.
(page 15 cont'd)

We notice you [Fr. Themann,] entirely omit mentioning that Bishop Fellay’s 4-15-12 Doctrinal Preamble (AFD) accepts the new conciliar teaching regarding the authority and relationship of the pope and the bishops.  Below are his words.  He accepts:

     the doctrine regarding the Roman Pontiff and the College of
     bishops,

     with its head, the Pope, as taught … by the Lumen Gentium
     dogmatic constitution of the Second Vatican Council, chapter 3
     (De constitutione hierarchica Ecclesiæ et in specie de episcopatu),
     explained and interpreted by the Nota explicativa prævia to this
     very chapter. (19)

Bishop Fellay accepts many errors here, including but not limited to:  1) accepting the conciliar error of authority as a service;  2) accepting the conciliar error that apostolic succession means passing on the mission (which error the conciliar church uses to “find” apostolic succession in  the Protestant sects);  and  3) the promotion of the Vatican II novelty that a bishop can only govern his diocese as a member of the college of bishops (the error of collegiality).  Lumen Gentium Annotated, pp.172-218.

These and a great many other errors, are not corrected by the nota explicativa praevia.

As Fr. Pierre Marie, prior of the Dominicans of Avrille, stated recently about this same chapter of Lumen Gentium:

     Collegiality is found in Lumen Gentium no 22 (even after
     being ‘corrected’ by the Nota praevia), and is contrary to the
     teaching of Vatican I (Pastor aeternus) on the supreme power
     of the pope. (20)

These errors which you ignored during your conference and which Bishop Fellay accepted, are shown in greater detail to be the opposite of Catholic truth, in Lumen Gentium Annotated, pp.172-218.

Lastly on this topic, Pope John Paul II correctly singled out Vatican II’s teaching on the college of bishops (a teaching accepted by Bishop Fellay in the 4-15-12 Doctrinal Preamble [the AFD]), as one of the council’s novelties.  Sacrae Disciplinae Leges, January 25, 1983.  Thus, Pope John Paul II is declaring novel, what Bishop Fellay is accepting.


Bishop Fellay’s Acceptance Of The New Code Of Canon Law

Bishop Fellay’s 4-15-12 Doctrinal Preamble also promises to “respect … the Code of Canon Law promulgated by Pope John Paul II (1983).”  Thus, Bishop Fellay accepts (i.e., respects) the new code of canon law and indicates that it is good (for if it were not good, then it would not be a law at all). (21)

This is the same code of canon law which was such a grievous problem for the “old” SSPX. (22)  Bishop Fellay is accepting this new code of which Pope John Paul II said:  “what constitutes the substantial ‘novelty’ of the Second Vatican Council … constitutes likewise the ‘novelty’ of the new Code [of canon law].”  Sacrae Disciplinae Leges, January 25, 1983. So when Bishop Fellay pledges to respect the new code of canon law without any qualification and indicates that it is good without any qualification (i.e., otherwise it could not be the law) (23), Bishop Fellay is accepting the conciliar church’s practical implementation of Vatican II’s errors.  Is this how you and Bishop Fellay fulfill your “duty to fight?”  You admit that duty here:  48:40.

Bishop Fellay’s Purported “Test” of Rome, in the 6-8-12 DICI Interview

Bishop Fellay made many scandalous and liberal statements in his 6-8-12 DICI interview.

_______________________________________
19.    4-15-12 Doctrinal Preamble (AFD), found at:  http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Newvery-
accurate-reliable-translation-of-Fellays-Doctrinal-Statement

20.    March 2013 edition of Catholic Family News, p.18 (parenthetical comments in the original).

21.    Archbishop Lefebvre laid down the principle:  “In the Church, law and jurisdiction are at the service of the Faith, the primary reason for the Church.  There is no law, no jurisdiction which can impose on us a lessening of our Faith.”  Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre, vol. 1, p.151, quoting the 9-3-75 Letter to friends and benefactors #9.  St. Thomas gives this same principle in the context of what is true about all law, including all Church law.  Summa, Ia IIae, Q. 90.

22.    See, e.g., They Have Uncrowned Him, by Archbishop Lefebvre, 1988, Angelus Press, pp. 148-149.

23.    See footnote #21.

.

Almost halfway through TheRecusant #12!

I think writing a letter would be better.   And one of charity correcting any errors.

You think that writing a letter would be better than writing a letter?  

You think a letter that charitably corrects any errors would be better than a letter that charitably corrects errors like this Letter does?  

Do you think that such a letter as you describe would ever be answered?  
Have you ever heard of one that was answered?  

Would you like a list of a lot of the charitable letters that have been written in the past 60 years to the power brokers in Rome and elsewhere which have been categorically IGNORED, in fact, what usually happens is the people about whom the letters accuse of abusing their power are normally given MORE POWER to abuse with, after such letters are sent in.


.

.

(cont'd from p.17)

Your Failure to Accurately Address How Making a Deal With Rome Would Affect the Local Bishops’ Power Over the SSPX.

You say that:

     It is precisely on the right of the Society to criticize Vatican II

     and the new mass, that caused the discussions [with Rome] to
     break. It was not the practical questions whether we’d be exempt
     from the bishops or whatever, that was not the problem. Rome
     was going to grant that.” 43:11 (emphasis added).

Are you aware that Bishop Fellay’s 6-8-12 DICI interview contradicts what you say?  Bishop Fellay says that the local modernist bishops will have some veto power over the SSPX’s work:

     There is a lot of confusion about this question, and it is
     caused mainly by a misunderstanding of the nature of a
     personal prelature, as well as by a misreading of the normal
     relation between the local ordinary and the prelature. … [L]et
     us say this clearly, if a personal prelature were granted to us,
     our situation would not be the same. … It is still true—since
     it is Church law—that in order to open a new chapel or
     to found a work, it would be necessary to have the
     permission of the local ordinary.
         (Emphasis added.) (26)

Do you think the SSPX would be “exempt from the bishops” (as you say) when the SSPX cannot open a new chapel, start a new school, etc., without the permission of the local modernist bishop?


The SSPX Now Conforms Its Rules of Conduct to What the SSPX Believes to be Achievable by Human Means.

Beginning May 6, 1988, Archbishop Lefebvre stood for firm principle – no agreement with unconverted Rome.  He did not see any human way for Rome to convert and to see the errors of Vatican II. But he did not say – like the SSPX now says – that the precondition must be changed because Rome won’t accept the precondition we have.

Archbishop Lefebvre stuck to what was right, regardless of what Rome might do. Here is what Archbishop Lefebvre said:

     [W]e prefer to continue in Tradition; to keep Tradition
     while waiting for Tradition to regain its place at Rome,
     while waiting for Tradition to reassume its place in the
     Roman authorities, in their minds. This will last for as
     long as the Good Lord has foreseen.
          Episcopal consecration sermon, 1988.

You say that the current SSPX changed its longstanding principle that there would be no agreement with unconverted Rome because that would not happen “short of a miracle.”

Here are your words:

     Now, short of a miracle – and miracles can happen but
     you don’t use miracles, you don’t assume miracles in
     determining your prudential decisions.  But short of a
     miracle, Rome is not going to accept that Vatican II has
     errors in it. 44:40.

So Archbishop Lefebvre says we must stand firm, despite the fact that Rome’s conversion
______________________________
26.     6-8-12 DICI interview* at http://www.dici.org/en/news/interview-with-bisho-pbernard-fellay-on-relations-with-rome/ (emphasis added).


* BINGO  "We're sorry, that page was not found - Error 404" -- dici no longer displays this intereview.  Gee.  I wonder why?  We should keep track of these.


.
.
.

So, here we have Fr. Themann proclaiming that their excuse for making this change in what was handed down to us from ABL, is that even though ABL from May 6th 1988 to the end of his life held firm to his precept of no agreement with unconverted Rome, and that this will endure as long as the good Lord forsees, now we know better!  Now we have become WISER than ABL and his anachronous ideology, because we have DISCOVERED A NEW PRINCIPLE (which is found nowhere in Catholic Tradition!) that "You Don't Assume Miracles in Determining Your Prudential Decisions."  This is the product of the BAD THINKING that you find explained on pages 1-2, above.  Ideas have consequences.  Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it certainly appears that this FALSE PRINCIPLE on page 2 was pinned up on the wall from the very start IN ORDER to implement this FALSE PRINCIPLE later, that is, here on page 18 (minutes 43-44 of Fr. Themann's talk).  He planted his erroneous seed 40 minutes in advance of applying the erroneous fruit thereof.


.

.

I was talking about post number 101, currently found on thread-page 20.  Here, on Open Letter page 2 and 3 you find the material to which I referred (PLEASE see my note in blue font after Page 3):

N.B. We reproduce the following article with the kind permission of the authors of www.TrueTrad.com The Recusant resumes its usual format in January.

From: Anonymous
(We are reachable at Father.Themann.Answered@gmail.com )
Feast of St. Teresa of Avila, 2013 [October 15th]
Re: Answering your question: “Resistance to what?”


Dear Father Themann,

We have listened carefully to your April 2013 conference given at St. Marys, and which the SSPX sent to the faithful on its mailing list, as a free two-CD set, accompanied by a long written summary of your talk. In this present letter, through which we respond to your conference, all citations refer to disc 1, track 2 unless otherwise noted.

We are aware of many priests and laity who have pointed out errors and crucial omissions in your conference. We join our voices to theirs, attempting to mitigate the confusion your conference has caused.

We apologize for the length of our letter. But when you talk for 2½ hours, you can’t expect our answer to be only two pages.

We hold that Bishop Fellay’s attempt to make a purely practical agreement with unconverted Rome is not the SSPX’s chief problem, but is a symptom of the SSPX’s problem. The problem itself is the continual liberalizing of the SSPX over time.


Your False Explanation Regarding Matters Of Prudence

Your entire talk hinges upon the (false) absolute division you make between “questions of principle” and “questions of prudence”.  10:40.

Here are your words in one of the places you emphasize this point:


      “Does the question of accepting a canonical structure
      boil down to a question of principle, or a question of
      prudence? It is very important to answer this question
      correctly, or nothing else makes sense.” Id.


This is your first error regarding prudence.  The truth is that all questions of prudence are questions of principle applied to particular circuмstances.(1)  So for example, when someone hands you a gold coin for safekeeping and then later asks you to return it, you will know how to respond to his request by applying a universal principle to the particular circuмstances. In this example, the universal principle is:  return property to its owner.(2)  So, using the virtue of prudence, you would apply that universal principle to the circuмstance that you have the man’s coin, and so you would return the coin to him.

Thus, your first error is to wrongly attempt to separate “questions of principle” from “questions of prudence”.  The truth is that every matter of prudence is acting on principle!

Don’t you see that, if you and the SSPX say that your actions need not be “questions of principle”, then you would be saying you think you are free to act in any way you choose?  But there’s more.  

Your second error regarding prudence, is your misunderstanding how changed circuмstances(3) affect prudent actions.  When ceasing to follow a prior principle (like no deal with unconverted Rome), you seem to think that it is an adequate explanation to simply invoke changed circuмstances.  But although circuмstances might change which principle applies, there is always a different principle which then does apply.

Let us illustrate this point by an example:  start with this general principle:  return property to its owner.  But man’s fallen human nature can cause exceptions to this principle.(4)  Suppose, a man gives a gun to you for safekeeping and then suppose he becomes crazy and so asks you to return his gun because he wants to commit murder.  In that circuмstance, prudence requires that another principle takes precedence and must be applied, viz., never give a gun to a madman.

So, after Archbishop Lefebvre realized his mistake in signing the 5-88 protocol with Rome he laid down the following principle, which he maintained until his death:

      It is, therefore, a strict duty for every priest wanting
      to remain Catholic to   separate himself from this Conciliar
      Church for as long as it does not rediscover the Tradition
      of the Church and of the Catholic Faith.
               Spiritual Journey, Archbishop Lefebvre, p.13.

Here is another way Archbishop Lefebvre formulated the same principle:

      [W]e prefer to continue in Tradition; to keep Tradition
      while waiting for Tradition to regain its place at Rome, while
      waiting for Tradition to reassume its place in the Roman
      authorities, in their minds. This will last for as long as the
      Good Lord has foreseen.
                 Episcopal consecration sermon, 1988.


_____________________________
FOOTNOTES
1. St. Thomas says it this way: “prudence … applies universal principles to the particular conclusions of practical matters.”  Summa Theologica, St. Thomas Aquinas, IIa IIae, Q.47, a.6.
2. In his Treatise on Prudence, St. Thomas phrases this universal principle of action as follows:  “the restitution of a deposit to the depositor is in accordance with natural equality”.  Summa, IIa IIae, Q.57, a.2, ad 1.
3. We think it is plain that no relevant circuмstances have changed in Rome. In fact, if we had not been witnessing Bishop Fellay’s gradual slide into liberalism for many years, we would not have believed that anyone could be so naïve as to think that Assisi-hosting, mosque-praying, Vatican II-promoting Pope Benedict XVI was anything but a conciliar revolutionary.  More on that below.
4. St. Thomas says it this way:  “if human nature were always right, this [principle] would always have to be observed”.  Summa, IIa IIae, Q.57, a.2, ad 1.  The principle St. Thomas refers to, is the one quoted in footnote 2.




Archbishop Lefebvre’s firm principle beginning in May 1988 – no agreement with unconverted Rome – is a principle analogous to the principle (in our example) return property to its owner.  So if someone asks you why you refused to return the property given to you for safekeeping, it would be completely inadequate for you to simply say that there were “changed circuмstances”.  Rather, you would have to invoke the superseding principle and explain how the new circuмstances caused the application of the superseding principle.  In other words, you would have to explain that no one should give a gun to a crazy man and that this particular man had become crazy and wanted his gun in order to commit murder. (5)

So you are only freed from following the first principle of action because you are bound by the (second) superseding principle.  In your conference, you say that circuмstances freed the SSPX from Archbishop Lefebvre’s principle, apparently (in your view) leaving the SSPX free to do whatever it chooses to do.  

But prudence requires that we always act according to principle.

If you really think that changed circuмstances free the SSPX from following Archbishop Lefebvre’s principle, then clearly state which (second) superseding principle Bishop Fellay is applying and how the circuмstances require this. [/color]
[/b]
Because you fail to invoke any superseding principle of action and fail to explain how (supposed) changed circuмstances require the SSPX to follow this superseding principle, your explanation is woefully incomplete.


Summary of this section:  You make two errors regarding what prudence is: (5a)

1. You fail to understand that all questions of prudence are questions of principle and that in matters of prudence we are acting on principle.

2. You misunderstand that when circuмstances prevent us from following one principle, it is because we are bound to follow a (second) superseding principle.  Your defence of Bishop Fellay depends on these two key errors about what Prudence is.

What you said is true that, when a person misunderstands prudence (as you have shown you do) then “nothing else makes sense” when analyzing the negotiations with Rome. 10:40.


The Rest Of This Letter

Because your position hinges on what prudence is, and because you made two serious errors showing you misunderstand this virtue, your conference was completely inadequate as an explanation of the SSPX’s recent conduct.  However, we regret that this fact does not end the errors you made during the conference nor the harm you are doing.  Below, we continue our open letter, attempting to help the faithful and correct the misunderstandings you have caused. (5b)

___________________________________________
(5).  St. Thomas says it this way: “but since it happens sometimes that man's will is unrighteous, there are cases in which a deposit should not be restored, lest a man of unrighteous will make evil use of the thing deposited: as when a madman or an enemy of the common weal demands the return of his weapons.” Id.

(5a).  The fact that we have proof here on CI that at least one of Fr. Themann's minions (petwerp) refuses to recognize this principle, nor its source, nor its truth, nor its proper application here, is proof positive that Fr. Themann has caused misunderstandings to proliferate. (5b)  I'm only glad that others of his minions don't clutter these threads with their inanities, as Nicholas, above, aptly observes.

(5b).  Fr. Themann has caused misunderstandings to proliferate.




\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

Question:  WHAT IS THE SUPERSEDING PRINCIPLE?

If Fr. Themann really thinks that changed circuмstances free the SSPX from following Archbishop Lefebvre’s principle, then he should be easily able to clearly state which superseding principle Bishop Fellay is applying and how the circuмstances require this.  

In light of the material on Page 18, above, it might appear that this "principle" would be, "You don't assume miracles in determining your prudential decisions."

Notice that Fr. Themann did not identify this as a superseding principle, and that's a good thing he didn't do that, because it isn't one!

A superseding principle is a DIFFERENT principle that has only RECENTLY come into play, AND, it is one that did not come into play in the prior instance.  

In this situation at hand, the prior instance was at the time of ABL, as of May 6th, 1988, etc., when he lived the rest of his life under this principle, "no agreement with unconverted Rome," and that "this will endure as long as the good Lord forsees."  If we had asked ABL, "But what about the superseding principle that you don't assume miracles in determining your prudential decisions?" -we had better be fast at DUCKING, because he may well have considered that question an INSULT to his intelligence.

And we should so consider it likewise.

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////






You (and the current SSPX) Have Accepted The Conciliar Church’s Error that there Is Something Wrong With the SSPX’s Status.

You say that, “The Society of St. Pius X, once upon a time, had a canonical structure when it was first founded and it was deprived of that canonical structure unjustly.” 11:00.

When you use the phrase “deprived … unjustly,” that phrase shows you are saying that the SSPX was really deprived of its canonical structure.  This is similar to the fact that, if someone unjustly deprives you of your car, it means that you really and truly don’t have your car any longer.

You further emphasize your erroneous opinion (viz., that the SSPX is really deprived of its canonical structure), when you add that the SSPX had this canonical structure “once upon a time.”  This phrase “once upon a time” indicates you hold that the SSPX now lacks a canonical structure.  In like manner, one could say that the SSPX was faithful to Archbishop Lefebvre once upon a time.

So we take it as plain that you think the SSPX no longer truly has its canonical structure.  But your opinion is false.  The truth is that the SSPX still has its canonical structure because Rome unjustly attempted to (but did not really) deprive the SSPX of its status – but only in appearance.

You can see your error by understanding the words of Archbishop Lefebvre.  In his prudential determination regarding how to act, when the conciliar church falsely and invalidly purported to “deprive” his Society of its canonical structure,

Archbishop Lefebvre invoked this principle:

     In the Church, law and jurisdiction are at the service of the
      Faith, the primary reason for the Church. There is no law, no
      jurisdiction which can impose on us a lessening of our Faith.
             Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre, by Michael Davies, vol. 1, p.151,
             quoting the 9-3-75 Letter to friends and benefactors #9. (6)

So, as Archbishop Lefebvre correctly reasoned, his Society was not truly deprived of its canonical structure, because law and jurisdiction cannot be used to harm the Faith and the Society which was supposedly “suppressed” entirely because it stood almost alone defending the Faith.

Reverend Dr. Boyd A. Cathey, a canon lawyer, made this same point when he analyzed the SSPX’s canonical case and publicly defended Archbishop Lefebvre at the time.  Father Cathey concluded his analysis as follows:

      [T]he multiple irregularities and the obvious failure to render
      justice to Archbishop Lefebvre can only lead to one conclusion:
      the Society of St. Pius X continues to enjoy canonical existence;
      the measures taken against it and its founder lack validity.
             Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre, vol. 1, p.450.

____________________________________________
(6).  St. Thomas says the same thing in the context of what is true about all law, including all Church law. Summa, Ia IIae, Q. 90.

.

.

Regarding page 19:

There is mention of the "duty to fight" near the bottom of p.16, too.

There is a four-part answer here to the question, "How do we fight [for Tradition / the Faith]?  

1)  By clearly and unyieldingly standing in complete opposition to conciliar errors,

2)  We tell the truth regardless of what the conciliar church does,

3)  We don’t “fight” by asking for permission to tell the truth, and

4)  We don’t constantly say favorable things about the conciliar church and Vatican II, as the current SSPX does, such as when the SSPX has been (falsely) saying that “there is no doubt that many Vatican II texts are traditional.”

.
.

It appears that Fr. Themann is attempting to fabricate his own 'Internet rumour' here by acting puzzled when Rome kept waiting for +F's response after +F had told the Society on several occasions that he could not sign any agreement.  There is, after all, the public record of the Vatican announcing to the world that +F asked for MORE TIME to think about signing their agreement.


.

Page 20

...

The SSPX’s Principles are Slowly and Steadily Becoming Weaker

Another way of answering your question, “Resistance to what?” is that we are resisting the current SSPX’s gradual change of many of its firm principles of conduct into “squishy” rules depending upon fuzzy circuмstances.  Previously, the principle was no deal with unconverted Rome.  Now the new rule seems to be that:  

a)  it’s okay to make a deal with unconverted Rome if [only] the current SSPX can [just] get some promises from Rome;  and  

b)  the current SSPX can trust that Rome will keep those promises, even though Rome did not keep its promises to the various compromised “traditional” societies which [have] previously went with, and trusted, Rome. (32)

...the list continues thusly;


c)  whatever newfangled by-line +F comes up with, is not only fine but acceptable and defended by his minions (like petwerp and azul) as if it were ABL's own longstanding policy, and

d)  they'll even try to dredge up ABL quotes (post-1988 if they can find them) to support it!

e)   AND WHEN ALL ELSE FAILS, they'll predictably revert to the tried and true Liberal/Nietzschiean fail-safe position of abject denial:  

"If that's all you have, you haven't got anything."



This is to be referenced in the notes of page 26, coming soon to an Internet computer near you!  Stay tuned!!



.

.

(from p.20)

Your weak definition of the phrase “traditional Catholic” is a typical example of the

Page 21

current SSPX’s movement in many ways toward those compromise groups.  Another example of this movement is the SSPX’s Polish District website announcement of the Ecclesia Dei groups’ ordination schedules last spring.

(If you want a copy of this SSPX announcement, email us at:  Father.Themann.Answered@gmail.com. )

By promoting the Ecclesia Dei groups’ ordination schedules, the current SSPX is encouraging the priests and faithful to attend those ordinations.  It no longer advises its priests and faithful to keep a distance to avoid contamination by the many errors of the compromise societies, nor does the current SSPX warn about the errors of these compromise societies.

.

Do not miss the historical fact that +F denied ordination to several candidates in the summer of 2013, as he was preparing to expell several SSPX priests -- and even a bishop! -- all because of these men having expressed an unwillingness to support +F's aggiornamento aggenda.

So here they are in Poland, encouraging the Faithful to attend FSSP ordinations, while +F is DIScouraging the Faithful from attending SSPX ordinations of priests who are aware and vocal about the problems represented by FSSP accommodation principles.

The modus operandi is obvious, for those with eyes to see and ears to hear (unlike petwerp and azul, for example).


.

.

The preceding 2 pages, 21 and 22, have been where the section is found, subtitled

Your Strange Definition of the Phrase “Conciliar Church”

This phrase rolls off the tongue with ease for a traditional Catholic, that is, one who is accustomed to taking comfort in the concept of definition, per se.  As much as I would like to presume otherwise, it nonetheless seems to be the case that Fr. Themann does not take comfort in that, but instead views definition as some kind of an enemy, per se.

If this is true, and I really hope it is not, there are grave implications.  

The first of which implications is that this taking umbrage with the principle of definition per se is one of the symptoms of one's metamorphosis into a Modernist.  

Like I said, I hope it is not the case, because when one becomes a Modernist, one becomes happy and acclimated to living as in the mind, in the sewer of all heresies.  Like I said, I hope this is not what is happening to Fr. Themann.  But all I have is hope.  Evidence to the contrary is the ball in his court, and the rest is up to Fr. Themann.





Following is the content of the page linked in footnote 37 on page 22, above:

http://www.truetrad.com/index.php/other-organizations-who-made-a-deal-with-rome/84-the-truth/consequences-of-compromise-with-modernist-rome/102-the-good-shepherd-institute

Docuмenting the crisis in the SSPX and Catholic Tradition in general   

    Home
    The Truth
    The poison
    The Heroes
    We Faithful
    The Dead
    General
    Search
    Other sites

button-the-heroes-speak-out    button-Donate    button-join-email-list    button-search-TrueTrad    button-print-our-flyer    button-who-are-we


The "Good Shepherd Institute"

Rome’s Treatment of the Good Shepherd Institute

(From:  An anonymous friend of TrueTrad)

In 2006, some former SSPX priests made a deal with Rome, which seemed to give them everything they wanted. The Good Shepherd Institute was promised the exclusive use of the traditional Mass and was assured that it would be given the latitude to criticize Vatican II and post-conciliar innovations.

Let us see what happened to the Institute.  On March 23, 2012, the Secretary of the Ecclesia Dei Commission, Monsignor Guido Pozzo, sent the Good Shepherd Institute the following results of the Vatican’s newly completed visitation and study of the Institute.  This canonical visit came at the end of the five-year term of experimentation given to the Institute.

Previously, in 2009, Fr. Philippe Laguérie, the Superior General of the Good Shepherd Institute, felt fully secure that Rome would not demand the Institute priests to offer the new mass.  He said then:

"Nothing and nobody can force our priests to celebrate the ordinary form of the Mass, not only since the Motu Proprio, but also before. Our priests are bound by the law of obedience to celebrate the traditional Mass."  http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2009-0228-interview-good-shepherd.htm

In 2012, regarding the Mass, the Ecclesia Dei Commission told the Institute:

The question of the practice of the extraordinary form [of the Mass], such as it is formulated by the [Institute’s] Bylaws, must be delineated in the spirit of [the 2007 motu proprio] Summorum Pontificuм.  It would be suitable to simply define this form as the “rite proper” to the Institute without speaking of “exclusivity.” http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/ar/t9206.htm ; French version: here.

So the Ecclesia Dei Commission now says that the Institute can no longer say that it exclusively offers the traditional Mass. This fits with what Pope Benedict XVI said [in] 2007:

"[In] order to experience full communion, also the priests of the communities adhering to the former usage cannot, as a matter of principle, exclude celebrating according to the new books.  The total exclusion of the new rite would not in fact be consistent with the recognition of its value and holiness."  (From Pope Benedict XVI’s 7-7-07 letter accompanying the motu proprio.)

The Ecclesia Dei Commission further pressured the Institute by telling it that it must improve its relationship with the modernist bishops which surround them:

"It is important that the bishop welcomes and values the specific charism of the institute for the good of the whole diocese and at the same time, that the priests of the institute really fit with the spirit of communion throughout the life of the Church of the Diocese."   http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/ar/t9206.htm ; French version: here.

Regarding doctrine, at the time of the Institute’s deal with Rome and even in 2009, the Institute was confident that it could protect itself from conciliar errors.  Their Superior General stated that “the Institute is also characterized by a true doctrinal freedom, with respect to the doctrines and authority of the Church.”   http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2009-0228-interview-good-shepherd.htm .

However, in 2012, the Ecclesia Dei Commission told the Institute that:

"[T]he doctrinal formation should include a careful study of the [1992] Catechism of the Catholic Church. … Rather than maintaining a critique of Vatican Council II, even a “serious and constructive” one, the efforts of your teachers must point out the transmission of the integrity of the patrimony of the Church, insisting on the hermeneutics of renewal in its continuity and using as support the integrity of Catholic doctrine expounded by the [1992] Catechism of the Catholic Church."  http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/ar/t9206.htm ; French version: here.

Now, as Bishop Fellay seeks to place the control of the SSPX under modernist Rome, of special note is the 2009 comment of the Institute’s Superior General, regarding the SSPX making a (future) agreement with Rome:

"The Institute of the Good Shepherd could be spoken of rather as a 'test'.  The Society of Saint Pius X must know instinctively that it will be treated tomorrow as we are treated today."   http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2009-0228-interview-good-shepherd.htm .

 

    Latest Poison
    Join our email list!
    The Heroes
    Who are we?
    Search TrueTrad.com
    You can help!
    Contact us
    Situation in the SSPX
    Arch. Lefebvre speaks
    Older News stories