SSPX's relations with Rome per Pozzo
March 27, 2015 District of the USA

Archbishop Pozzo stated recently that on Rome's part nothing stands in the way for a rapprochement with the SSPX—but is this the reality of the situation?

In response to some interview answers made by Archbishop Pozzo of the Ecclesia Dei Commission about the SSPX's relations with the Holy See, DICI has offered the commentary below to clarify the reality of the situation.

The SSPX’s relations with Rome, according to Archbishop Pozzo

After the consecration of Fr. Jean-Michel Faure by Bishop Richard Williamson on March 19, 2015, at the monastery of Santa Cruz de Nova Friburgo (Brazil), the Roman press agency I.Media questioned Archbishop Guido Pozzo, secretary of the Ecclesia Dei Commission. The latter took advantage of the opportunity to make a statement on the state of the relations between the Society of St. Pius X and Rome, declaring that beyond the doctrinal difficulties that exist, the problems are “within the Society”.

According to the Roman prelate quoted by I.Media: “The pope expects the Society of St. Pius X to decide to enter [the Church—Ed.], and we are ready at any time with a canonical plan that is already known,” namely the creation of a personal prelature. “It will take a little time for things to be clarified internally and for Bishop Fellay to be able to obtain a broad enough consensus before making this step.”—It is we who put this claim in bold.

At the Society of St. Pius X’s General House, they are wondering about Archbishop Pozzo’s intention in the last statement, which does not correspond to reality: Is this his view of the situation? A personal wish? Or an attempt to introduce division within the Society?

Bishop Fellay has already responded to the Ecclesia Dei Commission several times, orally and in writing. What makes canonical recognition in the form of a personal prelature impossible at this time is essentially the “doctrinal difficulties”, namely, Rome’s demand that we accept Vatican Council II and the reforms that followed it in a “hermeneutic of continuity”.

The informal meetings between the members of the Society of St. Pius X and several bishops, requested by the Ecclesia Dei Commission, are taking place within this specific context; they are supposed to help make the Society and its apostolate better known, but above all its doctrinal positions. In fact, these meetings render the doctrinal differences ever more clear. And the Society’s Roman interlocutors are obliged to acknowledge that many questions remain “open”, which is a way of acknowledging that our objections are far from being resolved.

Because of this observation, the Superior General maintains that it is necessary to present to the Roman authorities the Society’s positions in their entirety, and not to waver on these positions, which are merely the positions of all the popes before Vatican II.

The French university professor Luc Perrin shared his thoughts on the matter on the Forum Catholique on March 20, claiming that it is no use “pretending that all is well in the best possible Roman heaven.” He wrote realistically:

(Archbishop Pozzo) has been saying exactly the same thing ever since the illusions of a speedy agreement that the boiling Cardinal Castrillon-Hoyos entertained in 2000. John Paul II was just as convinced in 1978-1979 that full communion was right around the corner: we know what came of that, but in Rome, Teilhardian or silly 1962-John XXIII-style optimism seems still to be in style.”

One must not discourage Billancourt or the different prelates of the Ecclesia Dei Commission—far be it from me to suggest such an idea—and it is good to see that a Roman authority has a faith solid enough to resist the wear of time, but… it is not very useful to play the enraptured insider, levitating above St. Peter’s dome surrounded by smiling little angels playing their lyres…, this heavenly choir chanting an In Paradisum: ‘the agreement, the agreement, soon the agreement, the agreement is here.’

To begin with, if the different stupidities committed in Rome throughout this long affair were pointed out, it would bring us back down to earth. A short list for His Eminence Cardinal Muller and Archbishop Pozzo:

a) thou shalt be distrustful of silly optimism, but with a supernatural hope in the promises of unity in veritate;

b) thou shalt abandon a botched discussion and shalt not count the time: why not resume the discussions brusquely and intemperately interrupted by Rome in 2011? Or at least work towards resuming them;

c) thou shalt construct a full communion step by step: rather than a preconceived and not necessarily very good ‘canonical solution’—a personal prelature has plenty of flaws—today, it seems to me more realistic to solve certain practical problems step by step…, (given) the fragility of the motu proprio, Summorum Pontificuм since the election of Pope Francis who, while confirming it, has already made a serious dent in it with the Franciscans of the Immaculate, and is eroding it with little phrases that cannot but arouse worries.”
Regarding these “practical problems” that could be resolved by concrete gestures, allow us to recall that when the teaching Dominicans of Fanjeaux made their pilgrimage to Rome—from February 9 to 14, 2015—200 religious, and 950 students accompanied by a hundred teachers and parents, were not able to have a church in which one of their chaplains could celebrate the traditional Mass… because they belong to the Society of St. Pius X. Soothing words are volatile; the concrete facts are far more eloquent.

(sources: I.Media/FSSPX/FC —DICI, 3-27-2015)





Hmmm! Is this the truth or the smart response of a good public relation's agency? At least this shows Menzingen acknowledges Pozzo's  statements open a Pandora box! Cannot wait for Pozzo's response!

Significant amounts of what could easily be "mental reservation" in this docuмent; common tactic of the recent +Fellay SSPX.

According to the SSPX:

Bishop Fellay has already responded to the Ecclesia Dei Commission several times, orally and in writing. What makes canonical recognition in the form of a personal prelature impossible at this time is essentially the “doctrinal difficulties”, namely, Rome’s demand that we accept Vatican Council II and the reforms that followed it in a “hermeneutic of continuity”.


Ok, let us suppose that tomorrow, Rome came to the SSPX and said:  We accept your proposition.  You may have your personal prelature and you can criticize Vat II all you want.  Come, come, we want you with us.....

Based on this news release, the SSPX would run into the arms of Rome.  They have already said they would.

Does not the most ignorant already know and have seen what happened to the other "Traditionalist organizations" or as True Trad terms "The Dead"?  They took Rome at their word and suffered the fate of neutering, or, yes, death.  

http://www.truetrad.com/index.php/the-dead

Isn't all this getting a little ridiculous?  

Quote

c) …, (given) the fragility of the motu proprio, Summorum Pontificuм since the election of Pope Francis who, while confirming it, has already made a serious dent in it with the Franciscans of the Immaculate, and is eroding it with little phrases that cannot but arouse worries.”

The "worries" should have started when BXVI declared the N.O Mass and the1962 Missal to be "two expressions of the same rite" of which the 1962 Missal is the "EOF". Instead, +Fellay was singing the Te Deum and in fact accepting the H.C. His problem with francis is that he won't give him his R.R. Missal. He should have gone back to the pre- Bugnini Missal for which he always had a right if he rejected the H.C. but "the concrete facts are far more eloquent".

Quote

...allow us to recall that when the teaching Dominicans of Fanjeaux made their pilgrimage to Rome—from February 9 to 14, 2015—200 religious, and 950 students accompanied by a hundred teachers and parents, were not able to have a church in which one of their chaplains could celebrate the traditional Mass… because they belong to the Society of St. Pius X. Soothing words are volatile; the concrete facts are far more eloquent.

What hypocrisy!  Fr. de Sivry, SSPX, on August 9, 2014, celebrated Mass at the Vatican at the Altar of Saint Pius X. The SSPX has increasingly been allowed to offer Mass at the main shrines. Yes, "the concrete facts are far more eloquent", SSPX!

 http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/08/sspx-priest-celebrates-mass-in-saint.html
http://sspx.org/en/media/video/bp-tissier-pontifical-mass-2014-lourdes-5325
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2015/01/sspx-offers-missa-cantata-in-us.html

Hypocrisy, indeed!  On another thread I wrote about Fr. Pfluger saying Mass at the tomb of St. Pius X during the time of the Dominicans Pilgrimage, in February.  It was for a family who were on the pilgrimage and he gave First Communion to their daughter.  So, it is possible for an SSPX priest to say Mass in St. Peter's but it seems one must have the money to pay for the privilege!  Who gets the fee -- St. Peter's or Father Pfluger?  I can't answer that question.

According to the SSPX:

Bishop Fellay has already responded to the Ecclesia Dei Commission several times, orally and in writing. What makes canonical recognition in the form of a personal prelature impossible at this time is essentially the “doctrinal difficulties”, namely, Rome’s demand that we accept Vatican Council II and the reforms that followed it in a “hermeneutic of continuity”.


Ok, let us suppose that tomorrow, Rome came to the SSPX and said:  We accept your proposition.  You may have your personal prelature and you can criticize Vat II all you want.  Come, come, we want you with us.....

Based on this news release, the SSPX would run into the arms of Rome.  They have already said they would.

Does not the most ignorant already know and have seen what happened to the other "Traditionalist organizations" or as True Trad terms "The Dead"?  They took Rome at their word and suffered the fate of neutering, or, yes, death.  

http://www.truetrad.com/index.php/the-dead

Isn't all this getting a little ridiculous?  

Very good point.

Even Rome's mythical "no-strings-attached" agreement would be worthy of rejection -- Rome hasn't converted. "And what concord hath Christ with Belial? Or what part hath the faithful with the unbeliever?" (2 Cor 6:15)

And look at all the Trad groups that tried to "convert Rome from within". 100% failure so far.

It takes a certain SSPX Triumphalism or SSPX Exceptionalism -- a belief that the SSPX is unique, special or somehow "the cat's pajamas" -- to think that the SSPX joining Conciliar Rome will have different results than all the others.

But unfortunately I've hit the nail on the head -- there is a huge contingent of SSPX fanboys (fanatics) that truly believe the SSPX is especially blessed by God simply in virtue of being the SSPX (rather than because it's faithful in maintaining Tradition).

It takes a certain SSPX Triumphalism or SSPX Exceptionalism -- a belief that the SSPX is unique, special or somehow "the cat's pajamas" -- to think that the SSPX joining Conciliar Rome will have different results than all the others.

But unfortunately I've hit the nail on the head -- there is a huge contingent of SSPX fanboys (fanatics) that truly believe the SSPX is especially blessed by God simply in virtue of being the SSPX (rather than because it's faithful in maintaining Tradition).

 :applause: Great post!
(just kidding...)

Seriously, though, I'd like to add something:

There is a close parallel between

A) the Pharisees of Our Lord's time, who were filled with pride because they were "children of Abraham", who thought they were special on mere account of their birth, and

B) the SSPX "devotees" I mentioned, who are filled with pride because they are part of the SSPX, who think they are special on mere account of being part of the granddaddy of all Trad groups, the 800-lb. gorilla, the SSPX.

Both groups seemed to forget that fidelity also has something to do with goodness/salvation.

As Our Lord said, God could raise up new children to Abraham from a pile of stones. Long story short, God didn't need the Jєωs, and He doesn't need the SSPX today.

The SSPX needs God. Not vice-versa. If they compromise or fail in their duty to the Faith/Tradition, they will be cast out like salt which has lost its savor. That's exactly what happened to the Jєωs in Our Lord's time.

Jerusalem was LITERALLY trodden on by the Romans. All that was left of the buildings -- the entire city -- was a piece of the "wailing wall".

In both cases, you have a group that started thinking of themselves, and their own earthly good (SSPX wants: no more stigma of being "outside" the Church, more popularity, more material wealth. Jєωs wanted: no more stigma of being under the Romans, worldly power and glory)

Those desires are human and understandable -- nothing wrong with those goals in themselves. But those goals must be subordinated to God and fidelity to His will. If God wants the Jєωs to remain subject to the Romans, then it must be so. And if God wills that the Crisis continue another 50 years, then we must offer it up.

At the Society of St. Pius X’s General House, they are wondering about Archbishop Pozzo’s intention in the last statement, which does not correspond to reality: Is this his view of the situation? A personal wish? Or an attempt to introduce division within the Society?

Bishop Fellay has already responded to the Ecclesia Dei Commission several times [...]

Bp. Fellay conducts secret negotiations with the Vatican toward the openly acknowledged final goal of integrating the SSPX under full Vatican control. Eventual integration with (or reconquest of) the Vatican is the legitimate goal of all traditional Roman Catholics, but the Vatican of today is run by freemasons.

Archbishop Pozzo, chief Vatican negotiator, has effectively accused Fellay of betraying his followers. Menzingen responds by accusing Pozzo of lying and bad faith. Only Vatican and Menzingen insiders can judge the truthfulness of Pozzo's and Fellay's counterclaims with certainty. However, outside observers can know with objectively certainty that at least one of these parties is lying.

The informal meetings between the members of the Society of St. Pius X and several bishops, requested by the Ecclesia Dei Commission, are taking place within this specific context; they are supposed to help make the Society and its apostolate better known, but above all its doctrinal positions.

The Vatican now directly contradicts this familiar Menzingen line and pointedly echos the darkest warnings of the Resistance at a most critical moment. Pozzo removed any reasonable doubts among trads concerning the existence of an emergency state so dire as to justify consecrating new bishops. Only the most abject fanboy partisans can now maintain that Bp. Williamson is beholded to some religious obligation of believing Menzingen is above the suspicion of compromise.

Because of this observation, the Superior General maintains that it is necessary to present to the Roman authorities the Society’s positions in their entirety, and not to waver on these positions

What can this possibly mean? It sounds like Fellay is alleging a Vatican misunderstanding that came from his previous failure to present the Society’s positions in their entirety or previous wavering. If +Fellay has previously wavered but will now hold firm, that is reason to rejoice. However, Pozzo's carefree attitude indicates he fears no such SSPX return to militancy. The Vatican heedlessly boosts the Resistance and publicly humiliates Fellay with the same capricious contempt directed against all the now-helpless trad groups who experienced the compromise on doctrine that always results from false religious obedience.

When is this overdue presentation of the Society’s non-wavering, non-truncated position to happen? Must it also be secret? Or will this entire incident be flushed down the memory hole like so many others?

A short list for His Eminence Cardinal Muller and Archbishop Pozzo:

a) thou shalt be distrustful of silly optimism, but with a supernatural hope in the promises of unity in veritate;

b) thou shalt abandon a botched discussion and shalt not count the time: why not resume the discussions brusquely and intemperately interrupted by Rome in 2011? Or at least work towards resuming them;

c) thou shalt construct a full communion step by step [...]

Perhaps there is some confusion due to translation, although I thought the French language had no equivalent to the archaic English "thou shalt." DICI's quoting "thou shalts" here comes across in English as trivializing a very serious matter. Perhaps these inappropriate professor's quotes from were included to fill a vacuum left by the absence of any detailed, explicit refutation from Bp. Fellay. (Please correct me Fellay has actually issued such a refutation.)

Hmmm! Is this the truth or the smart response of a good public relation's agency? At least this shows Menzingen acknowledges Pozzo's  statements open a Pandora box! Cannot wait for Pozzo's response!

Is there really anything to which Pozzo need respond? Fellay has a long track record of denying reports about his private statements and contradicting previous public statements. Menzingen can easily disprove Pozzo's claims by disclosing communication records with the Vatican now held secret. Pozzo's breech of faith would certainly release Menzingen of any secrecy obligations toward the Vatican in any normal situation. The continued withholding of communications would indicate Menzingen has something to hide or that it is already beholden to those same interests now controlling the Vatican.

I predict both parties will move toward sweeping this incident under the rug.