Pope Losing Sleep Over Sspx Talks?

[Skinzo]

[b]
[/b]

[b][size="2"]Vatican talks with splinter group difficult-cardinal[/size][/b]
Thu May 6, 2010 3:09am IST By Tom Heneghan, Religion Editor

PARIS (Reuters) - Vatican talks with a controversial splinter group have been difficult and the ultra-traditionalist Catholics will have to make concessions if an accord is to be reached, a senior Vatican cardinal said on Wednesday.

The Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX), whose four bishops were readmitted to the Church last year after a ban of 21 years, cannot conduct the doctrinal discussions on their terms, but only on those of the Vatican, Cardinal Walter Kasper said.

The closed-door talks are a key issue for the Catholic Church because, although the SSPX is small, its return to the fold has been so stormy. One readmitted bishop, Richard Williamson, is a Holocaust denier convicted and fined for hate speech in Germany.

Pope Benedict's eagerness to rehabilitate the SSPX, despite its rejection of the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) reforms, troubles Catholic critics who see them as anti-Semites who want to turn back the clock on 40 years of dialogue among religions.

"Dialogue with them is not easy," Kasper, who heads the Vatican department for relations with other Christian churches and with Jews, told a news conference during a visit to Paris.

"The main problem with them is not the Mass in Latin," he said, referring to the SSPX's insistence on the pre-Council liturgy, "but the concept of tradition. Do we want a living tradition or a petrified one?"

"I'm for a dialogue, but on our conditions, not on the traditionalists' conditions," he added. The SSPX had to accept the Council reforms, the "sine qua non" of any accord.

Without an accord, the group will have no official status and its clergy will not be recognised as Catholic priests or allowed to exercise their ministry.


Benedict, who has promoted a return to Catholic tradition and identity during his five-year papacy, said in January that the talks among three theologians from each side were held up over "doctrinal problems" he did not specify.

The SSPX, numbering several hundred thousand members, insists it represents the true faith and the Vatican and the vast majority of the Church went off the rails at the Council.

POPE'S SLEEPLESS NIGHTS

Even while its theologians meet Vatican experts every other week to seek a common understanding of the Council, its leaders have been criticising key doctrines of that historic event.

SSPX head Bishop Bernard Fellay said in March the Vatican theologians "wish the Church well but also want to save the Second Vatican Council -- that's like squaring a circle."

Williamson, ignoring a gag order Fellay imposed on him after his interview denying the Holocaust, dismissed the Vatican talks in January as a futile bid to harmonise irreconcilable views.

"Either the SSPX becomes a traitor, or Rome converts, or it's a dialogue of the deaf," he said.

In recent months, the SSPX head in Germany has criticised Benedict for visiting the Rome synagogue and the French district head said dialogue with other A former colleague, German theologian Wolfgang Beinert, told Der Spiegel magazine last month that the pope had told him the SSPX issue "robs him of his sleep." He did not think Benedict would compromise at any cost with the ultra-traditionalists.

Kasper, the second-highest German at the Vatican after Benedict, said the SSPX has staunchly opposed the dialogue with other Christian churches for which he is responsible.

"They've attacked me as a heretic," he said with a smile.

Asked why the ultra-traditionalists opposed ecumenical dialogue so strongly, he said: "Some people feel threatened in their Catholic identity when we speak with Protestants.

"We need to have a Catholic identity," he said. "But we need an open and mature identity, not a closed one. That's not a mature identity."


[url="http://in.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idINIndia-48261220100505?pageNumber=3&virtualBrandChannel=0"]http://in.reuters.co...lBrandChannel=0[/url]

It seems kind of odd that Cardinal Kasper launched into this discussion since he is not in fact part of the Vatican group that is involved in a dialogue with the SSPX. I wonder how Cardinal Levada and for that matter the SSPX will react to this?

S.

Edited May 7, 2010 by Skinzo

[Apotheoun]

Interesting. Thanks for posting this information.

[Thomist-in-Training]

http://wdtprs.com/blog/2010/05/sspx-superior-bp-fellay-and-his-defense-of-pope-benedict/#comments This helps with perspective too.

[CatherineM]

Do you suppose that Benedict feels like he is the last hope to bring them back in, and that's why he is so invested as to lose sleep.

[Nihil Obstat]

Sounds like the SSPX theologians need to read some Dietrich von Hildebrand.

[aalpha1989]

[quote name='CatherineM' date='07 May 2010 - 09:35 PM' timestamp='1273282538' post='2106578']
Do you suppose that Benedict feels like he is the last hope to bring them back in, and that's why he is so invested as to lose sleep.
[/quote]

Also he was intimately involved in the events leading up to the episcopal consecrations and excommunications latae sententiae in 1988. It was his insistence that Lefebvre sign an apology letter to the Holy See that caused Lefebvre to renege on the accord signed on May 5 1988. Lefebvre refused to sign the letter, believing he had not harmed the Office of the Holy See at all, but that he may have offended Pope John Paul II personally. Lefebvre signed a letter to the person of John Paul II, and Ratzinger rejected it, further delaying the Vatican's approval of the consecrations. Lefebvre sent several letters to Ratzinger and to John Paul II demanding that the Vatican approve the episcopal consecrations for June 30 of that year, and stating quite firmly that he intended to go ahead with the ordinations regardless of Rome's reply. Rome had been anticipating a date in August for the consecrations, but Lefebvre was tired of waiting and apparently his pride won out.

The day before the ordinations Ratzinger sent Lefebvre this telegram:

[quote]
[color="#000000"]For the love of [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ"]Christ [/url]and His Church, the Holy Father asks you paternally and firmly to depart today for Rome, without proceeding on 30 June with the episcopal ordinations that you have announced. He prays the Holy Apostles [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Peter"]Peter[/url] and [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Paul"]Paul [/url]to inspire you not to be false to the episcopacy that has been placed in your charge and the oaths you have taken to remain faithful to the Pope, the successor of Peter. He begs God to keep you from leading astray and scattering those whom Christ Jesus came to gather in unity. He entrusts you to the intercession of the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Mary"]Holy Virgin Mary[/url], Mother of the Church[/color].
[/quote]

(telegram copied from Wikipedia)

I'm sure that Ratzinger has felt the seperation of his brother Bishop intensely. I recently read all the documents exchanged between Lefebvre and the Vatican between 1986 and 1988. I love my Papa dearly, and the pride displayed by Lefebvre was extremely painful, especially when he addressed particularly stinging remarks at Cardinal Ratzinger himself. Cardinal Ratzinger, I might add, remained perfectly professional and acted only as his office dictated, never as an individual, in his correspondence with Archbishop Lefebvre. The above telegram displays Ratzinger's grief at Lefebvre's act incurring excommunication.

Let us pray that our Pope may find a solution to the Society's arrogance that keeps them from true submission to the Holy See.

Edited May 8, 2010 by aalpha1989

[aalpha1989]

[quote]
"Dialogue with them is not easy," Kasper, who heads the Vaticandepartment for relations with other Christian churches and with Jews,told a news conference during a visit to Paris.

"The main problem with them is not the Mass in Latin," he said,referring to the SSPX's insistence on the pre-Council liturgy, "but theconcept of tradition. Do we want a living tradition or a petrified one?"

"I'm for a dialogue, but on our conditions, not on thetraditionalists' conditions," he added. The SSPX had to accept theCouncil reforms, the "sine qua non" of any accord.
[/quote]

With all due respect, I'm not sure Cardinal Kasper has accurately described the problems with the SSPX, either. They had an agreement with Rome on May 5, 1988! Signed by Lefebvre himself! It was only pride and a reluctance to submit in Holy Obedience when it was difficult that caused the strange canonical status regarding the SSPX. Rome and the SSPX have enough in common to be united, and I [i]know[/i] Pope Benedict sees that! He signed the paper uniting them 22 years ago! The SSPX does not believe in a "petrified" Tradition.


Of course I do believe that Cardinal Kasper is correct that Rome should not cater to others' conditions. I believe the culpability falls almost entirely on the SSPX for their irregular status. They need to make fewer demands and accept Holy Obedience for what it is, in good times and in bad.

[aalpha1989]

[quote name='aalpha1989' date='08 May 2010 - 12:59 AM' timestamp='1273294788' post='2106737']
With all due respect, I'm not sure Cardinal Kasper has accurately described the problems with the SSPX, either. They had an agreement with Rome on May 5, 1988! Signed by Lefebvre himself! It was only pride and a reluctance to submit in Holy Obedience when it was difficult that caused the strange canonical status regarding the SSPX. Rome and the SSPX have enough in common to be united, and I [i]know[/i] Pope Benedict sees that! He signed the paper uniting them 22 years ago! The SSPX does not believe in a "petrified" Tradition.


Of course I do believe that Cardinal Kasper is correct that Rome should not cater to others' conditions. I believe the culpability falls almost entirely on the SSPX for their irregular status. They need to make fewer demands and accept Holy Obedience for what it is, in good times and in bad.
[/quote]

Edit: I feel I've been prideful in this response... I'm sure the good Cardinal understands what has been said in discussion more than I.

[Skinzo]

[quote name='aalpha1989' date='07 May 2010 - 06:42 PM' timestamp='1273293722' post='2106711']
Also he was intimately involved in the events leading up to the episcopal consecrations and excommunications latae sententiae in 1988. It was his insistence that Lefebvre sign an apology letter to the Holy See that caused Lefebvre to renege on the accord signed on May 5 1988. Lefebvre refused to sign the letter, believing he had not harmed the Office of the Holy See at all, but that he may have offended Pope John Paul II personally. Lefebvre signed a letter to the person of John Paul II, and Ratzinger rejected it, further delaying the Vatican's approval of the consecrations. Lefebvre sent several letters to Ratzinger and to John Paul II demanding that the Vatican approve the episcopal consecrations for June 30 of that year, and stating quite firmly that he intended to go ahead with the ordinations regardless of Rome's reply. Rome had been anticipating a date in August for the consecrations, but Lefebvre was tired of waiting and apparently his pride won out.


[/quote]

Aalpha 1989,
I had not heard before that Cardinal Ratzinger was requesting an apology from Lefebvre. Do you have a source for that information?

Thanks,

S.

[aalpha1989]

[quote name='Skinzo' date='08 May 2010 - 04:02 AM' timestamp='1273305755' post='2106878']
Aalpha 1989,
I had not heard before that Cardinal Ratzinger was requesting an apology from Lefebvre. Do you have a source for that information?

Thanks,

S.
[/quote]

My only source for that letter is a book published by Angelus press, but I'm not sure that I'm allowed to link to it on phatmass.

[Desert Walker]

-

Edited May 11, 2010 by Desert Walker

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Thomist-in-Training' date='07 May 2010 - 07:32 PM' timestamp='1273282334' post='2106573']
http://wdtprs.com/blog/2010/05/sspx-superior-bp-fellay-and-his-defense-of-pope-benedict/#comments This helps with perspective too.
[/quote]

yes

[mortify]

The SSPX are such a disappointment. How could a council called by a Pope teach doctrinal error? What a sad lot these SSPXers are!

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='mortify' date='11 May 2010 - 03:02 PM' timestamp='1273608159' post='2108826']
The SSPX are such a disappointment. How could a council called by a Pope teach doctrinal error? What a sad lot these SSPXers are!
[/quote]

Technically speaking, an ecumenical council [i]has[/i] made a mistake. The [url="http://www.catecheticsonline.com/SourcesofDogma8.php"]Council of Florence[/url] stated that the form of ordination to the presbyterate in the Roman rite was, "Accipe potestatem offerendi sacrificium in Ecclesia pro vivis et mortuis, in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti" (Ecumenical Council of Florence: [i]Denzinger-Schonmetzer[/i] 1326). Pope Pius XII went on to state that the form of ordination to the presbyterate is actually, "Da, quaesumus, omnipotens Pater, in hunc famulum tuum Presbyterii dignitatem; innova in visceribus eius spiritum sanctitatis, ut acceptum a Te, Deus, secundi meriti munus obtineat censuramque morum exemplo suae conversationis insinuet." (Pope Pius XII, [i][url="http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12SACRAO.HTM"]Sacramentum Ordinis[/url][/i]: Denzinger-Schonmetzer 3860). Pope Paul VI confirmed Pope Pius XII's statement in his apostolic constitution [i][url="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-vi_apc_19680618_pontificalis-romani_lt.html"]Pontificalis Romani[/url][/i].

It is also worth noting that there are three categories of teachings taught by the Church: those defined as divinely revealed, those set forth definitively, and those that have been taught in a non-definitive manner. While a Catholic is bound to assent to all three levels of teachings (though the assent given to each level is different), only the first two levels (divinely revealed dogmas and definitively proposed doctrines) are necessarily infallible. A further explanation of what I have stated can be found in the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith's [url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFADTU.HTM"][i]Doctrinal Commentary on the Concluding Formula of the[/i] Professio Fidei[/url].

[Formosus]

Well technically an Ecumenical Council didn't make a mistake, since the Council of Florence was just a general council of the west.