Author Topic: Father Bouchacourts letter to his priests  (Read 1206 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Cristera

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 172
  • Reputation: +378/-1
  • Gender: Female
Father Bouchacourts letter to his priests
« on: November 07, 2011, 10:31:41 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I have just heard from a very well connected laywoman that not only have Padres  Schmidberger, Rostand and Morgan, and Excellency Tissier, spoken on the question of “No Deal” with Rome. This friend says that Padre Bouchacourt, the Superior for South America, issued a letter to all his priests on 12 October saying what all the above clerics have said. I wonder why Padre Morgan is in crosshairs of Excellency Fellay?
     

    Offline Exsufflation

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 4
    • Reputation: +10/-0
    Father Bouchacourts letter to his priests
    « Reply #1 on: November 10, 2011, 01:36:22 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Here is the letter. Enjoy


    Martinez, October 12, 2011


    Society of St. Pius X
    District of South America
    The Superior

    Dear Fathers,

    Just got back from Rome a few hours ago and I want to share some news about the meeting to which we were summoned by our Superior General, Bishop Fellay. It was an informative meeting.

    As the communiqué that was published said, the General Council was attended by all the District Superiors and three of the four bishops.

    Indeed Bishop Williamson did not go to Albano. He had also been summoned to the meeting, but Bishop Fellay had added two conditions: to close his blog and keep secret the contents of the preamble that Rome gave the SSPX. Bishop Williamson did not agree to at least one of the two conditions, and for that reason did not take part in the meeting in Albano.

    The session unfolded in three stages. Firstly, Bishop Fellay presented a historical assessment of relations with Rome. Secondly, Bishop de Galarreta and Father Jorna spoke of the doctrinal discussions in Rome. Lastly, the doctrinal preamble provided by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, signed by Cardinal Levada, was presented.

    No need to review the historical facts concerning our relations with Rome. You already know the essentials. Regarding the doctrinal discussions, we studied four capital points: the Novus Ordo Missae; religious liberty; ecclesiology- Lumen Gentium, the "subsists in", collegiality; and the Magisterium and Tradition.

    Our opponents did not seek to answer our arguments but constantly tried to show that there is no break with tradition. They recognized that religious liberty, collegiality, and so on, are modern terms but, they maintained that they are contained implicitly in Tradition and made explicit by the Vatican Council.

    The climate of the discussions was cordial, which permitted each one to openly express his position. Our opponents remained sympathetic to our arguments, at least outwardly.

    The text of the document given to Bishop Fellay and his assistants remains confidential. But I can tell you some elements of its content. It has two parts: a preamble and a brief doctrinal canonical solution proposed for the SSPX.

    The preamble is based on the memorandum of understanding that was once proposed to Archbishop Lefebvre, but it is more restrictive .

    We are asked to recognize Catholic Tradition in the light of Vatican II and the teachings of the Popes after the Council. Moreover, we should accept on the one hand, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which constitutes a compendium of the conciliar doctrine, and also, the Code of Canon Law published in 1983, with an application tailored to the particular discipline given to the SSPX.

    Then, we should also recognize the legitimacy of the Novus Ordo. According to the explanations of the Vatican canonists, the word "legitimate" means "legal" ... This is not the commonly understood sense.

    Then would follow the Profession of Faith and the Oath of Allegiance.

    Finally, if we sign this preamble, we would be granted a personal prelature, similar to the canonical structure of Opus Dei.

    Clearly, this preamble, with its content, cannot be signed, even if amendments are made. The situation of the Conciliar Church, the Pope's remarks in Germany, the meeting in Assisi, all declare that it is not the time to sign such a document. We would be crushed by the system, as were the "motu propio" communities.

    Bishop Fellay will send his response in a few weeks, and perhaps publish a doctrinal declaration whch will have nothing to do with what was presented to us, and it will not be accepted by Rome.
    Although there is a canonical opening by Rome, the doctrinal situation in the Church has not changed.

    Rome needs us. It needs us to reunite with them to prove that the Vatican II is not a rupture with Tradition, and to neutralize the progressive wing that yearns for a manifest rupture with Tradition. Clearly we cannot continue this way. We must stand firm and wait for Rome to take new steps. Rome returns more and more (to Tradition), but still not enough.

    So the battle continues! I ask you to maintain the confidentiality of the contents of this circular. You can tell the faithful that nothing was signed and that the situation remains identical to what we had before September 14. When I visit your priories, I will provide more details about the situation.

    Finally I want to tell you that last Monday I went to Rome to pray before the Chair of St. Peter. I also went to climb the Scala Santa, asking the Lord to grant each of us, the District priests, an unwavering fidelity to the fight led by Archbishop Lefebvre for the good of souls, the Church and Tradition. Thinking of the tragedy that the Church is going through today should encourage our zeal for the sanctification of souls entrusted to our care.

    Assuring you of my fraternal prayer in the Hearts of Jesus and Mary.

    Father Christian BOUCHACOURT

    Link to Spanish post:

    http://radiocristiandad.wordpress.com/2011/11/08/original-carta-del-p-bouchacourt-a-los-sacerdotes-del-distrito-informando-de-la-reunion-de-albano/#more-18296


    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4717
    • Reputation: +4126/-1441
    • Gender: Male
    Father Bouchacourts letter to his priests
    « Reply #2 on: November 10, 2011, 06:14:19 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  •    I imagine because at that time, he was still hopeful that he could contain news of the revolt, with the goal of patching together some kind of counter-proposal for Rome that would gain enough support for a signature.

       As this letter states, there is no support for such a measure while Rome remains overtly modernist (outside of Menzingen, at least).

       This is great news.
    Romans 5:20 "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    -I retract any and all statements I have made that are incongruent with the True Faith, and apologize for ever having made them-

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4717
    • Reputation: +4126/-1441
    • Gender: Male
    Father Bouchacourts letter to his priests
    « Reply #3 on: November 10, 2011, 06:15:29 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Seraphim
      I imagine because at that time, he was still hopeful that he could contain news of the revolt, with the goal of patching together some kind of counter-proposal for Rome that would gain enough support for a signature.

       As this letter states, there is no support for such a measure while Rome remains overtly modernist (outside of Menzingen, at least).

       This is great news.


       Oops: This was in response to the question as to why Bishop Fellay had Fr. Morgan in his crosshairs (forgot to use the quote function).
    Romans 5:20 "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    -I retract any and all statements I have made that are incongruent with the True Faith, and apologize for ever having made them-

     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16