www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Pope to meet with SSPX

Vatican, Aug. 23 (CWNews.com) - Pope Benedict XVI (bio - news) will meet with Bishop Bernard Fellay, the superior-general of the traditionalist Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), on August 29, to discuss the prospects for reconciliation between the Vatican and the schismatic group.

Pope to meet traditionalist leader [spiritdaily.com]

I am overjoyed with this news and have a very good feeling about the direction Rome seems to be going. Let us hear more positive news for a change.
Jim

Just as it's still not possible for Orthodox Church to restore full communion with Rome, because of the situations that have not been solved and now, because of the general decadence of Western Christianity that would also be brought to the East, I hope Bishop Fellay remains strong in his convictions and does not accept deals, but because it would undermine the inmense prestige of the SSPX and its brave resistance.

Full union would imply that sooner or later the traditional SSPX priests would be able to study in the liberal seminaries and would be unable to defend themselves from the national Catholic Churches who are largely independent from Rome's traditional Pope.

Mexican:

What? Come again? :rolleyes:

Amado

Actually Mexican, they should be striving for union as they could help bolster the ranks of the Latin rite faithful and also bring about a scenario that would allow the classical Roman rite to exist in more independence from the very dissenting seminaries, clergy, laity, etc. that you speak of -- not too mention that fact that schism is not good.

They'd have little to no power over them, much in the way they don't over groups like OPUS Dei who are a personal prelature of the Pope as well.

We all need to pray very hard for this reunion (or recognition, or whatever one wishes to call it).

This could change the face and future of the Roman Rite.

Logos Teen

Dear Teen Logo,

Do you think the Novus Ordo people might think people like you want to "turn your back" on them?

Good for you!

Alex

Hello,

The SSPX is a schismatic group with more than its fair share of cult-like practices, that is its immense prestige.

Their "brave resistance" is against, among other things, a General Council of the Church. In that regard, they rank right next to Arius.

They need to repent from their sectarian ways and return to Mother Church.

They can keep the old liturgy, if they so wish. I don't mind, as long as they "allow" the rest of us to keep the current liturgy and they do not cast doubts about its validity and dignity.

Shalom,
Memo

Dear Memo,

This isn't my argument as it involves the Latin Church, but I think you go way over the top by comparing the SSPX to Arius!

(Did you know that the RC Church, via an error by a scribe, had Arius in its calendar until recently when it was discovered by the Bollandists? Yep, he was "St Artotis" a name designed to hide his real identity and he was commemorated on June 6th!)

Alex

Good morning!

In coming back to the fold, SSPX, arguably, "could change the face or future of the Roman Rite."

But, then, the Missale Romano as it is already allows the celebration of the TLM although not as widely implemented as the SSPX want it to be.

I think the problem lies in SSPX's arrogation unto itself the exclusive authority to do whatever it pleases, i.e., without recognizing the Supreme Authority in the Church, protestations to the contrary notwithstanding.

As such, SSPX views itself as THE Church and nobody else, as it does in not recognizing the validity of the excommunications thus dispensed by the Supreme Pontiff!

To merit the respect of the larger Roman Catholic polity, the SSPX must discard this facade of "brave resistance," whatever that means, and show some humility for once!

Amado

Alex,

I have to know more! Please give details!

Let us pray fervently to the Lord our God that He send down His Holy Spirit upon Bishop Fellay and the Holy Father, and that reason, charity, humility and submission reign in the hearts of the SSPX.

Unfortunately, being the realist I am, even with an agreement with Fellay the rest of the SSPX bishops may not follow suit - Bishop Williamson has already positioned himself for a refusal. I bolded his key statement:


A FEW THOUGHTS for AUGUST, 2005
By Bishop Richard Williamson

In this year�s May-June issue of the French bi-monthly magazine �Sous la Banni�re�, on page 7, there is a most interesting quotation attributed to Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI. It reads as follows:

�A source in Austria, preferring to remain anonymous, assures us that Cardinal Ratzinger recently made the following admission to an Austrian bishop who is a friend of his: �I have two problems on my conscience: Archbishop Lefebvre and Fatima. As to the latter, my hand was forced. As to the former, I failed�.�

Of course if the �source in Austria� prefers to remain anonymous, we have no means of verifying whether the Cardinal truly said these things about Archbishop Lefebvre and Fatima, but the quotation is at least true to life, so it is worth dwelling on for a few moments.

As for what the Cardinal says about Fatima, we suspected back in June of 2000, when the Vatican � with the Cardinal in the forefront � supposedly released the third Secret, that there was some trickery going on. Either Rome was still hiding the true Secret, the one kept in his room by Pius XII but never looked at, or Rome was revealing the true Secret but twisting its interpretation. Either way, we said to ourselves at that time, Rome was wanting to have done with Fatima, and we saw Cardinal Ratzinger playing a leading part in the manoeuvre. Now comes the quotation from Austria confirming that the Cardinal was indeed taking part in a manoeuvre. Who �forced his hand�? Was it John-Paul II? Some hidden power behind both Pope and Cardinal? God knows.

As for what the quotation says about Archbishop Lefebvre, there too, if the quotation is not true it is certainly true to life. In May of 1988 when Archbishop Lefebvre was threatening to consecrate with or without Rome�s permission bishops for the Society of St. Pius X, it was Cardinal Ratzinger who represented the Holy See in the negotiations meant to head off the �break� that such consecrations would involve. We recall that the Cardinal almost �succeeded� on May 6 when Archbishop Lefebvre signed a draft agreement, but the Cardinal �failed� when the Archbishop after a sleepless night took his signature back on the following day. And now comes the quotation from Austria confirming that the Cardinal still sees the termination of those negotiations as a �failure�.

This confirmation is important as suggesting that the Cardinal will remain, now he is Pope, in the same frame of mind to deal with the Society of St. Pius X in the audience which this August 29 he is due to grant to Archbishop Lefebvre�s successor at the head of the Society, Bishop Bernard Fellay. In other words, it is highly likely both that the present Pope is sincerely convinced that the �break� between the Society and Rome must be brought to an end, and that he will give all the appearances of being of good will when he employs all possible means, including his long experience of Roman diplomacy and all the prestige of his now exalted rank, to bring the �break� to an end.

In fact, a Rome-SSPX agreement seems impossible. And of course if the Society rejoined Rome, the resistance of Catholic Tradition would carry on without it, and if the Pope �converted�, then instead of the gentle war now being waged on his right by Tradition, he would be faced with a savage war being waged on his left by the cabal of neo-modernists. Either way, the war goes on between the friends and the enemies of the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ.

But what is important here and now for Catholics who will be following with interest the up-coming meeting between Rome and the Society, is not to fall into any of the traps that the Devil will be setting for them.

Firstly, the fact that the Society is asking to be received in audience by the Holy Father does not mean that it is on the point of betraying. If there is no contact between Tradition and Rome, now will the truth of Tradition ever make itself heard in Rome?

Secondly, there being a contact does not mean that an agreement is possible. Let all the Catholics who dream of fitting together Catholic Tradition and the present neo-modernist authorities of the Church come back down to earth. Catholic Authority and Catholic Truth will one day re-unite, but nothing for the moment indicates that that day is tomorrow � or the day after!

Lastly � and this is the subtlest trap of them all � let nobody think that because the Pope is of good will, therefore he cannot be a neo-modernist, or that because he is a neo-modernist, therefore he cannot be of good will. The present crisis of the Church would be much less grave and would deceive far fewer people if the neo-modernists were obviously of ill will. It is characteristic of these last times that bad principles are so widespread that few people are aware of the fact, and many people do evil convinced that they are doing good. That is why the Cardinal�s quotation is true to life in which he says that his �failure� of 1988 weighs �on his conscience�.

Let us pray to the Mother of God for Benedict XVI to see, above all the need to consecrate Russia to her Immaculate Heart, and if we ourselves can see, let us pray to her that we too not go blind � �He who thinks he stands, let him take care not to fall�, says St. Paul (I Cor X, 12). The times are bad!

A previous article/letter of Bishop Williamson might shed light on his current thoughts.

Last April, after the election of the new Pope, he described both Pope Benedict XVI and Pope John Paul II as "liberals" and "neo-modernists!" He thinks Pope John Paul I was a "traditional" Pope and, because of this, he was "assassinated" in 36 days!

I thought only the French faction of the SSPX was "hard-headed!" Bishop Williamson, a British Anglican convert and who was excommunicated with Archbishop Lefebvre and the 3 other Bishops the latter consecrated without authority, has horns?

Interesting!

Amado

Dear Ray,

Well, Fr. Holweck in his "Dictionary of the Saints" also includes a number of Arian saints which the Church kept owing to their long history of veneration by the people (in the Eastern Church, we have St Nicetas and St Sabas the Goths - Nicetas was ordained by the Arian bishop Wulfric).

When Arianism was finally crushed beyond repair, an Arian scribe entered the name of Arius into the Catholic calendar and he was there under more than one name "Artotis" or "Arpotis."

Certainly, the Church would never have approved the cult of a heretic and founder of a heretical movement . . .

It was only after the research by the Bollandists that it was discovered that Arius had been in the Roman calendar under another name!

It happens . . .

Alex

Dear Friends,

Fr. Richard's statement that the world glorified Pope John Paul II etc. is really taking reactionary politics too far!

If by the "world" he means Eastern Europeans who looked to the Pope for help and freedom, U.S. veterans, many of whom are Protestant, who saw in the Pope a true anti-communist leader, the poor and the sick and the elderly who saw in the Pope a man who understood - then he is right.

The Pope was in the world, but he was not of the world.

I do believe our Lord Himself gave us that commission.

And is there any nice way for a Christian to tell off a priest such as this?

Please note that I am asking for advice beforehand.

Alex