Rorate Exclusive: Pope Francis received Bp. Fellay, SSPX Superior General, sometime in the past few months.
Rorate has learned and can exclusively confirm that Bishop Bernard Fellay, the Superior General of the Society of Saint Pius X (Fraternité Sacerdotale Saint Pie X - FSSPX / SSPX), was received by Pope Francis in the Domus Sanctae Marthae sometime in the past few months. In order to protect our sources, we cannot detail the date and persons involved in the meeting, but only generally locate it in time - if the current pontificate so far can be divided into two halves, the meeting took place in the second half.
We can also add as part of this exclusive information that it was not a merely fortuitous event - that is to say, many off-the-record meetings with His Holiness have taken place since his election precisely because his being at Saint Martha's House make him much more accessible and available than many previous pontiffs. No, that was not the case at all - the pope was previously duly informed and duly met Bishop Fellay. The meeting was apparently short and cordial.
The Pope has a true interest in resolving this situation, it seems to be understood by our sources.
Note to new readers: the Society of Saint Pius X is a society of common life for priests and the formation of priests founded by Abp. Marcel Lefebvre in 1970, and it was involved in the controversial episcopal ordinations of 1988, in Écône, Switzerland. The penalties incurred by the living parties with that act were rescinded by order of Pope Benedict XVI in 2009. Doctrinal talks were conducted with the Vatican between 2009 and 2011, and the discussions fell through at the last moment on June 13, 2012. The Holy See considers the canonical situation of the Society as irregular and that, "as long as the Society does not have a canonical status in the Church, its ministers do not exercise legitimate ministries in the Church."
[When mentioning the content of this item anywhere and in any language, please mention Rorate by name and link to us, as a matter of courtesy. Thank you.]
Update: Italian version by Il Sismografo.
Update: Italian version by Il Sismografo.
Let me be the first to comment. I've had a few posts on the smoke of Satan becoming a raging fire. Some of the comments that I have had to delete showing the utmost contempt and disrespect of Pope Francis is precisely a part of this smoke of Satan becoming a raging fire. I am shocked and appalled that any Catholic could write some of this stuff about any human being especially the Vicar of Christ.
I saw that about theSSPX. It will be interesting to see how it goes…not well, I predict.
So, it's not possible that the pope himself might be part of the "smoke of satan"? Or is it just that, if he is, no one is allowed to discuss that?
Ah, Catholic cuts to the chase...
Catholic, in the theoretical sense, yes any pope could be the smoke of Satan, even Saint Pope Pius X. But if I impugned the integrity of Saint Pope Pius X, and make accusation that call into question his integrity, his validity as a pope and go so far as to call him an anti-pope, I sin against charity and it is a mortal sin that if the mortal sinner is unrepentant (breaking also the 8th commandment of bearing false witness or maligning others) and this mortal sinner dies, that mortal sinner goes to hell. That is how serious these sins against charity are that I'm asked to be complicit in by posting them!
You've chosen to use a saintly pope for your response, which does make it appear your contention is stronger than it is. What if one were living in the reign of one of the dozens of terrible popes or, say, during a time when there was clearly an anti-pope and the only question was which person was the anti- and which the actual pope? Or to make it more subtle, what if one loved in the times of a pope like Honorius, who was actually condemned as a heretic posthumously?
Now, assume that those popes were popes in the age of media and education where not only can people know what the pope says and does, but they can legitimately contrast that with what the written teachings are.
Of course, it is your blog, so you can post or not post whatever you like. I just think its best to be realistic about reality. In this instance, the reality is that it is possible that the pope is the problem. At the very least the election of someone like this as pope indicates a problem with the majority of the world's cardinals.
Where I think we can agree, though, is that there is an utter lack of coherent discussion made on the internet without resort to ad hominem and hyperbole. But if you were going to censor those who make bad arguments or argue badly, ultimately we'd have to close the internet down... :-)
One makes an appointment with the said pope and in confidence one states his or her feelings. One does not act uncharitably on an open forum on the internet. Let me repeat. It is a mortal sin to be uncharitable even to the most malignant sinner. It really is about the mortal sin of charitableness and in a public forum where said accused cannot respond. It is a part of the smoke of Satan, but also neo-traditionalists or neo-conservatives not really grasping the simplicity of the teachings of the Baltimore Catechism concerning sins against charity and what constitutes a mortal sin. At best, they are coloring book catholics and at worst, cafeteria catholics.
That the Pope is a problem cannot be denied. On virtually every political or religious blog and forum I have visited, there is real consternation among devout Catholics, and even protestants, regarding many of the Pope's statements and actions. The fact that the media can so easily interpret the Pope's statements in progressivist/modernist terms is another indication of the ambiguity and APPARENT carelessness of his remarks. Even among the brand new RCIA confirmed there is concern and frustration with this Pope and the direction of this Church they have chosen after fleeing protestantism for what is appearing to some of them to be more of the same.
One may respect the office of the Papacy and the person of the Pope and still prefer that another had been chosen. One may respect the Pope with great concern for his orientation and even with disgust at his behavior. But, to merely shut up or continue trying to defend the indefensible shows not only a lack of personal integrity but is a back door, negative kind of false witness. I hope and pray that this Pope will eventually prove all of us wrong about him…I'm waiting...
The mentality you describe Gene is of the divorce mentality of our culture. We only have one pope at a time, love him or hate him, he's the pope and there is no divorcing him. The divorce mentality that looks for reasons for divorce is truly opposed to Christ and Church teaching.
I do not believe you are accurately describing my mentality. I feel more like a husband that has been cheated on but who continues in the marriage, hoping for a reconciliation.
Well then, Gene, with all your spousal nitpicking, your sainted wife must suffer greatly for the kingdom of God and her marriage.
I understand your point, Father. I am constrained to point out, though, that the way to be charitable to "the most malignant sinner" is to correct him fraternally, which is a work of mercy.
Now, as far as the pope goes, we are unable to express concerns directly to him. But his message, both through word and action, is likely to confuse. Therefore, charity dictates that the message be clarified for the sake of those who might otherwise misunderstand. So, when the pope says or does something at odds with the faith, there is a duty on the part of the all the faithful to point it out so that his error does not cause others to fall. This is true charity.
In an odd irony, arguably, it was Vatican II that made clear that the obligation to do so falls not just to the clerics, but also to the laity.
Of course, I am not privy to the comments that you are censoring. I gather from what you've said that they are most vitriol and wouldn't fall into the category of meaningful discourse and charitable correction that I am advocating above.
We are a hierarchical Church with moral principles on how to deal with one another. With an errant priest, we go to him directly or if that fails we go to his bishop. If that fails, to the metropolitan, if that fails to the papal nuncio. If that fails, we bear it as a cross, but we don't take out a full page ad in the New York Times to air our grievance.
Can you imagine every Catholic who dislikes their priests going to the internet to describe what they really think of him?
With the pope and any grievances towards him, write to your bishop or the papal nuncio or go directly to the Vatican.
I have heard of new Catholics reading certainly blogs and being scandalized by the uncharitable remarks they read about the Pope, most of these remarks from people who are ideological and have an ax to grind. Yes, these remarks are of Satan.
Seriously, Fr, if I am nitpicking so are a lot of other devout Catholics who know a lot more than me.
One can have a legitimate concern about something that Holy Father said or how he said it. Sure. If I have a concern about something that he said, I chalk it up to a mis-translation or a misapprehension on my part.The pope cannot depart from magesterial, doctrinal teaching. Keep in mind that when Pope Francis speaks on economics that he comes from a part of the world where large numbers of the poor exist in the most primitive of accomodations and subsist on whatever they can scavange from the local municipal dump. There is not the social safety net we have in this country. It also is a part of the world where although it is predominately Catholic, the Church is not in very good shape.
Every pope has his own style according to the myriad influences in his life. I believe as a Catholic that the pope will not err on matters of faith and morals. Carping, criticizing,and uncharitableness cannot produce a positive effect. Prayer, fasting and almgiving will.
"The pope cannot depart from magesterial, doctrinal teaching."
"I believe as a Catholic that the pope will not err on matters of faith and morals."
These statements are not true.
Fr. William G. Most:
"By the Magisterium we mean the teaching office of the Church. It consists of the Pope and Bishops. Christ promised to protect the teaching of the Church : "He who hears you, hears me; he who rejects you rejects me, he who rejects me, rejects Him who sent me" (Luke 10. 16). Now of course the promise of Christ cannot fail: hence when the Church presents some doctrine as definitive or final, it comes under this protection, it cannot be in error; in other words, it is infallible. This is true even if the Church does not use the solemn ceremony of definition. The day to day teaching of the Church throughout the world, when the Bishops are in union with each other and with the Pope, and present something as definitive, this is infallible. (Vatican II, Lumen gentium # 25). It was precisely by the use of that authority that Vatican I was able to define that the Pope alone, when speaking as such and making things definitive, is also infallible. Of course this infallibility covers also teaching on what morality requires, for that is needed for salvation."
As far as "faith and morals" go, that is fundamental to the Faith.
When intending to teach the entire Church, he can't error on faith and morals. As a local bishop or on a day to day basis, he most definitely can and probably does make errors.
Charity demands that errors be pointed out, no matter who says them. While we are indeed a hierarchy, there were many movements that were stopped by an uprising of the laity.
The SSPX issued a statement about this reported meeting today. You can read it here: http://www.dici.org/en/news/about-a-meeting-between-the-pope-and-bishop-fellay/
Summary: They bumped into each other at the lunch counter and said "hi"....literally, that's the sum total of it.
So, it went something like this:
Fellay: "Die Spaghetti ist nicht gut!"
Pope: "So, you eata some a where else!"
Post a Comment