Author Topic: Pope may offer society personal ordinariate (Read 11123 times)

Telesphorus · « **on:** April 03, 2011, 02:52:28 AM »

http://eponymousflower.blogspot.com/2011/04/pope-may-offer-society-personal.html

Quote

The Holy see is ascertaining the possibility of the unifying of the Society of St. Pius X by erecting a Personal Ordinariat.

As far as concerns the question of a form in church law for the Society founded by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, the Vatican appears to be considering the erection of a Personal Ordinariat. since Autumn 2010 Canon lawyers have been studying this idea. One such canonical solution for the Society put in a quasischismatic situation by the 1988 Episcopal consecrations will be proposed by the summer. This was reported on the French site Summorum Pontificuм observatus.

In the French rea of Catholic traditionalism it is presently an exchange of blows taking place. The page Disputationes Theologicae, which is made up of members affiliated with the Institute of the Good Shepherd is driven to view the talks between the Holy See and the Society of St. Pius X as "abortive". Similarly, American Vaticanist John Allen understands from explanations from Abbé de Caquera and Bishop Williamson, one of the four Bishops of the Society.

Summorum Pontificuм observatus sees behind the voices, which have attempted to put the discussions in a negative light, "an active minority of French priests of the Pius Society" at work, "who dismiss canonical reognition". These critics are internal to the society to which belong the French District Superior, Bishops Tissier de Mallerais as well, who have described Pope Benedict XVI earlier this year as "supermodernistic", according to Messsa in latino.

Summorum Pontificuм observatus reports also the voices which speak of a failure of the talks between Rome and the Society being "unfounded". The emerging offer of the Holy See, to erect for the Society a Personal Ordinaria as a canonical structure within the Church, is a "treat opportunity". They would secure the independence of the Society from the Diocesan Bishops. It is a particular concern of the Pope to offer the Society a solution which is canonically reliable.

Jehanne · « **Reply #1 on:** April 03, 2011, 06:25:16 AM »

Divide and conquer? I hope that they say, "No," at least not without a new Syllabus correcting the errors of Vatican II.

Zenith · « **Reply #2 on:** April 03, 2011, 06:42:45 AM »

Mmmm...twin bothers with opus dei! No thanks! :boxer:

Jitpring · « **Reply #3 on:** April 03, 2011, 12:22:34 PM »

It won't happen. The proposal will surely be seen as a ruse, as being offered with the knowledge that it'll be rejected, and thus as another means of painting the SSPX as unreasonably intransigent.

Goose · « **Reply #4 on:** April 03, 2011, 04:58:42 PM »

Quote from: Zenith

Mmmm...twin bothers with opus dei! No thanks! :boxer:

You're thinking personal prelature - not ordinariate. Think Anglicanorum Coetibus.

Zenith · « **Reply #5 on:** April 03, 2011, 05:25:20 PM »

Quote from: Goose

Quote from: Zenith
Mmmm...twin bothers with opus dei! No thanks! :boxer:

You're thinking personal prelature - not ordinariate. Think Anglicanorum Coetibus.

True. Whether its the opus dei ʝʊdɛօ Freemasons or Anglicans, they are all being brought together in Ratzingers one world church :devil2: :heretic: :boxer:

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #6 on:** April 03, 2011, 09:47:56 PM »

I also hope this does not happen. It probably won't, but Bishop Fellay just might be interested.

stevusmagnus · « **Reply #7 on:** April 04, 2011, 08:47:01 AM »

I think Bishop Fellay has always said Rome had a "Rolls Royce" canonical structure set up for them. When he met with the Pope in 2005, the Pope turned to Cardinal Hoyos to ask where they stood and Hoyos said everything was set for the Society to come in and the papers regarding the Canonical structure were put together and being studied by the Roman Office for Canon Law!

Bishop Fellay, of course, put on the breaks, quite surprised, and brought up the issues that still remained. During the course of that conversation BXVI called Archbishop Lefebvre "The Venerable Archbishop Lefebvre" and "This great man of the universal Church." Needless to say Bishop Fellay was floored.

The Pope has also said his two biggest regrets as Cardinal were the way the Fatima third secret was handled and the breakdown of negotiatoins in 1988 with ABL.

I think this Pope put his money where his mouth is in showing by actions, as well as words, that he takes the Society seriously and wants them in the "official" Church. Bishop Fellay laid out 3 pre-conditions and the Pope met them ALL. Say what you want about BXVI, but can you IMAGINE Paul VI or JPII meeting ANY of these conditions?

They were, of course, the freeing of the Mass, the lifting of the "excommunicatoins" and doctrinal discussions. I think it is a miracle that the Pope met ALL THREE before ANYTHING was required from the Society.

The big X factor are the doctrinal discussions. Nobody really knows what the situation is or how they will end up.

In the end, I think a Papal statement or Motu Proprio, as the fruit of these discussions would be ideal. I envision it including a list of "errors" or false "interpretations of VCII". For example, "if anyone would interpret "subsist" in any manner that would deny the Catholic Church is the Church of Christ, let him be anathema" and so on.

Even if it simply closes the doors on the worst ambiguities of VCII, I think the Society will have succeeded and done a great service for the Church. Rome has not definitively interpreted any of these ambiguities which have served as fuel for liberal Catholicism. Cardinal Ratzinger tried to some degree in Dominus Jesus but still left the door open.

In any case, I think the personal ordinariate would be a great thing. It puts the Society outside the control of the Bishops. That is HUGE. They could continue just as they have been, the only difference being they are inside the "official" Church, thus taking away ALL of the "full communion" liberal and Neo-Catholic technical arguments of "licitness" and of that crap. THEN they would be FORCED to get down to brass tacks. The Faith! They can't use the tired old "schism" and "disobedience" canards. Then the fight goes to doctrine and they will HAVE to see the Society's position as a legitimate one they cannot IGNORE or DISMISS as those on CAF and Neo-Cath apoogists do with impunity.

And WORST CASE let's say Rome starts mistreating them or silencing them or interfering with them. Guess what? They keep doing what they've been doing and if Rome wants to start sanctioning them, who cares? Has the Society not been down that road before? And because Rome knows this, I think they will be VERY hesitant to mess with the Society once they are "in". I think they will be left alone. I think it is a win/ win for the Society. They would have little to lose and a lot to gain.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #8 on:** April 04, 2011, 08:53:32 AM »

Quote

They could continue just as they have been, the only difference being they are inside the "official" Church, thus taking away ALL of the "full communion" liberal and Neo-Catholic technical arguments of "licitness" and of that crap. THEN they would be FORCED to get down to brass tacks. The Faith! They can't use the tired old "schism" and "disobedience" canards. Then the fight goes to doctrine and they will HAVE to see the Society's position as a legitimate one they cannot IGNORE or DISMISS as those on CAF and Neo-Cath apoogists do with impunity.

Do you really expect the people on CAF to change or admit they were wrong in any way?

Do you think they're going to let people post about Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ?

Criticize the NO or compare it to the true mass?

Are you yourself unconvinced of the legitimacy of the SSPX itself and somehow think papal approval of their ministry will change any of the problems that led to the SSPX existing in the first place?

If the SSPX accepts a deal that's the end of its independence.

This is about subversion of the SSPX - subversion the signs of which have been evident for some time already.

stevusmagnus · « **Reply #9 on:** April 04, 2011, 09:40:59 AM »

It doesn't matter what CAF does. The point is that the Neo-Caths who worship obedience will be forced to admit the Society is no longer "disobedient", so they would need to go head to head with the substance of what the SSPX is saying which would then be a legitimate and "full-communion" view they could not ignore. It would rock the Neo-Caths to their core if the Society is legitimized without any concessions on their part.

This act would also open the door for those Trads worried about canonical issues to flow into the Society chapels. Whether valid or not the supposed censures have scared many Traditional Catholics away from the Society. Getting rid of this "scarecrow" is a good thing.

A great deal of the problems that lead to the Society's suspension were caused by diocesan bishops. This problem will no longer exist with the new structure.

As far as "independence" goes, independence from the "official" Church is only justified as an exception to the rule. It was not meant to last in perpetuity. If the Society is allowed to operate as is with protection against local Bishops, then it should allow its canonical situation to be regularized and operate within the "official Church" as it was designed to do. As I said, if Rome tries to enforce anything non-Catholic upon it, the Society can simply refuse.

The Society should stand for Catholic Tradition. If Rome wants to "regularize" them as is, so be it. They should have no objection, unless they are truly schismatic and simply want no part of the Church under any circuмstance. If that is the case they should become Sedes and elect their own Pope. At the same time, if the "official Church" asks them to do anything contrary to Tradition they should refuse. If they get suspended again, so be it. I think this is the proper attitude to take. Stick to Tradition and whatever Rome wants to do, so be it.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #10 on:** April 04, 2011, 09:53:53 AM »

Quote

It doesn't matter what CAF does. The point is that the Neo-Caths who worship obedience will be forced to admit the Society is no longer "disobedient", so they would need to go head to head with the substance of what the SSPX is saying which would then be a legitimate and "full-communion" view they could not ignore. It would rock the Neo-Caths to their core if the Society is legitimized without any concessions on their part.

I don't think so. After all - the liberal bishops and cardinals are all "legitimate", and that doesn't mean the "conservative" Catholics refrain from criticizing them.

Quote

This act would also open the door for those Trads worried about canonical issues to flow into the Society chapels. Whether valid or not the supposed censures have scared many Traditional Catholics away from the Society. Getting rid of this "scarecrow" is a good thing.

They already have the FSSP and indult masses. Yes, it might help some move over, but I doubt many will. It can hardly compensate for what will happen to the SSPX apologetics as a result of being absorbed.

Quote

As far as "independence" goes, independence from the "official" Church is only justified as an exception to the rule. It was not meant to last in perpetuity. If the Society is allowed to operate as is with protection against local Bishops, then it should allow its canonical situation to be regularized and operate within the "official Church" as it was designed to do. As I said, if Rome tries to enforce anything non-Catholic upon it, the Society can simply refuse.

The principles that justify not obeying are the same principles that Catholics have always believed. Nothing has changed in the real opposition between the principles of Archbishop Lefebvre and the principles of the current hierarchy. In practice, yes, the SSPX will not be independent anymore - you seem very sanguine about their willingness to refuse what is suggested to them - it seems certain that the successors to the current bishops will be Vatican approved. Now can any authentic resistance be continued under such circuмstances?

Quote

The Society should stand for Catholic Tradition. If Rome wants to "regularize" them as is, so be it.

You mean if Rome wants to have levers of control - then the SSPX should accept the imposition of those levers?

Quote

They should have no objection, unless they are truly schismatic and simply want no part of the Church under any circuмstance.

That's nonsense. The claim that they don't want any part of the Church under any circuмstance because they wouldn't accept "regularization" does not follow.

Quote

If that is the case they should become Sedes and elect their own Pope.

lol sedes don't elect their own pope. Those are conclavists.

Quote

At the same time, if the "official Church" asks them to do anything contrary to Tradition they should refuse. If they get suspended again, so be it.

It is rather naive to believe they're not making any compromises and would be willing to "disobey" if it meant the possibility of losing their status again.

Quote

I think this is the proper attitude to take. Stick to Tradition and whatever Rome wants to do, so be it.

Can they really criticize the new religion the way they have in a past under such circuмstances? It seems highly doubtful.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #11 on:** April 04, 2011, 02:32:33 PM »

Stevus is right that the neo-Caths would be forced to say that the SSPX is in "full communion with Rome" if this happens. However, I don't want it to happen. Their best bet is to stay away. And you know Bishop Williamson wouldn't want to go along with this. But with his recent problems, his opinion may be blocked out.

stevusmagnus · « **Reply #12 on:** April 04, 2011, 02:54:23 PM »

Quote

lol sedes don't elect their own pope. Those are conclavists.

And conclavists are not sedes??

The conclavists are the honest sedes. If there is truly no Pope then there is an obligation for those who recognize this (only remaining true Catholics) to state it publicly and to DO something about it by electing a new Pope, not just wander around aimlessly until God sends one from Heaven.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #13 on:** April 04, 2011, 03:37:21 PM »

Quote from: stevusmagnus

Quote
lol sedes don't elect their own pope. Those are conclavists.

And conclavists are not sedes??

The conclavists are the honest sedes. If there is truly no Pope then there is an obligation for those who recognize this (only remaining true Catholics) to state it publicly and to DO something about it by electing a new Pope, not just wander around aimlessly until God sends one from Heaven.

They're not sedes, and no group of sedes is in the position to elect a Pope. There's no obligation on the part of sedes to provide a Pope, that's nonsense.

stevusmagnus · « **Reply #14 on:** April 04, 2011, 04:45:49 PM »

Have all conclavists elected a Pope? If they have I suppose they'd be schismatics and deluded since they think the Chair is filled by "Pope Michael" in his mom's basement or whatever.

The point is that if rigorist Sedes were honest they'd elect a Pope instead of sitting around wringing their hands and waiting for one to fall from the sky. What kind of Catholics recognize there is no Pope and no Cardinals to elect one yet won't provide one themselves to the Church?

Other Sedes canonically fan dance to avoid the rigorist position, but they twist logic to do so.

BTW, yet another thread turns into a referendum on Sede-ism.