The Holy Father issued Summorum Pontificum.
Card. Castrillon of the PCED offered the SSPS a list of conditions.
The Holy Father lifted the excommunications.
The PCED has been placed under the CDF.
Now… with a biretta tip to Rorate.
Bishop Alfonso de Galarreta chairman of the SSPX commission
The Argentinian Catholic website Panorama Católico Internacional published this week the news that the current Rector of the Seminary of the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X (FSSPX / SSPX) in Argentina, Bishop Alfonso de Galarreta, has been named chairman of the SSPX side of the oint Vatican-SSPX commission in charge of the theological discussions.
Panorama adds that sources "close to the SSPX" inform that the Bishop will remain as rector in Argentina for the moment, but may change if his duties in Europe (that is, as part of the commission) deprive him from the time that is deemed necessary for the activities of the seminary.
Brick by brick.
Loading ...
On the bright side, they didn’t choose +Tissier de Mallerais.
Thanks for the news. Is there any idea when the discussions might begin?
Vincent:
Should there be (+) before his name?
Saying a prayer, now.
Mr. Ryan,
Yes; he is a Bishop.
Pray for the Holy Father and his Pontificate..He has brought many good things that will impact the Church for centuries..For the lay people involved and countless souls who eagerly await the SSPX re-integration into mainstream Catholic life I pray the discussions are under a mutual aire of trust, love, respect, and a true desire to re-unify what has been seperated..
Some comments over at Rorate-Caeli are to the effect that the SSPX theologians will get eaten alive by the modern-day theologians on the other side. I find this to be a ridiculous assumption because the position of the SPPX, as I understand it, is they hold to everything that the Church has always held, taught and professed to be true from day one. If this is true, how can they be eaten alive by the opposition? It boggles the mind. Could it be that the opposition wants the SSPX to accept something other than what the Church has always held, taught and professed to be true,? This could get real interesting, folks. I, for one, do not subscribe to the theory that the SSPX is composed of “theological midgets or lightweights”.
1.(+)Bishop de Galarreta is the right man for the job, Mgr (+)Felley is to busy running the society, and as much as I hate to admit it (I’m an SSPX’er remmeber) both Bishops (+)Williamson and (+)Tisser de Mallerais run dangerously close in their sermons to the heresy of Sedevantism (although to his credit Williamson does take on the Sedevacantists in his latest email colunm).
2. Halepe is right, remember these guys were all taught by Mgr Lefebvre himself they could probebly conduct a cannon law debate whilst fencing blindfold.
3. Accorded to (+) Tisser de mallerais these are talks will be conducted via courerd letters to avoid playing to the gallary or getting carried away in the heat of the moment, good idea methinks.
4. Question for anyone who knows , Does (+) Bishop de Galarreta speak English? I’m just curious since he’s coming to England in November to adminster confirmations and I’m amongst the lucky candidates soon too face the written exam :)
I think the fact that +de Galarreta does not speak English, and is therefore not as well known in the media, may be one of the reasons why he was chosen.
Some may be disappointed to learn, that if you wanted to put the 4 bishops on a left/right spectrum, +de Galarreta would be farthest to the right. LOL
He also happens to be brilliant, so I would be nervous if I were the CDF.
I’d just like to say that if Jack Hughes’ idea of conducting a canon law debate while fencing blindfold comes off, I would pay to see it.
Heather
I’d actually day that + de Galarreta along with (+)Felley is actually quite sane and sensible in his views, If you don’t believe me then listen to +Tisser De mallerais or +Williamson shoot their mouths off, they both suffer from an extreme lack of charity which conincedently means that people don’t take the sane stuff they say seriously.
If Cardinal (+)William Levada is the captain othordoxy that I’ve been lead to believe that he is then he has nothing to worry about, on the other hand………..
To Jack Hughes,
In terms of *essentials*, that is doctrine, the 4 bishops are in agreement…they just have different styles of communicating. Obviously, +Williamson tends to be more polemical..+Fellay, who is Swiss, tends to be more diplomatic. I think +de Galarreta, has been much more emphatic that there can be no talk of canonical structure until doctrine is worked out.
You’re way off base re: +Williamson and +de Mallerais…you should be more careful about judging the intentions of others and attempting to read souls.
+Levada the captain of orthodoxy? hmph. I think +de Galarreta is going to make mince meat out of him.
Heather
1) Actually I think the four of them are miles appart: In a recent interveiw for the UK district (+) Felly seems to realise (a) that V2 has happened before i.e Constantinople 2 (b) that 21 years in cannonical limbo is not an ideal situation and (c) that the Holy Father’s efforts to regularize the society are being hampered left right and centre by Cardinals and Bishops in the Curia. Bishop (+) De Galarreta whilst saying (quite rightly) that the Holy Father is not a traditionalist that the society wants clarification about what in V2 must be believed with Divine and Catholic Faith and what was simply 1960’s do goody optimism (what do you think the talks are for?), he also pointedly reminds SSPX’ers not set themselves as judges of Church or to fall into biterness and despair .
2)I don’t think that I was uncharitable at all, to listen to (+) de Mallerais you’d think that the 500 society priests are the only Catholic priests in the world and (+)Williamson’s IFF gear is totally screwed, where (+)Felly sees an olive branch and a return to traditon on the part of the Church as a whole (+) Williamson sees an elaborate plot to destroy the society, Also (+) De Mallerais accused the Holy Father of having denied the redemption in one of his books (admitidly the passage in the book isn’t as clear cut as one would like, pre 1960’s it would have earned him a visit to the CDF in order to clarify what he was trying to say and a re-writing of the passage in later additions).
3) All I know about Cardinal(+) Levada is that he wasn’t particulary accomodating towards the TLM and tended to annoy pro-abort Catholic Politicians in Californial, apart from that I don’t know enough to comment.
FYI, Cardinals are not referred to as Most Rev. (+) unless they are Cardinal Bishops, of which there are only nine in the world; Cardinal Levada is not one of them.
Cardinal or not, do you need to head a see to use the (+)?
It often seems when reading the comments at Rorate that, although I love the blog ,a contingent of the readership seems hostile to HH and sees any promising development as false hope. They seem not to have read any of his writings. Thus those who wish a dramatic gesture ie a Papal Solemn Mass of the old Missal seem to blithely unaware that such Masses are of tremenous complexity and were celebrated only four times a year.(I remember reading this at NLM).
HH likewise has said he wishes not to subject the faithful to widespread sweeping sudden changes since he rightly perceives that this is what was done in the 70’s leading to chaos. It would seem more prudent to pray for his good health and the success of the talks rather than sitting in judgement of the participants and of the Pope himself.
JPG
I don’t think it’s productive to view this as a mincemeat-making competition. Both sides need to come to the table with open minds, and attempt to iron out their differences in a spirit of charity. Let’s pray that the discussions are fruitful.
I agree, Westie. The way Heather is framing this is unhelpful to say the least.
Besides, I’d be happy putting that Ratzinger guy up against any SSPXer.
This seems like another sensible step in the regularization process. Once back into the full life of the Church the SSPX will be a very helpful ally in restoring sacred tradition. Tom
To Jack Hughes–
Have you ever spoken to any of the bishops personally? Do you know them?
They are not miles apart.
And FYI…all 4 are on the commission.
To Thomas S.
I didn’t frame anything…Haleype referred to the comments at Rorate, many of which imply that the SSPX is out of its league. I disagree.
I am confident that the SSPX can more than hold their own, and that the Truth will prevail, and we will all be better off.
Here’s a pic of what +de Galarreta is up against.
http://www.splendoroftruth.com/curtjester/archives/2005/08/nope-no-liturgi.php
Reference the last comment by Heather. Just to be clear – although I referred to the comments at Rorate-Caeli, I also said: “I, for one, do not subscribe to the theory that the SSPX is composed of “theological midgets or lightweights.”
Haleype,
As I see it, the problem with the SSPX’s theological outlook is that it is way too narrow and fails to take into account the work of the Holy Ghost Who can unfold fresh and deeper understandings of doctrine and dogma as time goes on. The essentials of the Faith certainly remain the same forever, but why does the SSPX almost always seem critical of EVERYTHING that is going on in theological work and research today? Where is the SSPX’s respect for any newer theological work? Is it all rubbish? Is almost everything the Second Vatican Council taught rubbish too? YES, we hold on to everything the Church has always taught, but we also need to remember the Church’s teachings are not always expressed and emphasized in the same way from century to century. For example, the Early Church Fathers did not express the Catholic Faith as later theologians did in their manuals of Thomistic theology. In the same way, the Church is not going to express and emphasize Her teachings on ecumenism and religious liberty in the same exact way to a 1920’s world as She does to a 2009 world that is different in some key ways.
When the SSPX makes the statment about holding on to what the Church has always held, taught, and professed, the SSPX makes the mistake of implying that everything in the Church’s life is an essential element that can never change. Essentials stay the same, but non-essentials, even elements of the Liturgy, can change as the centuries go by. Any reading of Church history will show the Church has undergone change and reform in many ways over the last 2000 years. The SSPX has the useful firm and unbending approach to the Church’s life down pat, but where is the part of the SSPX’s approach that should include some broadmindedness and openness to the new that has also been a part of the Church’s life through the centuries?
Also, who discerns the essential and non-essential elements of the Catholic Faith? The SSPX seems to think they are the final arbiters of Truth and Tradition for the Church; however, Jesus left the Keys to St. Peter and his successors, not to Archbishop Lefebvre and his. As a part of Catholic Tradition, the Church has always professed an obedience and respect for the Roman Pontiff. Why does the SSPX claim to uphold Tradition but then act as if they exercise a Magisterium higher than the Bishop of Rome?
(In the end, both sides need to act with some theological sanity. The theologians in the Curia cannot continue to act as if Vatican II was a new start from zero that obliterated the past. The SSPX theologians need to understand that some newer things in the Church’s life are the work of the Holy Ghost. The Faith is ever ancient AND ever new!)
Pax Christi.
Heather
No I do not know any of their Excellencies on a personnel level, my views on their positions are drawn from a number sources I am a subscriber to Bishop(+) Williamson’s weekly email colunm, have listened to sermons by (+) Tisser de mallerais’s , read/listened to many articles/interviews by/of Bishop (+)Felly, and whilst I confess that due to his habbit of staying out of the media spotlight I have not had much contact with Mgr (+)de Galarreta work’s what I have read renosates more closely with what (+)Felley says. Now unless their excellencies have confided infomation to to you of which I am unaware I would ask you to respect my conclusions.
If all four of them are on the commission then I trust that (+)Tisser De mallerais and (+)Williamson will remember that they are Catholics and that unless they want to mire themselves in fever-swamp sedevacantism they should act accordingly.
It would have been better (not to mention more accurate) for (+)Tisser De mallerais in his 2007 interview with the Remnant if he had said that certain passages in the Holy Father’s book “Introduction to Christianity” could be read in the wrong way and charitably suggested that it would be an excellent idea for the Holy Father to edit the passage for future editions, instead of accusing him of heresy.
On a more personnel note Heather I’ve no idea if you’re an SSPX’er or not, but if you are then surely you must realise that it is not in either the society’s or tradition’s interest to remain in a state of emergency indefinatly and that like it or not the Pope is the Pope ( and not even imprudent actions nor failure to teach can strip him of that title) unless of course you’re a sedevacantist in which case you’re a heretic. Also in your last two posts you sounded triumphenlist, may I charitably suggest that you tone the retoric down as from personnal experiance that is the way to turn Othordox N.O’ers off tradition like no other. I’d suggest reading Ryan Grant’s (AKA Athanasius Contra Mundum) excellent artilce from some months back entittled “Gnosticism in the Traditional Movement”
Jason,
I’m not affiliated with the SSPX but I guess one could call me someone who sympathizes with their position vis-a-vis incardination or should I say the lack thereof, the right to celebrate the Mass, their aversion to the theological premise that outside the Catholic church there is salvation, that there is efficacy in other religions, that the old covenant with the Jews was never fulfilled, that the liturgy can change without the most drastic effects on the Faith of those in the pews, that the Church has never dealt appropriately with abuses in the liturgy the likes of which could never have even been imagined before 1970, and the fact that for 20 odd years they were laboring under the mantle of excommunication despite the fact that they claimed a state of necessity under canon 1323, and to this very day they are characterized as being not in full communion, lacking canonical status and not able to exercise any legitimate ministry in the church.
Where does theological sanity fit in here? The current code of canon law is applicable to all and is not just a tool for those of the modernist persuasion to keep traditional catholics at bay. True the pope is the Supreme Legislator but he cannot by himself act in opposition to Justice as envisioned by the laws promulgated by his predecessor. There is the matter of equity here and that is something most of us have been waiting for all these many years since the code was put into effect. Archbishop Lefebvre has stated that he never wanted to separate himself from the Vicar of Christ and was acting only to preserve Tradition. But, how can one preserve Tradition when all the bishops of the church refused to incardinate his priests? And, it’s not just Archbishop Lefebvre but many priests who refused to drink the Vatican II Kool-aid that were refused faculties or had their faculties withdrawn.
I, myself, do not see anything wrong with updating and improving concepts that have gone out of date but that does not mean that what was previously held as true becomes somehow at a future date untenable because some modern-day theologian says so. I agree that both sides must act with sanity and a courteous approach to the upcoming discussions but this does not mean by any means accepting the premise that what holy mother church has always held, taught and professed to be true is now, because of some changing circumstances, untenable. God is unchangeable and so is His Theology. And, by the way, I have not yet seen anything that says the SSPX must accept some theological premise that has not always been accepted as true by the Church. Some may propose these propositions and premises but I doubt very much that they can be mandated as required belief by all.
Seems like a logical choice. Bishop Galarreta would be extremely knowledgeable about the theological positions of the SSPX since he runs a seminary. And that gives the generals of the SSPX someone in a “First Lieutenant” role to deal with the practical matters of managing the debate, keeping the head of the Society and the “live wires” out of the front lines.
Hayleype,
Thanks for the response. I too am sympathetic to the SSPX in many ways. I would like to also see the SSPX as a regular and valued participant in the Church’s life. The Catholic Church needs to reconnect with many of Her traditions. The SSPX can play a big role in helping the Church to remember that She has a great and venerable history that cannot be forgotten or brushed aside as if the Church began as a new entity in the 1960’s with Vatican II. Conversely, the SSPX has to realize that not every new development in theology can be viewed as an error or always inferior to the past practice or understanding. The Church has incorporated newer theologies into Her life at different stages of history. Today and tomorrow are no different. There will be valid and new theologies that come along that even challenge us from time to time just as Thomism challenged the theological thinking of an earlier era. Overall, our approach to theology has to include some broadmindedness along with our precision and fidelity to Sacred Tradition. If we fail to accomodate any broadmindedness or receptivity to newer ways of thinking, we will fail to see how the Holy Ghost is prompting the Church to speak in our era.
The specific theological issues that you mentioned like “No Salavtion Outside of the Church” are quite interesting. It would seem to me that the papal magisterium has demonstrated how these issues are to be understood in various documents like the New Catechism. There is nuance and complexity in these teachings to be sure, but no one ever promised us that every part of Salvation History would be instantly understandable or as black and white as we might like it to be. Will the SSPX refuse to accept the Magisterium’s teachings on the nuances of these issues because the SSPX leadership prefers to see things in terms of black and white, us vs. them, or Traditional SSPX vs. Modernist Rome? I hope not. Things are not that simple.
Archbishop Lefebvre said that he wanted to preserve Tradition, but in reality, Archbishop Lefebvre was only preserving a version of Traditional Catholicism that was familiar and comfortable to him. The Catholic Church, under the headship of the Roman Pontiff, guards and interprets Tradition and has done so despite the difficulties in the Church. As right as Archbishop Lefebvre was about some things, he was not the guardian of Sacred Tradition. To counter Arcbishop Lefebvre’s narrow version of Tradition, the Holy See has already demonstrated in many, many ways how the newer theologies and emphases in doctrine complement and do not contradict Sacred Tradition. Will the SSPX continue in their rigidity? I hope not. In the end, the Roman Pontiff guards Tradition.
God is unchangeable and so are the essential elements of doctrines and dogmas. That does not mean that the Church cannot highlight or emphasize certain aspects of a doctrine to fit a particular period of history. When a particular element of a doctrine is emphasized for the first time in history, it might seem as if an entirely new doctrine has been invented. That is not the case. For example, a reading of historical theology will show there have been challenging and apparently contradictory developments in teachings like “No salvation outside of the Church,” ecumenism and religious liberty all throughout the Church’s history. Not everything is as black and white as the SSPX would like us to believe, and the post Vatican II period is not the first challenging period of Church history. I just hope the SSPX does not end up like the “Old Catholics” who refused to accept the teaching of papal infallibilty after Vatican I. Again, Peter’s successor ultimately guards Sacred Tradition, not the “Old Catholiccs” and not the SSPX.
I also agree with you that the SSPX should not be made to accept any non-essential matter. We need to be broadminded in our approach to Catholicism and allow for legitimate diversity where it is appropriate.
Pax.
Responding to earlier comments,
So long as the See of Peter is occupied by Benedict XVI, I’m not concerned about lightweight theology on the ‘Vatican side’. We would all do well also to remember that the Holy see has numerous excellent theologians, liturgical experts (for we cannot forget that aspect of doctrine), and canon lawyers, and almost without fail all of the best ones would not be lacking in willingness to do the job, and do it well. Even were William Cardinal Levada to prove not up to the task – and let us remember who appointed him to his post – I do not believe the Church to be devoid or even horribly lacking in those who are of the necessary caliber.
Now, let us pray that these discussions shall be productive and very quickly result in the full return of the SSPX to the Church!
Jason,
As I understand it, the SSPX took the action they did in 1988 because they perceived a state of necessity. It’s hard to argue that there was not a state of necessity then without a survivable bishop to ordain priests and the possibility of seeing those priest incardinated in local dioceses. So, they were not legislating a version of Tradition for the Church but merely trying to protect what they had. At least that’s my view for what it’s worth.
As to the claim of a state of necessity and whether that same claim is valid today you might click on the my username and read what I have to say about the state of necessity in today’s church climate. However, allow me to say briefly that when the SSPX is characterized as not in full communion, possessing no canonical status and capable of no legitimate ministry, it is easy to see how that claim might be justified. Subpara 7 of Canon 1323 states: “a person who without negligence thought that one of the circumstances mentioned in nn. 4 or 5 was present” is not subject to the penalty.
Now, we can argue ’til the cows come home about what was in the Archbishop’s mind but we cannot judge him without knowing his true intentions and under what fear he may have been operating. Similarly, who can judge the SSPX today for being quite cautious about their approach to the doctrinal discussions? Only a few things are certain. The excommunications have been remitted for the four SSPX bishops but the SSPX still has no official place in the Church, despite an overwhelming need for good and holy priests. This is a situation that cannot be allowed to continue for the salvation of souls is at stake.
Who said, “I have passed on, what I have recieved”?
ssolde
Originally it was St Paul in 1st Corinthians 15, but the Good Archbishop took it as his episcopol motto
Mpm
I completly agree with you as do the vast number of parishinors at the Chapel I attend.
Having looked at various commentaries (SSPX, Fr Z’s take on Gaudem Et Spet, Remnant, other lay theologians) on the V2 Documents the problem isn’t so much want the council says, its the fact that various council statements were ambigous due to the absence of qualifiers that would have prevented misunderstandings, indeed it was the purpose of several little known documents such as “mysterium ecclesie” (1974) and “Dominus Ieus” (2000) to correcte misunderstandings of the council documents. I would also echo the voice of Monsignor Brunero Gherardini asking the Holy Father to “clarify definitively every aspect and contents of the last Council. Such omnia reparare [reparation of everything] could be accomplished through a great papal document, which would go down in history as a sign and witness of the vigilant and responsible exercise of His ministry as the Successor of Peter.”.
I also look foward to reading his Book “Vatican Two An Open Discussion” all whist trying not to become distracted from my Senior Year in Collage:)
As a final point I would like to say this I do not regard the Second Vatican Council as a Modernist Council but it was the Council of the modernists insofar that whist the documents can be read in an othordox manner the ambiguities can only be seen as a result of modernists trying to give themselves cover to publically dissent from Church teaching and that whenever it may please the Successor of Peter to call another council I think it advisable to return to the previous format of Trent and Vatican One. (but hey I’m only a snotty nosed 21yr old Senior who was only Baptised 17 Months ago :) )
Jason,
Please cite another example where “development of doctrine” led to a *common* understanding that the Church is now teaching the opposite of what she taught before.
Jack,
Welcome home!
“From out the mouth of babes” ;>
Jack,
Also, BTW, Mysterium Ecclesiae (1974) and Dominus Iesus (2000) were not intended by the Popes to be “little known”, they have just been ignored by the usual suspects.
mpm
To be honest they’ve most likely been ignored by SSPX clergy as well :)
MichaelJ,
I’m not sure I understand your question. Are you asking me to cite examples from Church history where normal Catholics were confused about a particular Church teaching because of a challenging new doctrinal emphasis or development?
Jack,
A small correction– Archbishop Lefebvre chose “tradidi quod et accepi” as his epitaph, not his episcopal motto. His motto was “credidimus caritati,” “we have believed in love,” from 1 John.
Jason,
Sort of. I am asking you to cite an example where a “challenging new doctrinal emphasis or development” led a large number of Catholics, including Clergy, to believe something opposite to what they previously believed. Would it even have been thinkable for a Catholic in the first 1950 years of the Church to utter a statement along the lines of: “Oh. The Church does not teach *that* anymore”
MichaelJ,
I don’t have a ton of time to write, but let me offer this: The Church in our era has done a terribly inadequate job of presenting and explaining the newer developments of doctrine. The developments are often presented as if they overthrow all previous doctrinal understanding. We’ve probably all heard priests, professors, liturgists, nuns, or CCD teachers say, “Oh, we don’t do this or that since Vatican II.” Baloney! The Church isn’t one thing one day and something completely different the next. I blame Pope John Paul II and others for not doing more to show how the new is in continuity with the “old.” Year after year, Catholics were allowed to believe and practice the Faith as if the Church came into existence for the first time only after Vatican II. Thankfully, Pope Benedict is remedying the situation by showing how the present and past complement, not contradict each other.
Having said that, just because the Church has so poorly presented the explanations of doctrinal development does not mean the developments are themselves flawed. If one takes the time, for example, to read the works of theologian Fr. Brian Harrison on religious liberty, one can see how the newer emphases are in continuity with the past. There are other theological works that show the harmony between the old and newer developments in the areas of ecumenism and “No Salvation Outside of the Church,” etc.
Also, I think the radical changes in culture and society have contributed to the average person’s misreading of doctrinal developments in our time. For example, people today are very relativistic in their thinking. This relativistic bias causes people to foist their own false ideas into concepts like ecumenism and religious liberty. Another problem is that few Catholics actually take the time to read the Church’s documents which leads to confusion about what the Church is actually teaching in our day. We also can’t forget about the influence of Satan who is always working to foment disunity in the Mystical Body.
Anyways, that’s all I have time for right now.
Pax Christi.
Jason,
I was primarily responding to your statement: “For example, a reading of historical theology will show there have been challenging and apparently contradictory developments in teachings like “No salvation outside of the Church,” ecumenism and religious liberty all throughout the Church’s history.” and subsequent suggestion that there have been many times in Church history where a development of doctrine led people to believe that the development contradicted earlier teaching.
I am not asking you to justify Vatican II or offer an explanation of why people today believe this sort of thing. All I wanted to know is when this happened previously.