(5) SSPX legal existence [-] legal & valid de facto

SSPX legal existence [-] legal & valid de facto

It has been noted that the diocesan bishops (with a few exceptions, such as at Lourdes, where the SSPX offer regular Masses in one of the churches at the Grotto site) act as though the SSPX were outside the Church. On the other hand, they are not so far outside that the accommodations now extended to other religions can be extended to the SSPX.

Here is the report of a recent talk given by Bp Fellay, Superior General of the SSPX:

http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2010-1031-mccall-fellay.htm

(October 15-17), His Excellency Bishop Bernard Fellay ... characterized the recent history of the relations as a process of saying one thing publicly but having to speak and act differently in practical application. He seemed to be preparing his listeners to expect this ... to continue, at least for the foreseeable future.

With specific references to the Society, Bishop Fellay explained that the Holy See has been pursuing a two-pronged policy – an official de jure policy contradicted by de facto actions. He noted how the official line is embodied in the document released by the Secretary of State after the 2009 decree nullifying the excommunication of the Society’s bishops. According to this unsigned document, the Society does not exist legally and enjoys “no legal standing in the Church”, with the SSPX priests exercising their ministry “illicitly.” Yet, the Holy Father speaks and takes concrete actions that run contrary to this, oftentimes even recognizing the legal and valid existence and ministry of the Society priests.

...

For the non-lawyers among Remnant readers, our mothers and fathers applied this perennial truth through the principle “actions speak louder than words.” Now there has been no legal situation more hotly debated in recent decades than that of the legal standing in the Church of the Society priests and bishops. A quick internet search reveals that the technical legal position is debated by Catholics on virtually all sides of this issue. In such a case, the actions of the Supreme Legislator (the Pope) must be examined in order to guide a sound understanding of the current legal confusion surrounding the issue.

Bishop Fellay demonstrated the application of this “principle of action” in the case of the Society through several examples, most of which have never been previously publicized.

...

In March 2009. As reported in The Remnant at the time, the bishops of Germany were capitalizing on the media’s attempt to sabotage the Holy Father’s lifting of the SSPX decree of excommunication and a [previous] interview of Bishop Williamson (“coincidentally” released on the eve of the announcement of the Holy Father’s historic decision). The Holy See contacted Bishop Fellay to request that the ordinations be moved to another location in order to ease tensions between the Holy See and the German bishops. ...

The Vatican asked Bishop Fellay to move the ordinations out of the jurisdiction of the German bishops. If Bishop Fellay would do so, the Vatican Cardinal bargained, the Society “would be legally recognized until Easter.” This was to cover the two-week period in which the ordinations would occur. Bishop Fellay explained that he had asked the Cardinal why this was being requested since, according to a recent document of the Secretary of State, the SSPX does not “even exist legally.” The Cardinal replied that “the Pope does not believe that.”

As we know, Bishop Fellay did comply with the Vatican request to move the ordinations (demonstrating once again his willingness to obey the Pope). There was a collective gasp in the room when His Excellency told this story.

The discussions that evening including plenty of questions as to whether we had all misheard or misunderstood what His Excellency had said earlier that day: “Did he really mean the Vatican acknowledged the legal existence of the Society for two weeks last March?” [quote]Brian McColl. the author of this article, continues:[quote] When I later spoke personally with His Excellency, I repeated his own words back to him from my notes and asked him if he had misspoken or if I had misheard him. He said “That is what I said, you heard me correctly.” I then asked: “What does that mean, since there is no precedent for such a statement? How can you be legal for two weeks and then illegal again?” He shrugged his shoulders and said that this is what the Cardinal had said.