Turning point in SSPX talks?

Turning point in SSPX talks?

Rorate Caeli quotes Italian newspaper reports that say that talks in Rome about reconciling with the SSPX have reached a turning point. Specifically, they say, Pope Benedict has ordered a document to be presented to him on March 23 that would not only lift the excommunications, but also end the schism.

“The Holy Father”, says one of his collaborators, “is so interested in finding a solution in a very short time that he is ready to find any legal way which pleases him. Naturally without disregarding the fundamental principles of the Church, of her history, and of the dispositions which concern her today.”

It continues to bear watching as the situation develops.

Technorati Tags: , , , ,

  • That Benedict XVI called heads of dicasteries together to hammer out anything resembling a canonically sound resolution, is old news. Whatever Rorate Caeli is referring to, is essentially a rehash of reports from over a week ago, as reported by Rocco Palmo on his site “Whispers in the Loggia.”

    What would be REAL news is if, a) Fellay ever recants his dismissal of the excommunication as something that never happened, b) Williamson ever stops shooting his mouth off on yet another anti-Semitic diatribe, and/or c) half the Catholic press (not to mention its corresponding blogosphere) gets over how some imaginary “universal indult” is going to allow a priest to say the Mass any way he wants regardless of his bishop’s legitimate authority in the matter.

    Until any of that happens (and I’ll concede that it DOES “bear watching”), I’m not holding my breath.

  • No, David, you’re missing it. This isn’t the same old news, which both Rorate and I blogged about when it first happened.

    What actually happened at that meeting and the future actions have been closely guarded secrets and Rorate is translating Italian media reports of what went on at the meeting and the ongoing work.

  • Wow, the fans of the Pennsylvania “Papal” blogger are just as sweet and corteous as he is…

    You are absolutely correct in your comment above, Mr. Bettinelli. Thank you for linking.

  • Actually, NC, Mr Palmo is quite courteous, albeit occasionally pointed in his commentary. (So who isn’t around here?) If I choose to be self-effacing in my response to the moderator, what offense is that to anyone else? Meanwhile, here is the article to which I am referring:

    SSPX: What Rome Gets

    Granted, Mr Bettinelli’s report is more verifiable, which is to be expected, if for no other reasons than that it comes later (and he does this for a living; and very well, I might add). Same story, more detail. I stand by my remarks.

  • Actually I find Rocco to be calumnious in his remarks, ascribing motives and actions to other bloggers that are untrue. His reference to bishops by their first names is lacking in respect, as is the gratuitious insults he lobs at bishops like Cardinal Pell, Cardinal Schoenborn, and others.

    Plus the “I’m a straight man exhibiting gay tendencies” act is pretty lame.

  • Mr. Alexander, I really do not care what you think, but I must correct you. This article to which you link is a translation of Tornielli’s article published on the very day of the meeting.

    While the “Papal” blogger reported on it on TUESDAY, I did on Monday (my first update here: http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2006/02/papal-meeting-of-february-13.html ).

    When I realised that the Pennsylvania “Papal” blogger was actually reporting the Tornielli article, published on February 13, I warned my readers that it was NOT an ACCOUNT of the meeting, but a PREDICTION by Tornielli of what wopuld happen (see here: http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2006/02/rome-fsspx-be-careful-with-your-news.html ). Naturally, for how would Tornielli report on Monday an account of something that was going to take place on Monday? As always, I link to the news sources—differently from the Papal Blogger, who merely quotes them, and prevents his readers from checking his sources.

    He is as ignorant of Traditionalist news as he is of Canon Law—but, as the Spanish saying goes, a man with one eye is king in the land of the blind.

  • Quite honestly, Dom, I haven’t paid that much attention to the things you describe about Rocco. Some “reporters” can be rather opinionated, under the guise of “analysis.” I suspect that explains some of it. I’ve found such observations to be quite useful in knowing what’s going on. His take on Arinze’s remarks concerning SSPX, for example.

    I’ve noticed his shots at some bishops, but he appears to reserve his greatest wrath toward other bloggers.

    Can’t explain the “gay” thing, though.

  • “Mr. Alexander, I really do not care what you think, but I must correct you…”

    Yes, I suppose you must. Fortunately, I don’t care what you think either, and if there’s anything Catholic I know a lot about, it’s liturgical matters. To wit, who got there one day earlier matters less to me than the news itself.

    I’ll muddle through somehow.

  • Oh, dear.  And I always thought of myself as having a terminal case of stiffness in the derriere.  But somehow I manage to pull off the trick of liking Mr. Alexander, New Catholic, our host, and even Rocco and being interested in what all of them think.  The other day someone called me a “peacemaker”; I felt like punching him!

    Maybe I’m going soft with age…

  • David: 

    And how noble of you to say all that here.  Just what I would have expected from someone of YOUR character.

  • Brian:

    Eh?  I was attempting humor, always a dangerous thing!

    I’m a hide-bound, argumentative, “conservative.”  I’m famous for putting people off and TELLING people off.  I like rules, traditions, dogma, and obedience without question.  I don’t like excuses.  I don’t like “niceness” or felt banners that say, “LUV is Life in a Nutshell! grin

    It’s funny to find people seeing me as some kind of moderate trying to “bring us all together.”

  • Brian:

    If you are the one who called me that, let me hasten to say that I was TEASING.  I was being self-deprecating.  I really didn’t want to punch you!

  • Sigh!

    Heresy and schism aren’t the same, Jimbob.  At best, the views of the Society on, say, religious freedom are legitimate Catholic views (“if you have two non-infallible teachings, you get to take your pick); at worst, they would be heretical (few would claim they are quite THAT, even if they are not giving the religious submission of mind and will that they owe to the non-infallible Magisterium).

    Get them in and they’re surely no worse and probably BETTER than the denizens of your average “Catholic” school of theology.  Better, probably, because their views are “old-fashioned Traditional”, rather than innovations.