SSPX progress!

UPDATE 4 March 17:

The SSPX issued a statement about the “news” that they were to acquire a church in Rome.  HERE

….there is no plan to purchase a building complex at Santa Maria Immacolata all’Esquilino, as Matteo Matzuzzi writes. Neither Bp. Fellay nor Bp. de Galarreta nor Fr. Nély stayed at the Casa Santa Marta; they were not even in Rome from January 17 to 20.

___

Originally Published on: Feb 27, 2017

Today the Bolletino revealed:

17_02_27_audiences

So, Archbp. Pozzo, Secretary of the PontComm “Ecclesia Dei” had an audience with the Holy Father.

Also, there was/is talk in Rome that the SSPX is trying to/going to acquire a church on the Esquiline.  HERE  That was in Il Foglio.  However, La Stampa says

The complex is composed of a Neo-gothic church constructed in the first part of the 20th century, built by the Brothers if Charity (called the “Grey Brothers”) and of a building used in the past as an elementary and middle school, now the property of a religious order.  It is said that Francis and the Commission “Ecclesia Dei” had brought about the acquisition.  In reality that isn’t what happened: “Ecclesia Dei” was in no way involved, nor was the Vicariate of Rome.  The property of the institute is in fact separated from that of the Church of the Immaculate: the later, where Mass is regularly celebrated, is a rectorate of the Vicariate and has attached only an apartment for the lodging of the rector.  For a while the Lefevbrites have wanted to acquire a place in Rome.  The order that possesses it would have to obtain permission for its sale from the Congregation for Religious.  In case the acquisition went through, as far as the eventual use of the church is concerned, they would have to deal with the Diocese of Rome, which is the proprietor.

La Stampa also that, in practical terms, the “Profession of Faith” that the SSPXers would have to make is not all that elaborate.  I assume that, as most professions of Faith it would begin with the Creed and then add other issues, in this case:

  1. acceptance of the Pope and of the College of Bishops according to what is expressed in Lumen gentium; [This should not be much of a challenge, since LG defines the role of bishops and of the Pope and avoids problems of conciliarism.]
  2. the definition of the relationship between tradition and the magisterium; [Again, this shouldn’t be a problem for the SSPX. It is a far bigger problem with – ehem – many in high places who are not in the SSPX!]
  3. recognition of the validity of the sacraments celebrated with the rites of the post-conciliar reform; [I don’t think that the SSPX has ever called validity into question.  They don’t like the new rites, but they don’t say they are invalid.  Some individual SSPXers might, however.]
  4. acceptance of the Second Vatican Council read in the light of the tradition of the Church. [In the light of tradition… I think that is all they have tried to do, no?  I’d like to ask certain people we see in churchy headlines today if they do this!]

There would not be additional items about”

  1. ecumenism;
  2. inter-religious dialogue;
  3. religious liberty.

Those are the most contentious items, to be sure.

I, for one, hope greatly for the reintegration of the SSPX.

 

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in SSPX, The Drill. Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to SSPX progress!

  1. Lavrans says:

    I hope they are reintegrated as well. This would give those of us who want reverence, male-altar service, and no deaconettes another place to go, aside from the FSSP and the Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter (which are both wonderful as well).

  2. JabbaPapa says:

    I hope and pray that this does materialise — and the signs are better than they have ever been.

    One particular that the SSPX theologians are, in my personal opinion, actually wrong about is Collegiality (as a Personal Prelature and the independence and the freedoms that they need are only possible within this structure) — but Collegiality does not belong to Catholic Dogma in the first place, so that their disagreement with it is acceptable as such.

    Collegialism OTOH of course is wrongful and non-Catholic ; and just as Collegiality and Collegialism should not be confused, so should not Modernity and Modernism. A regularised SSPX would be a Modern entity in our Church ; certainly not a Modernist one though !!

  3. JesusFreak84 says:

    I hope this is a good thing, truly, but I’m cynical by nature and worried about when/if the “other shoe” will drop. I hope I’m wrong.

  4. Deo Credo says:

    Not me. I can’t imagine a good reason the home father would want to assimilate a bunch of “ridgid” traddies. As we all know they must have psychological problems if they like the “old” mass. I very much fear this is more of a Trojan horse. If we allow the sspx to be catholic and they can ignore a ch urch council, V2…then surely we can celebrate communion with the church of the happy clappy…after all they aren’t refuting an entire council just a few minor points of doctrine…and we all now know that doctrine isn’t a good word and shouldn’t supplant my evil desires. Oops I mean my discernment. Sorry but I don’t trust him

  5. LDP says:

    Progress regarding the SSPX is always welcome.

    Progress on other fronts, however, is perhaps not so forthcoming. I realise that this probably isn’t the place to say it, but for your information Fr – if you’re not already aware – there is a news article reporting that ‘PATRIARCH THEODOROS OF ALEXANDRIA CONSECRATES FIRST DEACONESS.’ I am not entirely sure what status these deaconesses will have but it doesn’t sound like good news to me. Some Catholics have been using Eastern Orthodox arguments in favour of giving communion to remarried divorcees, will they now use Orthodox arguments to promote deaconesses?

    Here is the link to the article, which itself has a link to the official Alexandrian Patriarchate website: http://www.pravoslavie.ru/english/101395.htm

  6. JabbaPapa says:

    LDP :

    Progress on other fronts, however, is perhaps not so forthcoming. I realise that this probably isn’t the place to say it, but for your information Fr – if you’re not already aware – there is a news article reporting that ‘PATRIARCH THEODOROS OF ALEXANDRIA CONSECRATES FIRST DEACONESS.’ I am not entirely sure what status these deaconesses will have but it doesn’t sound like good news to me. Some Catholics have been using Eastern Orthodox arguments in favour of giving communion to remarried divorcees, will they now use Orthodox arguments to promote deaconesses?

    Well, if you look at the article, you’ll see that an ordination to the priesthood occurred during the Liturgy, whereas the deaconess is described as having been “consecrated” afterwards — whatever one’s position on deaconesses (and by this I don’t mean “women deacons” or deaconettes), proper form has anyway been followed.

  7. Imrahil says:

    Dear JabbaPapa,

    SSPXers will go out of their way to say that they are against collegiality, and then say something like:

    “What in any case is collegiality? If it is collegiality in the sense of the nota praevia, we would accept it, but”…

    Hence my phrase some days ago that they accept collegiality if you ask them precisely enough.

  8. Pingback: Mehr von der Piusbruderschaft (http://www.summorum-pontificum.de/) | Des katholischen Kirchfahrters Archangelus unbotmäßige Ansichten – ob gelegen oder ungelegen.

  9. Andrew D says:

    Sorry to be Mr. Negativity but I strongly believe that this is a trap and will end very badly for ALL OF US who love and revere the Traditional Latin Mass. Bergoglio has made it more than clear on multiple instances that he does not like the TLM, nor those of us who prefer it. The list of evidence is too long to rehash here but a internet search on the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate will be a good case study. What I see happening is he brings in the SSPX and makes them “official.” Once that happens, he makes them the official TLM wing of the Church and dissolves the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter and the Institute of Christ the King. Then he dissolves Summorum Pontificum, making it illegal for diocesan priests and ordered priests to say the TLM. The former SSPX protests and Bergoglio in response brings down the hammer, reminding them that he’s the pope and therefore, he makes and changes the rules as he pleases. All of the TLM wing of the Church’s assets are to become the property of the new church and those assets will fund “social justice” causes near and dear to Bergoglio. Those who continue to object and resist – and those of us who stand by them – are officially schism’d. Look at what he did to the TLM when he was Archbishop of Buenos Aires. Look at what he did to the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate. Look at what he’s said non-stop about the TLM since he became a global, public figure. Look at what just happened to the Order of Malta. It is naive and foolish to believe this is sincere. This is a trap and the end goal is a purge of those of us who love the Mass and resect, obey and defend ALL of the Church’s Teachings.

  10. JabbaPapa says:

    Andrew D :

    erm, you seem to have concocted a scenario that’s unlikely as it is scare-mongering.

    I can’t see how this is helpful.

    a internet search on the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate will be a good case study

    The situation with the FFI could certainly have been handled far, FAR more smoothly — however, the reason why the FFI were being investigated had nothing to do with the TLM and everything to do with the fact that some friars and some some of the sisters of the associate women’s Order had begun a concerted campaign of preaching things contrary to Church doctrine and teaching — and Summorum Pontificum itself, and its explanatory notice, specifically prohibits the misuse of the TLM for such purposes.

    They aren’t being investigated for giving the TLM — but for abuses of the TLM.

    What I see happening is he brings in the SSPX and makes them “official.” Once that happens, he makes them the official TLM wing of the Church and dissolves the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter and the Institute of Christ the King. Then he dissolves Summorum Pontificum, making it illegal for diocesan priests and ordered priests to say the TLM.

    This makes no sense whatsoever — the wording of Pope Saint Pius V’s bull Quo Primum, establishing the 1570 reform of the Mass, makes it very clear, on pain of anathema, that this particular form of the Latin Rite can never be abolished, which is an underlying principle in the provisions of Summorum Pontificum.

    It is naive and foolish to believe this is sincere

    That’s pretty much calumny.