Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Pope Meets With Head of Lefebvre Movement
Yahoo News ^ | August 29, 2005

Posted on 08/29/2005 5:53:18 AM PDT by NYer

Pope Benedict XVI met with the head of the ultraconservative movement founded by the excommunicated Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre on Monday amid a renewed push to bring the "schismatic" group back into Rome's fold.

Vatican spokesman Joaquin Navarro-Valls said the meeting between the pope and Monsignor Bernard Fellay, secretary general of the Society of St. Pius X, was held "in a climate of love for the church and a desire to arrive at perfect communion."

"While knowing the difficulties, the desire to proceed by degrees and in reasonable time was shown," Navarro-Valls said in a statement.

Lefebvre founded the Switzerland-based society in 1969, which opposed the liberalizing reforms of the 1962-65 Second Vatican Council, particularly its call for Mass to be celebrated in local languages and not the traditional Latin.

He was excommunicated in 1988 after consecrating four bishops without Rome's consent. All four bishops, including Fellay, were also excommunicated.

Benedict, who also opposed what he considered excesses of Vatican II, had worked to head off the excommunication order, negotiating with the society to try to keep its members in the fold.

Just months before the excommunication order came down, Benedict, who was then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, signed a protocol with Lefebvre that had indicated reconciliation of the society with Rome was imminent. Lefebvre later rejected the accord.

With Benedict now pope, some have speculated that there might be a new push to bring the society back under Rome's wing.

Fellay, for example, welcomed Benedict's April 19 election, saying there was a "gleam of hope" that the new pope might find a way out of the "profound crisis" in which the Catholic Church currently finds itself.

Fellay has said he would ask Benedict at the audience, which he requested, to rescind the excommunication order and also allow Catholics to celebrate Mass in Latin without having to ask permission first.

Monday's meeting took place at the pope's summer residence in Castel Gandolfo, south of Rome. Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos, who heads a commission that was created after the 1988 excommunication to try to negotiate with the society, also attended, the Vatican statement said.

In a recent interview with the international Web site of the Society of St. Pius X, Fellay said a return to the Latin Mass would mark the start of a "change of atmosphere and spirit in the church," which he believes has been spoiled by the Vatican II reforms.

However, in his 1997 book "Salt of the Earth," Ratzinger said a return to the Latin Mass wouldn't resolve the church's problems, even though he supported its expanded use.

"I am of the opinion, to be sure, that the old rite should be granted much more generously to all those who desire it," he said.

"But a simple return to the old way would not, as I have said, be a solution. Our culture has changed so radically in the last 30 years that a liturgy celebrated exclusively in Latin would bring with it an experience of foreignness that many could not cope with," he said.

Some have pointed to the fact that several top cardinals celebrated traditional Masses and prayer services with young people taking part in the recent World Youth Day in Germany as evidence of the Vatican's continued outreach to Latin traditionalists.

However, another of Lefebvre's bishops, Bishop Richard Williamson, has warned against any reunion with Rome. In an Internet newsletter earlier this month that announced Monday's meeting, Williamson warned that the "resistance" movement would carry on without the society if it were to rejoin Rome.

The Rev. Thomas Reese, former editor of the Jesuit weekly magazine America, said the Vatican had "bent over backwards" in the past to try to reach out to the society, and that Benedict was likely to continue the policy since he helped form it as a cardinal.

"The problem is that these concessions have not been enough for the schismatics," Reese said in an e-mail. "They want the rest of the church to follow them in rejecting Vatican II, which they consider illegitimate."

The society claims about 450 priests, 180 seminarians and has a presence in 26 countries.

___

On the Web:

International site of the Society of St. Pius X: http://www.fsspx.org

U.S. site of the Society of St. Pius X: http://www.sspx.org

Vatican site: http://www.vatican.va


TOPICS: Activism; Apologetics; Catholic; Current Events; Ecumenism; General Discusssion; History; Ministry/Outreach; Prayer; Theology; Worship
KEYWORDS: benedictxvi; fellay; lefebvre; sspx; vatican
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-119 next last

1 posted on 08/29/2005 5:53:19 AM PDT by NYer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: american colleen; Lady In Blue; Salvation; narses; SMEDLEYBUTLER; redhead; Notwithstanding; ...

I'll post pictures once they are made available.


2 posted on 08/29/2005 5:54:14 AM PDT by NYer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer
I am praying for a good outcome to this meeting. Other than banning the NO, I wonder what our SSPX friends on the board would like to see as the outcome of this meeting.

Personally, I'd like to see a Tridentine Rite established, so that anyone who wants to go to a Latin Mass can go. Giving them a personal prelature is insufficient, since that would still put the local bishop in charge of them, and that, in effect, doesn't change a thing.

Here in Philly, the Latin Mass is easily accessible for anyone who'd like to go to it. I think that's the way it should be. If it weren't for the SSPX, however, I think many dioceses wouldn't have a Latin Mass at all, and that's just not right.

3 posted on 08/29/2005 6:03:54 AM PDT by old and tired
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: old and tired

And then you have Los Angeles where the high and mighty Cardinal Mahoney attacks it and will not allow it to my knowledge. I hope for a reconciliation, because it will strengthen the Church by bringing in many good strong priests, seminarians, and lay people. We can only hope and pray the SSPX accept what Benedict will offer. Hopefully Benedict will offer a universal indult.


4 posted on 08/29/2005 6:08:02 AM PDT by StAthanasiustheGreat (Vocatus Atque Non Vocatus Deus Aderit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: old and tired
If Rome lifts the excommunications, surely Williamson can repudiate his own particular brand of nasty nonsense. Prediction: Even if there IS a reconciliation (and I hope and pray there is), Williamson will refuse and, having been an Anglican before, will become head of the "Continuing Econian Church."

What else could someone do who would write something like this:

SSPX's Williamson on the "Pious Bavarian's" "Intellectual Pride"

Can Cardinal Ratzinger Be Trusted?

February 9, 1999

Dear Friends and Benefactors,

Can Cardinal Ratzinger be trusted? Conservative Catholics tend to think so. "Nice" Traditional Catholics wish to think so. "Nasty" Traditionalists think not. Who is right?

The question arose in agonising form in 1988 when Archbishop Lefebvre was negotiating, principally with the Cardinal, to obtain bishops for Catholic Tradition. Conservatives blamed him then (and still do) for not, finally, trusting Rome. Ten years later Conservatives found themselves facing the same question when the Cardinal appealed to them to trust Rome in the matter of the liturgy. Do they now follow through on their own policy of trust?

The occasion was the Conservative Catholics' gathering in Rome last October to celebrate the 10th anniversary of the Pope's Motu Proprio "Ecclesia Dei" of July 1988, condemning Archbishop Lefebvre but apparently favouring the pre-Vatican II liturgy. Here is a fair summary of the speech, quoted in full in the December issue of "Inside the Vatican", in which the Cardinal appealed for the Conservatives' trust:

-Despite the positive fruits of "Ecclesia Dei", said the Cardinal, there is amongst Conciliar Catholics much distrust of you Conservative (Ecclesia Dei) Catholics, because of your attachment to the old liturgy. This need not be, if only both sides will abide by the letter (as opposed to the so-called "spirit") of the Second Vatican Council.

- For on the one hand, the Cardinal went on, the text of the Council's Constitution on the liturgy does not promote the wild excesses of the so-called "creative" liturgists who, by pushing the text too far in one direction only, have in the name of community worship virtually emptied out the priesthood, sacrifice, all mystery and sacredness. Quite to the contrary that text never forbade the Tridentine Mass, it does not mention Mass facing the people, it encourages Latin. In fact when a celebration of the New Mass is faithful to Pope Paul VI's Missal, it is closer to the Old Mass than it is to any of the wild new liturgies.

-On the other hand the same text, following the admirable Liturgical Movement which led up to the Council's Constitution, does call for more active participation of the people in the liturgy, as opposed to the excessively private and individual following of Mass which had become the norm for Mass-goers before the Council.

-Therefore, concluded the Cardinal, a new Liturgical Movement to restore a truly liturgical unity-in-diversity of Conciliarists and Conservatives is not something that you Conservatives must distrust. Quote: "Dear friends, I would like to encourage you not to lose patience - to keep trusting..."

Thus Cardinal Ratzinger seems to be suggesting that Rome is pondering another liturgical reform which would give us a Mass neither wildly new nor completely old, and he seems to be asking lovers of the old liturgy to wait patiently for this reform of the reform, and to trust Rome meanwhile. Now the Cardinal seems to be a "nice" man, and few Cardinals in Rome say so many favourable things about the old liturgy as he does. Yet can Rome, even as represented by him, be trusted in the matter of the liturgy?

Alas, the answer must be no. Why?

Because while the Cardinal's heart may be open to the Tridentine Mass, his mind is blocked, and in a man of his calibre, the mind rules the heart. His sympathy with the old Mass is relatively superficial, his opposition to it is profound. All this is clear to see in the autobiographical memoirs for the first 50 years of his life, 1927-1957, which he published two years ago in a little book called "Milestones", available in the USA from Ignatius Press, San Francisco. The matter is of interest to all Catholics, because it shows how crippled is even the seeming best of today's Romans when it comes to defending the Faith. Despite their apparent benevolence they cannot defend what they no longer understand.

Josef Ratzinger was born of humble but devout parents in 1927 in a deeply Catholic part of the world, South Germany, close to the Austrian frontier. Youngest of three children in a tranquil home, he grew up with a natural love of God, Church, family and homeland which never left him. He describes how he was also indelibly marked in childhood by the Traditional (then normal) Catholic liturgy, because the great Church ceremonies of the different seasons of the year impressed deep in his soul the sense of the Catholic mysteries.

Here is why the Cardinal has so little sympathy for the so-called "spirit of Vatican II" in the name of which the Church's liturgy has been turned into a wasteland. Towards the end of "Milestones" are a few pages severely condemning the Novus Ordo Missal of 1969 as a "self-made", or artificial, liturgy, pages which Conservative Catholics love to quote and which many a Traditional Catholic could not have written better. No wonder the Cardinal seemed to receive Conservatives kindly in Rome last October! No wonder he might tempt Traditionalists out of their Traditional fortress!

Then where is the Cardinal's problem? Back to "Milestones". After his happy childhood overshadowed by the rise of Nazism and the wartime years marked by its collapse, in 1945 he entered near Munich the re-constituted Major Seminary to begin his studies for the priesthood, where he says (p.42), "We wanted not only to do theology in the narrower sense, but to listen to the voices of man today" - here for the Catholic reader a red light begins to wink! For nobody may mind any brave young man wishing to grapple with horrors which have just nearly engulfed his world - but what Catholic can conceive of his Church's eternal theology as being somehow too narrow to embrace modem man?

So the young Ratzinger plunges with enthusiasm into the study of modern philosophers. “By contrast, I had difficulties in penetrating the thought of Thomas Aquinas, whose crystal-clear logic seemed to me too closed in on itself, too impersonal and ready-made". For, says Ratzinger, he and his fellow-seminarians were presented with "a rigid neo-scholastic thomism that was simply too far afield from my own questions... We, being young, were questioners above all" (p.44).

Now it is all very well pleading youth, but since when was the point of questions anything other than to find answers? Is searching better than finding? That is the modem mentality. Either Ratzinger's teachers did not appreciate the Catholic truth of St. Thomas, or Ratzinger did not appreciate his teachers, whichever it be or both, this young philosophy student is missing out on truth. His brilliant mind is pursuing something else - its own satisfaction upon its own (modern) terms? What will he do when he comes to theology? The crucial Chapter VI tells.

To begin theological studies in 1947, he asks to go not to the diocesan seminary, but instead to the Munich University Theological Faculty "to become more fully familiar with the intellectual debates of our time" (p.47), so as to become later a professional theologian. But, again, are modern (university) questions really more valuable than the Church's (seminary) answers? Does this student have a sense of truth? The star teacher at the Faculty, whose "liberalism restricted by dogma" deeply appealed by its modern-ancient balance to the young Ratzinger (p.52), was a certain Professor Maier, whose "liberal-historical method" in approaching Scripture "opened up dimensions of the text that were no longer perceived by the all-too-predetermined dogmatic reading" (p.52)! In other words, history's relativising had more to give to our young theologian than dogma's absolutes? His mind is at sea!

For he is thinking with the mind not of the Catholic Church but of these humanly brilliant German thinkers, about whom he says, "German arrogance perhaps also contributed a little to our belief that we knew what was what better than `those down there' (i.e. in Rome)" (p.58). Ratzinger and his teachers would submit to a decision of Rome, but basically they felt themselves superior. Chapter VI of "Milestones" abounds in quotations to illustrate the downfall of our pious young Bavarian - intellectual pride.

The pious heart is still there, but it is completely out-weighed and out-gunned for Ratzinger by the dazzling intellectualism of Germany's top modernists, all of whom he will meet and befriend when, after being ordained priest in 1951, he embarks in 1952 upon the academic career he has hoped for. For the next 25 years he is professing theology in Germany in one prestigious seminary or university after another. Let us take a look at how his mind is now working as he sets out to teach (p. 108, 109).

In 1953, to obtain his "Habilitation", or final qualification to profess theology, he describes how he prepared a thesis on the great medieval Doctor, St. Bonaventure. Here is Ratzinger's argument, in which he says he still believes (comments in brackets):

The word "revelation" can mean either the act of revealing or the content revealed [true]. Whereas we usually use the word to mean the content revealed [true], Bonaventure uses it to mean the act of revealing [maybe]. Therefore "revelation" means the act of revealing ["Therefore"? Who made Bonaventure dictator of meanings?]. But there is no act of revealing without someone to reveal to [true, but wait for it ...] . Therefore Church Revelation [act or content??] always includes as an essential element the Church being revealed to. Therefore Revelation, Scripture and Tradition [now Ratzinger has definitely slidden back from act to content!] are all incomplete without the Church or persons being revealed to. Therefore whatever of religion comes to us from God must be no ready-made and finalized product or content such as Catholicism was always supposed to be, but it must incorporate the in-put of us modern men. In brief, in the old days God told men what was in the Catholic religion, but that religion fell dead. Now man tells God what is in the Catholic religion, and religion is again living!

From 1953 to 1988 to 1998 we can see that Cardinal Ratzinger's thinking has not changed. In 1988, in the name of "living Tradition", he did his honest best to stop Archbishop Lefebvre from going into "schism" with his "dead Tradition". In 1998 he did his honest best to keep Conservative Catholics loyal to Rome by trust in a new liturgical reform movement which will of course actively involve living modern man, because without that living in-put the liturgy, like Revelation and Tradition, will be dead. But the excessively private Tridentine Mass is too fixed and ready-made to allow for any such in-put. Therefore the Cardinal's Rome can be trusted not to preserve the Tridentine Mass.

Yet all the while the Cardinal in his heart genuinely appreciates the incomparable sacredness and mystery of the old liturgy (pp. 18-20, 146-149). Alas, that liturgy never took a hold of his head, so it cannot govern his thinking or action. Unless or until he changes his thinking, i.e. doctrine, the Tridentine Mass is bound to remain for him a sentimental side-line. In other words, prior to the Council Josef Ratzinger was a ring-leader of Fiftiesists or Bing Crosby Catholics. Maybe his heart was "dreaming of a white Christmas", but his head was ready filled with the poison of man-centered Vatican II.

Your Eminence, if ideas did not matter, you might be a good Catholic, but since the virtue of faith is seated in the mind and not in the heart, then so long as your mind swings between Tradition and modernity you are, despite yourself, in your position as Guardian of the Faith, a terrible enemy of the Catholic Church.

We might wish to trust you, but we cannot.

5 posted on 08/29/2005 6:10:05 AM PDT by TaxachusettsMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: NYer

**With Benedict now pope, some have speculated that there might be a new push to bring the society back under Rome's wing.**

Do you think this will really happen?


6 posted on 08/29/2005 7:17:17 AM PDT by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TaxachusettsMan; StAthanasiustheGreat; Salvation; old and tired; sandyeggo; All
Here's the first image file. Will post more as they arrive.


Swiss Bishop Bernard Fellay, the successor of the late ultra-traditionalist rebel French Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, smiles as he arrives at his residence in Albano, south of Rome, after a meeting with Pope Benedict XVI in his summer residence of Castelgandolfo August 29, 2005. Pope Benedict and the head of a breakaway ultra-traditionalist Catholic group agreed at an unprecedented meeting held on Monday to work together to end a 17-year schism in the Roman Catholic Church. The Pope held closed-door talks with Fellay, head of the renegade Society of St. Pius X, which favours old-style Latin Masses and opposes the modernisation of Catholicism by the 1962-65 Second Vatican Council. REUTERS/Alessandro Bianchi

7 posted on 08/29/2005 7:53:09 AM PDT by NYer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: NYer

That looks like Fr. Schmidberger to me, rather than Bishop Fellay. I had thought Fr. Schmidberger would not be attending the meeting, but if he did that's probably a good sign for reconciliation, as I have always understood him to be in favor of it.

The wording of the press release from Dr. Navarro-Valls was also interesting, as it sounded more positive than it might.

I think that ultimately that it is likely the SSPX will have to come back into regular status with Rome without Bp Williamson, who seems determined to continue in exile forever, much like the Russian Old Believers, who have been out of the Moscow Patriarchate fold for 300 or so years, or for that matter certain segments of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia (ROCOR), who are resisting the reconciliation of ROCOR with Moscow that is now starting to take place. Interestingly enough, the canonical Orthodox now seem to be developing something of an admiration for the Old Believers' faith and fidelity, despite in some cases bloody persecutions. A very interesting literary treatment of this is in Solzhenitsyn's "August 1916."

Oremus--and hard.


8 posted on 08/29/2005 8:53:06 AM PDT by Theophane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Theophane
You're right, it does look like Fr. Schmidberger.

Here's a photo of Bishop Fellay.


9 posted on 08/29/2005 9:31:30 AM PDT by NYer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Theophane
I think that ultimately that it is likely the SSPX will have to come back into regular status with Rome without Bp Williamson, who seems determined to continue in exile forever

DING!

You win!

I think there are a lot of die hards, that wave the SSPX banner, but are actually sedes. Williamson is probably among them. I would like to see more Tridentine Rite Masses, and I think there would have been a quicker resolution of the problems of the SSPX if Fellay had plowed on without Williamson. I think not requiring a repudiation of previous errors can be ignored, if the SSPX leadership can assent to the way things are now. The issue of universal Indult has not been settled, but it soon may be.
10 posted on 08/29/2005 9:31:40 AM PDT by Dominick ("Freedom consists not in doing what we like, but in having the right to do what we ought." - JP II)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Dominick

I think there are a lot of die hards, that wave the SSPX banner, but are actually sedes. Williamson is probably among them.

On what do you base this? Williamson is the least sede of anyone in the SSPX. He's the one that cleaned out Ridgefield of the Sedes that eventually formed the SSPV. Williamson also will not confirm any children that do not profess loyalty to the Pope.

I would like to see more Tridentine Rite Masses, and I think there would have been a quicker resolution of the problems of the SSPX if Fellay had plowed on without Williamson.

Fellay and Williamson are on the same page. Williamson plays "bad cop" and Fellay plays "good cop". Williamson's letter put the meeting into the public eye and gave the Vatican a "heads up" on what the SSPX expectations were. In other words "don't expect us to do anything before you change the atmosphere."

I think not requiring a repudiation of previous errors can be ignored, if the SSPX leadership can assent to the way things are now. The issue of universal Indult has not been settled, but it soon may be.

The SSPX wants a repudiation of the errors of post Vatican II era. As Williamson says, the documents must be clarified "the language has to be brought up onto the high ground." LeFebvre wanted no different and the SSPX wants no different now. The unwillingness of the last pontificate to properly address these concerns is what slowed down attempts at regularization.

11 posted on 08/29/2005 9:49:44 AM PDT by Gerard.P (The lips of liberals drip with honey while their hands drip with blood--Bishop Williamson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Dominick; Theophane; TaxachusettsMan; StAthanasiustheGreat; Salvation; old and tired; sandyeggo; ...
UPDATE - from the Catholic News Service (note the subtle difference in its report)

* * * * *

Castel Gandolfo, Aug. 29 (CWNews.com) - Pope Benedict XVI (bio - news) met on Monday with Bishop Bernard Fellay, the head of the Society of St. Pius X, for talks aimed toward reconciliation between the Holy See and the traditionalist group.

Joaquin Navarro-Valls, the director of the Vatican press office, reported that the meeting had been held "in a climate of love for the Church and a desire to arrive at perfect communion." He said that the Pope and Bishop Fellay were hoping to make gradual progress in overcoming differences, so that a full agreement could be reached "in a reasonable time."

The Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), founded by the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, broke from the Vatican in 1988, when the French prelate ordained four new bishops in defiance of a direct order from Rome. Pope John Paul II (bio - news) responded by announcing that the traditionalist group had committed a "schismatic act," incurring the penalty of excommunication for Archbishop Lefebvre and the bishops (including Bishop Fellay) he had ordained. But the Vatican has repeatedly sought means of restoring normal ties with the traditionalist group. [For a short summary of the talks between Rome and the SSPX over the past 17 years, see today's separate CWN headline story.] Today's meeting was scheduled in response to a request from Bishop Fellay, Navarro-Valls reported. The Pope met with the traditionalist leader at Castel Gandolfo, the papal summer residence. Also present was Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos (bio - news), the president of the pontifical commission Ecclesia Dei, which is charged with the task of seeking reconciliation with traditionalist Catholics.

In a July interview, Bishop Fellay said that he wanted to meet with Pope Benedict, and ask him to give permission for all Catholic priests throughout the world to use the Tridentine rite in celebrating Mass. He said that he would also ask the Pontiff to rescind the decrees of excommunication for himself and the other bishops consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre in 1988.

Informed Vatican officials speculate that Pope Benedict may be prepared to grant the traditionalist request for a "universal indult" allowing the use of the Tridentine rite.

* * * * *

According to the Papabile blogspot (extensive coverage on this topic)

Le Figaro reports that a reform for the Pian Rite could emanate from the Synod in October. This has been whispered in the past week or two by more than a few people.

The critical entry from Le Figaro.

Comment Benoît XVI veut ramener les lefebvristes dans l'Eglise: "Selon certaines sources ecclésiastiques proches du dossier, on peut raisonnablement s'attendre à un élargissement de l'autorisation faite aux prêtres de célébrer selon le rite tridentin. Cette autorisation pourrait être annoncée autour du prochain synode sur l'Eucharistie qui se déroulera au mois d'octobre au Vatican. "

12 posted on 08/29/2005 9:49:55 AM PDT by NYer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Le Figaro as a reliable source?

Other headlines:
CIA AGENT ALLEGEDLY MET BIN LADEN IN JULY (1 November 2001)
Coalition Troops Have Committed Hitler’s Mistake (28 Mar 2003)
Serbs of Kosovo: the suitcase or the coffin (16 April 2004)

The last was particularly offensive as it repeated a threat made by Muslims in 1961 to Christian French people living in Algeria.

I would love a better source.
13 posted on 08/29/2005 10:02:04 AM PDT by Dominick ("Freedom consists not in doing what we like, but in having the right to do what we ought." - JP II)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Claud
Pope John Paul II (bio - news) responded by announcing that the traditionalist group had committed a "schismatic act," incurring the penalty of excommunication for Archbishop Lefebvre and the bishops (including Bishop Fellay) he had ordained.

Ugh! And this is from the Catholic News Service...

14 posted on 08/29/2005 10:04:03 AM PDT by ELS (Vivat Benedictus XVI!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Dominick
This blogger is all over the story ....

Papabilie

15 posted on 08/29/2005 10:07:54 AM PDT by NYer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: NYer
That would solve two problems, some Bishops refusing to allow an Indult under any circumstances, and the other is the difference between a "tridentine" Mass and the actual Tridentine Mass.

I wonder if incardination would be handled from the Bishop of the new Rite. Would this permit all Latin-Rite Catholics born before 1964 to claim the new Pian rite, or any Catholic? Would one have to show some affiliation to the SSPX?

As astounding as some may find it, I would prefer to attend the Pian Rite Mass.
16 posted on 08/29/2005 10:24:49 AM PDT by Dominick ("Freedom consists not in doing what we like, but in having the right to do what we ought." - JP II)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Theophane

I think you are right about Williamson, the more I read about him the less inclined I am to believe that he will ever reconcile.

Bishop Fellay on the other hand seems inclined towards this, based on his excellent interview in Latin Mass Magazine.

I do expect there to be a split within the SSPX if an accord in reached, what it will look like I don't know.

I wonder if Bishop Fellay woul


17 posted on 08/29/2005 11:06:12 AM PDT by Cheverus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Theophane

Oops, "November 1916".

Incidentally, I don't think that Bp Williamson is a sede. I have always had a sneaking liking for him, at least ever since he (conditionally) confirmed me in 1995 or so, when I was doing the SSPX thing. At that Mass he preached a stem-winding homily against ladies wearing shorts or pants, among other things, as I recall. I went home and told Her Honor, who was at the time (this was late May, I believe, and so already quite hot) decked out in shorts preparing to fly to New Orleans for court the next day. Her response was, as one might expect, one of her classics.


18 posted on 08/29/2005 11:28:01 AM PDT by Theophane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: old and tired
I am praying for a good outcome to this meeting. Other than banning the NO, I wonder what our SSPX friends on the board would like to see as the outcome of this meeting.

I'm not SSPX, but I would like to see them recognised as a legitimate society within the Roman Catholic Church. I am praying for a good outcome as well, I suppose that there are those for whom no form of reconciliation would ever be good enough. That's too bad for them but we should pray for their souls as well.

We are blessed with a wise Pope, I am sure that he will do the right thing.

19 posted on 08/29/2005 11:39:21 AM PDT by TradicalRC (In Vino Veritas : Folie a Deaux, Menage a Trois Red, 2003)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: TradicalRC

Quoting Williamson: "Your Eminence, if ideas did not matter, you might be a good Catholic, but since the virtue of faith is seated in the mind and not in the heart, then so long as your mind swings between Tradition and modernity you are, despite yourself, in your position as Guardian of the Faith, a terrible enemy of the Catholic Church."

I think Williamson will not accept any reconciliation sadly. Our only hope would be that those that choose to remain outside be small.


20 posted on 08/29/2005 12:13:52 PM PDT by StAthanasiustheGreat (Vocatus Atque Non Vocatus Deus Aderit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: StAthanasiustheGreat

The interesting part is that Williamson is correct.


21 posted on 08/29/2005 12:33:03 PM PDT by Gerard.P (The lips of liberals drip with honey while their hands drip with blood--Bishop Williamson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: StAthanasiustheGreat

Williamson's entire explanation of then Cardinal Ratzinger's mindset based on "Milestone" and in the new Pope's own words is interesting and worth reading.

"Yet can Rome, even as represented by him, be trusted in the matter of the liturgy?

Alas, the answer must be no. Why?

Because while the Cardinal's heart may be open to the Tridentine Mass, his mind is blocked, and in a man of his calibre, the mind rules the heart. His sympathy with the old Mass is relatively superficial, his opposition to it is profound. All this is clear to see in the autobiographical memoirs for the first 50 years of his life, 1927-1957, which he published two years ago in a little book called "Milestones", available in the USA from Ignatius Press, San Francisco. The matter is of interest to all Catholics, because it shows how crippled is even the seeming best of today's Romans when it comes to defending the Faith. Despite their apparent benevolence they cannot defend what they no longer understand.

Josef Ratzinger was born of humble but devout parents in 1927 in a deeply Catholic part of the world, South Germany, close to the Austrian frontier. Youngest of three children in a tranquil home, he grew up with a natural love of God, Church, family and homeland which never left him. He describes how he was also indelibly marked in childhood by the Traditional (then normal) Catholic liturgy, because the great Church ceremonies of the different seasons of the year impressed deep in his soul the sense of the Catholic mysteries.

Here is why the Cardinal has so little sympathy for the so-called "spirit of Vatican II" in the name of which the Church's liturgy has been turned into a wasteland. Towards the end of "Milestones" are a few pages severely condemning the Novus Ordo Missal of 1969 as a "self-made", or artificial, liturgy, pages which Conservative Catholics love to quote and which many a Traditional Catholic could not have written better. No wonder the Cardinal seemed to receive Conservatives kindly in Rome last October! No wonder he might tempt Traditionalists out of their Traditional fortress!

Then where is the Cardinal's problem? Back to "Milestones". After his happy childhood overshadowed by the rise of Nazism and the wartime years marked by its collapse, in 1945 he entered near Munich the re-constituted Major Seminary to begin his studies for the priesthood, where he says (p.42), "We wanted not only to do theology in the narrower sense, but to listen to the voices of man today" - here for the Catholic reader a red light begins to wink! For nobody may mind any brave young man wishing to grapple with horrors which have just nearly engulfed his world - but what Catholic can conceive of his Church's eternal theology as being somehow too narrow to embrace modem man?

So the young Ratzinger plunges with enthusiasm into the study of modern philosophers. “By contrast, I had difficulties in penetrating the thought of Thomas Aquinas, whose crystal-clear logic seemed to me too closed in on itself, too impersonal and ready-made". For, says Ratzinger, he and his fellow-seminarians were presented with "a rigid neo-scholastic thomism that was simply too far afield from my own questions... We, being young, were questioners above all" (p.44).

Now it is all very well pleading youth, but since when was the point of questions anything other than to find answers? Is searching better than finding? That is the modem mentality. Either Ratzinger's teachers did not appreciate the Catholic truth of St. Thomas, or Ratzinger did not appreciate his teachers, whichever it be or both, this young philosophy student is missing out on truth. His brilliant mind is pursuing something else - its own satisfaction upon its own (modern) terms? What will he do when he comes to theology? The crucial Chapter VI tells.

To begin theological studies in 1947, he asks to go not to the diocesan seminary, but instead to the Munich University Theological Faculty "to become more fully familiar with the intellectual debates of our time" (p.47), so as to become later a professional theologian. But, again, are modern (university) questions really more valuable than the Church's (seminary) answers? Does this student have a sense of truth? The star teacher at the Faculty, whose "liberalism restricted by dogma" deeply appealed by its modern-ancient balance to the young Ratzinger (p.52), was a certain Professor Maier, whose "liberal-historical method" in approaching Scripture "opened up dimensions of the text that were no longer perceived by the all-too-predetermined dogmatic reading" (p.52)! In other words, history's relativising had more to give to our young theologian than dogma's absolutes? His mind is at sea!

For he is thinking with the mind not of the Catholic Church but of these humanly brilliant German thinkers, about whom he says, "German arrogance perhaps also contributed a little to our belief that we knew what was what better than `those down there' (i.e. in Rome)" (p.58). Ratzinger and his teachers would submit to a decision of Rome, but basically they felt themselves superior. Chapter VI of "Milestones" abounds in quotations to illustrate the downfall of our pious young Bavarian - intellectual pride.

The pious heart is still there, but it is completely out-weighed and out-gunned for Ratzinger by the dazzling intellectualism of Germany's top modernists, all of whom he will meet and befriend when, after being ordained priest in 1951, he embarks in 1952 upon the academic career he has hoped for. For the next 25 years he is professing theology in Germany in one prestigious seminary or university after another. Let us take a look at how his mind is now working as he sets out to teach (p. 108, 109).

In 1953, to obtain his "Habilitation", or final qualification to profess theology, he describes how he prepared a thesis on the great medieval Doctor, St. Bonaventure. Here is Ratzinger's argument, in which he says he still believes (comments in brackets):

The word "revelation" can mean either the act of revealing or the content revealed [true]. Whereas we usually use the word to mean the content revealed [true], Bonaventure uses it to mean the act of revealing [maybe]. Therefore "revelation" means the act of revealing ["Therefore"? Who made Bonaventure dictator of meanings?]. But there is no act of revealing without someone to reveal to [true, but wait for it ...] . Therefore Church Revelation [act or content??] always includes as an essential element the Church being revealed to. Therefore Revelation, Scripture and Tradition [now Ratzinger has definitely slidden back from act to content!] are all incomplete without the Church or persons being revealed to. Therefore whatever of religion comes to us from God must be no ready-made and finalized product or content such as Catholicism was always supposed to be, but it must incorporate the in-put of us modern men. In brief, in the old days God told men what was in the Catholic religion, but that religion fell dead. Now man tells God what is in the Catholic religion, and religion is again living!

From 1953 to 1988 to 1998 we can see that Cardinal Ratzinger's thinking has not changed. In 1988, in the name of "living Tradition", he did his honest best to stop Archbishop Lefebvre from going into "schism" with his "dead Tradition". In 1998 he did his honest best to keep Conservative Catholics loyal to Rome by trust in a new liturgical reform movement which will of course actively involve living modern man, because without that living in-put the liturgy, like Revelation and Tradition, will be dead. But the excessively private Tridentine Mass is too fixed and ready-made to allow for any such in-put. Therefore the Cardinal's Rome can be trusted not to preserve the Tridentine Mass.

Yet all the while the Cardinal in his heart genuinely appreciates the incomparable sacredness and mystery of the old liturgy (pp. 18-20, 146-149). Alas, that liturgy never took a hold of his head, so it cannot govern his thinking or action. Unless or until he changes his thinking, i.e. doctrine, the Tridentine Mass is bound to remain for him a sentimental side-line. In other words, prior to the Council Josef Ratzinger was a ring-leader of Fiftiesists or Bing Crosby Catholics. Maybe his heart was "dreaming of a white Christmas", but his head was ready filled with the poison of man-centered Vatican II.

Your Eminence, if ideas did not matter, you might be a good Catholic, but since the virtue of faith is seated in the mind and not in the heart, then so long as your mind swings between Tradition and modernity you are, despite yourself, in your position as Guardian of the Faith, a terrible enemy of the Catholic Church.

We might wish to trust you, but we cannot."


22 posted on 08/29/2005 12:49:30 PM PDT by Gerard.P (The lips of liberals drip with honey while their hands drip with blood--Bishop Williamson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Gerard.P

Having been his own Pope for so long, Dick "Pants-Suits" Williamson isn't about to go back to being a Bishop.

Having been an Anglican most of his life, he also isn't about to become Roman Catholic.


23 posted on 08/29/2005 1:21:34 PM PDT by TaxachusettsMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: TaxachusettsMan

Having been his own Pope for so long, Dick "Pants-Suits" Williamson isn't about to go back to being a Bishop.

Here we have a personal attack on the man instead of a thoughtful analysis of his position.

Having been an Anglican most of his life, he also isn't about to become Roman Catholic.

Oh. Just a repeat of the personal attack. Nothing here of substance (yawn..)

24 posted on 08/29/2005 1:25:41 PM PDT by Gerard.P (The lips of liberals drip with honey while their hands drip with blood--Bishop Williamson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: GSWarrior

25 posted on 08/29/2005 1:27:14 PM PDT by GSWarrior
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: NYer

PRESS RELEASE ABOUT BISHOP FELLAY'S
MEETING WITH POPE BENEDICT XVI

Albano Laziale
August 29, 2005

Today, Bishop Bernard Fellay, Superior General of the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X met with the Holy Father Benedict XVI at his residence of Castelgandolfo. At the conclusion of the audience, he [Bishop Fellay] made the following declaration:

The meeting lasted about thirty-five minutes; it took place in an atmosphere of calm.

The audiences was an opportunity for the Society to manifest that it has always been attached —and always will be —to the Holy See, Eternal Rome.

We broached the serious difficulties, already known, in a spirit of great love for the Church.

We reached a consensus as to proceeding by stages in the resolution of problems.

The Society of Saint Pius X prays that the Holy Father might find the strength to put an end to the crisis in the Church by "restoring all things in Christ."

+ Bernard Fellay
Superior General


26 posted on 08/29/2005 1:30:31 PM PDT by TaxachusettsMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TaxachusettsMan

Dear TaxachusettsMan,

"We reached a consensus as to proceeding by stages in the resolution of problems."

Wow, I wish he would use language that would be more vague, and open to a greater number and variety of interpretations.

LOL.


sitetest


27 posted on 08/29/2005 1:33:43 PM PDT by sitetest (If Roe is not overturned, no unborn child will ever be protected in law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: TaxachusettsMan
The meeting lasted about thirty-five minutes; it took place in an atmosphere of calm.

That's rather brief, I'd say, considering the subject under discussion. Hardly more than enough time to enquire about the weather in Econe and the traffic noise in Rome.

The Society of Saint Pius X prays that the Holy Father might find the strength to put an end to the crisis in the Church by "restoring all things in Christ."

Translation: "The onus is entirely on Benedict XVI. We're right where we need to be and don't need to move one iota to solve this problem."

All in all, not a good sign.

28 posted on 08/29/2005 1:38:57 PM PDT by marshmallow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

Comment #29 Removed by Moderator

To: TaxachusettsMan

I have an idea:

Post something without the attacks. You have caused too many flame wars in the past.


30 posted on 08/29/2005 1:59:13 PM PDT by CouncilofTrent (Quo Primum...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: CouncilofTrent

Oh, like your own good self?

Just went back and had a look at YOUR postings.

I have an idea:

Take care of yourself and you'll be busy 48 hours a day.

And please do NOT post to me again.


31 posted on 08/29/2005 2:19:24 PM PDT by TaxachusettsMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: sitetest
Wow, I wish he would use language that would be more vague, and open to a greater number and variety of interpretations.

I thought that statement was a masterpiece of non-communication, myself. The only thing they left out was, "Bless your heart!"

32 posted on 08/29/2005 3:57:20 PM PDT by Tax-chick (Oklahoma is the cultural center of the universe ... take me back to Tulsa!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: TaxachusettsMan; Theophane; sitetest

I'm very pleased with Bishop Fellay's statement. I have some experience of Bishop Williamson and expect him to continue to lead a remnant that will eventually elect him as Pope if not some sort of placeholder. The longer the SSPX stays away the longer they become something other than Roman Catholic and the more difficult it becomes for the Roman Catholic Church to come back to her roots and her senses in every diocese and parish. We have need of each other.


33 posted on 08/29/2005 4:25:36 PM PDT by Siobhan (Her Most Holy Name is Mary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: old and tired

I'm curious, where in the Philly area is there a Latin Mass? In CC?


34 posted on 08/29/2005 4:26:10 PM PDT by pa mom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: StAthanasiustheGreat
I hope for a reconciliation, because it will strengthen the Church by bringing in many good strong priests, seminarians, and lay people. We can only hope and pray the SSPX accept what Benedict will offer. Hopefully Benedict will offer a universal indult.

Amen to that. Amen.

35 posted on 08/29/2005 4:31:48 PM PDT by mjtobias (There is nothing new under the sun.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Marcellinus
"the virtue of faith is seated in the mind and not in the heart"

Someone please explain this statement for me--in clarity of terms.

No explantion needed. Look to the author - Williamson - a former Anglican. I'm guessing but it seems perfectly reasonable to conclude that he was drawn to the SSPX as a result of their schism with the intent of fostering it. I'm not an authority on the SSPX but, if I understand correctly, Bishop Fellay is the one who pulls the shots. If that is so, then you need not worry any more about Williamson's statement. Take a look at how he concludes his letter about (then) Cardinal Ratzinger.

We might wish to trust you, but we cannot.

No doubt if the Holy Father and Fellay are able to bridge the gap, then Williamson will set off on his own.

36 posted on 08/29/2005 4:34:09 PM PDT by NYer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Siobhan

Dear Siobhan,

"I'm very pleased with Bishop Fellay's statement."

Well, I won't say that I was displeased with it.

I just don't know that it means anything that I hope it would mean.

I'd love to see the SSPX back in the Catholic Church. I hope this means that that will come about. However, I note that the meeting was all of 35 minutes. To my mind, that means that a very simple solution was discussed and agreed to, or really, only the most general and vague framework was discussed.

Has the Vatican released their view of the conversation? I'm a little more adept at reading vaticanese (which means, really, that I'm entirely not adept at reading sspxese).


sitetest


37 posted on 08/29/2005 4:36:47 PM PDT by sitetest (If Roe is not overturned, no unborn child will ever be protected in law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick; NYer; sitetest

Special report that has not been posted:

The Forum: Vatican-traditionalist talks have checkered history


special to CWNews.com

Rome, Aug. 29 (CWNews.com) - Pope Benedict XVI (bio - news) meets today, August 29, with Bishop Bernard Fellay, the superior general of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX). The meeting is the latest step in a long, contentious relationship between the Holy See and the traditionalist group, which broke with Rome in 1988.

The disagreements between the Vatican and the SSPX can be traced back to the Second Vatican Council (1962- 1965). Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, the founder of the Society, was sharply critical of Vatican II statements on ecumenism and religious liberty, and of the liturgical reforms that followed the Council.

In 1970, the French-born prelate founded the Society of St. Pius X, a priestly fraternity dedicated to the exclusive use of the Tridentine rite, which had been the universal form of the Latin Mass from the Council of Trent in the 16th centurty through Vatican II. The archbishop had ecclesiastical approval for establishing the SSPX. But then he took a further step without Vatican approval, founding his own seminary at Econe, Switzerland, to train priests for the Society. After a series of warnings from Rome, in 1976 he was suspended a divinis-- that is, stripped of his permission to minister the sacraments. Archbishop Lefebvre continued to lead the SSPX in defiance of that suspension.

In 1984, in an effort to reach out to traditionalists, Pope John Paul II (bio - news) authorized bishops to allow the celebration of Mass according to the Tridentine rite, and encouraged diocesan bishops to make a "wide and generous" use of this permission. Relations between Rome and Econe were set back by Archbishop Lefebvre's searing criticism of the inter-religious encounter that the John Paul II organized at Assisi in 1986. But hopes for a reconciliation soard in 1988 when Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, then the prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, negotiated a statement in which Archbishop Lefebvre promised fidelity to the Holy See and accepted the teachings of Vatican II and the validity of the Novus Ordo Mass.

When he agreed to that statement in May 1988, Archbishop Lefebvre appeared close to ending his dispute with Rome. But the traditionalist leader then announced that he was committed to ordaining a bishop to succeed him, from the ranks of the SSPX. Pope John Paul II personally wrote to Lefebvre, forbidding the step and warning that the unauthorized ordination of bishops would be a schismatic act. Nevertheless Archbishop Lefebvre remained defiant, consecrating 4 SSPX members (including Bishop Fellay) as bishops on June 30, 1988.

On July 2, 1988, Pope John Paul issue the motu proprio Ecclesia Dei, declaring the SSPX leader guilty of schism and thus excommunicated, along with the bishops he had ordained. At the same time, Ecclesia Dei also established a commission to seek ways of satisfying the legitimate desires of Catholics who seek to preserve the Latin Mass. For the next 12 years there were sporadic exchanges between the Ecclesia Dei commission and the SSPX, but no concrete steps toward reconciliation. The next major movement came with the Jubilee Year 2000. In December 1999, Bishop Fellay met briefly with Pope John Paul. Later in the year, some 5,000 pilgrims of the SSPX visited Rome, and obtained permission to celebration the Tridentine Mass in the basilica of St. John Lateran. In a memorable display, the SSPX pilgrims walked in procession down the Via de la Conciliazione toward St. Peter's basilica, with Bishop Fellay declaring: "If the Pope calls me, I will go-- or rather I will run-- in filial obedience to the head of the Church."

Also in the year 2000, Pope John Paul designated Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos (bio - news), the prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy to head the Ecclesia Dei commission, and asked the Colombian prelate to make every possible effort to achieve a reconciliation with the SSPX.

Bishop Fellay, in negotiations with Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos, set two conditions. To allay the fears of traditionalists, he said, the Vatican should retract the decrees of excommunication on the SSPX leaders, and announce that all priests, throughout the world, have the right to use the traditional ritual for the Mass. That second demand was regarded as excessive by some Vatican officials, and negotiations stalled.

In January 2002 there were fresh rays of hope, as the Vatican successfully achieved a reconciliation with another traditionalist group, the Society of St. Jean Vianney in Campos, Brazil. For a brief time, rumors flew around Rome that a separate agreement with the SSPX would soon be reached. The same rumors arose again in May 2003, when Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos himself celebrated the Tridentine Mass in the basilica of St. Mary Major. Bishop Fellay acknowledged that the event was "an important gesture on Rome's part." But no agreement was forthcoming.

The positions of the two sides were hardened again in February 2004, when SSPX members held a press conference outside St. Peter's Square, condemning ecumenism and urging the world's cardinals to join in that condemnation. But in 2004, when the Congregation for Divine Worship issued its instruction Redepemtionis Sacramentum, calling for an end to various liturgical abuses, traditionalists were somewhat reassured. The election of Pope Benedict XVI was also seen by traditionalists as a promising event; Bishop Fellay referred to it as "a gleam of hope."

The SSPX, meanwhile, has had its own internal conflicts. Some hard-line members, including the English-born Bishop Richard Williamson, are deeply suspicious of efforts to reconcile with Rome, while Bishop Fellay is regarded as more favorably inclined toward the Vatican. Plans for today's meeting between Bishop Fellay and Pope Benedict-- which the Vatican did not formally announce-- were disclosed by Bishop Williamson, quite possibly in an effort to complicate the negotiations.

The SSPX today includes 441 priests, active in 59 countries. The traditionalist group claims 200,000 faithful, including 100,000 in France.


38 posted on 08/29/2005 4:37:19 PM PDT by Frank Sheed ("Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions." ~GK Chesterton.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: sitetest

I haven't seen the Holy See's account of the meeting. But our dear Holy Father is wise and careful. If baby steps need to be taken, he would do that. I suspect that behind the scenes much has been discussed leading up to this public meeting. There may even have been an exchange of documents of some kind -- responses, plans, ideas. I don't know. But I do expect the most careful orchestration, and I believe the SSPX announcement is amazingly restrained for them and even hopeful.


39 posted on 08/29/2005 4:40:21 PM PDT by Siobhan (Her Most Holy Name is Mary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Siobhan

Dear Siobhan,

"... I believe the SSPX announcement is amazingly restrained for them and even hopeful."

That, I think, is the greatest reason for hope.

Nonetheless, I'll continue to chuckle at the studied uncommunicative nature of the press release.


sitetest


40 posted on 08/29/2005 4:50:49 PM PDT by sitetest (If Roe is not overturned, no unborn child will ever be protected in law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Siobhan; sitetest; Frank Sheed; TaxachusettsMan; Theophane
I haven't seen the Holy See's account of the meeting.

This may be as close as you will get. It comes from Zenit News Agency, an international news agency whose mission is: "Our mission is to provide objective coverage of events, documents and issues emanating from or concerning the Catholic Church."

* * * * *

ZENIT - The World Seen From Rome


Code: ZE05082906

Date: 2005-08-29

Pope Meets Successor of Lefebvre in Search of Communion

In a "Climate of Love for the Church," Says Vatican Spokesman

CASTEL GANDOLFO, Italy, AUG. 29, 2005 (Zenit.org).- Benedict XVI received Bishop Bernard Fellay, who succeeded Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre as head of the Society of St. Pius X, with the "desire to arrive at perfect communion."

Today's meeting took place in the apostolic palace of Castel Gandolfo, in response to a request from Bishop Fellay, reported Vatican spokesman Joaquín Navarro Valls.

"The Pope was accompanied by Cardinal Darío Castrillón Hoyos, president of the Pontifical Commission 'Ecclesia Dei,'" the spokesman said.

"Ecclesia Dei," the Holy See's Web page explains, was "instituted by John Paul II with the 'Motu proprio' promulgated on July 2, 1988, following the schismatic gesture of illegitimate episcopal ordinations carried out by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre in Ecône."

Navarro Valls said, "The meeting unfolded in a climate of love for the Church and the desire to arrive at perfect communion." His communiqué added: "Being aware of the difficulties, willingness was expressed to advance by degrees according to reasonable times."

Attached to Holy See

Later, Bishop Fellay revealed in a statement that "the meeting lasted some 35 minutes in a serene atmosphere."

"The audience was the occasion for the Society to manifest that it has always and always will be attached to the Holy See, Eternal Rome," said the bishop.

"We recalled the series of difficulties already known in a spirit of great love for the Church," he added.

"The Society of St. Pius X prays that the Holy Father will find the strength to put an end to the crisis of the Church, 'restoring all things in Christ,'" concluded the bishop's communiqué.

Previously, Bishop Fellay told his group's DICI press agency that, if he were to meet with Benedict XVI, he would request two things.

First is the possibility for all priests to celebrate the Tridentine Mass without special permission from the local bishop, as is now required. Second is the "recanting [of] the decree of excommunication related to the consecrations" of four bishops in the Society.

41 posted on 08/29/2005 6:16:36 PM PDT by NYer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow
Translation: "The onus is entirely on Benedict XVI. We're right where we need to be and don't need to move one iota to solve this problem."

That's exactly how I read it too. I dont know why anyone is expecting anything different from the ThradSchisWackos. They believe they know better than everyone. Why would some piddly Pope have anything to add?
42 posted on 08/29/2005 6:27:16 PM PDT by Conservative til I die
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Thanks, my dear.

As an aside: I'm furious about what is about to happen in Buffalo, but there seems nothing to be done to stop these bishops with their "five year plans" and cheery Maoist slogans.

With the destruction of the Sacred Heart statue in the Archdiocese of Boston I am convinced that Buffalo, Rochester, Boston and Albany are firmly in the hands of the minions of satan.

And now back to gratitude that my friend Jayne's grandmother is okay in the Garden District in N.O.

Also, time to invoke St. Patrick, St. Columba, and St. Hilda against the plague of snakes, alligators and other pests with which the people in Louisiana, Miss. and Alabama may have to cope.

43 posted on 08/29/2005 6:48:34 PM PDT by Siobhan (Pray the Divine Mercy Chaplet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: sitetest
They'd rather spend their time spouting bumper sticker slogans like "Jesus was a liberal" or "Jesus was a socialist." Note the use of the past tense "was" for a person who is still alive. :-)

Really? Then clue me in, I've found many of the Vatican pronouncements to be so vague that whenever they get interpreted one way, some official spokesperson states dismissively that they meant something quite different. Clarification seems to be a leisure sport in Rome these days.

44 posted on 08/29/2005 8:02:25 PM PDT by TradicalRC (In Vino Veritas : Folie a Deaux, Menage a Trois Red, 2003)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: NYer; Marcellinus

"the virtue of faith is seated in the mind and not in the heart" Someone please explain this statement for me--in clarity of terms.

No explantion needed. Look to the author - Williamson - a former Anglican.

Since a legitimate question was asked and not a request for a smarmy answer, there is an explanation needed. Williamson got it from that awful "Anglican" St. Thomas Aquinas.

Whether the Object of Faith can be Something Seen
"I answer that: faith implies intellectual assent to that which is believed. But there are two ways in which the intellect gives its assent. In the first way, it is moved to give its assent by the object itself, which is either known in itself, as first principles are obviously known, since the intellect understands them, or known through something else that is known, as are conclusions which are known scientifically. In the second way, the intellect gives its assent not because it is convinced by the object itself, but by voluntarily preferring the one alternative to the other. If it chooses with hesitation, and with misgivings about the other alternative, there will be opinion. If it chooses with assurance, and without any such misgivings, there will be 225faith. Now those things are said to be seen which of themselves move our intellect or sense to know them. Hence it is clear that neither faith nor opinion can be of things that are seen, whether by sense or by the intellect."

I'm guessing but it seems perfectly reasonable to conclude that he was drawn to the SSPX as a result of their schism with the intent of fostering it.

Williamson was with the SSPX long before the Apostolic delegation came to Econe and scandalized the archbishop by denying the physical resurrection of Our Lord. (Just as the local Maronite priest told me last month.) It was actually this scandal that convinced the seminarians (Williamson being one of the first to be interveiwed by the delegation) that there was a profound crisis in the Church.

I'm not an authority on the SSPX but, if I understand correctly, Bishop Fellay is the one who pulls the shots.

"Calls the shots" is what you mean. The Holy Father may want to speed things up because Fellay's term runs out in 2006 and Williamson may end up being the Superior.

If that is so, then you need not worry any more about Williamson's statement. Take a look at how he concludes his letter about (then) Cardinal Ratzinger.We might wish to trust you, but we cannot.

One year later by the way, Three of the four bishops (Williamson included) were across the table from then Cardinal Ratzinger and a few others. The future Holy Father had a copy of "the Problem of the Liturgical reform" with him. Published by the SSPX.

No doubt if the Holy Father and Fellay are able to bridge the gap, then Williamson will set off on his own.

I think it's funny that everyone is fostering this idea that there is a fractionalization between Fellay and Williamson. Williamson released his letter I'm sure with the full knowledge and consent of Fellay. This provided a number of advantages:

1) the meeting that was low key was suddenly public.

2) the expectations of the SSPX were expressed as "low" so no Vatican diplomat was going to think of this visit as a capitulation to the modernism rampant in the Church.

3) It's an example of the acceptance of the authority of the Pope and the papal priveleges. If the SSPX denied it and were actually "schismatic" they wouldn't bother with the Pope as the "sedes" don't.

4) That leaves the Holy Father with the "necessity" to extend and olive branch and possibly grant the "pre-conditions" that bishop Fellay has asked for. He can deny it and nothing happens. He can grant it and it only works towards his benefit and then sets in motion a new dynamic of the oncoming vicious war between the traditionalist and the Papacy on one side and the modernists on the other.

It has been brilliant maneuvering on the part of the SSPX. I was just watching the rerun of the EWTN's World Over Live and Raymond Arroyo gave the meeting a big talk up and provided video of a solemn High Mass in all it's glory. (This is a slick way of getting past their local bishop who won't allow them to broadcast such a thing) Arroyo is supportive of the Old Mass and his interviews with Mel Gibson helped draw attention to the traditionalist movement.

It's an easy wager to believe that Williamson actually knows more about the Catholic faith than most prelates in the Vatican. He also lives it more than most Catholics in the World. It's also an easy bet that he knows the thinking of Cardinal Ratzinger (now B16) better than anyone on this thread. Being an Anglican convert Williamson is very comparable with John Henry Cardinal Newman. Both highly educated, I believe Williamson is a Cambridge man, well read, extremely good in Latin and extraordinarily capable of explaining the Catholic Faith in Thomistic terminology. It's also funny how no one denies that the SSPX priests are some of the most well formed priests since the hey day of the Jesuits and they forget that many of them were taught and formed by Williamson himself.

45 posted on 08/29/2005 8:20:18 PM PDT by Gerard.P (The lips of liberals drip with honey while their hands drip with blood--Bishop Williamson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: TradicalRC

Dear TradicalRC,

What are you talking about?


sitetest


46 posted on 08/29/2005 8:37:52 PM PDT by sitetest (If Roe is not overturned, no unborn child will ever be protected in law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Marcellinus; StAthanasiustheGreat; Gerard.P
"the virtue of faith is seated in the mind and not in the heart"

Someone please explain this statement for me--in clarity of terms.

I learned that faith and reason, mind and heart, will and intellect were complementary faculties of the soul.

Was this teaching--all those years--in error?

I'm inclined to agree with your observation Marcellinus, it is will and intellect, not merely intellect(that is ironically a liberal conceit! Cogito ergo sum and all that.)

Christ did not preach the virtues of syllogisms and logic, but of charity and faith. His words can be grasped by children and yet the intellect cannot fathom the depths of His wisdom. Even St. Thomas Aquinas felt in later years that his own writings were mere chaff.

47 posted on 08/29/2005 8:48:06 PM PDT by TradicalRC (In Vino Veritas : Folie a Deaux, Menage a Trois Red, 2003)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: NYer
The society claims about 450 priests, 180 seminarians and has a presence in 26 countries.

In other words, 1 of every 1000 Catholic Priests is in the SSPX. If we included the number of ex-SSPX priests and the priests in daughter groups of the SSPX like the FSSP, SSPV, and among the independents, it would probably be 1 in 500.

48 posted on 08/29/2005 8:49:30 PM PDT by Hermann the Cherusker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gerard.P
"Calls the shots" is what you mean. The Holy Father may want to speed things up because Fellay's term runs out in 2006 and Williamson may end up being the Superior.

Yep.

Which is why he was sent to Argentina, at the bottom end of South America. To prepare him for his stint as the next superior. Good call.

The SSPX mainstream recognize him for what he is. A loose cannon. Ironic really. We have the supposedly excitable French talking in calm and reasoned language while the supposedly urbane Englishman continues to churn out the inflammatory rhetoric. What was it you said again? "Good cop, bad cop"? That's a keeper. I never realized Fellay and Williamson were a double act.

If Williamson is really going to be the Superior, then I'd think that it's SSPX which may want to "speed things up." There's no telling where Williamson would take your group.

As I suspected, your threat to abandon FR was short lived. Not much traffic over at Angelqueen, is there?

49 posted on 08/29/2005 9:07:56 PM PDT by marshmallow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: pa mom

Our Lady of Mt. Carmel Chapel (Holy Savior Parish) - 11:30 am Sun. - just outside Norristown on Fairfield Rd., one block north of Ridge Pike.

Our Lady of Consolation Parish - 2:00 pm Sun. - Tulip St. just of Princeton Ave. in the Tacony section of Philadelphia.

Mater Ecclesiae - 5:30 pm Sat., 9:00 am and 11:30 am Sun. - Cross Keys Rd. midway between the Atlantic City Expressway and Rt. 73. in Berlin, NJ


50 posted on 08/29/2005 9:14:06 PM PDT by Hermann the Cherusker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-119 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson