Saturday, May 26, 2012

SSPX Unification Postponed

Edit: with figures like +Zollitsch, +Koch or +Schoenborn around, it's not surprising there's a postponement from the expected date of Pentecost. 

It just is what it is.

Mary Altar of the Society
Church of St. Joseph in
© Wikipedia-Benützer ‘Bene16’,CC
( Pope Benedict XVI. will only  take care of the dossier "Society of St. Pius" in summer vacation -- therefore after the High Feast of St. Peter and Paul.

This is what Europe's largest Catholic internet site '' has learned from Vatican circles.

Because of the current difficult inner-Church situation that is involved with the reconciliation with the SSPX must be immediately managed before there can be a unification. 

Till now observers originally thought that the Vatican would have made known the reconciliation between the Holy See and the Society of St. Pius X on Pentecost


Asshole said...

That's hardly a postponement. That is well within the time frame that both the SSPX governing council and the Holy See has indicated. We are looking at late June or July. That's exactly what has been expected. Bishop Fellay called an extraordinary general chapter of the SSPX for late JULY, not this month or in June.

I think it terribly scurrilous for you to post this as though things were not moving as originally planned. It is as though everyone's heads are spinning like possessed people. Please just calm down and direct your energies to praying for the full restoration of the Traditional Latin Mass and traditional Catholicism.

Tancred said...

Vatican sources, including Rorate, initially said it would be from mid to late month, and now it's being pushed off to the feast of Peter and Paul.

The source cited above is the very reliable, and their source states that this is a postponement.

Rather than assuming the worst in people's motives, perhaps you should refrain from posting till after Ascensiontide?

Geremia said...

What a fitting feast for the decision! Deo gratias

Asshole said...

How can you postpone something that didn't have a deadline?

I'm not assuming the worst in people's motives; I'm pointing out that this rhetoric agitates, and for that reason it seems irresponsible. ought to reveal exactly who in these Vatican circles are handing them this information, otherwise, its just faceless rumor.

The facts as we know them from the governing council of the SSPX, which everyone already knows, is that there will be an extraordinary general chapter in July (early July, not late July as I wrote above), which indicates that the SSPX wasn't expecting a decision until later. This is exactly what Dr. Robert Moynihan concluded, so I'm not alone in making that obvious connection.

And as for your comment about posting my comment after Ascenstiontide, thank you for the advise, but you aren't my pastor or spiritual director. For that matter, perhaps you, yourself, should have waited until after Ascensiontide to post this? What's good for the goose and all that, you know?

Tancred said...

"How can you postpone something that didn't have a deadline?"

You haven't proven that you know the inner-workings of this process and citing David Moynihan as a source isn't conclusive either.

We've found to be accurate and have learned that their picture of things and people are correct.

Moreover, accusing the blog editor and kreuz of scurrilousness falls under the category of slander.

I may not be your spiritual advisor, but when you accuse me and others of bad will, and do so without any evidence for it, it discredits you and whatever it is you're trying to do.

It makes you look especially bad to my mind because when I point it out, you denying having done it in your next posting.

Tancred said...

David Moynihan was wrong about the Society being in Schism, and he'll probably always be wrong about a great many other things, we're guessing.

He's hardly a source that inspires confidence.

Elizabeth D said...

I was hopeful there would be an announcement today but this is really not surprising or dismaying. It makes sense. I think now that all the bishops have been notified pretty clearly that the Pope intends to regularize the SSPX, now dialogue is needed with the bishops all over the world, and their questions about this answered. Since presumably the canonical arrangement being made with the SSPX is going to allow them to be in whichever dioceses they choose (or else they would not be saying it is acceptable).

Asshole said...

I don't have anything to prove. There never was an announcement that the Holy Father would come to a decision on Whit Sunday. The only proof you've come up with to counter this simple fact was a Rorate Cæli post. That post presented an in-side Vatican rumor that the Holy Father would come to a decision by mid-May. However, that's not what happened in mid-May. What materialized in mid-May was not a decision from the Holy Father, but the assessment of the CDF. A Vatican insider got something wrong. That happens all the time.

I don't need some unethical person in the Vatican leaking me rumors to realize this. I simply looked at the events, the events we all know about, that unfolded during the course of this month.

I'm sorry that you were holding out hope for a May decision, but nothing from any reliable source (including prior to the posting in question!) indicated that the Holy Father would reach and announce a decision by Whit Sunday. (Pentecost didn't fall in mid-May, by the way; it fell in late May.)

Thus, the burden of proof isn't on me, but on Where is a single credible, named source, that believed there would be a decision on Whit Sunday?

Which leads me to the problem I have with the rhetoric used. Why use the word "postponement"? Using the word "postponement" simply doesn't make any sense, whether it comes from the editors or their unnamed sources in the Vatican, unless someone is trying to make the news. How can you fault me for coming to that conclusion? I don't really care who's to blame for the rhetoric at this point, it doesn't change my contention that it was irresponsible.

And it certainly doesn't make me guilty of slander, unless all criticism in your estimation is slander. Or perhaps all criticism of anything you agree with is slander? You are free to disagree with my criticism of, but to accuse me of slander is going a bit far, don't you think?

At any rate, the only person in this discussion who is putting his real name out there is me, so, dear sir, consider first the glass house you are living in before you hurl stones.

This is your blog, you can post what you like. However, it seems a bit unfair to accuse those who read your blog of slander just because they criticize something you presented from I apologize if you misunderstood my criticism as an attack on you. That was not intended.

God bless!

Tancred said...

No, the burden of proof isn't on me. You accused myself and of being scurrilous.

I expect and deserve an apology.

Joaco said...

wow, looks like you were right all from the beginning!