SSPX Can (And Will) Wait

Interesting interview given to the Angelus Press, who put it on youtube (I have it from angelqueen)

The last part (of this Part I) is clearly the most interesting (American spelling as in the original):

Q: Father, there are those who argue that the Society is simply looking for a practical agreement, even contrary to the wishes of Archbishop Lefebvre himself. What would you say to that argument?

A: Well, I think first of all we must make it clear that Bishop Fellay is not really looking for an agreement. Rome is proposing a regularization of the Society. So, the term “agreement” is confusing. It’s not clear. It’s too vague. An agreement would be mainly on doctrine, which is not the case. But a recognition of the Society: that’s what we are talking about today. The Society [has existed] for more than forty years. It was founded, erected, within the Church in the normal way of the Church. And because of the circumstances, because of the crisis of the Church, where we were kind of kicked out – in a way, not that we are outside of the Church, but we are…

– in an irregular situation –

…yes, pushed into an irregular situation – it would be an act of justice in fact to be just reintegrated in a more visible way in the Church. That’s all we are talking about here.

Father Rostand points out to a very important fact: the SSPX can wait because they are not waiting or expecting for anything, nor are they making any “concession”.

The more cynical (but more often right) part of me thinks that this contains a veiled message: if the Pope has postponed the announcement of the reconciliation waiting for some “announcement” of the SSPX leading him to believe they have moved an inch, he will be disappointed and will have to die without an agreement.

The less cynical (and more often wrong) part of me sees this as a simple message of the SSPX to the Holy Father:  we had hoped the decision would come in May but hey: you’re the boss, take your time.

It is not to be denied that Bishop Fellay has played his cards well: at no point has he compromised the integrity of the SSPX; at no point has he given the impression the SSPX would be ready to make a barter, giving something to get something. The simple truth is: the SSPX is not going to give anything, and the Vatican can decide what to do of it.

This is, in a way, the reverse of the situation of 1988. In 1988 Archbishop Lefebvre knew he would not live for long, and had to act. In 2012, it is Pope Benedict who knows he will not live for long, and is – if he is wise – terrified at the idea of going to His creator with hundreds of appalling episcopal appointments, heresy spreading undisturbed and the SSPX situation still unresolved. The SSPX, on the other hand, can wait for as long as it takes, and will not compromise for the sake of reconciliation.

If there’s something I have learned from the reconciliation discussions it is how absolutely spiffing these SSPX people are.

Mundabor

Posted on June 11, 2012, in Catholicism, FSSPX and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 3 Comments.

  1. You are quite right, of course. It is subtle in its own way even though it is entirely wrong for +Fellay to exclude the other three Bishops from all this. He gives too great an impression of being a lover of power. Abp Lefebvre, whom I knew and with whom I had shared a table or two, had every gram of power in his aura but never displayed it. He was also surprisingly open about money and he was not a lover of it, unlike some I could name. Being Superior of the SSPX is not a job I would readily associate with a Bookkeeper and I believe Abp Lefebvre would agree with my statement. Bishop Fellay and his strange triumvirate – Fellay, Nely and Schmidtberger – sound altogether too much like a firm of Solicitors and I do wonder quite what they have been up to as far as the books are concerned., An audit is much overdue and most urgently required, I fear. Thank God for + Williamson, +Tissier de Mallerais and + Gallereta. I imagine Fr Rostand echoes their views more than those of the triumvirate at Metzingen.

    • John, I am not sure the other three have been excluded. I would rather say Fellay has decided to go on even if he knew they would not agree; but the SSPX not being a democracy I find this rather fine.

      As to the books, I know nothing of what you imply, but my impression has always been the SSPX is not in need of donors, and I do not think this will change after the reconciliation. If the “strange triumvirate” is made of good bookkeepers, at least I hope they will have the Society’s finances in order.

      Are you of the opinion the three will secede or do you think they will – obtorto collo of course – toe to the line?

      M

%d bloggers like this: