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:
So, Archbp. Pozzo, Secretary of the PontComm “Ecclesia Dei” had an audience with the Holy Father.
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:
- 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.]
- 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!]
- 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.]
- 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”
- inter-religious dialogue;
- religious liberty.
Those are the most contentious items, to be sure.
I, for one, hope greatly for the reintegration of the SSPX.