Saturday, May 10, 2014

Pope Has Interest in Resolving SSPX Situation


Edit: With an excommunication!!!  Just kidding.   Jeff Cullbreath suggested this a few days ago.  The meeting was short but cordial.  So, the reconciliation isn't dead after all as so many from various points of view have wished for and reported.
Rorate has learned and can exclusively confirm that Bishop Bernard Fellay, the Superior General of the Society of Saint Pius X (Fraternité Sacerdotale Saint Pie X - FSSPX / SSPX), was received by Pope Francis in the Domus Sanctae Marthae sometime in the past few months. In order to protect our sources, we cannot detail the date and persons involved in the meeting, but only generally locate it in time - if the current pontificate so far can be divided into two halves, the meeting took place in the second half.

We can also add as part of this exclusive information that it was not a merely fortuitous event - that is to say, many off-the-record meetings with His Holiness have taken place since his election precisely because his being at Saint Martha's House make him much more accessible and available than many previous pontiffs. No, that was not the case at all - the pope was previously duly informed and duly met Bishop Fellay. The meeting was apparently short and cordial.

The Pope has a true interest in resolving this situation, it seems to be understood by our sources.
Link ...

62 comments:

Clinton R. said...

Interesting, let's see what, if anything develops from this. Domine, miserere nobis. +JMJ+

Denise said...

How does Rorate Caeli really know that the Pope has an interest in resolving the situation? This sounds like something that Tornielli would say. I hope that he's not the source of the info.

Saint James said...

Rorate is all knowing and has the all seeing eye. Just like any other gossip monger.

Here is my impression of Rorate Coeli: i know something youuuuu don't know. And even if you do, we knew it firrrrrrrsttttt!

New Catholic is a shameless gossip monger and his silly school boy bragging is embarrassing. For him.

Liam Ronan said...

Your unsubstantiated broadside ('impression') against Rorate Caeli and your ad hominem characterization of Rorate Caeli's contributor, New Catholic, have added virtually nothing but baseless vitriol to any budding discussion.

I'll give wide berth to your 'impressions' in future.

Tancred said...

@Denis, Tornielli has been against the rapprochement between Rome and the SSPX from day one. He’s prematurely reported the death of the talks more than once.

nicholas dyson said...

This just does not make sense it's just so obvious that this pope has no interest in the traditions of the church much less the sspx

Anonymous said...

Pope Francis is interested in only one thing, ending the SSPX. Anyone who believes he is acting in good faith is not living in the real world.
Fantasy Land!

Anyway, there's a more serious issue. This Pope has pushed through the beatification of Paul VI....scheduled for October.
Now we will have Saints John XXIII, John Paul II, and Blessed Paul VI.
How interesting....the Vatican II troika.

Anyone who tells me that this is OK, and that the whole system isn't being rigged by this "Pope" Francis and his shadowy clique of radicals is living in fantasy land too. It's corrupt and rotten to the core....even since Francis came on the scene.

Conor O'Brien said...

If this is true, I do think it will not bode well for the SSPX. Like many who frequent these types of blogs, I have studied and prayed for a number of years now about the situation in the Church. I greatly respect the historic position of the SSPX and I do not see how going in under the current Rome will help them. In fact, I tend to agree with Bishop Williamson that it will be the end of the Society and cause more fracture in the traditionalist movement if it can be called such. We are really talking about two different religions and that we have a de facto schism with Eternal Rome occupying the places of power in temporal Rome. I don't know that going in under the jurisdiction of such an entity is a bright idea for preserving the faith.

Angelo Burnias said...

Pope Francis assured the parents of 6 members of the Franciscans of the Immaculate that the end of the persecution would end, "soon, very soon". Things have grown worse for this Religious Order. So assurances mean nothing, coming from modernists in Rome. Only ACTION! will have any meaning.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for the mention, but it was Patrick Archbold of Creative Minority Report who first floated the idea. I merely quoted from his essay and linked to it. - Jeff Culbreath

Aloysius Gonzaga said...

The direction of the Church under Pope Francis, and by extension, the direction of the Church over the past 50 years, is irreconcilable with the position of the SSPX. It is better not to read too much into what was obviously a "short" and perfunctory meeting.

Anonymous said...

Well under Pope Benedict I would have been quite happy with this news - but I don't feel the same way with Pope Francis - I have to be honest - all the names he has called traditional Cathollics in PUBLIC - is sufficient to make me uneasy about a rapproachment ....it is a VERY STRANGE time in the Church ...

Perhaps the FSSPX should stay put for a while...I say this as one with no personal affiliation to them...

Barbara

Anonymous said...

Anyway Saint. James, it was Adfero that reported the news not New Catholic - I love that blog - I learnt so much there and you appear to have a a chip on your should - maybe it is coloured GREEN?

Just saying because that's what comes through from your writing.......perhaps I may be wrong?

Barbara

Denise said...

Perhaps you're right, Tancred. But I, for one, do not assume that those who are against tradition (like Tornielli) are consistent. Time will tell. No doubt Rorate will eventually tell us who the source was. My hope is that the SSPX does reconcile, even under a Modernist Pope Like Francis. We need them.

Anonymous said...

Here comes the new cycle again:

Phase 1:
"SSPX HIERARCHY MEETS WITH POPE, EXCHANGED FEW WORDS!"
Phase 2:
"SSPX AND VATICAN ON VERGE OR RECONCILIATION!"
Phase 3:
"RECONCILIATION HINGES ON RECOGNITION OF OBSCURE VATICAN 2 LEGAL INTERPRETATION!"
Phase 4:
"SSPX REJECTS, DOES NOT SIGN!"

And then the aftermath can be seen in blogs, recording statements by Fellay, etc. All sorts of drama happens, and then SSPX disappears from the news and everyone that matters forget about them for a while.

Sixupman said...

I would not trust Rome and the collegiality of the national bishops' conferences and nor will +Fellay - I pray and trust! The environment poisonous.

Dan Hunter said...

Pope Francis is no traditionalist, that is for sure, but he is a pastor and he wants all Catholics under one big tent.

He will regularize the SSPX and let them do what they want to do.

Elizabeth said...

My thoughts exactly.

Elizabeth said...

Bishop Fellay is wise and I completely trust his instincts. I don't think there's any chance of Francis 'reconciling' the SSPX, whether or not a meeting took place between the two men.

Anonymous said...

He is a pastor for Protestants, Pagans and Jews. He loathes Catholic piety. What kind of dope are you smoking?

Anonymous said...

HAHAHAHAHA !
"What kind of dope are you smoking?"
Very good, Anonymous 7:11 am. I could not put it better myself!
Francis is "pope" for Protestants, Pagans,Jews, and radical Vatican II cheerleading dissidents.
But he hates Catholic tradition, the Latin Mass, pre-Vatican II anything, pre-Vatican II Popes, Catholic piety, and conservative religious Orders.

He also hates traditional Cardinals and Bishops.
I don't wish ill on him of course, but the sooner he is gone (retired or whatever), the sooner the Catholic Church can recapture some of it's "Catholicity".
This "pope" is 100% Vatican II. Which doesn't translate as Catholic.

God Bless the SSPX, the remnant of the true Catholic Faith. I hope they never agree to anything under Pope Francis. Hopefully we will have a much better, traditional Pope the next time around in 1-2-3 years.

Anonymous said...

Yes, judging from the treatment of the faithful FFI, why would Rome just grant canonical status to the SSPX with no strings attached???

Anonymous said...

Ths SSPX still has to rise beyond the reputation of being a haven for lunatics who think there are lizard aliens behind a zionist-freemason alliance poised to destroy humanity.

Come on, you know they're there in larger quantities than in your happy clappy novus ordo parishes.

Still, seriously, SSPX has to show its relevance beyond its quasi-protestant position of "Being against how Rome is right now" and assert itself as "We ARE how Rome should be." not only in a small niche audience, but in communicating to, nay, -confronting- the world so that the world may know that not everyone is going with the flow.

Who are the sort of people are attracted to SSPX anyway? Disenchanted Catholics, conspiracy theorists, far-rightists (of which I am a part) and people who were born into it. Not a bad thing, but it shouldn't be limited to those people. Not saying compromise, but to challenge and make itself known more. So far, certain people have a monopoly in how SSPX is being presented, and that is a problem for the Society.

Tancred said...

The NO will have to cease being a haven for Freemasons and irreverent religious indifferentists and vile hypocrites who talk about mercy on one hand and revile decent Catholics on the other.

Dan Hunter said...

I wish it was opium, but I do believe Francis will unilaterally regularize the Society.

Which can only be a good thing for us Society Mass goer's and the whole world.

Tancred said...

I prefer whiskey. I don't see a downside.

Elizabeth said...

@Dan Hunter: I appreciate your optimism but I'm wondering what is it that you've seen or heard from this Pope that would lead you to that conclusion. By all accounts (and a steady stream of not-so-veiled insults), the man doesn't have any respect for traditional Catholicism or traditional Catholics.

LeonG said...

I was firmly against the first set of meetings which I knew would lead to a split because Benedict XVI knows the psychology of the traditionalist. Only a neo-Con would want to make a deal. A true Traditional Roman Catholic would not - the SP of Benedict XVI cleverly ties acceptance of TLM with the NO - impossible to a real traditional because we know it is not valid.
Also, the original "excommunications" of the SSPX bishops were canonically illegal. Fellay recognised their validity in wanting them lifted. Moreover, it was clear Archbishop Lefebvre knew the mind of Ratzinger - a man not to be trusted because he is a liberal modernist. The Councils to him were not for sale in any guise. Fellay had to learn this the hard way. he was no match for Ratzingerian guile.
Any more attempts to reconcile with the antithetical post-conciliar liberal modernist regime will serve only to fragment The Confraternity even more.
Keep off Bishop Fellay as you are once again playing with fire.

LeonG said...

What a superficial view of a great Confraternity founded by a truly great Archbishop. My parents were in The SSPX from the beginning, while I have known and met therein many very dedicated and devoted Catholics who manifest real charity for the other and immense reserves of fortitude in The Faith.
The SSPX have a very significant relevance in that they are the only Roman Catholic organisation that made liberal modernist Rome and its revolutionary Vatican realise that there are a large number of militant Catholics who are not prepared to sell out to the secular world under the pretense of a phoney "dialogue".

I suggest you do some reading where it counts and get out and meet real SSPX people who love The Roman Catholic Faith and its authentic liturgy and will go to all legitimate lengths to preserve what was handed down to us by our forefathers before the 1965 liberal modernist rebellion. While you are at read all Pope St Pius X's writings, as well as Fr Luigi Villas and Archbishop Lefebvres. You appear alarmingly short on instruction.

LeonG said...

Frankly speaking, which real Roman Catholic churchman - archbishop, bishop, priest, religious, layperson - would want to negotiate about The Faith with such renegades who have lost all notion of what being a Roman Catholic means? Such a person puts everyone under his care in danger of losing The Faith altogether.

Anonymous said...

Yes, it doesn't make sense.

Anonymous said...

A good start would be for the Pope to put an end to the scandalous suppression of the Franciscans of the Immaculate.

Anonymous said...

Francis could unilaterally regularize the society to gain control of it! But will the SSPX recognize the regularization?!

Denise said...

The SSPX would, of course, prefer to reconcile in a favorable atmosphere - or one that's at least open to Tradition (in Rome). But that's not likely to happen for a very long time. In the meantime, the SSPX will further decline due to dissension among the SSPX clergy and faithful. It is a house divided. I think that bishop Fellay understands this. The next Pope after Francis is likely to be every bit a modernist as Francis - or even worse. The Cardinals are not going to choose a devout Catholic at the next conclave. The SSPX should reconcile now, before they weaken further.

Denise said...

Rorate Caeli posted a link to Tornielli's blog today. Tornielli seems to be going to great lengths in his article by trying to show that RC has the scoop on the meeting between Bp. Fellay and the Pope before he did. I'm not buying it.

Conor O'Brien said...

The only motive I can see for Pope Francis to 'regularize' the Society's status is so that the Vatican can destroy it. The irony is, the SSPX is regularized with the historicaly Church and with Eternal Rome, it is the conciliar Church that needs to be 'regularized'.

Conor O'Brien said...

It seems we've lost sight of what the stance Archbishop Lefebvre took to begin with. What exactly does 'reconcile' mean? So far it has meant that the Society has to accept Rome's terms and accept the blatant errors of the Council and its resultant disoientation. What is gained by reconciling with error? Is it not patently obvious to anyone who reads the documents of the popes prior to the Council and then reads the Council, that the ideas of VII were explicitly condemned prior to VII. So who is right? What is right? Rome can declare the SSPX in an irregular canonical situation and not provide ordinary means of jurisdiction and ministerial function, but it would seem to me,since there is not transgression, the censures are invalid. So what does regularization provide for? The subversion of the SSPX.

Tancred said...

His primary concern was Liturgical and he changed his own opinion many times on the Council and other issues. Who can blame him, but someone will no doubt try.

http://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/f050ht_LefebvreCCL.htm

Tancred said...

Considering how hard the Sodano clan fought against the regularization of the Society, I think it’s entirely possible there are other motives.

If the Society doesn’t like it, they can just consecrate 8 more Bishops. Game over, at least for this decade.

Anonymous said...

You would have to forgive me for how superficial my knowledge of SSPX is, but all I know is that they're painted very poorly by people responsible for disseminating information into the whole Catholic Church. I know there's more to it than the SSPX being "A Rebel Schismatic Group" but for SSPX to succeed, what I am saying, is that it has to understand that not everyone outside the society, people who were made to believe that the Novus Ordo is all there is, and all the post Vat.2 nonsense is all there is, have the patience, intelligence, or charity to even listen to an SSPX apologist. What can people do in an age of information when there's so much, and some conflicting and confusing?

What happens when SSPX is painted poorly by organizations trusted at face value because it has semblance of "Officiality"? If I were a supporter of the SSPX, even though I know their situation, I'd seem like a crazy person and people aren't likely to listen to what I'd have to say.

So that's the dilemma for us non-SSPX supporters but sympathize out of their intentions of preserving the Roman Catholic patrimony. Some of you have the luxury of having a group that already agrees with you, the rest of us perform a balancing act.

Anonymous said...

So much for that giant tent by the Pope.

Did you know that orders had been fighting each other since the days of St. Francis? Dominicans, Jesuits, Franciscans, Augustinians, etc. Had been at each others' throats but the only thing that kept them Catholic is the Pope.

It's a good thing the SSPX isn't sedevacantist.

But what of the Pope? If the popes, since whichever post-war Pope is a modernist, then they are a heretic. Frankly, you'd be more honest if you support a "Traditionalist Anti-Pope" and attack Rome and install your own.

Whatever.

LeonG said...

At base, Archbishop Lefebvre wanted to hand down The Faith as it was handed down to him not a liberal modernist replica stripped of everything that embodied Roman Catholic Faith. He was attached to The Faith of Eternal Rome not the Liberal Modernist Rome of the counterfeiters.

LeonG said...

Because "others" are dominated by the propagandist mainstream media, including the liberal modernist neo-catholic one, They see only superficialities and what they want to see. The new regime in Rome wanted to produce a generation of semi-literate and illiterate relativist newchurchers who will accept whatever they are told - yes, even to believe that you can conanise "saints" without miracles and in a rush; you can have protestant liturgy and still be Catholic; you can dress and live how you like and go to Communion; you can ecumenise & be involved in eclectic praxis as far as you wish and remain in The Faith; you cannot be completely traditional and still be in "full communion" with Rome; if you are in "full communion with Rome" you are allowed to get away with almost anything as long as you are not exposed publicly etc.

If you are SSPX, even though there are official statements to the contrary by the last pope and other key cardinals such as Castrillon-Hoyos, you are schismatic, heretical, sectarian, integriste, far-right extremist, rightist nutter, taliban or any other insulting name they can imagine.

Damask Rose said...

"Pope Has Interest in Resolving SSPX Situation"

I'll believe it when I see it. At the moment it just seems like gossip picked up in a hotel lobby.

I agree with most commenters here regarding the SSPX. I do wish they were "in", no matter the fears and worries of "Volpi-ism". They could do a lot of good for all of us. Their priests could be invited to diocesan parishes for a "Day of Recollection"/Day Retreats. They could do retreats/Latin/TLM courses for diocesan priests and our NO kids could go on their summer camps. That would be brilliant for our kids, a real injection of faith, and I do trust the SSPX priests and sisters. But it wouldn't work if NO kids on theses camps get bullied because they go to the NO Mass. SSPX priests need to be more accessible. It's no good a SSPX priest coming to a parish and then give a talk on the evils of VII and the NO Mass and rambling on about how his host priest's ordination isn't valid. Some women don't want to wear a mantilla. They need to be diplomatic. As SSPXers have been brought up in the SSPX, SSPX priests need to understand that NO-goers have been brought up in their milieu too (...'brought up' with almost nothing!) and went along with the initial changes due to obedience. It's not their fault. SSPX priests need to be charitable, kind and more loving towards people. In some respects, being an SSPX, FSSP or any priest in "Ecclesia Dei" is, not sure I should say it, an easy type of priesthood. Parishioners are guaranteed, want to be there, believe what the priest says and support the priest emotionally and practically. Not so with the NO priest. An orthodox NO priest may have a hard time in his parish. I think there is a type of on-going circular partisanship in the SSPX between priest and parishioner. This being illustrated by the homilies/talks/letters to "benefactors" on a certain theme. If the SSPX were a member of Ecclesia Dei, this type of thing would be culled and make for a healthier SSPX. For some SSPXers, the partisanship may be the only reason they put money in the collection plate and SSPX priests shouldn't have to feel obliged to cultivate this. This of course, could mean a little more poverty for the SSPX Fathers and Society projects.

OK, so the SSPX are unhappy with the VII Church/Rome, but the VII Church/Rome has called for a New Evangelisation. What are the SSPX doing to evangelise the rest of us? At the moment it feels like they're just looking after themselves.

LeonG, I agree with mostly everything you say except this:

"...the NO - impossible to a real traditional because we know it is not valid."

Tancred said...

I don't think the Archishop was any less eager than Bishop Fellay to recognize the visible Church, far more so than these "Resistance" types are willing to admit. Their revisionism of the Archbishop is one of the conceits that permits them to pursue an agenda which causes some confusion and enmity among Catholics.

Tancred said...

Actually, if you read it, he goes to great lengths to show that the meeting doesn't mean anything.

Tancred said...

Who cares if you're SSPX, Jesuit or Dominican. Do you accept the truths of the Catholic Faith outside of which no one at all, can be saved?

Tancred said...

Society priests work like dogs to bring the Catholic Faith to the people of the world.

Damask Rose said...

Dear Tancred.
I'm sure they do. I don't doubt that at all. I'm sure they are wonderful, blessed priests who witness to the Lord Jesus every day. But, I've been to a 'Day of Recollection' given by an invited FSSP priest, advertised on the diocesan website, at a NO parish, but have as yet to see the SSPX do the same. This is what I mean. Honestly, I don't know if SSPX are being invited to do retreats/give homilies at NO parishes. Perhaps they are going to NO parishes, I don't know. But if would be lovely if they were. I wonder if an SSPX priest would even give the homily at a NO Mass? Why not? You've got to start somewhere. If they did give a homily, then a lot of NO parishioners would just see that they are good priests. 'Myths' would be dispelled. And SSPX Father could diplomatically go to coffee after Mass and circulate... I'm just saying. A lot of diocesan priests just call the SSPX schismatic like they're repeating a mantra. Even mentioning the word 'SSPX' is loaded, whereas all that has to be mentioned is that the Vatican has said they're not in schism and the Econe Four had their excommunications lifted (where that leaves the validity of Faculties and licitness, I'm not sure).

I just think there needs to be a lot of love and charity on both sides really, then we can all benefit.

Denise said...

Tancred,

Doesn't it concern you that Rorate has linked to a Vatican Insider article? After all, Tornielli was complicit in the initial persecution of FFI, and as such he is not to be trusted when it comes to anything traditional. I suppose that you will remove this post.

Anonymous said...

HERE is the truth about the big "meeting" as reported by Rorate Coeli. http://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/about-meeting-pope-francis-and-bishop-fellay-4067

Maybe Adfero should change his name to Interfero or Inferio and find himself a new source for his gossip.

Tancred said...

That’s basically how Tornielli described it, with his usual editorial hostility to the Society included.

Elizabeth said...

I just read the same thing, direct from SSPX. No such meeting occurred, brief or otherwise. Oops.

Tancred said...

Brings back memories of what happened not only with Good Shepherd but with Papa Stronsay as well. Same denunciations of the revelations of premature to actual reconciliation.

schmenz said...

That is correct. No official meeting took place. It was what the Society said, a cordial meeting with a Vatican official during which at some point the Pope was introduced to the members of the Society who were present.

This information was known for several weeks but was not publicized for the very simple reason that no one wanted to raise any false hopes about anything and, in any case, there really wasn't that much to report to begin with. The only thing that is significant is that the communication lines are still open, and so we must ask the Risen Savior to move the hardened Roman hearts in this matter.

Tancred said...

There must be some reason they’re still meeting with Ecclesia Dei, and Msgr. Pozzo, but it is what it is.

AT said...

It certainly concerns me too.

Anonymous said...

Logically, the Catholic Church is the Truth, or it isn't, because there is only but one Truth, all others are derivatives or counterfeits.

And this overlaps with the notion that we have to consider Jesus Christ as either a liar, or a crazy person if He is not who He says He Is. That Jesus Christ is not just a "Great Moral Teacher" (Meaning He is a crazy person or a liar) but the fount of all the splendor and beauty that is expressed in the Mass.

Yes, I am not an SSPX supporter, but I wish they become the antidote to a poisoned and deceived people- and this means they have to do counter-revolutionary activities in infiltrating branches of society the same way the godless have done. Now, the neo-catholics and the Vatican 2 Liberals say "Well, how can we infiltrate using a visibly and identifiably Roman liturgy and spirituality which is what the SSPX demonstrates?" The problem that those modernists' methods present is that the supposedly Catholic clergy and religious had "Gone Native" and are as every bit as godless as Richard Dawkins. They had lost the gift of Faith that God gave them, and are now nothing more than social workers, politicians and bureaucrats in robes and miters.

Traditionalists and the SSPX seem to offer a harder, and therefore Christlike and legitimate path to contributing to the Lord's mission entrusted to His Apostolic Church. Not so much heterodoxy for the sake of "orthodoxy." which we find nowadays.

Anonymous said...

Sometimes, people forget or don't want to understand that charity involves telling people the ugly truth. And this involves making enemies of bishops and powerful people.

That's why the SSPX is hated and are not invited. But for the part of the SSPX, I have not seen my local chapel reach out to the nearby parish. (In fact it would be a wonderful test of the "tolerant", "welcoming", "charitable" and "non-judgemental" Novus Ordo parish to see if they would allow SSPX in like they would Jesus Christ, or if they would only allow some other counterfeit "Jesus" that they find more agreeable.

Elizabeth said...

The SSPX has also countered Rorate's "exclusive" regarding Bishop Fellay's two assistants, Frs. Niklaus Pfluger and Alain-Marc Nély, having attended a Mass offered by the Pope. Apparently that never happened either.

Tancred said...

We’ve been this way before my friend. The same happened with Good Shepherd, Campos and Papa Stronsay.

Conor O'Brien said...

The conciliar church has called for a new evangelization because it is a new faith. A new form of worship, a new daily prayer of the church, a new calendar, new doctrines for those outside the church, lay ministers, a new understanding of the papacy, built in the principles of immanence and modernism, new rites of ordination, new names and prayers for the sacraments, new buildings, new positions in parishes...you need a new evangelization to spread this new 'good news'.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...