|
Post by hibernicus on Apr 16, 2009 14:50:20 GMT
Rorate Caeli reports a new development - a SSPX priest based in Mexico, Fr. Basilio Meramo, has been expelled by Bishop Fellay. Apparently Fr. Meramo denounced the Bishop for accepting Rome's lifting the excommunications, because he sees this as a tacit acceptance that the excommunications were valid to begin with. The comments thread contains speculation of other possible defections by SSPX hardliners. Unfortunately I cannot link to the individual post (dated 13 April). Follow the link and scroll down. rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/
|
|
|
Post by Askel McThurkill on Apr 22, 2009 11:50:01 GMT
A more pertinent question is whether the Rome/Econe dialogue is going anywhere. This dismissal hints it might be.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Apr 24, 2009 12:38:28 GMT
Unfortunately it appears from some recent blogs that Fr Schmidberger has issued a statement to the effect that the SSPX will refuse to accept the revised version of the prayer for the Jews in the Good Friday liturgy. Alas.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Apr 24, 2009 12:42:15 GMT
On 18 april Rorate Caeli posted that Williamson's blog states Tissier de Mallerais has informed him that the doctrinal discussions between Rome and Econe wil begin shortly, will be in writing, and will not be made public. This might be an encouraging sign, but it is worrying that Tissier de Mallerais is keeping Williamson posted on developments; could there be an alliance between them?
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Apr 24, 2009 14:03:51 GMT
It alleged that Tissier de Mallerais is even more dangerous than Williamson.
Father Schmidberger is true to form; he is only restating what he told the German bishops in October/November last year.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Apr 29, 2009 10:16:19 GMT
A little point that came up on one of the other threads - I can't locate it at present - was whether Opus Dei's personal prelature might provide a precedent for the SSPX. This was discussed on a thread on Rorate Caeli a while back and it seems that Opus Dei priests currently operate with two sets of faculties - they receive them from the Prelate and from the dioccesan bishop. This I suspect would not satisfy the SSPX - they would want to be allowed to enter a diocese even if the bishop is opposed to them (or to continue operating in a diocese where they already exist but irregularly - the Bishop of Regensburg, for example, has stated that if the SSPX are reconciled he will immediately order the closure of their main German seminary, which is in his diocese). BTW Rorate Caeli reports that the SSPX has just announced three ordinations to the subdiaconate, which were to take place at the German seminary (Zaitzkofen) have been moved to Econe as a mark of respect for the Pope. There was some debate on the threads about whether this implied the Vatican had given tacit permission for the ordinations; it seems not, as the Bishop of Sion (where Econe is located) has also denounced them. This does suggest a time-limit on the reconciliation negotiations; how long can these go on if the SSPX bishops continue to carry out illicit ordinations?
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Apr 29, 2009 11:08:11 GMT
I don't see much progress in the SSPX situation. It also appears that many trads (not just SSPX supporters) are indulging in a lot of wishful thinking regarding the prospects of reconciliation and the form it will take.
I don't believe very many spend time thinking how numerically insignificant traditionalists actually are in the Catholic Church.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Apr 30, 2009 10:00:17 GMT
In a recent combox discussion on Rorate Caeli (it's the one about the Paris municipality trying to block the SSPX from saying mass in the square outside the Sacre Coeur basilica) one of the posters claims that the SSPX tells its members that they should never enter a church where communion is given in the hand in order to avoid the risk of stepping on particles of the Blessed Sacrament, and that they maintain that any altar on which a Novus Ordo Mass has been celebrated is profaned thereby and must be "cleansed" (it is not clear whether this means "reconsecrated" or something else) before a TLM can be said there. Is this true? If so, is this the Society's general policy, or does it only exist in some areas?
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on May 25, 2009 12:53:40 GMT
Another bad sign. This statement by Galaretta (which I found on RORATE CAELI) essentially means that three of the four SSPX bishops have essentially said that reconcilaition is only possible if Rome adopts the SSPX line on everything. This strongly suggests the best case is another SSPX split, with Fellay and his allies following the path of Frs. Bisig, Aulagnier etc, while the other three bishops perpetuate the schism.
Years of discussions Amidst some well-known talking points, the interview granted by Bishop Alfonso de Galarreta to District magazine Iesus Christus (one of the four bishops consecrated by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre for the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X - FSSPX / SSPX in 1988 and whose excommunication was lifted by Pope Benedict XVI last January) included the following:
-What prospects do you see for the Fraternity of Saint Pius X in the future? An agreement with Rome? A canonical recognition?
-[Galarreta:] No, absolutely not, whether in the immediate or in the mediate future. We specifically exclude this possibility. We know that while there is no return to Tradition on the part of Rome, any practical or canonical agreement is incompatible with the public confession and defense of the faith, and would mean our death. In the best of cases, humanly speaking, we will have several years of discussions.
Source: Iesus Christus, monthly of the SSPX District of South America, via Radio Cristiandad Blog (whole interview in Spanish).
posted by New Catholic at 7:00 PM 75 comments
|
|
|
Post by Beinidict Ó Niaidh on May 27, 2009 11:28:51 GMT
This is bad news. Some of the information out there suggest that there will be no deal. I'd hate to see the SSPX go into another generation of schism.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on May 27, 2009 16:28:46 GMT
As most of my psots so far have referred to obstructions to unity by the SSPX, here's one form the other side. According to Fr. Zuhlsdorf's blog, some French bishops are demanding that catholics marrying SSPX members should get the same dispensations normally required when marrying non-Catholics wdtprs.com/blog/2009/05/do-catholics-need-a-dispensation-to-marry-non-catholic-sspxers/#comments There is actually something to be said for this in the abstrac, but surely not at a time when negotiations to mend the schism are under way - unless, of course, they don't want those negotiations to succeed...
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on May 28, 2009 13:40:54 GMT
This is a fair point - even if some of the comments were a little off the wall. The situation between Rome and the SSPX is very delicate now, so we have to walk on eggshells. The attitude of 75 % of the bishops is worrying - Rome want all of them. But I can't say I'm surprised.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jun 22, 2009 10:18:46 GMT
The Pixies are going ahead with priestly ordinations at their German seminary, which is being reported as a snub for the Pope (and, in the usual quarters, as a sign that lifting the excommunications was an act of folly) news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8105716.stm The Pixies have claimed that this is an "expression of unity" just as they once claimed it was "not polemical" to portray John Paul II as an apostate who had renounced the Trinity and the Holy Family at Assisi and who would go to Hell for his ecumenical actions Rorate Caeli has a new interview with Fellay, who is trying to put the best face on the situation. One piece of good news is that he says Bishop Williamson remains in seclusion, with prayer and study. rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/
|
|
|
Post by Michael O'Donovan on Jun 22, 2009 21:22:38 GMT
This would be disappointing for those of us who had hoped that internal tension within SSPX would lead to a division between the irreconcileables and those who hoped for a reconciliation. But am I wrong in thinking that Harrington Street in Dublin has grown while St John's has declined, or is that wishful thinking? I'm not in Dublin so I don't know.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jun 23, 2009 13:03:24 GMT
I don't know if Harrington Street has grown - SP means it is difficult to calculate this because quite a few people who formerly attended Harrington Street go to Mass venues nearer home. In both cases you would have to take in nationwide mebership - include the SSPX chapels in Athlone and Cork, for example. The SSPX certainly doesn't seem to be expanding, but whether people are moving from the SSPX to indult Masses I don't know. (There may also be some traffic the other way. Redmond O'Hanlon has been writing letters to the papers boasting about how much more orthodox - by which he seems to mean Feeneyite - the SSPX are than the indult traditionalists and how glad he is he switched to them.) Is there anyone else on this board who has some knowledge of how things are with the Irish SSPX these days?
|
|