![o{]:¬)](http://www.wdtprs.com/blog/wp-images/topimage.JPG)
The Holy See’s 5 conditions for the SSPX - my comments and a prayer
The intrepid Andrea Tornielli has the five points which the Holy See has offered to the SSPX. Here is my translation:
I have gotten hold of the letter (written in French) which Dario Card. Castrillon Hoyos wrote with the five conditions sent to [Bp.] Fellay in view of a return to full communion with Rome. Contrary to the first leaks, there is no mention of acceptance of the Council or the new Mass: they are prior general conditions. In fact the Holy See, showing a great generosity, asks that they not attack the person of the Pope. [Bp.] Fellay asked Benedict XVI for the revocation of the excommunication, so the request to respect authority without first pretending to be the recipients of a a "superior" Magisterium to that of the reigning Pontiff seems to me to be a commonsensical condition! This is the text of the letter which bears the signature of the Cardinal President of Ecclesia Dei:
Conditions resulting from the 4 june 2008 meeting between Dario Card. Castrillon Hoyos and Bishop Bernard Fellay:
- A commitment to a proportioned response to the generosity of the Pope.
- A commitment to avoid any public speech which does not respect the person of the Holy Father and which can be negative for ecclesial charity.
- A commitment to avoid the pretense of a Magisterium superior to the Holy Father and to not put forward the Fraternity [SSPX] in opposition to the Church.
- A commitment to demonstrate the will to behave honestly in full ecclesial charity and in respect to the authority of the Vicar of Christ.
- A commitment to respect the date – fixed at the end of the month of June – to respond positively. This will be a required and necessary condition for the immediate preparation for adhesion to have full communion.
Okay. Huge stuff here.
Isn’t this basically a papal "offer you can’t refuse"?
Let’s parse some of this.
The Holy See has not made any theological requirements beyond those inherent in having a proper relationship of respect with the Vicar of Christ. The office of the Vicar of Christ, the Petrine Ministry, is a theological point in itself, a constitutive dimension of the Church willed by the Lord Himself. Therefore a proper attitude of respect for a) his person and b) his teaching office, are both practical and theological. Union with the Roman Pontiff must at least fulfill these points, at the very least.
There are practical aspects here too. Not long ago, speaking in Paris, Bp. Fellay said some harsh things about the Pope, calling him a "perfect liberal" in a sermon. I posted on that here. This must stop, clearly. Also, recall that some people said "But Father! But Father!", in high dudgeon, "you shouldn’t talk about what Bp. Fellay said! That’s unhelpful!" No, friends. This was an important point that had to be taken care of. It concerns ecclesial charity.
Also, and I think this must be brought out – though some will bridle at the suggestion the question implies: Could some dissenter such as, say, Kung accept these conditions? I suspect not.
We have now moved firmly to the real point of the conflict: Who is Peter in the Church?
Denial of unity with Peter is now the serious problem to be overcome and it must be done in charity, which means at times some difficult questions and corresponding sacrifices.
The basis of all union in the Church has to be charity, first exemplified by Jesus on the Cross in His great act of self-oblation.
There is no mention in the conditions of doctrinal details.
Also, the word "adhesion" needs some thought. In my days at the P.C. Ecclesia Dei, all that meant was that you signed a document which had the Creed and a statement that the New Mass was valid and that you didn’t deny the Second Vatican Council. Nothing more. It didn’t require that you like the New Mass or that you had to celebrate Mass in the Novus Ordo. It say you had to think everything in the Council was peachy. It was simple. Like the word idoneus in Summorum Pontificum, the standard is always the minimum necessary.
Keep in mind who the Pope is. He is a highly gifted theologian who was in charge of the CDF for a very long time. He did his own scholarly work on Augustine and Bonaventure, learning from them the nature of the Church and how to resolve conflicts. He had practical experience in dealing with theologians.
Pope Benedict respects theological differences and debates, so long as they are conducted fairly and in charity. He has never been out to hammer people who disagree either with him personally or with the Church in doctrine if there can be a discussion and a meeting of minds. That has been his modus operandi for years.
I sense from this that theological discussions about doctrinal points can take place at some time down the line, but this first step must be undertaken.
The bickering must cease right now. Then we can move forward.
O God, our common Father who knows us better than ourselves,
pour graces through the Holy Spirit into the hearts of the members of the SSPX
to bend what is rigid and warm what is cold,
that in union with the Vicar of Christ,
to whom Your Son our Lord gave His own authority to bind and to loose
and whom He gave as a gift to the Church as a visible point of of unity,
we may together in ecclesial charity strive in grace and zeal to renew
Your people in our Holy Catholic Church.
I have posted what follows in another forum with many SSPX supporters and I include it here to show where I stand on these issues. Hopefully, my call will not go unheeded.
It is my personal plea to the SSPX that they consider very carefully this call from His Holiness and what it means to be in the bosom of the church with the full approbation and approval of the Vicar of Christ and Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church. They will have to make the decision themselves, of course, but I beg them to think that to be in full communion with the Holy Father who needs them in his fight with the “wolves” does not mean to be in communion with heresy. It means full partnership with the Holy Father in his efforts to restore Tradition and an incredible opportunity to work within Holy Mother Church for the salvation of souls, not as they themselves view their position but as the world views them, especially Catholics who have never had the opportunity to experience real Tradition in action (unintended pun there).
20 years is a long time to be considered to be in irregular canonical status and perhaps now is the time to show the world that you and your Society can be in the vanguard of the movement to restore Tradition in the church. Please, do not fail to respond positively to His Holiness’s call for union with him. Take up the cause and assist His Holiness in his battle with the wolves, most especially those within the church itself. An incredible opportunity awaits you…do not fail to take advantage of it and we will all be the better for it. Submitted with the utmost respect for the battle you have waged in our behalf and in the behalf of all who wear the label Catholic whether they realize it or not.
Comment by Paul Haley — 24 June 2008 @ 10:28 amI sincerely pray that the SSPX leadership has the trust, the humility, the courage and fortitude to do what is right for the Church, its lay adherents and for the salvation of souls.
I hope and pray they realize there are MANY Catholics who would attend their chapels once full, visible canonical regularization is achieved.
As one who has periodically attended SSPX chapels, I hope and pray they can honestly adhere to these simple requests by the Holy See and then we can celebrate the official dissolution of the excommunications.
Again, I pray for the courage and fortitude of the SSPX leadership to trust in the guidance of the Holy Ghost from the Chair of Peter.
Comment by Brian Mershon — 24 June 2008 @ 10:38 amFrom Cardinal Castrillon’s May 30 interview following the FSSP ordinations:
http://www.ewtn.com/library/liturgy/HoyosInterview.htm
Journalist: “So, your Eminence, would you say that what you just said now is this the main motivation for the Motu Proprio for the Holy Father, or is the motivation also the restoration of the Society of Saint Pius X back into the Church.
His Eminence: This is the second point, important too. But the main point is the importance of the sanctity inside the Gregorian liturgy. The second one (is) to avoid divisions in the Church and to open the door to the group of the Society of St Pius X. Because in the Catholic Church, according to the laws of the Catholic Church, the bishops of the Society of St Pio X are excommunicated, because according to Canon Law, the New Canon Law – not in the old one, the ordination without a mandate of the Holy Father gives excommunication. And that is why all the priests from the Society are suspended.
Journalist: There is a lot of confusion about this word “schism,” though. We, as Catholic journalists, should we be using the word “schism” with respect to the Society? Is that the correct word to use?
His Eminence: It is not exactly correct, because there was a schismatical action, which is different. It was a schismatical action from Archbishop Lefebvre in the ordination [of the bishops], but they keep the obedience to the Holy See. They have not (the) exercise of power [of governance]. They are the bishops, they are auxiliaries of the Society. The Society was, the juridical personality of the Society, was cancelled by the Church, but they are, in their language, auxiliary bishops. We hope that they will come to the full communion with the Church. But some people are going too fast to schism and to the heresy, because if they begin to be teachers of the Pope, this is not schism, this is heresy. And if it is confirmed, people going with that kind of movement will be excommunicated, too, because of the heresy. But now, they are not really in schism or heresy.
Journalist: So “irregular standing,” what word should we use?
His Eminence: This is “irregular standing.” This is the way we speak about them.
Comment by Henry Edwards — 24 June 2008 @ 10:41 amIf the SSPX rejects these 5 conditions they will lose a massive amount of sympathy. I read the conditions and simply marvel at the generosity of our Holy Father.
Comment by Craigmaddie — 24 June 2008 @ 10:43 amI second Paul’s comments. I have been praying for this reconciliation for a long time. The longer they hold out, the worse it will be for everyone. We need them in the Church. If one looks at our past history, the groups that splintered from the Church went off on their own and didn’t help the Church at all. Honestly, what this comes down to, and Rome has clearly shown in these conditions, that this is more than a matter of liturgy or even religious liberty, Vatican II, etc. Its about submitting to the rightful authority, coming as children to their father asking that he be respected and honored and obeyed. Clearly Rome has been listening to some of the rhetoric coming from the SSPX and what has been heard is not good (calling Benedict a “sick mind”, a “perfect liberal”, etc). If they want to be in communion with the Church, and that is the only way to go, then they must submit. If not, their pride will kill them. Pride is the worst of the 7 deadly sins and what I have heard from the SSPX smacks of it frequently.
True, we must stand up for the Faith, for Tradition, etc. But that cannot be done outside the bosom of Holy Mother Church. She has been abused and needs help.
My plea to the SSPX is please cheerfully submit to these conditions. They are not hard. These do not require that you stop criticizing the current situation in the Church or that you must be silent on the problems with Vatican II, etc. This requires first and foremost that charity and obedience as sons of the Church to our Holy Father, nothing more, nothing less. So, please, the time is now. We need to be together on this. To further continue your irregular situation will make most people conclude that you have nothing to offer and that the cause of restoring all things in Christ by holding fast to Tradition and the Faith will be seen as a joke. Remember what Our Lord said, “He who hears you, hears Me.” He was speaking about his apostles. The legitimate authorities in the Church (the pope, bishops, etc) being the rightful heirs of the apostles are to be respected and obeyed. Granted, and I know this from experience, there are bishops who have abused their positions but that doesn’t mean that we do not owe them our respect and obedience.
Basically, you have to ask yourselves, “Are we in or are we out?” If you are out, if you decide to stay on the sidelines, then it is through and you have shown yourselves to be so puffed up with pride that you would ruin the one chance that you might have at reconciling this and fighting the good fight IN the Church, not OUT of it because there is only ONE Church, only ONE.
I will pray fervently for the resolution to this situation that has gone on for to long. The Church needs you.
Comment by Rachel — 24 June 2008 @ 10:46 amLet’s pray they see the charity and goodness of the Holy Father and return home!
Comment by Padre Steve — 24 June 2008 @ 10:53 ampublic speech which does not respect the person of the Holy Father.
No ad hominem attacks, although a Catholic is always free to disagree with certain words or actions of the Pope.
avoid the pretense of a Magisterium superior to the Holy Father.
I think SSPX has already shown that they can disagree with a law, but still follow it. [HUH?] For instance, they believe that twelve hour fast before communion should have been kept, and recommend that it still be kept, but acknowledge that the one hour fast is a valid law. So, I think SSPX is already complying with this condition. [The example you pick reminds me of the phrase “straining at a gnat”. I think the fast laws before Communion are somewhat less important than actual submission to Roman Pontiff and exercising public ministry without faculties. Still, I hope you are right about this. – Fr. Z]
This will be a required and necessary condition for the immediate preparation for adhesion to have full communion.
I don’t quite understand this, or am unsure what it might mean. If I read Fr. Z correctly, this might mean that SSPX will need to still “not deny” Vatican II (which, generally, is no problem, since SSPX thinks it was a valid, if fallible and flawed, council.) What else “adhesion” might mean is a giant question mark. Yes, these general pre-conditions seem “generous,” but do not spell-out what the result of following them will mean.
Nevertheless, SSPX should follow them since they should follow them anyway.
Comment by malta — 24 June 2008 @ 11:01 amIf the SSPX can’t agree to these conditions, why did it ever enter negotiations with Rome in the first place. Why waste everyone’s time? Could it be that the Socity bishops never really expected such a generous response from Pope Benedict and now must invent reasons for rejecting his overtures?
Comment by Marty Sieve — 24 June 2008 @ 11:01 amIf those are truely the five main conditions being “demanded” of the SSPX as a condition of their return then it would be a truely unbelievable snub to the Holy Father, and indeed Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos, if the society were to turn the offer down. Having heard the Cardinal speak in London, my strongest impression is that he is truely a pastor of souls, who is deeply committed to reconcilliation within the church.
Comment by M. — 24 June 2008 @ 11:02 amThese are generous terms, and I think the Society would be foolish if its members didn’t jump at this opportunity. The Holy See could have dictated much harsher terms, but instead, approached the Society with humility and charity. This clearly shows that the Holy Father has taken a well developed pastoral approach to a thorny problem.
Comment by John Enright — 24 June 2008 @ 11:03 amThese are great conditions. I have not in a long time honestly believed
Comment by Jay Jay — 24 June 2008 @ 11:12 amreunion between SSPX and the Church could come about. I now entertain a
flicker of hope. I, for my sake, shall offer a decade every night until
the Feast of Ss. Peter & Paul for the reunion. Miracles have happened before.
My big fear is that the 28th will come and go without any changes. No agreement will be reached, but the Vatican won’t say anything publicly. The laity will continue to be confused, with people waving the letters of Msgr. Perl about while going on about St. Athanasius….I think a lot of people who currently attend Mass with the SSPX will not go if they are given a clear statement on schism and excommunication, although there will always be those who will deny the plain truth. It’s this current ambiguity that I think is hurting a lot of people I know.
Comment by Kradcliffe — 24 June 2008 @ 11:20 amI hope and pray that there will be a reconciliation. The condition of “a commitment to avoid the pretence of a Magisterium superior to the Holy Father” is, however, extremely alarming. Surely any pope is the servant of the Magisterium, not its master? Sensible theologians have al