Vatican's Clarification About "SSPX Ultimatum"
#1
A quote from the Vatican communique, as it appears on DICI:

Quote:“During the meeting of September 14, 2011 between Cardinal William Levada, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and president of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, and Bishop Bernard Fellay, superior general of the Society of St. Pius X, the latter was presented with a Doctrinal Preamble, accompanied by a Preliminary Note, as a fundamental basis for achieving full reconciliation with the Apostolic See. This defined certain doctrinal principles and criteria for the interpretation Catholic doctrine, which are necessary to ensure faithfulness to the Church Magisterium and sentire cum Ecclesia.
The response of the Society of St. Pius X to the aforesaid Doctrinal Preamble, which arrived in January 2012, was examined by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith before being submitted to the Holy Father for his judgment. Pursuant to the decision made by Pope Benedict XVI, Bishop Fellay was, in a letter delivered today, informed of the evaluation of his response. The letter states that the position he expressed is not sufficient to overcome the doctrinal problems which lie at the foundation of the rift between the Holy See and the Society of St. Pius X.
At the end of today’s meeting, moved by concern to avoid an ecclesial rupture of painful and incalculable consequences, the superior general of the Society of St. Pius X was invited to clarify his position in order to be able to heal the existing rift, as is the desire of Pope Benedict XVI.”
Press commentaries
This communiqué  has been the subject of various commentaries which are rather revealing of the professional qualifications of their authors. We will overlook the fact that La Croix’s Roman  correspondent, Frederic Mounier, transformed Fr. Nély into Fr. Benelli. The urgency of the story does not always allow the time to verify facts.
More seriously, when he handed this communiqué to the press, Fr. Federico Lombardi, spokesman for the Holy See reported : “Bishop Fellay’s response is expected to be here in about a month.” It does not take long for the headlines in La Vie (formerly Catholic) to immediately read: “Vatican issues an ultimatum to the fundamentalists who want to rejoin Rome.” The “due date” of Fr. Lombardi became an “ultimatum,” which is not quite the same thing, as Jean-Marie Guénois of Le Figaro noted on his Religioblog:
“Bizarre is the only way to describe this distortion of information … While Rome revealed today that another meeting was held this morning between Bishop Fellay, leader of Lefebvrists, and Cardinal Levada, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in view of coming to an agreement—very difficult indeed—many of our colleagues are speaking of an ‘ultimatum’ issued by the Vatican to find a solution before ‘one month.’ I have read and reread the official communiqué and I find neither the word ‘ultimatum’ nor any trace of a spirit of ultimatum. That is to say, [no trace] of pressure being exerted on the timeframe in reaching a result by forcing a power struggle.”
“Worse, is the assertion that deeply distorted information was released today by the Vatican. Especially since the theme of the ultimatum came from the interpretation of comments by Father Lombardi, the Vatican spokesman, who answered a journalist’s question about the ‘timeframe.’  He estimated that the Vatican would anticipate a response in ‘about a month.’ To my knowledge, he did not speak of an ultimatum. Besides, that would be ridiculous for a crisis open for … fifty years, since the opening of the Second Vatican Council!”

The whole article is at the link below:
http://www.dici.org/en/news/press-review...urnalists/

Looks like there may have been a misunderstanding, fueled by the Press no doubt. Or perhaps it is backpedaling on Rome's part. What say you?
Reply
#2
Maybe my memory is off, but does anyone have a copy of "Priest where is Thy Mass?"  I lent my copy and never got it back.  But I would've sworn it was then Bishop Levada who had a conflict with Fr. Zigrang and Fr. Zigrang was convinced the bishop was a heretic and thought that Truth plus Error equals Truth. 

If it wasn't Levada, I recant mentioning it in previous posts.  If it was him though, is Bishop Fellay aware of the disorientation of who he's dealing with? 
Reply
#3
Levada dealt with Fr. Eugene Heidt (RIP)
Reply
#4
(03-31-2012, 07:29 PM)Crusader_Philly Wrote: Levada dealt with Fr. Eugene Heidt (RIP)

Was that the story where the priest said the bishop was a heretic and asked him, "Truth plus error is...."  And the bishop answered, "Truth." ?
Reply
#5
(03-31-2012, 06:36 PM)Gerard Wrote: Maybe my memory is off, but does anyone have a copy of "Priest where is Thy Mass?"   I lent my copy and never got it back.  But I would've sworn it was then Bishop Levada who had a conflict with Fr. Zigrang and Fr. Zigrang was convinced the bishop was a heretic and thought that Truth plus Error equals Truth. 

If it wasn't Levada, I recant mentioning it in previous posts.  If it was him though, is Bishop Fellay aware of the disorientation of who he's dealing with? 

Yes, this is the danger with the whole "hermeneutic of continuity". Is it a real interpretation of Vatican II in the light of Tradition where anything contrary to the Faith is rejected, or is it a synthesis of novelty and Catholicism with a traditional veneer? You can see these kind of attempts in documents like Dominus Iesus that try to re-affirm traditional teaching while at the same time teach partial communion and false sects as means of salvation.

I think it was Bishop Fellay who said that the phrase "in light of Tradition" has become problematic now because "Tradition" has a different meaning to the Roman authorities that to the SSPX.
Reply
#6
:LOL: Truth + Error = Truth, he really said that? Wow.

I just can't wait for all this garbage to be over. I enjoy going to the SSPX though, our priest is wonderful and our chapel is wonderful too.
Reply
#7
(04-04-2012, 08:32 PM)Atomagenesis Wrote: :LOL: Truth + Error = Truth, he really said that? Wow.

I just can't wait for all this garbage to be over. I enjoy going to the SSPX though, our priest is wonderful and our chapel is wonderful too.

What is remarkable about this whole affair is that Archbishop Lefebvre still remains excommunicated! So, Pope Benedict may well accept the SSPX " as it is" , meaning, as a Catholic religious group whose founder just happens to be excommunicated. Bishop Fellay, according to the sounds he emits, seems to be willing to take his Society into the Conciliar Church, "as it is"; meaning, a supposedly Catholic religious group whose founder remains excommunicated.

Scripture warns us against having itchy ears and of giving in to fables. It says that even the elect will be deceived!
Reply
#8
(04-05-2012, 07:37 AM)francisco Wrote: What is remarkable about this whole affair is that Archbishop Lefebvre still remains excommunicated!

Strictly speaking, I think that only the living can be excommunicated.  Excommunication is a medicinal remedy intended to encourage the excommunicated person to repent, and the dead cannot repent. 

As the baptized cease, at death, to belong to the Church Militant, the dead cannot be excommunicated. Of course, strictly speaking, after the demise of a Christian person, it may be officially declared that such person incurred excommunication during his lifetime. Quite in the same sense he may be absolved after his death; indeed, the Roman Ritual contains the rite for absolving an excommunicated person already dead (Tit. III, cap. iv: Ritus absolvendi excommunicatum jam mortuum). However, these sentences or absolutions concern only the effects of excommunication, notably ecclesiastical burial.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05678a.htm


The effects of excommunication seem to bind only the living:

Can. 1331 §1. An excommunicated person is forbidden:

1/ to have any ministerial participation in celebrating the sacrifice of the Eucharist or any other ceremonies of worship whatsoever;

2/ to celebrate the sacraments or sacramentals and to receive the sacraments;

3/ to exercise any ecclesiastical offices, ministries, or functions whatsoever or to place acts of governance.

§2. If the excommunication has been imposed or declared, the offender:

1/ who wishes to act against the prescript of §1, n. 1 must be prevented from doing so, or the liturgical action must be stopped unless a grave cause precludes this;

2/ invalidly places acts of governance which are illicit according to the norm of §1, n. 3;

3/ is forbidden to benefit from privileges previously granted;

4/ cannot acquire validly a dignity, office, or other function in the Church;

5/ does not appropriate the benefits of a dignity, office, any function, or pension, which the offender has in the Church.


Reply
#9
(04-05-2012, 10:55 AM)spasiisochrani Wrote:
(04-05-2012, 07:37 AM)francisco Wrote: What is remarkable about this whole affair is that Archbishop Lefebvre still remains excommunicated!

Strictly speaking, I think that only the living can be excommunicated.  Excommunication is a medicinal remedy intended to encourage the excommunicated person to repent, and the dead cannot repent. 

That's perhaps why Martin Luther is looked on quite favorably in some quarters of the Vatican today. He was alive when excommunicated but has been pretty well dead for a long time now..


Reply
#10
(04-04-2012, 07:36 PM)Gerard Wrote:
(03-31-2012, 07:29 PM)Crusader_Philly Wrote: Levada dealt with Fr. Eugene Heidt (RIP)

Was that the story where the priest said the bishop was a heretic and asked him, "Truth plus error is...."  And the bishop answered, "Truth." ?

I'm not sure. The last time I perused the book was a good while back. Fr. Heidt's story can be found online here:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-reli...2954/posts
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)