Sunday, February 5, 2012

No "Non Possumus" -- Attempt to Sidetrack the Talks of the SSPX with Rome


Edit: looking at the German media figures like Jeff Mirus, Armin Schwibach, or the Italian Vaticanista, Alessandro Speciale, you can see that there's a reflexive desire to inaccurately portray Bishop Fellay's words.
(Rome/Econe) On 3. Februar 2012 Cardinal William Levada met with the Pope. The Prefect of the Congregation for Doctrine and Faith and reported to the Pope about the situation with the negotiations between the Holy See and the Society of St. Pius X. Primarily, it focused on the second response of the Society to the "Doctrinal Preamble". Since then, the Vatican is on the train. The congregation, led by Cardinal Levada and examined the response to the Pope in order to determine the next steps by the Holy See. The outcome of the audience is not known.

The whole day was accompanied by a media barrage. Not for the first time did it seem to some that the failure of the talks was not going fast enough. A new wave in talking up this failure was accompanied as a sort of background music for the conversation yesterday in the Vatican.

The opening was taken up by Alessandro Speciale and unchecked by other journalists, including Vaticanistas. In the German speaking zone, Armin Schwibach dashed forth with the sensational headline, "Bishop Fellay: possumus Non!" Thus, the Superior General of the SSPX, Bishop Bernard Fellay, was supposed to have declared in a sermon at the seminary of the Society in Winona in the United States when he actually said yesterday that it is possible for the Society to accept the preamble. He did so, according to Speciale, which provoked a domino effect Schwibach and many others, a "non possumus" announced.

It had created the impression that the Fraternity's turn on the negotiations with Rome had made a definitive stand. The exact opposite is the case. The Holy See's turn and for this reason was held yesterday behind closed doors in the Vatican meeting between Pope Benedict XVI. and Cardinal Levada instead. For this reason alone was the Superior General of SSPX had no reason to trumpet just the day before a categorical "nyet" to the world. The domination of small diplomatic Bishop Fellay has multiplication table since the beginning of the talks with Rome, or rather, since he received from Pope Benedict XVI. In the summer of 2005 provided sufficient proof, as that he would make no such inappropriate move while he waits for the response of the other side.

So the day was at least in the sense of the media, had "run" its course. The uncritical dissemination of a false report says especially a lot about the wishful thinking of some journalists. [Jeff Mirus] In this case, the question arises as to the Cui bono. It has long been known that a possible and desired agreement by Pope Benedict XVI between the Holy See and the SSPX of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre has many opponents, on both sides.

In Italy, fought over the news. The starting point is for all the alleged "refusal" Msgr Fellays in Winona. However, it is a hoax in the classical sense, as revealed Rorate Coeli. Monsignor Fellays never made the statement attributed to him, never, not in Winona, and not elsewhere. In his homily, the Superior General of the Society briefly outlined the current progress of the negotiations with Rome and stated here that the "preamble", as on 14 September Preamble, the Brotherhood, would not be accepted. It has long been known and does not correspond to general rejection, but is part of the negotiations. The Vatican admitted to the Brotherhood with delivery right to propose amendments to express their wishes to propose more appropriate formulations. This option is exercised by the Society which is waiting their turn for the reaction of Rome, which the last topic of conversation between Benedict XVI. and Cardinal Levada.

You will therefore need to wait a little longer, until Rome makes its answer to the SSPX known what the result of the talks have been, as some have rejoiced too early, intending to speak and write you a failure cause.
Link to original...

13 comments:

  1. I hope very much that the more optimistic view is the correct one, and continue my fervent prayers. It is urgent that no one lose heart and stop beseeching heaven, particularly for the reason explained today on the always-excellent holysoulshermitage.com by Fr Byers, who had been a seminary prof in Rome,

    "[A good confessor must be] a validly ordained Catholic priest having the faculties of his diocese and, if applicable, the religious order or congregation or other society to which he belongs. If he doesn’t have faculties, and he knows you know this, the confession is invalid. This applies to most confessions of the Fraternité Sacerdotale Saint Pie Dix, does it not? Don’t risk your eternal salvation by bucking the Church on this matter. I am terribly distressed about all this, and have appealed to the Holy See for a solution. I did get a hearing, and great sympathy for the idea, but it looks like the chances are small. The wisdom of Canon Law on this matter is, in fact, great, and learned by the Church with no small amount of suffering. But, we’ll see..."

    ReplyDelete
  2. We've been around and around. Bottom line, SSPX marriages and chapels have been already endorsed by Cardinal Hoyos.

    Part of the problem is that many Catholics are faced with the problem of going to the Sacrament of Penance with a priest who not only fails to have a rudimentary understanding of the concept of sin itself, but may not even have the proper intention to confect the Sacrament.

    Faced with this difficulty, I'm sure that even the most Conciliarist and Liberal prelate would be forced to admit that those attending Society chapels have legitimate grounds for seeking absolution for their sins from priests who are at least Catholic and have the proper intention to confect the Sacrament as it is understood by the Church.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The diocesan priest I confess to is not a heretic and has a good understanding of sin. If he happened to be falsely accused of robbing a bank and the bishop suspended him, and I was aware he was suspended, he would not be able to validly absolve me--and he should not simulate a Sacrament! His having a good understanding and intention in regards to the Sacrament, and my desire to confess to him, does not suffice, if he is without faculties, even though in the scenario the suspension is unfair.

    I think you may be misunderstanding something Cdl Hoyos said.

    ReplyDelete
  4. No, I understand Cardinal Hoyos, and your priest is entitled to his opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  5. It is not opinion to say that Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos has said absolutely nothing about the Society having faculties to validly absolve sins and witness marriages.
    It is fact he has not.
    He has said that one may fulfill his obligation at SSPX Masses though.
    The Society have no faculties for these two sacraments and they are suspended [justly or unjustly, the Church decides, not us] from any ministry.

    Secondly a priest with ordinary faculties does not need to have a strong faith or give good advice in the confessional or to validly absolve sins.
    He only needs to say the Churches words of absolution to do so.
    He has been given faculties from competant Church authority to do this.
    The FSSPX have not.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I admit the principle of what you're saying is true, but aren't there exceptions given a state of emergency?

    If +Hoyos says Catholics can contribute financially to Society chapels and insists that they have the faculties to marry, it isn't much of a stretch to admit that they also have leeway to offer the Sacrament of Penance.

    Even the Holy Father at one point admitted that such a state of emergency as described by the Society exists in Europe [and presumably other parts of the West].

    Many priests, with the legitimate faculties you describe, have no orthodox concept of sin, and shed a great deal of doubt on the Sacrament which they claim to procure for an hour to fifteen minutes on Saturday once a week.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Again, please cite the authoritative reference that Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos has stated that the SSPX can validly witness marriages.
    I have never seen this.

    There are exceptions to the faculty rule if one is in imminent danger of death, then he can be validly absolved by any Catholic priest, or if someone has absolutely no idea that the Society do not have faculties.
    But what is this 'emergency crisis" officially defined as?

    I have lived all over the US in 45 years and have never not had access to a regularized priest.
    No emergency.

    ReplyDelete
  8. When the Diocese of Salzburg tried to deny the validity of SSPX marriages, their decision was overridden by PCED.

    And I can see why normal Catholic people would want to avoid most NO priests, whose understanding of things like sin often leave something to be desired.

    Besides, the problem here isn't the SSPX.

    The fact that people quibble about jurisdiction when, for example, the German Episcopate doesn't even obey the Holy Father on things as simple as Mass translations brings things to the height of absurdity for me.

    You might have a case for a normal Church situation where most of the Bishops are more or less obedient to the Holy See, but most Bishops aren't obedient to the Holy See and promote ministers who are not orthodox by any estimation.

    When you and people like you start to admit that fact, is the day we can all have an honest discussion about that.

    At this point the argument for supplied jurisdiction has a lot of ammunition.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I realize the situation in the Church is very bad today.
    That being said, all a priest has to say is "I absolve you of all your sins in the name of the Father etc.."
    I have been to priests who gave me horrible advice on the sin I committed but he said the formula of absolution correctly.
    No matter what good advice SSPX priests give [and they give excellent advice] they can not absolve sins ordinarilly.

    ReplyDelete
  10. We all have a right to legitimate spiritual counsel during confession, and if the official Church is going to cut slack to liberal priests and prelates, I think ecclesia supplet applies in emergency situations like this one.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I hope you are right.
    I am not convinced and I don't want to take a chance with my soul.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I respect that, but I think it's important to give the SSPX a fair shake, because there are a lot of people out there in different parts of the world who've benefited in so many ways by their vital work in the fields of the Lord.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Fair enough.
    Point taken.
    I live in a diocese where there are a number of good diocesan priests and a pretty orthodox bishop.
    I still have to go FSSPX Mass 3 times a month.

    ReplyDelete

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...