St Martha’s House in Rome where the Pope is currently living, the Pope met briefly with Bishop Fellay, Superior General of the Society of St Pius X. The Society officially denies that the meeting had any significance, but an Italian commentator having some familiarity with how Rome operates, one Giacomo Devoto (G.D.), argues that the meeting was proof that a Rome-SSPX agreement has been reached. See http://www.unavox.it/​​ArtDiversi/​​DIV812_Devoto_Notizia_intrigante.html.
In brief:—

On the morning of the 13th Bishop Fellay and his two Assistants at the head of the SSPX met in the Vatican with the heads of the Ecclesia Dei Commission at the invitation of Monsignor Guido Pozzo, restored to the Commission by Pope Francis to deal with the problematic relations between Rome and the SSPX. An official publication of the SSPX, DICI , claims that this meeting was merely “informal,” but G.D. says that even being informal it cannot have taken place without there having been beforehand a series of discreet contacts to repair the public breach of relations in June of 2012. Also, says G.D., such a meeting is the necessary preliminary to any “formal” meeting.

In any case after that meeting Msgr. Pozzo, Msgr. di Noia and the three heads of the SSPX repaired to St Martha’s House where the Pope also happened to be lunching. When the Pope stood up after the meal to leave, Bishop Fellay went over to him, they exchanged a few words in public view and the Bishop kissed the Pope’s ring (or knelt down for his blessing, according to Rome’s Vatican Insider ). DICI again minimised the encounter as nothing more than a chance meeting with a spontaneous exchange of courtesies. On the contrary G.D. reasonably m aintains that even such a “chance” encounter cannot have taken place without the Pope’s previous knowledge and approval.

Moreover, says G.D., in the art of diplomacy such a meeting is a finely calculated ice-breaker, of elastic interpretation, designed to mean as much or as little as one wants. On the one hand the courteous contact was there for all to see in a public place frequented by important Newchurch officials, and it could be seen as papal support of whatever had gone on at the morning’s meeting with the Commission. On the other hand both Rome and the SSPX could plausibly deny that the encounter had any real significance beyond an exchange of courtesies.

Thus when rumours began to circulate in the new year, for months the SSPX denied that there was any question of a Rome-SSPX agreement. Only on May 10 did DICI admit that there had been any contact at all between the Pope and Bishop Fellay, and then DICI so minimised the event t hat G.D. takes it as a sure sign that an agreement has been reached in private. (In modern politics, as the cynical saying goes, nothing can be taken as true until it is officially denied.)

In fact the main problem, for Pope Francis as for Bishop Fellay, is not how to come to an agreement which they both want, but how to get their left and right wings respectively to accept an agreement. However, the problem is being solved for them day by day as the Society, once glorious for its defence of the Faith, becomes the inglorious Newsociety. For indeed how many Newchurch bishops can still be fearing the Newsociety as a threat to their Newchurch? And how many SSPX priests are still convinced that any agreement with Rome would be a disaster, especially if they are promised that “they will need to change nothing”? Such an agreement will hardly need to be announced. In many minds and hearts it is already here.

Kyrie eleison.

Contact Us
During the next several weeks, the publication of Eleison Comments will be moving from Dinoscopus to the new website of His Excellency’s St. Marcel Initiative. While this transition is ongoing, we ask you to bear with us insofar as email communications will be somewhat limited. If necessary, you may use an applicable email address from among the following.

--essential communications to Bishop Williamson:
letters@dinoscopus.org

--necessary and urgent technical or administrative matters:
admin@dinoscopus.org

DONATE
While Eleison Comments is provided free of charge, there are administrative and technical costs associated with making it available to subscribers worldwide and with operating this site. Contributions to offset these costs are appreciated, and may be made via the button below or by sending a contribution via PayPal to:
donate@dinoscopus.org.



Re: bishop williamson 7/14 column - IrishCowboy - 07-15-2014

It seems His Excellency is again merely rabble-rousing.  He's pushing the speculative words of an "insider" nobody's ever heard of (relatively speaking), essentially treating them as fact.  Then, in the final paragraph, he takes his usual pot-shot at the SSPX.  He bashes the Society and its leadership while offering no real proof (or even evidence) that his accusations are true.
(07-14-2014, 01:08 PM)a83192 Wrote: day by day ... the Society, once glorious for its defence of the Faith, becomes the inglorious Newsociety. For indeed how many Newchurch bishops can still be fearing the Newsociety as a threat to their Newchurch?

There is still no evidence offered by His Excellency or his movement that this is true.


Re: bishop williamson 7/14 column - ermy_law - 07-15-2014

It seems like The Resistance was founded based on what might have turned out to be a capitulation on the part of the Society leadership. Yet, thankfully, that didn't happen. So The Resistance had to perpetuate its own existence now in light of the Society remaining stalwart. It's a little disappointing they can't just say that it's good the Society didn't relent and get back to working together.

(I have no insider knowledge. I'm just disturbed by the rhetoric of The Resistance because it doesn't seem to be supported by reality.)


Re: bishop williamson 7/14 column - FatherCekada - 07-16-2014

(07-14-2014, 01:08 PM)a83192 Wrote: In fact the main problem, for Pope Francis as for Bishop Fellay, is not how to come to an agreement which they both want, but how to get their left and right wings respectively to accept an agreement.

Bp. W. may be on to something here. I think Francis has already said somewhere (unable to find it at present, alas) something like "If the Neo-Cats and Communion/Liberation have their own take on Vatican II and are officially tolerated, why not SSPX?"

So, Francis could simply issue an "Edict of Toleration" and recognize SSPX as just one more voice in the big tent of the Ecumenical One-World Religion.

Kiki the Neo-Cat or Bp. Fellay -- different voices, but all part of one, big happy family where "ideology" (as Francis calls doctrine) doesn't really matter!


Re: bishop williamson 7/14 column - Clare Brigid - 07-16-2014

At least Pope Francis doesn't consider charity a punchline.


Re: bishop williamson 7/14 column - IrishCowboy - 07-16-2014

(07-16-2014, 06:30 AM)FatherCekada Wrote:
(07-14-2014, 01:08 PM)a83192 Wrote: In fact the main problem, for Pope Francis as for Bishop Fellay, is not how to come to an agreement which they both want, but how to get their left and right wings respectively to accept an agreement.

Bp. W. may be on to something here. I think Francis has already said somewhere (unable to find it at present, alas) something like "If the Neo-Cats and Communion/Liberation have their own take on Vatican II and are officially tolerated, why not SSPX?"

So, Francis could simply issue an "Edict of Toleration" and recognize SSPX as just one more voice in the big tent of the Ecumenical One-World Religion.

Kiki the Neo-Cat or Bp. Fellay -- different voices, but all part of one, big happy family where "ideology" (as Francis calls doctrine) doesn't really matter!

Interesting thought.  Hoping to marginalize the SSPX by sweeping them into the vestibule and under the rug?  "Yeah, they have some strange, antiquated ideas about Catholicism, but they're our brothers and we love them anyway."  What could the SSPX do about such an edict?  Respectfully refuse to be recognized?  It seems to me that if Rome extended some sort of unconditional "recognition," there isn't much the SSPX could do to reject it without truly initiating a schism.