Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => General Discussion => Topic started by: tradlover on March 16, 2012, 12:13:33 PM
-
http://sspx.org/theological_commission/vatican_communique_concerning_sspx-3-16-2012.htm
-
At the end of today's meeting, moved by concern to avoid an ecclesial rupture of painful and incalculable consequences, the superior general of the Society of St. Pius X was invited to clarify his position in order to be able to heal the existing rift, as is the desire of Pope Benedict XVI.
How much more clarity is needed? What needs to be clarified?
-
Here's the full text:
Vatican communiqué about SSPX's reply to Doctrinal Preamble
3-16-2012
Vatican City, March 16, 2012 (VIS) Given below is the text of a communiqué relating to the Society of St. Pius X, released this morning by the Holy See Press Office.
During the meeting of September 14, 2011 between Cardinal William Levada, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and president of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, and Bishop Bernard Fellay, superior general of the Society of St. Pius X, the latter was presented with a Doctrinal Preamble, accompanied by a Preliminary Note, as a fundamental basis for achieving full reconciliation with the Apostolic See. This defined certain doctrinal principles and criteria for the interpretation Catholic doctrine, which are necessary to ensure faithfulness to the Church Magisterium and sentire cuм Ecclesia.
The response of the Society of St. Pius X to the aforesaid Doctrinal Preamble, which arrived in January 2012, was examined by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith before being submitted to the Holy Father for his judgment. Pursuant to the decision made by Pope Benedict XVI, Bishop Fellay was, in a letter delivered today, informed of the evaluation of his response. The letter states that the position he expressed is not sufficient to overcome the doctrinal problems which lie at the foundation of the rift between the Holy See and the Society of St. Pius X.
At the end of today's meeting, moved by concern to avoid an ecclesial rupture of painful and incalculable consequences, the superior general of the Society of St. Pius X was invited to clarify his position in order to be able to heal the existing rift, as is the desire of Pope Benedict XVI.
-
Can't the Pope simply declare the SSPX regularized?
-
Can't the Pope simply declare the SSPX regularized?
Not without trying to modernize them first.
-
As long as the SSPX is able to separate politics from religion, that is "regularization" from "communion", the consequences are only incalculable for Pope Benedict.
-
Can't the Pope simply declare the SSPX regularized?
Of course he could. He does not want to do so.
-
Can't the Pope simply declare the SSPX regularized?
Of course he could. He does not want to do so.
...which is strange, since it would be the best way to destroy the Sspx.
-
Indeed it would, but this pope has an amazing ability to make the worst decision possible, even when it is contrary to his own interests. He now has his own brand of cologne, for heaven's sake. Even if, like the unjust judge in the Gospel, he cares nothing for God nor man, can't he see how this looks, both to his enemies and people who would like to be his friend.
-
Indeed it would, but this pope has an amazing ability to make the worst decision possible, even when it is contrary to his own interests. He now has his own brand of cologne, for heaven's sake. Even if, like the unjust judge in the Gospel, he cares nothing for God nor man, can't he see how this looks, both to his enemies and people who would like to be his friend.
Or, could it all just be a show to make it look like bishop Fellay is holding the line, whereas the reality is that he has ceased calling for a.doctrinal solution before the practical one is laid out?
For Rome to.say the sspx hasn't come.far enough, when they have dropped this requirement, makes me very suspicious of gamesmanship.
It is all a distraction to hide this fact.
A deal is coming.
-
Sent to me via e-mail:
Addendum (Radio Vaticana):
"Bp. Fellay is invited to clarify his position, in order to be able to heal the existing rift, as is the desire of Pope Benedict XVI, from now until April 15."
[UPDATE - 1500 GMT] In an article on today's events, Salvatore Izzo reports the following for Italian news agency AGI:
The Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal William Joseph Levada, delivered [the content of the communiqué] to the Superior General of the Society, Bishop Bernard Fellay, in a conversation that lasted for over two hours ... . During today's meeting in the Palace of the Holy Office - in which the Secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Abp. Luis Francisco Ladaria, and the Secretary of the Ecclesia Dei Commission, Mgr. Guido Pozzo, also took part, while Bp. Fellay was joined by his assistant Fr. Nelly - a complete rupture was avoided by the Holy See, making it clear that Benedict XVI still expects a recompositio.
-
What is Bishop Fellay's position on the New Mass? I wish he would make a public statement on this issue, which would help some of us make up our minds as to what to do in the event of a Rome-SSPX deal.
-
What is Bishop Fellay's position on the New Mass? I wish he would make a public statement on this issue, which would help some of us make up our minds as to what to do in the event of a Rome-SSPX deal.
The vast majority of priests and faithful are opposed to a 'deal'. As a layman, I would be opposed to Bishop Fellay. Of course he surpressed Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais' "Faith Imperiled by Reason: Benedict XVI's Hermeneutics"
The approach Bishop F is taking will destroy the SSPX as will any control of it by Rome. Benedict XVI is as heretical and modernist as ever.
-
The situation has some paradoxes. The SSPX actually stands to lose a great deal, materially and spiritually, by being assimilated through compromise into the political structure under Benedict. On the other hand, the Pope stands to lose credibility and money in the plate, in the eyes of traditional (true) Catholics if he does not overtly accept Tradition and starts a return to Orthodoxy and Orthopraxis. On the other hand, the Pope would anger the Masons and the Jews if he gave into SSPX, which (if he is not truly a man of faith) would sway him more strongly, since his physical safety depends on not offending certain groups.
So the SSPX is actually in a position of strength in these negotiations, but places itself in a position of weakness by accepting Benedict's authority. It also has weakened itself by not defending Bishop Williamson, because it has shown that it is prepared to make sacrifices (even one of a Bishop) at the altar of Zionism.
Successive Popes have committed outrageous and scandalous public acts against the Faith, including Benedict XVI. The modern Catholic Church is riddled with sɛҳuąƖ scandal, financial corruption, and the systematic weeding out of Catholic seminarians who are against Modernism. How the SSPX hopes to survive if it is regularized is hard to comprehend, except if it does not compromise on faith and morals. If the Society does give in, then in my eyes it ceases to be the hope for the future, but merely a temporary source of valid sacraments until the inevitable disappearance of Tradition from the visible Church - and what then?
-
The situation has some paradoxes. The SSPX actually stands to lose a great deal, materially and spiritually, by being assimilated through compromise into the political structure under Benedict. On the other hand, the Pope stands to lose credibility and money in the plate, in the eyes of traditional (true) Catholics if he does not overtly accept Tradition and starts a return to Orthodoxy and Orthopraxis. On the other hand, the Pope would anger the Masons and the Jews if he gave into SSPX, which (if he is not truly a man of faith) would sway him more strongly, since his physical safety depends on not offending certain groups.
So the SSPX is actually in a position of strength in these negotiations, but places itself in a position of weakness by accepting Benedict's authority. It also has weakened itself by not defending Bishop Williamson, because it has shown that it is prepared to make sacrifices (even one of a Bishop) at the altar of Zionism.
Successive Popes have committed outrageous and scandalous public acts against the Faith, including Benedict XVI. The modern Catholic Church is riddled with sɛҳuąƖ scandal, financial corruption, and the systematic weeding out of Catholic seminarians who are against Modernism. How the SSPX hopes to survive if it is regularized is hard to comprehend, except if it does not compromise on faith and morals. If the Society does give in, then in my eyes it ceases to be the hope for the future, but merely a temporary source of valid sacraments until the inevitable disappearance of Tradition from the visible Church - and what then?
Well, they already said they would not give in - when +Fellay said if you want us, then take us "as is".
Rome already was told by SSPX no deal if Rome wants SSPX to accept the conciliar errors.
Based on the history of the NO, regardless of how good Rome might make things sound, they cannot be trusted to do the right thing - at least not until they do something right.
Acknowledging there even is a crisis and that the NO is the implement of destruction would be a good first step for Rome. Until then, history teaches Romes intentions are dubious intentions.
-
What is Bishop Fellay's position on the New Mass? I wish he would make a public statement on this issue, which would help some of us make up our minds as to what to do in the event of a Rome-SSPX deal.
He says it is best not to attend the NO.
-
I would regard Benedict XVI as heretical and I doubt the Novus Ordo is valid. The SSPX using the 1962 missal is also a factor to be considered.
-
The SSPX using the 1962 missal is also a factor to be considered.
I'm not crazy about the 1962 Missal, but using it would not invalidate a Mass.
-
I hope that this puts an end to these "doctrinal talks" for now.
-
I see two possibilities here:
1.) Levada and Fellay in their two hour discussion already came to a verbal agreement the Society could accept. The Pope wants to look hardline to appease the leftists so he has Levada issue the "ultimatum" and libs are happy. Notice the deadline is on Divine Mercy Sunday in the NO. In an act of "mercy" BXVI will accept Fellay's clarification.
Thoughts? Naive on Pope's part. Libs will still raise Hell no matter what. PR nightmare for Conciliar Church. Some extremist libs will leave Church. If Fellay accepts, BXVI will pull a fast one and probably announce the next step in JPII's canonization on the same day of Society's regularization to appease the left and reinforce the idea that both JPII and the Society are Catholic in some Hegelian mind meld.
2.) Rome is serious. It's either accept their liberal re-formatting of all Catholic thought or you're done. No room for Traditional conception of Tradition, ecclesiology, etc. from SSPX (even though Prof. Giardhini, Bishop Schneider share the Society's view and are still in "full communion.") SSPX refuses. SSPX is declared schismatic, excommunicated. All laity is warned they are excommunicated if they assist at an SSPX Mass.
Thoughts? Game on. Battle lines drawn. Clear choice. Time to choose. If JPII is eventually canonized, Fellay may recognize the fact that BXVI is a formal heretic, reach out to sede world and any Novus Trads who are willing, to elect a new Pope.
Conciliar church will eventually shrink, die off and disintegrate. More and more conservative Conciliarites will see the Society (or real Catholic Church at that point) growing and thriving and defect from Conciliar Rome. Conciliar Rome will be left with more and more libs and go completely off the rails.
-
If JPII is eventually canonized, Fellay may recognize the fact that BXVI is a formal heretic, reach out to sede world and any Novus Trads who are willing, to elect a new Pope.
Conciliar church will eventually shrink, die off and disintegrate. More and more conservative Conciliarites will see the Society (or real Catholic Church at that point) growing and thriving and defect from Conciliar Rome. Conciliar Rome will be left with more and more libs and go completely off the rails.
While this would be the most interesting, I just don't see it happening. The Restoration will not come from the Society. Whatever will happen, will happen by the hands of God, through Our Lady, in my opinion. I think whatever happen, is something we could never dream of; the same way Vatican II and this desolation we're in could hardly have been imagined by anyone beforehand; even though Trent was put in place to prevent such evils from happening.
-
I see 'Dumb Ox' has posted the following on the Ignis Ardens internet forum. I can't get to a SSPX chapel anymore though a man who attends the SSPX said it would be ok for me to attend a Mass organised by Institute Christ the King.
I'm not a cleric or third order member so no longer going to interest myself in the politics of the SSPX or the direction Bishop Fellay wishes to take the priestly society founded by Archbishop Lefebvre.
I am rather cynical of the SSPX leadership. I'm not having fallings out with people I haven't met (i.e. Clare on Ignis Ardens) over Bishop Fellay.
This is a matter for the Holy Ghost. I only expressed opinions though am no fan of Bishop Bernard Fellay.
http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=8957&st=25
Vatican Insider
http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/homep...ebvrians-13554/
16th March 2012
Andrea Tornielli
Rome
THE HOLY SEE GIVES THE LEFEBVRIANS ONE MORE MONTH TO DECIDE
A letter has been delivered to Lefebvrian leader, Fellay, saying that the Pope wants to “avoid a rupture within the Church which would have painful and incalculable consequences.” But the Society must accept the doctrinal preamble.
The Lefebvrians have one month to make their final decision on returning to full communion with the Holy See. This morning at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, prefect Cardinal William Levada delivered a letter containing the Vatican’s response into the hands of Bishop Bernard Fellay. The letter reiterates the request to accept the doctrinal preamble - the text that the Holy See views as an absolutely necessary basis for the regularization of the Society of St. Pius X.
As you may recall, the preamble was delivered to Fellay last September. In essence, the text asks the LeFebvrians to sign the “profession of faith” that anyone who takes an ecclesiastical office must sign, and therefore indicate their adherence to the teachings of the magisterium in matters of faith and morals. Regarding the Second Vatican Council - the real sticking point in relations with the LeFebvrians - the Society has also been asked to interpret its teachings according to the hermeneutic proposed by Benedict XVI, in continuity with tradition.
“The response from the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X on the doctrinal preamble,” reads the statement issued today by the Vatican Press Office, “received in January 2012, was submitted to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith” - and to the judgment of the Pope. “In accordance with the decision of Pope Benedict XVI,” the note continues, “the evaluation of the response was communicated through a letter delivered to Mons. Fellay today.” This statement is followed by some very clear words that, for the first time, float the possibility that if the return does not take place, the Church will be headed toward a true schism.
Indeed, the letter suggests that Fellay’s position “is not sufficient to overcome the doctrinal problems underlying the fracture between the Holy See and the Society. At the end of today’s meeting, motivated by the desire to avoid a rupture within the Church and its painful and incalculable consequences, the Superior General of the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X was invited to clarify his position in order to heal the existing fracture, as called for by Pope Benedict XVI.”
In the two responses, sent in December and in January respectively, Fellay did not sign the preamble, giving the LeFebvrians more time without closing the door to dialogue with Rome. But now the Pope and Cardinal Levada want clarity. The tone of the Vatican’s letter was determined by the written response sent by the Lefebvrian superior. During this morning’s meeting, however, he appeared more conciliatory, and in a private conversation that took place in the palace of the former Holy Office, he said he had “no difficulty in accepting the profession of faith,” and also claimed to have no difficulties with the principles expressed in the preamble: the problem, Fellay said, was not the principles, but their application - namely, the fact that the Church today lacks fidelity to the Magisterium.
The dialogue has thus continued uninterrupted - the door remains open, and the possibility of a return still exists. We will know immediately after Easter if Fellay and the Society of St. Pius X have decided to accept the preamble or not. If the answer is no, the Holy See will acknowledge that the LeFebvrians do not intend to accept these fundamental and basic criteria, and will therefore fall out of Catholic communion, with “painful and incalculable consequences.” The position of the superior of the Fraternity is clear: the problem is not just the text proposed by the Vatican, but also and primarily the polarized positions within the traditionalist group itself. Approximately one-half of the Fraternity would like to return into full communion with Rome - they experience the current disconnect with pain. But the other half is willing to say “yes” only if “Rome converts,” that is, if it adopts the Lefebvrian position.
Directly upon becoming pope, Benedict XVI did everything possible to heal the wound that was opened after the illegitimate episcopal ordinations celebrated by Lefebvre in 1988, and the subsequent excommunication. The Pope liberalized the ancient Mass (as Fellay had requested) and in January 2009, he reversed the excommunications of four LeFebvrian bishops, then initiated the doctrinal dialogues that concluded with the delivery of the preamble.
"During this morning’s meeting, however, he appeared more conciliatory, and in a private conversation that took place in the palace of the former Holy Office, he said he had “no difficulty in accepting the profession of faith,” and also claimed to have no difficulties with the principles expressed in the preamble: the problem, Fellay said, was not the principles, but their application - namely, the fact that the Church today lacks fidelity to the Magisterium."
The allegation made by Tornielli, quoted above, is extremely serious. If the allegation is not true one would expect that Bishop Fellay will issue a statement through DICI that denies the allegation and that exposes and condemns Tornielli and Vatican Insider for inventing and spreading malicious lies about him.
-
A 'deal' is certainly inevitable whilst Bishop Fellay is Superior General. Quite a majority of people have had it with his ambiguity. It can't be ignored that he also
suppressed the writings of Bishop Tissier (Faith Imperiled by Reason. Benedict XVI's Hermeneutics).It's incredible.
-
Whatever will happen, will happen by the hands of God, through Our Lady, in my opinion.
Agreed. The SSPX is finished if they compromise.
-
Thoughts? Naive on Pope's part
There is general agreement Bishop Fellay is ambitious. This is not really a matter of dispute.
I'm not of the line of thought that he is after a red hat.One would have to cover up child sɛҳuąƖ abuse or defend ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ unions or promote Jewry to gain such a title the way things are today.
The approach Bishop Fellay is taking could be regarded as being naive. The Pope is as modernist as he ever was. He is not a friend of Tradition. If anything he is a friend of the enemies of God.
-
...and what then?
Revelation and the Blessed Mother have already told us what then. There will be the abomination of desolation, the Mass will cease, and we will have the Rosary.
-
Has it been ever established where Bishop Fellay stands in relation to the 'sacred six million'? Something clerics can not ignore. I mean knowing the reality of the 'sacred six million'.
-
There is no doubt Bp. F wants to move the Society closer to Rome and lose some of the aspects of being isolated from the mainstream. Whether this is to do with funding or having sight of the progress within Ecclesia Dei is open to speculation. The discarding of doctrinal considerations would be a great gamble for him but he has displayed a friendly face with regard to the media and what they represent. There are going to be gains and loses for the Society in terms of priests and laity coming and going whatever happens. Corsica was the start.
-
...and what then?
Revelation and the Blessed Mother have already told us what then. There will be the abomination of desolation, the Mass will cease, and we will have the Rosary.
Yes, but it might be worth owning a copy of the Divine Office if you don't already have one.
-
...and what then?
Revelation and the Blessed Mother have already told us what then. There will be the abomination of desolation, the Mass will cease, and we will have the Rosary.
Yes, but it might be worth owning a copy of the Divine Office if you don't already have one.
A worthy suggestion. Thank you.
-
I'm really hoping that Fellay and Rome don't get a deal. At this point, it's obvious that Benedict is trying to get them to compromise their position as much as possible before he lets them back in.
Bishop Fellay should be ashamed of himself for the lousy job he's done as Superior General the last three years. Now he's supressing the writings of Bishop Tissier? What is wrong with this man?
-
What is Bishop Fellay's position on the New Mass? I wish he would make a public statement on this issue, which would help some of us make up our minds as to what to do in the event of a Rome-SSPX deal.
The vast majority of priests and faithful are opposed to a 'deal'. As a layman, I would be opposed to Bishop Fellay. Of course he surpressed Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais' "Faith Imperiled by Reason: Benedict XVI's Hermeneutics"
The approach Bishop F is taking will destroy the SSPX as will any control of it by Rome. Benedict XVI is as heretical and modernist as ever.
Since BpF is out of tune with the vast majority of priests and layfolk should he not resign and hand over to someone who is?.
-
Now he's supressing the writings of Bishop Tissier? What is wrong with this man?
What? Where did you hear this?
-
I'm really hoping that Fellay and Rome don't get a deal. At this point, it's obvious that Benedict is trying to get them to compromise their position as much as possible before he lets them back in.
Bishop Fellay should be ashamed of himself for the lousy job he's done as Superior General the last three years. Now he's supressing the writings of Bishop Tissier? What is wrong with this man?
Supressing the writings of Bishop Tissier is 'old' news and well docuмented.
ELEISON COMMENTS CCX (July 23, 2011) : BENEDICT'S THINKING III
After studying the roots of Pope Benedict's thinking (EC 209), Bishop Tissier in his Faith Imperilled by Reason proceeds to study its fruits. If that thinking is rooted above all in the systematic subjectivism of Kant (1724-1804), those fruits cannot be good. How can the objective truths of the Faith be made in any way intrinsically dependent on the participation or reactions of the subjective believer ? The Gospel, dogma, the Church, society, Christ the King and the Last Ends will be, one after another, mortally stricken.
Let us start with the Gospel. Its value lies no longer in telling the historical facts of the life and death of Our Lord, but rather in the power of its narrative to evoke existential problems of our own time. For instance whether Our Lord's very own body sprang re-united with his human soul out of the tomb on Easter morning is not important. What matters is the modern meaning behind the narrative : love is stronger than death, Christ lives on by the force of love, and guarantees that we too will survive by love. Forget the reality, the facts. "All you need is love.”
Dogma needs likewise to be purified of the past and enriched by the present. Now the present-day philosopher Heidegger teaches that the person is a "self-surpassing". Then Christ was the man so totally self-surpassing, so completely striving for the infinite beyond himself, that he fulfilled himself to the point of becoming divine. So the dogma of the Incarnation no longer means that God became man, but that man became God ! Similarly the Redemption must mean no longer that Jesus paid to his Father by his terrible Passion the debt for all men's sins, but that by his Cross he loved God in our stead as God should be loved, and he attracts us to do the same. Sin has ceased to be a mortal offence against God, it is merely a selfishness, a lack of love. So Mass no longer needs to be a sacrifice, and the priest becomes merely the animator of the communal celebration. No wonder Benedict believes in the Novus Ordo Mass.
As for the Church, since the existent person is the supreme value (cf. EC 209) and all persons are equally existent, then away with a Church of hierarchical inequalities, and away with the Catholic Church as the one and only Ark of Salvation, because the followers of every religion are existent persons. Let ecuмenism replace all Catholic missionary efforts. Also, making the person into the supreme value will dissolve society by subordinating the common good to the individual's rights, and it will undermine both marriage and society by putting the mutual company of the male and female persons in front of children. As for Christ the King, he will be dethroned by the bestowing upon every person such dignity that the State must protect that person's right to choose his own religion.
Finally death, from a penalty, becomes a remedy for our ills. The particular judgment means only a reward. Hell is no more than an irrevocably selfish state of soul. Heaven will be "an ever new immersion in the infinity of being" -- what being? -- and so on.
Here is a new religion, comments Bishop Tissier, rather more comfortable - at least here below -- than the Catholic religion.
Kyrie eleison.
-
Now he's supressing the writings of Bishop Tissier? What is wrong with this man?
What? Where did you hear this?
Where you not aware that Bishop Fellay that supressed 'Faith Imperiled by Reason - Benedict XVIs Hermeneutics'. This is quite old news, s2rea.Bishop Fellay is unbelievable.
-
Benedicts Thinking I, II, III, IV , Bishop Williamson SSPX
ELEISON COMMENTS CCVIII (July 9, 2011) : BENEDICT'S THINKING I
The "Eleison Comments" of June 18 promised a series of four numbers which would show how "disoriented" is Pope Benedict XVI's "way of believing". They present in fact a summary of the precious tract on his thinking written a few years ago by Bishop Tissier de Mallerais, one of the four bishops of the Society of St Pius X. The Bishop's tract, The Faith Imperilled by Reason, he calls "unpretentious", but it does lay bare the Pope's fundamental problem - how to believe in the Catholic Faith in such a way as not to exclude the values of the modern world. The tract shows that such a way of believing is necessarily disoriented, even if the Pope does still in some way believe.
It divides into four parts. After an important Introduction to Benedict XVI's "Hermeneutic of Continuity", Bishop Tissier looks briefly at the philosophical and theological roots of the Pope's thinking. Thirdly he lays out its fruits for the Gospel, for dogma, for the Church and society, for the Kingship of Christ and for the Last Things. He concludes with a measured judgment upon the Pope's Newfaith, highly critical but wholly respectful. Let us start with an overview of the Introduction:--
The basic problem for Benedict XVI, as for all of us, is the clash between the Catholic Faith and the modern world. For instance he sees that modern science is amoral, that modern society is secular and modern culture is multi-religious. He specifies the clash as being between Faith and Reason, between the Faith of the Church, and Reason as worked out by the 18th century Enlightenment. However, he is convinced that they can and must both be interpreted in such a way as to bring them into harmony with one another. Hence his close participation in Vatican II, a Council which attempted to reconcile the Faith with today's world. But Traditionalists say that the Council failed, because its very principles are irreconcilable with the Faith. Hence Pope Benedict's "Hermeneutic of Continuity", or system of interpretation to show that there is no rupture between Catholic Tradition and Vatican II.
The principles for Benedict's "hermeneutic" go back to a German historian of the 19th century, Wilhelm Dilthey (1833-1911). Dilthey maintained that as truths arise in history, so they can only be understood in their history, and human truths cannot be understood without the involvement of the human subject in that history. So to continue the core of past truths into the present, one needs to subtract all elements belonging to the past, now irrelevant, and replace them with elements important for the living present. Benedict applies to the Church this double process of purification and enrichment. On the one hand Reason must purify the Faith of its errors from the past, e.g. its absolutism, while on the other hand the Faith must get Reason to moderate its attacks on religion and to remember that its humanist values, liberty, equality and fraternity, all originated in the Church.
The great error here of the Pope is that the truths of the Catholic Faith on which Christian civilization was built and on which its feeble remains still rest, have their origin by no means in human history, but in the eternal bosom of the unchanging God. They are eternal truths, from eternity, for eternity. "Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away" says Our Lord, (MtXXIV,35). Neither Dilthey nor, apparently, Benedict XVI can conceive of truths far above human history and above all its conditioning. If the Pope thinks that by making such concessions to faithless Reason, he will draw its adherents towards the Faith, let him think again. They merely despise Faith the more !
Next, the philosophical and theological roots of Benedict's thinking.
Kyrie eleison.
ELEISON COMMENTS CCIX (July 16, 2011) : BENEDICT'S THINKING II
If one divides into four parts Bishop Tissier's study of the thinking of Benedict XVI, then the second part presents its philosophical and theological roots. By analyzing the philosophy first, the Bishop is following Pius X's great Encyclical "Pascendi". If a wine bottle is dirty inside, the very best of wine poured into it will be spoiled. If a man's mind is disconnected from reality, as it is by modern philosophy, then even the Catholic Faith filtered through it will be disoriented, because it will no longer be oriented by reality. Here is Benedict's problem.
Like Pius X before him, the Bishop attributes the prime responsibility for this disaster of modern minds to the German Enlightenment philosopher, Immanuel KANT (1724-1804), who finalized the system of anti-thought, prevailing now everywhere, which excludes God from rational discourse. For if, as Kant claimed, the mind can know nothing of the object except what appears to the senses, then the mind is free to reconstruct the reality behind the sense appearances however it may like, objective reality is dismissed as unknowable, and the subject reigns supreme. If the subject needs God and postulates his existence, well and good. Otherwise, so to speak, God is out of luck !
Bishop Tissier then presents five modern philosophers, all grappling with the consequences of Kant's subjective folly of putting idea over reality and subject over object. The two most important of them for this Pope's thinking might be Heidegger (1889-1976), a father of existentialism, and Buber (1878-1965), a leading exponent of personalism. If essences are unknowable (Kant), then there remains only existence. Now the most important existent is the person, constituted for Buber by intersubjectivity, or the "I-You" relationship between subjective persons, which for Buber opens the way to God. Therefore knowledge of the objective God is going to depend on the subjective involvement of the human person. What an insecure foundation for that knowledge !
Yet involvement of the human subject will be the key to Benedict's theological thinking, influenced firstly, writes the Bishop, by the renowned School of Tuebingen. Founded by J.S. von Drey (1777-1853), this School held that history is moved by the spirit of the age in constant movement, and this spirit is the Spirit of Christ. Therefore God's Revelation is no longer the Deposit of Faith closed at the death of the last Apostle, and merely made more explicit as time goes on. Instead, it has a constantly evolving content to which the receiving subject contributes. So the Church of each age plays an active and not just passive part in Revelation, and it gives to past Tradition its present meaning. Is this beginning to sound familiar ? Like the hermeneutic of Dilthey ? See EC 208.
Thus for Benedict XVI God is not an object apart, nor merely objective, he is personal, an "I" exchanging with each human "You". Scripture or Tradition do come objectively from the divine "I", but on the other hand the living and moving "You" must constantly re-read that Scripture, and since Scripture is the basis of Tradition, then Tradition too must become dynamic by the subject's involvement, and not just static, like Archbishop Lefebvre's "fixist" Tradition. Similarly theology must be subjectivized, Faith must be a personal "experiencing" of God, and even the Magisterium must stop being merely static.
"Accursed is the man that puts his trust in man" says Jeremiah ( XVII, 5).
Kyrie eleison.
ELEISON COMMENTS CCX (July 23, 2011) : BENEDICT'S THINKING III
After studying the roots of Pope Benedict's thinking (EC 209), Bishop Tissier in his Faith Imperilled by Reason proceeds to study its fruits. If that thinking is rooted above all in the systematic subjectivism of Kant (1724-1804), those fruits cannot be good. How can the objective truths of the Faith be made in any way intrinsically dependent on the participation or reactions of the subjective believer ? The Gospel, dogma, the Church, society, Christ the King and the Last Ends will be, one after another, mortally stricken.
Let us start with the Gospel. Its value lies no longer in telling the historical facts of the life and death of Our Lord, but rather in the power of its narrative to evoke existential problems of our own time. For instance whether Our Lord's very own body sprang re-united with his human soul out of the tomb on Easter morning is not important. What matters is the modern meaning behind the narrative : love is stronger than death, Christ lives on by the force of love, and guarantees that we too will survive by love. Forget the reality, the facts. "All you need is love."
Dogma needs likewise to be purified of the past and enriched by the present. Now the present-day philosopher Heidegger teaches that the person is a "self-surpassing". Then Christ was the man so totally self-surpassing, so completely striving for the infinite beyond himself, that he fulfilled himself to the point of becoming divine. So the dogma of the Incarnation no longer means that God became man, but that man became God ! Similarly the Redemption must mean no longer that Jesus paid to his Father by his terrible Passion the debt for all men's sins, but that by his Cross he loved God in our stead as God should be loved, and he attracts us to do the same. Sin has ceased to be a mortal offence against God, it is merely a selfishness, a lack of love. So Mass no longer needs to be a sacrifice, and the priest becomes merely the animator of the communal celebration. No wonder Benedict believes in the Novus Ordo Mass.
As for the Church, since the existent person is the supreme value (cf. EC 209) and all persons are equally existent, then away with a Church of hierarchical inequalities, and away with the Catholic Church as the one and only Ark of Salvation, because the followers of every religion are existent persons. Let ecuмenism replace all Catholic missionary efforts. Also, making the person into the supreme value will dissolve society by subordinating the common good to the individual's rights, and it will undermine both marriage and society by putting the mutual company of the male and female persons in front of children. As for Christ the King, he will be dethroned by the bestowing upon every person such dignity that the State must protect that person's right to choose his own religion.
Finally death, from a penalty, becomes a remedy for our ills. The particular judgment means only a reward. Hell is no more than an irrevocably selfish state of soul. Heaven will be "an ever new immersion in the infinity of being" -- what being? -- and so on.
Here is a new religion, comments Bishop Tissier, rather more comfortable - at least here below -- than the Catholic religion.
Kyrie eleison.
-
There is no doubt Bp. F wants to move the Society closer to Rome
We can take this for certain in my honest opinion.
-
Bishop Williamson is right, Bishop Tissier is right. The Pope does appear to me to be a modernist (an existential subjectivist, no less!). The cleverer and braver people here can work out whether the seat is vacant or not - I cannot tell, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if history judges it so.
-
I actually feel sorry for men like this 'Henry V' posting on Ignis Ardens. I don't doubt his sincerity. They want to give Bishop the benefit of the doubt but they are in denial.They just don't want to believe the reality. Where faithful will continue to go to Mass after the deal concerns me? I wouldn't attend a Roman controlled SSPX.
Bishop F and this Doctrinal Preamble were both rejected at the Albano meeting yet Bishop F and others press ahead.
I do believe there will be a deal with Rome. I don't support it but then again I am not Bishop Bernard Fellay. He wants a deal.He is a bureaucrat and a politician.
http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=8957&st=25
It's nonsense to claim the "allegation" is "extremely serious" without knowing the full context. What is meant by the profession of faith. If it means reciting one of the Creeds then who could have a problem with that? What are the "principles expressed in the preamble"? You don't know. But given that BF was authorised to continue the discussions by the District Superiors (and others) at Albano it is reasonable to assume the pre-amble was not insurmountable for them. And it is pointless trying to set up the he hasn't denied it so it must be true fallacy.
-
I actually feel sorry for men like this 'Henry V' posting on Ignis Ardens. I don't doubt his sincerity. They want to give Bishop the benefit of the doubt but they are in denial.They just don't want to believe the reality. Where faithful will continue to go to Mass after the deal concerns me? I wouldn't attend a Roman controlled SSPX.
Bishop F and this Doctrinal Preamble were both rejected at the Albano meeting yet Bishop F and others press ahead.
I do believe there will be a deal with Rome. I don't support it but then again I am not Bishop Bernard Fellay. He wants a deal.He is a bureaucrat and a politician.
http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=8957&st=25
It's nonsense to claim the "allegation" is "extremely serious" without knowing the full context. What is meant by the profession of faith. If it means reciting one of the Creeds then who could have a problem with that? What are the "principles expressed in the preamble"? You don't know. But given that BF was authorised to continue the discussions by the District Superiors (and others) at Albano it is reasonable to assume the pre-amble was not insurmountable for them. And it is pointless trying to set up the he hasn't denied it so it must be true fallacy.
The district superiors authorized Bishop Fellay to continue negotiations at Albano?
I suppose if bishop.Fellay now has.all his men in those positions, there would be.no problem gaining such an endorsement.
Remember, he has been working at this deal.since.his.meeting with cardinal.Hoyos 12 yrs.ago.
-
I actually feel sorry for men like this 'Henry V' posting on Ignis Ardens. I don't doubt his sincerity. They want to give Bishop the benefit of the doubt but they are in denial.They just don't want to believe the reality. Where faithful will continue to go to Mass after the deal concerns me? I wouldn't attend a Roman controlled SSPX.
Bishop F and this Doctrinal Preamble were both rejected at the Albano meeting yet Bishop F and others press ahead.
I do believe there will be a deal with Rome. I don't support it but then again I am not Bishop Bernard Fellay. He wants a deal.He is a bureaucrat and a politician.
http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=8957&st=25
It's nonsense to claim the "allegation" is "extremely serious" without knowing the full context. What is meant by the profession of faith. If it means reciting one of the Creeds then who could have a problem with that? What are the "principles expressed in the preamble"? You don't know. But given that BF was authorised to continue the discussions by the District Superiors (and others) at Albano it is reasonable to assume the pre-amble was not insurmountable for them. And it is pointless trying to set up the he hasn't denied it so it must be true fallacy.
The district superiors authorized Bishop Fellay to continue negotiations at Albano?
I suppose if bishop.Fellay now has.all his men in those positions, there would be.no problem gaining such an endorsement.
Remember, he has been working at this deal.since.his.meeting with cardinal.Hoyos 12 yrs.ago.
Of course and one would laugh at likes of 'Henry V' if situation was not serious. As 'Dedalus' stated, Bishop F surrounds himself with whose that share his world view. He is like the general without an army.
The District Superiors and many faithful have rejected Bishop Fellay.
-
http://www.doncurzionitoglia.com/williamson_conclusione_del_caso.htm
TANTO RUMORE PER NULLA
La “conclusione” del caso Williamson
'Cristera' provides a translation.
http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=8827&st=125
This is not a very good translation, but it is better than Google's:
QUOTE
The Court of Appeal in Nuremberg, February 22, 2012, annulled the sentence given to Bishop Richard Williamson from the Regional Court of Regensburg, July 11, 2011, for "inciting racial hatred". The Court of Appeals also decided that the State of Bavaria has to pay the legal costs incurred to date by Bishop Williamson. However it is not the last word, the trial of Jesus docet (teaches)
In November 2008, the British bishop was issued by Germany in an interview with Swedish television that, according to the covenants established, would have to answer some questions about the Catholic Tradition. The interview, according to the agreements, would be sent to Sweden and Germany.
Instead the agreements were violated by the Swedish television, which put out a trick question to Bishop Williamson on the Shoah, and then passed on, incorrectly, in Germany. The Bishop had simply answered the question that what he had read about twenty years before the "Leuchter Report", published by the Publisher Canadian Zundel, there was insufficient evidence to state with certainty the existence of a plan of complete elimination of the Jєωιѕн people by the Germanic Reich III, through the gas chambers. However, he concluded, "if you should bring further testing, which have been advanced in the past twenty years, I am ready to study and take note."
No evidence was presented against him and however, he was condemned by almost everyone without extenuating circuмstances.. He was the monster denier, nαzι, ignorant, retrograde, which was "eliminated" geographically because he had kept the world of the tradition of the "ghetto". No charge was brought against the Swedes, who, in fact, were the real culprits of the case mounted artfully against Bishop Williamson.
Apart from the number CCXLII March 3, 2012 of "Eleison Comments" (the "Circular Letter" of Bishop Richard Williamson) and a "communiqu¨¦" of Father Paul Morgan in London, almost no one has given to the case the same prominence that was given to him in 2008 he has been even ignored or "minimized" (the "denial" in reverse).
This don¡¯t look right. Normally his stolen reputation must be returned to him under pain of mortal sin. But such accusations and calumnies vomited against Bishop Williamson, nobody seems to remember. "Woe to the vanquished!" Even if they are rehabilitated. The important thing is to keep pace with the times, not to quibble about putting embarrassing questions and probing questions which may be harmful to the advancement, to the recognition by the world.
Bishop Williamson, although rehabilitated, he remains an inconvenient because he loves the truth and says it. ¡°Veritas parit odium¡±. So, to be not hated, one have to avoid certain issues politically and theologically incorrect. So one have to maintain a news blackout (or a "low profile", as they say in the "curial" circles) on the Williamson case, who has been virtually under "house arrest" for three years.
From the human point of view this event has been and continues to be sordid, except for Bishop Williamson, who was one of the few to come out in head-on. But this is normal, human events are almost always not very edifying. However, one shouldn¡¯t go beyond certain limits, which in this case, have been thoroughly surpassed in an "inhuman" way, as only certain "priests" can do.
It remains, fortunately, the Divine Justice to which we must all respond. Jesus taught us in the Gospel: "Blessed are the persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven" and at the same time He warned us: "With what measure you mete, it shall be measured to you again¡±, and "Way far from Me ! Since I was in prison and you didn¡¯t come to find me, I was persecuted and you did not help. " If today¡¯s position of Bishop Williamson is still uncomfortable - should not delude yourselves the "ѕуηαgσgυє of Satan" (Rev., II, 9) does not forgive - tomorrow I would not take the place of his "torturers" before the Divine Judge. However until there is life there is way to repair the wrong done and to obtain forgiveness from God, who is the only judge we should fear. "Time passes, eternity is near." Just to admit publicly that they were mistaken if, publicly, Bishop Williamson was lynched, if it was done privately you do privately. "Who has ears to hear listen."
-
Now he's supressing the writings of Bishop Tissier? What is wrong with this man?
What? Where did you hear this?
Where you not aware that Bishop Fellay that supressed 'Faith Imperiled by Reason - Benedict XVIs Hermeneutics'. This is quite old news, s2rea.Bishop Fellay is unbelievable.
Not really. I'd known, of course, about +Williamson. But that's why I'd asked. I don't really hear about that here. Thanks for the information.
-
Where faithful will continue to go to Mass after the deal concerns me? I wouldn't attend a Roman controlled SSPX.
I don't think the Society coming under the Holy See is necessarily a reason to stop attendance outright. But one would be required to be even more vigilant on who is administering ordinations, the Rite they're using, who is your parish priest, his specific ordination. If things got too crazy, a permanent move to the CMRI might be required.
This is, of course, worst case; but not so far fetched. I think we should also not jump to conclusions. The Society, I believe, is still very good, and, given the circuмstances, is still relatively safe in terms of sacraments. However, one cannot deny the fact that Bishop Pivarunas and CMRI as holding the line on certain issues. With all of the issues and scandal in the sede world, the fact that their very opinion and position on the Crisis enables them to completely reject interaction with Rome, may prove to be a good thing. Though, objectively, their priestly formation is not up to par with that of the SSPX, I would rather receive the sacraments from a humble and valid CMRI Priest, than a doubtful SSPX one.
-
Where faithful will continue to go to Mass after the deal concerns me? I wouldn't attend a Roman controlled SSPX.
I don't think the Society coming under the Holy See is necessarily a reason to stop attendance outright. But one would be required to be even more vigilant on who is administering ordinations, the Rite they're using, who is your parish priest, his specific ordination. If things got too crazy, a permanent move to the CMRI might be required.
This is, of course, worst case; but not so far fetched. I think we should also not jump to conclusions. The Society, I believe, is still very good, and, given the circuмstances, is still relatively safe in terms of sacraments. However, one cannot deny the fact that Bishop Pivarunas and CMRI as holding the line on certain issues. With all of the issues and scandal in the sede world, the fact that their very opinion and position on the Crisis enables them to completely reject interaction with Rome, may prove to be a good thing. Though, objectively, their priestly formation is not up to par with that of the SSPX, I would rather receive the sacraments from a humble and valid CMRI Priest, than a doubtful SSPX one.
Indeed. The SSPX have excellent priests and are safe regarding the sacraments. Whilst another layman who attends the SSPX recommended I attend the Institute Christ the King when unable to attend Society Mass chapels, I disagree with him. I wouldn't encourage attending Mass organised by the FSSP or Institute Christ the King.
We don't have the CMRI in Ireland though there is small sede and independent apostolates here and there. Ireland has been a country that has suited both the Indult and SSPX. An independent apostolate sede or non sede has never really flourished.
I'm often invited to 'approved' Traditional Masses but always decline.I will stay with the SSPX but if they 'sell out' they are destroyed. A tragic day for Tradition.
When Cardinal Burke was in Ireland at Knock shrine he told an SSPX priest to "Keep up the good work".Both their pilgrimages took place the same day.
I would be sympathetic to independent priests who are validly ordained and never say the Novus Ordo.Diocesan priests offering the 'Old Mass' is usually a way to smother any Catholic resistance. You might get smells and bells but you rarely if ever get doctrine.
One priest offering the 'old mass' famously said "you get Vatican II here, go to the SSPX if you want Tradition and Doctrine".
One Diocesan priest in Ireland who offers the Traditional Mass happens to believe in the Megaforgery.The nonsense of Medj.
-
What's amazing is that in an interview in the late 90s, Bishop Fellay stated that there are four Masonic lodges operating in the Vatican (you can watch the interview on YouTube). Why, then, is he suddenly eager to "reconcile" with them?
-
Well, Father today at the SSPX chapel here in old Oeil-de-Cochon gave quite an introduction to his sermon. He addressed the issues with Bishop Fellay and Rome and hinted, quite clearly, that the Rubicon has essentially been passed and that there will certainly be a schism between Rome and the SSPX (which, in my opinion, already exists since they do not in practice recognise the post-conciliar "Magisterium"). He also said that there is a clear conclusion that can be drawn from this, in his opinion, and that he will tell his opinion to any parishioner that really wants to know it and asks him. He then clarified, apropos his unstated opinion, that he can back his opinion up with relevant docuмents and statements from the Archbishop and the history of the SSPX. This particular declaration, by the way, came in his discourse after he made statements implying that he does not believe in the validity of the Novus Ordo in the overwhelming majority of cases, not because of canonical or rubrical technicalities but because those offering it do not believe that it is a sacrifice and therefore cannot be offering a true Mass. He quoted Archbishop Lefebvre, saying, "Excommunication by Rome from the Conciliar Church would be welcome, because as a Catholic I never belonged and do not wish to belong to the Conciliar Church."*
Thus, my speculation : In conclusion, it appears that, at least amongst a certain presbyterial demographic within the SSPX, there will be an embrace of sedevacantism if there is some kind of declaration of formal schism on the part of Benedict (as Stevus speculates). This priest, by the way, spent a long time in England and is very close to Bishop Williamson, who he regularly quotes and defends from the pulpit. At least, if there is some reconciliation between Rome and the SSPX, a large contingent of Anglophones led by Bishop Williamson and priests formed by him will break off. Of these, I imagine many will become sedevacantists, but we will see how many. Perhaps, then, with more organisation and prestige lent to sedevacantism, people will begin to present the idea of a papal conclave, and we will have a Pope at last.
* I paraphrase.
-
Thus, my speculation : In conclusion, it appears that, at least amongst a certain ####ial demographic within the SSPX, there will be an embrace of sedevacantism if there is some kind of declaration of formal schism on the part of Benedict (as Stevus speculates).
In order to prevent scandal, I would like everybody to know that the word partially blotted out was "pres-by-ter-i-al," meaning, "of or having to do with priests and/or the pres-by-ter-ate (i.e., the Sacred Priesthood)," deriving from the Greek word "pres-by-ter-os/pres-bu-ter-os" meaning "old man," hence why the wife of a Greek priest is customarily called "pres-by-ter-a."
-
Perhaps, then, with more organisation and prestige lent to sedevacantism, people will begin to present the idea of a papal conclave, and we will have a Pope at last.
My conscience compels me to make the following qualification :
We will have a Pope at last, as stated above, assuming we do not currently have one whose identity is secret for some sufficiently grave reason. One should not be so quick to make such an assumption; after all, who is to say that there is not a Pope in hiding, since, as many have posited, it seems that the regular jurisdiction of the Diocese of Rome must be maintained in unbroken succession ?
-
Here is an interesting article on the latest from the talks between the Society and Rome:
Vatican issues ultimatum to traditionalist Catholic group
Reuters
Philip Pullella
March 16, 2012
(Reuters) - The Vatican on Friday told an ultra-traditionalist Roman Catholic splinter group they must accept non-negotiable doctrinal principles within a month or risk a painful break with Rome that would have "incalculable" consequences.
The ultimatum was issued after a two-hour meeting between Swiss-born Bishop Bernard Fellay, leader of the dissident Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX) and U.S. Cardinal William Levada, head of the Vatican's doctrinal department.
Levada told Fellay the group's response after years of negotiations was still insufficient to overcome doctrinal problems at the root of the split with Rome.
The SSPX, which rejects reforms made at the historic 1962 Second Vatican Council, defied Rome in 1988 by illegally consecrating four bishops, triggering their excommunication by the late Pope John Paul.
In a gesture of reconciliation, Pope Benedict lifted those bans in 2009 and promoted the use of the traditional Latin Mass favored by the SSPX.
But Benedict has refused to grant SSPX bishops the right to reject some of the Council's teachings, such as its historic reconciliation with Judaism and other faiths.
A Vatican statement warned of a possible "Church rupture that would have painful and incalculable consequences" and demanded that the SSPX clarify its position if it wanted to rejoin the Church and heal the rift.
Vatican spokesman Father Federico Lombardi said the group had been given a month to respond.
He indicated this was the last chance for the traditionalists to come back on board, saying the process had already been a very long one.
"I don't know what else can be done," Lombardi said.
-
This is an article written in 2001 by the late WJ Morgan of England, when news of the SSPX-Rome talks first broke out.
Counter-Reformation Association
NEWS AND VIEWS
La Guerche, Monks Kirby, Warwickshire CV23 0QZ
Septuagesima Special AD2001
Tota pulchra es, Maria,
Et macula originalis non est in te
REAPING THE WHIRLWIND
At Christmas, it still appeared a matter of straws in the wind. At the time, it seemed to me – mistakenly as it has now proved – not only unreasonable, but also prematurely alarmist, to draw readers’ attention to the way the wind was blowing, both in terms of direction and strength. However, by Candlemas the gale had reached London, and during the week which followed, its effects were beginning to be felt throughout the country.
I refer, of course, to Fr Jacques Emily’s announcement that the leadership of the Fraternity of St Pius X had agreed to enter into preliminary negotiations with Conciliar Rome regarding the terms for a mutual rapprochement. The Polish Antipope wants to achieve the maximum extent of Christian unity – and that includes, from his perspective, the right-wing schismatics of the FSPX, their institutional allies, and the lay people who look to them.
Given its “official public position” of giving token recognition to Karol Wojtyla as a valid Pope, it is inevitable that part of the Fraternity’s collective psyche should yearn for renewed official recognition and formal communion with the heretical “Holy Father”. Of course, the FSPX is a notoriously schizophrenic institution, and even abstracting from the key issue of the status of Karol Wojtyla, its right hand never quite seems to know what its left hand is doing – even when the figurative hands in question belong to the same person.
The Abbe Paul Aulagnier’s high-profile activism makes him the natural representative of this aspect of the Fraternity’s institutional psychology. When reading the Second Assistant to the FSPX Superior General’s eloquent rhetoric – in his Saint-Jean-Eudes Bulletin, and now in his book of interviews with the Abbe Guillaume de Tanouarn, “La Tradition sans peur” – it is clear that his right hand rejects the New Mass as lacking doctrinal rectitude. However, his left hand gives the appearance of thinking that the crucial Mass issue is the right of every priest freely to celebrate the Tridentine Mass in any church.
That being the case, providing that Cardinal Ratzinger, or any other Vatican representative, is able to concentrate on the Abbe’s left hand, there is little doubt but that Conciliar Rome will be able to offer him a package which he could hardly refuse – even though it effectively meant amputating his right hand!
It requires very little reflection to understand what the package may contain. As Mgr Perl, of the “Ecclesia Dei” Commission, told the Ciel conference in Rome last year, the 5th May 1988 Protocol is still on offer. In his muddle of reasons for refusing to stand by the Protocol, Mgr Marcel Lefebvre’s key concern was that he should be the one to chose the bishops (in fact already chosen) to be consecrated by him on 30th June, rather than the Vatican choosing one member only of the Fraternity for consecration on 15th August. Accordingly, part of Conciliar Rome’s new deal will obviously include a post mortem honouring of Mgr Lefebvre’s wishes in the matter, by his choice of bishops being accepted by the Vatican. (And surely the status of Mgr Lefebvre himself, like that of the excommunicated Eastern dissidents under Paul VI, could be amicably regularised?)
The Protocol already offers the Fraternity the autonomous status of a Society of Apostolic Life. It is taken for granted that they will continue to celebrate a form of the Tridentine Mass (as confirmed in “Ecclesia Dei Afflicta”), along with the traditional Latin sacramental rites. If the more centralising Conciliarists in the Vatican feel strong enough to face down local Episcopal opposition, it is not beyond the bounds of credibility that they will make the Latin Mass Society’s dream come true – and grant every priest, anywhere, the right to celebrate the Tridentine Mass.
Quite apart from such “perks” which might be on tacit offer from the Vatican for obliging FSPX members (like Dom Gerard’s abbatial mitre), could the Abbe Aulagnier’s left hand really resist such a settlement? Of course, his right hand wouldn’t like it, but which way would he go – left or right?
But what, in that case, appalled readers must be asking themselves, will be the price that the Abbe Aulagnier’s left hand will have to pay for this package of goodies from Conciliar Rome? The answer is, surely, what is already part of the 5th May 1988 Protocol – no more polemics. That means no more public witnessing against the official Conciliar Reform and the New Mass. Or, in those famous words of Bishop Bernard Fellay (as reported by the Abbe Xavier Grossin) on a different matter: “Believe what you like but keep quiet.”
Will the FSPX leadership, or alternatively some of its individual members, accept Conciliar Rome’s left-handed deal? Who can tell? Because the Fraternity is racked with incoherent thinking and practice, anything is possible. Paradoxically, the Abbe Aulagnier himself may be taken aback by the prospect he has helped to bring about. Meanwhile, FSPX members in general appear to confuse matters of doctrinal principle with pragmatic considerations. How will such a deal effect them, is more likely the question anxiously discussed, rather than what does their witness to the Catholic faith as against the Conciliar Reform require of them.
A few robust minds must be wondering about the question of the legal ownership of FSPX property. In this country, that includes not only the churches and priories but also St Michael’s School. They may recall that the matter had to be fought out in the American civil courts, following the 1983 expulsion of the American Nine.
Then there are the Fraternity’s important client religious communities. How, for example, could convents and convent schools survive without the material and spiritual support of the FSPX – that is, on the supposition that any of them were clear-minded enough to recognise that their defining anti-Conciliarist witness had been betrayed?
Many lay people, understandably, must now be anxiously considering the implications of a Rome-Econe deal for their own assistance at Mass and reception of the sacraments. Will they, in conscience, be able to go on assisting at Masses in Fraternity churches? Or will they be forced to stay at home, or – all over again – establish Mass centres, to be served by those recalcitrant priests who will have rejected the deal, and been peremptorily expelled from the FSPX and rendered destitute? Will some of the Londoners, for instance, stage a Saint-Nicolas-du-Chardonnet style occupation of St Joseph’s Church, to prevent it from becoming formally part of the Conciliar Church? It may seem unlikely, but who knows what lay people may be driven to do if faced with another clerical betrayal?
All these unanswered questions indicate how dangerous the course is to which the FSPX leadership has committed itself. It is not sedevacantists only who will refuse any accommodation with Conciliar Rome. The Abbe Aulagnier and his associates have proverbially sown the wind, and –whatever the precise outcome – are in danger of reaping a whirlwind.
5-II-2001 William Morgan
-
Indeed. The SSPX have excellent priests and are safe regarding the sacraments. Whilst another layman who attends the SSPX recommended I attend the Institute Christ the King when unable to attend Society Mass chapels, I disagree with him. I wouldn't encourage attending Mass organised by the FSSP or Institute Christ the King.
We don't have the CMRI in Ireland though there is small sede and independent apostolates here and there. Ireland has been a country that has suited both the Indult and SSPX. An independent apostolate sede or non sede has never really flourished.
I'm often invited to 'approved' Traditional Masses but always decline.I will stay with the SSPX but if they 'sell out' they are destroyed. A tragic day for Tradition.
... etc
A left-of-field thought:
The Eastern Orthodox churches have been recognized as providing valid sacraments for many centuries, although they are in formal schism. Are the doctrinal differences with some of those Churches greater than with the Vatican? I would rather think they are smaller now, after all, they still mostly have valid orders! I have attended weddings and funerals in Melkite and traditional Greek Orthodox churches in the past. Not sure if I am able to learn Aramaic at this late stage! I wonder whether we are witnessing the almost incredible end of Roman Catholicism as being a major Christian religion.
-
A left-of-field thought:
The Eastern Orthodox churches have been recognized as providing valid sacraments for many centuries, although they are in formal schism. Are the doctrinal differences with some of those Churches greater than with the Vatican? I would rather think they are smaller now, after all, they still mostly have valid orders! I have attended weddings and funerals in Melkite and traditional Greek Orthodox churches in the past. Not sure if I am able to learn Aramaic at this late stage! I wonder whether we are witnessing the almost incredible end of Roman Catholicism as being a major Christian religion.
I can see how you would come to this conclusion. But one not leave Catholicism to find valid, and traditional Rites. Don't forget, the Byzantine Rite has been left mostly untouched. At least, this is my understanding. And while there are many priests and Bishops within the Byzantine Church who are liberals, I believe there are also many within it who are committed to keeping the faith.
As far as the 'end of Roman Catholicism'. I know you don't mean it, but this would mean that Christ is a liar, and the gates of hell have prevailed. Again, I know this isn't what you mean. However, its not too hard to start going in that direction with one's thoughts, especially when they look around at the Church today. It can be discouraging, and I've been there, trust me. But we need to keep strong! God has deemed that we be put through these trials, and be the ones who keep His Church alive. I think we need to just be patient and wait. Save your soul, help save those of your family, and wait for God to tell us what's next.
-
A few robust minds must be wondering about the question of the legal ownership of FSPX property. In this country, that includes not only the churches and priories but also St Michael’s School. They may recall that the matter had to be fought out in the American civil courts, following the 1983 expulsion of the American Nine.
5-II-2001 William Morgan
Behind the scenes maneuvering of assets and property by the SSPX hierarchy seemed to leak out about the time of the Krah-gate affair. I've often thought that the SSPX have had the legal issues all tied up by the help of this lawyer, so there can be no repeat of the legal battle which occurred in American after the nine left. They certainly squelched the explosive Krah affair in a hurry...and they never gave an explanation of any kind to their laity.
My opinion, of course.
-
A few robust minds must be wondering about the question of the legal ownership of FSPX property. In this country, that includes not only the churches and priories but also St Michael’s School. They may recall that the matter had to be fought out in the American civil courts, following the 1983 expulsion of the American Nine.
5-II-2001 William Morgan
Behind the scenes maneuvering of assets and property by the SSPX hierarchy seemed to leak out about the time of the Krah-gate affair. I've often thought that the SSPX have had the legal issues all tied up by the help of this lawyer, so there can be no repeat of the legal battle which occurred in American after the nine left. They certainly squelched the explosive Krah affair in a hurry...and they never gave an explanation of any kind to their laity.
My opinion, of course.
I have no doubt that if there is a split in the SSPX, the faction that goes with Rome will retain all the properties, and the group that breaks from them will have no assets. Thats what happened at the time of Vatican 11. the modern church that stayed with Rome kept almost everything. Perhaps, if a whole group in a specific Pius X chapel has a strong lay group, they may be able to hold on to the real estate. That would be rare.
-
Yes, back to being impoverished again unless there is a merchant banker or two seeking redemption through his millions/billions! But, in a way, ridding ourself of money-obsession is the way to go .... and priests should only need their expenses.
-
Well, Father today at the SSPX chapel here in old Oeil-de-Cochon gave quite an introduction to his sermon. He addressed the issues with Bishop Fellay and Rome and hinted, quite clearly, that the Rubicon has essentially been passed and that there will certainly be a schism between Rome and the SSPX (which, in my opinion, already exists since they do not in practice recognise the post-conciliar "Magisterium"). He also said that there is a clear conclusion that can be drawn from this, in his opinion, and that he will tell his opinion to any parishioner that really wants to know it and asks him. He then clarified, apropos his unstated opinion, that he can back his opinion up with relevant docuмents and statements from the Archbishop and the history of the SSPX. This particular declaration, by the way, came in his discourse after he made statements implying that he does not believe in the validity of the Novus Ordo in the overwhelming majority of cases, not because of canonical or rubrical technicalities but because those offering it do not believe that it is a sacrifice and therefore cannot be offering a true Mass. He quoted Archbishop Lefebvre, saying, "Excommunication by Rome from the Conciliar Church would be welcome, because as a Catholic I never belonged and do not wish to belong to the Conciliar Church."*
Thus, my speculation : In conclusion, it appears that, at least amongst a certain [sacerdotal] demographic within the SSPX, there will be an embrace of sedevacantism if there is some kind of declaration of formal schism on the part of Benedict (as Stevus speculates). This priest, by the way, spent a long time in England and is very close to Bishop Williamson, who he regularly quotes and defends from the pulpit. At least, if there is some reconciliation between Rome and the SSPX, a large contingent of Anglophones led by Bishop Williamson and priests formed by him will break off. Of these, I imagine many will become sedevacantists, but we will see how many. Perhaps, then, with more organisation and prestige lent to sedevacantism, people will begin to present the idea of a papal conclave, and we will have a Pope at last.
* I paraphrase.
Nothing ? It seems that a new phase in the Crisis is about to begin. Nobody has any speculation to add regarding the probability of a declaration of formal schism (or a "schismatic act/mentality") and/or automatic excommunication ? What about the prospect of many SSPX priests becoming sedevacantists ? Matthew, what would you do ?
As for the priests who don't go along with some reconciliation being impoverished, truly then the wheat will be separated from the chaff. And one wouldn't even need to be very high quality wheat to not compromise one's faith for money.
I am interested in what others have to say. What all seems likely to others ?
-
I can see how you would come to this conclusion. But one not leave Catholicism to find valid, and traditional Rites. Don't forget, the Byzantine Rite has been left mostly untouched. At least, this is my understanding. And while there are many priests and Bishops within the Byzantine Church who are liberals, I believe there are also many within it who are committed to keeping the faith.
As far as the 'end of Roman Catholicism'. I know you don't mean it, but this would mean that Christ is a liar, and the gates of hell have prevailed. Again, I know this isn't what you mean. However, its not too hard to start going in that direction with one's thoughts, especially when they look around at the Church today. It can be discouraging, and I've been there, trust me. But we need to keep strong! God has deemed that we be put through these trials, and be the ones who keep His Church alive. I think we need to just be patient and wait. Save your soul, help save those of your family, and wait for God to tell us what's next.
Thanks s2srea for the response. Yes, my comment was really just for discussion's sake.
Well, the sedevacante view, as far as it is not heretical as a concept, means that the Catholic Church can continue to exist despite having a broken political structure (eg: a desanctified Basilica in Rome with an invalid or otherwise absent Pope). This does not need to mean that Christ has abandoned his Church, so long as we still have some bishops and priests.
But yes, to suggest that in the entire world there could be a situation where there is not one living validly ordained bishop left who is not an heretic is an impossibility.
-
Well, Father today at the SSPX chapel here in old Oeil-de-Cochon gave quite an introduction to his sermon. He addressed the issues with Bishop Fellay and Rome and hinted, quite clearly, that the Rubicon has essentially been passed and that there will certainly be a schism between Rome and the SSPX (which, in my opinion, already exists since they do not in practice recognise the post-conciliar "Magisterium"). He also said that there is a clear conclusion that can be drawn from this, in his opinion, and that he will tell his opinion to any parishioner that really wants to know it and asks him. He then clarified, apropos his unstated opinion, that he can back his opinion up with relevant docuмents and statements from the Archbishop and the history of the SSPX. This particular declaration, by the way, came in his discourse after he made statements implying that he does not believe in the validity of the Novus Ordo in the overwhelming majority of cases, not because of canonical or rubrical technicalities but because those offering it do not believe that it is a sacrifice and therefore cannot be offering a true Mass. He quoted Archbishop Lefebvre, saying, "Excommunication by Rome from the Conciliar Church would be welcome, because as a Catholic I never belonged and do not wish to belong to the Conciliar Church."*
Thus, my speculation : In conclusion, it appears that, at least amongst a certain [sacerdotal] demographic within the SSPX, there will be an embrace of sedevacantism if there is some kind of declaration of formal schism on the part of Benedict (as Stevus speculates). This priest, by the way, spent a long time in England and is very close to Bishop Williamson, who he regularly quotes and defends from the pulpit. At least, if there is some reconciliation between Rome and the SSPX, a large contingent of Anglophones led by Bishop Williamson and priests formed by him will break off. Of these, I imagine many will become sedevacantists, but we will see how many. Perhaps, then, with more organisation and prestige lent to sedevacantism, people will begin to present the idea of a papal conclave, and we will have a Pope at last.
* I paraphrase.
Nothing ? It seems that a new phase in the Crisis is about to begin. Nobody has any speculation to add regarding the probability of a declaration of formal schism (or a "schismatic act/mentality") and/or automatic excommunication ? What about the prospect of many SSPX priests becoming sedevacantists ? Matthew, what would you do ?
As for the priests who don't go along with some reconciliation being impoverished, truly then the wheat will be separated from the chaff. And one wouldn't even need to be very high quality wheat to not compromise one's faith for money.
I am interested in what others have to say. What all seems likely to others ?
Will something as dramatic as that happen? Or will it be another case of 'kicking the can further down the road' as in the financial world? Does the impasse become a more convenient solution in itself as the parties (Rome and Menzingen) enter another face-saving stage? Unless there is general discontent among Society members, the partial-communion strategy of the Society could run for more decades. Meanwhile the laity drift hither and thither thankful for small mercies.
We also have to consider whether there is an appetite for more independent action among a new generation of traditionalists. The old guard that personally have experience of the Church in former times are dying out and some have mellowed. And those not sitting on the fence are already alligned to apostalates of their choosing. The big question mark is the reaction of a younger generation
and how far they have adopted a liberal approach in their lives that would favour engaging with the mainstream church instead of confronting her.
-
Will something as dramatic as that happen? Or will it be another case of 'kicking the can further down the road' as in the financial world? Does the impasse become a more convenient solution in itself as the parties (Rome and Menzingen) enter another face-saving stage? Unless there is general discontent among Society members, the partial-communion strategy of the Society could run for more decades. Meanwhile the laity drift hither and thither thankful for small mercies.
We also have to consider whether there is an appetite for more independent action among a new generation of traditionalists. The old guard that personally have experience of the Church in former times are dying out and some have mellowed. And those not sitting on the fence are already alligned to apostalates of their choosing. The big question mark is the reaction of a younger generation
and how far they have adopted a liberal approach in their lives that would favour engaging with the mainstream church instead of confronting her.
Partial communion as it currently stands favors the SSPX most. if the SSPX needed the permission of a local NO bishop to set up a parish, it would cease to grow.
The Traditional Catholic movement has oft times been accused of being "stuck in the 1950's" and so on. However the youth in the movement has its feet well and truly in the present and there is an ever growing and widespread awareness of world politics and an appropriate and accurate interpretation thereof. I know that in the past amongst Catholics there were pockets of people who were well informed about world affairs, including those in the Vatican, but they were the minority. Today this knowledge is common, and this gives the SSPX laity power, the SSPX heirarchy accountability, and the NO heretics much to fear.
The other thing is that truly Catholic families are yielding good fruit - sizable families and improved affluence, generation after generation, due to sensible saving and investing habits, and living the Christian life. Traditional Catholicism is a formula for success. This is why the Church had come as far as it has.
I also think that moral leadership from the likes of Bishop Williamson who, in his humility, points out some of the most pertinent truths of our day, is not lost on the youth.
-
Partial communion as it currently stands favors the SSPX most. if the SSPX needed the permission of a local NO bishop to set up a parish, it would cease to grow.
That is dynamite! Absolutely great point. I didn't actually think of that. Maizar is right. If the SSPX did regularize and fuse itself into the Concilliar Church, it would then be subject, eventually if not immediately, to the Concilliar Bishops.
Growth would stop.
And, sooner or later, money raised in the SSPX parishes would be pooled into the diocese and then when the money problems come, the local bishop would see to it that the SSPX parish is the one that is closed or combined with another NO parish.
At this time, and for the foreseeable future, I think the SSPX would be making a grave error in regularizing.
-
And, sooner or later, money raised in the SSPX parishes would be pooled into the diocese and then when the money problems come, the local bishop would see to it that the SSPX parish is the one that is closed or combined with another NO parish.
Keeping this in mind, one must ask as William of Norwich did
"Why does Krah, who is not a cleric of the SSPX or even a longtime supporter of the Society, have such singular power to handle SSPX funds?"
Or as another Krahgate team member stated
"Aside from conspiracy, it is objectively true that Maximilian Krah is partners with Bishop Fellay and Fr. Niklaus Pfluger in Society investment arms, Dello Sarto AG and manages Jaidhofer Privatstiftung St. Josef und Marcellus (Jaidhof Foundation St. Joseph and Marcellus)
The following people are at the company Dello Sarto AG on the Board
Baudot Emeric, Member of the Board
Bernard Fellay, Chairman
Krah Maximilian, Board delegate
Niklaus Pfluger, Member of the Board
The following people are at the company Dello Sarto AG authorized to:
Baudot Emeric, joint signature at two
Bernard Fellay, Single signature
Krah Maximilian, Single signature
Niklaus Pfluger, joint signature at two
Krah is the only single signatory other than Bishop Fellay for SSPX investment arm, Dello Sarto AG. The Jaidhof Foundation in apparently named for the Jaidhof Castle SSPX Austrian retreat center.
Krah is "Responsible for wealth and asset management of the settlement capital, and for the project development of non-profit projects all over the world, which are sponsored by using the achieved funds.""
A man at Zionist fundraisers controlling SSPX finance is a scandal.
-
As William of Norwich did say
"The fact that the SSPX appears to be involved in international financial markets will worry many of their faithful who would, rightly, believe that such activity is both risky on the material plane, and questionable on the moral level. There may, of course, be those who are less concerned, feeling that it is acceptable practice in the modern world, and aimed at “a final good.” Are the latter right?
Krah first made his appearance in the international sphere, as far as rank-and-file traditionalists are concerned, in the wake of what has been dubbed by the mainstream media as “the Williamson Affair.” His comments on the bishop were less than flattering, exuded a liberal view of the world, and poured oil on the fire of controversy that raged across the world, and against both the bishop and the SSPX, for months on end. It has been plain for a long time now that the “interview” and the “ensuing controversy” were a set-up, but it was, and still is, a matter of conjecture as to which person(s) and/or agencies engineered the set-up. Perhaps subsequent information in this email will throw more light on this troubling question?
What is beyond conjecture, however, is that Bishop Fellay’s attitude towards Bishop Williamson changed dramatically. Even those who will hear nothing against Bishop Fellay have noticed this change. The change has been public and persistent, and has been both insulting and humiliating for Bishop Williamson. It has also been largely carried out in the mainstream media, and, in Germany, the notoriously anti-Catholic communist magazine, Der Spiegel, has found a favored place, much to the astonishment of traditionalists everywhere. It has been there that we heard the shocking references to Bishop Williamson as “an unexploded hand grenade,” “a dangerous lump of uranium,” etc, as well as the insulting insinuations that he is disturbed or suffering from Parkinson’s Disease. The question, let it be remembered, is not whether one agrees or disagrees with Williamson, whether one likes or dislikes either Bishop Williamson or Bishop Fellay, but whether or not a man has a right to express a personal opinion on a matter of secular history. The ambush of Williamson by the Swedish interviewer, Ali Fegan, said by some Swedes to be a Turkish Jew, left Williamson on the spot: to get up and walk out in silence, thereby providing the media with the hook “that his refusal to speak is proof of his revisionist beliefs” or simply to lie. Williamson made his choice. Whether we agree or not is neither here nor there.
In the past, nearly two decades earlier in Canada, Williamson made “controversial comments” on the same subject at what was understood to be a private meeting of Catholics. A journalist, however, found out and made a story out of it. The relevance of this episode is that the attitude of Archbishop Lefebvre contrasts remarkably with that of Bishop Fellay. The first just ignored the “controversy,” treating a secular and anti-Catholic media with total disdain, and the matter quickly became a dead issue. The latter played to the media gallery, broke corporate unity with his brother in the episcopacy (specifically warned against by Archbishop Lefebvre during the 1988 consecrations), and turned what should have been a molehill into a mountain."
-
This article explains the situation referred to on this thread quite nicely:
http://christorchaos.com/CologneDeSoufre.html
-
This is a google translation of words from Father Juan Carlos Ceriani
http://radiocristiandad.wordpress.com/
P. CERIANI: HOW THE SITUATION CHANGED! - ON THE VATICAN PRESS
FRIDAY MARCH 16, 2012
by Radio Christianity
HOW TO CHANGE THE SITUATION!
First scene
With the signing of the Agreement of May 5, 1988, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre fell into the trap that Cardinal Ratzinger tended.
After she left, Archbishop Lefebvre made it clear that talks would resume only when Roman men fulfill some prerequisites:
I can not speak much of the future, as mine is behind me. But if I live a bit further and assuming that within a certain time Rome made a call, you want to meet again, resume dialogue at that point would be I who would impose the conditions. Not accept any more be in the situation that we encountered during the talks. This was completed.
Raise the issue at the doctrinal level:
Do you agree with all the great encyclicals of the popes who preceded them? Do you agree with Quanta Cura of Pius IX, Immortale Dei, Libertas of Leo XIII, Pius X Pascendi, Quas premiums Pius XI, Pius XII's Humani Generis?
Are they in full communion with these potatoes with their statements?
Do you take the oath against modernism yet? Are they in favor of the social reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ?
If you do not accept the doctrine of his predecessors, it is useless to talk.
Until we have agreed to reform the Council considering the doctrine of those popes who preceded them, no dialogue possible. It's useless.
The positions would thus be clearer.
There is a small thing that we oppose. Not enough to be told: they say the old Mass, but you must accept this. No, it is only that which we oppose, is the doctrine. Clear. (Interview granted to fideliter, No. 66, November-December 1988)
+ + +
Scene Two
On resuming contact with Rome falling, without the imposition of these requirements, Bishop Fellay fell into the same trap that Ratzinger had prepared for Archbishop Lefebvre.
Rome is now the conditions imposed reconcile the SSPX:
The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith takes the fundamental basis of full reconciliation with the Apostolic See Preamble acceptance of doctrinal delivered at the meeting of September 14, 2011. This preamble sets forth certain doctrinal principles and criteria of interpretation of Catholic doctrine, necessary to ensure fidelity to the Magisterium of the Church and the "sentire cuм Ecclesia." (Communiqué common of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and Fellowship St. Pius X, September 14, 2011).
It is, therefore, that the Society of St. Pius X, who once clung with all my heart, with all your soul, to Catholic Rome guardian of the Catholic faith and traditions necessary for maintenance of the faith, eternal Rome , master of wisdom and truth , today is required to accept or reject "doctrinal principles" proposed by the conciliar Rome, corrupted by modernism and betrothed to the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr raised by the same principles to reconcile Rome that once the Brotherhood refused to follow, that Rome and neoprotestante neo-modernist trend that was clearly demonstrated in the Second Vatican Council and after the Council in all the reforms that came out of it ...
+ + +
We know that the "doctrinal principles" proposed by the Conciliar Church, the Society of St. Pius X is required to accept or reject, based on the Memorandum of Understanding of May 5, 1988, although more restrictive. They are:
- Recognize the light of Vatican II Catholic Tradition and the teachings of the Popes until later today.
- The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which is a compendium of the Council's teaching.
- The Code of Canon Law published in 1983, with an application tailored to the particular discipline given to the SSPX.
- The legitimacy of the Novus Ordo.
- A profession of faith.
- An oath of allegiance.
+ + +
Today , March 16, 2012, the antichrist and neo-modernist Rome has invited the General Superior of the Society of St. Pius X to clarify his position ...
+ + +
We are therefore faced with the fact that the present authorities of the Society of St. Pius X have perverted the will of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, who had decided to cut off talks with Roma reconcile as long as the Roman authorities did not abjure of modernist errors and accept all the teachings of the Popes from Pius VI to Pius XII, who condemned the errors arising from the Revolution, including naturalism, liberalism, modernism and ecuмenism ...
As punishment for his infidelity today are constrained to accept or reject those errors ...
What a change of status from one to another scene!
Father Juan Carlos Ceriani
-
We are therefore faced with the fact that the present authorities of the Society of St. Pius X have perverted the will of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, who had decided to cut off talks with Roma reconcile as long as the Roman authorities did not abjure of modernist errors and accept all the teachings of the Popes from Pius VI to Pius XII, who condemned the errors arising from the Revolution, including naturalism, liberalism, modernism and ecuмenism ...
As punishment for his infidelity today are constrained to accept or reject those errors ...
What a change of status from one to another scene!
Yes, the SSPX has possibly entered into negotiations too hastily, which casts doubts Bishop Fellay's intentions (but time will tell, so I do not judge as yet). The truth is forever, so there really should be no rush, despite people arguing that the longer there is a political rift the more difficult it is to heal. This is only true if the NO church is drifting further and further into error, and if so, who wants to be a part of that? I am already content, having knowledge of public and many undisclosed facts on the behavior of NO bishops, that today significant parts of the NO Church (possibly even the majority) are already largely defunct and invalid.
If Benedict wants to excommunicate the SSPX again over "irreconcilable differences" like some kind of Hollywood Jewess, he achieves no more than to make a fool of himself. The SSPX, as yet, stands tall, although Fellay is risking everything if he succuмbs, and this will be a telling sign of the state of his own soul. He should realize that time is actually on the SSPX's side, not the Pope's.
But we all should individually keep in mind that, provided we maintain fidelity with Tradition, we have nothing to fear of walking into lion's dens or fiery furnaces. If Bishop Fellay is made of such stuff, then all is well. But is he?
-
Will something as dramatic as that happen? Or will it be another case of 'kicking the can further down the road' as in the financial world? Does the impasse become a more convenient solution in itself as the parties (Rome and Menzingen) enter another face-saving stage? Unless there is general discontent among Society members, the partial-communion strategy of the Society could run for more decades. Meanwhile the laity drift hither and thither thankful for small mercies.
We also have to consider whether there is an appetite for more independent action among a new generation of traditionalists. The old guard that personally have experience of the Church in former times are dying out and some have mellowed. And those not sitting on the fence are already alligned to apostalates of their choosing. The big question mark is the reaction of a younger generation
and how far they have adopted a liberal approach in their lives that would favour engaging with the mainstream church instead of confronting her.
Partial communion as it currently stands favors the SSPX most. if the SSPX needed the permission of a local NO bishop to set up a parish, it would cease to grow.
The Traditional Catholic movement has oft times been accused of being "stuck in the 1950's" and so on. However the youth in the movement has its feet well and truly in the present and there is an ever growing and widespread awareness of world politics and an appropriate and accurate interpretation thereof. I know that in the past amongst Catholics there were pockets of people who were well informed about world affairs, including those in the Vatican, but they were the minority. Today this knowledge is common, and this gives the SSPX laity power, the SSPX heirarchy accountability, and the NO heretics much to fear.
The other thing is that truly Catholic families are yielding good fruit - sizable families and improved affluence, generation after generation, due to sensible saving and investing habits, and living the Christian life. Traditional Catholicism is a formula for success. This is why the Church had come as far as it has.
I also think that moral leadership from the likes of Bishop Williamson who, in his humility, points out some of the most pertinent truths of our day, is not lost on the youth.
Very insightful post.
-
Well, Father today at the SSPX chapel here in old Oeil-de-Cochon gave quite an introduction to his sermon. He addressed the issues with Bishop Fellay and Rome and hinted, quite clearly, that the Rubicon has essentially been passed and that there will certainly be a schism between Rome and the SSPX (which, in my opinion, already exists since they do not in practice recognise the post-conciliar "Magisterium"). He also said that there is a clear conclusion that can be drawn from this, in his opinion, and that he will tell his opinion to any parishioner that really wants to know it and asks him. He then clarified, apropos his unstated opinion, that he can back his opinion up with relevant docuмents and statements from the Archbishop and the history of the SSPX. This particular declaration, by the way, came in his discourse after he made statements implying that he does not believe in the validity of the Novus Ordo in the overwhelming majority of cases, not because of canonical or rubrical technicalities but because those offering it do not believe that it is a sacrifice and therefore cannot be offering a true Mass. He quoted Archbishop Lefebvre, saying, "Excommunication by Rome from the Conciliar Church would be welcome, because as a Catholic I never belonged and do not wish to belong to the Conciliar Church."*
Thus, my speculation : In conclusion, it appears that, at least amongst a certain [sacerdotal] demographic within the SSPX, there will be an embrace of sedevacantism if there is some kind of declaration of formal schism on the part of Benedict (as Stevus speculates). This priest, by the way, spent a long time in England and is very close to Bishop Williamson, who he regularly quotes and defends from the pulpit. At least, if there is some reconciliation between Rome and the SSPX, a large contingent of Anglophones led by Bishop Williamson and priests formed by him will break off. Of these, I imagine many will become sedevacantists, but we will see how many. Perhaps, then, with more organisation and prestige lent to sedevacantism, people will begin to present the idea of a papal conclave, and we will have a Pope at last.
* I paraphrase.
Nothing ? It seems that a new phase in the Crisis is about to begin. Nobody has any speculation to add regarding the probability of a declaration of formal schism (or a "schismatic act/mentality") and/or automatic excommunication ? What about the prospect of many SSPX priests becoming sedevacantists ? Matthew, what would you do ?
As for the priests who don't go along with some reconciliation being impoverished, truly then the wheat will be separated from the chaff. And one wouldn't even need to be very high quality wheat to not compromise one's faith for money.
I am interested in what others have to say. What all seems likely to others ?
I remember that last autumn when the Doctrinal Preamble was issued there was a poster here (or was it on FE?) who said that it was a wedge that would force the SSPX into either schism or obedience to Rome. It looks more and more like he was right.
I don't follow these issues much beyond what I read on the forum here. Additionally, I have no firm stance for or against sedevacantism and I fully admit that this is one subject I don't like to think about. I think many here would say I have a typical SSPX wishy-washy approach to it. If this is a new phase, then none of us have the leisure to ignore it anymore.
-
Well, Father today at the SSPX chapel here in old Oeil-de-Cochon gave quite an introduction to his sermon. He addressed the issues with Bishop Fellay and Rome and hinted, quite clearly, that the Rubicon has essentially been passed and that there will certainly be a schism between Rome and the SSPX (which, in my opinion, already exists since they do not in practice recognise the post-conciliar "Magisterium"). He also said that there is a clear conclusion that can be drawn from this, in his opinion, and that he will tell his opinion to any parishioner that really wants to know it and asks him. He then clarified, apropos his unstated opinion, that he can back his opinion up with relevant docuмents and statements from the Archbishop and the history of the SSPX. This particular declaration, by the way, came in his discourse after he made statements implying that he does not believe in the validity of the Novus Ordo in the overwhelming majority of cases, not because of canonical or rubrical technicalities but because those offering it do not believe that it is a sacrifice and therefore cannot be offering a true Mass. He quoted Archbishop Lefebvre, saying, "Excommunication by Rome from the Conciliar Church would be welcome, because as a Catholic I never belonged and do not wish to belong to the Conciliar Church."*
Thus, my speculation : In conclusion, it appears that, at least amongst a certain [sacerdotal] demographic within the SSPX, there will be an embrace of sedevacantism if there is some kind of declaration of formal schism on the part of Benedict (as Stevus speculates). This priest, by the way, spent a long time in England and is very close to Bishop Williamson, who he regularly quotes and defends from the pulpit. At least, if there is some reconciliation between Rome and the SSPX, a large contingent of Anglophones led by Bishop Williamson and priests formed by him will break off. Of these, I imagine many will become sedevacantists, but we will see how many. Perhaps, then, with more organisation and prestige lent to sedevacantism, people will begin to present the idea of a papal conclave, and we will have a Pope at last.
* I paraphrase.
Nothing ? It seems that a new phase in the Crisis is about to begin. Nobody has any speculation to add regarding the probability of a declaration of formal schism (or a "schismatic act/mentality") and/or automatic excommunication ? What about the prospect of many SSPX priests becoming sedevacantists ? Matthew, what would you do ?
As for the priests who don't go along with some reconciliation being impoverished, truly then the wheat will be separated from the chaff. And one wouldn't even need to be very high quality wheat to not compromise one's faith for money.
I am interested in what others have to say. What all seems likely to others ?
I remember that last autumn when the Doctrinal Preamble was issued there was a poster here (or was it on FE?) who said that it was a wedge that would force the SSPX into either schism or obedience to Rome. It looks more and more like he was right.
I don't follow these issues much beyond what I read on the forum here. Additionally, I have no firm stance for or against sedevacantism and I fully admit that this is one subject I don't like to think about. I think many here would say I have a typical SSPX wishy-washy approach to it. If this is a new phase, then none of us have the leisure to ignore it anymore.
I'll take the bait:
1) Will there be a new phase in the crisis? Response: No.
Rome will continue to be modernist. The SSPX will either hold their ground, in which case nothing changes. Or, the SSPX will take the bait and be gradually dissolved, as was Campos, in which case we will all be looking for independant priests.
2) Will there be a declaration of formal schism if Bishop Fellay refuses to take the bait? Response: Who cares. On the one hand, it would be no more valid than it has been the last 24 years. On the other hand, it would probably help preserve sound doctrine by scaring away the indultarians and their diluting effect.
3) Will many SSPX priests become sedevacantists if Rome declares schism? Response: No. The question itself implies that sedevacantism is a retaliatory position rather than a doctrinal one, which would make it an immature one. Just as Christ came unto his own, and His own received Him not, so too with the SSPX (i.e., They would continue to accept his authority to govern the Universal Church, while opposing him when his governance is unCatholic, which is 94% of the time). But in principle, they would defend his reign, since the SSPX understands it cannot judge and decide the legitimacy of the Pope. Only a future Pope can do so.
4) Would there be a split within the SSPX if Bishop Fellay takes the bait? Response: Definately. The highest number of clergy that would hold true to the principles of Archbishop Lefebvre would be those found in North America, South America, and Africa. Europe would almost entirely side with the diluted SSPX. My instinct tells me that only about 25% of the current SSPX clergy would break away, but this is purely instinctive, based on the clergy I personally know.
-
:applause:
-
Upon the Alps the Angels stand
Eyes fixed upon thee, Helvetic land
Weighing the fate of Ecône’s hall
Shall it stand or shall it fall?
-
Hopefully by April 16th, 2012 we shall know once and for all whether the SSPX has rejected Modernist Rome, and then can try and pick up the pieces and get on with our lives with or without this Society.
-
Hopefully by April 16th, 2012 we shall know once and for all whether the SSPX has rejected Modernist Rome, and then can try and pick up the pieces and get on with our lives with or without this Society.
:applause:
-
Will something as dramatic as that happen? Or will it be another case of 'kicking the can further down the road' as in the financial world? Does the impasse become a more convenient solution in itself as the parties (Rome and Menzingen) enter another face-saving stage? Unless there is general discontent among Society members, the partial-communion strategy of the Society could run for more decades. Meanwhile the laity drift hither and thither thankful for small mercies.
We also have to consider whether there is an appetite for more independent action among a new generation of traditionalists. The old guard that personally have experience of the Church in former times are dying out and some have mellowed. And those not sitting on the fence are already alligned to apostalates of their choosing. The big question mark is the reaction of a younger generation
and how far they have adopted a liberal approach in their lives that would favour engaging with the mainstream church instead of confronting her.
Partial communion as it currently stands favors the SSPX most. if the SSPX needed the permission of a local NO bishop to set up a parish, it would cease to grow.
The Traditional Catholic movement has oft times been accused of being "stuck in the 1950's" and so on. However the youth in the movement has its feet well and truly in the present and there is an ever growing and widespread awareness of world politics and an appropriate and accurate interpretation thereof. I know that in the past amongst Catholics there were pockets of people who were well informed about world affairs, including those in the Vatican, but they were the minority. Today this knowledge is common, and this gives the SSPX laity power, the SSPX heirarchy accountability, and the NO heretics much to fear.
The other thing is that truly Catholic families are yielding good fruit - sizable families and improved affluence, generation after generation, due to sensible saving and investing habits, and living the Christian life. Traditional Catholicism is a formula for success. This is why the Church had come as far as it has.
I also think that moral leadership from the likes of Bishop Williamson who, in his humility, points out some of the most pertinent truths of our day, is not lost on the youth.
What a lot of people ignore is that the Society and Traditional groups in general are continuing to grow, even proliferating in official seminaries and religious orders, while those of the Liberal sect continue to decline and fade into political irrelevance as they represent only the consensus of the world rather than the sign of contradiction.
-
Google translation
Pulpit preaching: Conversations with Rome
Sunday, 25 March 2012 at 10:00 clock
Pulpit preaching to all churches and chapels of the German District of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X.
Dear faithful,
on 16 March gave Cardinal Levada, Prefect of the Congregation, the Superior General of our Fraternity, Bishop Fellay in Rome a letter with statements in which we are asked ultimately to us from the positive to the doctrinal preamble 14th To express September 2011, as this has happened so far.
As a deadline for response is 15th April 2012 called. Surely you have experienced this already wholly or partly from the media. We are thus arrived at a crucial point.
If the letter also strikes an unpleasant sound, so there are legitimate hopes for a satisfactory solution. If it comes into existence, it would strengthen all the forces in preserving much of the church, in the other case would be weakened and this rather discouraging. So it is not primarily about our brotherhood, but for the good of the Church.
Therefore we ask for the eager, insistent and imploring prayer of all our faithful and all Catholics, that God through the redemptive suffering of His only begotten Son, his church from its crisis to lead and give her new in the Holy Resurrection of Jesus life, new strength and new prosperity.
Stuttgart, 22 March 2012
Father Franz Schmidberger, District Superior
http://pius.info/startseite/offizielle-stellungnahmen/698-distrikt-stellungnahmen/6525-kanzelverkuendigung-gespraeche-mit-rom
Kanzelverkündigung: Gespräche mit Rom
Sonntag, den 25. März 2012 um 10:00 Uhr
Kanzelverkündigung für alle Kirchen und Kapellen des deutschen Distrikts der Priesterbruderschaft St. Pius X.
Liebe Gläubige,
am 16. März überreichte Kardinal Levada, Präfekt der Glaubenskongregation, dem Generaloberen unserer Bruderschaft, Bischof Fellay, in Rom einen Brief mit Erklärungen, in dem wir ultimativ aufgefordert werden, uns positiver zu der lehrmäßigen Präambel vom 14. September 2011 zu äußern, als dies bisher geschehen ist.
Als letzten Termin für eine Antwort wird der 15. April 2012 genannt. Gewiss haben Sie dies schon ganz oder teilweise aus den Medien erfahren. Wir sind also an einem entscheidenden Punkt angelangt.
Wenn der Brief auch einen unangenehmen Ton anschlägt, so gibt es doch berechtigte Hoffnungen auf eine befriedigende Lösung. Falls diese zustande käme, würde sie alle bewahrenden Kräfte in der Kirche bedeutend stärken; im anderen Fall würden diese eher geschwächt und entmutigt werden. Es geht also in erster Linie nicht um unsere Bruderschaft, sondern um das Wohl der Kirche.
Deshalb bitten wir um das eifrige, beharrliche und flehentliche Gebet all unserer Gläubigen und aller Katholiken, damit Gott durch das erlösende Leiden seines eingeborenen Sohnes seine Kirche aus ihrer Krise herausführe und ihr in der heiligen Auferstehung Jesu neues Leben, neue Kraft und neue Blüte schenke.
Stuttgart, den 22. März 2012
Pater Franz Schmidberger, Distriktoberer
-
Hopefully by April 16th, 2012 we shall know once and for all whether the SSPX has rejected Modernist Rome, and then can try and pick up the pieces and get on with our lives with or without this Society.
:applause:
God willing.I don't wish to cause an argument but I believe Bishop Fellay and others have betrayed Archbishop Lefebvre. I am opposed to a deal. I'm certainly going to increase my prayers between now and then.
-
Hopefully by April 16th, 2012 we shall know once and for all whether the SSPX has rejected Modernist Rome, and then can try and pick up the pieces and get on with our lives with or without this Society.
:applause:
God willing.I don't wish to cause an argument but I believe Bishop Fellay and others have betrayed Archbishop Lefebvre. I am opposed to a deal. I'm certainly going to increase my prayers between now and then.
The other three SSPX bishops do not seem to be in favour of an agreement with Rome. A French website claims that 98% of the SSPX is against a deal. If this is true then it does seem that Bishop Fellay has enormous power as Superior-General and can ride roughshod over majority views and opinions.
-
The other three SSPX bishops do not seem to be in favour of an agreement with Rome. A French website claims that 98% of the SSPX is against a deal. If this is true then it does seem that Bishop Fellay has enormous power as Superior-General and can ride roughshod over majority views and opinions.
If this is true, then Bishop Fellay could only do this for so long before he finds himself to be a king with no kingdom. Being a Superior-General, again, is a political title. Yes, people swear allegiance to him but as in all things they belong to God first. I think rather that Bishop Fellay, as ambitious as he is said to be, can't be so foolish as to lead where no one will follow.