Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Decision 2008: The Conditions Update: The actual Document (SSPX)
Rorate Caeli ^ | June 24, 2008 | "Ecclesia Dei"

Posted on 06/24/2008 12:56:11 PM PDT by Hieronymus

Conditions which result from the meeting of June 4, 2008, between Cardinal Darío Castrillón Hoyos and Bishop Bernard Fellay

1. The commitment to a response proportionate to the generosity of the Pope. 2. The commitment to avoid every public intervention which does not respect the person of the Holy Father and which may be negative to ecclesial charity. 3. The commitment to avoid the claim to a Magisterium superior to the Holy Father and to not propose the Fraternity in contraposition to the Church. 4. The commitment to display the will to act honestly in full ecclesial charity and in respect for the authority of the Vicar of Christ. 5. The commitment to respect the date - fixed for the end of the month of June [2008] - to respond positively. This shall be a condition necessary and required as an immediate preparation for adhesion to accomplish full communion.

[Signed] Darío Card. Castrillón Hoyos

Rome, June 4, 2008


TOPICS: Catholic
KEYWORDS: ecclesiadei; fellay; lefebvre; sspx
Original includes link to the actual French document
1 posted on 06/24/2008 12:56:11 PM PDT by Hieronymus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: NYer

Ping


2 posted on 06/24/2008 12:56:57 PM PDT by Hieronymus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
1. The commitment to a response proportionate to the generosity of the Pope.
2. The commitment to avoid every public intervention which does not respect the person of the Holy Father and which may be negative to ecclesial charity.
3. The commitment to avoid the claim to a Magisterium superior to the Holy Father and to not propose the Fraternity in contraposition to the Church.
4. The commitment to display the will to act honestly in full ecclesial charity and in respect for the authority of the Vicar of Christ.
5. The commitment to respect the date - fixed for the end of the month of June [2008] - to respond positively.
3 posted on 06/24/2008 1:23:52 PM PDT by Alex Murphy ("Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?" -- Galatians 4:16)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hieronymus; Salvation; narses; SMEDLEYBUTLER; redhead; Notwithstanding; nickcarraway; Romulus; ...

Thank you for the post and ping! Someone asked on another thread for the specifics. Here they are. At this point, other than pride, what prevents the return of the SSPX to full communion with Rome?


4 posted on 06/24/2008 3:58:29 PM PDT by NYer ("Ignorance of scripture is ignorance of Christ." - St. Jerome)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy
?
5 posted on 06/24/2008 3:59:39 PM PDT by NYer ("Ignorance of scripture is ignorance of Christ." - St. Jerome)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: NYer

I think Alex just re-formatted your piece...which did make it easier to read. Thanks for finding that info, I wonder how it will affect the SSPV? (questions, always with the questions!)


6 posted on 06/24/2008 4:12:31 PM PDT by blu (Last one out of Michigan, please turn off the lights.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Hieronymus

Interesting. The Pope is not asking for a declaration that the 1969 Missal is valid, good, not bad, or acceptable, neither that the SSPX celebrate it.

Neither is the Pope asking the SSPX to accept the documents of Vatican II in any way (’interpreted in the light of Tradition’ or otherwise).

My first reaction to the ‘conditions’ was to look at them in an almost legal sense, examining them as I might a contract presented to me: parsing words and phrases. But I think that looking at the ‘conditions’ in that way is making a mistake.

I hope Bp Fellay responds to the letter by supplying what is his understanding of the ‘conditions’.


7 posted on 06/24/2008 4:42:26 PM PDT by Mike Fieschko (et numquam abrogatam)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hieronymus; informavoracious; larose; RJR_fan; Prospero; Conservative Vermont Vet; ...
+

Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:

Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.

I have a bad feeling about this.

8 posted on 06/24/2008 6:29:26 PM PDT by narses (...the spirit of Trent is abroad once more.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mike Fieschko

I think (I read elsewhere) that the conditions relating to the acceptance of VatII, etc. would be deemed to have been accepted by the fact that the SSPX members were willing to enter into this agreement. In other words, the issue has been sidestepped - obviously, if they’re willing to enter into the agreement, knowing how the Church is now and where the Pope stands on this, they’ve accepted as much as they need to of the prior conditions.

He’s not forcing them to state it, though. For one thing, he obviously has a lot of changes in mind for the future and he doesn’t regard the do-or-die commitment to this mysterious thing known as “Vatican II” to be the defining element of the Catholic faith.

I hope Bp Fellay doesn’t go into his understanding of the unspoken conditions. If he does, we’ll be back to square one, because the Vatican is never going to state that VatII was a horrible idea that destroyed the Church or that the council, if not heretical in itself, certainly had a number of heretical members who were able to exercise their will on the entire Church; and at the same time, the SSPX is never going to make a blanket statement of acceptance, even of whatever few positive aspects there were to VatII. The best thing to do is to put it aside, get the guarantees that they need, and then come back into their rightful place in the Church and start to do the good things they could do.

Will they? I don’t know. Some may; others will be too blinded by pride to do so. But the Pope has made them a very, very generous offer.


9 posted on 06/24/2008 6:44:39 PM PDT by livius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

Comment #10 Removed by Moderator

Comment #11 Removed by Moderator

To: sandyeggo

Status Quo.


12 posted on 06/24/2008 7:00:45 PM PDT by narses (...the spirit of Trent is abroad once more.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

Comment #13 Removed by Moderator

To: sandyeggo

The big issue is Salvation. Is it found only inside the Church? Or is it distributed throughout Christendom and perhaps beyond? Ought we want, for example, the Anglican heresy to end in rejoining the True Church or not?


14 posted on 06/24/2008 7:07:40 PM PDT by narses (...the spirit of Trent is abroad once more.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: livius
Will they? I don’t know. Some may; others will be too blinded by pride to do so. But the Pope has made them a very, very generous offer.

Good post. I agree. There is nothing objectionable in these five conditions, and the SSPX has no good reason for rejecting them. It'll be interesting to see what happens. Archbishop Lefebvre was admirable in his commitment to Catholic tradition, but some of the current followers of the SSPX (at least those who post on blogs) seem to actually enjoy the idea of being outside of the "Conciliar Church." It is, as you say, a matter of pride. Some SSPXers see themselves as scrappy rebels and more Catholic than the pope himself. They're happy with the status quo and want to see it continue.
15 posted on 06/24/2008 7:15:44 PM PDT by irishjuggler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

Comment #16 Removed by Moderator

To: sandyeggo

See http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2035823/posts


17 posted on 06/24/2008 7:21:56 PM PDT by narses (...the spirit of Trent is abroad once more.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Hieronymus

The conditions themselves are generous but what is the practical effect of their acceptance? Probably more than half of the dioceses of the world, the bishop doesn’t want them. What would happen in these areas, especially if they are already there?

I dont understand something that goes on for 20 years needs to be resolved by the end of June, but there easily could be more to all this than has been leaked.


18 posted on 06/24/2008 7:28:26 PM PDT by Piers-the-Ploughman (Just say no to circular firing squads.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hieronymus; livius; Mike Fieschko; narses; sandyeggo
The real issue is not so much the substance of the conditions but rather that there are any conditions at all. Most here fail to understand the SSPX mindset.

Imposition of "conditions", any conditions no matter how generous, implies that it is the SSPX which has strayed and is on the outer and that the Church is playing the role of father welcoming home a prodigal son. Right there, you have a big red flag for the SSPX hierarchy and many of its followers for it's clear that they think of themselves as the true guardians of tradition and not the Pope or the Church. Ergo, the SSPX has no reason to sign an ultimatum. Rather it is they who should be imposing conditions.

If you don't believe me read this page from their website. A casual perusal of this material seems to clearly indicate that conditions #2 and #3 written above, will not be accepted.

I'll wager $20 with any takers that this ends badly.

19 posted on 06/25/2008 6:39:24 AM PDT by marshmallow (An infallible Bible is useless without an infallible interpreter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: livius

I agree wholeheartedly that the failure to mention the acceptance of Vatican II as a do-or-die condition to reconciliation is precisely the olive branch extended to the SSPX.

This must not be missed. This is their chance.

I hope they take it, and kiss the ring, because, and I can say this because I am not a diplomat, we need them.


20 posted on 06/25/2008 8:54:51 PM PDT by sandhills
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow; sandhills

I agree that we need a certain amount of their influence, although the unfortunate thing, as we discussed above, is that their isolation from the Church for so many years has in some cases (not all, by any means) led to the development of some peculiar attitudes that we don’t particularly need.

Personally, I think this will probably lead to a split within the SSPX. Many of them do want to return in good standing, but there’s a certain nutty hard core that probably wants to cling to its specialness and won’t come back.

I’m glad the Pope is giving them a specific date (which is almost upon us), because they have to make a decision one way or the other: whenever they have been given time in the past, their various factions have used it to prevent anything from being done.


21 posted on 06/26/2008 2:56:41 AM PDT by livius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

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