Côme de Prévigny, "One Year Later," via "Setting things straight about the SSPX-Vatican talks: What exactly happened in April-June 2012? A guest article by Côme de Prévigny" (Rorate Caeli, July 7, 2013), with this introduction:
A narrative has dominated the news on the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX) in the past year: those difficult priests did not accept the extended hand of Pope Benedict XVI; hard-hearted people with stubborn demands, they missed the chance of a lifetime. As in the narrative created by news-creators such as John Allen Jr:Short of standing outside their headquarters in Econe, Switzerland, in the snow and begging forgiveness like Henry IV at Canossa, Benedict XVI did everything possible to heal the split, and yet the society balked. In an Easter letter to friends and benefactors, Bishop Bernard Fellay asserted that Rome has imposed acceptance of the Second Vatican Council as a sine qua non -- a prerequisite, Fellay wrote, "to which we could not and still cannot subscribe."... Our readers know we have covered more extensively this matter than practically any other online source - even moments ago, on a matter reported on Sunday by the German press.
Many observers believe it's now "game over," at least for the foreseeable future and barring some surprising concession on the Lefebvrist side.
In April 2012, a probable regularization certainly seemed to be the case, and who can forget the (leaked) letter of SSPX Superior-General Bp. Bernard Fellay to his fellow bishops? On June 13, 2012, what seemed to be a meeting that would set the path for such reconciliation, following the acceptance by the Vatican of the negotiated Doctrinal Preamble, ended in flames as Bp. Fellay and his assistant met a Vatican side that suddenly came up with new demands - more stringent even than those contained in the May 5, 1988 Protocol. Why would the side that always has the upper hand in any Catholic discussion - that is, Rome - do this, that is, raise new stakes near the end if not from an interest to derail any agreement? Who in the Vatican forced the Supreme Authority's hand at the eleventh hour? Why?
We now know that, in the middle of Vatileaks (which were also made public at around the same time), the Pope's position gradually became untenable. We know that because of what would happen on February 11, 2013. We know now that his isolation, always present throughout the Pontificate, had become critical since the explosion of Vatileaks in the heart of the Pontifical Apartments - that Francis (rightly, it seems, considering what happened with his predecessor) has refused as his living quarters. And we can presume that the pressures on the Pope reached unbearable levels. Truly unbearable.
We asked our friend Côme de Prévigny to present a brief history of those decisive months: something happened in the Vatican between April and June 2012 that created the need for unprecedented demands, more stringent even than the contents of the 1988 Protocol; the "stubborn SSPX" narrative, regarding what took place in June 2012, is simply unsustainable.
Côme de Prévigny, "One Year Later" (scroll down at linked site)
4 comments:
I don't buy any of this. If Pope Benedict XVI wanted a deal that was acceptable to the SSPX he could have sat down directly with Bishop Fellay and cut the deal and told the Queers in the Curia to jump into the Tiber if they didn't like it.
What Pope Benedict XVI wanted to do, he did, and the idea some unidentified Curial Masons queered the deal should be totally unacceptable to any soi disant trad worth his salt.
Instead, the vast number of soi disant traditionalists continue the self-deception that he who abdicated was their pal.
He was not.
Face the facts and grow a pair.
All clinking brass balls aside, I think the indisputable fact is that all of these guys were a "mixed bag." The traditionalists would not have likely gotten Summorum Pontificum from any other pope. While not perfect, it wasn't an unmitigated disaster.
What shakes out is a mix of good and bad, or relative good and bad, in the policies of all of these popes. Paul VI's Mass may have been a disaster; his Humanae Vitae was less of one. Etc.
Yes, they all may have been corrupted by the poison of the nouvelles' kool aid. But who will say that by permitting these popes our Lord has abandoned his Church?
Dear Sheldon. Jesus is the Head of His Church He established and He will not abandon His Bride and neither will the Holy Ghost let it officially teach error; however, Our Triune God will not force The Hierarchy to Teach the Truth of Catholic Tradition.
I was born into a Catholic Church that was clearly visibilium to friend and foe alike, but, after V2, that Church, previously visiblium is now invisibilium but just because a thing is invisibilium does not mean it has no existence.
It will return with a vengeance once the entire world is convinced it has disappeared for Holy Mother Church completely recapitulates the Passion and Death and Resurrection of He who established it.
With no disrespect, maybe the Holy Father couldn't "grow a pair" either. He may have been a product of the 60s. He may have been getting too feeble to face the heat. It could have been any combinations of such factors. He was the "pope of Christian unity," as the Brick by Brick Bund (as IANS puts it) keeps telling us. He wanted to reunite the SSPX. But he may have been vulnerable at just those points where the most radical "spirit of vatican ii" sorts were most vocally hostile.
Post a Comment