SSPX-Rome Agreement Terms
#11
(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.

This seems like nonsense to be honest, it would be an awful agreement and almost certainly result in a split in the society with most leaving, besides the general chapter would need to be involved, I don't believe the superior general is competent to make such an agreement without its approval.
Reply
#12
This part stands out: 

"which the Vatican has offered the  FSSPX"

That the Vatican would make that "offer" wouldn't surprise me. 
Reply
#13
(05-31-2012, 04:23 PM)The Curt Jester Wrote: This part stands out: 

"which the Vatican has offered the  FSSPX"

That the Vatican would make that "offer" wouldn't surprise me. 

This is a good point.  Doesn't exactly say it was the Pope who offered it.  Could  be an offer from someone a level or two down, for what reason is anyone's guess.  It's like working for an 11th hour plea bargain when you all of a sudden get the feeling the judge/jury is going to rule against you.
Reply
#14
To be able to confirm?  :LOL:

This information is just a spanish translation of a post  made by a member at another forum, who apparently heard it from a priest.  Funny how these things spread. 
Reply
#15
I do not think it matters what kind of deal is reached with SSPX.  Some of them are so bent against the Catholic Church they will never come back to the Church, just watch. 
Reply
#16
(05-31-2012, 06:06 PM)Cato76 Wrote: I do not think it matters what kind of deal is reached with SSPX.  Some of them are so bent against the Catholic Church they will never come back to the Church, just watch. 

This is unnecessarily harsh.  Your point is well-made that there will be some who will not accept a regularized SSPX no matter what the terms would be.  But it isn't because they are against the Catholic Church.  It is their (in my opinion misguided) love for the Catholic Church that would lead them to that decision.
Reply
#17
This is so bad that it must be black propaganda against the deal.    :O
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)