What Does The Prayer Really Say?
W D T P R S

A reader sent a tip about this story in The Telegraph.

Anglican bishops in secret Vatican summit
By Jonathan Wynne-Jones, Religious Affairs Correspondent

Senior Church of England bishops have held secret talks with Vatican officials to discuss the crisis in the Anglican communion over gays and women bishops.

They met senior advisers of the Pope in an attempt to build closer ties with the Roman Catholic Church, The Sunday Telegraph has learnt.

Dr Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, was not told of the talks and the disclosure will be a fresh blow to his efforts to prevent a major split in the Church of England.

In highly confidential discussions, a group of conservative bishops expressed their dismay at the liberal direction of the Church of England and their fear for its future.

They met members of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the most powerful of the Vatican’s departments, the successor to the medieval Inquisition, [Just in case you were wondering if the old chestnuts of anti-popery ever went away…]  which enforces doctrine and was headed by Pope Benedict XVI before his election.

The names of the bishops are known to The Sunday Telegraph, but they have asked for anonymity because the talks are of such a sensitive and potentially explosive nature.

The disclosure comes on the eve of a critical vote as members of the General Synod – the Church’s parliament – prepare to decide whether to allow women to be bishops without giving concessions to staunch opponents.

Up to 600 clergy gave warning in a letter to Dr Williams that they may leave the Church unless they receive a legal right to havens within the Church free of women bishops.

In separate developments, three diocesan bishops wrote to the archbishop supporting the threat and two other bishops have said they are preparing to leave the Church. The letter from the Bishops of Chichester [There once was a bishop from Chichester,...] , Blackburn and Europe – seen by The Sunday Telegraph – argues that traditionalist clergy will not be able to "maintain an honoured place" in the Church without sufficient legislation.

"Clearly the ordination of women as bishops would divide the Church of England even more fundamentally than the ordination of women as priests," it says.

"This issue is one which touches all members of the Church of England and not just those with synodical voting rights. In the light of this we are convinced that some form of separate identities will be required to enable the holders of mutually incompatible convictions about the faith and order of the Church to remain in as high a degree of continuing fellowship as possible."

However, while the letter shows that there is deep disquiet in the most senior ranks of the Church, the meetings with Rome will be of far greater concern to Dr Williams.

One bishop involved in the talks, who wished to remain anonymous, said he was left with no option. "The Church of England is becoming more and more like the American Church. Those of us who hold to traditional orthodoxy are very concerned about the direction it seems to be moving in."

The Anglican communion has been arguing over homosexuality since the American Church made Gene Robinson the first openly gay bishop and issued rites for same-sex unions. Conservatives are concerned that gay blessing services are being conducted in Britain and last month this newspaper revealed that a “wedding” ceremony was held for two gay priests. The issue of homosexual priests is likely to feature strongly at this month’s Lambeth Conference of worldwide Anglican bishops.

Now the Church of England is poised to endorse women bishops — a move that will seriously damage its relations with the Roman Catholic Church and could force hundreds of clergy to defect to Rome.

"These are the presenting issues that have made talks necessary, but our concerns go much deeper than these rows to issues of basic doctrine," the bishop said. "I have to be loyal to the parishes in my diocese and to the Gospel and that’s why I felt I had to do something.W"

Another bishop said: "The internal pressure of the Anglican communion has pushed us apart and we’re committed to greater unity with Rome. There can be no future for Christianity in Europe without Rome."  [Indeed.]

The Pope’s enthusiasm for bringing traditional Anglicans into the fold was shown in 2003 when as Cardinal he sent greetings to a group of conservative churchmen meeting in Texas in protest at the election of Bishop Robinson. The Pope and Dr Williams enjoy a strong relationship, which they are keen to maintain.

However, a former aide to Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, the head of the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales, said that the dialogue with the Anglican bishops only started after the crisis in the Anglican communion worsened. "It is obvious things are starting to fall apart and Rome wants to be able to help if it can," he said.

The Rt Rev Kieran Conry, the Bishop of Arundel and Brighton, said: "A number of Church of England bishops are looking at the options open to them should things go wrong at the Lambeth Conference. Some are hoping for accommodation with the Catholic Church, but yet maintaining their Anglican identity."

The Bishop of Beverley, the Rt Rev Martyn Jarrett said: “In the tragic circumstances that the Church of England takes decisions which make it impossible to walk with it anymore we would want to understand more where we are in relation to wider Catholic Christendom.

“Anglo-Catholics have always had a particular concern for re-union with the Holy See. No matter what might happen Anglo-Catholics will continue to be at the forefront of that dialogue and explanation.”

The Archbishop of York, Dr John Sentamu, used his Synod address yesterday to attack members of the "breakaway" Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans — accusing them of "ungracious" behaviour.

Lambeth Palace declined to comment.

I received a piece from a frequent reader/poster here at WDTPRS, Brian Mershon (pronounced MershON).  He asked me to look at it and, if useful post it. 

My emphases and comments.

PCED Confirms Officially: Society of St. Pius X within the Church, Not in Formal Schism; Catholics Commit No Sin nor Incur Any Canonical Penalty for Mass Attendance

By Brian Mershon

Msgr. Camille Perl, Vice President of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei (PCED) has recently responded with a letter dated May 23, 2008, to questions I invoked regarding the official canonical status of the Society of St. Pius X and those Catholics who attend their chapels to fulfill their Sunday obligation.

This article is certain to generate much commentary both from die-hard SSPXers who can’t bear to believe their marriages and confessions might be invalid to “more Catholic than the Pope” conservatives who will continue to misconstrue the clear teaching of the PCED, Cardinal Castrillón and the Catholic Church regarding laity who attend SSPX chapels to fulfill their Sunday obligation.   [I love the smell of napalm in the morning… and I don’t mean the napalm patristibloggers enjoy!]

Indeed, the repeated public statements of Cardinal Castrillón that the SSPX is not in formal schism certainly rises above the level of a cleric’s private opinion on matters outside of his competence. His statements can be viewed by all Catholics as reflective of the current position of the Catholic Church on these matters. [That is so.] While some canonists, in good faith, might disagree, Cardinal Castrillón and the PCED’s responses to private correspondence certainly rise above the level of authority of a mere canonist’s opinion. [Probably.  Card. Castrillon is not just anyone.  He is President of the Commission which enjoys competence and authority from the Supreme Pontiff is act in all these matters.  He has made certain statements about the statues of the SSPX - repeatedly.  If what he were saying was not appreciated by the Holy Father, he would have been asked not to keep saying it.]

The responses to the letter below can be acted upon with a moral certitude.  [An important point is "moral certitude".  When in the Church we must deal with objective acts that everyone can see, we still cannot perfectly judge what we cannot see clearly.  Therefore, ecclesiastical authority must come to "moral certainty" when issuing a censure, for example.  This is the language Archbp. Burke used recently in his decrees about censures.  Also, when divorced lay people receive back from a tribunal a decree about the nullity of their marriages, they may then have "moral certainly" that they are free to marry.  When the Congregation for Causes of Saints issues a decree about the "heroic virtue" of a person, it does so after coming to a "moral certainty" about the person’s state of soul based on the evidence that was gathered and evaluated.  It is hard to judge perfectly things which cannot be seen or entirely grasped.  ]

His Eminence
Darío Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos
President, Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei (PCED)
Palazzo del Sant’Uffizio
00120 VATICAN CITY

Monday of Holy Week
Anno Domini 2008

Your Eminence,

I [Mershon] have compiled as reference numerous public interviews, both print and television, where you were quoted as stating that the case of the Society of St. Pius X “is not a formal schism” and other words to that effect.

Q: Is this your mere private opinion, or the official teaching of the Catholic Church in your official capacity as head of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei? 

PCED: “Statements made by Cardinal Castrillón need to be understood in a technical, canonical sense. Stating that the Society of St. Pius X “is not in formal schism” is to say that there has been no official declaration on the part of the Holy See that the Society of St. Pius X is in schism. Up to now, the Church has sought to show the maximum charity, courtesy and consideration to all those involved with the hope that such a declaration will not eventually be necessary.”  [This means that it might in fact be the case that the SSPX is in schism, but at this point the matter hasn’t been officially decided by the Holy See, or if it has, they have decided not to say.  No official declaration means that, right now, people can act in moral certainty that the SSPX is not in a state of schism, disagree or not.]

Would you please clarify the following for me in this private correspondence so that I can ensure that my family and I are following the current teaching of the Church on this specific matter?  [The writer wants moral certainty.  He doesn’t want to make a mistake that could affect his spiritual life and that of his family.]

Q: Does the Catholic Church currently hold that the priests and bishops of the Society of St. Pius X are in formal schism with the Catholic Church? 

PCED: “The bishops of the Society of St. Pius X are excommunicated according to the prescription of canon 1382 of the Code of Canon Law which states that “A bishop who consecrates someone a bishop without pontifical mandate and the person who receives the consecration from him incur a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See.” Archbishop Lefebvre was duly reminded of this before his conferral of Episcopal ordination on 30 June 1988 and the Holy Father confirmed that this penalty had been incurred in his Apostolic Letter Ecclesia Dei, #3 [cf. AAS 80 (1988) 1495-1498; English translation in L’Osservatore Romano English edition of 11 July 1988, p. 1].

“The priests of the Society of St. Pius X are validly ordained, but suspended, that is prohibited from exercising their priestly functions because they are not properly incardinated in a diocese of religious institute in full communion with the Holy See (cf. Code of Canon Law, canon 265) and also because those ordained after the schismatic Episcopal ordinations were ordained by an excommunicated bishop. [There’s that word again.  Puzzling.]

“Concretely, this means that the Masses offered by the priests of the Society of St. Pius X are valid, but illicit, i.e., contrary to Canon Law. The Sacraments of Penance and Matrimony, however, require that the priest enjoys the faculties of the diocese or has proper delegation. Since that is not the case with these priests, these sacraments are invalid. [Invalid.  Marriages and confessions.] It remains true, however, [pay attention] that, if the faithful are genuinely ignorant that the priests of the Society of St. Pius X do not have proper faculty to absolve, the Church supplies these faculties so that the sacrament is valid (cf. Code of Canon Law, canon 144)  [What we get into here involves a person’s culpability for ignorance.  If a guy genuinely doesn’t know that the SSPX priests don’t have the faculties from the Church so that marriages and confessions can be valid, then the person himself is simply ignorant and, well, God takes care of him through the Church.  If he has never had the news or information about this at all, or if he has had it inadequately explained so that he doesn’t get it, it doesn’t stick, then he is not at fault for his ignorance – unless ... unless he either a) figured out there was something really important to this he didn’t understand and, either because he was lazy or afraid of learning the truth he therefore purposely avoided more information or b) is in a position of authority or responsibility which by its very nature require him to be adequately well-informed about all those things he must deal with.  In the case of a person who could learn, but doesn’t for whatever reason, we are talking about ignorance that could be overcome.  That person is in a state of vincible ignorance.  That ignorance can then either be innocent or culpable, depending on his own degree of guilt or responsibility for his own ignorance.  Then there are those who, for whatever reason, perhaps they are very stupid or perhaps they have some genuine psychological block, just can’t figure out or learn they truth, this is invincible ignorance, which can’t be overcome. They have far less culpability, or none, for their state.]

“While it is true that participation in the Mass at chapels of the Society of St. Pius X does not of itself constitute “formal adherence to the schism” (cf. Ecclesia Dei 5, c), such adherence can come about over a period of time as one slowly imbibes a schismatic mentality which separates itself from the teaching of the Supreme Pontiff and the entire Catholic Church. [It can happen over time, though this would differ with every person.] While we hope and pray for a reconciliation with the Society of St. Pius X, the Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei” cannot recommend that members of the faithful frequent their chapels for the reasons which we have outlined above. [Because, to one degree or another, you are weakening your bond wit the local bishop and the Roman Pontiff.] We deeply regret this situation and pray that soon a reconciliation of the Society of St. Pius X with the Church may come about, but until such time the explanations which we have given remain in force.”

Q: Does the Catholic Church currently hold that the situation of the Society of St. Pius X is not one for ecumenical dialogue [Good question.] because the Society of St. Pius X is an internal matter within the Catholic Church?

PCED: “Up to now the Catholic Church has acted as if the situation of the Society of St. Pius X is an internal matter within the Catholic Church and not a matter of ecumenical dialogue.”

Q: Do lay Catholics who frequent Society of St. Pius X chapels, either more less frequently, incur any sin or canonical delict by doing so, [Well… you don’t "incur" sin or delict, you "commit" them.  You incur a censure.]  if done solely out of devotion to the Church’s Latin liturgical tradition and not to separate one’s self from communion with one’s diocesan Ordinary or local pastor?  [Again we are into matters of conscience.]

PCED: “Catholics who frequent the chapels of the Society of St. Pius X do not incur any sin or canonical delict by doing so. [They are quoting his language back to him.] However, we further refer you to what we have already stated in #4 above.”

A: What level of authority do your answers to this private correspondence hold?

PCED: “As we already stated to you in our letter of 4 July 2007: “This Pontifical Commission does its best to transmit responses which are in full accord with the magisterium and the present canonical practices of the Catholic Church. One should accept them with docility and can act upon them with moral certainty.” [There is the issue of moral certainty.] We would further add that no dicastery of the Holy See will give other responses than those which we have given here.” [This is important because the PCED has competence in these matters and no other Vatican office should step on their toes.  For example, should the CDW get a question about the old Mass, they should pass it to the PCED.  If the Cong. for Clergy get these questions, they should be forwarded to the PCED.]

Please know that you and your staff and the Holy Father are in my family’s constant prayers as we prepare to celebrate the Holy Week and the season of Easter.

Pax Christi in Regno Christi,

Brian C. Mershon

Commentary on the PCED Responses   [This is by Mershon.]

1. The current language being used by the Catholic Church avoids saying that the Society of St. Pius X is in formal schism.  [They are not saying officially that the SSPX is NOT in schism.  They are avoiding saying officially anything either way.]

2. Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and the four bishops he ordained in the Society of St. Pius X directly against the express will of the Holy Father incurred excommunication, as outlined by the Code of Canon Law and confirmed by the Congregation for Bishops and Pope John Paul II in his motu proprio Ecclesia Dei Adflicta.  [Remember, that no censure is incurred without the person having sinned.  When enough outward evidence points to the sinful nature of the act, the censure is also officially declared, as happened with the confirmation by the Congregation.  This is why some latae sententiae excommunications are later publicly confirmed.  They go by the evidence, come to a moral certainty about the person’s having incurred the censure automatically (which means they examined the evidence even of the possibility of the sinful nature of the objective act, and then made a decision, declaring the situation for the good of souls.]

3. The Society of St. Pius X priests are suspended from priestly ministry. Therefore, objectively speaking, they are committing sins of grave matter by continuing their active ministry without a specific mandate of the Church. [Of course they may subjectively not be sinning, they may either so convinced of their rectitude or, perhaps, dense, that they are not actually guilty of the objective sins they may be commiting.]  Of course, the Society’s official claim, wrongly or rightly, is that the salvation of souls and the current state of emergency in the Church forces them to continue to offer their ministries without ecclesiastical approval. There has been no indication by the Catholic Church that the priests, as a whole, are excommunicated or in formal schism.  [Remember: it is pretty hard, I would say impossible, to continue a claim of a state of emergency when more than one Pope, over quite a long time, says there isn’t not one that justified their actions.]

4. Therefore, all the sacraments offered by Society of St. Pius X priests, with the exception of Penance and Matrimony, [And that is important.] are valid, but illicit, meaning “illegal.” Penance and Matrimony both require faculties from the local bishop, [or other legitimate authority such as a religious superior, etc., but generally also the local bishop if a priest is stable in a place for a long time and working publicly.] which the Society of St. Pius X priests do not have; therefore, they are invalid. Cases of supplied jurisdiction apply to those who are, for example, in danger of death. [That is to say that the Church’s law itself gives the faculty to any priest, even one who has been "laicized" to absolve in danger of death, even if there is present also a priest in good standing.  This is because the highest good of all the law is the salvation of souls.  Thus, law foresees these possibilities.]  Those who read and understand the PCED’s response can no longer claim ignorance regarding the Church’s official teaching on these two sacraments’ invalidity.  [The writer is trying to overcome the ignorance, vinicible and perhaps also culpable ignorance of those who frequent SSPX priests for absolution or who go to them to be married.  This is like saying: at this point you have no excuse.  You have been told.  You can’t claim ignorance anymore.  From now on, if you go to an SSPX priest for absolution, it is probably not going to forgive your sins.]

5. Catholic laymen may attend Mass at a Society of St. Pius X chapel without committing any sin nor incurring any canonical penalty. However, the PCED guidance is that it “cannot recommend” attendance at the Society of St. Pius X chapels due to the danger of imbibing a “schismatic mentality.”  [And we have seen that mentality among some lay people who frequent their chapels and give them support.] In other words, someone might find some Society priests fomenting division from full communion with the Church, their local Ordinary and/or the Holy Father in their sermons. The PCED’s recommendation is not to attend their chapels habitually, but they acknowledge there is no sin committed nor canonical penalty incurred resulting from attending Mass at SSPX chapels solely out of the desire to worship according to the 1962 missal and in order to fulfill their Sunday obligation.

6. The Society of St. Pius X is in an irregular canonical situation and an “internal matter” and therefore is not a case of ecumenical dialogue. [They are, in sense, Catholics on the slippery slope.]

7. Again, the correspondence from the PCED can be accepted and acted upon with “docility and moral certitude” by Catholics. The specific questions I asked were broad enough in nature to constitute an official response for Catholics to use as guidance.  [But they are not more than that.  They are not definitive or official.  They have weight and people can act on them with confidence.]

Catholic priests, bishops or laymen who contradict these specific responses seem to be out of step with the Church’s current official position.

My additional notes: While people can to some extent or reason agree with or disagree with the specific recommendations of the PCED or statements of Card. Castrillon, I would add this caution.

First, not everyone’s opinion is of equal weight.  Joe Bagofdonuts’ opinon is not going to be, probably, as good as mine, who have training and experience in these things at a level Joe doesn’t have.  My opinion is probably not going to be as good as that of a canonist, etc.  Our opinions are not as weighty as that of the President of the Commission which enjoys competence from the Lawgiver, the Vicar of Christ.  When the Cardinal speaks, his opinion has weight.  Joe really doesn’t have strong position to criticize the Cardinal in these matters, so perhaps he ought to pipe down and listen.

Second, some of the things, above, are based on Canon Law and on moral principles.  Those are not the sort of things we can disagree with because they are the general principles applied to the particular cases in question. 

This was interesting.  I hope this was useful for you!

This is in from CNS.  My emphases and comments.

Traditionalists say they’ve met Vatican’s deadline for reconciliation

By Cindy Wooden
Catholic News Service

VATICAN CITY (CNS)—The traditionalist Society of St. Pius X said it met the Vatican’s deadline to respond to a memo outlining preliminary conditions for full reconciliation with the rest of the Catholic Church.

However, a statement released by the Swiss-based society July 1 implied that the traditionalist group did not accept all the conditions set out in the letter, and it appealed to Pope Benedict XVI to lift the 1988 decree of excommunication against the society’s bishops who were ordained without papal permission.  [However, if they responded by the end of June, and they did, then they met the deadline which was one of the conditions.]

The Vatican press office said July 3 that it did not plan to comment on the statement.  [Not even to say something positive.]

In the July 1 statement, the Society of St. Pius said, "The very general—not to say vague—character of the demands singularly contrasts with the urgency of the ultimatum," adding that they appeared to be geared simply to promoting dialogue rather than resolving differences.

The memorandum was given June 4 to the head of the society, Bishop Bernard Fellay, by Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos, the Vatican official in charge of dialogue with the traditionalists.

In addition to asking for a response by the end of June, the memo set four other conditions for a move toward full reconciliation:

—To respond with the same generosity shown by the pope.

—To avoid public comments showing a lack of respect toward the pope or which could "be negative for ecclesial charity."

—To avoid "the pretext of a magisterium superior to the Holy Father" and to not present the society in opposition to the church.

—To demonstrate the will to act honestly in full ecclesial communion and with respect for the pope’s authority.

The society’s July 1 statement said Bishop Fellay responded to the ultimatum with a June 26 letter to Pope Benedict and that "Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos acknowledged receipt of the letter the next day."  [And, as we reported here and here, Card. Castrillon was apparently pleased with the letter.]

In a June 28 interview with an Italian-language radio station in Switzerland, Bishop Fellay said, "It is false to say (my response was a) total rejection" of the Vatican’s conditions.

"Rather, I see in this ultimatum something very vague, confused. But I have responded and it has to be seen how Rome will react," he said.

Bishop Fellay said, "It is possible that now there will be a little more coldness" in the discussions with the Vatican, but the society wants to continue its dialogue with the rest of the church.  [I pondered what that might mean since I first read it.  Does it mean that the SSPX leadership will now begin to speak with less "warmth"?  That is, with less harsh rhetoric?  Some people take passion and criticism to be sincerity.  Others see dispassionate and careful dialogue as being "cold".  Hard to say what he meant.]

"We do not want to break with the church. Our greatest desire is to be fully accepted," he said. "This is also for the good of the church, because you can see the church has serious problems and we know that we have the solution. [A bit brash.  The problems the Church has in the modern world, in all their complexity and the world’s diversity, are not going to be met by the solutions of one group.] We are not innovators; we simply follow what the church has always done and which worked in the past."  [What worked in the past was sticking closely to Peter… but I digress.]

Asked whether he risked permanently closing the possibility of reconciliation by not accepting all the Vatican’s conditions, Bishop Fellay said: "For me, this ultimatum makes no sense. We have a relationship with Rome that is unfolding with a certain rhythm, which, it is true, is slow. But it also is true that the cardinal (Castrillon) and the Holy Father would like to see an accelerated rhythm."  [Nobody is getting younger, and this combination of people involved are all as positive and open as there have ever been.]

Last year, Pope Benedict widened the possibility for use of the Tridentine rite, ["Tridentine"] the form of Mass used before the Second Vatican Council. That was a long-standing request of the society. [That is not the only reason Benedict XVI did this, of course.  It also has to do with both his desire for true reform in the Church.]

But Bishop Fellay has continued to criticize [This is unclear: continued to criticize since when?  Since Summorum Pontificum or since the Conditions, which ask for a more positive tone?  Also, there is nothing in the conditions that required the SSPX leadership not to criticize elements of Vatican II (which Papa Ratzinger has done himself, extensively and sharply, in the past.] the Vatican on other matters, and has expressed his society’s continued opposition to several teachings of Vatican II, especially in the areas of ecumenism and religious freedom. 

In April Bishop Fellay said the time was not right for reconciliation with the Vatican, because church leaders have not taken steps to reverse the "crisis" introduced by Vatican II.  [I don’t accept that.  I think steps have indeed been taken.  But you don’t get to decide what those steps ought to be unless you are the Pope.]

One source said the new Vatican offer signaled that the Vatican was not willing to continue dialogue with the traditionalist society indefinitely.  [This is perhaps true.  I suggested that myself at the beginning.  I also think that it is more likely that this is a matter of taking advantage of the intersection of circumstances.  First, it was twenty years precisely since the illicit consecrations by Lefebvre. Second, the people in leadership positions on both sides are the most positive toward unity we have seen in the interval.  Third, no one is getting younger: Castrillon will be eighty soon and His Holiness is 81 while Fellay is now also moving on in age and perhaps won’t be elected Superior again, if and when his term expires.  Then what?]

The society broke with the Vatican in 1988 when its founder, the late French Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, ordained four bishops against papal instructions; Bishop Fellay was one of those ordained.

At that time, the Vatican said those involved in the ordinations were excommunicated.

Jesuit Father Federico Lombardi, Vatican spokesman, explained to French television July 2 that, while the four bishops were excommunicated, the priests of the society are validly ordained [but suspended] and the laity who attend their Masses are considered Catholics.