SSPX Update - Are "The Five Conditions" necessary and reasonable? & Five Conditions For Fellay?

Sumorum Pontificum ^ | June 25, 2008 | Brian Kopp & Patrick Archibald

[NYer]

Are "The Five Conditions" necessary and reasonable?

By Brian Kopp

There is much debate going on inside and outside SSPX circles over "The Five Conditions."

One may ask whether these conditions are "insulting" to the SSPX leadership, as some SSPX supporters insist that the SSPX already adheres to "The Five Conditions."

By and large, this seems to be true of Bishop Fellay, though he recently slipped a bit in this regard:

Bishop Fellay: Pope Benedict is a "perfectly liberal Pope"

Given his record of otherwise prudent and measured statements regarding Pope Benedict XVI, this gaff of Bishop Fellay could easily be overlooked, and likely did not precipitate "The Five Conditions."

On the other hand, an argument could be made that Rome is asking Bishop Fellay to rein in other SSPX leaders.

Maybe a little review is in order to ascertain why such a request might have been necessary. These two entries may serve to illustrate Rome's concern:

Excomm’d SSPX Bp. Williamson on Good Friday prayer: good points but calls Benedict XVI anti-semitic

Williamson: "...modern minds are very sick ...and Benedict XVI has a modern mind..."

Here are several interviews, each of which contain troubling assertions:

An Exclusive Interview with Bishop Richard Williamson

An Interview With His Excellency Bishop Richard Williamson

SSPX, The Church & The World: 2008 and Beyond

Finally, a review of Bishop Williamson's own blog entries may be in order. Here's a typical excerpt:

Such is surely the case with many – not all – modernist churchmen, and I would include Pope Benedict XVI amongst them. So he can be objectively insane from the standpoint of the Catholic Faith, and yet subjectively in a kind of good faith. What does this “good faith” matter if he is objectively way off the mark? What matters is that he thinks he is normal and in the truth, so he behaves as though he is, and so he persuades many Catholics that he is. Here is why this crisis of the Church is so terrible – so many cardinals, bishops and priests cannot believe that they or their Pope are in any way off the mark.

Conclusion? – I need not believe that they are not at all cardinals or bishops or Pope, because when virtually everybody is insane, they are that much less necessarily aware that they are not sane. So I can treat the Pope with all the charity and respect due to his exalted position, and I can rejoice in all the objective good that he does, for instance in the recent “Motu Proprio,” but I will do nothing, but nothing, to associate with his insane Conciliar belief-system until it is clear as clear can be that he repudiates both Vatican II and his subjectivism.

Taken as a whole, one could easily understand Rome's concerns. When the public reads "The Five Conditions," and realizes how reasonable they are in view of the links above, pressure will increase dramatically on Bishop Fellay to make this first simple act of submission.

The five conditions could only be seen as harmful by the most schismatic branch of the SSPX, a branch Bishop Fellay might need to trim if he is to hope the SSPX will have any future in the business of saving souls.

---

Five Conditions For Fellay?

By Patrick Archbold

Andrea Tornielli writes on his blog that the conditions spelled out are not intended for the entire leadership of the SSPX, but for Fellay only. [Translation Rorate Caeli]

those conditions are not proposed to the Lefebvrists in general, but actually to their Superior, that is, Fellay himself. Who, in the discussions, displays a will to dialogue, but afterwards writes and undersigns very harsh attacks against the Pope. The five conditions are thus a prior step before reaching the cancellation of the excommunication

If true, the Vatican is looking to have a real negotiating partner. Not someone who will say the right things to the Holy See in private and then throws bombs to placate the wacko Williamson wing of the SSPX.

Rorate also reports on a hopeful (if extremely speculative) sign that perhaps Fellay will sign on.

Paolo Luigi Rodari on calls to the headquarters of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X (FSSPX / SSPX):

[...]
A very small indication regarding the fact that, probably, the Lefebvrists [sic] will accept the conditions proposed by the Holy See (or that they are at least seriously thinking about them) came to me by way of a phone call I made yesterday to Ecône, headquarters of the Fraternity of Saint Pius X. As in other occasions in the past, I asked to speak with Bishop Fellay, the Superior of the Fraternity. In the past, particularly when he wished to respond that there was no news regarding their re-entry in the Church, he answered me quickly. Yesterday, instead, he made it known that there was nothing to say. Perhaps because he is seriously thinking about accepting the Vatican conditions but does wish to say so?

Fellay is in a tough spot. Does he do the right thing and risk internal division in the SSPX or does he cater to the hardliners? Prayers, more than ever, are certainly in order. Bishop Fellay needs all the grace he can get.

[fetal heart beats by 21st day]

I agree with you on every point except one-they seem to be more puritanical in customs and morality than Catholic from any time period.

A friend, who used to attend SSPX for the reverence of the Mass, but who left over the non-Catholic traditions, tells me they push a book on child-rearing that is not even Catholic.

She says it’s put out by the Mormons-a guide on raising children-from a Mormon point of view, pushed by people who believe they are more Catholic than the Pope!

[livius]

Some of them are definitely more puritanical than any Catholic, ever! It is certainly odd that they would seek out practices and theories that are not even nominally Catholic (ranging from Mormon to Calvinist, the original “Puritans”). But I guess that’s what happens when people separate themselves from the Church, even if their motives were originally understandable and perhaps even good ones. I hope they come back and become part of the bigger, freer life of the Church, instead of their little sect which gets narrower every day.

[fetal heart beats by 21st day]

Yes, I hope so, too. Yet, there is so much pride! The people I know seem to think it their duty in life to find fault in all people, at all times, no matter the circumstances, and if a Catholic does not do everything they think is proper, that’s it- they’re evil, and to be avoided.

There is no room for prudential judgement- even in areas where the Church stresses the need for prudential judgement.

It is very sad, but I do not see many of them accepting anything less than the naming of Bishop Fellay as adjunct Pope, and successor to Benedict.

[redgolum]

Good to see Dr. Brian is still up to debates!

Kind of miss him around here.

[NYer]

Thank you for the post and belated prayers for Dr. Kopp and his beautiful family. Last I heard, he was studying to become a deacon in the Byzantine Catholic Church, with aspirations towards pursuing the priesthood. Any news on this front?

[topher]

Tridentine Rite is only from the 14th Century (or is it the 15th Century).

The time clock stopped for SSPX with the Tridentine Rite.

After all, Jesus did not say the Mass in Latin nor did he use the Tridentine Rite.

The same can be said of the Eleven Apostles who were at the Last Supper who went on to say the Early Christian Masses...

[topher]

There is nothing traditional about the overtly schismatic act of consecrating bishops in defiance of Rome.

I believe this is a point many overlook.

There were three courses of action that the late Archbishop could have taken:

(1) Obey the Holy Father.

(2) Go to Rome to have an audience with the Holy Father about the ordination, and plead his case. Though there was a very liberal influence in the Holy See, the Archbishop had every right to talk to Pope Paul II, and try to prevent the schism.

(3) Ordain the Bishops as he did.

When there is ever a misunderstanding, there are always two parties -- both have guilt in the misunderstanding.

SSPX was just as guilty as Rome in the misunderstanding...

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“But by now refusing this astonishingly gentle and charitable offer to have their status regularised with no condition attached other than common courtesy and a traditional deference to the Petrine office, the SSPX has the ability to destroy all it has achieved. It will never get a better offer than this.”

The problem is that the SSPX leadership and many of its faithful are out of touch with reality. They act as if they are the only true Catholics.

[Claud]

Tridentine Rite is only from the 14th Century (or is it the 15th Century).

You're thinking of the 16th Century Council of Trent, I believe, and it would be well to note that no Mass was created or written at that period. There was simply a standard edition of it put out, and it was legislated that those churches who did not have a rite older than 200 years had to use that standard edition.

The "Tridentine" Mass had been in use for centuries and had changed very little since the time of Gregory the Great about a millenium before that. And Gregory only made some changes, he did not write a new Mass, so it much be considerably older even than him.

And as far as what was used in the Apostolic Age, we have only the barest outline of what the liturgy was like back then thanks to Justin Martyr and a few other writers.

One could also say that Jesus did not say the Mass in ICEL English, nor did he use the Novus Ordo liturgy. I'm not sure where that gets us. Christ did not give us specific directions on what words and ritual to use beyond the basic outline that the Apostles passed along.