tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6570809348314913884.post7950989263041873437..comments2009-10-08T23:10:11.642-04:00Comments on Summorum Pontificum: Return of the SSPX?Patrick Archboldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13230114519933936165noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6570809348314913884.post-42215199281805765632008-06-23T13:57:00.000-04:002008-06-23T13:57:00.000-04:00This "deadline" should be accompanied by the much-...This "deadline" should be accompanied by the much-anticipated clarification from PCED of Summorum Pontificum.<BR/><BR/>PCED could then utilize the SSPX in erecting Gregorian Rite chapels in those dioceses in which the local ordinary, by ignoring SP or establishing extra "little tittle" rules governing its application, has prevented the establishment of Gregorian Rite masses.<BR/><BR/>The SSPX could cooperate in this regard by "moving" its chapels and priests to underserved areas, answering only to Rome, thus establishing a bulkhead of orthodoxy in those dioceses known for heterodoxy and liturgical abuse.<BR/><BR/>Within such a framework, the local ordinary could not make any claims that the SSPX is "schismatic" or "heretical" or disobedient, any more so than he could accuse Byzantine Catholics of same.<BR/><BR/>In this manner the SSPX could become the Pope's new "Jesuits." (In this age they would almost become the "anti-post-VII Jesuits." )<BR/><BR/>Also, task the SSPX specifically with re-translating and re-publishing the documents of VII so that they can ONLY be read according to Tradition.<BR/><BR/>All this presupposes a humility and willingness on the part of SSPX priests and bishops to truly want to return to full communion, ending their irregular juridical status, and asserting their desire to fight for the restoration of Traditional Catholicism from within the structures of the Church.<BR/><BR/>Up to this point, Bishop Fellay and Bishop Williamson have been very astute in outlining the reasons why rapproachment with Rome has not been possible.<BR/><BR/>It will be interesting to see just what kind of men they are, and whether an internal schism within the SSPX can be avoided at this critical juncture.<BR/><BR/>Unfortunately, I do not believe Bishop Williamson will agree to any legitimate attempts at rapproachment. I hope Bishop Fellay can hold the SSPX together under this looming deadline.Brian Kopphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02575906703463685178noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6570809348314913884.post-25571928217004208712008-06-23T11:20:00.000-04:002008-06-23T11:20:00.000-04:00PKTP,In defense of poor Mr. Tornielli, he made it ...PKTP,<BR/>In defense of poor Mr. Tornielli, he made it clear it was speculation and used the word "could"<BR/><BR/>Even if it is silly speculation, he was clear that he didn't know one way or the other.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, my new hope is that after the excommunications are lifted that the Pope just hands them the reigns for the diocese of Chicoutimi in Canada.Patrick Archboldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13230114519933936165noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6570809348314913884.post-41434171762405491802008-06-23T11:04:00.000-04:002008-06-23T11:04:00.000-04:00In my second post here, I shall avoid making predi...In my second post here, I shall avoid making predictions and, instead, offer recommendations. I outline what I think ought to happen.<BR/><BR/>First of all, the S.S.P.X made two pre-conditions for an arrangement, and then added a third one. S.P. at least addressed and arguably answered the first pre-condition (especially since it's entire meaning has yet to be clarified). The second one was the lifting of the declarations of excommunication and other penalties. The last one was the resolution of doctrinal disputes before regularisation could be completed.<BR/><BR/>Negotiation requires action and response. The Holy See took the initiative with S.P. This invites a response. I recommend a public letter of the S.S.P.X. It would thank the Holy Father for S.P. and express regret for the unapproved consecrations of 1988. It is important here to distinguish between an expression of regret and an apology. The Society would not be admitting wrongdoing or apologising. On the contrary, by affirming that the action was regrettable but considered necessary, the Society would at least morally be fulfilling the condition set forth in Canon 1323, Sections 2, 4, 7, to have the declarations withdrawn. <BR/><BR/>The letter might also affirm that the Society accepts Vatican II as interpreted by a non-evolving notion of Tradition. It is not necessary that the Society be right in its understanding of Tradition, only that its view not be excluded by the Magisterium.<BR/><BR/>Were this letter made public on, say, 30th June, Rome might withdraw the penalties publicly on, say, 2nd July: all to mark 20th anniversaries of consecrations and excommunications.<BR/><BR/>On 7 July, 2008, the anniversary of S.P., Rome might erect an exempt international and 'personal' diocese or its equivalent (such as an apostolic administration) and invite the Society to be incorporated into it. Others, such as the Transalpine Redemptorists and the I.B.P., might also be incorporated into it. So might this mysterious group mentioned by the Cardinal: this non-Catholic bishop representing other bishops and priests and laics who want to worship according to the Gregorian Missal.<BR/><BR/>*Within* such a structure, the S.S.P.X. could be a 'prelature' or a society of apostolic life: there are many possibilities. The structure would be headed by a bishop chosen and trusted by the Pope, such as Bishop Manat from Thailand. Preferably, it would be a prelate never separted from Rome but also attached to the old Mass. The Society could be offered a certain number of bishops as auxiliaries in the structure.<BR/><BR/>At that point, the Society might decide to accept the status of, say, a society of apostolic life (or a personal prelature), but only on a provisional basis, pending resolution of doctrinal difficulties. That way, the Society would be protecting its interests, above all its spiritual interests. <BR/><BR/>Whether the Society enters the structure provisionally or permanently, it can protect its real property by having it owned by civil corporations controlled by those who currently control the Society itself. Parishes are always free to rent chapels for divine worship, for a nominal fee of, say, one dollar per year.<BR/><BR/>A provisional status durng the time of discussions over doctrine would mean that the status could be terminated by either party according to some agreed-on formula.<BR/><BR/>Suddenly, Society Masses would certainly fulfil the obligation to assist at Mass, and a structure would exist which could open parishes anywhere without needing permission from local ordinaries. On the other side, since it would have little real property, the new proper ordinary would not much infringe on the authority fo local bishops for years to come. The affect of the new structure would be very slow and gradual. But it could reconcile independent chapels, train its own priests, found parishes, appoint its own diocesan priests, and so on.<BR/><BR/>For the society to accept *only* a 'personal prelature' under Canon 297 would be high folly. At the very least, it needs an exemption from that Canon. Otherwise, the local Mahonys could shut it out. Duh!<BR/><BR/>Do your homework, Tornieli.<BR/><BR/>Peter Karl T. PerkinsAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6570809348314913884.post-56335256468067958822008-06-23T10:14:00.000-04:002008-06-23T10:14:00.000-04:00We know that this Italian journalist is engaging i...We know that this Italian journalist is engaging in mere guesswork owing to the reference to a "prelature". If a personal prelature is what the Church has in mind, the S.S.P.X would be right to refuse to sign anything. But there is no way that that is what the Cardinal is proposing, since he has already, in 2000, offered them much more than that. True, he might have in mind a territorial prelature, but that would be inappropriate, as it is a missionary structure. A personal prelature could only work if it were, in turn, incorporated into a personal apostolic administration or personal diocese. So Tornieli may be right here, but his information surely cannot be complete. He is missing the most important part when it comes to the structure.<BR/><BR/>Tornieli, who never seems to get anything right, I've noticed, is basing this nonsense on Williamson's comment that "it's all paperwork, paperwork" and the fact of the anniversary to come. He's hoping that he will guess right and then be counted as a prophet.<BR/><BR/>It is indeed possible that a deal is coming for these reasons given by him. Bishop Fellay suggested at the beginning of this pontificate, he would obey direct order of the Pope. As I recall, he said that, should the Pope command him and should the command be possible to obey in conscience, he would come "running", not walking. <BR/><BR/>It certainly would be appropriate for something to come very soon. Three anniversaries are coming up. First, 30th June, the 20th anniversary of the unapproved consecrations. Second, 2nd July, the 20th anniversary of the declarations of excommunication. Lastly, 7th July, the first anniversary of "Summorum Pontificum". Rome likes to do things on significant days, to make them memorable and symbolically important.<BR/><BR/>Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos is now nearly 79 years old and is running out of time. He has used the carrot and may well use the stick now. But that word "prelature" just reeks of idiot journalists guessing. They just will not do their homework. The magic work is '['personal'] apostolic administration', not 'prelature'. A personal prelature, thanks to Canon 297, would be an unmitigated disaster.<BR/><BR/>P.K.T.P.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com