SSPX Confirms Existence of Vatican Offer

[ggreg]

Then why the deadline of this Saturday?

They let the publication of the Third Secret of Fatima pass a 40 year deadline (explicitly written on the enveloped, by express order of Our Lady") and yet one of the conditions on a split that has lasted 20 years is to "respond positively" by June 28th?

What exactly are they responding positively to by June 28th?  A commitment to read the 300 page appendix?

[DarkKnight]

Then why the deadline of this Saturday?

They let the publication of the Third Secret of Fatima pass a 40 year deadline (explicitly written on the enveloped, by express order of Our Lady") and yet one of the conditions on a split that has lasted 20 years is to "respond positively" by June 28th?

What exactly are they responding positively to by June 28th?  A commitment to read the 300 page appendix?

Not necessarily. Each point begins with "A commitment to ..." Clearly, the commitment will need to be defined. We also have to realize that it appears that the SSPX may have had a draft form of these points in their hands for some time.

The Commission has given a month's time from the formal presentation for acceptance on whether the finalization can begin. No one expects the final details to be worked out by then, it is common place to set an expiration date on offers during negotiations. It creates a sense of urgency to keep things moving.

In this instance, the analogy of a job offer applies. The superior party (Holy See) makes an offer based on certain conditions, with an expiration date. This presents the job seeker (SSPX) from dragging it out, hoping for a better offer elsewhere, etc. In short, the deadline offers some prevention of the Holy See looking like a fool.

It's not terribly "collegial" but I see the Holy See taking a harder stance with the bishops, in this case the SSPX.

For example, the meeting with the American bishops agreed to the meeting during the Holy Father's pilgrimage and they probably thought that the USCCB press office would not be summarizing and releasing information. The Vatican took it out of their hands and went directly to TV and then informed the bishops that it would be a live broadcast.

In this case, the SSPX had discussions and then the Holy See published with the proffered terms were publicly, effectively blunting whatever counter-union whisperings about what was taking place.

[Distributist]

As a SSPX parishioner from the very beginning (~30 years), these false excommunications by the modernists in Rome is a badge of honor.

cheers,

Peter

Non servium, eh

As for "false", JPII was a valid Pope, he made a valid decision, though it would have been nice if 1000 or so Modernists were excommunicated first. None the less, a valid Pope issued a valid excommunication.

Or are there "dyed in the wool" Sedes here?

End of this topic for me, talk to the air....proceeding to next forum discussion.

[Catholicmilkman]

As for "false", JPII was a valid Pope, he made a valid decision, though it would have been nice if 1000 or so Modernists were excommunicated first. None the less, a valid Pope issued a valid excommunication.

A true Pope can make a wrong decision concerning the governing of the Church. The Popes are NEVER infallible in matters of Church government but ONLY on Faith and Morals. The Popes can error, just look at the case of Pope John XXII. Such a decision would have only been valid under different circumstance in which the truth was not being negated. The Archbishop Lefebvre, Bishop Mayer and the SSPX were and still are right. Or is the Novus Ordo not a break with tradition?

[Caesar]

An honest question...

If the SSPX rejects this offer or whatever it is, what is the long-term plan? Stay away until Rome comes to it's senses? Eventually go sedevacantist?

The bishops will not be around forever, who will replace them? If they consecrate successors they would be effectively establishing a separate hierarchy. That would put them in the same position as the Eastern Orthodox or the so-called "Old Catholics". Is this the plan?

[BibleCatholicJMJ]

Think about all the bishops who are ignoring the SP. What will they do when they see the SSPX chapels overflowing with folks once word gets out that the suspensions are lifted ?

But if the SSPX is granted a personal prelature, won't they be under the authority of the local bishops to some degree?  Similar to how if a bishop doesn't like the FSSP, he can say that they aren't allowed in his diocese?  For this reason alone I am praying that the SSPX does not agree to this trap.

I don't think an SSPX prelature would be akin to the FSSP's situation with Rome.  The FSSP does need permission from the local bishop to operate in a specific diocese.  However, if the SSPX were to become a personal prelature, they'd gain some amount of autonomy.  SSPX would be able to ordain and incardinate their own priests (wheras other Societies of Apostolic Life have to rely on the diocesan bishop).  The extent of the interaction that SSPX will have to maintain with the diocesan bishops will depend on their statues.

Here's the short list of rules governing personal prelatures:

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P10.HTM

Woud you happen to know if they would be permitted to use the old rite of ordination/consecration if they so chose (if they would even want to)?  thanks

[QuisUtDeus]

If they consecrate successors they would be effectively establishing a separate hierarchy. That would put them in the same position as the Eastern Orthodox or the so-called "Old Catholics".

No, it wouldn't because 1) They don't have an Apostolic Mission as the EO, nor do they claim one, and, 2) They don't deny the dogmatic teachings of V1 as the Old Catholics do. 

[Catholicmilkman]

An honest question...

If the SSPX rejects this offer or whatever it is, what is the long-term plan?

What if they don't reject it? In either case, the long-term plan is to keep the Catholic Faith and Religion no matter what until death.

Stay away until Rome comes to it's senses?

If "Rome" is not in it's right senses, why not?

Eventually go sedevacantist?

No way! For that would negate the truth also.

The bishops will not be around forever, who will replace them? If they consecrate successors they would be effectively establishing a separate hierarchy. That would put them in the same position as the Eastern Orthodox or the so-called "Old Catholics". Is this the plan?

It will be the same thing as what Archbishop Lefebvre did, there's no difference at all. The only way they would be establishing a separate hierarchy is if they made their own dioceses, their own pope or gave themselves their own Apostolic Mission. The SSPX would be doing none of those things by consecrating another bishop to replace one that has died. Does an Ordinary establish a separate hierarchy by consecrating another bishop? No!

[Catholicmilkman]

No, it wouldn't because 1) They don't have an Apostolic Mission as the EO, nor do they claim one, and, 2) They don't deny the dogmatic teachings of V1 as the Old Catholics do.

Actually the Old Catholics don't deny the dogmas of Vatican I, they just schismed because they believed it was imprudent to define those dogmas at that time. They are officially still just schismatics not herestics, just as the Eastern Orthodox are. All they'd have to do is come back into the Church. Interestingly enough we just have an Old Catholic priest come to our SSPX chapel a couple weeks ago. And he told people that he and many others do not deny Vatican I.

[jovan66102]

No, it wouldn't because 1) They don't have an Apostolic Mission as the EO, nor do they claim one, and, 2) They don't deny the dogmatic teachings of V1 as the Old Catholics do.

Actually the Old Catholics don't deny the dogmas of Vatican I, they just schismed because they believed it was imprudent to define those dogmas at that time. They are officially still just schismatics not herestics, just as the Eastern Orthodox are. All they'd have to do is come back into the Church. Interestingly enough we just have an Old Catholic priest come to our SSPX chapel a couple weeks ago. And he told people that he and many others do not deny Vatican I.

 

Interesting observation. I've known many Old Catholics, including a Roman priest who ended up an Anglican after passing through one of the OC groups. All, without exception, denied Papal Infallibility. It is true that many Bishops, including Stossmayer, thought the doctrine inopportune, but they all submitted. The 'Old Catholics' had to get Orders from the Janesenist heretics in Holland because they had no Bishops willing to follow them.