CWN has a piece, reporting on an interview by Jean-Marie Guenois with Card. Ricard, Archbp. of Bordeaux and member of the Pont. Comm. "Ecclesia Dei", which appeared in La Croix. The interview especially treats of the l’Institut du Bon Pasteur but it touches on other things.
It states that (my emphasis):
Cardinal Jean-Pierre Ricard of Bordeaux confirmed that Pope Benedict has received a final report from the Ecclesia Dei Commission– of which he is a member– regarding the proposed policy. “The Pope has all the elements of the dossier in his hands”
About a date:
Cardinal Ricard had assured the members of the French bishops’ conference that no document was imminent. He reported that the French hierarchy would have time to “convey our fears and hopes” to the Vatican before a final decision was made on the use of the traditional Latin liturgy.
From La Croix:
RICARD: Benoît XVI souhaite poursuivre un travail de réconciliation avec ces prêtres et fidèles qui ont quitté la pleine communion avec le Siège de Pierre (en particulier la Fraternité Saint-Pie-X). Il se pose également la question d’une « libéralisation » de la messe tridentine. Le pape a en mains tous les éléments du dossier. Il prend son temps avant d’arrêter sa décision sur une question de cette importance.
Loading ...
May God not hear him…
Yes, the “About a date” quotation is not from the recent interview; it is from
last fall.
Interesting that he mentions a dossier, not a document. It’s kind of fun to speculate
what is in the dossier in addition to the proposed Motu text: A proposed
canonical structure for the SSPX? A lifting of the decree of ex-communication of the
SSPX bishops? Letters of protest from some French and German bishops? The spiritual
bouquet of 2.5 million Rosaries from the SSPX? Copies of the manifestos, from
the various countries, supporting the Motu? Input from Una Voce? What else?
“It’s kind of fun to speculate what is in the dossier in addition to the proposed Motu text”
Copies of all the Pope-bashing from certain online trad forums and websites — in an effort to prove that rank-and-file “trads” are not worthy of efforts at rapproachment?
I think the relevant emphasis regarding the second portion is the past tense “HAD assured” rather than “assured”, indicating that his assurance occured some time in the past. One could also infer that His Excellency “HAD assured” the members of the French Episcopal Conference of something that is no longer true. :-) The smiley face is mine. At least I’d like to think it prescient!
Father Zuhlsdorf,
I didn’t see you blog about this Rorate Caeli post: Hoyos: “Holy Father will extend Permission”.
Kenjiro Shoda,
I often get quite rattled when I read your comments on this and other blogs. Please try to remember that the Christian life isn’t just about the liturgy – forgiveness and charity are not optional extras.
Augustine: I didn’t see that!
I often get quite rattled when I read your comments on this and other blogs. Please try to remember that the Christian life isn’t just about the liturgy – forgiveness and charity are not optional extras.
It is important that the liturgy be seen not in isolation but rather as the source of Christian life: Liturgy always must be primarily ordered toward the worship of God–and this worship is the source of forgiveness and charity.
Thus Vat II says:
2. For it is the liturgy through which, especially in the divine sacrifice of the Eucharist, “the work of our redemption is accomplished,”[1] and it is through the liturgy, especially, that the faithful are enabled to express in their lives and manifest to others the mystery of Christ and the real nature of the true Church. [2] The liturgy daily builds up those who are in the Church, making of them a holy temple of the Lord, a dwelling-place for God in the Spirit, [3] to the mature measure of the fullness of Christ.
And so it is easy to understand why, once the liturgy mitigated its orientation toward the love of God (and emphasized the love of man*), the charitable organizations in the Church began to wither.
*JRatzinger noted that mass facing the people is the community celebrating itself.
*JRatzinger noted that mass facing the people is the community celebrating itself.
Who, I believe, has a nodding acquaintance with the Holy Father! :-)
What I find interesting–and pathetic–is Cardinal Ricard’s complaint that l’Institute du Bon Pasteur was erected by the authority of Rome (Ecclesia Dei) without concomitant agreement with the diocese.
The truth is that the French episcopacy has done little except spit in the faces of those who want mass according to the 1962 Missal. That is why Roman intervention was necessary.
Anyone familiar with the history of the SSPX knows that the French episcopacy drove the persecution of the Society and created the circumstances that led to the subsequent schismatic consecration of bishops. Judging from the collapse of the Church in France, it seems that even though most of these French bishops have been pastoral failures in their own dioceses, nevertheless, they want to influence Roman decisions.
John 21:
15 When therefore they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter: Simon son of John, lovest thou me more than these? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs. 16 He saith to him again: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs. 17 He said to him the third time: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved, because he had said to him the third time: Lovest thou me? And he said to him: Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee. He said to him: Feed my sheep.
Forgive us for asking this yet once again, Holy Father, but feed us, your modern-day lambs and sheep, with the spiritual food of the motu proprio on the traditional rite.
Augustine: thanks for pointing that out! I was wondering how the head of Ecclesia Dei confirming, one, that
the indult is coming and, two, that the SSPX is NOT in schism didn’t make it on here. I figured it was because
father didn’t want to start another debate about the SSPX schism question. But Card. Hoyos, again, has put that
issue to rest.
Does anybody know why the French bishops seem to be so opposed to the traditional rite? I have not heard much complaining from anybody else.
It appears that the French bishops energies are a bit mis-directed if this report is accurate.
http://www.speroforum.com/site/article.asp?idCategory=33&idsub=124&id=7467&t=France+no+longer+Catholic.
The pertinent quote: “In the early 1990s, French Catholics made up over 80 percent of the population. According to the poll, they currently make up 51 percent, and only half of these said they believe in God. The latter said they retained a Catholic identity because it was family tradition.” With a track record like that, no wonder they’re fighting any changes :( :(
Legulei Magne,
I read that the misgivings of the French bishops are connected to the links between some French trads and Action Francaise,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_Francaise ,
which is a far-right movement, while the bishops are more sympathetic
to the left. Rather ugly stuff.
Well, nobody goes to church over there anymore anyway, so I don’t see what harm the old rite could do. I was just curious as to why it is the French bishops who are so exercised over all this.
You have to look at it even more closely. Currently, only 5 percent of French Catholics assist at Mass every
Sunday. Also, there are more bodies in pews every Sunday in SSPX and traditional chapels than in official parishes.
So, let’s say that tomorrow the SSPX was completely normalized. In order for that to happen, they would have
to be able to report directly to the pope, since they’d never answer to a local bishop, especially hostile ones
like Richard and others in France. Once that happens, the local bishops have lost control of not only all of
those chapels and churches, but of the majority of church-going Frenchmen. I’m not saying any of this gives
Richard and others the right to continue to surpress the Mass and faith — i’m just saying this is the reason
they are so desperate to do so.
Ago tibi gratias, Gravitas, that actually makes a lot of sense.
i wish i knew how to say “you’re welcome” in latin but i’m pathetic. little help?
Gravitas, put like that, regularizing the SSPX sounds rather like implementing a virtual Vicariate Apostolic, doesn’t it? No wonder the mondernist French Bishops are quaking in their liturgical slippers! But if what you imply is true, then it is inevitable, because the SSPX will be all that is left of the church in France. Well, modernism made the mess, tradition will clean it up. It’s the only part of the tree showing a few green leaves.
John, i think you are correct. The SSPX, if they agree, would be set up pretty much like the FSSP or Christ
the King in a perfect world. Neither really have to report to the local bishop (and i’m sure the SSPX agreement
would be even more clear about that). They can just report straight to Rome and cater to specific needs. But,
this also should not be of concern for the French prelates. If they were smart, they’d see the writing on the
wall, and roll with it. Embrace it and keep these people as close to them as possible in the future.
My best guess would be something like “Ne cures, amice!”
The SSPX, if they agree, would be set up pretty much like the FSSP or Christ the King in a perfect world. Neither really have to report to the local bishop
The FSSP and ICKSP both report to the local Ordinary, at least in theory. I guess it all depends on how much the local Ordinary leaves them alone.
The FSSP and ICKSP both report to the local Ordinary, at least in theory. I guess it all depends on how much the local Ordinary leaves them alone.
Incorrect. The FSSP is a society of Pontifical Right. It is directly under the authority of Rome–not the the local ordinary.
One other point: The FSSP is the only religious order that was founded by the pope. Why would the pope found a religious order subject to the local ordinary?
John, i think you are correct. The SSPX, if they agree, would be set up pretty much like the FSSP or Christ the King in a perfect world. Neither really have to report to the local bishop (and i’m sure the SSPX agreement would be even more clear about that). They can just report straight to Rome and cater to specific needs. But, this also should not be of concern for the French prelates. If they were smart, they’d see the writing on the wall, and roll with it. Embrace it and keep these people as close to them as possible in the future.
I don’t know what’s going to happen, but there was talk of the SSPX becoming a personal prelature of the pope with its own bishop.
But we will see.
The FSSP was founded as a group of priests. But the SSPX owns property–lots of it, including churches.
Isn’t Opus Dei kind of protective of its status as the only personal prelature in the church? I also see some potential friction between SSPX and FSSP.
The FSSP may be of pontifical right, but its priests can’t offer Mass in a diocese without the bishop’s consent (at least that’s my understanding).
Gravitas and RBrown: Yes, I understand the concept of personal prelature, my point was that a vicariate apostolic is set up in an area where there is no formal hierarchical structure. Bishop Challoner, for instance, was Vicar Apostolic of the London District from 1750 to 1790, more or less, during a time when a normal Episcopate was prohibited by law. One sets up a Vicariate Apostolic when one wante either to organise, or RE-organise a large region of the world. I was being playfully sarcastic, but also making the point that if the new rite dioceses dry up and blow away under the pressures of secularism, ecumenism, and modernism, which they may well do in our lifetimes, there would, in point of fact, be a ready made hierarchical structure alongside it of a secular (i.e. diocesan and parish oriented) nature, namely the SSPX, with which to hold up the structure of the church.
I suspect that the French Cardinals read this subtext months ago, perhaps all along, and that their offense and indignation are largely a front for their fears not only that such a turn of events might actually become a reality (and they’d be out of a job), but that Rome and the Papacy actually believe that such a thing could happen and are actively preparing for the possible eventuality. I would be scared too if I were them, though I would handle it ALOT differently. Keeping as close to the SSPX for their future would be a very good idea for them. Besides, think how much more managable France would be if there were only four bishops overseeing the country!
RBrown writes:
Incorrect. The FSSP is a society of Pontifical Right. It is directly under the authority of Romeâ€â€not the the local ordinary.
The FSSP needs the Ordinary’s permission to act in his diocese, and they need faculties from the Ordinary in order to hear confessions and witness marriages. I would not call that being “directly under the authority of Rome.” The Cluniac monasteries were independent of their local Ordinaries. The FSSP’s apostolates most certainly are not.
The FSSP is the only religious order that was founded by the pope. Why would the pope found a religious order subject to the local ordinary?
I’m not privy to the thought processes of the late Pontiff. ;-)
The FSSP needs the Ordinary’s permission to act in his diocese, and they need faculties from the Ordinary in order to hear confessions and witness marriages. I would not call that being “directly under the authority of Rome.†The Cluniac monasteries were independent of their local Ordinaries. The FSSP’s apostolates most certainly are not.
Not exactly correct.
1. When a house of a Pontifical Right order is first established in a diocese, it needs the permission of the ordinarius loci. But after it has been established, the bishop or his successor cannot close the house–it takes a Roman decision.
2. Once any religious house is established, the ordinarius loci has no control over the liturgy. He can however take away the status of the chapel as a public oratory, which would forbid anyone from participating unless they live in the house.
3. By the same token, the Superior of the religious order (of Pontifical Right) gives the faculty to hear confessions of those who live in the house.
4. Thus the situation with the Cluniac monasteries was no different from, say, the contemporary situation with Clear Creek.
“The FSSP is the only religious order that was founded by the pope. Why would the pope found a religious order subject to the local ordinary?”
I’m not privy to the thought processes of the late Pontiff.
I take that as an “I don’t know”.
BTW, I taught theology for the FSSP for four years.
Isn’t Opus Dei kind of protective of its status as the only personal prelature in the church? I also see some potential friction between SSPX and FSSP.
Opus Dei has nothing to say about whether the pope wants to establish another personal prelature.
NB: In the US there is the Ukrainian Catholic eparchy, whose bishop is in Stamford, Ct, but whose parishes are in various states. A similar situation exists with the Byzantine Catholic eparchy in Parma, Ohio. The Roman Catholic ordinaries have very little authority over those Ukrainian and Byzantine parishes.
It would be interesting to see…
SSPX is regularized and the Mass-going masses of France are all going to SSPX chapels and churches.
The French hierarchy dies out and SSPX clergy are appointed to the ancient sees.
It is only a matter of time. The French hierarchy’s only hope is to drive the SSPX as far away from Rome as it can to prevent any kind of rapprochement.
The problem I see with regularizing SSPX is that their problems with modern Rome go way beyond the traditional rite. It seems to me that they have problems with big chunks of Vatican II. Some of them seem to think the whole Council was a big mistake. The noises that I have heard from SSPX since the possible rapprochement was widely rumored late last year do not sound particularly promising to me, but I do not pretend to be particularly well informed on the issue.
The problem I see with regularizing SSPX is that their problems with modern Rome go way beyond the traditional rite. It seems to me that they have problems with big chunks of Vatican II. Some of them seem to think the whole Council was a big mistake. The noises that I have heard from SSPX since the possible rapprochement was widely rumored late last year do not sound particularly promising to me, but I do not pretend to be particularly well informed on the issue.
So what?
How many bishops opposed Latin liturgy–and thus Vat II?
A few years ago Cardinals Koenig (by rep, JPII’s popemaker) and Enrique y Tarancon both said that thr Vat II document on liturgy wasn’t very good.
Why should the SSPX have to abide by stricter criteria than everyone else in the Church?
I hope SSPX is regularized. The only traditional parish around me is an hour away, and there’s an SSPX parish 15 minutes from me.
Why should the SSPX have to abide by stricter criteria than everyone else in the Church?
EXACTLY! I’m so glad to hear, more precisely “see”, someone saything that. For the record, I am not a member of the SSPX but it seems to me that the things they point out about V-II are within the pale of “loyal opposition” as distinct from the de facto schism of an entire generation of disobedient bishops.
And thanks, Brian, for a wry comment on Pope-bashing Trads; may their tribe decrease.
Gravitas:
i wish i knew how to say “you’re welcome†in latin but i’m pathetic. little help?
De parva re! Kind of like the Spanish “de nada” but instead of “nothing” Latin says “small thing” or “small matter”. So we have:
Gratiam tibi habeo.
De parva re.