The SSPX and Rome!
#21
(04-28-2017, 08:43 AM)Cetil Wrote: All very interesting but I think we have to remember Fellay agreed in 2012 there would be no agreement with Rome UNLESS it is approved by an extraordinary general chapter of SSPX.

That wouldn't rule out the Pope unilaterally giving the Society a canonical approval.

It is not for the Society to "agree" to anything with regard to the Pope. One does not "agree" with one's superior. One may offer objections and difficulties, kindly suggest alternatives, but if something is commanded or given and no sin is involved, one obeys his superior.

The Pope is the supreme legislator in the Church and could unilaterally do whatever he wished so long as it did not violate Divine or Natural Law, and that's happened with the Argentina situation (the local bishop in Buenos Aires recognized the SSPX on a diocesan level to fix immigration issues), the confessions and marriages, where the Holy See unilaterally did these things and the Society discovered them only through the news or immediately before they were made public.

Were the Pope to make such a "recognition", it could not legitimately be refused, and that's probably the reason for the flurry of news on the subject. Suspecting it's just a matter of an Apostolic Constitution, people like Tornelli, Weigel, etc. are trying to weigh in and try to stop that from happening. In such a case it would not be for Bishop Fellay or a General Chapter to "approve" anything, except to officially offer submission and provide revised Statues (if they need to be changed to fit the structure) to the Holy See. That's how it works when any other religious order, congregation or society of Apostolic Life is approved by the Holy See.
Reply
#22
(02-27-2017, 11:16 AM)Roger Buck Wrote: Unless, I am very much mistaken, we don't seem to have threads here about the WONDERFUL (well, in my view, anyway) developments between Rome and the SSPX.

The latest would seem to be a major HQ in Rome for the SSPX ...

Pope Francis helps SSPX take over church, complex, in heart of Rome
Posted on 24 February 2017 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Il Foglio today as a story about how Pope Francis was a decisive factor in handing over a neo-Gothic church in the center of Rome, Santa Maria Immacolata all’Esquilino, to the SSPX.

It is going to be a center for studies and, perhaps, their HQ.  It is a pretty large complex.

From Father Z with photos ...

http://wdtprs.com/blog/2017/02/pope-fran...t-of-rome/

Personally, I am VERY interested in and encouraged by these developments. If anyone else knows anything about them or has good links to post, please don't be silent.  Smile

It's probably worth noting that this "news" story was entirely made up by the Italian journalist or his source. The SSPX put out the following statement after this was reported :
Quote:... There have been plans for a purchase in Rome, there are some now and there will be others, as long as a firm acquisition has not been finalized. On the other hand, to respond to the “revelations” in the press, there is no plan to purchase a building complex at Santa Maria Immacolata all’Esquilino, as Matteo Matzuzzi writes. Neither Bp. Fellay nor Bp. de Galarreta nor Fr. Nély stayed at the Casa Santa Marta; they were not even in Rome from January 17 to 20. Of course Fr. Nély must travel frequently in Italy, because he is serving as interim replacement of the District Superior, but from January 17 to 20 he was in Menzingen. Not having the gift of bilocation, and most importantly not being Econome General, he is not in charge of finalizing any plan to purchase property. As for the Superior General of the Sisters of the Society, she visited the community of nuns in Albano in February, where she took part in no real estate negotiations.
Reply
#23
(04-28-2017, 10:29 AM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
(04-28-2017, 08:43 AM)Cetil Wrote: All very interesting but I think we have to remember Fellay agreed in 2012 there would be no agreement with Rome UNLESS it is approved by an extraordinary general chapter of SSPX.

That wouldn't rule out the Pope unilaterally giving the Society a canonical approval.

It is not for the Society to "agree" to anything with regard to the Pope. One does not "agree" with one's superior. One may offer objections and difficulties, kindly suggest alternatives, but if something is commanded or given and no sin is involved, one obeys his superior.

The Pope is the supreme legislator in the Church and could unilaterally do whatever he wished so long as it did not violate Divine or Natural Law, and that's happened with the Argentina situation (the local bishop in Buenos Aires recognized the SSPX on a diocesan level to fix immigration issues), the confessions and marriages, where the Holy See unilaterally did these things and the Society discovered them only through the news or immediately before they were made public.

Were the Pope to make such a "recognition", it could not legitimately be refused, and that's probably the reason for the flurry of news on the subject. Suspecting it's just a matter of an Apostolic Constitution, people like Tornelli, Weigel, etc. are trying to weigh in and try to stop that from happening. In such a case it would not be for Bishop Fellay or a General Chapter to "approve" anything, except to officially offer submission and provide revised Statues (if they need to be changed to fit the structure) to the Holy See. That's how it works when any other religious order, congregation or society of Apostolic Life is approved by the Holy See.

It's possible Pope Francis might do that (a recognition)  though it doesn't seem likely as it hasn't been discussed by Abp. Pozzo .  The use of the word "agreement" has been used repeatedly by Abp. Pozzo in discussing the situation regarding the SSPX and he has also outlined the terms of such an agreement.  Your approach seems a rather triumphal one, and one that is not being employed here by Rome. It's rather likely then that Rome would respect the fact that Bp. Fellay would seek the general chapter he agreed to in 2012.

C.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)