Communiques from both the SSPX and the Holy See provide little detail other than to describe today’s meeting between Bishop Fellay and Cardinal Muller as “cordial.” That said, one might speculate that there is more to this than meets the eye…
When news of the scheduled meeting first broke, I said that I expected it to lead to an ultimatum. I still do.
If the high crime of a “cryto-Lefebvrean tendency” is enough to incite the powers-that-be in Rome to destroy a thriving religious order, is there any reason to believe that Cardinal Muller doesn’t intend to crush the Lefebvreans themselves?
Well, there may be one reason, even if perhaps it has yet to come to pass…
According to both parties, today’s meeting focused on “doctrinal and canonical difficulties [and] and the current situation of the Church.”
And what, pray tell, is the most critical situation in the Church currently, as opposed to the last time both sides met? In other words, what precisely has changed in this regard since the discussions between the SSPX and Rome last broke off?
The answer: The upcoming Synod, at which the bishops will take into consideration a proposal by one Cardinal Walter Kasper; one that currently poses very serious “doctrinal and canonical difficulties” that were not in play during the last series of meetings between the Society of St. Pius X and the Roman authorities.
And let’s not forget (as so many are wont to do) that said proposal also happens to have been publicly hailed by Pope Francis.
When Kasper’s presentation at the February Consistory and the pope’s praise for the same came to light, I suggested that there will be a quiet campaign afoot to recruit bishops to the pope’s way of thinking in the lead up to the Synod.
This ain’t rocket science, folks…
In spite of the persistent humbleganda flowing out of Rome (and occasionally abroad as in the Papal Kia story), Pope Francis is not averse to imposing his will. This much is obvious.
He is, after all, the man at the top, and when the man at the top goes public with his praise for a certain proposal, there is considerable pressure for underlings to fall in line. This is as true in the Church as it is at IBM, and especially so today given the anthropomorphizing effects of the Second Vatican Council.
In the present case, those who don’t smile and nod along with Pope Francis in the direction of Cardinal Kasper have reason to expect retribution.
Among those who have thus far refused to join the pope in praising Kasper’s ideas is Cardinal Raymond Leo Burke, who if rumors are correct is about to be reduced to a mere figurehead at the age of 66.
In light of this, one wonders what might be going through the mind of Cardinal Gerhard Muller, who joined Cardinal Burke and three other cardinals in writing essays that essentially amount to telling Pope Francis that he is incompetent. (Talk about five Captains Obvious.)
In any case, we have heard comments from certain bishops indicating that the pressure to conform to the mind of Francis (as opposed to the mind of the Church), in whatever way it may have been brought to bear, has had an effect. (Bishop Tobin, for example, recently went public with his own idiotic Kasperian suggestions. Surely there are men of weak constitution just like him all over the planet.)
As such, I cannot help but wonder if the upcoming Synod wasn’t among the “doctrinal and canonical difficulties” discussed by Cardinal Muller and Bishop Fellay. If not, I suspect in time it will be.
If indeed the Synod leads to a papal exhortation either adopting, or opening the way for individual national bishops conferences to adopt, the “profound and serene” theology of Walter Kasper, Cardinal Muller et al and Bishop Fellay may come to embody the old adage: The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
To what end? Who knows, but one thing we do know is that God brings about good in all things for those who love Him; in the upcoming Synod, all involved will be forced to stake a claim, either with Him or against Him, and I for one can’t wait to see it unfold.
Most appropriate photo for this article!
Does anyone else shudder when they view that….grimace??
I wouldn’t doubt that the Resistance group is having a field day with this meeting of Muller and Fellay. Obviously, they do not understand the wisdom of the adage: “Keep you friends close. Keep you enemies closer!” As Louie insinuates, perhaps Fellay and Muller will find in one another a “comrade” of sorts. We can only pray!
Dear Louie,
This development is fascinating, and we love your reminder that God brings about good for those who believe in Him, and love Him.
This excerpt from our post on the prior blog- demonstrates Burke’s opposition to the Kasper/Bergoglian idea of “mercy” on 3 Crucial points– He said:
–1. Mercy never ignores Truth:
“The Church’s ” respects the truth that the person is indeed bound by a prior union– holds the person to the truth of that marriage…being compassionate, .. trying to help them to lead as holy a life as they can.” ”
–2. The dissent on this issue is inside the Church as well as outside:
“..[with] those who question the application of Matthew 19. In the passage, Jesus says that a man who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery; this is the basis for Catholic practice prohibiting the reception of the Eucharist in such circumstances ..“If we don’t get it correct about marriage, there’s very little else we’re going to be clear about.”
–3. Marriage validity matters gravely, and it’s the height of pride and foolishness to think the annulment process be disregarded nor “streamlined”, after centuries of development:
..”..it’s gravely wrong to live as if married to someone, when in fact you’re not free to marry.”
… “the Church has to have an apt process to arrive at the truth… to simply have people come before what’s called an administrative process, or a so-called ‘pastoral process,’” one in which “people simply tell their story to a priest,” who then makes the decision with regard to their reception of the Sacraments – “how does that respect the truth of our Lord’s teaching about marriage?”
–“The marriage nullity process is the fruit of centuries of development, and by various expert canonists, one of the great ones being Pope Benedict XIV,”
“For us now simply to say we don’t need that anymore is the height of pride and therefore foolishness.”
-The Synod..cannot simply be a kind of sentimental or personal approach that doesn’t respect the objective reality of marriage.”
Sep 23, 2014 / http://www.catholicworldreport.com/NewsBriefs/Default.aspx?rssGuid=cardinal-burke-media-hijacking-synod-on-the-family-79760/
Sorry, we couldn’t resist this sour-puss Papal photo posted by a French website of the SSPX to illustrate the Pope’s alleged irritation with the new book by the 5 Cardinals to be published just before the October synod. (We don’t know where they got it, but it’s definitely a side of him the public doesn’t often see.
🙂
http://laportelatine.org/vatican/le_pape_francois/pape_francois_irrite.jpg
It won’t work this time! After the Council, they managed to hoodwink everyone through obedience (false), but that will not work today. Faithful cardinals, bishops and priests will not bow down and kiss up to false doctrine. They will have a real fight on their hands, and so will we.
I have heard Bishop Fellay say that when he is invited to Rome to discuss ‘difficulties’ he will always go. He does not want to be the one who refuses cordiality. But he also says if they bring up the same old stuff he will give the same old response. The SSPX web site has a link to a long talk Bishop Fellay gave after the last round of ‘negotiations’ and it’s very informative.
He also says “Thank God we didn’t sign!” Knowing what we know now the SSPX could be crushed by this Pope – and have no backing anywhere.
Dark days ahead. Our parishes (Fraternity of St. Peter) are not in that great a position either. What would happen if the Pope demanded they say the NO mass? We have a Bishop who ‘likes’ us but what if the Pope told him to get tough?
Yes, there is quite a lot indeed that “the Resistance” misses (or turns a blind eye to) – such as the fact that Archbishop Lefebvre himself (pray for us) never turned down an opportunity to negotiate with Rome. Of course he didn’t – he was Catholic.
Dear Barbara, it could be even simpler than that: What if your local ordinary (or his successor) – emboldened by the Spirit of Francis – decides he doesn’t like those stodgy old traditionalists using facilities in his diocese? That’s all it takes, really. Which is why the ICK & the FSSP maintain their omerta regarding the root causes of the crisis…)
ACT, that is the crucial difference.
The Poles say that ” he who laughs last, laughs best”.
Dear ACT:
Case in point, the leftist nut in Chicago.
Link here: http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/2002May/may28tra.htm
Now this article is a little dated and from the Indult era, circa 2002 but….
_______
Money Quote:
“Cupich has grudgingly allowed a single “indult” Latin Mass on Sunday in Rapid City, at the Immaculate Conception Church on Fifth Street. But there he draws the line on all this tradition stuff. Cupich refused to permit the traditional Good Friday and Easter vigil services at Immaculate Conception. To ensure that his edict would be followed, he locked the parishioners out of their own church from Holy Thursday morning until Easter morning. The Iowa Journal reported that “the members of St. Michael’s congregation will gather at 3 p.m. today for Good Friday services on the sidewalk in front of the church.” And so they did.”
______
St. John Cantius is less than a mile down Chicago Avenue from Holy Name Cathedral.
______
But now we are in the SP era.
______
“We’ve come a long way baby.
Good summary from the EF blog.
______
http://eponymousflower.blogspot.com/2014/09/talks-between-rome-and-sspx-resume.html
_____
Important point:
“Some circles in Rome wanted to pass the buck to the SSPX for the failure of the talks and wanted from Bishop Fellay a written negative answer to the “preamble”. When the SSPX, who felt betrayed in their view, was not to fall into this trap, yet in the meantime there came into office, and thus not concerned with the new faith discussions, Müller, Prefect of the CDF who issued the Society an ultimatum early in early 2013.”
______
“In one of his last decisions Pope Benedict XVI. lifted the ultimatum, however, shortly before his resignation. The whole question therefore remained unanswered. The unification efforts of 2005, initiated by the German Pope, which should have resulted in a canonical recognition of the Society were placed on ice.”
______
Modernists tried to be “as cunning as a fox who’s just been appointed Professor of Cunning at Oxford University”.
______
But now, only brute force will do.
One for the “breakdown of law and order” category: Florence bishop “gone wild” Contradicts Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum.
_______
Via the EF blog: http://eponymousflower.blogspot.com/2014/09/cardinal-betori-forbids-immemorial-mass.html
______
“Manetti: Of course not. Father Serafino Lanzetta is not only not a dangerous heretic, but – despite his young age – one of the greatest living theologians, brilliant and profound at the same time, capable, as I said, to the depths of the errors, but also he has gathered the reasons and presented the actors of the Council.”
_______
“Pope?…. what pope?…. we don’t need no stinking pope”
One would hope people realise the time for obedience to falsehood is over (never should have started).
–
“On the day of the judgment, God will ask us if we were faithful and not if we obeyed unfaithful authorities. Obedience is a virtue related to the Truth and to God. It is no longer a virtue, but a vice, if it submits itself to error and evil.” Archbishop Lefebvre
Great quote from a rather pointed letter:
–
“…But how can we be afraid of the excommunication of modernists who are already excommunicated by the Church?”
–
http://www.ourladysresistance.org/uploads/3/2/1/9/3219384/open_letter_eng_of_37_sspx_priests_2012-02-28_english_version.pdf
–
Modernists, ipso facto excommunicated! What an utterly Catholic thought.
And the post op summary from Mundabor. 😉
_____
Link here: http://mundabor.wordpress.com/2014/09/23/vatican-sspx-the-alternative-press-release/
______
It’s so good, that I took the liberty to reproduce it here:
_____
Vatican
This morning, from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m., a cordial meeting took place at the premises of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith between some of our side and some of theirs. The warm and humid summer, continuing into the last decade of September, was much lamented. Hope was expressed that October might bring the usual, glorious weather. The SSPX is no FFI and there’s no messing around with them, so we kept it at a strict diplomatic level. The hope that our differences may be soon overcome was very diplomatically expressed, though no one believed it in the least. It’s clear as long as Francis is Pope there will be no reconciliation. We can live with that, because there’s nothing we can do to them and they know it. Thankfully, the issue of Mary Ever Virgin was not touched upon.
SSPX
This morning, from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m., a cordial meeting took place at the premises of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith between some of our side and some of theirs. The warm and humid summer, continuing into the last decade of September, was much lamented. Hope was expressed that October might bring the usual, glorious weather. The SSPX is no FFI and there’s no messing around with us, so they kept it at a strict diplomatic level. The hope that our differences may be soon overcome was very diplomatically expressed, though no one believed it in the least. It’s clear as long as Francis is Pope there will be no reconciliation. We can live with that, because there’s nothing they can do to us and they know it. This being a diplomatic meeting, the issue of Mary Ever Virgin was not touched upon.
M
______
And why is the SSPX not like the FFI?
_____
Because the SSPX OWNS THEIR PROPERTY!
_____
Do not, and I repeat not….NOT read Francis through Marx. 😉
I see that we are biting our nose to spite our face. 😉
September 24, 2014
The issue is the premise and it still is not being discussed.
The ‘magisterium’ has not been aware ( or not made it known if aware) that it is the premise which decides if Vatican Council II is traditional or a break with Tradition
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/09/the-magisterium-has-not-been-aware-or.html
September 23, 2014
Once again the Vatican threatens SSPX with penalties if they do not accept the Jewish Left version of Vatican Council II ?
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/09/once-again-vatican-threatens-sspx-with.html
Dear My2cents, That adage applies from both perspectives. The Holy See may want SSPX to come closer so that it can be consumed.
We feel pretty good about our situation now. Our Bishop GAVE us a Church which was a mission Church of a large parish – declining numbers and lack of priests. Sure it is a dump and cost us big bucks to make useable (black mould in the ‘hall’ and rain damage, horrible new ‘table’ and barren, banal 50s decor). And we were able to sell our old chapel and keep a large chunk of the sale price…
But with the stuff coming out of Pope Francis I think it behooves us to keep looking over our shoulders!
oops, this was for Catholic Thinker above…
Wer zuletzt lacht, lacht am besten.
Thank heavens that the SSPX didn’t reconcile when they had the opportunity under Pope Benedict. Even if a Pope is somewhat sympathetic towards tradition, as B16 was, there’s always a danger that a future Pope will be elected who is not sympathetic to tradition, such as the uber modernist Pope Francis. It was after the election of Francis that I really understood why it is that the SSPX insists that the errors of Vatican ll need to be addressed. It’s only if the errors of the Council are admitted to, by the magisterium and official Church teaching (in Rome), that might allow for the possibility of a reconciliation. Otherwise, the SSPX can be manipulated by the Pope and magisterium at will.
Well said Denise.
I’m delighted that Fellay has taken up Mueller’s invitation.
SSPX should always accept a Vatican invitation.
Otherwise the charge would be “they refused to talk”
Dialogue is always good.
But SSPX need to make sure to repeat and keep repeating the requirement for V2 to be revisited and to be amended as required.
Let the SSPX stick to it’s guns. With her Penal Laws the British tried to break the Catholic church here in Ireland. It did not work. The Irish Church stood strong throughout. What did kill the Catholic Church here in Ireland are the traitors from within. Pray that the SSPX stick to their guns come what may.
I think if the letter hadn’t been written and presented it would be a case of passively biting off in spite of. This stern and brotherly admonition is a very authentic Catholic deed.
Paul,
The enemy within is the confusion over doctrine.
John Paul II we still love you- but you made a mistake!
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/09/john-paul-ii-we-still-love-you-but-you.html
Pope John Paul II’s objective mistake
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/09/pope-john-paul-iis-objective-mistake.html
Francesco,
After the Council they managed to hoodwink every one through the media.The media is anti Catholic.
They prominently had Fr.Hans Kung praise Fr.John C.Murray. Kung said that Murray did what no pope before him could do. He indicated that Fr.Murray got rid of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the dogma on the infallibility of the pope ex cathedra.And the media prominently helped him by showing everyone how Lumen Gentium 16 ( those saved in invincible ignorance and allegedly without the baptism of water) was an exception to the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Church.The media never pointed out that there are no known cases of someone saved in invincible ignorance in 1965 for LG 16 to be an exception or relevant to the dogma.
Barbara:
But he also says if they bring up the same old stuff he will give the same old response.
Lionel:
At the Vatican-SSPX Doctrinal Talks initiated by Pope Benedict XVI the Vatican side presented magisterial documents including Vatican Council II interpreted with an irrational premise.This error comes from the Letter of the Holy Office 1949. Fr.J.M Gleize and the SSPX team did not object.Possibly the same stuff will be repeated again.The SSPX instead should say that Vatican Council II without the irrational premise ( visible dead who are exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus) is traditional. They should ask Cardinal Luis Ladaria S.J, Secretary of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, who was present at the last meeting, to affirm this rational version of Vatican Council II. Cardinal Ladaria,at that time Fr.Ladaria, led the Vatican side during the doctrinal talks.
There is no much of confusion that needs to be clarified.For example the SSPX General Chapter Statement 2012 affirmed extra ecclesiam nulla salus and stated that there are no exceptions.However the books sold by the SSPX imply that there are known exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.They picked up this error from the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 and so it is there in the books by good and faithful religious, Fr.Francois Laisney, Mons. Joseph Clifford Fenton, Fr.Michael Mueller.
In his last Letter to Friends and Benefactors Bishop Fellay inferred that those non Catholics now saved without the baptism of water(NA 2,LG 8 etc) and who are now in Heaven are visible and they are visible exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.LG 8 and NA 2 the bishop assumed, referred to physically visible-to-us cases in 2014.So they were explicit exceptions to all needing to convert into the Church. This is right up Cardinal Ladaria’s alley .He may be laughing down his sleeve.But who is going to do something about this?
Denise
Thank heavens that the SSPX didn’t reconcile when they had the opportunity under Pope Benedict
Lionel:
Denise if Vatican Council II is traditional on extra ecclesiam nulla salus then the SSPX and the SSPX Resistance have nothing to fear. It is the liberals who will be heretics since they will not be able,any more, to cite Vatican Council II as a break with the dogma on salvation.
Second Vatican Council II did not ‘develop’ extra ecclesiam nulla salus it affirmed the Feeneyite position
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/09/second-vatican-council-ii-did-not.html#links
Paul:
But SSPX need to make sure to repeat and keep repeating the requirement for V2 to be revisited and to be amended as required
Lionel:
Here there is a fundamental problem.
Second Vatican Council II did not ‘develop’ extra ecclesiam nulla salus it affirmed the Feeneyite position -2
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/09/second-vatican-council-ii-did-not_26.html
Hi Paul,
I agree that the SSPX should always accept a Vatican invitation. I think that ABL always accepted invitations from the Vatican, so it would be good to follow his example. I agree that the SSPX should stick to its guns and keep repeating that Vll needs to be revisited and amended as required. Of course Pope Francis and the rest of modernist hierarchy (though there are some decent and well-intentioned Catholics in Rome, too, I would think) will never admit that Vll has errors, because they don’t think that they are errors.
Your example about the penal laws that the British tried to use against Catholic Ireland in order to break it did not work. But sadly, traitors from within, as you say, have killed the Church in Ireland. But I’m hopeful that Ireland will one day return to the Catholic Faith (there are signs, I think, of this happening), just as Rome will return to it too. It will take time, though.