Andrea Tornielli reports on the five conditions set forth for the SSPX to return to full communion. Translation by Fr. Z.
I have gotten hold of the letter (written in French) which Dario Card. Castrillon Hoyos wrote with the five conditions sent to [Bp.] Fellay in view of a return to full communion with Rome. Contrary to the first leaks, there is no mention of acceptance of the Council or the new Mass: they are prior general conditions. In fact the Holy See, showing a great generosity, asks that they not attack the person of the Pope. [Bp.] Fellay asked Benedict XVI for the revocation of the excommunication, so the request to respect authority without first pretending to be the recipients of a a “superior” Magisterium to that of the reigning Pontiff seems to me to be a commonsensical condition! This is the text of the letter which bears the signature of the Cardinal President of Ecclesia Dei:
Conditions resulting from the 4 june 2008 meeting between Dario Card. Castrillon Hoyos and Bishop Bernard Fellay:
1. A commitment to a proportioned response to the generosity of the Pope.
2. A commitment to avoid any public speech which does not respect the person of the Holy Father and which can be negative for ecclesial charity.
3. A commitment to avoid the pretense of a Magisterium superior to the Holy Father and to not put forward the Fraternity [SSPX] in opposition to the Church.
4. A commitment to demonstrate the will to behave honestly in full ecclesial charity and in respect to the authority of the Vicar of Christ.
5. A commitment to respect the date – fixed at the end of the month of June – to respond positively. This will be a required and necessary condition for the immediate preparation for adhesion to have full communion.
Noticeably absent is any repudiation of the concerns of the SSPX. The articles are only requesting that the leadership of the SSPX act like grown-ups. If they cannot to commit to this reasonable behavior, then they really show their true colors. They would do well to remember 1 Corinthians 13
1 If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3 If I give away all I have, and if I deliver up my body to be burned, [1] but have not love, I gain nothing.
4 Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant 5 or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; [2] 6 it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. 7 Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
8 Love never ends. As for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10 but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away. 11 When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up childish ways. 12 For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known.
13 So now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love.
Cross Posted at SummorumPontificum.net
June 24, 2008 at 9:47 pm
How much easier could it possibly get? If the SSPX doesn’t reconcile with this offer, I don’t know what will work.
June 24, 2008 at 10:31 pm
Let’s see…
Why FIVE conditions? (It seems to me that number one is already included in number five, for example).
On June 9th 1988, John Paul wrote this to Archbishop Lefebvre:
“… I ardently invite you to return, in humility, to full obedience towards the Vicar of Christ.
Not only do I invite you to this, but I ask it of you by THE WOUNDS OF CHRIST OUR REDEEMER, in the name of Christ who, on the eve of His passion, prayed for his disciples, ‘that they may be one’ (John 17:21)”.
Maybe I’m just reading too much from this letter of Cardinal Castrillón, but this letter requires an answer… just before the 20th Anniversary of Archbishop Lefebvre’s consecrations.
FIVE conditions, asked once again by THE FIVE WOUNDS OF CHRIST OUR REDEEMER…
I think the Holy Father is teaching everybody (and not just the SSPX) that as “wounded” as the Church can be seen, it’s the Body of Crist and will overcome death.
June 24, 2008 at 11:51 pm
Without clarification on points 3 & 4, which are somewhat vague, it’s hard to make haste on any judgment wrt the SSPX.
In practice, what does this really mean?
On matters of Catholic Dogma, the Church’s magisterial teaching prior to V2 must be adhered to by the Church. If it is not then why shouldn’t a standing Pope NOT be criticized? A Pope cannot simply change dogma and claim a Superior Magisterium – can he?
Let’s take Extra Ecclesiam Nullus Salus and religious liberty as example to think about, shall we…
Personally, on the one hand, I think they should accept the conditions face value – but on the other hand, I would like to have more information and a few items clarified as far as praxis is concerned before I signed anything, if I were Bishop Fellay.
What if they do not hold to the agreement after signing due to some just cause? What then? Are they to be silenced in speaking up for Holy Mother Church?
Think of this nightmare scenario: Cardinal Mahoney becomes Pope. Not going to happen, I know – just an example of a liberal Cardinal becoming Pope. Would they be bound to the articles they sign in this case? I know I would break them in good conscience, Pope Mahoney.
My point is that it may appear to be a slam dunk… but I don’ t think the SSPX view it this way, obviously – not out of pride as some might suggest, but our of prudence.
Also, there is a huge issue of trust… I hope they pray very hard on this matter and have faith in the Lord to guide them in His will.