Do the Germans have any information for us?

Reading from the pulpit of all the Churches and Chapels of the German District of the Society of St. Pius X. As translated from District website:

Dear Faithful,

On the 16th of March Cardinal Levada, Prefect of the Congregation for Doctrine and the Faith, presented a letter with clarifications in Rome, to the General Superior of the Society, Bishop Fellay, in which we will be called upon, to give a final affirmation of the Doctrinal Preamble of September 14th, as it has happened till now.

The final deadline for an answer is going to be April 15th, 2012. Certainly you have surely already learned this partly in the media. We are therefore arriving at a decisive point.

If the letter also has struck an objectionable tone, yet it indeed gives justifiable hopes for a peaceful solution. In case this situations happens, it would strengthen all of the important protective powers in the Church; in the other case, these would be significantly weakened and demoralized. Therefore, what is uppermost is not our Society, rather the health of the Church.

For this reason we ask the fervent, persistent and beseeching prayers from all of our faithful and all Catholics, so that God, through the salvific sufferings of his only begotten son, lead His Church from Her crisis, and give her in the holy resurrection of Jesus new life, new strength and flowering.

Stuttgart, 22 March 2012

Father Franz Schmidberger, District Superior

http://eponymousflower.blogspot.com/2012/03/sspx-germany-letter-holds-out.html

Reading from the pulpit of all the Churches and Chapels of the German District of the Society of St. Pius X. As translated from District website:

Dear Faithful,

On the 16th of March Cardinal Levada, Prefect of the Congregation for Doctrine and the Faith, presented a letter with clarifications in Rome, to the General Superior of the Society, Bishop Fellay, in which we will be called upon, to give a final affirmation of the Doctrinal Preamble of September 14th, as it has happened till now.

The final deadline for an answer is going to be April 15th, 2012. Certainly you have surely already learned this partly in the media. We are therefore arriving at a decisive point.

If the letter also has struck an objectionable tone, yet it indeed gives justifiable hopes for a peaceful solution. In case this situations happens, it would strengthen all of the important protective powers in the Church; in the other case, these would be significantly weakened and demoralized. Therefore, what is uppermost is not our Society, rather the health of the Church.

For this reason we ask the fervent, persistent and beseeching prayers from all of our faithful and all Catholics, so that God, through the salvific sufferings of his only begotten son, lead His Church from Her crisis, and give her in the holy resurrection of Jesus new life, new strength and flowering.

Stuttgart, 22 March 2012

Father Franz Schmidberger, District Superior

http://eponymousflower.blogspot.com/2012/03/sspx-germany-letter-holds-out.html

   So, Fr. Schmidberger here confirm that Bishop Fellay is looking for a "peaceful solution?"

   Is that the big news?

   That Bishop Fellay's readiness to taker a deal with Rome (as per his Feb 2 admission at St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary sermon) is reaffirmed here by Fr. Schmidberger?

   Despite the fact that none of the doctrinal issues are resolved?

 

What's new here is that despite the unpleasant tone of the letter demanding an answer by April, that there is a reasonable hope of reconciliation.

No one's saying anything about whether or not the Society will sign a docuмent forbidding them from criticizing a Pastoral Council.

There are already man within the Church criticizing the Council, and the most fervent advocates of the Council don't even abide by it, so it would be ridiculous to demand that the SSPX abide by it, wouldn't it?

   Which is tantamount to saying that "there is reasonable hope of signing a practical solution, despite the fact that all the doctrinal issues remain."

   And a reaffirmation that the utterance of Bishop Fellay on Feb 2 was no mere spontaneous mis-speak, with regard to his willingness to take a Roman deal.

   Which is a betrayal of the principles of Archbishop Lefebvre.

   And an open divergence from the path he left the SSPX.

   "Campos should serve as a lesson to us." -Bishop Fellay (2002)

Quote from: Seraphim

Quote from: Augstine Baker

What's new here is that despite the unpleasant tone of the letter demanding an answer by April, that there is a reasonable hope of reconciliation.

No one's saying anything about whether or not the Society will sign a docuмent forbidding them from criticizing a Pastoral Council.

There are already man within the Church criticizing the Council, and the most fervent advocates of the Council don't even abide by it, so it would be ridiculous to demand that the SSPX abide by it, wouldn't it?

   Which is tantamount to saying that "there is reasonable hope of signing a practical solution, despite the fact that all the doctrinal issues remain."

   And a reaffirmation that the utterance of Bishop Fellay on Feb 2 was no mere spontaneous mis-speak, with regard to his willingness to take a Roman deal.

   Which is a betrayal of the principles of Archbishop Lefebvre.

   And an open divergence from the path he left the SSPX.

   "Campos should serve as a lesson to us." -Bishop Fellay (2002)

It is what it is.  This is another trial balloon and the SSPX is trying to build consensus among those under its care, while also asking for everyone to pray.

   Agreed.

   The parishioners need to keep their wits about them, and not be misdirected:

   The issue is not "what can the SSPX get from Rome," as Bishop Fellay seems to want to frame the conversation.

   The issue is how can the SSPX preserve the priesthood, sacraments, and doctrine until Rome comes back to the Faith.

   The status quo preserves this mission.

   A deal, while Rome is still modernist, puts it in jeopardy.

   For that reason, ABL required a settling of doctrinal issues before discussing the practical/canonical.

   

As I suspected, a deal was apparently already struck when BF talked to Levada for two hours. The Roman "ultimatum" is all theater to placate the left. They want it to appear as if the Society caved to save face. In reality, Rome is desperate and probably agreed to give away the store to get the Society "in." That's my take. The deal is done. This is all theater to placate the Pope's critics. I'd be shocked if the Society isn't "regularized" on April 15.

If the Society was planning to reject Rome's offer, this letter would be ratcheting up the rhetoric rather than building hope. It's a preparatory letter signaling "get ready."

Which is a betrayal of the principles of Archbishop Lefebvre.

You keep repeating this calumny ad nauseum, but fail to demonstrate how precisely this "betrayal" has come about.  Would you care to show us how one could remain "faithful" to the "principles" of ABL?  Would you care to tell us how a "doctrinal resolution" will be effected?  Do the "principles" of ABL delve into such detail?  Where might I find these principles laid out; your former (single!) citation was a bit ambiguous.  If you intend to carry on like this, at least be a little more specific.  What would such a resolution look like on a practical level?  What would happen after that?  Which doctrines must be resolved in order for the SSPX to even speak with the Pope?  

Do you even comprehend the notion of the greater common good of the Church?  It seems your entire frame of reference for supporting the SSPX is their relations with Rome as if this had anything to do with the Faith as it is preserved at your chapel.  Do you now expect Catholics to go beyond the faith and determine their course of action based upon the presence or absence of legal recognition?  That they must hand-wring and conjecture about events that have yet to take place all the while pretending that said events will determine where one goes to Mass?  I think it's safe to say that such a notion is certainly foreign to the "principles" of ABL.   This is merely your opinion my friend and a very ill-formed one at that.  If you think so little of the SSPX and its priests, why don't you find another place to go?  Of course, your direction will not be based on anything remotely relating to the Faith, but rather whether your opinion is satisfied regarding issues that shouldn't even concern you.  

If the day comes when the SSPX priests start perverting the faith, at your chapel, then you will have to find another place to go, until then you are simply flirting with a Protestant mentality of the Church.