Number CCLXXI (271)
    
22 September 2012

REVERSIBLE DECLARATION

Not everything about the General Chapter of the Society of St Pius X held in Switzerland in July may have been disastrous, but of its two official fruits, the “Six Conditions” were “alarmingly weak” (cf. EC 268, Sept. 1), and its final “Declaration” leaves much to be desired. Here is the briefest of summaries of its ten paragraphs:--

1 We thank God for 42 years of our Society’s existence. 2 We have rediscovered our unity after the recent crisis (really ?), 3 in order to profess our faith 4 in the Church, in the Pope, in Christ the King. 5 We hold to the Church’s constant Magisterium, 6 as also to its constant Tradition. 7 We join with all Catholics now being persecuted. 8 We pray for help to the Blessed Virgin Mary, 9 to St. Michael 10 and to St Pius X.

This is a Declaration not lacking in piety, which St Paul says is useful for all purposes (I Tim. IV, 8). However, to his two disciples, Timothy and Titus, he is constantly emphasizing the need for doctrine, which is the foundation of true piety. Alas, the Declaration is rather less strong in doctrine. Instead of blasting the Council’s doctrinal errors which have been devastating the Church for the last 50 years, it has in its most doctrinal paragraphs, 5 and 6, only a timid condemnation of those errors, together with a tribute to the unchanging Magisterium (5) and Tradition (6) of the Church, accurate but constituting an argument all too easily reversible by a Conciliarist. See how:--

Paragraph 5 mentions Vatican II novelties being “stained with errors”, whereas the Church’s constant Magisterium is uninterrupted: “By its act of teaching it transmits the revealed deposit in perfect harmony with everything the universal Church has taught in all times and places.” Which of course implies that Rome should take Vatican II to the cleaners to take out the stains. But see how a Roman can reply: “The Chapter’s expression of the continuity of the Magisterium is wholly admirable ! But we Romans are that Magisterium, and we say that Vatican II is not stained !”

Similarly with paragraph 6. The Declaration states, “The constant Tradition of the Church transmits and will transmit to the end of time the collection of teachings necessary to keep the Faith and save one’s soul.” So the Church authorities need to return to Tradition. Roman reply: “ The Chapter’s description of how Tradition hands down the Faith is wholly admirable ! But we Romans are the guardians of that Tradition, and we say, by the hermeneutic of continuity, that Vatican II does not interrupt it but continues it. So the Chapter is entirely wrong to suggest that we need to return to it.”

Contrast the force of Archbishop Lefebvre’s irreversible attack on the errors of Vatican II in his famous Declaration of November, 1974. He declares that Conciliar Rome is not Catholic Rome because the Conciliar reform is “naturalist, Teilhardian, liberal and Protestant.. poisoned through and through.. coming from heresy and leading to heresy”, etc, etc.. His conclusion is a categorical refusal to have anything to do with the Newrome because it is absolutely not the true Rome.

Pull up on the Internet both Declarations, and see which is an unmistakeable trumpet-call for the necessary battle (I Cor.XIV, 8) ! One has to wonder how many of the 2012 capitulants have ever studied what the Archbishop said, and why.

Kyrie eleison.

IF by any chance I have overstepped the bounds in posting EC, I am sorry!

But WOW what a privilege!!!!!

You done good, my man. Quite a thrill, no??

Count your blessings.
The day will come when you need a lot of them.........   :shocked:

One has to wonder how many of the 2012 capitulants have ever studied what the Archbishop said, and why.

So true and so sad! And it's not better with most SSPX clerics and laity...
This explains well the SSPX disaster we experience since some years, and which broke out openly in April 2012. May God have mercy upon us.

+Williamson says:

"Contrast the force of Archbishop Lefebvre’s irreversible attack on the errors of Vatican II in his famous Declaration of November, 1974. He declares that Conciliar Rome is not Catholic Rome because the Conciliar reform is “naturalist, Teilhardian, liberal and Protestant.. poisoned through and through.. coming from heresy and leading to heresy”, etc, etc.. His conclusion is a categorical refusal to have anything to do with the Newrome because it is absolutely not the true Rome."

I beg your pardon?

ABL's famous declaration came in 1974.  

Thereafter, he had a number of meetings with church officials, both in Econe and Rome.  He met with both Pope Paul and Pope John Paul II.  In 1979 he was called on the carpet at the Holy Office, and discussions continued for a while thereafter.  In 1985, ABL sent 39 Dubia to the CDF.  In July 1987, Cardinal Ratzinger and ABL met in Rome, and the ultimately fruitless negotiations went on for a year thereafter.  Those interested in the particulars can find them in +Tissier's biography, The SSPX and Rome, and Michael Davies' Apologia.

So +W's last sentence above is not so much false as surreal.  It has no connection with reality.

I don't know what to make of this, but I do know one thing.  After this, it is impossible to take +W seriously.  

 

 

Quote from: John McFarland

+Williamson says:

"Contrast the force of Archbishop Lefebvre’s irreversible attack on the errors of Vatican II in his famous Declaration of November, 1974. He declares that Conciliar Rome is not Catholic Rome because the Conciliar reform is “naturalist, Teilhardian, liberal and Protestant.. poisoned through and through.. coming from heresy and leading to heresy”, etc, etc.. His conclusion is a categorical refusal to have anything to do with the Newrome because it is absolutely not the true Rome."

I beg your pardon?

ABL's famous declaration came in 1974.  

Thereafter, he had a number of meetings with church officials, both in Econe and Rome.  He met with both Pope Paul and Pope John Paul II.  In 1979 he was called on the carpet at the Holy Office, and discussions continued for a while thereafter.  In 1985, ABL sent 39 Dubia to the CDF.  In July 1987, Cardinal Ratzinger and ABL met in Rome, and the ultimately fruitless negotiations went on for a year thereafter.  Those interested in the particulars can find them in +Tissier's biography, The SSPX and Rome, and Michael Davies' Apologia.

So +W's last sentence above is not so much false as surreal.  It has no connection with reality.

I don't know what to make of this, but I do know one thing.  After this, it is impossible to take +W seriously.

ABL held fast to his 1974 declaration by making sure the SSPX would not fall under the control of Modernists. You cannot represent his long-suffering attempts at restoring Newrome to orthodoxy as evidence that ABL considered the Modernists to be true Rome.

You impugn +Williamson by indicating the 1974 declaration he referenced is superseded or mistaken. You must specify what parts quoted are no longer operative for it to be possible to take you seriously.

Columba,

The point is not the status of the 1974 statement, but the fact that +Williamson says that based on the 1974 declaration, ABL's "conclusion is a categorical refusal to have anything to do with the Newrome because it is absolutely not the true Rome."

But as indicated, ABL had a great deal to do with Rome over the next 10+ years.

So + W's statement is not true.  In fact, it's so untrue that it's downright weird that he should say it.  He knows all about these meetings.

I'll be pleased to talk about the 1974 declaration -- after we deal with the manifest falsity of what +Williamson says .  

Quote from: Archbishop Lefebvre to Ratzinger

Eminence, even if you give us everything--a bishop, some autonomy from the bishops, the 1962 liturgy, allow us to continue our seminaries--we cannot work together because we are going in different directions. You are working to dechristianize society and the Church, and we are working to Christianize them.

http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=7895

That statement is another topic for another day.  The first item on the agenda is the falsity of what +Williamson has said.

You can run, but you can't hide.

"...You can run, but you can't hide. ..."

Very true, Mr. McFarland.

You and your ilk are Lap Dogs, always have been, and always will be.

Satan is requiring Bishop Fellay hand over the souls in the Surrendered SSPX without any stumbling blocks, in example, Holy Priests and Faithful that refuse to enter Apostate Rome.

The Regime continues to expel Faithful and refuse them absolution if they do not bow before Bishop Fellay.

The Regime continues to abuse the graces God has given it.

The actions of Menzingen are harming souls.

The Lap Dogs of the Surrendered SSPX continue to spread the lies and deceptions of the Regime.


*

Pablo,

All right, let's assume for the sake of argument that I'm a Samaritan and have a devil.

But why did +W say something that is manifestly untrue?

Is the point that truth isn't very important, as long as you adore the right people, and hate the right people?

The Archbishop had a fundamentally consistent position that he held fast to.

That was his final position, the position that Bishop Fellay is systematically undermining and preparing to destroy.

Bishop Williamson is right to speak of the 1974 declaration, because it's the principle of resistance on which the SSPX is founded.