Author Topic: Bp Fellay sermon in St Thomas Seminary Winona Feb 2 (Read 3072 times)

jman123 · « **on:** February 17, 2012, 12:42:21 PM »

http://www.dici.org/en/news/extract-from-the-sermon-of-bishop-bernard-fellay-superior-general-of-the-sspx-for-the-feast-of-candlemas-february-2nd/

This is proof that Bp Fellay is not selling out to Rome.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #1 on:** February 17, 2012, 04:54:11 PM »

Quote from: jman123

http://www.dici.org/en/news/extract-from-the-sermon-of-bishop-bernard-fellay-superior-general-of-the-sspx-for-the-feast-of-candlemas-february-2nd/

This is proof that Bp Fellay is not selling out to Rome.

I did not receive the same consolation you appear to have taken from this sermon.

It was reported that the meeting of district superiors in Albano had decided to hold to the principles of ABL in its dealings with Rome.

The primary characteristic of which is that there shall be no discussion of a practical solution until the doctrinal issues have been settled.

And according to Bishop Fellay himself, 2 years of doctrinal discussions have produced nothing in the way of doctrinal progress; all the doctrinal issues remain unresolved.

How then can he purport to be faithful to the principles of ABL, when he declares in this sermon that he is ready to take a deal with Rome, so long as there are no strings attached, while all the doctrinal issues remain unresolved?

No longer do we hear of the need for Rome to return to sound doctrine before we will sign a deal.

The tune is different now, and instead of a conversion in Rome, all we hear about is what Rome must give to the SSPX......without itself first converting.

It should be obvious that this is a materially different posture toward Rome than the one ABL laid out.

And Bishop Fellay appears oblivious to the fact that ANY agreement with Rome, while it is still modernist, is itself an attached string: signing an agreement with them removes the public sign of contradiction the SSPX has always been, and puts the nail in the coffin with regard to any hope or incentive of a Roman conversion.

Archbishop Lefebvre would not have been content to represent but one flavor of Catholicism amongst many in a pluralist Catholic Church, hence the requirement of a Roman conversion.

But as mentioned, this is not what we hear in this sermon.

Bishop Fellay has embarked on a different path: ("Securing the rights of tradition in the Church"), while paying lip service to the principles of ABL.

s2srea · « **Reply #2 on:** February 17, 2012, 05:36:29 PM »

A very clean observation Seraphim- thank you.

Francisco · « **Reply #3 on:** February 18, 2012, 09:43:47 AM »

Fr Paul Sretnovic has made some comments on this sermon of Bishop Fellay

http://traditioninaction.org/Questions/B506_Sretenovic.html

Telesphorus · « **Reply #4 on:** February 18, 2012, 10:05:03 AM »

Quote from: Francisco

Fr Paul Sretnovic has made some comments on this sermon of Bishop Fellay

http://traditioninaction.org/Questions/B506_Sretenovic.html

It's another example of practically declaring that outside the SSPX orbit you can't be a legitimate traditional priest.

And then even some sedes will defend them, often using the "don't criticize priests" mantra. Something of course, that only applies to SSPX priests (and now Benedict XVI) in their rhetoric.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #5 on:** February 18, 2012, 10:12:29 AM »

Quote from: Seraphim

Quote from: jman123
http://www.dici.org/en/news/extract-from-the-sermon-of-bishop-bernard-fellay-superior-general-of-the-sspx-for-the-feast-of-candlemas-february-2nd/

This is proof that Bp Fellay is not selling out to Rome.

I did not receive the same consolation you appear to have taken from this sermon.

It was reported that the meeting of district superiors in Albano had decided to hold to the principles of ABL in its dealings with Rome.

The primary characteristic of which is that there shall be no discussion of a practical solution until the doctrinal issues have been settled.

And according to Bishop Fellay himself, 2 years of doctrinal discussions have produced nothing in the way of doctrinal progress; all the doctrinal issues remain unresolved.

How then can he purport to be faithful to the principles of ABL, when he declares in this sermon that he is ready to take a deal with Rome, so long as there are no strings attached, while all the doctrinal issues remain unresolved?

No longer do we hear of the need for Rome to return to sound doctrine before we will sign a deal.

The tune is different now, and instead of a conversion in Rome, all we hear about is what Rome must give to the SSPX......without itself first converting.

It should be obvious that this is a materially different posture toward Rome than the one ABL laid out.

And Bishop Fellay appears oblivious to the fact that ANY agreement with Rome, while it is still modernist, is itself an attached string: signing an agreement with them removes the public sign of contradiction the SSPX has always been, and puts the nail in the coffin with regard to any hope or incentive of a Roman conversion.

Archbishop Lefebvre would not have been content to represent but one flavor of Catholicism amongst many in a pluralist Catholic Church, hence the requirement of a Roman conversion.

But as mentioned, this is not what we hear in this sermon.

Bishop Fellay has embarked on a different path: ("Securing the rights of tradition in the Church"), while paying lip service to the principles of ABL.

This is why I liked reading your posts at AQ. :applause:

Caminus · « **Reply #6 on:** February 18, 2012, 11:15:32 PM »

Quote from: Seraphim

Quote from: jman123
http://www.dici.org/en/news/extract-from-the-sermon-of-bishop-bernard-fellay-superior-general-of-the-sspx-for-the-feast-of-candlemas-february-2nd/

This is proof that Bp Fellay is not selling out to Rome.

I did not receive the same consolation you appear to have taken from this sermon.

It was reported that the meeting of district superiors in Albano had decided to hold to the principles of ABL in its dealings with Rome.

The primary characteristic of which is that there shall be no discussion of a practical solution until the doctrinal issues have been settled.

And according to Bishop Fellay himself, 2 years of doctrinal discussions have produced nothing in the way of doctrinal progress; all the doctrinal issues remain unresolved.

How then can he purport to be faithful to the principles of ABL, when he declares in this sermon that he is ready to take a deal with Rome, so long as there are no strings attached, while all the doctrinal issues remain unresolved?

No longer do we hear of the need for Rome to return to sound doctrine before we will sign a deal.

The tune is different now, and instead of a conversion in Rome, all we hear about is what Rome must give to the SSPX......without itself first converting.

It should be obvious that this is a materially different posture toward Rome than the one ABL laid out.

And Bishop Fellay appears oblivious to the fact that ANY agreement with Rome, while it is still modernist, is itself an attached string: signing an agreement with them removes the public sign of contradiction the SSPX has always been, and puts the nail in the coffin with regard to any hope or incentive of a Roman conversion.

Archbishop Lefebvre would not have been content to represent but one flavor of Catholicism amongst many in a pluralist Catholic Church, hence the requirement of a Roman conversion.

But as mentioned, this is not what we hear in this sermon.

Bishop Fellay has embarked on a different path: ("Securing the rights of tradition in the Church"), while paying lip service to the principles of ABL.

Please cite ABL's dogmatic principles viz. Rome. Was he not engaged in dialogue with Rome to attain a practical solution? Certainly he would have signed the agreement in 1988 were Rome to give him a 'no stings attached' prelature. And I believe ABL used the term the "experiment of tradition" as well, not in a relativizing manner, but as a means to use their own principles against them. Diplomacy and prudence do not admit of hardlines and ABL was wise enough to understand this. It would simply be unrealistic to wait for "Rome" to "convert" to tradition. If that were the case, then there would be no need for an agreement or practical solution at all. The saying itself is a bit hyperbolic; it is an interesting, but unhelpful statement. For there are both Catholics and Modernists in Rome and everything in between.

John Grace · « **Reply #7 on:** February 19, 2012, 05:42:35 AM »

To turn to topic of Fr Schmidberger.
"In response to the embarrassing statements made by the bishop of the Lefebvrians, Richard Williamson, Schmidberger said: “I am not a prophet, but I think that during the debate about the canonical structure for the Society, which will certainly not be completed in just one session, those who will take part will speak with Bishop Williamson. What can certainly be expected of him is that he will obey the instructions of his superior general.”

He,Bishop Fellay and others want Bishop Williamson out of the Society. I'm inclined to believe that Bishop Fellay won't be Superior General for much longer.

http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/homepage/inquiries-and-interviews/detail/articolo/lefebvriani-lefebvrians-lefebvrianos-12635/

Quote

Lefebvrians say preamble is not acceptable as they eagerly wait for a response from Rome

In an interview with “Die Welt”, Abbot Franz Schmidberger, Lefebvre’s first successor, said “If Rome is asking us to accept the entire Council, unconditionally, I see no possibility for reconciliation”

ANDREA TORNIELLI
VATICAN CITY
In a homily pronounced during his recent visit to the United States, Bishop Bernard Fellay, Superior General of the Society of Saint Pius X declared that the “Doctrinal Preamble” proposed by the Holy See to the Lefebvrians, could not be signed in its current form. This statement, which did not signify an end to the Society’s dialogue with the Holy See, is now being reiterated and clarified even further by the abbot Franz Schmidberger, who was Archbishop Marcel lefebvre’s first successor as well as acting as a go-between in Vatican- Lefebvrian relations. In a long interview with Vatican correspondent Paul Badde, published by the German newspaper Die Welt on 13 February, the abbot confirmed that the Lefebvrians are not prepared to reconcile with the Pope “at any price”.

Schmidberger explained that “On 14 September 2011, Cardinal Levada presented Mgr. Fellay with a “Doctrinal Preamble”, the acceptance of which is the condition for canonical recognition of the Society. We consulted at length on the text and reached the conclusion that it is not acceptable.” The abbot added that he delivered Fellay’s response again, in person, to Rome on 1 December and – upon the Vatican’s request – sent another note clarifying the original response. “We are now eagerly awaiting a reply from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.”

In response to the embarrassing statements made by the bishop of the Lefebvrians, Richard Williamson, Schmidberger said: “I am not a prophet, but I think that during the debate about the canonical structure for the Society, which will certainly not be completed in just one session, those who will take part will speak with Bishop Williamson. What can certainly be expected of him is that he will obey the instructions of his superior general.”

The first successor to Lefebvre stated that the Society’s founder himself had been very clear about the fact that “the current ecuмenism characterised by religious relativism and religious freedom which gave rise to today’s secularism, and collegiality, which completely paralyses Church life, is unacceptable to us.” And he said these problems still exist today.

On the crucial theme of religious freedom, Schmidberger says: “Religious freedom is not, above all, a question of practice but of doctrine. The Popes’ condemnation of religious freedom has never intended to force others to accept Catholic religion, but has implied that a state in which the majority of the population is Catholic, should recognise that the Catholic religion is the one revealed by God. At the same time, it can of course tolerate other religions and confessions and make this tolerance part of civil law.” But, he added, “Error never has a natural right.”

Replying to a question on the risks of a permanent separation from Rome, the abbot said: “An emergency is an emergency; it is abnormal and aspires to normalization. But how can we reach an agreement with meetings such as the gathering in Assisi, which implicitly (not explicitly!) sustain that all religions constitute paths to salvation? We are definitely suffering in the situation we are in, but we are suffering even more as a result of this religious indifferentism that leads an infinite number of souls towards perdition.”

In terms of the dissent and protests that the Northern European Churches are experiencing, Schmidberger said: “The Society will be a huge support to the Pope when it comes to healing the latent schism that is present everywhere in Europe as a result of forces trying to break free from the central authority, as is happening in Austria for example.” The Church’s problem “is not the Society, but modernist theologians and the collapse of Church life since the Council.”

So on what conditions would the Lefebvrians sign an agreement with the Holy See?
“If Rome’s leaders do not ask for something that is contrary to the traditional teaching and practice of the Church, in order to grant us canonical recognition, there will be no problem in the regularization going ahead.If, however, Rome asks us to accept the entire Council unconditionally, I see no possibility for a reconciliation.”

One can therefore assume that the version of the Doctrinal Preamble presented by Rome to the Society of Saint Pius X, which remains unpublished, contains passages regarding the Council and Lefebvrians claim they cannot sign the docuмent, despite manifesting their wish for canonical regularisation and their entry into full communion with the Pope. Now is is the Holy See that will have to decide on what response to give to the Lefebvrians’ negative reply, delivered on 14 September.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #8 on:** February 19, 2012, 06:09:35 AM »

Quote from: Caminus

Quote from: Seraphim
Quote from: jman123
http://www.dici.org/en/news/extract-from-the-sermon-of-bishop-bernard-fellay-superior-general-of-the-sspx-for-the-feast-of-candlemas-february-2nd/

This is proof that Bp Fellay is not selling out to Rome.

I did not receive the same consolation you appear to have taken from this sermon.

It was reported that the meeting of district superiors in Albano had decided to hold to the principles of ABL in its dealings with Rome.

The primary characteristic of which is that there shall be no discussion of a practical solution until the doctrinal issues have been settled.

And according to Bishop Fellay himself, 2 years of doctrinal discussions have produced nothing in the way of doctrinal progress; all the doctrinal issues remain unresolved.

How then can he purport to be faithful to the principles of ABL, when he declares in this sermon that he is ready to take a deal with Rome, so long as there are no strings attached, while all the doctrinal issues remain unresolved?

No longer do we hear of the need for Rome to return to sound doctrine before we will sign a deal.

The tune is different now, and instead of a conversion in Rome, all we hear about is what Rome must give to the SSPX......without itself first converting.

It should be obvious that this is a materially different posture toward Rome than the one ABL laid out.

And Bishop Fellay appears oblivious to the fact that ANY agreement with Rome, while it is still modernist, is itself an attached string: signing an agreement with them removes the public sign of contradiction the SSPX has always been, and puts the nail in the coffin with regard to any hope or incentive of a Roman conversion.

Archbishop Lefebvre would not have been content to represent but one flavor of Catholicism amongst many in a pluralist Catholic Church, hence the requirement of a Roman conversion.

But as mentioned, this is not what we hear in this sermon.

Bishop Fellay has embarked on a different path: ("Securing the rights of tradition in the Church"), while paying lip service to the principles of ABL.

Please cite ABL's dogmatic principles viz. Rome. Was he not engaged in dialogue with Rome to attain a practical solution? Certainly he would have signed the agreement in 1988 were Rome to give him a 'no stings attached' prelature. And I believe ABL used the term the "experiment of tradition" as well, not in a relativizing manner, but as a means to use their own principles against them. Diplomacy and prudence do not admit of hardlines and ABL was wise enough to understand this. It would simply be unrealistic to wait for "Rome" to "convert" to tradition. If that were the case, then there would be no need for an agreement or practical solution at all. The saying itself is a bit hyperbolic; it is an interesting, but unhelpful statement. For there are both Catholics and Modernists in Rome and everything in between.

Oh geez, seriously?

You are actually challenging me to provide a citation from ABL saying there will be no practical solution without first settling the doctrinal issues?

This is news to you?

Sigh.....

You never heard ABL repudiated the agreement he signed, and came out with the aforementioned principle?

I am tempted to think you are just working me, the citations are so numerous and oft-quoted.

Sigh......

Give me until the kids go to bed tonight, and I will give you all the cites you want.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #9 on:** February 19, 2012, 12:36:57 PM »

Quote from: Caminus

It would simply be unrealistic to wait for "Rome" to "convert" to tradition.

Which is precisely why there should be no "reconciliation" to begin with.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #10 on:** February 19, 2012, 02:32:27 PM »

Quote from: Caminus

Quote from: Seraphim
Quote from: jman123
http://www.dici.org/en/news/extract-from-the-sermon-of-bishop-bernard-fellay-superior-general-of-the-sspx-for-the-feast-of-candlemas-february-2nd/

This is proof that Bp Fellay is not selling out to Rome.

I did not receive the same consolation you appear to have taken from this sermon.

It was reported that the meeting of district superiors in Albano had decided to hold to the principles of ABL in its dealings with Rome.

The primary characteristic of which is that there shall be no discussion of a practical solution until the doctrinal issues have been settled.

And according to Bishop Fellay himself, 2 years of doctrinal discussions have produced nothing in the way of doctrinal progress; all the doctrinal issues remain unresolved.

How then can he purport to be faithful to the principles of ABL, when he declares in this sermon that he is ready to take a deal with Rome, so long as there are no strings attached, while all the doctrinal issues remain unresolved?

No longer do we hear of the need for Rome to return to sound doctrine before we will sign a deal.

The tune is different now, and instead of a conversion in Rome, all we hear about is what Rome must give to the SSPX......without itself first converting.

It should be obvious that this is a materially different posture toward Rome than the one ABL laid out.

And Bishop Fellay appears oblivious to the fact that ANY agreement with Rome, while it is still modernist, is itself an attached string: signing an agreement with them removes the public sign of contradiction the SSPX has always been, and puts the nail in the coffin with regard to any hope or incentive of a Roman conversion.

Archbishop Lefebvre would not have been content to represent but one flavor of Catholicism amongst many in a pluralist Catholic Church, hence the requirement of a Roman conversion.

But as mentioned, this is not what we hear in this sermon.

Bishop Fellay has embarked on a different path: ("Securing the rights of tradition in the Church"), while paying lip service to the principles of ABL.

Please cite ABL's dogmatic principles viz. Rome. Was he not engaged in dialogue with Rome to attain a practical solution? Certainly he would have signed the agreement in 1988 were Rome to give him a 'no stings attached' prelature. And I believe ABL used the term the "experiment of tradition" as well, not in a relativizing manner, but as a means to use their own principles against them. Diplomacy and prudence do not admit of hardlines and ABL was wise enough to understand this. It would simply be unrealistic to wait for "Rome" to "convert" to tradition. If that were the case, then there would be no need for an agreement or practical solution at all. The saying itself is a bit hyperbolic; it is an interesting, but unhelpful statement. For there are both Catholics and Modernists in Rome and everything in between.

This citation will refute your whole paragraph:

Interview in Fideliter Magazine (November - December, 1988):

Interviewer:
"What do you think about the possible re-opening of dialogue with Rome?"

Archbishop Lefebvre:
"Supposing that Rome calls for a renewed dialogue...I will place the discussion at the doctrinal level...If you do not accept the doctrine of your predecessors, then it is useless to talk! As long as you do not accept the correction of the Council, in consideration of the doctrine of these Popes, no dialogue is possible. It is useless."

Cited in "Archbishop Lefebvre and the Vatican," by Fr. Francois Laisney, (pp. 223-4).

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #11 on:** February 19, 2012, 02:38:31 PM »

Quote from: Seraphim

Quote from: Caminus
Quote from: Seraphim
Quote from: jman123
http://www.dici.org/en/news/extract-from-the-sermon-of-bishop-bernard-fellay-superior-general-of-the-sspx-for-the-feast-of-candlemas-february-2nd/

This is proof that Bp Fellay is not selling out to Rome.

I did not receive the same consolation you appear to have taken from this sermon.

It was reported that the meeting of district superiors in Albano had decided to hold to the principles of ABL in its dealings with Rome.

The primary characteristic of which is that there shall be no discussion of a practical solution until the doctrinal issues have been settled.

And according to Bishop Fellay himself, 2 years of doctrinal discussions have produced nothing in the way of doctrinal progress; all the doctrinal issues remain unresolved.

How then can he purport to be faithful to the principles of ABL, when he declares in this sermon that he is ready to take a deal with Rome, so long as there are no strings attached, while all the doctrinal issues remain unresolved?

No longer do we hear of the need for Rome to return to sound doctrine before we will sign a deal.

The tune is different now, and instead of a conversion in Rome, all we hear about is what Rome must give to the SSPX......without itself first converting.

It should be obvious that this is a materially different posture toward Rome than the one ABL laid out.

And Bishop Fellay appears oblivious to the fact that ANY agreement with Rome, while it is still modernist, is itself an attached string: signing an agreement with them removes the public sign of contradiction the SSPX has always been, and puts the nail in the coffin with regard to any hope or incentive of a Roman conversion.

Archbishop Lefebvre would not have been content to represent but one flavor of Catholicism amongst many in a pluralist Catholic Church, hence the requirement of a Roman conversion.

But as mentioned, this is not what we hear in this sermon.

Bishop Fellay has embarked on a different path: ("Securing the rights of tradition in the Church"), while paying lip service to the principles of ABL.

Please cite ABL's dogmatic principles viz. Rome. Was he not engaged in dialogue with Rome to attain a practical solution? Certainly he would have signed the agreement in 1988 were Rome to give him a 'no stings attached' prelature. And I believe ABL used the term the "experiment of tradition" as well, not in a relativizing manner, but as a means to use their own principles against them. Diplomacy and prudence do not admit of hardlines and ABL was wise enough to understand this. It would simply be unrealistic to wait for "Rome" to "convert" to tradition. If that were the case, then there would be no need for an agreement or practical solution at all. The saying itself is a bit hyperbolic; it is an interesting, but unhelpful statement. For there are both Catholics and Modernists in Rome and everything in between.

This citation will refute your whole paragraph:

Interview in Fideliter Magazine (November - December, 1988):

Interviewer:
"What do you think about the possible re-opening of dialogue with Rome?"

Archbishop Lefebvre:
"Supposing that Rome calls for a renewed dialogue...I will place the discussion at the doctrinal level...If you do not accept the doctrine of your predecessors, then it is useless to talk! As long as you do not accept the correction of the Council, in consideration of the doctrine of these Popes, no dialogue is possible. It is useless."

Cited in "Archbishop Lefebvre and the Vatican," by Fr. Francois Laisney, (pp. 223-4).

Compare that to Bishop Fellays position/principles, and tell me they are the same?

Caminus · « **Reply #12 on:** February 19, 2012, 08:35:00 PM »

Quote

It was reported that the meeting of district superiors in Albano had decided to hold to the principles of ABL in its dealings with Rome.

What "principles"? You cited none, but a statement that doctrinal discussions would be desireable if Rome were to renew dialogue. That is exactly what has happened.

Quote

The primary characteristic of which is that there shall be no discussion of a practical solution until the doctrinal issues have been settled.

I think you've added a condition that no one in the SSPX has ever stated.

Quote

And according to Bishop Fellay himself, 2 years of doctrinal discussions have produced nothing in the way of doctrinal progress; all the doctrinal issues remain unresolved.

This is to be expected, unless you're hoping for a miracle, which is not necessary nor prudent. As I said, it is unrealistic to demand that they all see our points and assent prior to juridical discussion.

Quote

How then can he purport to be faithful to the principles of ABL, when he declares in this sermon that he is ready to take a deal with Rome, so long as there are no strings attached, while all the doctrinal issues remain unresolved?

This doesn't follow at all unless one concedes your fabricated, undefined condition.

Quote

No longer do we hear of the need for Rome to return to sound doctrine before we will sign a deal.

Rome doesn't need to return to sound doctrine prior to a juridical agreement. I'm not sure where you've been hearing that in the first place.

Quote

The tune is different now, and instead of a conversion in Rome, all we hear about is what Rome must give to the SSPX......without itself first converting.

The tune is different because you're playing your own melody.

Quote

It should be obvious that this is a materially different posture toward Rome than the one ABL laid out.

It's not obvious at all.

Quote

And Bishop Fellay appears oblivious to the fact that ANY agreement with Rome, while it is still modernist, is itself an attached string: signing an agreement with them removes the public sign of contradiction the SSPX has always been, and puts the nail in the coffin with regard to any hope or incentive of a Roman conversion.

This problem exists in your own mind. A juridical recognition will be a great boon for the rest of the dying Church. Such recognition will not change the mission or the teaching of the SSPX viz. the Council and modern errors. That is what separates them from the FSSP, an organization that remains silent regarding these matters and thus amount to half-priests.

Quote

Archbishop Lefebvre would not have been content to represent but one flavor of Catholicism amongst many in a pluralist Catholic Church, hence the requirement of a Roman conversion.

"We are thus quite decided to continue our work of the restoration of the Catholic priesthood whatever happens, convinced that we can render no better service to the Church, to the pope, to the bishops and to the faithful. Let them allow us to experiment with tradition." -- Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.

Quote

Please cite ABL's dogmatic principles viz. Rome. Was he not engaged in dialogue with Rome to attain a practical solution? Certainly he would have signed the agreement in 1988 were Rome to give him a 'no stings attached' prelature. And I believe ABL used the term the "experiment of tradition" as well, not in a relativizing manner, but as a means to use their own principles against them. Diplomacy and prudence do not admit of hardlines and ABL was wise enough to understand this. It would simply be unrealistic to wait for "Rome" to "convert" to tradition. If that were the case, then there would be no need for an agreement or practical solution at all. The saying itself is a bit hyperbolic; it is an interesting, but unhelpful statement. For there are both Catholics and Modernists in Rome and everything in between.

Quote

This citation will refute your whole paragraph:

Interview in Fideliter Magazine (November - December, 1988):

Interviewer:
"What do you think about the possible re-opening of dialogue with Rome?"

Archbishop Lefebvre:
"Supposing that Rome calls for a renewed dialogue...I will place the discussion at the doctrinal level...If you do not accept the doctrine of your predecessors, then it is useless to talk! As long as you do not accept the correction of the Council, in consideration of the doctrine of these Popes, no dialogue is possible. It is useless."

I don't see how it refutes my "whole paragraph" at all. This kind of attitude reminds me of certain neo-cons who think they detect inconsistency in the actions of ABL himself.

The fact is that for several years prior to 1988 he was open to a juridical solution and was even prepared to sign a protocol had they simply allowed him to appoint a single bishop to oversee his fraternity. Outside of that, there are no precise "principles" laid out by ABL.

I think the SSPX synthesized his spirit and mission in the following three pointed goal:

1. To "free" the old Mass.
2. To lift the "excommunications"
3. To engage in doctrinal discussion

There is nothing in ABL's writings that wouuld suggest that he demanded a complete "conversion" of all Roman authorities prior to accepting a juridical solution. Indeed, that would be a practically impossible condition to fulfill or even ascertain. The judgment of the SSPX is not dependent upon such subjective criteria. In light of his historical disposition, I see no reason to believe that he would not have accepted a simple juridical recognition with no strings attached. Indeed, I think that he would have been delighted.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #13 on:** February 19, 2012, 08:49:31 PM »

Quote from: Caminus

As I said, it is unrealistic to demand that they all see our points and assent prior to juridical discussion.

And as I said, why should there be any "reconciliation" with apostates? Is Bishop Williamson wrong to not go along with the "reconciliation"? I'd appreciate your thoughts on that matter.

Quote

There is nothing in ABL's writings that wouuld suggest that he demanded a complete "conversion" of all Roman authorities prior to accepting a juridical solution.

There was one quote from ABL where he specifically said a reconciliation with Rome would not happen until Rome converted first, I wish I could find it. In the meantime, here is part of a good sermon from the Archbishop in 1978 in which he seems to express their conversion is mandatory.

Quote

They talk to us of obedience. We wish to and we try to obey more and more every day the Church of all time founded by Jesus Christ, Son of God and Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity but we refuse to obey Masonry with its promotion of liturgical reform resulting in the “naturalization of the Incarnation.” The effects of the liturgical reforms are every day more clear and obvious to all. The ecuмenical Mass leads logically to apostasy. One cannot serve two masters. One cannot nourish oneself indifferently with truth and error because error with its evil tendencies will triumph over the more austere and demanding truth.

Another consequence one is apt to forget is the destruction of Catholic States. This is being done with the active collaboration of the Vatican. The Mass no longer represents the source of political unity based on the unity of the Catholic Faith. Thus, the Catholic State becomes an ecuмenical and pluralistic State, then it soon becomes a neutral if not atheistic State in accordance with the Conciliar docuмent on Religious Freedom.

Ecuмenical liturgy, ecuмenical Bibles, ecuмenical catechisms are indeed a device of the Devil because they cover error with a certain amount of truth.

Econe is an obstacle to those who wish to destroy the Mass and the Catholic priesthood. We are convinced insofar as we ordain priests whose spiritual life is modeled on that of Our Lord Jesus Christ that we are serving the Church and acting for the glory of God. We remind those that maintain that we are distancing ourselves from the Church that each of the faithful has the duty of not obeying orders contrary to the Faith. The obedience to ecclesiastical superiors finds a limit, in fact, when something harmful or clearly damaging is proposed or ordered in the name of obedience. He who remains faithful to the Catholic dispositions and institutions tested by centuries renders himself supremely worthy of the Church.

The accusation of separation and of schism made against us because we refuse to participate in the protestantization of the Church is ridiculous! It is, however, deserved by those who foment that same protestantization. Among them are those who have for a long time fallen away from the Catholic Faith and yet, in common with all the heretics of history, work to try to make the Church become like them and conform to their ideas. We cannot understand how intelligent people can state that they “prefer to err with the Pope rather than to be with truth against the Pope.”

If one day they shall excommunicate us because we remain faithful to these theses we shall consider ourselves excommunicated by Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ. Our consolation will be that we remain in the company of God and of all the martyrs who have given their lives to keep the Faith.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #14 on:** February 20, 2012, 06:16:06 AM »

Quote from: Caminus

Quote
It was reported that the meeting of district superiors in Albano had decided to hold to the principles of ABL in its dealings with Rome.

What "principles"? You cited none, but a statement that doctrinal discussions would be desireable if Rome were to renew dialogue. That is exactly what has happened.

Quote
The primary characteristic of which is that there shall be no discussion of a practical solution until the doctrinal issues have been settled.

I think you've added a condition that no one in the SSPX has ever stated.

Quote
And according to Bishop Fellay himself, 2 years of doctrinal discussions have produced nothing in the way of doctrinal progress; all the doctrinal issues remain unresolved.

This is to be expected, unless you're hoping for a miracle, which is not necessary nor prudent. As I said, it is unrealistic to demand that they all see our points and assent prior to juridical discussion.

Quote
How then can he purport to be faithful to the principles of ABL, when he declares in this sermon that he is ready to take a deal with Rome, so long as there are no strings attached, while all the doctrinal issues remain unresolved?

This doesn't follow at all unless one concedes your fabricated, undefined condition.

Quote
No longer do we hear of the need for Rome to return to sound doctrine before we will sign a deal.

Rome doesn't need to return to sound doctrine prior to a juridical agreement. I'm not sure where you've been hearing that in the first place.

I just quoted the principles by which, after the consecrations, ABL declared would guide the SSPX in any resumption of talks with Rome.

You choose to ignore it, and say his quoted words do not amount to a principle?

Have it your way, but any further discussion between us on the matter, then, would appear to be pointless.

Have a good day.

Quote
The tune is different now, and instead of a conversion in Rome, all we hear about is what Rome must give to the SSPX......without itself first converting.

The tune is different because you're playing your own melody.

Quote
It should be obvious that this is a materially different posture toward Rome than the one ABL laid out.

It's not obvious at all.

Quote
And Bishop Fellay appears oblivious to the fact that ANY agreement with Rome, while it is still modernist, is itself an attached string: signing an agreement with them removes the public sign of contradiction the SSPX has always been, and puts the nail in the coffin with regard to any hope or incentive of a Roman conversion.

This problem exists in your own mind. A juridical recognition will be a great boon for the rest of the dying Church. Such recognition will not change the mission or the teaching of the SSPX viz. the Council and modern errors. That is what separates them from the FSSP, an organization that remains silent regarding these matters and thus amount to half-priests.

Quote
Archbishop Lefebvre would not have been content to represent but one flavor of Catholicism amongst many in a pluralist Catholic Church, hence the requirement of a Roman conversion.

"We are thus quite decided to continue our work of the restoration of the Catholic priesthood whatever happens, convinced that we can render no better service to the Church, to the pope, to the bishops and to the faithful. Let them allow us to experiment with tradition." -- Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.

Quote
Please cite ABL's dogmatic principles viz. Rome. Was he not engaged in dialogue with Rome to attain a practical solution? Certainly he would have signed the agreement in 1988 were Rome to give him a 'no stings attached' prelature. And I believe ABL used the term the "experiment of tradition" as well, not in a relativizing manner, but as a means to use their own principles against them. Diplomacy and prudence do not admit of hardlines and ABL was wise enough to understand this. It would simply be unrealistic to wait for "Rome" to "convert" to tradition. If that were the case, then there would be no need for an agreement or practical solution at all. The saying itself is a bit hyperbolic; it is an interesting, but unhelpful statement. For there are both Catholics and Modernists in Rome and everything in between.

Quote
This citation will refute your whole paragraph:

Interview in Fideliter Magazine (November - December, 1988):

Interviewer:
"What do you think about the possible re-opening of dialogue with Rome?"

Archbishop Lefebvre:
"Supposing that Rome calls for a renewed dialogue...I will place the discussion at the doctrinal level...If you do not accept the doctrine of your predecessors, then it is useless to talk! As long as you do not accept the correction of the Council, in consideration of the doctrine of these Popes, no dialogue is possible. It is useless."

I don't see how it refutes my "whole paragraph" at all. This kind of attitude reminds me of certain neo-cons who think they detect inconsistency in the actions of ABL himself.

The fact is that for several years prior to 1988 he was open to a juridical solution and was even prepared to sign a protocol had they simply allowed him to appoint a single bishop to oversee his fraternity. Outside of that, there are no precise "principles" laid out by ABL.

I think the SSPX synthesized his spirit and mission in the following three pointed goal:

1. To "free" the old Mass.
2. To lift the "excommunications"
3. To engage in doctrinal discussion

There is nothing in ABL's writings that wouuld suggest that he demanded a complete "conversion" of all Roman authorities prior to accepting a juridical solution. Indeed, that would be a practically impossible condition to fulfill or even ascertain. The judgment of the SSPX is not dependent upon such subjective criteria. In light of his historical disposition, I see no reason to believe that he would not have accepted a simple juridical recognition with no strings attached. Indeed, I think that he would have been delighted.