Secretary of the Pont. Council for Legislative Texts on SSPX: no problems with doctrine

Our friends at Rorate, always on top of these things, has this:

Bp. Arrieta Ochoa, of “Legislative Texts”:

“No doctrinal problems with SSPX; we were able to clarify them”

The Secretary of the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts, Bishop Juan Ignacio Arrieta Ochoa, was in Louvain-la-Neuve (Wallonia, Belgium) this past Monday, and spoke to Belgian daily La Libre, mostly about the abuse scandal. He also had the following to say on former Anglicans and on relations with the Society of Saint Pius X (FSSPX / SSPX):

“In the first case, it is above all a question of confirmation of the faith and, from there, of catechesis. Regarding the problem of the reintegration of the Lefebvrists, I think we were able to clarify the doctrinal problems, even if it is not easy to put all that onto paper. The true problem, the only one for me, is the separation, the human distance dating from 1988.”

Benedict XVI is the Pope of Christian Unity.

Indeed, my fear is that some of them have been in a stance of defiance for so long, they no longer know how to submit.  Furthermore, some of them have never known unity.

 

FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in Brick by Brick, Pope of Christian Unity and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

21 Responses to Secretary of the Pont. Council for Legislative Texts on SSPX: no problems with doctrine

  1. This is good news though! I’m glad to hear that the SSPX doctrinal position is likely to be ruled compatible with the Holy Father’s will on the matter. An attitude of rebellion and human separation is difficult enough, but that’s possible to overcome with the guidance of the Holy Spirit and the prayers of Our Lady. Thank God for Benedict XVI, and may he live to see the fruit of his actions.

    Blessed are the peacemakers…

  2. olh says:

    It would sure be nice not to have to attend the nearest TLM in a circle church from the 1980’s.

  3. Supertradmum says:

    Cool….doing novena

  4. Clinton R. says:

    I’ll keep praying Our Lord’s will be done. May He bless Pope Benedict XVI, Bishop Fellay and the SSPX and all who love Him and His Holy Church. +JMJ+

  5. tzard says:

    It sounds like we’re being prepared for something.

  6. Mike says:

    Praying the Novena. The windows of the SSPX are about to be opened. Sure how they appreciate the light and fresh air–as well as bring a strong, pure stream of Grace into the Church with their priests and TLM’s and Traditional teaching!

  7. kgurries says:

    Another positive sign. What was initially deemed an “insufficient” response to the doctrinal preamble now (by all indications) seems to pass the “sufficiency” test. Hopefully things move along swiftly.

  8. Elizabeth says:

    Wouldn’t Pentectost Sunday be a wonderful day for an official regularization? Something this momentous, if indeed it happens, our Holy Father would surely do on a very, very, important Feast Day.

  9. Mississippi R.C. says:

    Very proud of PBXVI and Bishop Fellay as this appears to be moving forward. Praying the hard liners will accept an agreement. between this and the LCWR house cleaning it is refreshing to see traditionalism winning in the Church!

  10. SonofMonica says:

    Also praying the novena. This is definitely encouragement to continue.

  11. jhayes says:

    “This is good news though! I’m glad to hear that the SSPX doctrinal position is likely to be ruled compatible with the Holy Father’s will on the matter.”

    The original French version says “Pour ce qui est de la problématique de la réintégration des lefebvristes, je pense que l’on a pu éclaircir les problèmes doctrinaux même s’il n’est pas facile de mettre tout cela sur papier.”

    Which says that he thinks they have been able to “clarify” the doctrinal problems – which is not the same as saying they have “resolved” them. That may be why they are having trouble “getting it all down on paper”

  12. NoraLee9 says:

    Some of them have never known sanity either. That being said, some of the future fight will be in the courts, over the church property, just as it was in the early 80’s when the SSPV broke away and seized The Oyster Bay property. Our Lord was clear when he said that He shall put brother against brother and mother against daughter.

    The greater part of the SSPX will come with the properties. The rest will split down the middle like in West Orange, NJ. It will be ugly for a couple of years. Other backsides will take the place of those who left….

  13. MPSchneiderLC says:

    Te Deum Laudamus…

  14. Daniel says:

    I know that I’m still curious as to how after they are reconciled to the Universal Church they will reconcile with all of the various local churches (dioceses). Even the FSSP don’t seem that well accepted in many dioceses, and they asked permission first. The SSPX already has establishments in many dioceses without permission.

    It would seem to me that the Personal Ordinariate concept would be more appropriate than a Personal Prelature, as I believe the latter still requires the permission of the local ordinary while the former presumably has greater freedom. Though I would think that like the Anglicans, an Ordinariate would not be established for the sole benefit of the SSPX but would include all following the “Extraordinary Form”. Though the problem with the Anglican related Ordinariates at this point seems to be that the Vatican left their formation under the control of local bishops versus being more hands on involved.

  15. Centristian says:

    “Furthermore, some of them have never known unity.”

    Yeah, that, I’m sure, will be one of many complicating factors with respect to any formal reconciliation. There are kids who were raised “Lefebvrists” by their parents and who are today SSPX priests. These priests, today assuming leadership roles in one form or another (rectors, priors, seminary professors, missionaries, elementary school principals, &c) were not only trained in the seminary to reject the modern(ist) Church, but were actually raised to regard the official Church as the enemy. It will be interesting to see how many of them cope with suddenly finding themselves subject to and in cooperation with that “enemy” (the Vatican, their local bishops, their local diocesan clergy, &c).

    Anyone who imagines that the Pope and Bishop Fellay are going to sign an accord, shake hands, and from that moment on everything’s going to be fine and dandy don’t fully appreciate what the reality of the situation is. This reconciliation will not resemble a fast drive along smooth highway so much as it will a drive along a horrendously maintained back road covered with potholes, downed telephone poles, roadkill, and washed out bridges.

  16. Margaret says:

    Daniel– I’m not certain that a personal prelature requires permission from the local ordinary. I belong to Opus Dei. I certainly didn’t need permission as an individual lay person from my local to request admission. Opus Dei as an organization always gets permission before setting up in a particular diocese, but I always thought that was a matter of courtesy rather than requirement. But I will gladly stand corrected if I’ve got this wrong… :)

  17. dspecht says:

    Margaret,

    sorry, but you need stand corrected: check up the cc. of the code re the p.p. and you will see that it is not a question of courtesy but of a real requirement to get the permission of the local ordinary.

  18. Sixupman says:

    If it was left to the Local Ordinaries to approve having SSPX in their diocese, the majority would be unlikely to do so – which was the original cause of the problem over Msgr. Lefebvre’s seminary. However, such bishops also have a ‘down’ on traditional Magisterium adhering diocesan clergy and send the same to the equivalent of Outer Siberia – they are not encouraged.

  19. Daniel says:

    Margaret: “Can. 297 The statutes likewise are to define the relations of the personal prelature with the local ordinaries in whose particular churches the prelature itself exercises or desires to exercise its pastoral or missionary works, with the previous consent of the diocesan bishop.”

    For Opus Dei, this request and granting of consent may have been routine. I’d think it would not be so routine if that were the status of a group like SSPX. I could see the possibility of a whole new round of negotiations at a local level as to what the local bishop might require before he would grant his consent. On the other hand, Anglicanorum Coetibus reads in regards to establishing parishes for the Ordinariate: ” The Ordinary, according to the norm of law, after having heard the opinion of the Diocesan Bishop of the place, may erect, with the consent of the Holy See, personal parishes for the faithful who belong to the Ordinariate.”

    Of course, if the local bishop is opposed that it is a question of whether or not the Ordinary is willing to establish a parish anyways if he feels that it is in the best interest of his Ordinariate and he is able to get the consent of the Holy See. You could see in the last Bishop Conference Meeting some of the concern by bishops who worried that some of their faithful might accidentally come upon an Anglican Use parish of the Ordinariate and like it. How does the bishop avoid that problem?

  20. jhayes says:

    “You could see in the last Bishop Conference Meeting some of the concern by bishops who worried that some of their faithful might accidentally come upon an Anglican Use parish of the Ordinariate and like it. How does the bishop avoid that problem?”

    “Anglican Use” parishes existed long before the Ordinariate (there is one a few miles from my house). They are parishes of the regular diocese but use the “Book of Worship” instead of the Roman Missal. An Anglican Use parish can decide to join he Ordinariate or to continue on as a diocesan parish under he local bishop.

    The FAQ for the U.S. Ordinariate says that lifelong Catholics can attend Mass at an ordinariate church but cannot become members of he ordinariate.

    Can lifelong Catholics join the ordinariate?

    The ordinariate was formed in response to repeated and persistent inquiries from Anglican groups who were seeking to become Catholic. The ordinariate provides a way for these groups to enter in “corporate reunion”; that is, as a group and not simply as individuals. This will allow them to retain their Anglican liturgical heritage and traditions while being fully Catholic.

    While lifelong Catholics are welcome to attend Masses in an ordinariate parish, they would be members of a regular diocese.

    http://www.usordinariate.org/faq.html

    Although it isn’t mentioned in he FAQ, I have heard that lifelong Catholics who have a relative in an ordinariate paish can join the ordinariate. This was accompanied by speculation that a Catholic couple who had a baby baptized at an ordinariate parish could qualify to join, themselves, as relatives of their child.

  21. robtbrown says:

    Daniel says:

    Margaret: “Can. 297 The statutes likewise are to define the relations of the personal prelature with the local ordinaries in whose particular churches the prelature itself exercises or desires to exercise its pastoral or missionary works, with the previous consent of the diocesan bishop.”

    For Opus Dei, this request and granting of consent may have been routine. I’d think it would not be so routine if that were the status of a group like SSPX.

    The necessity of consent means that a religious institute or the like cannot take up residence in a diocese because of their own volition. Diocesan bishops have jurisdiction.

    In so far as the jurisdiction of the pope is Full, Supreme, and Universal, once his consent is given for the SSPX to be in a certain diocese, the matter is settled, regardless of whether or not the local ordinary is opposed to their presence.

    Expect a Motu Proprio on the establishment of an SSPX Personal Prelature.