Skip to comments.3 Named (by pope) to Work With Lefebvre Group
Posted on 04/10/2006 4:42:30 PM PDT by NYer
VATICAN CITY, APRIL 9, 2006 (Zenit.org).- Benedict XVI has appointed three new members to the commission that is working for a return to full communion for members of the Society of St. Pius X.
The three appointed to the Pontifical Commission "Ecclesia Dei" are Cardinals William Levada, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith; Jean-Pierre Ricard, archbishop of Bordeaux and president of the French episcopal conference; and Antonio Cañizares Llovera, archbishop of Toledo and primate of Spain.
The commission's president is Cardinal Darío Castrillón Hoyos, prefect of the Congregation for Clergy.
The Commission "Ecclesia Dei" was instituted by Pope John Paul II with a 1988 apostolic letter published after the illegal episcopal ordinations carried out by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, a schismatic act. The archbishop was the founder of the Society of St. Pius X.
The announcement of the new appointments on Saturday came a day after the French bishops revealed that "in the forthcoming weeks or months," the Pope "should give directives to facilitate the path toward a possible return to full communion" with the Society of St. Pius X.
I am not holding my breath here. If this happens I would expect another schism within St Pius the X. However, if any progress can be made in reconcilling people with the church thats good.
There's already division in the SSPX.
I think Rome should ease the mistrust the SSPX has of Rome by reforming the semi-Traditionalist communities alreay under its jurisdiction. FSSP, Institute of Christ the King, Society of St. John Vianney, etc.
1)I would like to see Rome rescind the decrees of the Congregation for Divine Worship mandating the Benedictines of Fontgomblaut, Clear Creek, etc., use a hybrid of the 1962 and 1965 Missals.
2)The consecration of more bishops according to the traditional rite who would use that rite and the traditional sacraments alone.
3)Free the traditional rite from the jurisdiction of the Congregation for Divine Worship to keep Card. Arinze from monkeying with it.
4)Issuing decrees that would do a better job of harmonizing the dissonant portions of Vatican II with preconciliar teachings.
1) Might very well happen.
2) Not sure what that means. A bishop would seem to have to use the rite that the vast majority of his priests use, no? And what do you mean "traditional sacraments." Which sacraments are too new-agey for you? Holy Ordes? Communion? Baptism? Marriage?
3) I would think Arinze is most likely a key ally.
4) Any statement is going to explain how Vatican II is consistent with prior councils. What you might get is a stronger clarification that liturgical dancers, diva songleaders, cheesy music, group confessions, altar girls and the frequent use of several lay eucharistic ministers are NOT part of Vatican II.
I was thinking of things like the decree on ecumenism and the decree on non-Christian religions.
I was referring to elevating members of the FSSP, etc. to the episcopate and granting them the right to only use the preconciliar rites.
I certainly can't imagine him elevating the FSSP to the episcopate; you wouldn't have two bishops with overlapping diocese. However, I would expect that the FSSP might be permitted a position analgous to a religious order's provincial, or even that a member of the FSSP might become a bishop, except for I don't suppose there'd be that many FSSP members who would accept.
You might want to check out the Catholic Encyclopedia. Published in 1911, its statements on the prospect of a failthful member of other religions going to Heaven is pretty much exactly what was said in the Vatican II documents. It's not authoritative, but it does establish that long before Vatican II such beliefs were widely held.
I would expect a decree, if it does come, to clarify the necessity of conversion for those who lack truly "invinceable ignorance." Sorry, but if you're ECUSA, you don't get by on invinceable ignorance just because you're part of an ECUSA social group, you like their ritual style, or you think priests should be allowed to marry.
Then the pope ought to consider creating a diocesan structure for those attached to the old rite. It's not like we already don't have overlapping Catholic dioceses in the U.S.
Or the other solution would be to name them auxiliary bishop in some diocese where there is a Tridentine-rite seminary.
I live within the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Philadephia, but at present I am subject to the Eparch of Passaic, NJ.
I'm not the audience, the RadTrads are.
What are your thoughts regarding the Traditional Anglican Communion's petition to the pope for full-ecclesiastical communion?
The only thing I can see a real problem with is their married bishops, but perhaps it could be permitted by Indult until the current bishops either step aside or retire.
I remember reading about some half-crazed Brazilian who was consecrated as a married Old Catholic bishop, but repented of his schism and was accepted back into the Roman Catholic Church as a bishop. I think this happened back in the 1950s.
...Of historical note, Bishop Salomeo Ferraz, consecrated by Costa following his separation from Rome, was eventually received back into the Roman Catholic Church in 1960, as a married bishop, without any "reconsecration", and was an active participant in the Second Vatican Council...
The FSSP has an interesting status (Holy Trinity here in Boston has produced a few vocations to their ranks). Their Priests serve the Bishops of the Dioceses in which they serve, very similar to say, a parish staffed by Franciscans so while making one a Bishop of a Diocese wouldn't be impossible to have on for the order would be inappropriate.
I thought you said you were Melkite? I checked out the parish website you refered to and it was Melkite.
The seat of the Melkite Eparchy is here in Newton, Mass. Passaic is Ruthenian.
I think there's a faction of the SSPX that will not return to the fold under any circumstances.
I am canonically Melkite, but I moved to the Philly area where there aren't any Melkite parishes.
Consequently, I have to attend a Ruthenian parish.
My heart is in the Melkite Church though, so I consider myself Melkite.
time is time
Oh, well, such is life, maybe they'll start one in the future. I looked at the website and the nearest are Scranton and West Patterson.
You should subscribe to "Sofia" the Diocesan magazine (I subscribe despite being Latin Rite) to keep up with the goings on.
I get it.
Their editorials are excellent.
Why is it up to the vatican to ease the mistrust of SSPX? Seems to me it's up to SSPX to prove that they are catholics.
You mean vice-versa.
Huh, me no unnerstan.
I mean that the essence of being Catholic is obedience to the Pope, SSPX has failed in that. You might as well ask what the vatican can do to salve the fears of Lutherans.
I think it is rather insulting to compare the SSPX with the Lutherans because Lutherans have another faith.
Innumerable saints have taught in the past that it is not only permissable, but neccessary to resist the Pope if his policies and teachings threaten the integrity of faith and morals.
I only need point out the post-Vatican II popes' irenicism when it comes to Ecumenism. The Assisi conferences; the Novus Ordo rites,not just the Mass, which in a way represent the watering down of the liturgy; tolerance of erring bishops; and the charismatic heresy. The SSPX's current status is a bullwark of traditional Catholicism in the face of the Neo-Lutheranism of contemporary Western-rite Catholicism, from the Curia on down.
If it wasn't for Abp. Lefebvre's courage, Benedict XVI wouldn't be doing what he is doing now.
However, the Jansenistic tendencies of many in the SSPX are unwelcome though.