Author Topic: Grave Danger (Read 3603 times)

Kelley · « **on:** March 30, 2012, 08:55:57 PM »

Number CCXLVI (246) 31 March 2012

GRAVE DANGER

The desire of certain priests within the Society of St Pius X to seek a practical agreement with the Church authorities without a doctrinal agreement seems to be a recurring temptation. For years Bishop Fellay as the Society’s Superior General has refused the idea, but when he said in Winona on February 2 that Rome is willing to accept the Society as is, and that it is ready to satisfy “all the Society’s requirements...on the practical level”, it does look as though Rome is holding out the same temptation once more.

However, the latest news from Rome will be known to many of you: unless the Vatican is playing games with the SSPX, it announced last Friday, March 16, that it found Bishop Fellay’s January reply to its Doctrinal Preamble of September 14 of last year “not sufficient to overcome the doctrinal problems which lie at the foundation of the rift between the Holy See and the SSPX.” And the Vatican gave the SSPX one month in which to “clarify its position” and avoid “a rupture of painful and incalculable consequences.”

But what if Rome were suddenly to cease requiring acceptance of the Council and the New Mass ? What if Rome were suddenly to say, “Alright. We have thought about it. Come back into the Church as you ask. We will give you freedom to criticize the Council as much as you like, and freedom to celebrate the Tridentine Mass exclusively. But do come in !” It might be a very cunning move on the part of Rome, because how could the Society refuse such an offer without seeming inconsistent and downright ungrateful ? Yet on pain of survival it would have to refuse. On pain of survival ? Strong words. But here is a commentary of Archbishop Lefebvre on the matter.

On May 5, 1988, he signed with then Cardinal Ratzinger the protocol (provisional draft) of a practical Rome-Society agreement. On May 6 he took back his (provisional) signature. On June 13 he said, “With the May 5 Protocol we would soon have been dead. We would not have lasted a year. As of now the Society is united, but with that Protocol we would have had to make contacts with them, there would have been division within the Society, everything would have been a cause of division”. “New vocations might have flowed our way because we were united with Rome, but such vocations would have tolerated no disagreement with Rome which means division. As it is, vocations sift themselves before they reach us” (which is still true in Society seminaries).

And why such division ? (Warring vocations would be merely one example amongst countless others). Clearly, because the May 5 Protocol would have meant a practical agreement resting upon a radical doctrinal disagreement between the religion of God and the religion of man. The Archbishop went on to say, “They are pulling us over to the Council... whereas on our side we are saving the Society and Tradition by carefully keeping our distance from them”. Then why did the Archbishop seek such an agreement in the first place ? He continued, “We made an honest effort to keep Tradition going within the official Church. It turned out to be impossible. They have not changed, except for the worse.”

And have they changed since 1988 ? Many would think, only for yet worse.

Kyrie eleison.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #1 on:** March 30, 2012, 09:09:08 PM »

Bravo!

Except he is now at open war with Bishop Fellay.

I pray this was not the final straw which will allow Bishop Fellay to axe him (which the Romans have always wanted) and sign a deal with the modernists.

I suppose Bishop Williamson felt compelled to sound the alarm.

Just hope he was not skillfully checkmated into being the cause of his ouster in the SSPX.

s2srea · « **Reply #2 on:** March 31, 2012, 09:49:50 AM »

Quote from: Seraphim

Just hope he was not skillfully checkmated into being the cause of his ouster in the SSPX.

You can't checkmate truth brother. You may be able to push it like a fishing bobber underwater for a time, but it will eventually remerge, and probably take flight too.

John Grace · « **Reply #3 on:** April 01, 2012, 02:35:08 PM »

I was reading back over previous 'Eleison Comments'. Deo gratias for Bishop Williamson.

Quote

Eleison Comments LXVI
A 26-year old Buenos Aires student wrote to me one month ago with an earnest plea. Here it is:
“… I consider that your appreciation of the present situation in all areas is correct, and I agree. I have listened to conferences and read articles of yours, and I understand your pessimism and share it in part. It can hardly be avoided if one takes an overall view of the world in which we live. I have also heard from young folk of the SSPX what you think and say. In all humility, I earnestly beg of you, especially when you are addressing young people, male or female, please give your criticisms a positive slant. Please add to what you say some words of encouragement, hope and perseverance. Yours…. Patricio.”

Dear Patrick, I have much sympathy with your entreaty. You belong to a generation that has been gravely misled by a world that has for several centuries been going wrong, and is now on the brink of catastrophe, humanly speaking. With your head you recognize that the situation is as grave as I say it is, but your heart is nevertheless troubled. Here is Our Lord’s own answer:
“Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, do I give unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, nor let it be afraid” (Jn XIV, 27). And several verses earlier: “Let not your heart be troubled. You believe in God, believe also in me” (Jn XIV, 1). In other words, in the agitation and distress being felt by the Apostles after the Last Supper as the wicked world is closing in on their Divine Master – just like today! – they are not to pretend that the world is not as wicked as they know it is, instead they are to activate their Catholic Faith!

Patrick, with your Faith you know, amongst other things, firstly that the Lord God has everything perfectly under control, and all the devils of Hell (and earth) cannot lift a finger without His permission. Secondly, that He has a master plan to bring an even greater good out of today’s rampant evil. Thirdly, that if today’s godlessness were not producing chaos, that would be a far greater catastrophe than its imminent crash will be, because the tranquil success of godlessness would mean that we human beings were meant to be no more than beasts. Patrick, believe in God, believe also in Our Lord! And pray His Mother’s Holy Rosary. Kyrie Eleison.
La Reja, Argentina
Bishop Richard Williamson

pbax · « **Reply #4 on:** April 02, 2012, 02:43:23 AM »

This is from Our Lady of Victories in the Philipines
Quote“...............I would like to announce to you that on April 15 there will be First Communions for our
catechism children and on May 13 we will have Confirmations and Pontifical High
Mass by His Excellency, Bishop Richard Williamson. Let us prepare ourselves for these important
ceremonies.”
........ [Bohol Pilgrimage]
As I announced already with joy, His Excellency Bishop Williamson is coming to our
Pilgrimage this year! JOIN US! If you need any assistance, please contact Maricar, the
ACIM-Asia representative in Manila, who is kindly helping you to facilitate your pilgrimage.
Pilgrimage is from May 17 to 19, 2012."Unquote

Does this mean that Bishop Williamson is back working with The SSPX?

Maizar · « **Reply #5 on:** April 02, 2012, 05:26:11 AM »

Bishop Williamson is right again. I hadn't quite thought it through as well as he has (not surprisingly).

Aragon · « **Reply #6 on:** April 02, 2012, 07:19:23 AM »

This is going too far. If the Vatican allowed the SSPX to stay exactly as they are now, and continue the much needed work of criticizing the reforms, without needing to accept their legitimacy, then how could the SSPX choose not to have a regular canonical situation?

People forget that the SSPX started in the heart of the Church and never wanted to leave the heart of the Church. It was founded canonically regular and was pushed out because it wouldn't accept the Vatican II reforms. To use the SSPX's irregular situation as a "punishment" on Rome, as if we have to quarantine ourselves from the Holy See, is ridiculous.

s2srea · « **Reply #7 on:** April 02, 2012, 07:24:22 AM »

Aarogon-

why don't you try to address the specific concerns +Williamson has put forward, instead of a blanket statement?

Just so you know, this isn't about 'punishment' for Rome- they've managed to do that to themselves, and anyone whose joined thiem: FSSP, ICK, etc. This is about protecting what would have NEVER happened under rome.

Do you think Rome is different than it was 50 years ago?

s2srea · « **Reply #8 on:** April 02, 2012, 07:31:46 AM »

Perhaps Aaragon, you may actually try to read the letter by the good bishop first? If you have, forgive me, however, you comment makes me feel that this is impossible. But this easily explains the answer to you:

Quote

On May 5, 1988, he signed with then Cardinal Ratzinger the protocol (provisional draft) of a practical Rome-Society agreement. On May 6 he took back his (provisional) signature. On June 13 he said, “With the May 5 Protocol we would soon have been dead. We would not have lasted a year. As of now the Society is united, but with that Protocol we would have had to make contacts with them, there would have been division within the Society, everything would have been a cause of division”. “New vocations might have flowed our way because we were united with Rome, but such vocations would have tolerated no disagreement with Rome which means division. As it is, vocations sift themselves before they reach us” (which is still true in Society seminaries).
...
The Archbishop went on to say, “They are pulling us over to the Council... whereas on our side we are saving the Society and Tradition by carefully keeping our distance from them”. Then why did the Archbishop seek such an agreement in the first place ? He continued, “We made an honest effort to keep Tradition going within the official Church. It turned out to be impossible. They have not changed, except for the worse.”

Maizar · « **Reply #9 on:** April 02, 2012, 07:45:04 AM »

I see Aragon's point but it is not as though one can sweep away what has developed over the last 20 or so years. Before the political action against the SSPX and the invalid 'excommunication', the Church under the Pope was in a safer position because it could claim that the doctrinal issues were a matter for ongoing debate and so no one could accuse the Pope of heresy to the point of excommunicating him, because he could not at that time be easily forced into a situation where he demonstrated obstinacy in error, such as in a public debate (even if it was the equivalent of chess by mail).

However, because in the dropping of the excommunicated status and the decision, on top of that, to begin a process of regularization, the Church has stated a few things it must now live with: that something irregular has developed, and that the SSPX has to some how agree to be regularized. This might seem obvious, but it means the SSPX then states there are doctrinal issues. Now the Pope is forced on the matter. This is different from some petty argument about allegedly ordaining bishops without Papal approval, which was simply a game of dirty tricks. This is about the Faith itself, about Orthodoxy, about the stick that can fall in an infinity of directions, but stand in only one.

If the Pope says "we agree to disagree on doctrinal matters", or words having that effect, and then 'regularizes' the SSPX, he puts himself squarely on the wrong side of truth. Benedict XVI stands to lose his soul, as well as his Papal legitimacy (as I assume somehow he still has any) well and truly over this.

All the rest is just money, land rights and politics.

Aragon · « **Reply #10 on:** April 02, 2012, 08:16:19 AM »

Quote from: s2srea

Aarogon-

why don't you try to address the specific concerns +Williamson has put forward, instead of a blanket statement?

Just so you know, this isn't about 'punishment' for Rome- they've managed to do that to themselves, and anyone whose joined thiem: FSSP, ICK, etc. This is about protecting what would have NEVER happened under rome.

Do you think Rome is different than it was 50 years ago?

If they allow criticism of Vatican II and don't make the acceptance of Concilliar novelty a prerequisite of canonical regularity then yes, I do think they're different.

s2srea · « **Reply #11 on:** April 02, 2012, 08:23:08 AM »

That is very well put Maizar! I've come to realize we share the same type of brain as I find myself doing nothing but agreeing with what you write :cheers:

But that's in interesting point. Its seems as if rome has Rome has already rejected the SSPX; however I think it would be more accurate to say that thus far, Rome is rejecting what the SSPX is supposed to stand for: tradition, orthodoxy, the Faith as its been handed down to us. This is what ABL stood for- preserving the Faith, which is the duty of all Catholics, but is a job given specifically to the clergy.

So its an oxymoron (behold the mind of the Moderns) for them to want to unite and regularize with the Society. You hit the nail on the head. In doing so, they must admit something is wrong, and that the SSPX has done something right. But where this entire application fails is that they condemn themselves by recognizing the fruit of Faith and the dismal results their own religion has given them yet refusing to do anything about it.

Right now, this is a matter of wants, not needs, for Rome. And right now, Rome wants, badly perhaps, to unite with the SSPX. But they don't quite need it. While Europe, as an example, is in a dismal state, but they can still play it off and play pretend. However, the fact that Germany is the only place where vocations in the Society are greater than in the Diocesan seminaries, time will change all of this. Eventually, Europe to be the same. It will be like this over the entire globe if enough time passes.

So an SSPX regularizing with Rome, right now, not only places the SSPX in danger for the reasons Bishop Williamson mentions above, but is also a stupid move because the SSPX will eventually have the ability to enter doctrinal discussions with Rome and actually accomplish something.

Unlike a cancer with no cure, there is a cure to this. And as you say, rejecting this cure (reverting back to tradition) is admitting they are "squarely on the wrong side of truth." Right now they're using another band-aid for this cancer. But there will come a time when not even Rome can lie to Rome about a band-aid working.

s2srea · « **Reply #12 on:** April 02, 2012, 08:26:28 AM »

Quote from: Aragon

Quote from: s2srea
Aarogon-

why don't you try to address the specific concerns +Williamson has put forward, instead of a blanket statement?

Just so you know, this isn't about 'punishment' for Rome- they've managed to do that to themselves, and anyone whose joined thiem: FSSP, ICK, etc. This is about protecting what would have NEVER happened under rome.

Do you think Rome is different than it was 50 years ago?

If they allow criticism of Vatican II and don't make the acceptance of Concilliar novelty a prerequisite of canonical regularity then yes, I do think they're different.

Thank you. Can you explain why you think this? And why you think it would be save, given the disdain most bishops in the world have for the society?

Aragon · « **Reply #13 on:** April 02, 2012, 10:19:28 AM »

Quote from: s2srea

Quote from: Aragon
Quote from: s2srea
Aarogon-

why don't you try to address the specific concerns +Williamson has put forward, instead of a blanket statement?

Just so you know, this isn't about 'punishment' for Rome- they've managed to do that to themselves, and anyone whose joined thiem: FSSP, ICK, etc. This is about protecting what would have NEVER happened under rome.

Do you think Rome is different than it was 50 years ago?

If they allow criticism of Vatican II and don't make the acceptance of Concilliar novelty a prerequisite of canonical regularity then yes, I do think they're different.

Thank you. Can you explain why you think this? And why you think it would be save, given the disdain most bishops in the world have for the society?

I mean that if Rome allowed the SSPX to criticize Vatican II and the New Mass (and I mean real criticisim, not "accept in the light of Tradition" and then never speak about it like Indult groups) then that would be a massive change on Rome's part. You asked if Rome has changed, if Rome allowed this then yes Rome has changed. It would be a monumental step in the right direction because admitting that Vatican II isn't owed any assent and that allowing the SSPX to continue as they are would excelerate the conversation already happening within the Church (Msg Gherardini, Bp Schneider, and Card. Ranjith are a few of the noticeable clergymen who are starting to question Vatican II and the New Mass).

I don't say that we're out of the woods yet, but I think things are slowly getting better. I don't think we'll see a full return to Tradition while the babies of the Council still occupy the posts of authority - but if the SSPX were given a canonical structure without having to make any compromises of the Faith then I don't see how the SSPX could justify their refusal.

In regards to the bishops, etc, those things are really secondary and fall under the practical aspects of any rapprochement between the two parties. In everything I've read Bp. Fellay always makes clear the need for the SSPX to have permission to operate independently of the diocesan bishops.

Maizar · « **Reply #14 on:** April 02, 2012, 06:47:56 PM »

Quote from: s2srea

That is very well put Maizar! I've come to realize we share the same type of brain as I find myself doing nothing but agreeing with what you write :cheers:

...

Right now, this is a matter of wants, not needs, for Rome. And right now, Rome wants, badly perhaps, to unite with the SSPX. But they don't quite need it. While Europe, as an example, is in a dismal state, but they can still play it off and play pretend. However, the fact that Germany is the only place where vocations in the Society are greater than in the Diocesan seminaries, time will change all of this. Eventually, Europe to be the same. It will be like this over the entire globe if enough time passes.

Cheers s2srea. I can't wait to have a nice beer. Maybe next week :wink:

Good point about Germany. Germany is also known as money-bags (for the time being, but wait and see how the enemies of Catholicism work out a way to sink that nation once again). All going well, the SSPX has the potential in the next half century to rake in truckloads of cash from German Catholics, whereas one main reason Vatican II was pulled off was due to the financial power of the modernist German bishops.

The thing to say further on this is that the Novus Ordo Church does not actually care about what it believes. It just wants to be accepted by the Freemasons and the Jєωs, like the totally unfaithful spouse that it has become. The only other thing it cares about is money, and this is the real reason it is negotiating with SSPX at all. I do hope Bishop Fellay appreciates this.