![o{]:¬)](http://www.wdtprs.com/blog/wp-images/topimage.JPG)
Reuters: “Bp. Fellay says No” story is NOT the end of the story!
I just saw this. The writer has based himself on something B. Fellay said last week.
But the time frame set by the Holy See isn’t over yet.
Catholic rebel snubs pope call to rejoin Rome [I don’t think this is the end of the story.]
Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:25am EDT
By Tom Heneghan, Religion Editor
PARIS (Reuters) – The leader of a breakaway traditionalist Catholic group has rejected a Vatican offer to rejoin Rome, accusing Pope Benedict of trying to silence dissenting voices.
Bishop Bernard Fellay, head of the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX) that broke with Rome 20 years ago, said conditions set by the Vatican amounted to muzzling the traditionalists who claim to be the only true Catholics since Church reforms in the 1960s.
Keen to end this schism, Benedict agreed last year to their demand to restore the old Latin Mass. [That is not the only reason he released Summorum Pontificum.] But he insists they must accept the reforms of the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) before he can lift excommunication decrees against them. [Umm.. I am not sure that this is the case, at least in the way it sounds here, black and white. There is a lot of theological room to debate many points of what Council documents mean. I don’t think Pope Benedict would ever want to stifle theological discussion.]
"Rome is telling us, okay, we are ready to lift the excommunications, but you cannot continue this way," Fellay said in a sermon last Friday now posted as an audio file on the U.S.-based Voice of Catholic Radio website. [However, that was a sermon last Friday. This isn’t the end of the story.]
"So we have no choice… we are continuing what we’ve done," the Swiss-born Fellay said in English at an SSPX seminary in Winona, Minnesota. "They just say ‘shut up’ ... we are not going … to shut up."
The Milan daily Il Giornale reported on Monday the Vatican had told the SSPX it must pledge to respect the pope and accept him as the Church’s final doctrinal authority.
Vatican spokesman Rev. Federico Lombardi told the Paris Catholic daily La Croix: "The pope wants to extend his hand so they can return, but for that to happen, this offer must be received in an attitude and spirit of charity and communion."
Lombardi did not spell out the consequences of rejecting the offer, but Il Giornale’s well-informed Vatican expert Andrea Tornielli wrote: "Such favorable conditions for a return to full communion will in all probability not come again."
TIP OF THE ICEBERG
The SSPX claims about a million followers worldwide, many of them in France. It split off when its founder, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, consecrated four traditionalist bishops—including Fellay—in 1988 against orders from Pope John Paul.
Since then, it has regularly appealed to the Vatican to withdraw the excommunications and allow it to return to the 1.1-billion strong Church. But its leaders often publicly denounce the pope.
Fellay said the pope must restore other Church traditions besides the old Latin Mass before the SSPX could return. It is particularly critical of the Vatican Council’s reconciliation with Judaism and call to cooperation with other Christians.
"The new Mass is the tip of the iceberg of Vatican II and of these modern ideas." Adding the old Mass to the "iceberg of Vatican II" did not change the reforms hidden below, he said.
Vatican watchers say the ultimatum could split SSPX into a hard core of rebels and a larger group ready to return to Rome now that it has allowed wider use of the old Latin Mass.
"Most people want a reverent Mass and sound preaching. They care little for the loftier theological arguments," Rev. John Zuhlsdorf, a prominent conservative Catholic blogger, wrote in an analysis. "The identity of the SSPX is at stake now."
The ultimatum’s deadline of June 30 is the 20th anniversary of the bishops’ ordinations that sealed the schism.
This story tries to leave you the impression that the whole thing is over, Fellay said "No", and that’s that.
I wonder. I don’t think so.
Keep praying. We haven’t gotten to the end of the month yet.
Pray!
Comment by Daniel — 26 June 2008 @ 7:39 amIt’s all very interesting. Personally I can see positivs and negatives to both possible outcomes.
All we can say at the minute is that time will tell.
Interestingly though, I doubt that this will be the final olive branch. The phrase ‘and that’s my final offer’ is seldom said with certainty. And the Holy Father, as far as we know, hasn’t actually said it.
Let’s remember as well that both possible options also lack finality.
Afternoon all :)
Comment by Jack Regan — 26 June 2008 @ 7:42 amTom’s words are especially unfortunate with just a few days to go. If Fellay comes around, Tom can accuse him of caving in instead of making a firm decision. If Fellay doesn’t come around, Tom can claim that Reuters was right and that everyone else who was praying for unity was naive, a favourite line of his. It’s a win-win situation for sensationalistic journalism that, however, serves no one, including the journalist. Had he been reading the combox, he would have picked up on some significant indications that it is not over yet… But, not.
And anyway, Fr Z is wrong—or a bit tongue in cheek—about people not wanting lofty theological arguments. There is plenty at WDTPRS which is refined, even if not heavily burdened with notes.
Cheers!
Comment by Fr Renzo di Lorenzo (Trilogy) — 26 June 2008 @ 7:53 amWell, Ratzinger has had his 1988 moment ….. and may mark this occasion with yet again creating another Latin group in SSPX territory …. providing of course the local bishop agrees! Considering the Vatican these days is supposed to know about the art of worldly manipulation, it is no use when up against the determination of the Society. I admire them no end; contemporary Rome is so impoverished.
Comment by Oliver — 26 June 2008 @ 8:05 amPlease don’t fall into the trap of seeing this as lost. This Reuters report is just one of the devil’s many tools to sabotage this initiative of which Fr Z warned us yesterday. ...cui resistite fortes in fide.
Comment by josephus muris saliensis — 26 June 2008 @ 8:18 amOh that’s Reuters for you. They’ve long shown themselves to be less than professional and less than reliable sources of “news,” and their bias against and ignorance of matters pertaining to Catholicism has also long been evident.
Comment by Jordanes — 26 June 2008 @ 8:25 amWell, by Tuesday we’ll know whether Reuters are right or wrong. And, come what may, it’ll be interesting reading the comments on this site.
Comment by Jack Regan — 26 June 2008 @ 8:30 amI think the article is just in anticipation of what the author believes Fellay will do. It would be nice if Fellay would come out and correct Reuters like he does with the Vatican. [Excellent! – Fr. Z] Anything is possible with God but what ever happens here I believe there is a coming split for those who consider themselves part of the SSPX.
If Fellay accepts the Vatican’s offer he will have people within the SSPX who will think he’s wrong and continue with division. If Fellay rejects the offer he rejects Catholic tenants. He is in a lose/lose situation which he has put himself in. The Church acted too slowly in the time of Luther and it has acted too slowly in the time of Lefebvre. At this point we can only trust in God’s mercy.
Comment by John6:54 — 26 June 2008 @ 8:34 amHaving supported some of the positions taken by the FSSPX in the past, in terms of theological disputes only, I find any statement that Rome is trying to muzzle them or shut down dissent completely ridiculous. Most traditional Catholics that I know want the FSSPX to respect the pope and not criticize him publicly while, at the same time, making it clear to Rome what the FSSPX believes in terms of traditional Catholic worship and teaching. This is entirely different from calling the pope names and implying he is their enemy instead of their friend by telling them to “shut up”.
Bishop Fellay knows that legitimate theological concerns can be addressed without polemics. He knows that dubia can be submitted to the Holy See at any time in a respectful manner. But, the Vicar of Christ cannot be the victim of insulting rhetoric or polemics, not from the FSSPX or anyone else. I see nothing in Cardinal Hoyos’s list of preconditions that disqualifies or muzzles dissent, only that it be respectful and private.
Yes, I know, it is often hard to swallow what is happening in some circles within the church today but attacking the Holy Father, the Vicar of Christ, is not the answer. Sometime emotions get the best of us and it appears to be the case if we are to believe the contents of this story. I call on Bishop Fellay to renounce any use of polemics and hurtful language in addressing these matters in the media. In fact, I urge him to avoid such comments completely in the media. I ask him to consider what he must do in such circumstances when the salvation of so many souls is at stake. Let us not be in the position of winning the battle only to lose the war.
Comment by Paul Haley — 26 June 2008 @ 8:36 amLazy reporter. Who did he interview? Did he call you Father? [No, he didn’t. And he knows how to reach me, too. He contacted me after I posted a fisk of Reuter’s coverage of Pope Benedict’s changes to the Good Friday prayer. I am pleased that he checks this blog for my views, however. He should feel free to contact me anytime. – Fr. Z] He didn’t interview Fellay either. Just took quotes from his sermon and from Fr. Z’s website.
Comment by Brian Mershon — 26 June 2008 @ 8:39 amJordanes wrote:
Oh that’s Reuters for you. They’ve long shown themselves to be less than professional and less than reliable sources of “news,” and their bias against and ignorance of matters pertaining to Catholicism has also long been evident.
Well, what’s really damning of Reuters is that they waited nearly a week for the audio file to be posted to report on the audio file. That’s high school newspaper-type Journalism. A real journalist that thought there would be a serious story would have attended the ordinations and listened to the sermon. The ceremony is open to the public. Waiting for an audio file so you don’t have to do any work … sheesh.
Comment by Ian — 26 June 2008 @ 8:41 amSt. Ignatius of Antioch, pray for us.
Comment by JM — 26 June 2008 @ 8:46 amBsp. Fellay is right. I agree with him and SSPX. I’ve just been listening to his sermon here: http://www.cfnews.org/bshp__fellay_0620,2008.mp3 . I can’t help but agree with the he says that Rome, now with its political ambassadors, is far more political. He says how they want to silence SSPX and say, “Just come to regular communion and stop fighting.” But SSPX can’t stop speaking out for the Tradition. They want a true return to the true, traditional Catholic Faith. I can’t help but agree with their points. But I guess the question is if they came to regular communion could they still speak out – and speak out as much as these “dissenting” heretics do within the Church? Why can these heretics who dissent within the Church speak out and not fear reprisals but traditionalists get exiled into inconsequential parishes, stripped of faculties or excommunication? I really don’t get it…
Pax Christi tecum.
Comment by Ron — 26 June 2008 @ 8:47 amMaybe I’m playing the “spin director” part too much here, but I see two possible outcomes.
1. The acceptance of the conditions. The conditions are which generally loosely written. It is not an agreement in reality, simply a “terms of the debate” situation. As I, an SSPX supporter, see it, the conditions generally outline a charitable discussion. There is no “reconciliation” here, so I don’t see many people who support the SSPX falling off the boat, especially if the SSPX priests explained or read an explanation of the decision this Sunday.
2. The rejection of the conditions. It is possible that the conditions will be rejected. I don’t think it likely, but there is some merit to the case. On the date after the agreement the Pope will celebrate Mass with the schismatic Patriarch of Constantinople in some manner (exactly how the whole celebration will changes the situation). That the Holy See offered to have a charitable discussion and work toward some regularization, yet is then willing to turn around the next day and have a friendly relationship with a man who is a true schismatic, who just recently wished for the Eastern Catholics to be in communion with Rome and Constantinople, which is a statement putting the Patriarch on the level of the Pope … something the SSPX is asked to assure they will not do.
I hope that the decision is the first option here, but having met with Bishop Fellay personally, and seeing the man and his true concern for souls, I an sure that whatever decisions he makes will be done after long and prayerful reflection.
I offer my prayers for him and for the Pope. Provided some agreement comes about, the Holy Father must also have great strength to not be swayed by diabolic forces into some of the same faux pas that have littered the SSPX-Holy See relationship before (e.g. 1975-1976). I don’t claim that the SSPX is completely innocent of misteps at times, but 1976 was a “very bad year”. The conditions apply equally on both sides of the discussion, all must be done in charity.
Comment by Ian — 26 June 2008 @ 8:58 amBut Fr. Z, don’t lofty theological principles form the foundation for reverent Masses and sound preaching?
Comment by Neal — 26 June 2008 @ 9:07 am