Roman Ratification (Part II): A Priest Responds

Roman Ratification (Part II): A Priest Responds

Immediately after the publishing of our article “Preliminary Thoughts on a Roman Ratification,” we received the following email from a priest who took exception to the “cautious” approach we took.  

He is not a native English speaker, and gave me permission to “smooth out” his English, and I have done so without softening any of his contentions.

Sodalitium Pianum readily admits that his perspective could be 100% correct (and in fact, we thought we had stated that possibility clearly enough in the article itself).

 

Dear Sean,

A few comments about your article, which I found somewhat timid:

1. Fr Bouchacourt says that when a Superior General is elected, the SSPX informs the Vatican.

2. I never heard of such a thing in my 11 years in the SSPX. 

Never once did any of my professors in the seminary, nor any of the Bishops of the FSSPX (nor those of the Resistance) say anything along those lines.

Neither am I aware of any priest, religious, or layman ever saying anything about reporting the elections to Rome.

3. I am a lawyer.  The point would have caught my attention.  If nobody ever talked about it, it means, simply, that it was not done.

This much can be prudently affirmed.

4. Fr Bouchacourt now says publicly that when there is an election “the Vatican is informed.”

That means, at least, that this will be done in this year’s election.

5. If the SSPX now thinks that it is a duty to inform the Vatican about the election, it follows that the Society also considers itself bound to submit to Rome’s decision: Either to ratify or to reject the election.

6. Therefore, the SSPX now puts in the clutches of revolutionary Rome the final decision about the appointment of the supreme authorities of the congregation.

7. But no army puts into the hands of the enemy the final decision regarding who will be its Commander in Chief.

8. This, then, is simply betrayal and madness.

9. But if La Croix lies* [regarding whether or not the SSPX will submit its election results to Rome for ratification -SP] it is the  SSPX which must clarify, not us.

You struck with the sword still sheathed.

God bless you!

Fr. Xxxxxxx

Father is here referencing my observation that it is neither clear nor certain that the words regarding the canonical necessity of Rome ratifying the election results are those of Fr. Bouchacourt (i.e., They were not in quotation marks, as were his words regarding sending notice of the election results to Rome).  Obviously, he believes these were in fact the words of Fr. Bouchacourt (even if paraphrased), and that if they were not, then it is the duty of the SSPX to clarify the matter.  I continue to maintain a duty to hold the matter uncertain, while recognizing Father could in fact be correct. 

print