Update: there's an amusing exchange in Fr Z's comment box on this. Fr Z quotes Archbishop Pozzo of the PCED that SSPX priestly ordinations are something they 'permit and tolerate' but which are still regarded as 'valid but illicit'. But, really, that doesn't make sense. If they are permitted, they are licit. The word 'licit' simply means 'permitted': any dictionary will tell you that.
Of course these are crazy times. And anyway I'm happy if Rome wants to make some concession now ('permit and tolerate') while allowing itself to make another, at least on paper ('make licit') at some future date. It is all part of a process, after all.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is really wonderful news: Bishop Fellay, Superior of the Society of St Pius X, has said (h/t Rorate Caeli) that he recieved a letter from the Holy See last year telling him that he could continue with priestly ordinations, without needing permission from the local bishop. This is a move I noted as a possible 'next step' after those involving confession and marriages in my 'Chairman's Message' in the latest Mass of Ages, which I reproduce below.
-------------------------------------
Not for the first time in
the present pontificate, the Catholic media is abuzz with the possibility that
the Society of Pope Pius X (SSPX) will be ‘reconciled’ to the Holy See: which
is to say, that it would gain official canonical status. On a previous occasion,
when asked for comments by Catholic journalists, I told them to calm down: my
view was that it wasn’t about to happen, because of the issue of mutual trust.
I was correct, then, but things have continued to develop. The ‘jurisdiction’
needed for priests to hear confessions validly, outside an emergency situation,
was granted to the SSPX for the ‘Year of Mercy’, and when that year came to an
end this jurisdiction was granted permanently. Now provisions have been made in
relation to weddings celebrated by SSPX priests, so that there need not be any
doubt about their validity either. These arrangements give the SSPX privileges,
such as jurisdiction to hear confessions given directly from the Pope, enjoyed
by no other religious institute.
We appear to be
witnessing a gradual process of regularisation. The next step, I suppose, might
be for the Holy See to give formal permission for priestly ordinations.
Alternatively, the gradual process could give way to a once-and-for-all
agreement with special provisions for the SSPX’s apostolates, perhaps including
a ‘Personal Prelature’, which would mean that SSPX priests would be answerable
not to local bishops but a bishop (or Cardinal) of their own.
Time will tell. The
attitude of the Holy See to the ‘Patriotic Church’ in China offers a partial
parallel. The Patriotic Catholic Association, which is a department of the
Chinese state, looks, on paper, like a clear-cut case of schism, complete with
an ‘underground’ counterpart in communion with Rome. Rome’s policy of many
decades, however, has been not to isolate and oppose the Patriotic Church, but
as far as possible to erode the distinction between it and the Universal
Church. When asked, Rome gives permission for its bishops’ consecrations, to
prevent them falling automatically into excommunication. Other Patriotic
bishops have been reconciled to Rome afterwards, without ceasing to exercise
their ministry within the Patriotic institution. Some of these have done so in
secret. The Faithful are told they can attend either Patriotic or underground
services, and do both. The idea is to prevent the schism, which has little, if
any, doctrinal basis, hardening into something which cannot be undone, when, as
may happen, state policy changes.
As far as the SSPX is
concerned, we should rejoice at the solicitude the Holy Father has shown the
Faithful who receive the sacraments from them, and for the prospect, however
uncertain, of an official settlement of the SSPX’s canonical situation. We
should above all pray for all the parties involved.
I'm sure that you've seen Fr Z's comments on this situation, but if any of your readers haven't, it's currently the top story on http://wdtprs.com/blog/.
ReplyDeleteNo doubt it is the top story at Fr. Z's wdtprs.
DeleteMy conclusion after reading the padre's comments is that Father Z is doing nothing more than projecting his own penchant to "perhaps" overstate things onto others. In this instance, His Excellency Bishop Fellay.
Time for everyone to stay in their own land and just speak to what they actually know. Father Z included.
Why is it wonderful news? Why should any Catholic be interested in 'recognition' by Mr Bergoglio? Have you forgotten that the Vatican II sect is now defying the natural law? Of course, the LMS has a long and shameful history of compromise.......
ReplyDeleteI'm afraid that Pope Francis casts his pearls before swine in regards to sspx. Everytime he shows them grace, sspx (and their cult) attacks him with more insults and slander (like calling him Mr. Bergoglio instead of POPE FRANCIS).
ReplyDeleteYou have rather missed the point. 'Sedelondon' is *attacking* the SSPX for *failing* to trample those pearls underfoot. There's a clue in the name: 'sede' as in 'sede vacantist'. Do try to keep up.
Delete