![o{]:¬)](http://www.wdtprs.com/blog/wp-images/topimage.JPG)
AFP: Lefebvrites - no intention of “responding” to Vatican ultimatum
The spokesman of the SSPX is reported by the Agence France-Presse about the Five Conditions. This is reported in Le-Croix.com.
Here is my translation with by emphases and comments.
PARIS: 27 June 2008 (AFP) – The Lefebvrites have no intention of responding to the Vatican’s ultimatum.
The Fraternity of Sain Pius X [SSPX], founded by [Archbishop] Lefebvre, has no intention of responding to the "ultimatum" which was put to the Vatican to bring to a conclusion the schism provoked twenty years about for the traditionalist movement, the spokesman for the SSPX indicated.
"The SSPX has no intention of responding to this ultimatum", SSPX spokesman Fr. Alain Loran declared by phone from Ecône (Switzerland) to the AFP. [Okay… pretty clear: we are not going to respond.]
"We do not envision any practical or canonical accord before treating doctrinal questions which have arisen since Vatican II", the one in charge [blah blah blah]...
"[Bp.] Bernard Fellay (Superior General of the SSPX) is surprised by the existing discrepency between the ultimatum’s procedural character and the ultimatum’s content, which is very imprecise, Fr. Lorans added.
The Italian daily Il Giornale [blah blah blah… review of what has been reported]...
The Vatican had given to the SSPX until 28 June to respond positively to these questions.
These five conditions posed by the Vatican deal with the recognition of the authority of the Pope and the committment to say nothing against the Church, but the contain no reference to the Second Vatican Council
According to Fr. Lorans, the Superior General of the SSPX, [Bp.] Fellay wrote a letter to the Vatican authorities on Thursday. [Ummm… isn’t this a response?]
Okay… there might be a nuance to "répondre" I am not getting. I know there is an idiom "répondre aux conditions" which suggests "satisfy requirements". On the other hand, later in the article I read "répondre positivement à ces questions", which suggests that the use of "répondre" above doesn’t automatically hint at a positive response.
Still, what I am getting from this is that they responded to say they aren’t going to respond.
Also, a long time ago I began explaining that whereas some in the Vatican wanted the big family photo with the group hug right away (which has its merits, believe me), the SSPX wanted to discuss theological issues first, and worry about the group photo later.
Still, what is required now, more than ever… right now… is a dramtic gesture of humility on the part of the leadership of the SSPX, even at the risk of alienating their benefactors (read: money).
Time to put away the rosaries?
Comment by Greg Hessel in Arlington Diocese — 27 June 2008 @ 1:17 pmDoes anybody know who holds the purse strings ???. I read somewhere of an English Lady, wife of Lord something or another, who had a lot of money and as far as I recall promised Archbishop Lefebvre money for his activities, this may have been not long after the council finished, and maybe before the seminarians approached Cardinal Oddi ?? about being disillusioned by their conditions.
Comment by wayne — 27 June 2008 @ 1:25 pmI am very grieved and saddened by what I have been reading. The evil one can only be responsible for such unbendable pride. But with God all things are possible so even now things may change for the best.
Comment by AnnaTrad — 27 June 2008 @ 1:31 pm(My comment on this subject posted over at Rorate.)
That sound Mnsgr Fellay that you hear, is the ice breaking apart all around you and shortly it will break apart underneath you as well. This message which you and your schismatic followers have chosen to label an ultimatum, was very likely Rome’s best and last offer to try and get you to return to the fold. Rome has begun the process of fixing many of the problems that have plagued the Latin Church for nigh on a half century. This was a summons to help. It was also a test to see if you are truly Catholic or if you are in fact a schismatic sect like the Old Catholics. Your non-response is an effective reply in the negative. You are dictating to the Pope of Rome. And I strongly suspect that this Pope is the wrong one to play that game with. Even if this Pope does not excommunicate all of your followers (which he should), what do you think will happen when the next Pope comes along? How long do you plan to remain all alone out there passing judgments on Rome in contravention to the dogmatic definitions of Vatican I?
I used to be affiliated with your little sect many years ago (mea culpa mea culpa). Even before I saw the light and moved Eastward I suspected you were schismatics. While all of the people were saying over the last few days that you would accept this incredibly generous offer which requires little more than acknowledging what you profess to believe as a Roman Catholic and showing a little common respect to the Bishop of Rome, I have been cautioning people that while I hoped for the sake of the Roman Church you would accept, that my experience in the SSPX left me highly doubtful. No, I believed in my heart that you would accept nothing less than the Pope of Rome running up a white flag over the Vatican and traveling to Econe to kiss your ring and beg absolution for heresy.
Here you have announced to the whole world that you are unable to give to the See of Rome a level of common courtesy and respect that is generally accorded even by the majority of Orthodox hierarchs despite the long estrangement between East & West.
Whatever you are or once were Mnsgr Fellay, you have made one thing abundantly clear. You are no longer Roman Catholic. I say this as one who is also no longer Roman Catholic. But at least I am honest about it.
ICXC NIKA
Comment by Ad Orientem — 27 June 2008 @ 1:33 pmJohn
One way or the other, I believe that June 28th will be an historical event, whether or not the SSPX agrees to abide by the five conditions. Why do I believe this? Five simple conditions. One deadline. Nothing else to back it up?
“Hmmm, they decided not to take us up on the offer, oh well…”?
I seriously think not. If the Holy Father doesn’t have something else in his back pocket, the whole thing seems sort of, well pardon my directness, but…silly.
We continue to pray that Bp. Fellay realizes the enormous ramifications of this showdown and does the right thing, the charitable thing, the UNUM thing that he really needs to do. But if he doesn’t, I think that BXVI will put an end to the foot dragging and name calling.
The SSPX, perhaps, will either be on board before the year winds down, the S.P. clarification document comes out, communion on the tongue while kneeling and ad orientem worship are re-introduced into the Novus Ordo, altar girls are phased out and Gregorian Chant is mandated in all parishes.
Fr. Z speaks of a Marshall plan. The ground is shaking from all of the impending reconstruction. My thought is that the SSPX will either be on board by the end of the month, or BXVI will make an offer to the SSPX priests, and to the faithful who frequent their chapels, that they can’t refuse, or wouldn’t want to refuse. The rest of them? I believe they’ll become irrelevant.
Comment by Jim — 27 June 2008 @ 1:44 pmI have on occaison attended SSPX masses. From the 3 priests I have seen, I have experienced any nuttiness. On the contrary they seemed to look forward to the whole situation being resolved. One of them even said he enjoyed reading the recent writings of Pope Benedict XVI. Of the other mass attendees, most of them had very close ties with the greater church and counted many priests in their friends and family.
However, as others have posted, there are other factions of the SSPX influenced by not only Richard Williamson but also more extreme sedevacantist traditionalists. When I first heard news of the offer to the SSPX I was already skeptical about acceptance from this group.
Was not the conditions of the SSPX as little as 5 years ago the regularization of the Tridentine mass and the lifting of the excommunications 20 years ago? It seems like Pope Benedict went even further with not requiring them to accept the Novus Ordo liturgy as valid and not even accepting all of the documents of Vatican II (who even Archbishop Lefebvre said is acceptable if viewed through the lens of tradition). Having given in to their conditions, it is very dissappointing that the SSPX is complaining that they now cannot accept due to theological difficulties. Again, most of the theological issues are above the thoughts of most SSPX members and even then, if I understand correctly, the conditions do not require the SSPX to embrace what they reject.
I think that as with the early protestants, the second generation of rebels are very comfortable in their arrangement and reunfication with Rome may not be something they even want anymore. They have a network of seminaries and parishes and now any oversight from Rome may not be welcome.
Also, in some cases an organization can identify itself with naming an enemy and stressing the differences. Much of the SSPX identity is now built on how they are the true church and how Rome is the true enemy and they have spent a good 20 years convincing themselves how terrible the enemy really is. To now return to communion with Rome would cause an identiy crisis for a portion of the SSPX who could not make the mental shift of evangelization and healing the church instead of endless complaining.
The really sad thing is, I really think if the SSPX returned to Rome they can be a powerful force for re-evangelizing the church. They have lived on the outside for 20 years (more realistically nearly 40 years) and they have not only survived but thrived to an extent. With the sorry state of the episcopacy and damage done by many of the heritical modernist bishops, an influx of devout and energetic clergy and laity, enthusicastically convinced of the truth of Catholicism may help the church change its course in a more positive direction. They can do more for their cause within the church instead of outside of it.
Lets hope and pray that at least a good faction of them breaks off and returns to Rome by June 30th.
Comment by Lorenz — 27 June 2008 @ 1:46 pmAs I had said earlier, I believe the SSPX would be in a better position within the Church to advance their cause. My concern is why there is this deadline. Rome doesn’t do that with other issues. China, Israel… Rome doesn’t do that with the Schismatics from 1054, almost a 1000 years later. Why no deadline for them but some odious deadline for the SSPX? I see something more nefarious here than charitable. My opinion, take it or leave it.
Comment by Matt Q — 27 June 2008 @ 1:58 pm[...] Heh. It’s really great when you post something like the below, and then immediately go online and find things like this. [...]
Pingback by The kind of thing you don’t like to hear at Cornell Society for a Good Time — 27 June 2008 @ 2:01 pmI posted this same message on Rorate and include it here for info.
What to make of this announcement? Only the principals in the dispute know but one thing is for certain – negotiations in the press are doomed to failure.
At least we can take some comfort in the fact that an outright rejection was apparently not forwarded to Rome.
Perhaps it was a request for clarification as to why conditions were being imposed on what had been free talks in private. Perhaps it was an appeal that doctrinal discussions can only take place once the excommunications were lifted.
I don’t know and it may be that after the disastrous leaks in the press this past week we may never know. But I do know that mutual trust seems to be a missing part of the equation and that is a very sad thing for the church in these times.
Comment by Paul Haley — 27 June 2008 @ 2:04 pmIf indeed the egocentric SSPX leadership rejects this warm embrace by our Holy Father, I believe it is time for the priests and faithful to ponder on the real reasons for this, and in how has the traditional Catholic landscape changed
for the betterin just one year.With regards to the liturgy, it is time to go back to the parish priest and to the ordinary and start, in charity, building positive pressure to fulfill the model designed by the Pope: stable groups.
If Williamson et al. want to keep the hollow, empty structure at Econe, so be it, and may God have mercy on them. But there are many, many souls that need to consider that the main raison d’etre for the Society is no longer valid, and that there are easier-to-reach mechanisms to attain dignified, holy traditional worship in the RCC.
With SP in place, what we need is an active, committed group of lay and ordained individuals in every parish and in every diocese to assist the Holy Father in his restoration effort for the whole Church, and, by God, we know how SSPXers are strong, smart, persevering and objective-driven. They must refocus their energies to help the Church, and stop supporting an institution which looses relevancy as days go by.
Sancta Maria, Spes Nostra, Sedes Sapientiae: Ora pro nobis.
Comment by JC — 27 June 2008 @ 2:17 pmI saw this posted on RORATE CAELI and read the comments. They were burgeoning by that time. One thing I saw more than once; if this is not resolved with an “affirmation,” the individual stated that they would “leave the SSPX.” In other words, the requirement of the Pope is to abide in simple Charity, and the the Pauline year begins Sunday. I think that this is perhaps what the Holy Father had in mind—to show the extent of how many want reunion.
Also, do we know whether he will celebrate the installation of the Metropolitan Bishops with the Extraordinary Form? I have seen nothing mentioned on that.
Comment by Deo volente — 27 June 2008 @ 2:20 pmWell, According to ACI Prensa, he has rejected already. http://www.aciprensa.com/noticia.php?n=21734
Comment by Daniel — 27 June 2008 @ 2:22 pmMatt Q:
I