Author Topic: Rome makes new proposal to SSPX (Read 2922 times)

cathman7 · « **on:** November 19, 2015, 02:36:48 PM »

Original source: http://www.katholisches.info/2015/11/19/rom-hat-piusbruderschaft-neuen-vorschlag-unterbreitet/

Quote

Rome makes new proposal to SSPX
The Holy See has made a new proposal to the Society of St. Pius X. Specifically, it relates to the status of the SSPX. The Fraternity is not canonically recognized and therefore for decades has been in a state of suspension, which leads to different interpretations among canon lawyers and bishops as to whether it is part of the Catholic Church or not.

A sedevacantist website of the United States claimed that an agreement between the SSPX which was founded by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and Rome was imminent. This was denied to gloria.tv by Father Franz Schmidberger, Rector of the International Seminary of the SSPX in Zaitzkofen in Bavaria.

Father Schmidberger confirmed the proposal, but denies agreement

Father Schmidberger, who was already Superior General of the Priestly Society and German District Superior, however, confirmed that there is a concrete proposal which Rome has submitted to the SSPX. However, there is still much to clarify according to Schmidberger.

The existence of a Roman proposal had been confirmed by the Swiss District Superior of the Brotherhood to their priests, according to Secretum Meum Mihi.

This message was posted by those circles who are close to priests which left the SSPX in 2012 SSPX or have been excluded from this. The reason for this was briefly, was that there was no conflict over the conditions under which a canonical regulation by Rome could be accepted, but a fundamental rejection of any agreement with Rome by a minority in the SSPX.

http://cathcon.blogspot.ca/2015/11/rome-makes-new-proposal-to-sspx.html?m=1

BJ5 · « **Reply #1 on:** November 20, 2015, 08:20:10 AM »

The intrigue is fascinating. It appears that the Society could remain in the state of "proposal" throughout this entire Pontificate, especially if Rome is not imposing deadlines.

Assuming this proposal has been, as some have asserted, on the table since July, it must be, by necessity, different than the 2012 docuмent/response, or else, why bother? But it is probably not as clean as "no strings attached". Yet since the summer, +Fellay has come out with public rebukes of the Synod and an open letter to Pope Burgolio. So maybe +Fellay is testing the patience of Rome to see if the proposal is withdrawn with public criticism of the Synod? If it were, that would once again let the Society off the hook for a spell. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that there might be other Bishops/Cardinals who have made contact with +Fellay in a clandestine manner to form an orthodox alliance of sorts.

I might go out on a limb by wondering if this Synod could be the initial step in the divine restoration of the church?

Christopher67 · « **Reply #2 on:** November 20, 2015, 08:26:42 AM »

....always darkest before the dawn....so here's hoping...

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #3 on:** November 20, 2015, 10:52:06 AM »

Quote

This message was posted by those circles who are close to priests which left the SSPX in 2012 SSPX or have been excluded from this.

Excluded like +W was? Circles like the Resistance priests?

Quote

The reason for this was briefly, was that there was no conflict over the conditions under which a canonical regulation by Rome could be accepted, but a fundamental rejection of any agreement with Rome by a minority in the SSPX.

How could there be no conflict when there is a "fundamental rejection?"
And who comprises this "minority?" Bishop Tissier alone, in exile?

Marlelar · « **Reply #4 on:** November 21, 2015, 01:49:11 PM »

Add a body and it worthy of a Dashiell Hammett story.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #5 on:** November 21, 2015, 02:21:43 PM »

Quote

there is still much to clarify according to Schmidberger

And that's been the case for the past 5 years of imminent reunification now.

MaterDominici · « **Reply #6 on:** November 21, 2015, 02:42:23 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote
there is still much to clarify according to Schmidberger

And that's been the case for the past 5 years of imminent reunification now.

He's also reported to have said:
It will only take a short while that all will be settled with Rome. [We] only
have to solve a "few minor issues".

Talking out of both sides of his mouth is what really has been the case for the past 5 years.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #7 on:** November 21, 2015, 05:39:33 PM »

Quote

However, there is still much to clarify according to Schmidberger.

There's still much to clarify -- starting with the statement itself that there is still much to clarify.

What is left to clarify?

Ambiguity was the cornerstone of Vatican II, and now it's the first principle of Fr. Franz Schmidberger.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #8 on:** November 21, 2015, 07:59:29 PM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat

Quote
However, there is still much to clarify according to Schmidberger.

There's still much to clarify -- starting with the statement itself that there is still much to clarify.

:roll-laugh2: