Chronology of Reconciliation Between SSPX and Holy Father

Pope Benedict resigns. A sensational report from Rome, special programs, reports, recaps: The issue is all the rage. Never since Celestine V in 1294, a pope has resigned. [Gregory XII]

The pontificate was marked by Benedict's attempt to find a canonical solution for the SSPX. Already in 2009, the pontiff had withdrawn the unjust Excommunication against the four bishops consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre.

Unjust because Archbishop Lefebvre did not wish to split with the consecration, but wanted to save the tradition.

http://eponymousflower.blogspot.com/2013/02/pope-benedict-and-sspx-chronology.html

Once again we witness the spin machine go into high gear on the “unjust” excommunications for what the Pope and canon law declared “a schismatic act by the episcopal consecration of four priests, without pontifical mandate and contrary to the will of the Supreme Pontiff”, which in fact “implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy”. And this only after being duly and canonically warned after Ab Lefebvre announced his intentions soon after breaking off negotiations with the Pope’s representative, Cardinal Ratzinger, by renouncing his signature on a protocol agreement that would:

regularize the SSPX as a clerical society of apostolic life of pontifical right, remove all censures against the clergy and laity within the Lefebvrite movement, and provide for their future pastoral care. Within the broad scope of the protocol, Lefebvre agreed to recognize the authenticity of the Second Vatican Council and the reformed Roman liturgy of Paul VI, while the groundwork was laid for the future of the tridentinist movement.

Besides the regularization of chapels affiliated with the SSPX and permission to continue using the liturgical missal of 1962, the Holy See agreed to name a candidate from among the ranks of the SSPX presbyters whom Archbishop Lefebvre would be permitted to consecrate to the episcopacy. The particular text within the protocol agreement translates as follows:

5.2 But, for practical and psychological reasons, the consecration of a member of the [SSPX] as a bishop seems useful. This is why, in the context of the doctrinal and canonical solution of reconciliation, we suggest to the Holy Father that he name a bishop chosen from among the members of the [SSPX], presented by Archbishop Lefebvre. In consequence of the principle indicated above (5.1), this bishop as a rule is not the Superior General of the Society.(73) But it seems opportune that he be a member of the Roman commission.(74)

In short, the new bishop would provide for the ordination of SSPX clergy and the confirmation of tridentinist laity according to the 1962 liturgical usage. Additionally, the Holy See agreed to establish a Roman commission composed of members named from both the Holy See and the SSPX, of which the SSPX bishop would be a member ex officio. The main purpose of the Roman Commission would be to resolve future questions arising between the Holy See and the SSPX.

(http://sspx.agenda.tripod.com/id8.html )

Again, Ab Levebvre made it clear when rejecting the protocol agreement which bore his signature that there would be no reconciliation when the apparent “goal” was to “reabsorb us within the Conciliar Church, the only Church to which you [Cardinal Ratzinger] make allusion during these meetings”, as if there are two Churches, the Church of Ab Lefebvre and the modernist “Conciliar Church” of Rome presided over by a Pope who would “compromise with the ideas of modern man, an undertaking which originates in a secret understanding between high dignitaries in the Church and those of Masonic lodges”.

Thus, Ab Lefebvre reverted to his original charge against the pope and the “Conciliar Church” where he said “we refuse and have always refused to follow the Rome of neo-Modernist and neo-Protestant tendencies such as were clearly manifested during the Second Vatican Council, and after the Council in all the resulting reforms … reforms [which] have indeed contributed and still contribute to the demolition of the Church, to the ruin of the priesthood, to the destruction of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the Sacraments .”

As Pete Vere wrote:

To preserve the liturgy and discipline of the pre-conciliar era was one matter, however, to impugn in the name of the pre-conciliar Magesterium the validity of the post-conciliar reforms, while questioning the authority of the post-conciliar Church hierarchy was quite another issue entirely -- one which could not but bring negative canonical repercussions upon both Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX.

And thus, the issue is what it always has been, the supreme authority (Primacy) of the Pope over the authenticity of VCII and those reforms pertaining to the means of sanctification by which the Church cannot fail, such as the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

In the "noble" effort to save the Pope from himself, to save the Church from the Pope and to save the Faithful from VCII, the New Mass and the “conciliar reforms”, an act of schism that “implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy” is justified as a noble act by loyal sons of the Church who just “wanted to save tradition”.

In the words of Bishop de Castro Mayer (his public declaration during the Mass of Consecration), this is what is meant by wanting "to save tradition":

This is the situation in which we find ourselves. We live in an unprecedented crisis in the Church, a crisis which touches it in its essence, in its substance even, which is the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the Catholic priesthood, the two mysteries essentially united, because without the holy priesthood there is no Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and by consequence, no form of public worship whatsoever...

Because of this, since the conservation of the priesthood and of the Holy Mass is at stake, and in spite of the requests and the pressure brought to bear by many, I am here to accomplish my duty: to make a public profession of Faith.(6)

The SSPX has run a parallel magisterium ever since. Just "wanted to save tradition"?

And just when it is reported that Pope Benedict XVI was ready to "compromise" on doctrine (on the acceptance, in principle, of VCII and the New Mass), well, you know the rest.

On a more positive note, Bishop Fellay said on February 15th, "We know very well that it is very difficult to ask the authorities to condemn the New Mass. In reality, if what needs to be corrected were corrected, it would already be a big step."

Reform? Who can have a problem with that? And what has Pope Benedict XVI been doing ever since he assumed his Office?

Will Bishop Fellay agree, as his predecessor once did, "to recognize the authenticity of the Second Vatican Council and the reformed Roman liturgy of Paul VI, while the groundwork [is] laid for the future of the tridentinist movement"?

They will wait and see what the new Pope offers them. They may be in for a long wait if they think the Pope will compromise on that which there can be no compromise.

That being said:

Benedict XVI does not wish to reintegrate the Society of Saint Pius X to "fix" a problem, as a manager might do. He thinks that it has its place in the larger body of the Church and an important role to play there. [A role] that it already plays without noticing it.

(http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2013/02/benedict-xvi-sspx-quarter-to-midnight.html)

Mike,
Very nice, one-sided view of the situation faced by Rome and Ab Levebvre. On the one hand we have Rome (undeniably) taking itself and many Cathlics down the road of Modernism and rupture with the past, and Ab Levebvre doing what was within his power to at least slow down the roller coaster. Yes, he was doing a great act of charity both to JPII and all Catholicism in striving to revert them back to the faith by contrasting his traditional stance with that of the reformers.

It weren't, and still is not, a matter of tradition alone; it's a matter of the faith itself being preserved against an attack by lunatics who wished to commit “the suicide of altering the faith in the liturgy and in the sacraments," When the smoke settles on VCII (and the smoke of Satan is expelled from St. Peters), the true heroism of Ab Levebvre will only then be recognized.

How any sincere Catholic can question the actions of the good bishop is beyond incredible.. It's strange and sad how a man who was hailed as a walking saint among those whom he converted in Africa, could return to be denounced as a schismatic and trouble maker by the very authorities who should have been preserving in, and supportive of, that very faith they commisioned him to preach.

This "one-sided-view" cannot justify a direct act of schism against the universal Primacy of Peter. One cannot act as if the Pope does not exist, or is not actually the Pope, or is too incompetent to be taken seriously in his official acts. He is Christ's true Vicar, or he is not.

Some of us, columba, are not confused about this matter.

Ab Lefebvre bit the hand that feeds the Society, for without that hand of universal Primacy which, in the very person of Peter, is the very foundation of faith and communion, the Society will continue to crash against the Rock as they operate without the jurisdiction of Christ, all the while pretending that they can “reform” the Church so as long as they remain beyond her faith and soul killing reaches.

It is NOT within the power of any Bishop to consecrate and operate outside of the Primacy of Peter. The sede Bishops understand this all too well.

It is truly amazing how a deliberate act of schism (no matter the excuse), which in itself, as Pope JPII declared, “implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy”, can be justified as necessary for saving the Pope from himself and saving the Church from the very same Pope who is alleged to be destroying the Church, destroying the Mass and destroying the priesthood.

I grow weary of the assaults against the Primacy of Peter, especially by the hypocrites who dare to whine about the ecumenical efforts to bring the “schismatic” and “heretical” Orthodox back into the fold, who do not recognize the Primacy of Peter.

Ah-huh.

The SSPX is no longer , and probably never was, schismatic.

And when the smoke settles…

Also, if the SSPX is running a parallel magisterium, it’s news to me.

In fact, unless you can provide some reasonable explanation or retract and apologize for what strikes me as your slander of the Society, I suggest you find someplace else to post.

otremer6 wrote:Also, if the SSPX is running a parallel magisterium, it’s news to me.

In fact, unless you can provide some reasonable explanation or retract and apologize for what strikes me as your slander of the Society, I suggest you find someplace else to post.

If it walks like a duck. Say, does that sound familiar?

Oh, and please show me where I said the SSPX is schismatic (implying they are in a state of schism), or retract your accusation.

I cannot help it if you do not know to read, let alone comprehend a pontifical act confirming “a schismatic act by the episcopal consecration of four priests, without pontifical mandate and contrary to the will of the Supreme Pontiff”, which in fact, as Pope JPII declared: “implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy”.

And in practice, the SSPX runs a de facto parallel magisterium (small "m"). Look up the meaning of "de facto" before accusing me of being a communist, a slanderer or whatever baseless accusation you can dream up, though you have no problem calling the Prefect for the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith a liar, so you are just being true to form.

Stop trying to turn this place into the former AQ that would not stand for any criticism of the Society, and stop making baseless accusations of slander. No one is impressed.

Why don’t do yourself a favor and take a week off?

There are all kinds of places where you can slander the SSPX on line, this isn’t one of them.

otremer6 wrote:Why don’t do yourself a favor and take a week off?

There are all kinds of places where you can slander the SSPX on line, this isn’t one of them.

I haven't slandered anyone, and your fallacious accusations only redound to your own character.

You are so typical of the snarky sage who fires off baseless accusations in the form of one-liners, but can't be bothered to back up the accusations -- so he simply smears as if there is substance to his attack. Its what you do best.

I took exception to yours and columba's cry-me-some-tears whining about the oh-so-unjust excommunications for an act of schism, and despite the lifting of the same and the sincere efforts of the Holy Father, the Holy Father is attacked still today for not recognizing the "justice" and righteousness of the disobedient act of schism that implies in practice a rejection of the Roman Primacy.

Even the Pope's efforts at reconciliation are seen by the arrogant SSPX apologists as a sign of weakness and as an admission of guilt for enacting an unjust transgression against a traditional Bishop who was only trying to save the Pope (a died-in-the-wool modernist under the influence of Masonic machinations) from himself; and in turn, he was only trying to save the Church and the Faithful from the modernist Pope and the false "Conciliar Church".

And what is so "evil" about that?

And you call a vigorous defense of the Pope "slander" because you do not know what the word means, or simply do not care - its an easy accusation to make even if it is false.

As I said, however, coming from the same person who called the Prefect for the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith a liar, it does not surprise me in the least.

When the dust settles, to borrow a phrase, the excommunications will continue to stand as an act of justice and mercy, and ratified as such by God in whose Vicar He has given full and immediate authority to judge all such matters reserved to the Holy See alone, against whose judgements there is neither recourse nor appeal.

That will be the final word on the subject against the smarter-than-the-Church crowd who cannot let it go, and you can mark my words.

You and columba simply do not realize that with respect to the excommunications, the dust has already settled, and God will not be mocked.

Begone!

otremer6 wrote:Begone!

Not likely.

If you don’t have enough humility to admit that you’re wrong, I don’t want you around here.

otremer6 wrote:If you don’t have enough humility to admit that you’re wrong, I don’t want you around here.

Who cares what you want. This forum does not exist to serve as your private sounding board where everything you say, to include your false allegations and your heterodox ecclesiology/theology, must be accepted as true.

I challenged you to produce the evidence for slander, and you can't. If I was wrong, I would admit it, as I have in times past over much more mundane things. You cannot produce the evidence for slander, though you proceed as if your false accusations are true -- when you are the one guilty of making false allegations.

I reject your specious allegations, and I have been saying the exact same thing on this forum since day one with respect to the excommunications and the Society's lack of jurisdiction, as well as the spirit of schism that pervades certain quarters of the Society. I have also always said that the SSPX acts like a magisterium unto itself. So get over it and grow up.

But never have I accused the Society of being in formal schism (then, or now).

And yes, you are the same person who accused the Prefect for the Doctrine of the Congregation of the Faith of being a liar.

You have no shame, and your hit and retreat bullying tactics are a disgrace.

Ok, bye.

otremer6 wrote:Ok, bye.

Produce the evidence for slander, or retract your accusation.

MRyan wrote:

otremer6 wrote:Ok, bye.

Produce the evidence for slander, or retract your accusation.

Look. You’re rude, presumptuous and I don’t owe you anything.

Take a vacation and have a nice day.

otremer6 wrote:

MRyan wrote:

otremer6 wrote:Ok, bye.

Produce the evidence for slander, or retract your accusation.

Look. You’re rude, presumptuous and I don’t owe you anything.

Take a vacation and have a nice day.

Begone.

SSPX would have , could have and still might be of the solution of the crisis of the faith if only they would come to their senses. No one of true faith can condone poor implemention of the intent of VII. No one of true Faith can condone the abuses or lack of discpline. No one of true faith can condone the lack of reverence that was tolerated. No one of true faith can condone the cover ups for those that tragically molested and abused the young. If their sins have not been confessed and forgiven their judgement will reflect the travesty of their deeds.

SSPX would be wise to request being part of and incorporated into the FSSP. Their seminaries are full. Their reverence and submission to the Holy Father is complete in love and obedience. There are those that would say that they 'sold out' but I would say that they "sold in" by demonstrating their love of their Catholic Faith and submission to the Holy Father. It would be wise for the SSPX to attend and research the FSSP traditional Mass and learn the valuable lesson in doing the will of God.

For the honour and glory of the holy Catholic Church, for the consolation of the much troubled faithful, and for the peace of their conscience, the undersigned, members until now of the Fraternity of Saint Pius X, declare with profound regret over the illicit consecration of bishops on 30 June [1988] that they have remained within the Catholic Church as pars sanior of this same Fraternity, and that they have but one desire: to be able to live as a religious society in this Church and place themselves at her service under the authority, of course, of the Roman Pontiff, her supreme head.

With great satisfaction, they affirm that in the generous and truly maternal propositions which the Church offerred to the Fraternity in the agreement of 5 May 1988 are laid the foundations for a fruitful and without doubt Catholic future for their society. They express their hope that the ecclesiastical authorities would establish them canonically as a society, so that they might work for the realisation of their own particular vocation: to dedicate themselves to the People of God and above all to the formation of future priests in an authentic Catholic spirit, and in so doing, as befits the venerable tradition of the Catholic Church, to celebrate Divine Worship according to the guidelines of immemorial tradition.

In order to clarify their ecclesiastical status as quickly as possible, the undersigned, brought together in prayer, will present this declaration to the Holy See without delay, in order to place their work under the protection of the princes of the Apostles, Saint Peter and Paul, and with the blessing of the Holy Father.

Paris, Munich and Vienna, 2 July 1988

P. Josef Bisig

P. Engelbert Recktenwald

Abbé Patrick du Fay de Choisinet

P. Kaus Gorges

Abbé Gabriel Baumann

Abbé Denis Coiffet

Walthard Zimmer (deacon)

Martin Lugmayer

Raymund Noll

Bernward Deneke

Dominic Schubert

Alexander Leonhart

Peter Miksch

Thomas Hauth

Dietmar Aust

JMJ,


George