|Page 1 of 1|
|Author:||James Francis [ Tue Jul 24, 2012 11:09 pm ]|
|Post subject:||Rome-SSPX Timeline|
John Lamont, a Sydney based theologian has written an article recapping the Rome-SSPX discussions. It is here:
http://oriensjournal.com/homepage/rome- ... te-of-play
I found the most noteworthy information was that a representative of BXVI had been in touch with Bishop Fellay (short circuiting the negotiating theologians) to say that his (Fellay's) doctrinal position of criticism was acceptable to BXVI. This might explain Bishop Fellay's seemingly sinister behaviour in trying to cut a deal before the doctrinal aspect has been fixed up. At least, Dr Lamont thinks so:
"The most interesting question in this story concerns the relation of the Pope to the apparent double crossing of Bishop Fellay on June 13th. The bottom line is that Fellay appears to have received assurances, from the top, about an agreement that, in the end, were not kept. There seems to be no other way of explaining Bishop Fellay’s behaviour – his going against the Society’s policy of refusing a practical agreement, which was his own policy expressed on many occasions, and his consequent risking of a split within the Society. It also seems inconceivable that, if such assurances had been made, the Pope was unaware that the CDF had not delivered on them. Whether he willed it or simply consented to it, and whether he will simply let it pass or try to do something to repair it, will emerge in the future."
|Author:||Admin [ Mon Jul 30, 2012 1:05 am ]|
|Post subject:||Re: Rome-SSPX Timeline|
This is a brilliant piece of work by John Lamont, James, thank you!
It's extraordinarily complete and accurate.
Several things I didn't know. One was that I never looked at the original of Fr. Thouvenot's July 18 letter - http://radiocristiandad.wordpress.com/2 ... erdaderas/ - and so I thought that the translation we had seen circulating on the 'Net was the whole text. it isn't, it's only about half of it. Lamont extracts these interesting points from it:
A further confidential letter of Fr. Thouvenot, written on July 18th and leaked to the internet on July 20th, added the information that Bishop Fellay had immediately refused the proposed CDF document, and that the document had suppressed the SSPX’s reference to the anti-modernist oath.
On May 9th, Bishop Fellay visited Mgr. Pozzo and demanded the right to continue to criticise errors and scandals, in the case of a canonical regularisation.
Further information new to me was the following deriving from Fr. de la Rocque:
The doctrinal discussions were confidential, but some valuable indications of their content have been made public by the SSPX participant Fr. Patrick de la Rocque. In talks to the SSPX faithful in France, he stated that Mgr. Pozzo showed no great interest in the doctrinal issues under discussion, and instead concentrated his efforts on getting the SSPX representatives to assent to various doctrinal formulations that expressed, in more or less diplomatic language, a complete acceptance of the Second Vatican Council and of the Mass of Paul VI. It turned out that similar formulations were being sent to Bishop Fellay during the talks for his consideration, with no mention of these formulations being made to the SSPX representatives in the discussions. None of these formulations were accepted, and the CDF decided to end the doctrinal discussions before the scheduled list of subjects had been covered.
Lamont is not correct in saying that the Fraternity first replied to the Preamble in January. My understanding is that there had by that time been two replies sent by the Fraternity, neither of which was acceptable to "rome".
Could you please let John know that he has what appears to be a typo on Page 3? "The necessary conditions were freedom to preserve the entire traditional of the Church..."
Also, let him know that I had it on excellent authority that the June 13 document was actually signed by Benedict. That settles one question he asks at the end.
|Page 1 of 1||All times are UTC|
|Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group