-
.
Source:
Ecclesia Militans December 18th, 2013 (http://www.ecclesiamilitans.com/)
Find PDF of TheRecusant Issue #12 (http://www.ecclesiamilitans.com/the_recusant_-_issue_12_-_december_2013_supplementary.pdf), Supplementary Issue, December 2013
(From linked Ecclesia-Militans website):
A Challenge to Fr. Daniel Themann, SSPX
18 December 2013
In April of 2013, Fr. Daniel Themann, SSPX, gave a conference at St. Mary’s, Kansas. The conference was entitled “Resistance to What?”. It was an attack on the public resistance, offered by His Excellency Bishop Richard Williamson and several SSPX priests who have been or are on the verge of being kicked out of the SSPX, against the new direction of the SSPX championed by His Excellency Bishop Bernard Fellay.
As the title clearly states, Fr. Themann is of the position that nothing has substantially changed in the SSPX that would warrant a public resistance. In response to this conference, the December 2013 Supplementary Issue of the Recusant (http://www.ecclesiamilitans.com/the_recusant_-_issue_12_-_december_2013_supplementary.pdf) publishes an excellent, thorough refutation of Fr. Themann’s arguments.
We at the SSPX-Marian Corps Toronto now challenge Fr. Daniel Themann to respond to this refutation.
Father, since you seem so confident of your position, please do us the favour and defend your arguments against the wounds inflicted on them by this refutation.
.
.
.
........(My comments)........
It has been a busy Advent and Christmas, and unfortunately this topic is not very close to the spirit of Our Lord's Nativity.
I would like to post the entire contents of this PDF here on CI but it's 34 pages long. UUUGH.
It consists of page after page of excellent analysis of the highly defective presentation of Fr. Themann.
Overall, it seems to me that this point-by-point answer to Fr. Themann's 2-1/2 hour presentation (which was distributed to SSPX faithful by snail mail in the form of a two-CD set which many Catholics threw in the trash, and to which perhaps few listened) is something well worth our study and reflection.
I have seen several threads here in the SSPX Resistance forum that ask questions ― the answers to which are found here in this powerful Open Letter.
And you can be sure that Menzingen is hoping everyone will IGNORE it, like they ignored Fr. Themann's presentation.
We can easily disappoint Menzingen.
How about a discussion of the OPEN LETTER'S CONTENTS?
.
-
.
I would like to make an observation, that the footnotes in this voluminous Open Letter are not very well displayed in TheRecusant, so you might miss them at first.
The footnotes are important.
They are collected at the end of the docuмent, found on pages 32-34, and they are 56 (fifty-six) in number.
The first four footnotes are referenced on page 2 of The Recusant, #5 (should be - see below) on p.3, #6 on p. 4, #7 on p.5, #8 on p.6, #9 & 10 on p. 7, etc.
The footnote indices are simply a numeral, without a space, and without a superscript, and without parentheses. They tend to hide, especially when they occur next to other numbers, such as:
#6, which occurs as follows: "...Letter to Friends and Benefactors #9.6"
It seems to me this would better read, "...Benefactors #9. (6)"
#7, which occurs as follows: "...Bishop Fellay says he withdrew the preamble on August 28, 2012.7"
It seems to me this would better read, "...on August 28, 2012. (7)" .....&c.
Once this shortcoming is recognized, however, the footnotes can be found. I would like to admit, however, that I was unable to find indices nos. 1-4 (all of which are found on p.2) until my third inspection, in three different places: 1) in a restaurant, 2) in my car in a parking lot and 3) at my computer, typing this message.
Footnote #5 is not indexed anywhere, though, and it seems to me it belongs on p.3, at the end of the first paragraph: "...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." <-- should have (5).*
If it is of use to the readers, I can go through the Issue #12 and find them all, as there are 56 of them, and post here their respective locations.
The footnotes are important.
They contain a lot of key reference data, which we are at a loss not being able to find, and it is a shame that it's all right here and so easily overlooked.
*Footnote #5 reads as follows:
St. Thomas says it this way: "but since it happens sometimes that man's will is unrighteous, there are causes 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.
(The "Id." refers to the previous footnote: Summa, IIa IIae, Q.57, a.2, ad 1. For reference, this SECOND ARTICLE examines, "Whether Right Is Fittingly Divided into Natural Right and Positive Right?" This is found on page 1456 of my copy, in vol. 4 of 5 of the Summa.)
.
-
.
From the start, I would like to make the observation that any of the Resistance Catholics (all the saints of history resisted Liberalism) who have not been moved to make a detailed study of "Resistance to What?" because, A) it was 'too long' or, B) trying to read through it or listen to the CDs made them SICK, or, C) their prayer life, Advent and Christmas has been foremost in their minds, might be willing to take a quick look at this monumental Open Letter, because it quells the sickness you may feel with ready answers to the anomalies of Fr. Themann's verbose 'treatment' and therefore is much easier to read than the latter.
Furthermore, it seems to me a most apt topic for the New Year because it gets us started with an appropriate first step, on the first day of the New Year, in the right direction.
.
-
I would not expect Fr. Themann to reply, this is a very poor analysis and response. I suggest the author listen again to Fr. Themann.
It erroneously sets up a strawman fallacy: "no agreement with unconverted Rome" as a principle. It is infact:
i) a question of prudence. The principle here is submission to the authority of Rome. Whether one does or does not (e.g. Operation Survival) is an act of prudence.
ii) never a principle of the SSPX. "Someone was saying to me yesterday, "But what if Rome accepted your bishops and then you were completely exempted from the other bishops' jurisdiction?" But firstly, they are a long way right now from accepting any such thing, and then, let them first make us such an offer!", Archbishop Lefebvre, Two years after the Consecrations.
Everything else fall apart...
-
ii) never a principle of the SSPX. "Someone was saying to me yesterday, "But what if Rome accepted your bishops and then you were completely exempted from the other bishops' jurisdiction?" But firstly, they are a long way right now from accepting any such thing, and then, let them first make us such an offer!", Archbishop Lefebvre, Two years after the Consecrations.
Everything else fall apart...
If Rome accepted our Bishops and priests, there would be no discussion, nor any need for discussion post-facto, as it would be a fact. It would be automatic, and just happen. Poof! Like that.
-
.
You disqualify yourself, peterp, from your first post exposing the fact that you have not read and understood the Open Letter. You fail to comprehend the principles at stake and your mind is already set in agreement with Fr. Themann's errors.
While I agree with you that Fr. Themann will not reply, the reason is twofold and has nothing to do with your reason. Fr. will not reply first of all, because he has NO DOUBT been instructed NOT to reply, just as XSPXHEBF does not reply to reasonable questions asked of him in regards to NUMEROUS things, some of which I could list but I'm getting tired of listing them.
And secondly, he obeys the orders given to him regardless of the moral rectitude in doing so as evidenced by the fact that he has obediently undertaken the DIRTY WORK of misrepresenting the Catholic virtue of prudence under illegitimate command of his superiors, which, BTW demonstrates the principle in action that the superiors form the subjects, and the subjects do not form the superiors.
Of course, that's a principle that you likely don't care about nor do you 'get it'.
I would not expect Fr. Themann to reply, this is a very poor analysis and response. I suggest the author listen again to Fr. Themann.
Wrong.
It erroneously sets up a strawman fallacy: "no agreement with unconverted Rome" as a principle.
Wrong again. That's oh-for-two.
It is in fact:
i) a question of prudence. The principle here is submission to the authority of Rome. Whether one does or does not (e.g. Operation Survival) is an act of prudence.
Wrong again. Three strikes and you're out.
ii) never a principle of the SSPX. "Someone was saying to me yesterday, "But what if Rome accepted your bishops and then you were completely exempted from the other bishops' jurisdiction?" But firstly, they are a long way right now from accepting any such thing, and then, let them first make us such an offer!", Archbishop Lefebvre, Two years after the Consecrations.
Everything else fall apart...
The game's over. Why are you still swinging? :laugh1:
.
-
I agree that Fr. Themann will not reply. He would probably embarrass himself further if he tried.
-
.
There are a lot of important points on the first 7 pages
but since this one below has already been harassed
from the peanut gallery, perhaps it's as good a place
to start as any.
[Begin quote of Issue #12]
Page 8
Archbishop Lefebvre Recognized His Mistake in Signing the May 1988 Protocol, And from Then Until His Death, He Maintained the Principle: No Agreement With Unconverted Rome.
Showing he learned his lesson, Archbishop Lefebvre maintained until his death that he would not even discuss an agreement with Rome until Rome converted. Archbishop Lefebvre repeatedly showed his resolution not to do what Bishop Fellay seeks and has sought. When asked by Fideliter magazine, “What do you think of a possible re-opening of a dialogue with Rome?” Archbishop Lefebvre made the following clear reply:
We do not have the same outlook on a reconciliation.
Cardinal Ratzinger sees it as reducing us, bringing us back
to Vatican II. We see it as a return of Rome to Tradition.
We don’t agree; it is a dialogue of the deaf. I can’t
speak much of the future, mine is behind me; but if I live
a little while, supposing that Rome calls for a new dialogue,
then, I will put conditions. I shall not accept being put in
the position where I was during the [May 1988] dialogue.
No more.
I will put the discussion at the doctrinal level. ‘Do you
agree with the great encyclicals of all the popes who preceded
you? Do you agree with Quanta Cura of Pius IX, Immortale
Dei and Libertas of Leo XIII, Pascendi Gregis of Pius X, Quas
Primas of Pius XI, Humani Generis of Pius XII? Are you in
full communion with these popes and their teachings? Do
you still accept the entire Anti-Modernist Oath? Are you in
favor of the social reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ?'
If you do not accept the doctrine of your predecessors,
it is useless to talk! As long as you do not accept the
correction of the Council, in consideration of the doctrine of
these Popes, your predecessors, no dialogue is possible.
It is useless.
Fideliter, quoted by Fr. Laisney in Archbishop Lefebvre and the
Vatican, pp.223-224 (emphasis and bracketed date added).
So, if Bishop Fellay was following Archbishop Lefebvre, he would treat seriously Rome’s request to talk but he would keep the discussion at the doctrinal level, as Archbishop Lefebvre vowed he would, after his May 1988 mistake. This is why Archbishop Lefebvre declared the principle that “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 (emphasis added).
That is, Archbishop Lefebvre declared any good priest must not make a deal with Rome until Rome rediscovers the Tradition of the Church.
.
The conspicuous deceit the Fellayites try to use in their attempt to show that something else ABL said at some point is all that is needed to refute these prominent testaments is proof of their liberalism, because that is the liberal character in action: look for some manner of inconsistency or exception, however vague or small, and latch on to that because their bent is to make the exception into the new rule.
It's like a willful child at the supermarket: You can say, "No, you can't have any candy," every time you wheel them through the store, and you can do it for YEARS, but the ONE TIME that you break down and let them pick out one candy item is the time that becomes the new rule in their mind, and you'll hear ALL ABOUT IT forevermore, until they grow up and move out. Liberals are like big babies that never grew up.
.
-
.from p. 9+
Archbishop Lefebvre Recognized His Mistake
in Signing the May 1988 Protocol,
And from Then Until His Death, He Maintained the Principle:
No Agreement With Unconverted Rome.
What happened immediately after Archbishop Lefebvre
signed the May 5th protocol in 1988?
[/b][/size]
Archbishop Lefebvre was pressured into signing the protocol and he recanted within hours of signing it, as soon as he had some quiet in which to reflect.
He signed the protocol at 4:30 p.m., on May 5, 1988. (Biography of Archbishop Lefebvre, p.554)
He then spent a sleepless night, during which he composed his retraction letter. He declared: “Oh! How I wanted morning to come so that I could give Fr. du Chalard my letter of retraction which I had written during the night [of May 5,1998].”
(Biography of Archbishop Lefebvre, p.555)
[The] version [that Fr. Themann proffers] is far different from what Bishop Tissier says (above) in the Archbishop’s biography. This is what [Fr. Themann says]:
After he signed the May 5th protocol, Archbishop
Lefebvre wrote a letter to Cardinal Ratzinger the
very next day. ... But in this letter to Cardinal
Ratzinger, he does not reject the protocol. He
simply adds one more provision. ...
[Then, speaking in the person of Archbishop Lefebvre, Fr. Themann says]:
I don’t take away what I said in the protocol ...
I ask for one more provision...
[Then, going back to his own person, Fr. Themann says]:
He does not reject the May 5th protocol
as such. He insists on one additional condition to test
the faith, the good faith of Rome. (8:29–11:16)
(emphasis added).
In this quote immediately above, [Fr. Themann says] repeatedly, that Archbishop Lefebvre “does not reject the protocol.” But [Fr. Themann is] wrong. Archbishop Lefebvre said he rejected the protocol (viz., his word was that he retracted his agreement to this protocol). (Biography of Archbishop Lefebvre, p.555)
We [would really LIKE to] assume [that] you, Fr. Themann, are not claiming that there is a relevant difference between the words “reject” and “retract”. Archbishop Lefebvre called his May 6, 1988 letter a “letter of retraction.” Id.
Is that consistent with your claim that “he does not reject the protocol,” Fr. Themann?
Is his “retraction” consistent with your claim that he said, “I don’t take away what I said in the protocol?” Hear your words beginning at 8:29.
Further, on May 6, 1988 after he retracted his agreement to the protocol, Archbishop Lefebvre called the protocol “infamous.” (Biography of Archbishop Lefebvre, p.555) Do you think he did not reject what he called “infamous,” Fr. Themann?
You assert about the protocol that, on May 6, 1988, “He simply adds one more provision” which you also call “one additional condition.” Id. But the truth is that Archbishop Lefebvre not only retracted the “infamous” protocol, but he gave an ultimatum to the pope.
Here is how Bishop Tissier recounts what
Archbishop Lefebvre did on May 6, 1988:
The following day, after Mass and Prime, he finished
off his letter and put it in an envelope which he showed
to Fr. du Chalard at breakfast:
‘Father, before leaving, it is essential that this letter be
taken to Cardinal Ratzinger. It’s a little bomb.’
It was a new ultimatum: [Then Bishop Tissier quotes
Archbishop Lefebvre’s letter to Cardinal Ratzinger]:
The date of June 30 was clearly given as a deadline, in
one of my previous letters. I have given you a file
concerning the candidates. There are still nearly two
months to prepare the mandate ... The holy father can
easily shorten the process so that the mandate can be
sent by mid-June.
Page 11
Were the reply to be in the negative, I would see
myself obliged in conscience to go ahead with the
consecration....
(Biography of Archbishop Lefebvre, p.555 (emphasis added;
bracketed words added).)
Archbishop Lefebvre’s May 6, 1988 ultimatum was simply repeating what he had determined to do before May 6th. In January, 1988, Archbishop Lefebvre had already decided to consecrate three bishops. (Biography of Archbishop Lefebvre, in a section called, “New Ultimatum,” p.551)
“On February 2nd, Archbishop Lefebvre confirmed the news: ‘I am resolved to consecrate at least three bishops on June 30th, and I hope to have the approval of John Paul II. But if he were not to give it to me, I would do it for the good of the Church and for the continuance of Tradition’.” (Biography of Archbishop Lefebvre, in a section called, “New Ultimatum,” p. 552 (emphasis added).)
On May 10, 1988, regarding the consecrations, Archbishop Lefebvre said “June 30th is the deadline. ... As I said on the television in Germany:
On June 30, there will be Episcopal consecrations with or
without Rome’s agreement.” (Biography of Archbishop
Lefebvre, p.556 (emphasis added).)
Note the fact that Archbishop Lefebvre repeated his ultimatum on television, shows that he was keeping the public informed about what he was doing.
So you see, Father Themann, your story is very different from the narrative in Bishop Tissier’s Biography of Archbishop Lefebvre. What happened on May 5th, as Bishop Tissier explains, is that Archbishop Lefebvre was pressured into signing the protocol and he recanted within hours. He spent a sleepless night, during which he wrote his retraction of the protocol, which protocol he called “infamous,” later that day. Then, on May 6, 1988, he renewed his ultimatum that he would consecrate at least three bishops (not one bishop, as you say) and that he would perform the consecrations on June 30th, with or without the pope’s permission.
Regarding the reason for Archbishop Lefebvre retracting his agreement to the protocol, you specifically say:
[He] simply adds one more provision. And I will say it
was a practical provision. In this letter, he says the pope
must guarantee that we will have the consecration of a
bishop by June 30th. (Disc 2, track 1, 9:00.)
The explanation you give regarding why Archbishop Lefebvre changed his mind, is false.
Whereas you say that Archbishop Lefebvre changed his mind regarding the protocol because there was no promise of a bishop, read the words of Archbishop Lefebvre (below), who tells us that he withdrew his signature as a matter of principle, because Rome had not converted.
During his Episcopal consecration sermon, Archbishop Lefebvre explains his reason for changing his mind regarding the May 1988 protocol.
...more later...
.
-
Lets pray for Father Themann.
I also pray to God to end the Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ and other evils within the Catholic Church.
-
Neil, insults and comments that don't even make the grade of childish humor tell me all I need to know; you lack the intellect to spot and comprehend the fallacious argument.
There is a Catholic principle: submission to the Holy See and Archbishop Lefebvre followed this principle as far as he could. His refusal to submit to Rome's attempt at suppressing the society was an act of prudence. To have a "refusal to submit" as a principle would make the society no different than the orthodox or sedevacanists. Such a refusal can only be as an act of prudence where a higher principle is at stake.
I already gave a quote from the Archbishop two years after the consecrations "let them first make us such an offer!" which clearly shows he was open to the idea (which could not have been the case if "no agreement with unconverted Rome" was a principle). There's an old saying "extraordinary claims require extraordinary references". None given in that article support this principle claim.
-
.
peterp, you hypocrite. You incorrectly accuse me of insults when I was giving an appropriate response to your stupidity and blindness, then you turn around and attempt to insult me when you're not even capable.
You wouldn't know humor if it bit you on the ankle.
The mountains of evidence and the objective facts that put the lie to this nonsense that Fr. Themann proffers are overwhelming. Anyone who can't see it is just like the mind-numbed robots that followed Newchurch into the doldrums of the Newmass in 1969. I was there, but you're probably not old enough.
This is 1969 all over again, and it shouldn't be a big surprise, as has been explained so many times.
It happened in England in the 16th century.
And it happened at the Last Supper when one left the room, having the devil in him.
.
-
.
peterp, you hypocrite. You incorrectly accuse me of insults when I was giving an appropriate response to your stupidity and blindness, then you turn around and attempt to insult me when you're not even capable.
You wouldn't know humor if it bit you on the ankle.
The mountains of evidence and the objective facts that put the lie to this nonsense that Fr. Themann proffers are overwhelming. Anyone who can't see it is just like the mind-numbed robots that followed Newchurch into the doldrums of the Newmass in 1969. I was there, but you're probably not old enough.
This is 1969 all over again, and it shouldn't be a big surprise, as has been explained so many times.
It happened in England in the 16th century.
And it happened at the Last Supper when one left the room, having the devil in him.
.
Neil,
You were insulting ("Why are you still swinging?", "harassed from the peanut gallery");
You failed to give an appropriate response. Either you just can't comprehend it (i.e. spot the fallacious argument) or you're just blindly trying to defend the error.
You're attempt at humor isn't remotely funny, but then this isn't a laughing matter. It is very serious because, and Fr. Themann alluded to this, you are putting yourself outside the Catholic Church.
Let me try a third time to explain it in the most simplistic terms:
The society MUST, as a PRINCIPLE, want to submit to the authority of Rome - the fact that PRUDENCE has prevent them from coming to an agreement is immaterial - they MUST always want to submit. If ever they do not, they are no different from the sedevacanists and Orthodox (the former deny the legitimacy of the pontiff, the latter denying the authority of the pontiff). If the society did not want to submit to the authority of Rome as a PRINCIPLE, it would be, by definition, schismatic. And the society have always held this PRINCIPLE; when Rome calls we answer, it has never refuse discussions with Rome.
Now the author(s) of this article would have us erroneously believe that "no agreement without Rome's conversion" was also society principle (without citing any sources). If this were true it would mean the society as a principle refuses to submit to the authority of Rome (until some future, undetermined time).
So the question is how can the society simultaneously hold two contrary principles? I dare say the author(s) would deny the first or that the second replaced the first, but it make no difference; to deny or replace the first principle would make one schismatic.
Neil, I suggest you think about this carefully. To refuse to submit to the authority of Rome as a principle (not as a matter of prudence) makes one a schismatic.
-
Neil, I suggest you think about this carefully. To refuse to submit to the authority of Rome as a principle (not as a matter of prudence) makes one a schismatic.
Does this statement infer a Catholic Rome or Conciliar Rome?
It is more than a question of authority, it is a question of religion.
Does one submit to the authority of the Catholic Church and the Catholic religion or to the authority of a sect which holds and teaches a false religion?
And more than schism, the second option would be apostasy.
-
“Oh! How I wanted morning to come so that I could give Fr. du Chalard my letter of retraction which I had written during the night.” This was a throw away comment apparently relayed by the Archbishop's chauffeur.
Here is the actual letter. It is not a letter of retraction:
Eminence,
Yesterday it was with real satisfaction that I put my signature on the Protocol drafted during the preceding days. However, you yourself have witnessed my deep disappointment upon the reading of the letter which you gave me, bringing the Holy Father’s answer concerning the episcopal consecrations.
Practically, to postpone the episcopal consecrations to a later undetermined date would be the fourth time that it would have been postponed.
The date of June 30 was clearly indicated in my previous letters as the latest possible.
I have already given you a file concerning the candidates. There are still two months to make the mandate.
Given the particular circuмstances of this proposal, the Holy Father can very well shorten the procedure so that the mandate be communicated to us around mid-June.
In case the answer will be negative, I would find myself in conscience obliged to proceed with the consecrations, relying upon the agreement given by the Holy See in the Protocol for the consecration of one bishop member of the Society.
The reticence expressed on the subject of the episcopal consecration of a member of the Society, either by writing or by word of mouth, gives me reason to fear delays. Everything is now prepared for the ceremony of June 30: hotel reservations, transportation, rental of a huge tent to house the ceremony.
The disappointment of our priests and faithful would be extreme. All of them hope that this consecration will be realized with the agreement of the Holy See; but being already disappointed by previous delays they will not understand that I would accept a further delay. They are aware and desirous above all of having truly Catholic bishops, transmitting the true Faith to them, and communicating to them in a way that is certain the graces of salvation to which they aspire for themselves and for their children.
In the hope that this request shall not be an insurmountable obstacle to the reconciliation in process, please, Eminence, accept my respectful and fraternal sentiments in Christo et Maria.
† Marcel Lefebvre
Former Archbishop-Bishop of Tulle
http://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Archbishop_Lefebvre_and_the_Vatican/Part_I/1988-05-06.htm
The docuмents exchanged between Rome and Archbishop Lefebvre were compiled by Fr. François Laisney (Archbishop LEFEBVRE and the VATICAN). In the book writes "Many accused Archbishop Lefebvre of having reneged on the Protocol by this letter. However, a careful reading of both cannot show any opposition between them. No date was mentioned in the Protocol, therefore he asked for a date. This was not to oppose the protocol, but rather to take steps to put it in practice. Archbishop Lefebvre did threaten in this letter, because, as he said, every step forward in the negotiation had only been obtained upon the pressure of such threats."
In the forward Bp. Williamson wrote "To these texts all that has been added is a narrative by Fr. François Laisney, Editor of the Angelus Press, to connect them in their sequence and to set them in their context, with a few footnotes to uncover the issues at stake from the standpoint of the Society of Saint Pius X"
-
There is a Catholic principle: submission to the Holy See and Archbishop Lefebvre followed this principle as far as he could. His refusal to submit to Rome's attempt at suppressing the society was an act of prudence. To have a "refusal to submit" as a principle would make the society no different than the orthodox or sedevacanists.
This does not make any sense. Eastern Orthodox and Sedevacantists are opposites when it comes to post-conciliar papacies. The Orthodox recognize Francis as Pope, what they do not recognize are certain definitions of papal authority recognized by the Catholic Church. In contrast, sedevacantists recognize these Catholic definitions of papal authority; they simply do not recognize Francis as a valid papal claimant.
Apples and oranges.
-
Peterp, I do not believe you have any idea whether Fr. Themann will or won't reply to this challenge, unless of course, he sent you to reply for him. You have shown yourself to be totally unable to defend Fr. Themann's (or should I say SSPX's leadership's position) as given in his address in St. Marys. I recall listening to Fr. Themann's address after it was posted online and I guess I was immediately dismissive of his tame approach when he said he personally had never given a sermon on the evil of Vatican II. That told me all I needed to know about him and the message he brought at that time.
Thank you Neil Obstat for your efforts in this post and raising the issue again at this time.
-
This is part of Archbishop Lefebvre's address to his priests given at St Nicolas du Chardonnet, May 10, 1988. No where does he mention retracting the protocol. On the contrary he spoke as if he hoped to implement it:
If there is no agreement with Rome, we shall just have to continue our work. But supposing that there is an agreement with Rome, we would find ourselves in a different atmosphere. This would be a new period in the Society, a new period for Tradition that will require infinite precautions.
Why do I say, "if" there is an agreement? It is not difficult; I shall explain it to you in a few words. Thus I have signed the Protocol; I have it here. It contains five pages. The first is on doctrinal questions (see p.4), and the others on disciplinary questions.
On the doctrinal questions the discussion was a little difficult. They prepared this text; we did not; they put it on the table. We corrected some omissions. It is always the same question: a few sentences on the Pope saying that we recognize the Pope, that we submit ourselves to the Sovereign Pontiff, that we acknowledge his primacy.
http://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Conference-at-St-Nicolas-du-Chardonnet.htm
Here is what Fr. Michel Simoulin, Rector of the Society's seminary in Ecône during the time of the consecrations, wrote soon after (August 25, 1988):
"Let the letter of May 6 be read and re-read and let someone tell me where the terms are that indicate a refusal, a breaking of the accords of May 5. For myself, I see there only an insistence and a demand for precisions not determined by the agreement."
http://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Archbishop_Lefebvre_and_the_Vatican/Part_II/1988-08-25.htm
Here is the Archbishop saying at a conference on June 9, 1988 that the protocol is acceptable:
"I signed the protocol on 5th May a little reluctantly, it must be said, but still ... in itself, is acceptable, otherwise I would not have even signed, of course"
-
Lets pray for Father Themann.
:incense:
I also pray to God to end the Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ and other evils within the Catholic Church.
-
This is part of Archbishop Lefebvre's address to his priests given at St Nicolas du Chardonnet, May 10, 1988.
Here, let's post the whole thing (first, in original formatting):
(http://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Images/Conference_Paris_May5_1988_Title.gif)
The text of this conference is appropriately included here.
If there is no agreement with Rome, we shall just have to continue our work. But supposing that there is an agreement with Rome, we would find ourselves in a different atmosphere. This would be a new period in the Society, a new period for Tradition that will require infinite precautions.
Why do I say, "if" there is an agreement? It is not difficult; I shall explain it to you in a few words. Thus I have signed the Protocol; I have it here. It contains five pages. The first is on doctrinal questions (see p.4), and the others on disciplinary questions.
On the doctrinal questions the discussion was a little difficult. They prepared this text; we did not; they put it on the table. We corrected some omissions. It is always the same question: a few sentences on the Pope saying that we recognize the Pope, that we submit ourselves to the Sovereign Pontiff, that we acknowledge his primacy.
And they had added that we acknowledge him as "the head of the college of bishops." I said, "I don't like that. It is an ambiguous notion. The best proof of this is that an explanatory note had to be included in the Council, to explain what "college" meant in this sense, saying that it was not a true college." So I said, "You should not put that. It will give the impression that we accept collegiality." So they said, "Let's put the body of bishops."' The Pope is the head of the episcopal body.
Then they said we had to accept the paragraph in Lumen Gentium, which deals with the Magisterium of the Church, no.25. When you read this paragraph, you understand it condemns them, not us; they would have to sign it because it is not so badly written and it contains a whole paragraph stressing the immutability of the doctrine, the immutability of the Faith, the immutability of the formulas. We agree with that. There are those who need to sign this. Thus there is no difficulty in accepting this paragraph, which expresses traditional doctrine.
Then they added a number three which made us swallow the pill that followed. It was not easy to accept but with this number three, we were "saved from the waters." In this number three they recognized that there were some points in the Council and in the reform of the liturgy and of the canon law, which we considered irreconcilable with Tradition. They agreed to speak of this, which they had always refused before. Every time that we had said something was not reconcilable with Tradition, such as religious liberty, they used to say, "You can't say that; there is nothing in the Council opposed to Tradition. Let us change the expression. We cannot say that there is anything irreconcilable with Tradition."
Then came the question of the liturgy. We recognized "the validity of the Sacrifice of the Mass and the Sacraments celebrated with the intention of doing what the Church does, and according to the rites indicated in the typical editions of the Roman Missal." It was maybe too much, but since they had put that there were some points in the liturgy that were eventually against Tradition... I wanted to add, "taking into account what was stated in no. 3..." but they did not accept it.
Number five was on canon law. We promised, "to respect the common discipline of the Church and the ecclesiastical laws, especially those contained in the Code of Canon Law promulgated by Pope John Paul II." They wanted to say "all ecclesiastical law." I objected, it would have been to recognize all the new canon law. [I.e., including canon 844 on Eucharistic sharing with non-Catholics.] So they took away the word "all." As you see, it was a constant fight.
At the conclusion of number three they put "we pledge that we will have a positive attitude of study and communication with the Apostolic See, avoiding all polemics," as we had done on religious liberty (with the Dubia). "Without polemics," I said, "we never made any polemics!" "Oh, no. See what you did to the Pope." They were referring to the little drawings (see below-Ed.) which the Pope looked at attentively...and maybe they were looking at them with a little smile ....So I said, "This was not polemics; it was a catechism lesson! Indeed, who is responsible for these actions? It is not us, it is the Pope. If the Pope would not do reprehensible things, we would say nothing. But since he does things, which are absolutely unbelievable, unacceptable, therefore, we react; it is absolutely natural. Let the Pope stop doing these reprehensible things, incomprehensible, unthinkable, and we will stop reacting." They said nothing; they did not answer. Then we spoke of the juridical questions.
(http://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Images/Assisi1.jpg)
The first was on the Roman Commission. There we lost some points. We wanted all the members of the Roman Commission to be members of Tradition. It did not matter whether they would belong to the Society or not, but they should be members of Tradition in order to be able to judge of the things of Tradition. They said, "No, this is not an embassy. We must be present, too." Thus the President would be Card. Ratzinger. There would be a Vice-President, too; but they did not want to release his name, but he probably would not be from Tradition. Then there would be other members from Rome and only two from Tradition. I said, "Well! That's very few."
(http://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Images/Assisi2.jpg)
Please note that; you shall see that throughout the discussions, and already you found that on the doctrinal discussions, their intentions have clearly appeared. I suspected they had such intentions but I did not expect them to manifest them so clearly. Their intention is clear: they want to put their hands on the Roman Commission. For the Society of Saint Pius X, its recognition would not raise any difficulty, but all the other foundations, which surround the Society, would have to deal directly with the Roman Commission. They would have no more relations with the Society. They put "the members of the community living according to the rules of various religious institutes ...are to be given case by case a particular statute regulating their relations with their respective order." One can see their intentions, separating these traditional communities from the Society and putting them under their (modernist) superiors general, making them defend themselves.
Then they agreed to recognize the Society as of pontifical right with some exemptions in the pastoral domain for the administration of the sacraments. This would be good only for the existing houses.
Then came the question of the bishops. They said very clearly, "You do not need a bishop. As soon as the Society is recognized with a canonical status with the Holy See, you can ask any bishop to perform your ordinations and confirmations. There are 3,000 bishops in the world ready to give you ordinations and confirmations... even Card. Gagnon and Card. Oddi are ready to give you confirmations and perform your ordinations!" I said, "This is impossible. This is a condition sine qua non. The faithful will never accept this. Indeed, what would these bishops preach?" With the intentions that we can see among them, their preaching will always be, "you must accept the Council, you must accept what the Pope does, you must accept the novelties. We respect your Tradition; you must respect our new rights. No difference."
So, we have been very severe. So, they have put a little paragraph, "for psychological reasons, the consecration of a member of the Society appears useful."
What procedure to follow? After signing the Protocol, they wanted me to write a letter to the Pope, asking for the re-establishment of a normal situation for the Society, for the pontifical right, the suppression of the canonical penalties, exemptions, and privileges - so-called privileges - on the liturgy. Thus, I have signed, I have written that letter.
I signed it on Thursday; Feast of St. Pius V They did not know it was the Feast of St. Pius V because they have relocated his feast to another date...
Thus I have said, "We must know where to stand concerning June 30th, it's coming soon." So, with these thoughts, I did not sleep the whole night. I told myself, "They are going to get us." Indeed, the Cardinal had made a few frightening reflections. "Well! There is only one Church ...as we respect your feelings, you must also respect religious liberty, the New Mass, the sacraments. It is inconceivable that you turn the faithful away from these new sacraments, from the New Mass.... For example, if there is an agreement, it is evident that in churches such as St. Nicolas du Chardonnet, Card. Lustiger shall ask that a New Mass be said there. This is the one Church, in it there is the Tradition that we shall grant you, but there are also the new rites that you must accept for the faithful of your parish who do not want Tradition." I said, "Well! Go and tell that to our parishioners and see how they receive you!"
They call all this a "reconciliation." This means that we accept what they do and they accept what we do. Thus, we have to align ourselves on Dom Augustin [Dom Augustin founded a traditional Benedictine monastery in the early 70's. In 1985, after the Indult, he had secret meetings with the Vatican to make a special arrangement. The Vatican required: 1) the New Mass as the Community Mass, 2) the new Breviary, 3) new rites of Ordination, 4) unconditional submission to the local bishop, who even for a while forbade them to preach the Exercises of St. Ignatius, which had been the main apostolic work of his monastery - Ed.] and Fongombault [a conservative Benedictine monastery in France which took the New Mass in the mid-70's under pressure from the local bishop - Ed.].
This is not possible. All this makes me hesitate. We asked the Cardinal when we would be able to consecrate a bishop. On the 30th of June? He said, "No, this is much too early. It takes time to make a bishop. In Germany it takes nine months to make a bishop." When I told that to Card. Oddi, he said, "That must be a beautiful baby then!" I said, "Well, give us a date. Let's be precise. The 15th of August?" "No, on August 15th there is no one in Rome. It is the holidays from July 15th to September 15th." "What about November 1st?" "I can't tell you." "What about Christmas?" "I don't know."
I said to myself, "Finished. I have understood. They do not want to give us a bishop." They put it on the paper because we were ready to quit the negotiations without it, but they will maneuver. They are convinced that when the Society is acknowledged we don't need a bishop.
So, I took my pen on Friday morning and wrote to the Cardinal: "It was with real satisfaction that I put my signature on the Protocol drafted during the preceding days. However, you yourself have witnessed my deep disappointment upon the reading of the letter which you gave me, bringing the Holy Father's answer concerning the episcopal consecrations." Indeed, in that letter - I do not have it here - which he brought me from the Holy Father, there is an astonishing sentence. It goes, "It is possible that we consider one day granting you a consecration," as if it was something very vague, a mere possibility, an eventuality. I cannot accept that. [Here, the Archbishop reads the rest of the letter dated May 6, 1988. (See below)]
Letter of Archbishop Lefebvre to Card. Ratzinger (May 6, 1988)
Yesterday it was with real satisfaction that I put my signature on the Protocol drafted during the preceding days. However, you yourself have witnessed my deep disappointment upon the reading of the letter, which you gave me, bringing the Holy Father's answer concerning the episcopal consecrations.
Practically, to postpone the episcopal consecrations to a later undetermined date would be the fourth time that it would have been postponed. The date of the 30th of June was clearly indicated in my previous letters as the latest possible.
I have already given you a file concerning the candidates. There are still two months to make the mandate.
Given the particular circuмstances of this proposal, the Holy Father can very well shorten the procedure so that the mandate be communicated to us around mid-June.
In case the answer will be negative, I would find myself in conscience obliged to proceed with the consecrations, relying upon the agreement given by the Holy See in the Protocol for the consecration of one bishop, member of the Society.
The reticence expressed on the subject of the episcopal consecration of a member of the Society, either by writing or by word of mouth, gives me reason to fear delays. Everything is now prepared for the ceremony of June 30th: hotel reservations, transportation, rental of a huge tent to house the ceremony.
The disappointment of our priests and faithful would be extreme. All of them hope that this consecration will be realized with the agreement of the Holy See; but being already disappointed by previous delays they will not understand that I would accept a further delay. They are aware and desirous above all of having truly Catholic bishops transmitting the true Faith to them, and communicating to them in a way that is certain the graces of salvation to which they aspire for themselves and for their children.
In the hope that this request shall not be an insurmountable obstacle to the reconciliation in process, please, Eminence, accept my respectful and fraternal sentiments in Christo et Maria.
+Marcel Lefebvre
Former Archbishop-Bishop of Tulle
So, I immediately received an answer. On Friday morning I took my letter to the Cardinal before my departure from Rome. And, on that very evening, Fr. du Chalard was given the answer of the Cardinal, even before the Cardinal saw the Pope at 7:30pm. He should have waited to see the Pope and tell him, "Look what I just received from Archbishop Lefebvre. What shall we do?" He did not even wait. Here, the Archbishop reads the Cardinal's letter of May 6th. (See below.)
Letter of Card. Ratzinger to Archbishop Lefebvre (May 6, 1988)
I have attentively read the letter, which you just addressed, to me, in which you tell me your intentions concerning the episcopal consecration of a member of the Society on June 30th next.
Since these intentions are in sharp contrast with what has been accepted during our dialogue on May 4th, and which has been signed in the Protocol yesterday, I wish to inform you that the release of the press communiqué has to be deferred.
I earnestly wish that you reconsider your position in conformity with the results of the dialogue, so that the communiqué may be released.
In this hope, please Excellency..
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
Fr. du Chalard brought that letter to me at Ecône on Sunday morning. I said to him, "Tell the Secretary of the Cardinal that for me the whole thing is finished. I am not changing the date of June 30th. It is the final date. I feel my strength diminishing. I even have a difficulty in traveling by car. [Fr. Lorans, former Rector of the Seminary of Ecône, reports that after the decision to proceed with the consecrations was taken, without accepting the Protocol, great peace and better health were noticeable again in the Archbishop - Ed.] I think it would be to put in danger the continuation of the Society and the seminaries if I do not perform these consecrations." I think they will agree to that date. They are too anxious for this reconciliation.
Again, for them, this reconciliation means, "We shall give you this Tradition for a little while but, after two or three years when you will have understood that you must accept the reforms, then your community Masses will be the New Mass - as for Dom Augustin - you may be allowed to say the traditional Mass in private but no more. Vatican II happened; you must accept Vatican II and its consequences. It is inadmissible that there be in the Church people who do not accept the reforms and consequences of Vatican II"
One can see that this is their way of thinking. I want to remain firm. They are afraid. They think that if there is a bishop, he will lead all the faithful attached to Tradition, he will give strength to Tradition by his preaching. For confirmations, ordinations, any occasion, a bishop strengthens the faith of the faithful. So they say, "If there is a bishop we cannot stop it." They want none of this.
But their intention is very clear. If I write the letter they want to the Pope, we are officially recognized. They ask us to be patient for a little while; they do not give us any date. And after the summer holiday, they tell us, "Look, now, you have been living for three months with this official recognition. You do not need a bishop. You can address yourself to any bishop for ordinations." This is almost certain; otherwise, they would give us a date. If they were really sincere about giving us a bishop, it would not have been difficult for them to say, "For sure, at least by Christmas, you will have a bishop." But, no, they did not want that. It was clear that they had previously agreed among themselves on this: they were four in front of us, none of them said anything; not even one said to the Cardinal, "Eminence, couldn't we..."
I think that by the end of this month they will call in Fr. du Chalard and say to him, "Well, let us settle. We shall give you a bishop."
I tell you that this makes a problem for me, given their will to impose Vatican II. After the visit, they could have said a little word such as, "We can see that Tradition has brought a lot of good. We are happy to welcome you, and to allow you to continue." But, no, not even the least compliment.
One can feel very well that they want to hold us under their influence. I fear this influence. These Romans would go and visit the Dominicans, the Benedictines, the priories of the Society. All these traditional foundations will be isolated from the Society. They will send their superiors general, who will talk to these sisters and say, "Be open-minded. Don't be against the New Mass..." They will give conferences to the sisters.... Above that, one has to reckon with the local bishops. What shall they say?...
We shall see what Providence manifests.... We are living through dramatic days. It is the whole of Tradition that is at stake. We must not make a mistake and let all these influences loose. There certainly are some advantages. It is like a bet: they bet that they shall "get us," and we bet that we will "get them!" They say that by having the upper hand on us, they will have the last word. We say that with the authorization of Rome, there will be such a development of our works that they won't be able to do anything against us. This bet is difficult to calculate. They have some flushes; we have some flushes. I did tell them, we really wish to have the authorization of Rome. Everyone wishes to have it, but we cannot remain in limbo.
Question by Fr. Boivin [District Bursar of the District of France.]: "Will there be one or several bishops?"
If there is no authorization from Rome, there will be several bishops. Personally, I think that some important events shall come. Europe was invaded twice and cut from America, from Africa - no more communication. So I think it will be useful to have several bishops. I did insist and ask the Cardinal for two or three, also because of the immensity of the work. He has never accepted, or one at the most...
Question by Fr. Boivin: "What about the churches?"
The existing places of worship will be ratified. They would ask the local bishops to consider them as regular places of worship in their diocese. But for any new one, there would be need of an agreement. It would be the duty of the Roman Commission to see what would be the conditions. It would certainly be more difficult. As they said for St. Nicolas du Chardonnet, if the bishops give us a parish - Card. Decourtray at Lyons has promised a beautiful church - they would require that one New Mass be said in that parish. Card. Decourtray did that with Fr. Cottin; he said to him, "I allow you to say the old Mass, but I request that at least one New Mass be said by the assistant priest." Thus there would be as much for the novelties as for Tradition. Of course, this is impossible. We have chosen Tradition because we deem the novelties to be bad and to hurt the Faith. It is the position of some conservative groups such as Una Voce who accept the New Mass. They would like to realign us along these lines. This is not possible. This would be contrary to all that we have fought for.
-
This is part of Archbishop Lefebvre's address to his priests given at St Nicolas du Chardonnet, May 10, 1988.
(http://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Images/Conference_Paris_May5_1988_Title.gif)
The text of this conference is appropriately included here.
If there is no agreement with Rome, we shall just have to continue our work. But supposing that there is an agreement with Rome, we would find ourselves in a different atmosphere. This would be a new period in the Society, a new period for Tradition that will require infinite precautions.
Why do I say, "if" there is an agreement? It is not difficult; I shall explain it to you in a few words. Thus I have signed the Protocol; I have it here. It contains five pages. The first is on doctrinal questions (see p.4), and the others on disciplinary questions.
On the doctrinal questions the discussion was a little difficult. They prepared this text; we did not; they put it on the table. We corrected some omissions. It is always the same question: a few sentences on the Pope saying that we recognize the Pope, that we submit ourselves to the Sovereign Pontiff, that we acknowledge his primacy.
And they had added that we acknowledge him as "the head of the college of bishops." I said, "I don't like that. It is an ambiguous notion. The best proof of this is that an explanatory note had to be included in the Council, to explain what "college" meant in this sense, saying that it was not a true college." So I said, "You should not put that. It will give the impression that we accept collegiality." So they said, "Let's put the body of bishops."' The Pope is the head of the episcopal body.
Then they said we had to accept the paragraph in Lumen Gentium, which deals with the Magisterium of the Church, no.25. When you read this paragraph, you understand it condemns them, not us; they would have to sign it because it is not so badly written and it contains a whole paragraph stressing the immutability of the doctrine, the immutability of the Faith, the immutability of the formulas. We agree with that. There are those who need to sign this. Thus there is no difficulty in accepting this paragraph, which expresses traditional doctrine.
Then they added a number three which made us swallow the pill that followed. It was not easy to accept but with this number three, we were "saved from the waters." In this number three they recognized that there were some points in the Council and in the reform of the liturgy and of the canon law, which we considered irreconcilable with Tradition. They agreed to speak of this, which they had always refused before. Every time that we had said something was not reconcilable with Tradition, such as religious liberty, they used to say, "You can't say that; there is nothing in the Council opposed to Tradition. Let us change the expression. We cannot say that there is anything irreconcilable with Tradition."
Then came the question of the liturgy. We recognized "the validity of the Sacrifice of the Mass and the Sacraments celebrated with the intention of doing what the Church does, and according to the rites indicated in the typical editions of the Roman Missal." It was maybe too much, but since they had put that there were some points in the liturgy that were eventually against Tradition... I wanted to add, "taking into account what was stated in no. 3..." but they did not accept it.
Number five was on canon law. We promised, "to respect the common discipline of the Church and the ecclesiastical laws, especially those contained in the Code of Canon Law promulgated by Pope John Paul II." They wanted to say "all ecclesiastical law." I objected, it would have been to recognize all the new canon law. [I.e., including canon 844 on Eucharistic sharing with non-Catholics.] So they took away the word "all." As you see, it was a constant fight.
At the conclusion of number three they put "we pledge that we will have a positive attitude of study and communication with the Apostolic See, avoiding all polemics," as we had done on religious liberty (with the Dubia). "Without polemics," I said, "we never made any polemics!" "Oh, no. See what you did to the Pope." They were referring to the little drawings (see below-Ed.) which the Pope looked at attentively...and maybe they were looking at them with a little smile ....So I said, "This was not polemics; it was a catechism lesson! :boxer: Indeed, who is responsible for these actions? It is not us, it is the Pope. If the Pope would not do reprehensible things, we would say nothing. But since he does things, which are absolutely unbelievable, unacceptable, therefore, we react; it is absolutely natural. Let the Pope stop doing these reprehensible things, incomprehensible, unthinkable, and we will stop reacting." [Can someone show me where Bp. Fellay said such things when dealing with Pope Benedict? :confused1:] They said nothing; they did not answer. Then we spoke of the juridical questions.
(http://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Images/Assisi1.jpg)
The first was on the Roman Commission. There we lost some points. We wanted all the members of the Roman Commission to be members of Tradition. It did not matter whether they would belong to the Society or not, but they should be members of Tradition in order to be able to judge of the things of Tradition. They said, "No, this is not an embassy. We must be present, too." Thus the President would be Card. Ratzinger. There would be a Vice-President, too; but they did not want to release his name, but he probably would not be from Tradition. Then there would be other members from Rome and only two from Tradition. I said, "Well! That's very few."
(http://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Images/Assisi2.jpg)
Please note that; you shall see that throughout the discussions, and already you found that on the doctrinal discussions, their intentions have clearly appeared. I suspected they had such intentions but I did not expect them to manifest them so clearly. Their intention is clear: they want to put their hands on the Roman Commission. For the Society of Saint Pius X, its recognition would not raise any difficulty, but all the other foundations, which surround the Society, would have to deal directly with the Roman Commission. They would have no more relations with the Society. They put "the members of the community living according to the rules of various religious institutes ...are to be given case by case a particular statute regulating their relations with their respective order." One can see their intentions, separating these traditional communities from the Society and putting them under their (modernist) superiors general, making them defend themselves.
Then they agreed to recognize the Society as of pontifical right with some exemptions in the pastoral domain for the administration of the sacraments. This would be good only for the existing houses.
Then came the question of the bishops. They said very clearly, "You do not need a bishop. As soon as the Society is recognized with a canonical status with the Holy See, you can ask any bishop to perform your ordinations and confirmations. There are 3,000 bishops in the world ready to give you ordinations and confirmations... even Card. Gagnon and Card. Oddi are ready to give you confirmations and perform your ordinations!" I said, "This is impossible. This is a condition sine qua non. The faithful will never accept this. Indeed, what would these bishops preach?" With the intentions that we can see among them, their preaching will always be, "you must accept the Council, you must accept what the Pope does, you must accept the novelties. We respect your Tradition; you must respect our new rights. No difference."
So, we have been very severe. So, they have put a little paragraph, "for psychological reasons, the consecration of a member of the Society appears useful."
What procedure to follow? After signing the Protocol, they wanted me to write a letter to the Pope, asking for the re-establishment of a normal situation for the Society, for the pontifical right, the suppression of the canonical penalties, exemptions, and privileges - so-called privileges - on the liturgy. Thus, I have signed, I have written that letter.
I signed it on Thursday; Feast of St. Pius V They did not know it was the Feast of St. Pius V because they have relocated his feast to another date...
Thus I have said, "We must know where to stand concerning June 30th, it's coming soon." So, with these thoughts, I did not sleep the whole night. I told myself, "They are going to get us." Indeed, the Cardinal had made a few frightening reflections. "Well! There is only one Church ...as we respect your feelings, you must also respect religious liberty, the New Mass, the sacraments. It is inconceivable that you turn the faithful away from these new sacraments, from the New Mass.... For example, if there is an agreement, it is evident that in churches such as St. Nicolas du Chardonnet, Card. Lustiger shall ask that a New Mass be said there. This is the one Church, in it there is the Tradition that we shall grant you, but there are also the new rites that you must accept for the faithful of your parish who do not want Tradition." I said, "Well! Go and tell that to our parishioners and see how they receive you!"
They call all this a "reconciliation." This means that we accept what they do and they accept what we do. Thus, we have to align ourselves on Dom Augustin [Dom Augustin founded a traditional Benedictine monastery in the early 70's. In 1985, after the Indult, he had secret meetings with the Vatican to make a special arrangement. The Vatican required: 1) the New Mass as the Community Mass, 2) the new Breviary, 3) new rites of Ordination, 4) unconditional submission to the local bishop, who even for a while forbade them to preach the Exercises of St. Ignatius, which had been the main apostolic work of his monastery - Ed.] and Fongombault [a conservative Benedictine monastery in France which took the New Mass in the mid-70's under pressure from the local bishop - Ed.].
This is not possible. All this makes me hesitate. We asked the Cardinal when we would be able to consecrate a bishop. On the 30th of June? He said, "No, this is much too early. It takes time to make a bishop. In Germany it takes nine months to make a bishop." When I told that to Card. Oddi, he said, "That must be a beautiful baby then!" I said, "Well, give us a date. Let's be precise. The 15th of August?" "No, on August 15th there is no one in Rome. It is the holidays from July 15th to September 15th." "What about November 1st?" "I can't tell you." "What about Christmas?" "I don't know."
I said to myself, "Finished. I have understood. They do not want to give us a bishop." They put it on the paper because we were ready to quit the negotiations without it, but they will maneuver. They are convinced that when the Society is acknowledged we don't need a bishop.
So, I took my pen on Friday morning and wrote to the Cardinal: "It was with real satisfaction that I put my signature on the Protocol drafted during the preceding days. However, you yourself have witnessed my deep disappointment upon the reading of the letter which you gave me, bringing the Holy Father's answer concerning the episcopal consecrations." Indeed, in that letter - I do not have it here - which he brought me from the Holy Father, there is an astonishing sentence. It goes, "It is possible that we consider one day granting you a consecration," as if it was something very vague, a mere possibility, an eventuality. I cannot accept that. [Here, the Archbishop reads the rest of the letter dated May 6, 1988. (See below)]
Letter of Archbishop Lefebvre to Card. Ratzinger (May 6, 1988)
Yesterday it was with real satisfaction that I put my signature on the Protocol drafted during the preceding days. However, you yourself have witnessed my deep disappointment upon the reading of the letter, which you gave me, bringing the Holy Father's answer concerning the episcopal consecrations.
Practically, to postpone the episcopal consecrations to a later undetermined date would be the fourth time that it would have been postponed. The date of the 30th of June was clearly indicated in my previous letters as the latest possible.
I have already given you a file concerning the candidates. There are still two months to make the mandate.
Given the particular circuмstances of this proposal, the Holy Father can very well shorten the procedure so that the mandate be communicated to us around mid-June.
In case the answer will be negative, I would find myself in conscience obliged to proceed with the consecrations, relying upon the agreement given by the Holy See in the Protocol for the consecration of one bishop, member of the Society.
The reticence expressed on the subject of the episcopal consecration of a member of the Society, either by writing or by word of mouth, gives me reason to fear delays. Everything is now prepared for the ceremony of June 30th: hotel reservations, transportation, rental of a huge tent to house the ceremony.
The disappointment of our priests and faithful would be extreme. All of them hope that this consecration will be realized with the agreement of the Holy See; but being already disappointed by previous delays they will not understand that I would accept a further delay. They are aware and desirous above all of having truly Catholic bishops transmitting the true Faith to them, and communicating to them in a way that is certain the graces of salvation to which they aspire for themselves and for their children.
In the hope that this request shall not be an insurmountable obstacle to the reconciliation in process, please, Eminence, accept my respectful and fraternal sentiments in Christo et Maria.
+Marcel Lefebvre
Former Archbishop-Bishop of Tulle
So, I immediately received an answer. On Friday morning I took my letter to the Cardinal before my departure from Rome. And, on that very evening, Fr. du Chalard was given the answer of the Cardinal, even before the Cardinal saw the Pope at 7:30pm. He should have waited to see the Pope and tell him, "Look what I just received from Archbishop Lefebvre. What shall we do?" He did not even wait. Here, the Archbishop reads the Cardinal's letter of May 6th. (See below.)
Letter of Card. Ratzinger to Archbishop Lefebvre (May 6, 1988)
I have attentively read the letter, which you just addressed, to me, in which you tell me your intentions concerning the episcopal consecration of a member of the Society on June 30th next.
Since these intentions are in sharp contrast with what has been accepted during our dialogue on May 4th, and which has been signed in the Protocol yesterday, I wish to inform you that the release of the press communiqué has to be deferred.
I earnestly wish that you reconsider your position in conformity with the results of the dialogue, so that the communiqué may be released.
In this hope, please Excellency..
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
Fr. du Chalard brought that letter to me at Ecône on Sunday morning. I said to him, "Tell the Secretary of the Cardinal that for me the whole thing is finished. I am not changing the date of June 30th. It is the final date. I feel my strength diminishing. I even have a difficulty in traveling by car. [Fr. Lorans, former Rector of the Seminary of Ecône, reports that after the decision to proceed with the consecrations was taken, without accepting the Protocol, great peace and better health were noticeable again in the Archbishop - Ed.] I think it would be to put in danger the continuation of the Society and the seminaries if I do not perform these consecrations." I think they will agree to that date. They are too anxious for this reconciliation.
Again, for them, this reconciliation means, "We shall give you this Tradition for a little while but, after two or three years when you will have understood that you must accept the reforms, then your community Masses will be the New Mass - [This doesn't sound like the words of someone who's longing for an agreement to me.] as for Dom Augustin - you may be allowed to say the traditional Mass in private but no more. Vatican II happened; you must accept Vatican II and its consequences. It is inadmissible that there be in the Church people who do not accept the reforms and consequences of Vatican II"
One can see that this is their way of thinking. I want to remain firm. They are afraid. They think that if there is a bishop, he will lead all the faithful attached to Tradition, he will give strength to Tradition by his preaching. For confirmations, ordinations, any occasion, a bishop strengthens the faith of the faithful. So they say, "If there is a bishop we cannot stop it." They want none of this.
But their intention is very clear. If I write the letter they want to the Pope, we are officially recognized. They ask us to be patient for a little while; they do not give us any date. And after the summer holiday, they tell us, "Look, now, you have been living for three months with this official recognition. You do not need a bishop. You can address yourself to any bishop for ordinations." This is almost certain; otherwise, they would give us a date. If they were really sincere about giving us a bishop, it would not have been difficult for them to say, "For sure, at least by Christmas, you will have a bishop." But, no, they did not want that. It was clear that they had previously agreed among themselves on this: they were four in front of us, none of them said anything; not even one said to the Cardinal, "Eminence, couldn't we..."
I think that by the end of this month they will call in Fr. du Chalard and say to him, "Well, let us settle. We shall give you a bishop."
I tell you that this makes a problem for me, given their will to impose Vatican II. After the visit, they could have said a little word such as, "We can see that Tradition has brought a lot of good. We are happy to welcome you, and to allow you to continue." But, no, not even the least compliment.
One can feel very well that they want to hold us under their influence. I fear this influence. [Indeed, it sounds more like he's afraid they will agree to a bishop, in which case there would be an agreement, which he fears.] These Romans would go and visit the Dominicans, the Benedictines, the priories of the Society. All these traditional foundations will be isolated from the Society. They will send their superiors general, who will talk to these sisters and say, "Be open-minded. Don't be against the New Mass..." They will give conferences to the sisters.... Above that, one has to reckon with the local bishops. What shall they say?...
We shall see what Providence manifests.... We are living through dramatic days. It is the whole of Tradition that is at stake. We must not make a mistake and let all these influences loose. There certainly are some advantages. It is like a bet: they bet that they shall "get us," and we bet that we will "get them!" They say that by having the upper hand on us, they will have the last word. We say that with the authorization of Rome, there will be such a development of our works that they won't be able to do anything against us. This bet is difficult to calculate. They have some flushes; we have some flushes. I did tell them, we really wish to have the authorization of Rome. Everyone wishes to have it, but we cannot remain in limbo.
Question by Fr. Boivin [District Bursar of the District of France.]: "Will there be one or several bishops?"
If there is no authorization from Rome, there will be several bishops. Personally, I think that some important events shall come. Europe was invaded twice and cut from America, from Africa - no more communication. So I think it will be useful to have several bishops. I did insist and ask the Cardinal for two or three, also because of the immensity of the work. He has never accepted, or one at the most...
Question by Fr. Boivin: "What about the churches?"
The existing places of worship will be ratified. They would ask the local bishops to consider them as regular places of worship in their diocese. But for any new one, there would be need of an agreement. It would be the duty of the Roman Commission to see what would be the conditions. It would certainly be more difficult. As they said for St. Nicolas du Chardonnet, if the bishops give us a parish - Card. Decourtray at Lyons has promised a beautiful church - they would require that one New Mass be said in that parish. Card. Decourtray did that with Fr. Cottin; he said to him, "I allow you to say the old Mass, but I request that at least one New Mass be said by the assistant priest." Thus there would be as much for the novelties as for Tradition. Of course, this is impossible. We have chosen Tradition because we deem the novelties to be bad and to hurt the Faith. It is the position of some conservative groups such as Una Voce who accept the New Mass. They would like to realign us along these lines. This is not possible. This would be contrary to all that we have fought for.
-
This is part of Archbishop Lefebvre's address to his priests given at St Nicolas du Chardonnet, May 10, 1988. No where does he mention retracting the protocol. On the contrary he spoke as if he hoped to implement it:
If there is no agreement with Rome, we shall just have to continue our work. But supposing that there is an agreement with Rome, we would find ourselves in a different atmosphere. This would be a new period in the Society, a new period for Tradition that will require infinite precautions.
Why do I say, "if" there is an agreement? It is not difficult; I shall explain it to you in a few words. Thus I have signed the Protocol; I have it here. It contains five pages. The first is on doctrinal questions (see p.4), and the others on disciplinary questions.
On the doctrinal questions the discussion was a little difficult. They prepared this text; we did not; they put it on the table. We corrected some omissions. It is always the same question: a few sentences on the Pope saying that we recognize the Pope, that we submit ourselves to the Sovereign Pontiff, that we acknowledge his primacy.
http://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Conference-at-St-Nicolas-du-Chardonnet.htm
Here is what Fr. Michel Simoulin, Rector of the Society's seminary in Ecône during the time of the consecrations, wrote soon after (August 25, 1988):
"Let the letter of May 6 be read and re-read and let someone tell me where the terms are that indicate a refusal, a breaking of the accords of May 5. For myself, I see there only an insistence and a demand for precisions not determined by the agreement."
http://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Archbishop_Lefebvre_and_the_Vatican/Part_II/1988-08-25.htm
Here is the Archbishop saying at a conference on June 9, 1988 that the protocol is acceptable:
"I signed the protocol on 5th May a little reluctantly, it must be said, but still ... in itself, is acceptable, otherwise I would not have even signed, of course"
Not sure how this tired old argument has come up again, but...
“The Archbishop prayed with his head in his hands throughout the Rosary and Benediction in the chapel, sometimes sighing. Then without saying anything, he retired to his room. He did not sleep that night....Later he shared all this with his driver and confidant, Jacques Lagneau: ‘If only you knew what a night I passed after signing that infamous agreement! Oh! How I wanted morning to come so that I could give Fr. du Chalard my letter of retraction which I had written during the night.’ The following day...he finished off his letter and put it in an envelope which he showed to Fr. du Chalard: ‘Father, before leaving, it is essential that this letter be taken to Cardinal Ratzinger. It’s a little bomb! ’ ”
(Marcel Lefebvre, Bishop Tissier de Mallerais, pp. 555)
“When I asked why he [Lefebvre] had signed the agreement in the first place, he said: ‘That’s what they [the chief SSPX priests] all wanted. But then when I was by myself, alone, I realized that we couldn’t trust it.’ ”
(Dom Gerard Calvert, Abbot of Le Barroux, close friend of Archbishop Lefebvre, interview with “30 Days,” Winter 1995)[/size]
-
..."real satisfaction," as he would write to Ratzinger, and silent mistrust which he spoke of to the sisters in the Cenacolo convent at 3 PM: "If Don Putti were here, what would he say? 'Your Grace, where are you going? What are you doing?' "
p. 554, Marcel Lefebvre
Archbishop Lefebvre said:
Our true believers, those who understand the problem and we have just helped to continue the straight and firm and the Tradition of faith, feared the steps I made in Rome. They told me it was dangerous and that I was wasting my time. Yes, of course, I hoped until the last minute in Rome have to testify a little bit of loyalty. You can not blame me for not doing the maximum. So now, those who say to me, you must agree with Rome, I can safely say that I went even farther than I should have (Fideliter no. 79, p. 11).
-
.
Showing he learned his lesson, Archbishop Lefebvre maintained until his death that he would not even discuss an agreement with Rome until Rome converted.
This is another falacious argument viz. the absence of any discussions until his death proves the "new principle".
In a June 15, press conference the archbishop recognized that there would be no contact with Rome for the next 2-3 years and he probably wounldn't be around when contact was resumed:
"The one who will have in principle the responsibility of relations with Rome when I will be gone will be the Superior General of the Society, Father Schmidberger, who still has six years of his term remaining. It is he who probably will have the contacts with Rome from now on in order to continue the discussions if the discussions continue or if the contact is maintained, which is unlikely for some time since in L’Osservatore Romano there is going to be a headline, ‘Schism of Archbishop Lefebvre, excommunication.’ Therefore, for a few years, perhaps two or three years, I do not know, there will be the separation."
http://www.sspxasia.com/Countries/Philippines/OLVC_2012/Articles/Fr._Themann%27s_Talk.pdf
In fact a little over 3 years later there was contact with Rome. On September 18, 1991 Roman dignitaries led by Cardinal Silvio Oddi visited Econe and Fr. Schmidberger and discussed "normalizing relations".
-
I already gave a quote from the Archbishop two years after the consecrations "let them first make us such an offer!" which clearly shows he was open to the idea
I've seen that quote abused in that way so many times, and it is ridiculous. If you read the whole conference (and I highly recommend it), when he said, "let them first make us such an offer!" it is clear he was not saying he wanted them to. If you read the context, both the overall conference itself, and the context of all that happened in those years, it is preposterous to interpret that one quote as if he would relish them making such an offer. When he said that, it sounds more to me like, "yeah right; they wouldn't make such an offer now even if we wanted them to!"
Here is the whole conference, for those who haven't seen it or those who need a review:
(once again I'll post it in its original form first, and then with highlighting)
I just came across this incredible address of Archbishop Lefebvre from 6 September 1990 to the seminarians at Ecône. It is new to me but was posted on the SSPX UK website, showing quite clearly where they stand. His Grace's understanding of the Revolution is profound and his explanation of it concise. A very good and consoling read !
TWO YEARS AFTER THE CONSECRATIONS:
WE MUST NOT WAVER, WE MAY NOT COMPROMISE
Archbishop Lefebvre's address to his priests given in Econe, Switzerland on September 6, 1990
Transcribed and slightly adapted from the French
THE PROBLEM
Concerning the future, I would like to say a few words on questions which the laity may ask you, questions which I often get asked by people who do not know too much about what is happening in the Society, such as, "Are relations with Rome broken off? Is it all over?"
A LIGHT-WEIGHT SOLUTION
I received a few weeks ago, maybe three weeks ago, yet another telephone call from Cardinal Oddi: "Well, Excellency, is there no way to arrange things, no way?" I replied, "You must change, come back to Tradition. It is not a question of the Liturgy, it is a question of the Faith." The Cardinal protested, "No, no, it is not a question of Faith, no, no. The Pope is ready and willing to receive you. Just a little gesture on your part, a little request for forgiveness and everything will be settled." That is just like Cardinal Oddi.
But he is going nowhere. Nowhere. He understands nothing, or wants to understand nothing. Nothing. Unfortunately, the same holds true for our four more or less traditional Cardinals, Cardinals Palazzini, Stickler, Gagnon and Oddi. They have no weight, no influence in Rome, they have lost all influence, all they are good for any longer is performing ordinations for St. Peter's Fraternity, etc. They are going nowhere. Nowhere.
THE HEAVY-WEIGHT PROBLEM
Meanwhile the problem remains grave, very, very grave. We absolutely must not minimize it. This is how we must reply to the layfolk who ask such questions as, "When will the crisis come to and end? Are we getting anywhere? Isn't there a way of getting permission for our liturgy, for our sacraments?"
Certainly the question of the liturgy and the sacraments is important, but it is not the most important. The most important question is the question of the Faith. This question is unresolved in Rome. For us it is resolved. We have the Faith of all time, the Faith of the Catechism of the Council of Trent, of the Catechism of St. Pius X, hence the Faith of the Church, of all the Church Councils, of all the Popes prior to Vatican II. Now the official Church is persevering, we might say pertinaciously, in the false ideas and grave errors of Vatican II, that much is clear.
Father Tam is sending us from Mexico a number of copies of a piece of work he is doing, most interesting work, because he is compiling cuttings from the Osservatore Romano, hence cuttings from Rome's official newspaper with speeches of the Pope, of Cardinal Casaroli and Cardinal Ratzinger, official texts of the Church, and so on. It is interesting, because such docuмents of public record are irrefutable, being published by the Osservatore Romano, so there is no doubting their authenticity.
OURS AN ANCIENT STRUGGLE
Well, these texts are astounding, quite astounding! I shall quote you a few texts shortly. It is incredible. In the last few weeks (since I am now unemployed!) I have been spending a little time re-reading the book by Emmanuel Barbier on Liberal Catholicism. And it is striking to see how our fight now is exactly the same fight as was being fought then by the great Catholics of the 19th century, in the wake of the French Revolution, and by the Popes, Pius VI, Pius VII, Pius VIII, Gregory XVI, Pius IX, Leo XIII, and so on, Pius X, down to Pius XII. Their fight is summed up in the encyclical Quanta Cura with the Syllabus of Pius IX, and Pascendi Dominici Gregis of Pius X. There are the two great docuмents, sensational and shocking in their day, laying out the Church's teaching in face of the modern errors, the errors appearing in the course of the Revolution, especially in the Declaration of the Rights of Man. This is the fight we are in the middle of today. Exactly the same fight.
There are those who are for the Syllabus and Pascendi, and there are those who are against. It is simple. It is clear. Those who are against are adopting the principles of the French Revolution, the modern errors. Those who are for the Syllabus and Pascendi remain within the true Faith, within Catholic doctrine. Now you know very well that Cardinal Ratzinger has said that as far as he is concerned Vatican II is "an anti-Syllabus". Therewith the Cardinal placed himself clearly amongst those who are against the Syllabus. If then he is against the Syllabus, he is adopting the principles of the Revolution. Besides, he goes on to say quite clearly, "Indeed we have now absorbed into Church teaching, and the Church has opened herself up to, principles which are not hers but which come from modern society," i.e., as everyone understands, the principles of 1789, the Rights of Man.
We stand exactly where Cardinal Pie, Bishop Freppel, Louis Vueillot stood, and Deputy Keller in Alsace, Cardinal Mermillod in Switzerland, who fought the good fight together with the great majority of the then bishops. At that time they had the good fortune to have the large majority of the bishops on their side. Bishop Dupanloup and the few bishops in France who followed Bishop Dupanloup were the odd ones out. The few bishops in Germany, the few in Italy, who were openly opposed to the Syllabus, and in effect opposed to Pius IX, they were the exception rather than the rule. But obviously there were the forces of the Revolution, the heirs of the Revolution, and there was the hand reached out by Dupanloup, Montalembert, Lamennais and others, who offered their hand to the Revolution and who never wanted to invoke the rights of God against the rights of man —"We ask only for the rights of every man, the rights shared by everyone, shared by all men, shared by all religions, not the rights of God," said these Liberals.
WE MUST NOT WAVER
Well, we find ourselves in the same situation. We must not be under any illusions. Consequently we are in the thick of a great fight, a great fight. We are fighting a fight guaranteed by a whole line of Popes. Hence, we should have no hesitation or fear, hesitation such as, "Why should we be going on our own? After all, why not join Rome, why not join the Pope?" Yes, if Rome and the Pope were in line with Tradition, if they were carrying on the work of all the Popes of the 19th and the first half of the 20th century, of course. But they themselves admit that they have set out on a new path. They themselves admit that a new era began with Vatican II. They admit that it is a new stage in the Church's life, wholly new, based on new principles. We need not argue the point. They say it themselves. It is clear. I think that we must drive this point home with our people, in such a way that they realize their oneness with the Church's whole history, going back well beyond the Revolution. Of course. It is the fight of the City of Satan against the City of God. Clearly. So we do not have to worry. We must after all trust in the grace of God.
"What is going to happen? How is it all going to end?" That is God's secret. Mystery. But that we must fight the ideas presently fashionable in Rome, coming from the Pope's own mouth, Cardinal Ratzinger's mouth, Cardinal Casaroli's mouth, of Cardinal Willebrands and those like them, is clear, clear, for all they do is repeat the opposite of what the Popes said and solemnly stated for 150 years. We must choose, as I said to Pope Paul VI: "We have to choose between you and the Council on one side, and your predecessors on the other; either with your predecessors who stated the Church's teaching, or with the novelties of Vatican II." Reply —"Ah, this is not the moment to get into theology, we are not getting into theology now." It is clear. Hence we must not waver for one moment.
A FALSE CHARITY
And we must not waver for one moment either in not being with those who are in the process of betraying us. Some people are always admiring the grass in the neighbor's field. Instead of looking to their friends, to the Church's defenders, to those fighting on the battlefield, they look to our enemies on the other side. "After all, we must be charitable, we must be kind, we must not be divisive, after all, they are celebrating the Tridentine Mass, they are not as bad as everyone says" —but THEY ARE BETRAYING US —betraying us! They are shaking hands with the Church's destroyers. They are shaking hands with people holding modernist and liberal ideas condemned by the Church. So they are doing the devil's work.
Thus those who were with us and were working with us for the rights of Our Lord, for the salvation of souls, are now saying, "So long as they grant us the old Mass, we can shake hands with Rome, no problem." But we are seeing how it works out. They are in an impossible situation. Impossible. One cannot both shake hands with modernists and keep following Tradition. Not possible. Not possible. Now, stay in touch with them to bring them back, to convert them to Tradition, yes, if you like, that's the right kind of ecuмenism! But give the impression that after all one almost regrets any break, that one likes talking to them? No way! These are people who call us corpse-like Traditionalists, they are saying that we are as rigid as corpses, ours is not a living Tradition, we are glum-faced, ours is a glum Tradition! Unbelievable! Unimaginable! What kind of relations can you have with people like that?
This is what causes us a problem with certain layfolk, who are very nice, very good people, all for the Society, who accepted the Consecrations, but who have a kind of deep-down regret that they are no longer with the people they used to be with, people who did not accept the Consecrations and who are now against us. "It's a pity we are divided", they say, "why not meet up with them? Let's go and have a drink together, reach out a hand to them" —that's a betrayal! Those saying this give the impression that at the drop of a hat they would cross over and join those who left us. They must make up their minds.
WE CANNOT COMPROMISE
That is what killed Christendom, in all of Europe, not just the Church in France, but the Church in Germany, in Switzerland —that is what enabled the Revolution to get established. It was the Liberals, it was those who reached out a hand to people who did not share their Catholic principles. We must make up our minds if we too want to collaborate in the destruction of the Church and in the ruin of the Social Kingship of Christ the King, or are we resolved to continue working for the Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ? All those who wish to join us, and work with us, Deo Gratias, we welcome them, wherever they come from, that's not a problem, but let them come with us, let them not say they are going a different way in order to keep company with the liberals that left us and in order to work with them. Not possible.
Catholics right down the 19th century were torn apart, literally torn apart, over the Syllabus: for, against, for, against. And you remember in particular what happened to the Count of Chambord. He was criticized for not accepting to be made king of France after the 1870 Revolution in France on the grounds of changing the French flag. But it was not so much a question of the flag. Rather, he refused to submit to the principles of the Revolution. He said, "I shall never consent to being the lawful King of the Revolution." He was right! For he would have been voted in by the country, voted in by the French Parliament, but on condition he accept to be a Parliamentary King, and so accept the principles of the Revolution. He said "No. If I am to be King, I shall be King like my ancestors were, before the Revolution." He was right. One has to choose. He chose to stay with the Pope, and with pre-Revolutionary principles.
We too have chosen to be Counter-revolutionary, to stay with the Syllabus, to be against the modern errors, to stay with Catholic Truth, to defend Catholic truth. We are right!
VATICAN II PROFOUNDLY WRONG
This fight between the Church and the liberals and modernism is the fight over Vatican II. It is as simple of that. And the consequences are far-reaching.
The more one analyzes the docuмents of Vatican II, and the more one analyzes their interpretation by the authorities of the Church, the more one realizes that what is at stake is not merely superficial errors, a few mistakes, ecuмenism, religious liberty, collegiality, a certain Liberalism, but rather a wholesale perversion of the mind, a whole new philosophy based on modern philosophy, on subjectivism. A book just published by a German theologian is most instructive. It shows how the Pope's thinking, especially in a retreat he preached at the Vatican, is subjectivist from start to finish, and when afterwards one reads his speeches, one realizes that indeed that is his thinking. It might appear Catholic, but Catholic it is not. No. The Pope's notion of God, the Pope's notion of Our Lord, come up from the depths of his consciousness, and not from any objective revelation to which he adheres with his mind. No. He constructs the notion of God. He said recently in a docuмent —incredible —that the idea of the Trinity could only have arisen quite late, because man's interior psychology had to be capable of defining the Trinity. Hence the idea of the Trinity did not come from a revelation from outside, it came from man's consciousness inside, it welled up from inside man, it came from the depths of man's consciousness! Incredible! A wholly different version of Revelation, of Faith, of philosophy! Very grave! A total perversion! How we are going to get out of all this, I have no idea, but in any case it is a fact, and as this German theologian shows (who has, I believe, another two parts of his book to write on the Holy Father's thought), it is truly frightening.
So, they are no small errors. We are not dealing in trifles. We are into a line of philosophical thinking that goes back to Kant, Descartes, the whole line of modern philosophers who paved the way for the Revolution.
POPE JOHN PAUL II'S EcuмENISM
Let me give you a few relatively recent quotations, for example, on ecuмenism, in the Osservatore Romano of June 2, 1989, when the Pope was in Norway: "My visit to the Scandinavian countries is a confirmation of the Catholic Church's interest in the work of ecuмenism, which is to promote unity amongst Christians, amongst all Christians. Twenty-five years ago the Second Vatican Council insisted clearly on the urgency of this challenge to the Church. My predecessors pursued this objective with persevering attention, with the grace of the Holy Ghost which is the divine source and guarantee of the ecuмenical movement. Since the beginning of my pontificate, I have made ecuмenism the priority of my pastoral concern." It is clear.
Now when one reads a quantity of docuмents on ecuмenism —he makes speech after speech on ecuмenism because he receives delegation after delegation from the Orthodox, from all religions, from all sects, so the subject is always ecuмenism, ecuмenism, ecuмenism. But he achieves nothing —the end result has been nothing, nothing at all, except on the contrary re-assuring the non-Catholics in their errors without seeking to convert them, the confirming of them in their error. The Church has made no progress, not the least progress, by this ecuмenism. So all that he says is a veritable mish-mash, "communion", "drawing closer", "desire of imminent perfect communion", "hope of soon communing in the sacrament", "in unity", and so on —a mish-mash. No real progress. They cannot progress this way. IMPOSSIBLE.
CARDINAL CASAROLI'S HUMANISM
Take next Cardinal Casaroli, from the Osservatore Romano in February, 1989, speaking to the United Nations Commission of the Rights of Man —just see what a speech it is! "In responding with great pleasure to the invitation extended to me to come before you, and bringing to you the encouragement of the Holy See, I desire to spend a few moments, as all of you will understand, on one specific aspect of the basic liberty of thought and action in accordance with one's conscience, religious liberty." Such things coming from the mouth of an archbishop! Liberty of thought and action according to one's conscience, hence religious liberty! "John Paul II did not hesitate to state last year in a message for the World Day of Peace, that religious liberty constitutes a cornerstone in the edifice of the rights of man. The Catholic Church and its Supreme Pastor, who has made the rights of man one of the major themes of his preaching, have not failed to recall that in a world made by man, and for man..." —Cardinal Casaroli's own words! —"...the whole organization of society only has meaning insofar as it makes of the human dimension a central preoccupation." God? God? No divine dimension in man! It is appalling! Paganism! Appalling! Then he goes on: —"Every man and all of man, that is the Holy See's preoccupation; such, no doubt, is yours also."
What can you do with people like that? What do we have in common with people like that? Nothing! Impossible.
CARDINAL RATZINGER'S WAY OUT
On to our well-known Cardinal Ratzinger who made the remark that the Vatican II docuмent Gaudium et Spes was a Counter-Syllabus. He finds it nevertheless awkward to have made such a remark, because people are now constantly quoting it back to him, as a criticism: "You said that Vatican II is a Counter-Syllabus! Hey, wait a moment, that is serious!" So he has found an explanation. He gave it just a little while ago, on June 27, 1990.
You know that Rome recently issued a major docuмent to explain the relationship between the Magisterium and theologians. With all the problems theologians are causing them on all sides, Rome no longer knows what to do, so they have to try to keep the theologians in line without coming down too hard on them, so they go on and on, page after page after page in this docuмent. Now in the presentation of the docuмent Cardinal Ratzinger gives us his thinking on the possibility of saying the opposite of what Popes have previously decided one hundred years ago or whatever.
The Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian, says the Cardinal, "states for the first time with such clarity..." —and indeed I think it is true! —"...that there are decisions of the Magisterium which cannot be and are not intended to be the last word on the matter as such, but are a substantial anchorage in the problem..." —ah, the Cardinal is an artful dodger! So there are decisions of the Magisterium (that is not just any decisions!) which cannot be the last word on the matter as such, but are merely a substantial anchorage in the problem! The Cardinal continues —"...and they are first and foremost an expression of pastoral prudence, a sort of provisional disposition..." —Listen! —definitive decisions of the Holy See being turned into provisional dispositions!! The Cardinal goes on —"...Their core remains valid, but the individual details influenced by the circuмstances at the time may need further rectification. In this regard one can refer to the statements of the Popes during the last century on religious freedom as well as the anti-modernistic decisions at the beginning of this century, especially the decisions of the Biblical Commission of that time..."
THE MAGISTERIUM DISSOLVED
Those are the decisions the Cardinal could not digest! Hence three definitive statements of the Magisterium may be put aside because they were only "provisional"! Listen to the Cardinal, who goes on to say that these anti-modernist decisions of the Church rendered a great service in their day by "warning against hasty and superficial adaptations", and "by keeping the Church from sinking into the liberal-bourgeois world...But the details of the determinations of their contents were later suspended once they had carried out their pastoral duty at a particular moment" (Osservatore Romano, English edition, July 2, 1990, p. 5). So we turn over the page and say no more about them!
So you see how the Cardinal has got out of the accusation of going a bit far when he calls Vatican II an Anti-Syllabus, when he opposes the Pontifical decisions and the Magisterium of the past? —He's found the way out! —"...the core remains valid..." —what core? No idea! —"...but the individual details influenced by the circuмstances at the time may need further rectification..." —and there he has it, he is out of his difficulty!
SERVANTS OF GLOBALISM
So by way of conclusion, either we are the heirs of the Catholic Church, i.e., of Quanta Cura, of Pascendi, with all the Popes down to the Council and with the great majority of bishops prior to the Council, for the reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ and for the salvation of souls; or else we are the heirs of those who strive, even at the price at breaking with the Catholic Church and her doctrine, to acknowledge the principles of the Rights of Man, based on a veritable apostasy, in order to obtain a place as servants in the Revolutionary World Government. That is it. They will manage to get quite a good place as servants in the Revolutionary World Government because, by saying they are in favor of the Rights of Man, religious liberty, democracy and human equality, clearly they are worth being given a position as servants in the World Government.
OUR STRENGTH IS IN THE LORD
I think that if I say these things to you, it is to put our own fight in its historical context. It did not begin with Vatican II, obviously. It goes much further back. It is a tough fight, very painful, blood has flowed in this fight, and in quantities! And then the persecutions, separation of Church and State, religious and nuns driven into exile, the sequestering of Church property, and so on, and not only in France but also in Switzerland, in Germany, in Italy —the occupation of the Pontifical States driving the Pope back into the Vatican —abominations against the Pope, frightening!
Well, are we with all these innovators, and against the doctrine professed by the Popes, against their voice raised in protest to defend the Church's rights, Our Lord's rights, to defend souls? I think we have truly a strength and a base to stand on which do not come from us, and that is what is good —it is not our fight, it is Our Lord's fight, which the Church has carried on. So we cannot waver. Either we are for the Church, or we are against the Church and for the new Conciliar Church which has nothing to do with the Catholic Church, or less and less to do with it. For when the Pope used to speak about the Rights of Man, to begin with he used to allude also to the duties of men, but no longer. No longer. The Rights of Man, and this insistence on everything for man, everything by man. Truly appalling!
THE SOCIETY FIGHTS ON
I wished to lay out a few of these thoughts for you to fortify yourselves and to realize the fight you are carrying on. With the grace of God, because it is obvious we would no longer be in existence if the Good Lord was not with us. That is clear. There have been at least four or five occasions when the Society of St. Pius X should have disappeared. Well, here we are, still, thanks be to God! And goodness gracious, we carry on. We should especially have disappeared at the time of the Consecrations in 1988. So we were told beforehand. All the prophets of doom, and even amongst those close to us said: "No, no, your Grace, do not do that, that is the end of the Society, you can be sure, we assure you, that is the end, it will all be over, you can close down." Yet we survived!
No, the Good Lord does not want his fight to come to and end, a fight in which there have been many martyrs, the martyrs of the Revolution and all those who have been moral martyrs by dint of the persecutions they underwent through the nineteenth century. Even in our own century, St. Pius X was a martyr. All there heroes of the Faith, the persecuted bishops, the sequestered convents, the exiled nuns; all these are to be nothing? That whole fight is to have been a fight for nothing, a fight in vain? A fight which condemns those who were its victims? And martyrs? Impossible. So we find ourselves caught up in the same current, in the continuation of the same fight, and we thank God.
THE SOCIETY BEING PERSECUTED
That we are being persecuted is obvious. How could we not be persecuted? We are the only ones to be excommunicated. No one else is. We are the only ones being persecuted, even in material matters. For example, our Swiss colleagues are being obliged again to do their military service. That is persecution by the Swiss government. In France they are persecuting the Society's French District by blocking legacies from being handed over to the District, this in the attempt to stifle us, by cutting off our income. This is persecution, of such a kind as history is full of, it is merely continuing. And God works his way round it. Normally, our French District should have been stifled, and we should have had to shut down our schools, to close down all the institutions which cost us money, but that situation has now gone on for over two years and Providence has allowed for our benefactors to be generous and for the funds to come in, so we have been able to continue despite this iniquitous persecution. Iniquitous, because the law, the state of the law is on our side. But there is a letter to the French Minister from Cardinal Lustiger asking him to block our legacies, and this letter did not come out of nowhere, it was written under the influence of Msgr. Perl. It is he, the damned soul. It is he. He was all smiles when he came on the official Visitation of the Society in 1987, but he was the evil genius of that Visitation. He thought he had us where he wanted us when he cut off our funds!
So we must not worry, for when we look behind us, we see we are still not as unfortunate as those Catholics expropriated at the beginning of this century, who found themselves out on the street with nothing. That may happen to us one day, I do not look forward to it, but the more we expand, the more we will arouse jealousy on the part of all those who do not care for us. But we must count on the Good Lord, on the grace of the Good Lord.
NO EASY SOLUTIONS
What is going to happen? I do not know. Perhaps the coming of Elias! I was just reading this morning in Holy Scripture, Elias will return and put everything back in place! "Et omnia restituet" —"and he will restore all things." Goodness gracious, let him come straightaway! I do not know. But humanly speaking, there is no chance of any agreement between Rome and ourselves at the moment.
Someone was saying to me yesterday, "But what if Rome accepted your bishops and then you were completely exempted from the other bishops' jurisdiction?" But firstly, they are a long way right now from accepting any such thing, and then, let them first make us such an offer! But I do not think they are anywhere near doing so. For what has been up till now the difficulty has been precisely their giving to us a Traditionalist bishop. They did not want to. It had to be a bishop according to the profile laid down by the Holy See. "Profile". You see what that means! Impossible. They knew very well that by giving us a traditional bishop they would be setting up a Traditionalist citadel able to continue. That they did not want. Nor did they give it to St. Peter's Society. When St. Peter's say they signed the sane Protocol as we did in May, 1988, it is not true because in our Protocol there was one bishop, and two members of the Roman Commission, of which their Protocol had neither. So they did not sign the same Protocol as we did. Rome took advantage of drawing up a new Protocol to remove those two concessions. At all costs they wanted to avoid that. So we had to do as we did on June 30, 1988...
ON THE BRIGHT SIDE
In any case I am happy to be able to encourage you and congratulate you on the work you are doing —the complaints now are rare, and how many people write to me their gratitude for the work of the priests of the Society of St. Pius X. For them the Society is their life. They have rediscovered the life they wanted, the way of the Faith, the family spirit they need, the desire for Christian education, all these schools, together with all that our Sisters and Fathers are doing, and all our friends who work together to continue Tradition. All that is marvelous, in the age we are living in. The people are truly grateful, deeply grateful. So carry on your work and organize —I hope that little by little our various communities will be able to increase in numbers so as to provide more mutual support for you all, moral and physical, so that you can maintain your present fervor.
I wish to thank all the Superiors for their zeal and devotion. I truly think the Good Lord has chosen the Society, has wanted the Society. In November we reach the Society's 20th anniversary and I am intimately convinced that it is the Society which represents what the Good Lord wants, to continue and maintain the Faith, maintain the truth of the Church, maintain what can still be saved in the Church, thanks to the bishops grouped around the Superior General, playing their indispensable part, of guardians of the Faith, of preachers of the Faith, giving the grace of the priesthood, the grace of Confirmation, things that are irreplaceable and absolutely necessary.
So all that is highly consoling. I think we should thank God, and enable it to carry on, so that one day people are forced to recognize that although the Visitation of 1987 bore little fruit, it showed that we were there and that good was being done by the Society, even if they did not wish to say so explicitly outside of our circles after the Visitation. However, one day they will be obliged to recognize that the Society represents a spiritual force and a strength of the Faith which is irreplaceable and which they will have, I hope, the joy and the satisfaction to make use of, but when they have come back to their Traditional Faith.
Let us pray to the Blessed Virgin and let us ask Our Lady of Fatima for all our intentions on all the pilgrimages we make in various countries, that she come to the aid of the Society, that it may have numerous vocations. Obviously we would like to have some more vocations. Our seminaries are not filled. We would like them to be filled. However, with the grace of God, it will come. So, once more, thank you, and please pray for
http://www.sspx.org/archbishop_lefebvre/two_years_after_the_consecrations.htm
-
In fact a little over 3 years later there was contact with Rome. On September 18, 1991 Roman dignitaries led by Cardinal Silvio Oddi visited Econe and Fr. Schmidberger and discussed "normalizing relations".
Yes, conveniently a few months after +ABL died. Here is what +ABL said in the conference above about Cardinal Oddi:
THE PROBLEM
Concerning the future, I would like to say a few words on questions which the laity may ask you, questions which I often get asked by people who do not know too much about what is happening in the Society, such as, "Are relations with Rome broken off? Is it all over?"
A LIGHT-WEIGHT SOLUTION
I received a few weeks ago, maybe three weeks ago, yet another telephone call from Cardinal Oddi: "Well, Excellency, is there no way to arrange things, no way?" I replied, "You must change, come back to Tradition. It is not a question of the Liturgy, it is a question of the Faith." The Cardinal protested, "No, no, it is not a question of Faith, no, no. The Pope is ready and willing to receive you. Just a little gesture on your part, a little request for forgiveness and everything will be settled." That is just like Cardinal Oddi.
But he is going nowhere. Nowhere. He understands nothing, or wants to understand nothing. Nothing. Unfortunately, the same holds true for our four more or less traditional Cardinals, Cardinals Palazzini, Stickler, Gagnon and Oddi. They have no weight, no influence in Rome, they have lost all influence, all they are good for any longer is performing ordinations for St. Peter's Fraternity, etc. They are going nowhere. Nowhere.
So, let's review:
Sep. 6, 1990: Archbishop Lefebvre says of Cardinal Oddi:
I received a few weeks ago, maybe three weeks ago, yet another telephone call from Cardinal Oddi: "Well, Excellency, is there no way to arrange things, no way?" I replied, "You must change, come back to Tradition. It is not a question of the Liturgy, it is a question of the Faith." The Cardinal protested, "No, no, it is not a question of Faith, no, no. The Pope is ready and willing to receive you. Just a little gesture on your part, a little request for forgiveness and everything will be settled." That is just like Cardinal Oddi.
But he is going nowhere. Nowhere. He understands nothing, or wants to understand nothing. Nothing. Unfortunately, the same holds true for our four more or less traditional Cardinals, Cardinals Palazzini, Stickler, Gagnon and Oddi. They have no weight, no influence in Rome, they have lost all influence, all they are good for any longer is performing ordinations for St. Peter's Fraternity, etc. They are going nowhere. Nowhere.
One year later, Sep. 1991:
On September 18, 1991 Roman dignitaries led by Cardinal Silvio Oddi visited Econe and Fr. Schmidberger and discussed "normalizing relations".
What changed, in between? Archbishop Lefebvre died, March 1991. :scratchchin:
-
I've seen that quote abused in that way so many times, and it is ridiculous. If you read the whole conference (and I highly recommend it), when he said, "let them first make us such an offer!" it is clear he was not saying he wanted them to. If you read the context, both the overall conference itself, and the context of all that happened in those years, it is preposterous to interpret that one quote as if he would relish them making such an offer. When he said that, it sounds more to me like, "yeah right; they wouldn't make such an offer now even if we wanted them to!"
B from A, you are wrong. And the context is clear from reading the two paragraphs.
Here is the French original:
D’abord ils sont bien loin d’accepter une chose comme celle-là, ensuite il faudrait qu’ils nous en fassent l’offre, et je ne pense pas qu’ils y soient prêts, car le fond de la difficulté, c’est précisément de nous donner un évêque traditionaliste.
-
Not sure how this tired old argument has come up again, but...
“The Archbishop prayed with his head in his hands throughout the Rosary and Benediction in the chapel, sometimes sighing. Then without saying anything, he retired to his room. He did not sleep that night....Later he shared all this with his driver and confidant, Jacques Lagneau: ‘If only you knew what a night I passed after signing that infamous agreement! Oh! How I wanted morning to come so that I could give Fr. du Chalard my letter of retraction which I had written during the night.’ The following day...he finished off his letter and put it in an envelope which he showed to Fr. du Chalard: ‘Father, before leaving, it is essential that this letter be taken to Cardinal Ratzinger. It’s a little bomb! ’ ”
(Marcel Lefebvre, Bishop Tissier de Mallerais, pp. 555)
“When I asked why he [Lefebvre] had signed the agreement in the first place, he said: ‘That’s what they [the chief SSPX priests] all wanted. But then when I was by myself, alone, I realized that we couldn’t trust it.’ ”
(Dom Gerard Calvert, Abbot of Le Barroux, close friend of Archbishop Lefebvre, interview with “30 Days,” Winter 1995)[/size]
etc.
B from A,
The first quote has already been addressed. It was an off-the-cuff throw away remark apparently recalled by the archbishop's chauffeur. The proof being the actual May 6th letter.
None of the other quotes you give support the assertion that the protocol was rejected.
-
.
Not sure how this tired old argument has come up again, but...
This same old argument comes up again because petwerp is a worm and a troll and he's going to keep on saying the same old, tired nonsense again and again, and he won't pay one whit of attention to any of the mountains of evidence anyone provides to the contrary, because he's not interested in the truth.
Liberals are only interested in their own agenda. Anything reasonable and opposed to their agenda they "just say no" to, and they say it's "wrong."
So get used to it, because that's all you're ever going to see from this worm troll petwerp.
.
-
.
This same old argument comes up again because petwerp is a worm and a troll
.
So Neil, like I said in my first response to you, all you have are insults and name-calling. That tells me all I need to know. You're simply not interest in the true.
I've addressed the prudence/principle fallacy.
The second falacious argument (viz. that archbishop, upon reflection, concluded the protocol contained something unacceptable) has also been disproved.
I've provided enough quotes, including one from the archbishop hiimself "I signed the protocol on 5th May a little reluctantly, it must be said, but still ... in itself, is acceptable, otherwise I would not have even signed, of course". And I can add this one from Bishop Tissier de Mallerais (October 1988) "Archbishop Lefebvre had judged [the protocol] on May 5 as being at the extreme limit of acceptability".
What was unacceptable to the archbishop was what was missing from the docuмent: a date for the consecration. It is clear to anyone reading the May 6 letter that it was not a retraction. How could you rely on something you retracted ("I would find myself in conscience obliged to proceed with the consecrations, relying upon the agreement given by the Holy See in the Protocol for the consecration of one bishop member of the Society")?
-
.
Like I said, petwerp is not interested in any substantive discussion, and petwerp, the troll, ignores everything that is inconvenient for his own, twisted agenda.
Not sure how this tired old argument has come up again, but...
This same old argument comes up again because petwerp is a worm and a troll and he's going to keep on saying the same old, tired nonsense again and again, and he won't pay one whit of attention to any of the mountains of evidence anyone provides to the contrary, because he's not interested in the truth.
Liberals are only interested in their own agenda. Anything reasonable and opposed to their agenda they "just say no" to, and they say it's "wrong."
So get used to it, because that's all you're ever going to see from this worm troll petwerp, who contributes nothing to the discussion and has only deceit and lies to proffer, typical of Modernists and liberals.
The Challenge to Fr. Themann stands. It's 34 pages long, and it's filled with questions that Fr. Themann is not man enough to answer, unfortunately. He can prove me wrong by answering them. But if he ever does respond, he's only going to pick one or two questions that are convenient for him and he'll probably give answers that do not address the questions anyway but pretend instead to answer some other question that he would have preferred that had been asked of him.
.
-
I recall listening to Fr. Themann's address after it was posted online and I guess I was immediately dismissive of his tame approach when he said he personally had never given a sermon on the evil of Vatican II. That told me all I needed to know about him and the message he brought at that time.
Thank you Neil Obstat for your efforts in this post and raising the issue again at this time.
Thank you, Nickolas. I've only touched on about 4 of the 34 pages so far.
.
-
Legitimately promulgated nonsense.
Promulgation is nothing more than making known (publishing in ‘Acta Apostolicae Sedis) the will of the legislator (pope). 'Promulgated' is always taken to mean 'legitimately promulgated'. Ask any professor in law. As Fr. Themann said, because Rome has suspicions that the society did not recognize Paul VI and John Paul II as legitimate pontiffs the word 'legitimately' was added.
Also, if you read the 1988 protocol you'll see it contains "Code of Canon Law promulgated by Pope John Paul II" and "According to the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1983, Canons 731-746"
Here's what the archbishop said of the promulgated code, "I had not seen any necessity for a change. But if the law changes, the law changes, and we must make use of it, for the Church can ask nothing evil from her faithful." Hence it is CLEAR that he deemed that it had been promulgated legitimately.
So these author(s) would have us believe the archbishop used 'promulgated' to mean both 'legitimately promulgated' and 'not promulgated' in the same docuмent!
-
The Challenge to Fr. Themann stands. It's 34 pages long, and it's filled with questions that Fr. Themann is not man enough to answer, unfortunately. He can prove me wrong by answering them. But if he ever does respond, he's only going to pick one or two questions that are convenient for him and he'll probably give answers that do not address the questions anyway but pretend instead to answer some other question that he would have preferred that had been asked of him.
Neil, you already have your answers. Your problem is that you simply do not like them. The whole docuмent pretty much hinges on two fallacies which I have addressed.
-
.Note: Beginning in principio. My previous attempt to address a quasi-pressing issue fell on deaf ears and therefore, it seems that we ought to take this from the top after all. As previously noted, the source is Ecclesia Militans, whose source is TheRecusant, whose source is TrueTrad.com, whose source is Anonymous. I have made some corrections of obvious errors without noting the specific facts, to keep down the clutter.
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.
An Open Letter to Fr. Daniel Themann
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.
Page 3...........
[It seems to me that these first 2 pages alone are enough for an entire thread's discussion, and I haven't even made it halfway to the two posts I previously quoted from subsequent pages.]
.
-
.Note: Beginning in principio. My previous attempt to address a quasi-pressing issue fell on deaf ears and therefore, it seems that we ought to take this from the top after all. As previously noted, the source is Ecclesia Militans, whose source is TheRecusant, whose source is TrueTrad.com, whose source is Anonymous. I have made some corrections of obvious errors without noting the specific facts, to keep down the clutter.
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.
An Open Letter to Fr. Daniel Themann
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.
Page 3...........
[It seems to me that these first 2 pages alone are enough for an entire thread's discussion, and I haven't even made it halfway to the two posts I previously quoted from subsequent pages.]
.
Neil,
This fallacious argument was already pointed out to you on page 3.
The society MUST, as a PRINCIPLE, want to submit to the authority of Rome If ever they do not, they are no different from the sedevacanists and Orthodox (the former deny the legitimacy of the pontiff, the latter denying the authority of the pontiff). If the society did not want to submit to the authority of Rome as a PRINCIPLE, it would be, by definition, schismatic.
The society have always held this PRINCIPLE; when Rome calls we answer. It has never refuse contacts or discussions with Rome. It is PRUDENCE that has prevented them from coming to any agreement and submitting to the authority of Rome.
Now the author(s) of this article would have us erroneously believe that "no agreement without Rome's conversion" was a society principle (the quotes they give do not support such an assertion). However, if this were true it would mean the society as a principle refuses to submit to the authority of Rome (until some future, undetermined time).
So the question is how can the society simultaneously hold two contrary principles? I dare say the author(s) would deny the first or that the second replaced the first, but it make no difference; to deny or replace the first principle would make one schismatic.
To refuse to submit to the authority of Rome as a principle, and not as a matter of prudence as the society does, makes one a schismatic; a practical sedevacanist.
-
Neil,
This fallacious argument was already pointed out to you on page 3.
The society MUST, as a PRINCIPLE, want to submit to the authority of Rome If ever they do not, they are no different from the sedevacanists and Orthodox (the former deny the legitimacy of the pontiff, the latter denying the authority of the pontiff). If the society did not want to submit to the authority of Rome as a PRINCIPLE, it would be, by definition, schismatic.
The Society has never held a position of non-submission to Rome, the question has always been which Rome are they submitting to, Catholic Rome or Conciliar Rome. Can you wrap your thinking around that principle?
-
.from the Catholic Encyclopedia (I've introduced a few extra paragraph breaks for current expectations in readability) ...
Prudence
(Latin prudentia, contracted from providentia, seeing ahead).
One of the four cardinal virtues. Definitions of it are plentiful from Aristotle down. His "recta ratio agibilium" has the merits of brevity and inclusiveness. Father Rickaby aptly renders it as "right reason applied to practice." A fuller description and one more serviceable is this: an intellectual habit enabling us to see in any given juncture of human affairs what is virtuous and what is not, and how to come at the one and avoid the other. It is to be observed that prudence, whilst possessing in some sort an empire over all the moral virtues, itself aims to perfect not the will but the intellect in its practical decisions. Its function is to point out which course of action is to be taken in any round of concrete circuмstances. It indicates which, here and now, is the golden mean wherein the essence of all virtue lies. It has nothing to do with directly willing the good it discerns. That is done by the particular moral virtue within whose province it falls.
Prudence, therefore, has a directive capacity with regard to the other virtues. It lights the way and measures the arena for their exercise. The insight it confers makes one distinguish successfully between their mere semblance and their reality. It must preside over the eliciting of all acts proper to any one of them at least if they be taken in their formal sense.
Thus, without prudence bravery becomes foolhardiness; mercy sinks into weakness, and temperance into fanaticism. But it must not be forgotten that prudence is a virtue adequately distinct from the others, and not simply a condition attendant upon their operation. Its office is to determine for each in practice those circuмstances of time, place, manner, etc., which should be observed, and which the Scholastics comprise under the term medium rationis. So it is, that whilst it qualifies immediately the intellect and not the will, it is nevertheless rightly styled a moral virtue.
This is because the moral agent finds in it, if not the eliciting, at any rate the directive principle of virtuous actions. According to St. Thomas (II-II, Q. xlvii, a. 8) it is its function to do three things: to take counsel, i.e., to cast about for the means suited in the particular case under consideration to reach the end of any one moral virtue; to judge soundly of the fitness of the means suggested; and, finally, to command their employment. If these are to be done well they necessarily exclude remissness and lack of concern; they demand the use of such diligence and care that the resultant act can be described as prudent, in spite of whatever speculative error may have been at the bottom of the process.
Readiness in finding out and ability in adapting means to an end does not always imply prudence. If the end happens to be a vicious one, a certain adroitness or sagacity may be exhibited in its pursuit. This, however, according to St. Thomas, will only deserve to be called false prudence and is identical with that referred to in Rom. viii. 6: "the wisdom of the flesh is death."
Besides the prudence which is the fruit of training and experience, and is developed into a stable habit by repeated acts, there is another sort termed "infused." This is directly bestowed by God's bounty. It is inseparable from the condition of supernatural charity and so is to be found only in those who are in the state of grace. Its scope of course is to make provision of what is necessary for eternal salvation. Although acquired prudence considered as a principle of operation is quite compatible with sin in the agent, still it is well to note that vice obscures or at times utterly beclouds its judgment. Thus it is true that prudence and the other moral virtues are mutually interdependent.
Imprudence in so far as it implies a want of obligatory prudence and not a mere gap in practical mentality is a sin, not however always necessarily distinct from the special wicked indulgence which it happens to accompany. If it proceeds to the length of formal scorn of the Divine utterances on the point, it will be a mortal sin.
.
-
Neil,
This fallacious argument was already pointed out to you on page 3.
The society MUST, as a PRINCIPLE, want to submit to the authority of Rome If ever they do not, they are no different from the sedevacanists and Orthodox (the former deny the legitimacy of the pontiff, the latter denying the authority of the pontiff). If the society did not want to submit to the authority of Rome as a PRINCIPLE, it would be, by definition, schismatic.
The Society has never held a position of non-submission to Rome, the question has always been which Rome are they submitting to, Catholic Rome or Conciliar Rome. Can you wrap your thinking around that principle?
While it's nice of you to attempt to teach petwerp something, be aware he's not going to learn. He has decided far in advance what he wants to believe and regardless of the evidence and facts you show him, he is going to deny them, ignore them, and keep repeating the same old, tired canards that he repeats to himself when he practices self-hypnosis. So it's really a waste of your time to try to reach him. He is a devoted minion of Fr. Themann, or perhaps of his superior, who threatens others with 'consequences' if they don't tow the contagions of Menzingenitis.
But thanks for trying, anyway, J.Paul.
.
-
Neil,
This fallacious argument was already pointed out to you on page 3.
The society MUST, as a PRINCIPLE, want to submit to the authority of Rome If ever they do not, they are no different from the sedevacanists and Orthodox (the former deny the legitimacy of the pontiff, the latter denying the authority of the pontiff). If the society did not want to submit to the authority of Rome as a PRINCIPLE, it would be, by definition, schismatic.
The Society has never held a position of non-submission to Rome, the question has always been which Rome are they submitting to, Catholic Rome or Conciliar Rome. Can you wrap your thinking around that principle?
J.Paul,
There is one Pope, one Rome, one Church: visible and hierarchical. The society has always be clear on its use of the term "conciliar"; it is not a separate church.
-
Neil,
This fallacious argument was already pointed out to you on page 3.
The society MUST, as a PRINCIPLE, want to submit to the authority of Rome If ever they do not, they are no different from the sedevacanists and Orthodox (the former deny the legitimacy of the pontiff, the latter denying the authority of the pontiff). If the society did not want to submit to the authority of Rome as a PRINCIPLE, it would be, by definition, schismatic.
The Society has never held a position of non-submission to Rome, the question has always been which Rome are they submitting to, Catholic Rome or Conciliar Rome. Can you wrap your thinking around that principle?
J.Paul,
There is one Pope, one Rome, one Church: visible and hierarchical. The society has always be clear on its use of the term "conciliar"; it is not a separate church.
0
Let's be more precise then, the Conciliar sect which currently occupies the Catholic Church, or do you propose that the Conciliar sect is the Catholic Church?
-
Neil,
This fallacious argument was already pointed out to you on page 3.
The society MUST, as a PRINCIPLE, want to submit to the authority of Rome If ever they do not, they are no different from the sedevacanists and Orthodox (the former deny the legitimacy of the pontiff, the latter denying the authority of the pontiff). If the society did not want to submit to the authority of Rome as a PRINCIPLE, it would be, by definition, schismatic.
The Society has never held a position of non-submission to Rome, the question has always been which Rome are they submitting to, Catholic Rome or Conciliar Rome. Can you wrap your thinking around that principle?
J.Paul,
There is one Pope, one Rome, one Church: visible and hierarchical. The society has always be clear on its use of the term "conciliar"; it is not a separate church.
0
Let's be more precise then, the Conciliar sect which currently occupies the Catholic Church, or do you propose that the Conciliar sect is the Catholic Church?
It is a "movement" within the Church, see:
http://www.dici.org/en/docuмents/can-one-speak-of-the-conciliar-church/
-
There is one Pope, one Rome, one Church: visible and hierarchical. The society has always be clear on its use of the term "conciliar"; it is not a separate church.
0
Let's be more precise then, the Conciliar sect which currently occupies the Catholic Church, or do you propose that the Conciliar sect is the Catholic Church?[/quote]
I have seen numerous quotes where Archbishop Lefebvre talks about the conciliar church as a seperate church from the Catholic Church and that the conciliar church is in schism. He said that if one becomes attatched to the conciliar church one is no longer a member of the Catholic Church and he also said that he didn't mind being excommunicated or suspended by the conciliar church because it was not the Catholic Church to which he was joined.
Sorry I don't have a link, I wrote this post from memory and don't remember where I read what I am talking about.
-
Neil,
This fallacious argument was already pointed out to you on page 3.
The society MUST, as a PRINCIPLE, want to submit to the authority of Rome If ever they do not, they are no different from the sedevacanists and Orthodox (the former deny the legitimacy of the pontiff, the latter denying the authority of the pontiff). If the society did not want to submit to the authority of Rome as a PRINCIPLE, it would be, by definition, schismatic.
The Society has never held a position of non-submission to Rome, the question has always been which Rome are they submitting to, Catholic Rome or Conciliar Rome. Can you wrap your thinking around that principle?
J.Paul,
There is one Pope, one Rome, one Church: visible and hierarchical. The society has always be clear on its use of the term "conciliar"; it is not a separate church.
0
Let's be more precise then, the Conciliar sect which currently occupies the Catholic Church, or do you propose that the Conciliar sect is the Catholic Church?
It is a "movement" within the Church, see:
http://www.dici.org/en/docuмents/can-one-speak-of-the-conciliar-church/
The Society is not the arbiter of reality and its latest gleaning about the sect is that it is only "tendency" in the Church. We are seeing systematic downgrading of its definition by the SSPX and a concurrent lessening of the threat which it represents to the Church.
Be it a movement or an entity, it is the repository of something other that the Catholic religion which eliminates the possibility that it is the Catholic Church.
-
Neil,
This fallacious argument was already pointed out to you on page 3.
The society MUST, as a PRINCIPLE, want to submit to the authority of Rome If ever they do not, they are no different from the sedevacanists and Orthodox (the former deny the legitimacy of the pontiff, the latter denying the authority of the pontiff). If the society did not want to submit to the authority of Rome as a PRINCIPLE, it would be, by definition, schismatic.
The Society has never held a position of non-submission to Rome, the question has always been which Rome are they submitting to, Catholic Rome or Conciliar Rome. Can you wrap your thinking around that principle?
J.Paul,
There is one Pope, one Rome, one Church: visible and hierarchical. The society has always be clear on its use of the term "conciliar"; it is not a separate church.
0
Let's be more precise then, the Conciliar sect which currently occupies the Catholic Church, or do you propose that the Conciliar sect is the Catholic Church?
It is a "movement" within the Church, see:
http://www.dici.org/en/docuмents/can-one-speak-of-the-conciliar-church/
The Society is not the arbiter of reality and its latest gleaning about the sect is that it is only "tendency" in the Church. We are seeing systematic downgrading of its definition by the SSPX and a concurrent lessening of the threat which it represents to the Church.
Be it a movement or an entity, it is the repository of something other that the Catholic religion which eliminates the possibility that it is the Catholic Church.
J.Paul,
The society is the arbiter of what it belives; it does not believe there are two churches and that the Church has defected. Neither has there been any "downgrading" in its definition:
i) The open letter to Cardinal Gantin (July 6, 1988) signed by the superior general and district superiors defines the "Conciliar Church" as a system.
ii) During an examination before the CDF (Jan 11/12, 1979) Archbishop Lefebvre gave his understanding of the term "Conciliar Church" as "a spirit tending to Modernism and Protestantism shows itself in the conception of the new Mass".
-
You are correct in that that may be what the Society believes however, that does not at all means that they are rendering a correct reading of the reality.
A tendency is not capable of building Churches, imposing canon laws and false rituals, teaching heresies and a foreign religion and if this tendency has compelled men to do these things which are anti-Christ, (which they did willfully and culpably), then such men are non-Catholic and have placed themselves outside of the true Church having gone into an objective apostasy.
Martin Luther's followers believed him to represent the true church, did he?
Of course not, not any more than the conciliar sect represents the Catholic Church.
Re-reading the Archbishop's early and overly optimistic statements from that period tells us nothing. It was only but a few years after he affixed his approval to most of the Vatican II docuмents. We do not have the luxury of such soft appraisals today, after fifty years of destruction of, after and defection from the Catholic Faith.
Today the sect has become beyond one's ability to recognize it as Catholic.
Rome has become a house of rabbincal thought and doctrine which has displaced its dogma and its Saints.
-
You are correct in that that may be what the Society believes however, that does not at all means that they are rendering a correct reading of the reality.
A tendency is not capable of building Churches, imposing canon laws and false rituals, teaching heresies and a foreign religion and if this tendency has compelled men to do these things which are anti-Christ, (which they did willfully and culpably), then such men are non-Catholic and have placed themselves outside of the true Church having gone into an objective apostasy.
Martin Luther's followers believed him to represent the true church, did he?
Of course not, not any more than the conciliar sect represents the Catholic Church.
Re-reading the Archbishop's early and overly optimistic statements from that period tells us nothing. It was only but a few years after he affixed his approval to most of the Vatican II docuмents. We do not have the luxury of such soft appraisals today, after fifty years of destruction of, after and defection from the Catholic Faith.
Today the sect has become beyond one's ability to recognize it as Catholic.
Rome has become a house of rabbincal thought and doctrine which has displaced its dogma and its Saints.
J.Paul,
Again it doesn't matter what you think; it is what the society believes and I have shown that the society have never held the belief of two separate churches. I could add district superiors Frs. Scott & Fr. Simoulin in 2001: "The post-Conciliar Church is consequently not a separate church, but the Catholic Church "poisoned by an inimical and foreign spirit that tends to corrupt and destroy it…disfigured by the Council, and that which is foreign to the Catholic spirit in the spirit of the Council".
So, you see, it is a consistent view and inline with the archbishop's view.
But it is interesting to note that the inconvenient quote of the archbishop you simply dismiss as an outdated opinion from another time. Had it ever occurred to anyone here why, out of the 338 Eleison Comments, the society published a rebuttal to just one of them: 281 "Various Churches"? It was not so much a reply to Bishop Williamson, rather a warning to EC's readership: if you follow the author's thinking to its logical and dangerous conclusion: you start to believe the Church has defected.
So, J.Paul bringing us back on track viz. your question: "the question has always been which Rome are they submitting to, Catholic Rome or Conciliar Rome". This is another straw-man fallacy, the society have never believed in two separate churches.
-
Just to reinforce the society's view:
"Indeed, for years now we have become accustomed to speak of the eternal Rome and the modernist Rome, the Catholic Church and the conciliar Church, the Catholic religion and the religion of Assisi, etc... two Romes, two churches, two religions which oppose and confront one another, having apparently nothing in common.
These comparisons are excellent. They strongly depict the drama existing in the Church for the past forty years. They are indicative and accurate, but within the limitations of an analogy. If one accentuates the strict sense of the terms, they may become a source of terrible confusion and may breed a manicheism (or over-simplification) in which the understanding of the Church, faith in the divinity and a simple sense of the supernatural would be the first victims.
Certainly it is evident that neither Rome nor the Church are made up of material substances or of henchmen, but they are societies, moral entities in which the unity consists of a unity in faith, in hope, and in charity, with a common intention and a will committed to the same goal: the reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ and the salvation of souls, for the glory of God.
Thus, we cannot consider here two entities which are perfectly distinct, unconformable and identifiable, but rather a single moral existence, the sole authentic Catholic Church, but poisoned by a foreign spirit which tends to corrupt and destroy it.
In fact, neither modernist Rome nor the conciliar Church exists distinctly and separately from eternal Rome and the Catholic Church. They cannot, just as the evil cannot exist without leaving its grip on the good which it would like to destroy, and it cannot destroy it without destroying itself.
In reality, what is the conciliar Church? It is precisely the disfigurement of the Catholic Church by the Council and by that which is foreign to its spirit from the interpretation of the Council. Under that which we call the conciliar Church, there still lives the Catholic Church, our mother, buried, sleeping and more or less reduced to silence."
Communicantes: In this crisis of the Church, let us remain truly ROMAN Catholics, by Fr. Simoulin, District Superior of Italy (May 2001).
http://fsspx.com/Communicantes/May2001/Let_us_remain_truly_ROMAN_Catholics.htm
"a clear distinction has to be made. If by the term "church" is understood the visible, hierarchical structure, founded upon the rock of St. Peter, then clearly there can only be one Church, the Catholic Church. If we were to call the Catholic Church after Vatican II "conciliar" in this sense, then we would claim that it is no longer Catholic at all, but instead a separate visible, hierarchical structure."
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS, Fr Scott (2005).
http://www.angelusonline.org/index.php?section=articles&subsection=show_article&article_id=2442
"Then what is the Conciliar Church? This expressed was coined by Cardinal Benelli: it manifested clearly the novelty of the reforms introduced by Vatican II. But did it designate a separate Church, with its own structure, its own faithful separated from the Catholic Church? Not really. It signified a new spirit, new principles, but not a new structure, nor a separate hierarchy and separate faithful.",
Various Churches? Fr. Laisney (2012)
http://archives.sspx.org/miscellaneous/various_churches_fr_laisney_12-21-2012.htm
"Therefore, there are not two Churches; there is only within the Church an antagonistic movement fighting the Church from within, working to neutralize the Church for its own advancement by impeding the accomplishment of the Church’s end."
Can one speak of the ‘conciliar Church’? Fr. Gleize, professor of ecclesiology at the Seminary St. Pius X of Ecône (2013)
http://www.dici.org/en/docuмents/can-one-speak-of-the-conciliar-church/
"The expression “Conciliar Church” gives rise to much confusion. For instance, how can the Catholic Church, the spotless Bride of Christ (Eph. V, 27), be stained with the new man-centered religion of Vatican II, i.e. Conciliarism? Yet Our Lord founded only one Church, so if the “Conciliar Church” is not Catholic, there must be two Churches, a Conciliar Church and a Catholic Church? Impossible.
Indeed there are not two Churches. There is only the one Church of Our Lord Jesus Christ, and that is the Catholic Church. But this Catholic Church is embodied in human beings who are necessarily imperfect. Our Lord instituted it to save not angels or animals, but exclusively us poor human beings who tend by ourselves, because of original sin, only to fall further and further away from Heaven and from God."
Eleison Comments: Conciliar Church, Bp. Williamson (2009)
-
A tendency is not capable of building Churches, imposing canon laws and false rituals, teaching heresies and a foreign religion and if this tendency has compelled men to do these things which are anti-Christ, (which they did willfully and culpably), then such men are non-Catholic and have placed themselves outside of the true Church having gone into an objective apostasy.
Martin Luther's followers believed him to represent the true church, did he?
Of course not, not any more than the conciliar sect represents the Catholic Church.
Re-reading the Archbishop's early and overly optimistic statements from that period tells us nothing. It was only but a few years after he affixed his approval to most of the Vatican II docuмents. We do not have the luxury of such soft appraisals today, after fifty years of destruction of, after and defection from the Catholic Faith.
Today the sect has become beyond one's ability to recognize it as Catholic.
Rome has become a house of rabbincal thought and doctrine which has displaced its dogma and its Saints.
I would surmise that if it hadn't been for his approval of so many of those garbage Vat.II docuмents, ABL would never have been able to achieve the approval to start his fledgling new Society in the 70's. He would have been a total OUTCAST if he had done the right thing at the Council and NOT approved anything.
He really should have known better, because he was involved in drawing up the preliminary schemas before the Council began, and he saw his diligent work of two years get set aside in ten minutes by the Modernist infiltrators whom John XXIII put into positions of power. He really should have known better.
He was only able to get the Society off the ground BECAUSE he was at least partially complicit with the REVOLUTION. He then had an UPHILL BATTLE to wage against that revolution, which was the cause of his consternation in the years to come.
We can be thankful that he had the fortitude to endure the pressures of that battle in his waning years -- he never was able to enjoy a comfortable retirement, and he gave that up to remain engaged in the fight for Tradition. He suffered a dry martyrdom, for which we are very much indebted to him.
.
-
.
In order to perceive what is going on in this conference talk of Fr. Themann, one has to be capable of thinking.
Now, thinking can be a dangerous thing, because it can put you into the position of having to recognize that you have been wrong, and that you need to change you outlook on something. Well, here we are. The questions asked of Fr. Themann are open questions, and so far, he's not answering. (And what is currently being allowed to happen on CI, to the detriment of any substantive discussion for the benefit of the Resistance, is the trollwork and disruptive intrusions of the likes of petwerp, which see, instead of intelligent responses.) We can expect that if he were to answer, he would have to get permission from the Menzingen-denizens, and that would be well-nigh impossible. But if he were to respond without first getting permission, he would be subject to severe penalties. So his easiest approach is to simply not respond.
There is one Pope, one Rome, one Church: visible and hierarchical. The society has always [been] clear on its use of the term "conciliar"; it is not a separate church.
0
Let's be more precise then, the Conciliar sect which currently occupies the Catholic Church, or do you propose that the Conciliar sect is the Catholic Church?
I have seen numerous quotes where Archbishop Lefebvre talks about the conciliar church as a separate church from the Catholic Church and that the conciliar church is in schism. He said that if one becomes attached to the conciliar church one is no longer a member of the Catholic Church and he also said that he didn't mind being excommunicated or suspended by the conciliar church because it was not the Catholic Church to which he was joined.
Sorry I don't have a link, I wrote this post from memory and don't remember where I read what I am talking about.
Right. The references are numerous, that is, for those with eyes to see.
Which brings us back to where we left off..........
.
.
.
page 3 ................ (Pages 1-2 are found here (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=29223&min=30#p4).)
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.
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.
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:
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.
page 4......................
.
.
.
The misunderstanding Fr. Themann's conference has caused is apparently a thing that some of the would-be faithful are eager to hang on to, because it gives them an excuse to further practice the erroneous thinking they had already been practicing, which see, for those with eyes to do so.............
Here is another question in this Open Letter, to which Fr. Themann will likely never respond, because if he were to answer this question, he would likely suffer a severe demotion from his position, and perhaps expulsion from the tyrannical state of Menzingenitis:
Question: WHAT IS THE SUPERSEDING 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.
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.
.
-
.
Now, thinking can be a dangerous thing, because it can put you into the position of having to recognize that you have been wrong, and that you need to change you outlook on something. Well, here we are. The questions asked of Fr. Themann are open questions, and so far, he's not answering. (And what is currently being allowed to happen on CI, to the detriment of any substantive discussion for the benefit of the Resistance, is the trollwork and disruptive intrusions of the likes of petwerp, which see, instead of intelligent responses.) We can expect that if he were to answer, he would have to get permission from the Menzingen-denizens, and that would be well-nigh impossible. But if he were to respond without first getting permission, he would be subject to severe penalties. So his easiest approach is to simply not respond.
.
Neil,
What is happening here is that the first fallacious argument, the one on which pretty much the entire docuмent depends, has been rebutted. You know this but, as you say, "thinking can be a dangerous thing, because it can put you into the position of having to recognize that you have been wrong". The insults and name-calling only confirm that you are not interested in any "substantive discussion"; infact you have no response.
In addition to this straw-man fallacy, I also pointed out the argument from silence fallacy viz. the absence of any discussions until the archbishop's death proves this "principle", when the archbishop had already recognized that there would be no contact with Rome for the next 2-3 years and that when hypothetical' question of an offer from Rome was put to him he clearly was open to the idea: "let them first make us such an offer!", again disproving this "principle".
The argument that archbishop, upon reflection, concluded the protocol contained something unacceptable and hence retracted has also been disproved by numerous quotes from those who knew him and were close to the events of 1988. I even included a quote from the archbishop which speaks for itself: "I signed the protocol on 5th May a little reluctantly, it must be said, but still ... in itself, is acceptable, otherwise I would not have even signed, of course"
Finally, I addressed the "legitimately promulgated" nonsense and pointed out archbishop Lefebvre accepted that the 1983 Code of Canon Law ,and said "if the law changes, the law changes, and we must make use of it, for the Church can ask nothing evil from her faithful." How could he say that if the promulgation were not legitimate?
There is nothing in this open letter can't be refuted and I'm sure Fr. Themann could do a better and more complete job than myself, but he would just be wasting his time.
-
While I don't believe generally in burying my head in the sand (who does) I care enough about my time and faith that when a troll and full time committee comes on here to cause circular confusion, I hide his posts (the red hide button), just as I have done with peterp. I feel better already.
-
.
Good for you, Nicholas!
While I don't believe generally in burying my head in the sand (who does) I care enough about my time and faith that when a troll and full time committee comes on here to cause circular confusion, I hide his posts (the red hide button), just as I have done with petwerp. I feel better already.
It's the reasonable thing to do, for it's so much easier not to be distracted with nonsense when you don't have to see it.
I missed a footnote and I have two more footnotes (5a & 5b), so I'll re-post this page:
.
In order to perceive what is going on in this conference talk of Fr. Themann, one has to be capable of thinking.
Now, thinking can be a dangerous thing, because it can put you into the position of having to recognize that you have been wrong, and that you need to change your outlook on something. Well, here we are. The questions asked of Fr. Themann are open questions, and so far, he's not answering. (And what is currently being allowed to happen on CI, to the detriment of any substantive discussion for the benefit of the Resistance, is the trollwork and disruptive intrusions of the likes of petwerp, which see, instead of intelligent responses.) We can expect that if Fr. were to answer, he would have to get permission from the Menzingen-denizens, and that would be well-nigh impossible! But if he were to respond without first getting permission, he would be subject to severe penalties. So his easiest approach is simply not to respond.
There is one Pope, one Rome, one Church: visible and hierarchical. The society has always [been] clear on its use of the term "conciliar"; it is not a separate church.
0
Let's be more precise then, the Conciliar sect which currently occupies the Catholic Church, or do you propose that the Conciliar sect is the Catholic Church?
I have seen numerous quotes where Archbishop Lefebvre talks about the conciliar church as a separate church from the Catholic Church and that the conciliar church is in schism. He said that if one becomes attached to the conciliar church one is no longer a member of the Catholic Church and he also said that he didn't mind being excommunicated or suspended by the conciliar church because it was not the Catholic Church to which he was joined.
Sorry I don't have a link, I wrote this post from memory and don't remember where I read what I am talking about.
Right you are, Matto! The references are numerous, that is, for those with eyes to see.
Which brings us back to where we left off..........
.
.
.
page 3 ................ (Pages 1-2 are found here (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=29223&min=30#p4).)
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.
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.
page 4......................
.
.
.
The misunderstanding Fr. Themann's conference has caused is apparently a thing that some of the would-be faithful are eager to hang on to, because it gives them an excuse to further practice the erroneous thinking they had already been practicing, which see, for those with eyes to do so.............
Here is another question in this Open Letter, to which Fr. Themann will likely never respond, because if he were to answer this question, he would likely suffer a severe demotion from his position, and perhaps expulsion from the tyrannical state of Menzingenitis:
Question: WHAT IS THE SUPERSEDING 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.
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.
.
-
.
The bare minimum take-away from page 3 consists in the following:
Question: WHAT IS THE SUPERSEDING PRINCIPLE?
If you (Fr. Themann, or his minions like petwerp here) 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.
Because you fail to invoke any superseding principle of action and fail to explain how (supposedly) changed circuмstances require the SSPX to follow this superseding principle, your explanation is woefully incomplete.
I challenge Fr. Themann to respond,
and likewise, I challenge petwerp to respond intelligently.
(I'm willing to presume that if Fr. responds it will be with intelligence, but since petwerp has already demonstrated his lack of intellectual honesty, we can no longer presume that intelligence will be forthcoming from him.)
P.S. "The Rest of This Letter" refers to the subsequent 27 pages plus 3 pages of footnotes.
.
-
.
I challenge Fr. Themann to respond,
and likewise, I challenge petwerp to respond intelligently.
Neil,
This has already been explained to you so many time, which parts are you unable to grasp?
The society MUST, as a PRINCIPLE, want to submit to the authority of Rome. If ever they do not, they are no different from the sedevacanists and Orthodox (the former deny the legitimacy of the pontiff, the latter denying the authority of the pontiff). If the society did not want to submit to the authority of Rome as a PRINCIPLE, it would be, by definition, schismatic.
The society have always held this PRINCIPLE; when Rome calls we answer. It has never refuse contacts or discussions with Rome. It is PRUDENCE that has prevented them from coming to any agreement and submitting to the authority of Rome.
Now the author(s) of this article would have us erroneously (viz. turned prudence into a principle) believe that "no agreement without Rome's conversion" was a society principle (the quotes given do not support such an assertion). However, if this were true it would mean the society as a PRINCIPLE refuses to submit to the authority of Rome (until some future, undetermined time).
So the question is how can the society simultaneously hold two contrary principles? I dare say the author(s) would deny the first or that the second replaced the first, but it make no difference; to deny or replace the first principle would make one schismatic.
To refuse to submit to the authority of Rome as a PRINCIPLE, and not as a matter of PRUDENCE as the society does, makes one a schismatic; a practical sedevacanist.
-
.
15 whole minutes? You're slipping, petwerp.
Oh, and you have deliberately ignored the question, as I fully expected you would. Your response is not intelligent, but instead, relies on your false assertions, as you have done all along, with your intellectual dishonesty.
We await your intelligent response to THE QUESTION.
And we're not holding our breath.
.
-
By the Way Neil Obstat, I do enjoy your postings and those are not hidden of course. Well done.
-
By the Way Neil Obstat, I do enjoy your postings and those are not hidden of course. Well done.
Thank you, Nicholas, and I yours. By the grace of God I won't disappoint you, and others.
.
-
.
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:
We prefer to continue in Tradition; to keep Tradition while waiting for Tradition to regain its place at Rome, while waiting for Tradition to resume 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.
If you don't want to believe it, petwerp, just admit that you refuse to believe it.
Stop lying and repeating that it's not true. It's right there in the record for you to see. This is what ABL wrote, and this is what he preached. Get used to it.
.
-
peterp
J.Paul,
Again it doesn't matter what you think; it is what the society believes and I have shown that the society have never held the belief of two separate churches. I could add district superiors Frs. Scott & Fr. Simoulin in 2001: "The post-Conciliar Church is consequently not a separate church, but the Catholic Church "poisoned by an inimical and foreign spirit that tends to corrupt and destroy it…disfigured by the Council, and that which is foreign to the Catholic spirit in the spirit of the Council".
So, you see, it is a consistent view and inline with the archbishop's view.
But it is interesting to note that the inconvenient quote of the archbishop you simply dismiss as an outdated opinion from another time. Had it ever occurred to anyone here why, out of the 338 Eleison Comments, the society published a rebuttal to just one of them: 281 "Various Churches"? It was not so much a reply to Bishop Williamson, rather a warning to EC's readership: if you follow the author's thinking to its logical and dangerous conclusion: you start to believe the Church has defected.
So, J.Paul bringing us back on track viz. your question: "the question has always been which Rome are they submitting to, Catholic Rome or Conciliar Rome". This is another straw-man fallacy, the society have never believed in two separate churches.
You see, you must come back to those in the SSPX who hold the tepid and benign interpretation of the Conciliar Church. They hold nothing more than a modified position of that held by the Conservative Conciliarists themselves'
A distinction without difference.
I do not see their determinations as being compatible with the reality of the Conciliar sect. The defection canard is useless as well as the true Church has been co-opted by a hostile parasitic sect which claims that it has the authority of the true Church and one which speaks to us in an alien and foreign tongue, speaking the words of destruction...not the words of eternal life.
The Archbishop spoke on a number of occasions about the visible church existing in the smaller sense and gestures of the Faith, the Mass, and in Catholic souls. One Holy Mass contains all of the elements and grandeur of the Church. Its DNA is in the tiniest fragments of Catholic life. It may be living in a contracted appearance at present but its Glory is always visible in every true Christian who loves the Son and does the will of the Father, and in this is the Glory of the Holy Spirit of God which is never overcome.
-
Neil has covered the other points for you.
-
Actually, Peterp has given us an unintended gift. I presume Fr. Themann's thesis talk will be the basis for future attacks on the resistance and those who simply disagree with the current direction of the SSPX for some time to come by this priest and others who are schooled in the same way. One of the reasons the SSPX leadership has succeeded thus far since the summer of 2012 is that many are ignorant of the facts or afraid to speak up as they don't know the arguments. This interaction has helped with that. Very revealing.
-
In '02, '03 Bp fellay, Bp williamson and all the leaders of the SSPX were urging Bp Rifan ( Campos ) to not sign a practical agreement w/Rome...he was told that all the progress they had made in Campos ( for Tradition ) was made while in opposition to the modernists that they were now happy to be going back in with...It was pointed out to him how little sense that made...all the leaders of the SSPX were on the same page-or seemed to be..What changed?
Hmmm....could have been the crypto-Jew Jaidhoffer Found and all their $$..could be that having Zionist trash for a business partner ( Max Krah ) tends to change a person..
A certain member of our parish has a video on YT where all his effort is expended trying to prove that Bp fellay is "not a modernist.." Maybe he's not...but: 1. he's willing to compromise with modernists...2. he has a hard time telling those under him the truth...3. he changes his message depending on his audience...( Tells Rome one thing, the Carmelites another )..4. He's got a Zionist stooge who's chummy w/Mossad as a business partner..5. he set Bp Williamson up with an interview w/a journalist who cares nothing about the struggle btwn Catholicism and Modernism...6. He insisted Bp williamson take this Krah character as his lawyer...( or someone worse )..which is like giving a sick man Dr. Kevorkian...7. He's making us raise money for a seminary that's not needed ( and already paid for )...all of which makes him 8. a horrible Catholic leader..
-
I presume Fr. Themann's thesis talk will be the basis for future attacks, on the resistance and those who simply disagree with the current direction of the SSPX for some time to come, by this priest and others who are schooled in the same way.
One of the reasons the SSPX leadership has succeeded thus far since the summer of 2012 is that many are ignorant of the facts or afraid to speak up as they don't know the arguments. This interaction has helped with that. Very revealing.
Your observations show me that a lot more work is needed in this discussion, Nicholas. There are grave errors in principle at the root of the Themann Diatribe, and it requires some careful analysis. A lot of FLESHING OUT of this material is in order.
We are just scratching the surface!
.
-
.
In consideration for those who may be tuning in late on this thread and don't have time to wade through all previous 64 posts, here is a copy of the Open Letter from page one, through page 3:
[.Note: Beginning in principio. My previous attempt to address a quasi-pressing issue fell on deaf ears and therefore, it seems that we ought to take this from the top after all. As previously noted, the source is Ecclesia Militans, whose source is TheRecusant, whose source is TrueTrad.com, whose source is Anonymous. I have made some corrections of obvious errors without noting the specific facts, to keep down the clutter.]
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.
[FWIW - I was unable to find this on True Trad -- I hope maybe they've taken it down to do some repairs, because not a few are in order!!! HAHAHAHAHA.....]
An Open Letter to Fr. Daniel Themann
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.
Page 3...........
[It seems to me that these first 2 pages alone are enough for an entire thread's discussion, and I haven't even made it halfway to the two posts I previously quoted from subsequent pages.]
page 3 ................ (Pages 1-2 are found here (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=29223&min=30#p4).)
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.
page 4......................
.
.
.
The misunderstanding Fr. Themann's conference has caused is apparently a thing that some of the would-be faithful are eager to hang on to, because it gives them an excuse to further practice the erroneous thinking they had already been practicing, which see, for those with eyes to do so.............
Here is another question in this Open Letter, to which Fr. Themann will likely never respond, because if he were to answer this question, he would likely suffer a severe demotion from his position, and perhaps expulsion from the tyrannical state of Menzingenitis:
Question: WHAT IS THE SUPERSEDING PRINCIPLE?
If you really think, Fr. Themann, 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.
Because you fail to invoke any superseding principle of action, Fr. Themann, and you fail to explain how (supposed) changed circuмstances require the SSPX to follow this superseding principle, your explanation is woefully incomplete.
.
-
...continuing with page 4...
page 4
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.
.
-
.
Note: Issue #13 is now arriving and I'm still on page 4 of 34 in Issue #12.
I'm telling you guys, if you don't scramble to keep up with TheRecusant, you're going to be left in a cloud of dust down the road. I was saying that a year ago, and it has only become MORE so in time. There are now 442 pages of INTENSE reading you have to study, if you want to know what the Resistance has been dealing with, and that doesn't count the Eleison Comments, at 52 pages a year, plus all the various docuмents that you'll find in the Resistance Writings sticky thread. There are probably close to 1,000 pages in just the past 15 months. And each page takes around 10 minutes to read and understand. Sometimes you have to come back to the same page three or four times over a week, before you get to see what's really going on in it. Some of that is due to grammar shortcomings and such (not in the ECs at all -- which are typically amazing in diction and precision -- nor much of a problem in TheRecusant, but in the translated writings especially), but it's mostly due to the intensely heavy nature of this material. It does not make for light reading.
.
-
The priest at the local SSPX chapel today sd that the Traditional groups ( "such as the FSSP who are still "in" the Church can't fully live the faith.." Which shows that " the ArchBp was right.." and that the Indult was "disjointed" and gives no parish life....So why did they expel the priests who were against the bad agreement that was signed by the Sup Gen? Oh..ok, just answered my own question: Because the right conclusion can only be arrived at with the support/approval of the Sup Gen...Total devotion and obedience TO HIM is the most important thing for the "yes boss, great idea boss types"in the XSSPX... :smirk:
-
.
15 whole minutes? You're slipping, petwerp.
Oh, and you have deliberately ignored the question, as I fully expected you would. Your response is not intelligent, but instead, relies on your false assertions, as you have done all along, with your intellectual dishonesty.
We await your intelligent response to THE QUESTION.
And we're not holding our breath.
.
Neil the question has already been answered several times: (i) the society has always, as a principle (because it is not sedevacanist), wanted to submit to the authority of Rome an (ii) "no agreement with unconverted Rome" has never been a principle - it is a strawman fallacy.
-
.
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.
i) The context of this quote is resisting the reforms introduced by Vatican II. It makes no mention of refusing any agreement with Rome (and neither does the second quote for that matter). Hence they do not support the false claim of "no agreement with unconverted Rome".
ii) The "which he maintained until his death" is an argument from silence fallacy. The archbishop had already acknowledged there would be no contact with Rome for the next 2-3 years after the consecrations.
iii) The quote is not a principle. The principle here is wanting to remain Catholic. The separate himself from this Conciliar Church is the prudent action. Which just goes to show the author(s) can't distinguish between the two.
-
You see
I do not see
J.Paul,
It simply doesn't matter what you do or don't see. The society have never held the belief of two separate churches. So your question or "which Rome are they submitting to, Catholic Rome or Conciliar Rome" is irrelevant.
-
.
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.
i) The context of this quote is resisting the reforms introduced by Vatican II. It makes no mention of refusing any agreement with Rome (and neither does the second quote for that matter). Hence they do not support the false claim of "no agreement with unconverted Rome".
ii) The "which he maintained until his death" is an argument from silence fallacy. The archbishop had already acknowledged there would be no contact with Rome for the next 2-3 years after the consecrations.
iii) The quote is not a principle. The principle here is wanting to remain Catholic. The separate himself from this Conciliar Church is the prudent action. Which just goes to show the author(s) can't distinguish between the two.
You of course remember his statements which were quite specific that what he really required was their acceptance of the teaching of their predecessors as engendered in specific encyclicals and docuмents which he named.
Were they to acknowledge these magisterial teachings then Vatican II would have been a dead issue.
And by the way acceptance of these doctrinal pronouncements is absolutely required if one is to remain Catholic, so as they did would acknowledge these doctrines, he was negotiating with an objectively non-Catholic entity.
-
You see
I do not see
J.Paul,
It simply doesn't matter what you do or don't see. The society have never held the belief of two separate churches. So your question or "which Rome are they submitting to, Catholic Rome or Conciliar Rome" is irrelevant.
I do not care what I or the Society think. It is the reality which counts and whether or not the Society refuses to recognize it, does not determine what it is save to those who are in thrall to Conciliar SPXism.
-
You see
I do not see
J.Paul,
It simply doesn't matter what you do or don't see. The society have never held the belief of two separate churches. So your question or "which Rome are they submitting to, Catholic Rome or Conciliar Rome" is irrelevant.
I do not care what I or the Society thinks. What counts is the reality, and if the Society chooses not to admit to it does not change the objective facts, save for those who are in thrall to Conciliar SPXism.
The Conciliar sect is not Catholic.
-
save for those who are in thrall to Conciliar SPXism.
Are you trying to say, "for those who are enthralled by Conciliar SPXism?"
.
-
You of course remember his statements which were quite specific that what he really required was their acceptance of the teaching of their predecessors as engendered in specific encyclicals and docuмents which he named.
Yes and none mentioned refusing an agreement with Rome. In fact there is only post 1988 one that talk about an an agreement:
Someone was saying to me yesterday, "But what if Rome accepted your bishops and then you were completely exempted from the other bishops' jurisdiction?" But firstly, they are a long way right now from accepting any such thing, and then, let them first make us such an offer!
-
.
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.
The reader will recognize, of course, that this quote attributed to me, above, is not my words at all, but those of Anonymous, on page 2 of the Open Letter, which see.
And it is followed immediately by "the second quote" also at the bottom of p.2:
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.
ABL is speaking clearly here, and his words require no amplification. The message is obvious for anyone with ears to hear. The fact that there may always be miserable deniers (like petwerp, here) who attempt to miserably deny the obvious, does not take away from the obvious clarity of his words.
The principle at work here is that merely miserable malignity does not refute obvious truth. The truth stands on its own, regardless of calumny against it.
And the miserable calumny that THAT is "not a principle" does not make it so.
i) The context of this quote is resisting the reforms introduced by Vatican II. It makes no mention of refusing any agreement with Rome (and neither does the second quote for that matter). Hence they do not support the false claim of "no agreement with unconverted Rome".
No, it's not a "false claim," it is a true and accurate statement of historical fact. And any repeated, miserably malignant attempt to deny the obvious doesn't change the reality.
ii) The "which he maintained until his death" is an argument from silence fallacy. The archbishop had already acknowledged there would be no contact with Rome for the next 2-3 years after the consecrations.
No, it's not "an argument from silence fallacy." ABL repeated this principle many times, even if liars like petwerp would keep trying to rewrite history. The principle that he held openly until his death was No Agreement with Unconverted Rome.
So get used to it, petwerp. It's not going away, just because you in your twisted illusionary fantasy would like it to go away.
iii) The quote is not a principle. The principle here is wanting to remain Catholic. The separate himself from this Conciliar Church is the prudent action. Which just goes to show the author(s) can't distinguish between the two.
No, the principle is not "wanting to remain Catholic." ABL had no doubts about his being Catholic. His announcement was that the Conciliar church had failed to remain Catholic. The Roman authorities are no longer Catholic. They have lost the Faith, it is certain; it is certain; it is certain.
What, repeating it three times isn't clear enough? Should he have repeated it FOUR times? Would that have been convincing for you?
Probably not.
You of course remember his statements which were quite specific that what he really required was their acceptance of the teaching of their predecessors as engendered in specific encyclicals and docuмents which he named.
Dear J.Paul, petwerp might remember or he might not remember, but that's immaterial, because he's going to A) either pretend he doesn't remember or that he is incapable of remembering, or B) he's going to see the quotes and proceed to deny that they say what they obviously say.
So there isn't any point in trying to convince one with such a HARDENED heart. It's a waste of your effort, but I appreciate your effort nonetheless, because I know you mean well, and that's commendable.
The quotes to which you refer are found on page 8 of the Open Letter, which I quoted early on in this thread, but there was no discussion. It is to be noted that at the time, petwerp had no comment in their regard, and we can therefore expect full well that petwerp will have no comment now, either, except perhaps to miserably malign the words and/or attempt to claim that they do not say what they obviously say:
From Post (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=29223&min=5#p2)
Page 8
Archbishop Lefebvre Recognized His Mistake in Signing the May 1988 Protocol, And from Then Until His Death, He Maintained the Principle: No Agreement With Unconverted Rome.
Showing he learned his lesson, Archbishop Lefebvre maintained until his death that he would not even discuss an agreement with Rome until Rome converted. Archbishop Lefebvre repeatedly showed his resolution not to do what Bishop Fellay seeks and has sought. When asked by Fideliter magazine, “What do you think of a possible re-opening of a dialogue with Rome?” Archbishop Lefebvre made the following clear reply:
We do not have the same outlook on a reconciliation.
Cardinal Ratzinger sees it as reducing us, bringing us back
to Vatican II. We see it as a return of Rome to Tradition.
We don’t agree; it is a dialogue of the deaf. I can’t
speak much of the future, mine is behind me; but if I live
a little while, supposing that Rome calls for a new dialogue,
then, I will put conditions. I shall not accept being put in
the position where I was during the [May 1988] dialogue.
No more.
I will put the discussion at the doctrinal level. ‘Do you
agree with the great encyclicals of all the popes who preceded
you? Do you agree with Quanta Cura of Pius IX, Immortale
Dei and Libertas of Leo XIII, Pascendi Gregis of Pius X, Quas
Primas of Pius XI, Humani Generis of Pius XII? Are you in
full communion with these popes and their teachings? Do
you still accept the entire Anti-Modernist Oath? Are you in
favor of the social reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ?'
If you do not accept the doctrine of your predecessors,
it is useless to talk! As long as you do not accept the
correction of the Council, in consideration of the doctrine of
these Popes, your predecessors, no dialogue is possible.
It is useless.
Fideliter, quoted by Fr. Laisney in Archbishop Lefebvre and the
Vatican, pp.223-224 (emphasis and bracketed date added).
So, if Bishop Fellay was following Archbishop Lefebvre, he would treat seriously Rome’s request to talk but he would keep the discussion at the doctrinal level, as Archbishop Lefebvre vowed he would, after his May 1988 mistake. This is why Archbishop Lefebvre declared the principle that “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 (emphasis added).
That is, Archbishop Lefebvre declared any good priest must not make a deal with Rome until Rome rediscovers the Tradition of the Church.
[END OF EXCERPT from page 8]
The conspicuous deceit the Fellayites try to use in their attempt to show that something else ABL said at some point is all that is needed to refute these prominent testaments is proof of their liberalism, because that is the liberal character in action: look for some manner of inconsistency or exception, however vague or small, and latch on to that because their bent is to make the exception into the new rule.
It's like a willful child at the supermarket: You can say, "No, you can't have any candy," every time you wheel them through the store, and you can do it for YEARS, but the ONE TIME that you break down and let them pick out one candy item is the time that becomes the new rule in their mind, and you'll hear ALL ABOUT IT forevermore, until they grow up and move out.
Liberals, e.g., petwerp, are like big babies that never grew up.
Were they to acknowledge these magisterial teachings then Vatican II would have been a dead issue.
And by the way, [their] acceptance of these doctrinal pronouncements is absolutely required if [anyone] is to remain Catholic, so as they did would [not] acknowledge these doctrines, he was negotiating with an objectively non-Catholic entity.
While ABL had fallen into the Conciliar trap of attempting to negotiate with non-Catholic Modernists, he later recognized his mistake, and from then on, for the rest of his life, he held to his conviction: no negotiations with unconverted Rome.
I explained this to a child, and he understood it. In fact, I was amused to see that later he had no more interest in it, and wanted to MOVE ON to new material. This gives me a lot of reassurance, because the Liberal penchant to dwell on an impossible point, such as their DENIAL that ABL held this principle firmly to the end of his life, is proof of their dishonesty.
They know that once this principle is acknowledged for the truth that it is, the game is over.
So they deny that it's a principle,
Or they say it isn't true,
Or they say it never happened,
Or they try to accuse you of getting it all wrong,
Or they cry and moan that you are abusing them or hurting their feelings.
It all reminds us of what the devil does during exorcisms. He has a litany of silly puerile stunts to attempt to sway the exorcist away from his efforts to expel him. And the devil doesn't give up easily. Not infrequently, people who act this way are themselves possessed, which could easily be the case with many lawyers.
.
-
.
>>> What we had was ABL teaching that any future discussion with the Roman authorities would have to be predicated upon two things:
A) Rome would have to first return to Catholic Tradition BEFORE any discussions could take place, and
B) In order to prove that Rome had so returned to Catholic Tradition, ABL would "put conditions" and would "put the discussion at the doctrinal level" by asking if Rome agrees with the doctrine of her predecessors:
Quanta Cura of Pius IX,
Immortale Dei and Libertas of Leo XIII,
Pascendi Gregis of Pius X,
Quas Primas of Pius XI,
Humani Generis of Pius XII?
Do you still accept the entire Anti-Modernist Oath?
Are you in favor of the social reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ?'
((Those are doctrinal matters. In regards to liturgy, he would say, "Quo Primum of Pius V."))
>>> But what we have instead, today, only 23 years later, is XSPXSGBF acting as ABL's successor, engaging in "DOCTRINAL NEGOTIATIONS" with modernist, unconverted Rome, the OPPOSITE of what ABL would have him do, without ever asking the questions that ABL vowed he would have him ask,
"Do You Agree With the Doctrine of Your Predecessors?!?!"
If they do not agree, then no dialogue is possible. It is a dialogue of the deaf.
You know, like J.Paul trying to dialogue with petwerp.
As we have shown several times already:
When asked by Fideliter magazine, “What do you think of a possible re-opening of a dialogue with Rome?” Archbishop Lefebvre made the following clear reply:
We do not have the same outlook on a reconciliation.
Cardinal Ratzinger sees it as reducing us, bringing us back
to Vatican II. We see it as a return of Rome to Tradition.
We don’t agree; it is a dialogue of the deaf. I can’t
speak much of the future, mine is behind me; but if I live
a little while, supposing that Rome calls for a new dialogue,
then, I will put conditions. I shall not accept being put in
the position where I was during the [May 1988] dialogue.
No more.
I will put the discussion at the doctrinal level. ‘Do you
agree with the great encyclicals of all the popes who preceded
you? Do you agree with Quanta Cura of Pius IX, Immortale
Dei and Libertas of Leo XIII, Pascendi Gregis of Pius X, Quas
Primas of Pius XI, Humani Generis of Pius XII? Are you in
full communion with these popes and their teachings? Do
you still accept the entire Anti-Modernist Oath? Are you in
favor of the social reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ?'
If you do not accept the doctrine of your predecessors,
it is useless to talk! As long as you do not accept the
correction of the Council, in consideration of the doctrine of
these Popes, your predecessors, no dialogue is possible.
It is useless.
Fideliter, quoted by Fr. Laisney in Archbishop Lefebvre and the
Vatican, pp.223-224 (emphasis and bracketed date added).
So, if Bishop Fellay was following Archbishop Lefebvre, he would treat seriously Rome’s request to talk but he would keep the discussion at the doctrinal level, as Archbishop Lefebvre vowed he would, after his May 1988 mistake. This is why Archbishop Lefebvre declared the principle that:
“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 (emphasis added).
Instead, we have XSPXSGBF negotiating with Rome for YEARS and YEARS without asking the critical questions, pretending the discussions are on the doctrinal level but that's a BIG LIE, Communist style. Meanwhile he's running GREC in the background, appointing liberals into capitulary status in the General Chapters, Communist style, expelling good and faithful priests, Communist style, muzzling the weaker priests who dare not exercise any real backbone, Communist style, spreading the errors of Russia throughout the Society by his sneaky, slippery, soft-spoken speeches full of liberal ambiguity and self-contradictions, Communist style, and cranking out politicized half-truths and subtly worded deceptions as if he were following in the footsteps of the progressivists at Vat.II, with his AFD and SARD. All the while, he says the negotiations with Rome are DOCTRINAL but that's a LIE. Because he never asked them the question:
"Do You Agree With the Doctrine of Your Predecessors?!?!"
Instead, he pretends that he asked the question, by calling the talks with Rome "doctrinal negotiations," and thereby he does exactly what ABL said he would never do:
"I shall not accept being put in the position where I
was during the [May 1988] dialogue. No more."
Fideliter, quoted by Fr. Laisney in Archbishop
Lefebvre and the Vatican, pp.223-224
.
-
.
We are left to surmise that the reason XSPXSGBF doesn't ask Newrome the question, which see, is because XSPXSGBF himself does not agree with his own predecessor, ABL, nor does he accept the doctrine of his predecessors and the predecessors of the Newroman popes.
For if XSPXSGBF does not agree with the doctrine of the Church, it would be entirely useless for him to expect the Newromans to agree with it.
.
.
.
Furthermore, IF SXPXSGBF were not a Communist himself, THEN he WOULD ask the Newomans this essential question, AND since he does not ask the Conciliar Newroman apostates this essential question, well, I'll leave the entry level logic up to you.
.
-
.
After all, ABL never said that the Society Superior General should not be a Communist.
ABL never formally opined that Communist would be a bad thing for the SG to be.
ABL did not warn the Society about the dangers of creeping liberalism within the ranks of the capitulants and especially the Superior General.
In fact, his own SG appointee, Fr. Schmidberger, doesn't quite meet up with any reasonable expectation of what STELLAR NON-COMMUNIST would be all about.
So why should anyone be concerned that XSPXSGBF at least BEHAVES that way?
That is, whether or not he really IS one.
Remember, you don't have to BE a Freemason to have the effect of a Freemason.
.
-
.
In light of all this, is it any wonder that SXPXSGBF could not STAND
the proximity or the likes of +W anywhere associated with the XSPX?
Any openly anti-Communist such as +W could only spell "d-i-s-a-s-t-e-r"
for the REAL agenda of a clandestine non-anti-communist like XSPXSGBF.
Furthermore, you might notice the curious similarity in the other good
priests who are lately expelled or who have resigned from the XSPX,
such as Fr. Fuchs last week --- openly anti-communist................
.
.
.
Kapeesh?
.
-
save for those who are in thrall to Conciliar SPXism.
Are you trying to say, "for those who are enthralled by Conciliar SPXism?"
.
No I was thinking more along the idea of those who are held in thrall to
-
The truth of the matter is Bp. F and his closest advisers desperately want to be mainstream. They hate being locked out of the affairs of the church they now accept and by extension the world. Their biggest task over the last decade or so was to convert an organised hostile response to widespread liberalism into a willing participation in the great debate that conciliarism set in motion. They can officially hang onto their liturgical preferences if their understanding of the reforms is acceptable, so why fight the trend and become permanent pariahs?
By definition, communion with the conciliar church is predicated on having a conciliar outlook. ABL worked in vain if his successors now want to be part of the club. Although I never understood the point of being in partial communion, it should now be clear to everyone what the full embrace would mean. And for its part any genuine resistance means no communion with Rome for a very long time.
-
.
As I was saying about Communism and the SSPX: I'm not making this up.
For example,
From +W's Dec. 22 sermon (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=29423#p1):
...
One recalls the Archbishop saying back in 1975 when he was put in front of a ‘Kangaroo Court’ of three cardinals down in Rome. He said afterwards, “…the
4
soviets would have treated me better”. A terrible thing to say but it’s true. The Latin proverb is, “the corruption of the best is the worst”.
[That would be "Corruptio optimae pessima est."]
When Catholic churchmen go corrupt it’s terrible…terrible…worse than the Jews. The Jews are classic enemies of the Church, not all of them individually of course, and not all of them to the same degree, but they are instinctive liberals as a general rule and instinctively they want to replace Catholic civilisation with Jєωιѕн civilisation which is what is happening all around us. They are the ring leaders of the Anti-Christian movement but they’re not the worst. The worst are those churchmen inside the Catholics, especially the Catholic churchmen, who have been given great grace by God in order to be Catholics and in order to be in addition churchmen. When they go wrong it’s much worse.
...
Our Lord has bitter, bitter -- bitter enemies!
The world is not like "The Sound of Music!" Not everybody’s nice and sweet -- and wonderful -- and well-intentioned -- and handsome and good looking -- and generous and all the rest of it… except the nαzιs, of course!
I mean, even Hollywood has to have some enemy, and the enemies are the nαzιs and Hitler is the devil incarnate.
That is the Jєωιѕн Hollywood version, but it is false; it’s a false version.
(http://ts1.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.4614166209496552&pid=15.1&H=160&W=120)
Josef Stalin AKA Josef Vissarionovich Dzughashvili. b. 18-Dec-1878, d. 5-Mar-1953 Moscow.
Our Lord has bitter enemies and not only Hitler, nor even the nαzιs. The nαzιs and Hitler may well have been enemies of Our Lord, they certainly weren’t Catholic, but [Josef] Stalin was the cause of many many millions more deaths than Hitler. [Read: murdered many millions more Jews than Hitler.] Our media don’t tell us that because the media is in the hands of the same people who are behind communism – the Jews - by the font [?] of the Catholics.
Therefore, the media cover over the sins of communism and blast all over the walls, paint and splatter everywhere, the sins of the nαzιs -- because the nαzιs
6 [Quiz question: Why do the MSM suppress the sins of the Communists while they broadcast the sins of the nαzιs?]
were standing up to Communism! The nαzιs may have been criminals in various ways, but I don’t know if you know….again, I’m getting into what looks like politics, but behind all politics is religion, and the malice of communism created by the Jews as a false religion.
Pope Pious XI said, “…Communism is the Messianism of materialism”, which is brilliantly said. It’s Messianic materialism.
The Messiah was Jєωιѕн. The Jews were prepared for the Messiah. They were trained for the Messiah. They have so to speak the Messiah in their bloodstream but they rejected Him. Therefore, they create -- they have the inside knowledge of God to create -- false Messianisms, one after another. [The worldwide battle against] brutal Communism was won, but basically Communism was atheistic materialism.
What we now have all around us is globalism which is atheistic materialism. It’s the same thing, only the soft version. The brutal version ran up against a brick wall, it raised too much of a reaction. So a certain Italian Jew, Antonio Gramsci, invented or conceived soft communism which would get around the resistance that there was to hard Communism, and soft communism under the name of globalism is now taking over the world because the Catholics are not Catholic.
That’s basically why.
Catholics are losing the faith. Both from the mainstream church and now one may fear to some extent inside the Society of St. Pius X.
The leadership has lost it’s grip on… both Bishop Fellay and Father Pfluger talk of our ‘New friends in Rome’. Meaning that the churchmen controlling the universal church, and setting this false direction of the universal church are now friends of the leaders of the society. That tells you that the leaders of the society have changed. To consider today’s Roman churchmen as friends? They are not friends of Our Lord – judged by the fruits. Of course the words are all friendly to Our Lord but the actions? No. Therefore, as John the Baptist, the precursor of Our Lord stopped the Jews in their tracks and the Pharisees and those who came… in order to remind them to watch out…
Christmas is a question of sin and virtue and the saving of souls. Watch out, you are completely on the wrong track if you think that you’re religious. You Pharisees think that you’re religious; you think that you’re the chosen ones; you think you are the leaders of the people of God and here you are a bunch of Vipers. John the Baptist said so. John the Baptist was well aware that not everything is sweet and nice, and sure enough! Our Lord is born -- and what happens? Herod sends soldiers down to murder every child in Bethlehem in the hopes of also murdering Our Lord!
7
Our Lord has bitter enemies, don’t be deluded. Don’t think like Hollywood.
Don’t follow Hollywood.
The Bells of Saint Marys…what’s it? The Sound of Music, Going My Way and all of these silly, silly films, which are very false.
I mentioned some good news, Father Pinaud is a good man and he was imprisoned in Austria for eight months and at the end of those eight months he was promised a trial. The trial was set up by two district superiors and a Professor of Econe and at the end he was condemned to not say Mass. He was condemned heavily for slight participation in the resistance of the best briefs of the society to the false correction being taken by Menzingen. Menzingen is a little Swiss village near which is the headquarters of the Society.
Menzingen reacted violently. He couldn’t even say Mass, he couldn’t hear confessions he was absolutely crippled and paralyzed as a priest. Unbelievable!
Absolutely unbelievable!
After the condemnation he was nobly offered the opportunity to appeal and at first he accepted the opportunity to appeal but finally he said, “That’s it, that’s it”, and he’s walking out. He’s quite right, he’s quite bright. He will be able to do much more. What he purchased with his eight or so months in Austria was a demonstration of the absolute injustice, the worse than communist injustice. They made things up as they went along. Unbelievable! The leadership is locked into a dream and it’s a dream of reconciling irreconcilableness.
It’s a dream like Paul VI dreamt of reconciling church and world and the result was Vatican II.
So Menzingen now dreams of reconciling tradition and the conciliar church. It can’t be done. The conciliar church is intrinsically against Our Lord and against God, against man. Catholic tradition, the true tradition is obviously from God, for God, for man but in this dream they lock out, they just shut out anything that contradicts this false vision. This false reconciling irreconcilableness, it’s as though you should try to reconcile Christ and Satan, it’s ridiculous!
Satan is locked into his hatred of God, his absolute profound hatred and defiance of God. Our Lord Jesus Christ is God and in God says St James, there is no shadow or trace of change. God cannot change. Satan can’t change. Christ can’t change. To reconcile the two is ridiculous. The idea of reconciling is ridiculous but that’s the idea that now governs the universal church -- or [else] actually Satan’s taken over the leadership of the universal church. He is now taking over if he has not already taken over the leadership of the Society and that’s why we’re here today.
8
Please pray for Father Pinaud and for Father Pieuvre, they’re good men and when France stirs it’s going to make a lot of difference. Up till now, France has generally not been stirring and a lot of French priests are good but they’ve not seen strongly or clearly enough yet, many of them, to take much action. It’s now stirring – let’s hope.
France of course is a great home of Catholicism and also a great home of liberalism. France is usually out in front for good or for ill. It hasn’t yet been out in front for the resistance but if it gets moving… I think Bishop Fellay realises already that he has a problem in France because there is a lot of silent resistance to what’s going on inside the society, and all that’s needed is for that resistance to come into the open and then Bishop Fellay has a serious problem on his hands. So that is also good news.
...
Good stuff from +W!!!
.
-
save for those who are in thrall to Conciliar SPXism.
Are you trying to say, "for those who are enthralled by Conciliar SPXism?"
.
No I was thinking more along the idea of those who are held in thrall to
Do you know someone who has been forced into slavery against their will, or is being held as a hostage, and is thus made somehow subservient to the SSPX?
.
-
save for those who are in thrall to Conciliar SPXism.
Are you trying to say, "for those who are enthralled by Conciliar SPXism?"
.
No I was thinking more along the idea of those who are held in thrall to
Do you know someone who has been forced into slavery against their will, or is being held as a hostage, and is thus made somehow subservient to the SSPX?
.
Not necessarily forced but led to believe in something which in the end is against their own interests. They are intellectually captivated by the belief that the Menzingen/resistance/Conciliar R&R policies of accommodation are safe and non-contradictory.
-
You of course remember his statements which were quite specific that what he really required was their acceptance of the teaching of their predecessors as engendered in specific encyclicals and docuмents which he named.
Yes and none mentioned refusing an agreement with Rome. In fact there is only post 1988 one that talk about an an agreement:
Someone was saying to me yesterday, "But what if Rome accepted your bishops and then you were completely exempted from the other bishops' jurisdiction?" But firstly, they are a long way right now from accepting any such thing, and then, let them first make us such an offer!
peterp,
You’ve used the above quote of the Archbishop 4 times now since the beginning of this thread, but you should stop using it. It doesn’t work.
The original French wording that you gave us back on page 6, (and that I checked on the Avec l’Immaculee website), is this:
D’abord ils sont bien loin d’accepter une chose comme celle-là, ensuite il faudrait qu’ils nous en fassent l’offre, et je ne pense pas qu’ils y soient prêts, car le fond de la difficulté, c’est précisément de nous donner un évêque traditionaliste.
But the actual translation is this :
But firstly, they are a long way right now from accepting any such thing, then they would have to make us the offer, and I do not think that they are anywhere near doing so, for what has been up till now the difficulty has been precisely their giving to us a Traditionalist bishop.
(It wasn’t translated accurately in the english version of the conference)
which now doesn’t support your claim on page 11 that Archbishop Lefebvre was open to the idea of an offer from Rome after 1988.
In addition to this straw-man fallacy, I also pointed out the argument from silence fallacy viz. the absence of any discussions until the archbishop's death proves this "principle", when the archbishop had already recognized that there would be no contact with Rome for the next 2-3 years and that when hypothetical' question of an offer from Rome was put to him he clearly was open to the idea: "let them first make us such an offer!", again disproving this "principle".
-
You of course remember his statements which were quite specific that what he really required was their acceptance of the teaching of their predecessors as engendered in specific encyclicals and docuмents which he named.
Yes and none mentioned refusing an agreement with Rome. In fact there is only post 1988 one that talk about an an agreement:
Someone was saying to me yesterday, "But what if Rome accepted your bishops and then you were completely exempted from the other bishops' jurisdiction?" But firstly, they are a long way right now from accepting any such thing, and then, let them first make us such an offer!
I am amazed at your blindness. We are talking about whether of not the Romans are even Catholic and you can see nothing else outside of the orbit of the SSPX. If the Archbishop would have made an agreement with this cult while it still rejected Catholic doctrine and Magisterium he would have been entirely wrong and de facto agreeing with their apostasy.
-
You of course remember his statements which were quite specific that what he really required was their acceptance of the teaching of their predecessors as engendered in specific encyclicals and docuмents which he named.
Yes and none mentioned refusing an agreement with Rome. In fact there is only post 1988 one that talk about an an agreement:
Someone was saying to me yesterday, "But what if Rome accepted your bishops and then you were completely exempted from the other bishops' jurisdiction?" But firstly, they are a long way right now from accepting any such thing, and then, let them first make us such an offer!
peterp,
You’ve used the above quote of the Archbishop 4 times now since the beginning of this thread, but you should stop using it. It doesn’t work.
The original French wording that you gave us back on page 6, (and that I checked on the Avec l’Immaculee website), is this:
D’abord ils sont bien loin d’accepter une chose comme celle-là, ensuite il faudrait qu’ils nous en fassent l’offre, et je ne pense pas qu’ils y soient prêts, car le fond de la difficulté, c’est précisément de nous donner un évêque traditionaliste.
But the actual translation is this :
But firstly, they are a long way right now from accepting any such thing, then they would have to make us the offer, and I do not think that they are anywhere near doing so, for what has been up till now the difficulty has been precisely their giving to us a Traditionalist bishop.
(It wasn’t translated accurately in the english version of the conference)
which now doesn’t support your claim on page 11 that Archbishop Lefebvre was open to the idea of an offer from Rome after 1988.
In addition to this straw-man fallacy, I also pointed out the argument from silence fallacy viz. the absence of any discussions until the archbishop's death proves this "principle", when the archbishop had already recognized that there would be no contact with Rome for the next 2-3 years and that when hypothetical' question of an offer from Rome was put to him he clearly was open to the idea: "let them first make us such an offer!", again disproving this "principle".
Unbrandable, no you are wrong, I suggest to re-read the text and context. The whole paragraph is about an agreement. The archbishop did not foresee one because the root of the problem (viz. an agreement or lack of one) is being given a traditionalist bishop. Here is a professional translation:
Humanly speaking, I see no possibility of agreement at present. Someone said to me yesterday, "What if Rome accepted your bishops and you were completely exempted from the other bishops' jurisdiction?" First, they are far from agreeing to something like that, then they would have to make us an offer, and I do not think they will be ready for that because the precise root of the difficulty is giving us a traditionalist bishop ...
So Unbrandable, what is the archbishop's answer to the question posed ("What if Rome ...")? It is this:
He was saying it highly unlikely, but for any agreement, Rome would have to make this offer (hence was clearly open to the idea).
I do not think it wasn’t translated accurately, the article (Feb 1, 2001) does say it had been adapted from the French and I dare say the author's English translation better expresses what the archbishop was trying to say, particularly if the original source was audio (which it probably was).
-
D’abord ils sont bien loin d’accepter une chose comme celle-là, ensuite il faudrait qu’ils nous en fassent l’offre, et je ne pense pas qu’ils y soient prêts, car le fond de la difficulté, c’est précisément de nous donner un évêque traditionaliste.
My translator added other possible translations for "ensuite il faudrait qu’ils nous en fassent l’offre":
Literally, it means "then / afterwards, it would be necessary that they make us the offer (of it)". Your suggestion of "make us such an offer" would work, but the "il faudrait" suggests conditional necessity or obligation after they had agreed, rather than a wish or exhortation.
How about:
"and then / afterwards, they would need to make us such an offer".
-
save for those who are in thrall to Conciliar SPXism.
Are you trying to say, "for those who are enthralled by Conciliar SPXism?"
.
No I was thinking more along the idea of those who are held in thrall to
Do you know someone who has been forced into slavery against their will, or is being held as a hostage, and is thus made somehow subservient to the SSPX?
.
Not necessarily forced but led to believe in something which in the end is against their own interests. They are intellectually captivated by the belief that the Menzingen/resistance/Conciliar R&R policies of accommodation are safe and non-contradictory.
Thank you, J.Paul. That's a very good answer. Thank you for noticing this phenomenon, because it seems to be rather prevalent among Trads, not only among those who frequent SSPX chapels.
By their longstanding posture of secrecy, aloofness, inaccessibility, and actually, aristocracy, the priests of the Society and their superiors have a kind of protection from having to answer questions regarding the principles upon which their prudential decisions rely.
There is a curious thing about prudence: a decision that is IMPRUDENT is still a prudential decision. +Fellay has been promoting the idea that he somehow OWNS prudence by the power of his office or something, as if any decision he makes, because of its being a prudential decision, is therefore a good thing. But that is a lie, because an imprudent decision is still a prudential decision.
.
-
You of course remember his statements which were quite specific that what he really required was their acceptance of the teaching of their predecessors as engendered in specific encyclicals and docuмents which he named.
Blah, blah, blah...
I am amazed at your blindness. We are talking about whether of not the Romans are even Catholic and you can see nothing else outside of the orbit of the SSPX. If the Archbishop would have made an agreement with this cult while it still rejected Catholic doctrine and Magisterium he would have been entirely wrong and de facto agreeing with their apostasy.
You shouldn't be amazed, J.Paul. You should be used to it by now. And expect much more in the future, that is, if petwerp continues to post. :kick-can:
No one is more blind than he who refuses to see.
The Society of St. Pius X has grown accustomed to the notion that it somehow is the sole conservator of the Faith of Catholics.
This PRIDE is found ensconced in the various priories and houses, and is most relished and treasured in Menzingen, where it occupies a place something like the vault of the Crown Jewels. It's an ideological tabernacle.
And it is a serious sin. Because it is (i) the worship of a false god.
(ii) Thou shalt not take the name of XSPXSGBF in vain.
(iii) Thou shalt keep the Sabbath, by placing thy holy envelope in the weekly collection basket.
ABL was not unaware of the possibility of this beast rising up. His final years were tormented with the prospect that his offspring Society would appear to be a PARALLEL CHURCH on the one hand, or a capitulating also-ran on another hand, or a sedevacantist sect on the third hand. It was a three-handed prospect, and when you're accustomed to having enemies with only two hands, how do you adjust to cope against an enemy with three hands?
.
-
You of course remember his statements which were quite specific that what he really required was their acceptance of the teaching of their predecessors as engendered in specific encyclicals and docuмents which he named.
Yes and none mentioned refusing an agreement with Rome. In fact there is only post 1988 one that talk about an an agreement:
Someone was saying to me yesterday, "But what if Rome accepted your bishops and then you were completely exempted from the other bishops' jurisdiction?" But firstly, they are a long way right now from accepting any such thing, and then, let them first make us such an offer!
peterp,
You’ve used the above quote of the Archbishop 4 times now since the beginning of this thread, but you should stop using it. It doesn’t work.
The original French wording that you gave us back on page 6, (and that I checked on the Avec l’Immaculee website), is this:
D’abord ils sont bien loin d’accepter une chose comme celle-là, ensuite il faudrait qu’ils nous en fassent l’offre, et je ne pense pas qu’ils y soient prêts, car le fond de la difficulté, c’est précisément de nous donner un évêque traditionaliste.
But the actual translation is this :
But firstly, they are a long way right now from accepting any such thing, then they would have to make us the offer, and I do not think that they are anywhere near doing so, for what has been up till now the difficulty has been precisely their giving to us a Traditionalist bishop.
(It wasn’t translated accurately in the english version of the conference)
which now doesn’t support your claim on page 11 that Archbishop Lefebvre was open to the idea of an offer from Rome after 1988.
In addition to this straw-man fallacy, I also pointed out the argument from silence fallacy viz. the absence of any discussions until the archbishop's death proves this "principle", when the archbishop had already recognized that there would be no contact with Rome for the next 2-3 years and that when hypothetical' question of an offer from Rome was put to him he clearly was open to the idea: "let them first make us such an offer!", again disproving this "principle".
Unbrandable, no you are wrong, I suggest to re-read the text and context. The whole paragraph is about an agreement. The archbishop did not foresee one because the root of the problem (viz. an agreement or lack of one) is being given a traditionalist bishop. Here is a professional translation:
Humanly speaking, I see no possibility of agreement at present. Someone said to me yesterday, "What if Rome accepted your bishops and you were completely exempted from the other bishops' jurisdiction?" First, they are far from agreeing to something like that, then they would have to make us an offer, and I do not think they will be ready for that because the precise root of the difficulty is giving us a traditionalist bishop ...
So Unbrandable, what is the archbishop's answer to the question posed ("What if Rome ...")? It is this:
He was saying it highly unlikely, but for any agreement, Rome would have to make this offer (hence was clearly open to the idea).
I do not think it wasn’t translated accurately, the article (Feb 1, 2001) does say it had been adapted from the French and I dare say the author's English translation better expresses what the archbishop was trying to say, particularly if the original source was audio (which it probably was).
peterp,
Your argument is unconvincing.
You can’t deduce that the Archbishop was “clearly open” to the idea of an agreement with Rome from the words, “then they would have to make us an offer,” used in this context.
It’s obvious that the Archbishop had changed his position after 1988. You’ve got just one quote that you’re trying to use, but just look at all the statements made by him after 1988 where he specifies that we must distance ourselves from Rome and that there would be no more discussions with Rome about an agreement if it didn’t convert (didn’t accept the doctrine of its predecessors) first.
I heard a good quote from someone once, something along the lines of “you have to work hard to be an atheist” (because there is a lot of proof of God in the world, and it is easy to see).Well, I think the same thing can be said here. You have to work hard not to see the truth, which in this case is the true spirit of Archbishop Lefebvre, because there are a lot of examples of it, and it is easy to see.
-
With the caveat that I am not following this thread in any detail at all, I'll just post this:
Rome and Society of St. Peter
February 1, 1989
Rector's letter (+BW):
...what Archbishop Lefebvre said in private a few weeks ago: - "Between
ourselves and Rome right now there is complete silence, thank goodness. ..... As for ourselves however, there is no problem. We have undergone another purification making the defense of Tradition more solid than ever. So if Rome wanted to re-open the dialogue, we would put the dogmatic problems in the fore-front. ...Now they must get the Council and the Decree on Religious Liberty into line with Tradition. Dogma first and foremost. But questions of dogma are far more difficult to arrange than questions of discipline. We can hope for no change so long as they think like modernists in Rome. Any change would mean for them signing the death warrant of everything they have been doing for the last 25 years".
- Archbishop Lefebvre: “supposing that Rome calls for a renewed dialogue, then, I will put conditions. I shall not accept being in the position where I was put during the dialogue. No more.
I will place the discussion at the doctrinal level: “Do you agree with the great encyclicals of all the popes who preceded you? Do you agree with Quanta Cura of Pius IX, Immortale Dei and Libertas of Leo XIII, Pascendi Gregis of Pius X, Quas Primas of Pius XI, Humani Generis of Pius XII? Are you in full communion with these Popes and their teachings? Do you still accept the entire Anti-Modernist Oath? Are you in favor of the social reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ? If you do not accept the doctrine of your predecessors, it is useless to talk! As long as you do not accept the correction of the Council, in consideration of the doctrine of these Popes, your predecessors, no dialogue is possible. It is useless.””
(Fideliter n. 66 nov-dec 1988, pp. 12-13).
- Bishop Williamson: “The greatest challenge to the SSPX in the next few years is to grasp the primacy of doctrine, and to measure everything else, and to pray, accordingly. In our sentimental world, the constant temptation is to go by feelings. Not going by feelings is what marked out Archbishop Lefebvre, and if in this respect we do not follow him, the SSPX will go the way of all flesh – into the arms of the (objective) destroyers of the Church. […] Doctrine, doctrine, doctrine!” (Angelus Press, 21 June 2008).
- Bishop Fellay : “…the clear awareness of the much more profound key issue which we have just described, forbids us to place the two issues on an equal footing. It is so clear for us that the issue of the Faith and of the spirit of faith has priority over all that we cannot consider a practical solution before the first issue is safely resolved. (…)
For us, each day brings additional proof that we must clarify to a maximum the underlying issues before taking one more step toward a canonical situation, which is not in itself displeasing to us. But this is a matter of following the order of the nature of things, and to start from the wrong end would unavoidably place us in an unbearable situation. We have daily proofs of this. What is at stake is nothing more nor less than our future existence.”(Superior General's Letter to Friends and Benefactors no.73, 23 October 2008)
- Bishop de Galarreta : “They evidently want to trouble us, to alarm us by pressuring us toward a purely practical agreement, which has always been the proposition of the cardinal [Hoyos]. Evidently you already know our thoughts. This way is a dead way; for us it is the road to death. Therefore there is no question of us following it. We cannot commit ourselves to betraying the public profession of Faith. Out of the question! It’s impossible.”
(Homily 27 June 2008, Ecône)
“This is not the moment to change the decision of the 2006 Chapter: no practical agreement without a solution to the doctrinal question.” (Report read at the Chapter in Albano 7 October 2011)
- Bishop Tissier de Mallerais : “We refuse a purely practical agreement because the doctrinal question is fundamental. Faith comes before legality. We cannot accept a legalization without the problem of the faith being solved. (…) “It is a new religion that is not the Catholic religion. We do not want any compromise with this religion, any risk of corruption, not even any appearance of conciliation, and it is this appearance that our so-called "regularization" would give us.”
(Interview in Rivarol, 1st June 2012).
Bishop Bernard Fellay: As long as Vatican II and the New Mass remain the norm, an agreement with Rome is ѕυιcιdє.
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre:
For as long as this Secretariat [for the Unity of Christians] keeps the false ecuмenism as its orientation and Roman ecclesiastical authorities approve it, we can affirm that they remain in open, official rupture with all the past of the Church and with its official Magisterium. 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[/b].
Spiritual Journey
In that little book which he called his last will and testament (http://www.dici.org/en/docuмents/the-society-of-st-pius-x-is-part-of-the-church-militant/)
Archbishop Lefebvre to Pope John Paul II, 2 June 1988:
Given the refusal to consider our requests, and it being evident that the purpose of this reconciliation is not at all the same in the eyes of the Holy See as it is in our eyes, we believe it preferable to wait for times more propitious for the return of Rome to Tradition.
...We shall continue to pray for modern Rome, infested with Modernism, to become once more Catholic Rome and to rediscover its 2,000 year-old Tradition. Then the problem of our reconciliation will have no further reason to exist and the Church will experience a new youth.
Archbishop Lefebvre 1988
It is not for me to know when Tradition will regain its rights at Rome, but I think it is my duty to provide the means of doing that which I shall call "Operation Survival," operation survival for Tradition. Today, this day, is "Operation Survival". If I had made this deal with Rome, by continuing with the agreements we had signed, and by putting them into practice, I would have performed "Operation ѕυιcιdє." There was no choice, we must live! That is why today, by consecrating these bishops, I am convinced that I am continuing to keep Tradition alive, that is to say, the Catholic Church.
(Bp. Fellay @ 2004)
At the beginning of October a new inter-religious meeting took place at Fatima. It is the same thing as Assisi. How can any agreement [with [New]Rome] be possible under such conditions? How can we pass over such aberrations in silence? We reject all "nuanced" agreements, we affirm the contradiction between the true and the false, and we assert our firm will to have nullam partem (no part) in such an enterprise. Why? Quite simply, because we want to remain Catholics. We must turn our backs with horror and disgust on such a way of seeing the Church and living in "communion". How can anyone claim that modernist "Rome" has changed and is becoming favorable to Tradition? What delusion!
May 19, 2010-- +Fellay insists that doctrinal foundation must precede practical solution
it is very clear that whatever practical solution that would happen without a sound doctrinal foundation would lead directly to disaster. We don’t want that. We want and need the security of a sound solution on the level of doctrine to go ahead. So to pretend there is something definitive prior to engaging in the doctrinal talks…
We have all these previous examples in front of us—the Fraternity of St. Peter, the Institute of Christ the King and all of the others are totally blocked on the level of doctrine because they first accepted the practical agreement.
http://www.dici.org/en/docuмents/bishop-be...octrinal-talks/ (http://www.dici.org/en/docuмents/bishop-bernard-fellay-on-the-rosary-crusade-doctrinal-talks/)
March 22, 2010--+Fellay confirms that, after 1988, ++Lefebvre believed that doctrinal foundation must precede practical solution
Previously the exchanges were rather informal, except on a few rare occasions, for instance at the beginning of the pontificate of John Paul II. Although Archbishop Lefebvre presented the main objections to the novelties and vehemently protested against the scandals that were rocking the Church, he was seeking at that time a practical [rather than a doctrinal] agreement: he thought that Rome could allow him to perform “the experiment of Tradition” by regularizing the Society of St. Pius X canonically before any in-depth debate. After 1988 he clearly indicated the path to follow: bring the discussion onto doctrinal grounds and onto the very essence of the crisis that is so devastating.
http://www.dici.org/en/docuмents/the-talks...l-perspectives/ (http://www.dici.org/en/docuмents/the-talks-in-rome-several-perspectives/)
Jan 31, 2010--+Galarreta assures that the question of a practical solution is totally excluded from talks
Then Bishop de Galarreta explained that the discussions were good because they are exclusively doctrinal and bear solely on the Second Vatican Council and the post-conciliar magisterium.
It was good first of all because these meetings are clearly placed on the doctrinal level. It involves a commission which has as its objective the study of doctrinal questions, and which does not have as its finality the consideration either theoretically or practically of any kind of accord whatsoever of a purely legal, canonical, or practical nature. That question is totally excluded. And this was very clearly stated. It is a discussion situated solely and exclusively on the doctrinal level.
http://www.dici.org/en/news/bishop-de-gala...cember-19-2009/ (http://www.dici.org/en/news/bishop-de-galarreta%E2%80%99s-comments-of-december-19-2009/)
Nov 2, 2009--DICI interviewer refers to the "conciliar church" as a doomed institution without protest from +Fellay
[DICI interviewer]: For the first time in 40 years we see the supreme authority of the Church recognize that there are problems both theological and doctrinal. Does the Pope not realize that the “conciliar church” (to use the words of Cardinal Benelli), and its reforms are doomed and that a return to tradition is necessary?
[Bp. Fellay]: I’m not sure everyone sees the doctrinal discussions in that way. I would say that for most of the hierarchy these discussions are necessary, not for the Church, but for us and our “return to full communion” to adopt the new ways.
http://www.dici.org/en/docuмents/interview...mber-15th-2009/ (http://www.dici.org/en/docuмents/interview-with-bishop-bernard-fellay-roodepoort-south-africa-september-15th-2009/)
February 3, 2009--John Vennari confirms previous SSPX position that doctrinal foundation must precede practical solution
The Society of St. Pius X made clear on numerous occasions their desire for any form of regularization to take place according to the following program: [...]
3) The search for the most adequate canonical solution after the doctrinal questions are resolved.
http://www.cfnews.org/page10/page18/page18.html (http://www.cfnews.org/page10/page18/page18.html)
-
You of course remember his statements which were quite specific that what he really required was their acceptance of the teaching of their predecessors as engendered in specific encyclicals and docuмents which he named.
Yes and none mentioned refusing an agreement with Rome. In fact there is only post 1988 one that talk about an an agreement:
Someone was saying to me yesterday, "But what if Rome accepted your bishops and then you were completely exempted from the other bishops' jurisdiction?" But firstly, they are a long way right now from accepting any such thing, and then, let them first make us such an offer!
peterp,
You’ve used the above quote of the Archbishop 4 times now since the beginning of this thread, but you should stop using it. It doesn’t work.
The original French wording that you gave us back on page 6, (and that I checked on the Avec l’Immaculee website), is this:
D’abord ils sont bien loin d’accepter une chose comme celle-là, ensuite il faudrait qu’ils nous en fassent l’offre, et je ne pense pas qu’ils y soient prêts, car le fond de la difficulté, c’est précisément de nous donner un évêque traditionaliste.
But the actual translation is this :
But firstly, they are a long way right now from accepting any such thing, then they would have to make us the offer, and I do not think that they are anywhere near doing so, for what has been up till now the difficulty has been precisely their giving to us a Traditionalist bishop.
(It wasn’t translated accurately in the english version of the conference)
which now doesn’t support your claim on page 11 that Archbishop Lefebvre was open to the idea of an offer from Rome after 1988.
In addition to this straw-man fallacy, I also pointed out the argument from silence fallacy viz. the absence of any discussions until the archbishop's death proves this "principle", when the archbishop had already recognized that there would be no contact with Rome for the next 2-3 years and that when hypothetical' question of an offer from Rome was put to him he clearly was open to the idea: "let them first make us such an offer!", again disproving this "principle".
Unbrandable, no you are wrong, I suggest to re-read the text and context. The whole paragraph is about an agreement. The archbishop did not foresee one because the root of the problem (viz. an agreement or lack of one) is being given a traditionalist bishop. Here is a professional translation:
Humanly speaking, I see no possibility of agreement at present. Someone said to me yesterday, "What if Rome accepted your bishops and you were completely exempted from the other bishops' jurisdiction?" First, they are far from agreeing to something like that, then they would have to make us an offer, and I do not think they will be ready for that because the precise root of the difficulty is giving us a traditionalist bishop ...
So Unbrandable, what is the archbishop's answer to the question posed ("What if Rome ...")? It is this:
He was saying it highly unlikely, but for any agreement, Rome would have to make this offer (hence was clearly open to the idea).
I do not think it wasn’t translated accurately, the article (Feb 1, 2001) does say it had been adapted from the French and I dare say the author's English translation better expresses what the archbishop was trying to say, particularly if the original source was audio (which it probably was).
peterp,
Your argument is unconvincing.
You can’t deduce that the Archbishop was “clearly open” to the idea of an agreement with Rome from the words, “then they would have to make us an offer,” used in this context.
It’s obvious that the Archbishop had changed his position after 1988. You’ve got just one quote that you’re trying to use, but just look at all the statements made by him after 1988 where he specifies that we must distance ourselves from Rome and that there would be no more discussions with Rome about an agreement if it didn’t convert (didn’t accept the doctrine of its predecessors) first.
I heard a good quote from someone once, something along the lines of “you have to work hard to be an atheist” (because there is a lot of proof of God in the world, and it is easy to see).Well, I think the same thing can be said here. You have to work hard not to see the truth, which in this case is the true spirit of Archbishop Lefebvre, because there are a lot of examples of it, and it is easy to see.
Unbrandable, go and ask any professional translator, someone who does this for a living, and they'll all tell you the same thing. It is clear that the archbishop is answering the question posed to him, in three parts: i) that (at that time) Rome was far from making an offer ii) they would need to make the society such an offer iii) gives the reason why Rome would not make the offer.
The other quotes are all irrelevant. What is relevant is this: the author(s) of this article would have us erroneously believe that "no agreement without Rome's conversion" was a society principle (without citing any sources). Firstly, the quote from the archbishop clearly demonstrates it was not and, secondly, not wanting to submit to the authority of Rome as a principle, would be, by definition, schismatic.
-
With the caveat that I am not following this thread in any detail at all
Clearly, because if you had you would have understood that what is being discussed, or more accurately what is being exposed, are the fallacies in the article. Hence, you've wasted your time posting quotes which are not relevant.
-
Unbrandable, go and ask any professional translator, someone who does this for a living, and they'll all tell you the same thing. It is clear ...
Peterp, I don't need to go and ask any professional translator. We all speak French in this house. We're a bilingual family.
-
.
This is a formidable collection of references, B from A. Your scholarly contribution is very appropriate, and we appreciate your diligence in this fine example of how the Society held the firm principle that Rome would have to rediscover Catholic Tradition FIRST, and then later, some negotiations could ensue, for any negotiation before Rome returns to the Faith would be irrelevant and counterproductive.
Not only that, it would only be working in the wrong direction, as any so-called practical agreement could ONLY result in the further corruption of the Society.
The APPROPRIATE principle at stake is this: submission to modernist Rome would be ѕυιcιdє. Therefore, refusal to submit to apostates is not 'schismatic' at all, as some rather addled thinking may propose. It is rather a most holy and faithful principle to NOT subject one's self to those who have abandoned the Faith.
ABL was of the mind that Rome had retained the authority, but had abandoned the Faith. That is where sedevacantists take issue with his judgment, and their reasoning is consistent on this matter. But for those of us who agree with ABL in this, we do not therefore prescind from the principle that our submission to Rome must be predicated on Rome's return to Catholic Tradition. Rome is in schism with the Faith of Catholics. Just take one quick peek at the antics of Pope Francis.
Apostasy is his middle name.
We cannot submit to apostasy. And for the moment, we are fortunate that Francis wants no part of any 'deal' with Tradition. He in fact wants no part with Tradition.
Even when he promotes the Rosary, he's got it all inside-out, upside-down and backwards. He acts as if he goes through the motions of the Rosary (who knows, it might just be a fake act!) but his ideas on grace, sin, virtue, holiness, truth, faith and God are all twisted and deformed. It's as though he wants to APPEAR as though Tradition is important, but he's looking for every chance to turn Tradition on its HEAD and render it a thing of the past. He's all for making PROGRESS -- but progress to WHAT he has no idea -- just 'progress' --- typical of Liberalism.
Rome and Society of St. Peter
February 1, 1989
Rector's letter (+BW):
...what Archbishop Lefebvre said in private a few weeks ago: - "Between
ourselves and Rome right now there is complete silence, thank goodness. ..... As for ourselves however, there is no problem. We have undergone another purification making the defense of Tradition more solid than ever. So if Rome wanted to re-open the dialogue, we would put the dogmatic problems in the fore-front. ...Now they must get the Council and the Decree on Religious Liberty into line with Tradition. Dogma first and foremost. But questions of dogma are far more difficult to arrange than questions of discipline. We can hope for no change so long as they think like modernists in Rome. Any change would mean for them signing the death warrant of everything they have been doing for the last 25 years".
- Archbishop Lefebvre: “supposing that Rome calls for a renewed dialogue, then, I will put conditions. I shall not accept being in the position where I was put during the dialogue. No more.
I will place the discussion at the doctrinal level: “Do you agree with the great encyclicals of all the popes who preceded you? Do you agree with Quanta Cura of Pius IX, Immortale Dei and Libertas of Leo XIII, Pascendi Gregis of Pius X, Quas Primas of Pius XI, Humani Generis of Pius XII? Are you in full communion with these Popes and their teachings? Do you still accept the entire Anti-Modernist Oath? Are you in favor of the social reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ? If you do not accept the doctrine of your predecessors, it is useless to talk! As long as you do not accept the correction of the Council, in consideration of the doctrine of these Popes, your predecessors, no dialogue is possible. It is useless.””
(Fideliter n. 66 nov-dec 1988, pp. 12-13).
- Bishop Williamson: “The greatest challenge to the SSPX in the next few years is to grasp the primacy of doctrine, and to measure everything else, and to pray, accordingly. In our sentimental world, the constant temptation is to go by feelings. Not going by feelings is what marked out Archbishop Lefebvre, and if in this respect we do not follow him, the SSPX will go the way of all flesh – into the arms of the (objective) destroyers of the Church. […] Doctrine, doctrine, doctrine!” (Angelus Press, 21 June 2008).
- Bishop Fellay : “…the clear awareness of the much more profound key issue which we have just described, forbids us to place the two issues on an equal footing. It is so clear for us that the issue of the Faith and of the spirit of faith has priority over all that we cannot consider a practical solution before the first issue is safely resolved. (…)
For us, each day brings additional proof that we must clarify to a maximum the underlying issues before taking one more step toward a canonical situation, which is not in itself displeasing to us. But this is a matter of following the order of the nature of things, and to start from the wrong end would unavoidably place us in an unbearable situation. We have daily proofs of this. What is at stake is nothing more nor less than our future existence.”(Superior General's Letter to Friends and Benefactors no.73, 23 October 2008)
- Bishop de Galarreta : “They evidently want to trouble us, to alarm us by pressuring us toward a purely practical agreement, which has always been the proposition of the cardinal [Hoyos]. Evidently you already know our thoughts. This way is a dead way; for us it is the road to death. Therefore there is no question of us following it. We cannot commit ourselves to betraying the public profession of Faith. Out of the question! It’s impossible.”
(Homily 27 June 2008, Ecône)
“This is not the moment to change the decision of the 2006 Chapter: no practical agreement without a solution to the doctrinal question.” (Report read at the Chapter in Albano 7 October 2011)
- Bishop Tissier de Mallerais : “We refuse a purely practical agreement because the doctrinal question is fundamental. Faith comes before legality. We cannot accept a legalization without the problem of the faith being solved. (…) “It is a new religion that is not the Catholic religion. We do not want any compromise with this religion, any risk of corruption, not even any appearance of conciliation, and it is this appearance that our so-called "regularization" would give us.”
(Interview in Rivarol, 1st June 2012).
Bishop Bernard Fellay: As long as Vatican II and the New Mass remain the norm, an agreement with Rome is ѕυιcιdє.
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre:
For as long as this Secretariat [for the Unity of Christians] keeps the false ecuмenism as its orientation and Roman ecclesiastical authorities approve it, we can affirm that they remain in open, official rupture with all the past of the Church and with its official Magisterium. 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[/b].
Spiritual Journey
In that little book which he called his last will and testament (http://www.dici.org/en/docuмents/the-society-of-st-pius-x-is-part-of-the-church-militant/)
Archbishop Lefebvre to Pope John Paul II, 2 June 1988:
Given the refusal to consider our requests, and it being evident that the purpose of this reconciliation is not at all the same in the eyes of the Holy See as it is in our eyes, we believe it preferable to wait for times more propitious for the return of Rome to Tradition.
...We shall continue to pray for modern Rome, infested with Modernism, to become once more Catholic Rome and to rediscover its 2,000 year-old Tradition. Then the problem of our reconciliation will have no further reason to exist and the Church will experience a new youth.
Archbishop Lefebvre 1988
It is not for me to know when Tradition will regain its rights at Rome, but I think it is my duty to provide the means of doing that which I shall call "Operation Survival," operation survival for Tradition. Today, this day, is "Operation Survival". If I had made this deal with Rome, by continuing with the agreements we had signed, and by putting them into practice, I would have performed "Operation ѕυιcιdє." There was no choice, we must live! That is why today, by consecrating these bishops, I am convinced that I am continuing to keep Tradition alive, that is to say, the Catholic Church.
(Bp. Fellay @ 2004)
At the beginning of October a new inter-religious meeting took place at Fatima. It is the same thing as Assisi. How can any agreement [with [New]Rome] be possible under such conditions? How can we pass over such aberrations in silence? We reject all "nuanced" agreements, we affirm the contradiction between the true and the false, and we assert our firm will to have nullam partem (no part) in such an enterprise. Why? Quite simply, because we want to remain Catholics. We must turn our backs with horror and disgust on such a way of seeing the Church and living in "communion". How can anyone claim that modernist "Rome" has changed and is becoming favorable to Tradition? What delusion!
May 19, 2010-- +Fellay insists that doctrinal foundation must precede practical solution
it is very clear that whatever practical solution that would happen without a sound doctrinal foundation would lead directly to disaster. We don’t want that. We want and need the security of a sound solution on the level of doctrine to go ahead. So to pretend there is something definitive prior to engaging in the doctrinal talks…
We have all these previous examples in front of us—the Fraternity of St. Peter, the Institute of Christ the King and all of the others are totally blocked on the level of doctrine because they first accepted the practical agreement.
http://www.dici.org/en/docuмents/bishop-be...octrinal-talks/ (http://www.dici.org/en/docuмents/bishop-bernard-fellay-on-the-rosary-crusade-doctrinal-talks/)
March 22, 2010--+Fellay confirms that, after 1988, ++Lefebvre believed that doctrinal foundation must precede practical solution
Previously the exchanges were rather informal, except on a few rare occasions, for instance at the beginning of the pontificate of John Paul II. Although Archbishop Lefebvre presented the main objections to the novelties and vehemently protested against the scandals that were rocking the Church, he was seeking at that time a practical [rather than a doctrinal] agreement: he thought that Rome could allow him to perform “the experiment of Tradition” by regularizing the Society of St. Pius X canonically before any in-depth debate. After 1988 he clearly indicated the path to follow: bring the discussion onto doctrinal grounds and onto the very essence of the crisis that is so devastating.
http://www.dici.org/en/docuмents/the-talks...l-perspectives/ (http://www.dici.org/en/docuмents/the-talks-in-rome-several-perspectives/)
Jan 31, 2010--+Galarreta assures that the question of a practical solution is totally excluded from talks
Then Bishop de Galarreta explained that the discussions were good because they are exclusively doctrinal and bear solely on the Second Vatican Council and the post-conciliar magisterium.
It was good first of all because these meetings are clearly placed on the doctrinal level. It involves a commission which has as its objective the study of doctrinal questions, and which does not have as its finality the consideration either theoretically or practically of any kind of accord whatsoever of a purely legal, canonical, or practical nature. That question is totally excluded. And this was very clearly stated. It is a discussion situated solely and exclusively on the doctrinal level.
http://www.dici.org/en/news/bishop-de-gala...cember-19-2009/ (http://www.dici.org/en/news/bishop-de-galarreta%E2%80%99s-comments-of-december-19-2009/)
Nov 2, 2009--DICI interviewer refers to the "conciliar church" as a doomed institution without protest from +Fellay
[DICI interviewer]: For the first time in 40 years we see the supreme authority of the Church recognize that there are problems both theological and doctrinal. Does the Pope not realize that the “conciliar church” (to use the words of Cardinal Benelli), and its reforms are doomed and that a return to tradition is necessary?
[Bp. Fellay]: I’m not sure everyone sees the doctrinal discussions in that way. I would say that for most of the hierarchy these discussions are necessary, not for the Church, but for us and our “return to full communion” to adopt the new ways.
http://www.dici.org/en/docuмents/interview...mber-15th-2009/ (http://www.dici.org/en/docuмents/interview-with-bishop-bernard-fellay-roodepoort-south-africa-september-15th-2009/)
February 3, 2009--John Vennari confirms previous SSPX position that doctrinal foundation must precede practical solution
The Society of St. Pius X made clear on numerous occasions their desire for any form of regularization to take place according to the following program: [...]
3) The search for the most adequate canonical solution after the doctrinal questions are resolved.
http://www.cfnews.org/page10/page18/page18.html (http://www.cfnews.org/page10/page18/page18.html)
-
No, the principle is not "wanting to remain Catholic."
I think this response just about sums it up for you Neil: you just don't get the theology (but then neither do the author(s) of this article).
“prudence … applies universal principles to the particular conclusions of practical matters."
Put simply, prudence involves three main elements: counsel, judgment, command. Let me give a few examples.
Example 1, the restitution of a deposit to the depositor:
counsel: the principle of natural equality
judgment: is the person the owner?
command: yes, return the money
Example 2, the returning of weapons to a madman:
counsel: the principles of natural equality, fifth commandment
judgment: will the person make evil use of the weapons deposited?
command: yes, do not return the weapons
Notice how the author(s) erroneously applies the term principle (page 2) to the command i.e. prudent action:
the universal principle is: return property to its owner.
another principle takes precedence and must be applied, viz., never give a gun to a madman.
Either they just don't get it or they're preparing the way for a stawman fallacy.
So if we take another example (a quote from the archbishop):
"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."
It is clear that the principle is wanting to remain Catholic, the judgment of the archbishop is the Conciliar Church poses a danger to remaining Catholic and the command is to separate oneself from the Conciliar movement. Yet the author(s) (page 3) describe this prudent act as the principle (and the second quote follows in the same vein) viz. the strawman fallacy.
As I wrote back on page 3 the society must (and they do), as a principle, want to submit to the authority of Rome. If they did not, they would be, by definition, schismatic. It is prudence and not a principle that has prevent them from coming to an agreement.
-
Unbrandable, go and ask any professional translator, someone who does this for a living, and they'll all tell you the same thing. It is clear ...
:facepalm:
Petwerp, I don't need to go and ask any professional translator.
We all speak French in this house. We're a bilingual family.
:roll-laugh1: .. :laugh2: .. :roll-laugh1:
.
-
.
Dear petwerp,
Clearly, if you had been paying attention (and presuming you can actually think), you would have understood that what is being discussed or more accurately, what is being exposed, is the fallacy in Fr. Themann's diatribe. Hence, you've wasted your time posting your accession to his fallacy, your accession being therefore no more relevant than are his erroneous precepts and consequently erroneous conclusions.
You accede to his irrelevancy.
.
-
.10 days is long enough, no? ....From post #65:
In consideration for those who may be tuning in late on this thread and don't have time to wade through all previous 64 posts, here is a copy of the Open Letter from page one, through page 3:
[.Note: Beginning in principio. My previous attempt to address a quasi-pressing issue fell on deaf ears and therefore, it seems that we ought to take this from the top after all. As previously noted, the source is Ecclesia Militans, whose source is TheRecusant, whose source is TrueTrad.com, whose source is Anonymous. I have made some corrections of obvious errors without noting the specific facts, to keep down the clutter.]
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.
[FWIW - I was unable to find this on True Trad -- I hope maybe they've taken it down to do some repairs, because not a few are in order!!! HAHAHAHAHA.....]
An Open Letter to Fr. Daniel Themann
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.
Page 3...........
[It seems to me that these first 2 pages alone are enough for an entire thread's discussion, and I haven't even made it halfway to the two posts I previously quoted from subsequent pages.]
page 3 ................ (Pages 1-2 are found here (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=29223&min=30#p4).)
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.
....................page 4......................
.
.
.
The misunderstanding Fr. Themann's conference has caused is apparently a thing that some of the would-be faithful are eager to hang on to, because it gives them an excuse to further practice the erroneous thinking they had already been practicing, which see, for those with eyes to do so.............
Here is another question in this Open Letter, to which Fr. Themann will likely never respond, because if he were to answer this question, he would likely suffer a severe demotion from his position, and perhaps expulsion from the tyrannical state of Menzingenitis:
Question: WHAT IS THE SUPERSEDING PRINCIPLE?
If you really think, Fr. Themann, 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.
Because you fail to invoke any superseding principle of action, Fr. Themann, and you fail to explain how (supposedly) changed circuмstances require the SSPX to follow this superseding principle, your explanation is woefully incomplete.
.
.
.
...continuing with page 4...
page 4
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.
.
-
.
page 5
Do you and the current SSPX leadership disagree with this conclusion? Do you think that the SSPX was really and truly “deprived” of its canonical structure? Or do you agree that the SSPX still possesses its canonical structure, as it has from its earliest days and further, that the conciliar church only apparently and falsely “deprived” the SSPX of this structure? As you say: “It is very important to answer this question correctly, or nothing else makes sense.” 10:40.
Whatever you hold, what you say in the quote [11:00] at the beginning of this section, is that the SSPX was “deprived” of its canonical structure. Your error shows you failed to distinguish between the true and the real on the one hand, and the false and merely apparent, on the other hand. Please distinguish between these.
As shown above, the SSPX already enjoys the same canonical structure it has had since its earliest days. Thus, there is no canonical structure it could seek from Rome – since the SSPX has this structure already! Nothing is lacking except for Rome to convert so that it will see the truth about the SSPX’s canonical structure (as well as see many other things). If fact, it would be false and misleading for the SSPX to pretend, when talking with Rome, that the SSPX lacks a true and real canonical structure already!
Bishop Fellay’s Important Secret Friends in Rome Told Him a Story Which Could be Plainly Seen from the Start, as Inconsistent.
You tell us that Bishop Fellay’s secret sources said that: “Benedict XVI wants to recognize the Society unilaterally.” 23:00. You add that: “it would be just like the freeing of the Mass.” First of all, the traditional Mass was not really freed, because it was neither truly abrogated nor truly restricted as Rome pretends (and thus, there was nothing to free). What the motu proprio did do, was supposedly reduce the restrictions but only for those using the traditional Mass for purely nostalgic reasons. More on that topic later in this letter.
But regarding Pope Benedict XVI’s purported willingness to “recognize” the SSPX “unilaterally,” didn’t it occur to you and to your superiors that, if it had been really true that “Benedict XVI would recognize the Society unilaterally,” then there would be no need for the SSPX to make any proposals, negotiations and doctrinal preambles? Didn’t this occur to any of you? If these supposed sources were true, then the Society would not have to do anything! According to Bishop Fellay’s secret friends, Pope Benedict was (supposedly) seeking “no concessions from you; you will simply be recognized, as you are, unilaterally.” 23:19.
If the SSPX needed to make an offer (such as the offer it made on 4-15-12), then Bishop Fellay’s secret sources should have been seen from the start as obviously wrong, when they told him that any “recognition” would be unilateral. If you say that the 4-15-12 Doctrinal Preamble was not an “offer” but only a statement clarifying truth, then why withdraw a statement which clarifies the truth? Bishop Fellay says he withdrew the preamble on August 28, 2012. (7) Nor did the errors in his doctrinal preamble cause Bishop Fellay to withdraw it, because he did not repudiate it, and the SSPX sent you to St. Marys to try to defend the preamble’s contents.
_______________________________________
7. Cor Unum letter of Bishop Fellay, Easter 2013, http://www.therecusant.com/fellay-note-cor-unum-mar2013
.....................................page 6.....................................
-
.
page 6
Summary of this section:
Bishop Fellay (and you) cannot have it both ways: either his important secret friends should have been seen from the start, as giving false information which Bishop Fellay should ignore, or there was no need for Bishop Fellay to make an offer, as he did. Either way, an uncompromising traditional Catholic would have been indifferent to their claims and would not have responded to Rome by bargaining. Instead, he simply would have said: “the pope can do justice (to the SSPX and Catholic Tradition) any time he wants to do so.”
The SSPX’s Explanations are Inconsistent, Regarding the Current SSPX’s Willingness to Negotiate a Purely Practical Agreement with Rome.
You say:
But what has changed is that Bishop Fellay no longer
places as a precondition for canonical structure that
Rome convert, that is, that Rome acknowledge the
errors of Vatican II and the evil nature of the mass [sic].
… Therefore, there is a change in Bishop Fellay’s prudential
policy. It is the only change in policy, and it is a prudential
policy, not a change in principle.
42:10 (emphasis added).
As shown above, the current SSPX’s rejection of no agreement with unconverted Rome is a change in principle upon which the SSPX was acting. You are wrong when you falsely say here that it is “not a change in principle”.
Besides, you really should coordinate your explanations with Fr. Rostand, your superior, so that the explanations don’t contradict each other. You say (above) that the SSPX did change and is now willing to make a deal with unconverted Rome. By contrast, Fr. Rostand says there is no change. He says the SSPX still requires the conversion of Rome but that the conversion of Rome does not mean that Rome will convert. Fr. Rostand says:
The General Chapter discussed for a long time on what do
we mean by a conversion of Rome. Well, I think it means
mostly that Tradition would be supported enough to continue
its growth and to be able to continue to work. (8)
It should be obvious to anyone that, for unconverted Rome to allow tradition to grow and work is very different from Rome itself being converted. Fr. Rostand is trying to “define” away the fact that the SSPX has changed this firm principle. (8a)
Do you agree with Fr. Rostand’s position – that the “conversion of Rome” has nothing to do with Rome converting?
Bishop Fellay Continues to be Ready to Make an Agreement with Unconverted Rome, If He Considers the Terms Favorable.
The casual observer might be excused for making the false supposition that Bishop Fellay has “learned his lesson” and will never again consider making an agreement submitting the SSPX to unconverted Rome. Bishop Fellay says things which are carefully designed to give the
____________________________________
8. http://archives.sspx.org/District_Superiors_Ltrs/2013_ds_ltrs/fr_rostand_12-19-2012_ap_interview/fr_rostand_12-19-2012_ap_interview-part_2.htm (emphasis added). [Fr. Pfeiffer made several allusions to the use of "mostly" here, showing that this is not the place or the word as traditional priests have used it. What does it mean that God made you? "Well, I think it means 'mostly' that God made me to know Him, to love Him and to serve Him"...(?)]
8a. [Consequently, the followers of Fr. Themann are wont to deny that this firm principle EVER EXISTED in the first place! -- when Fr. Themann only WEAKLY goes to that extreme -- but we should not ignore the fact that he does go there!]
[6 pages down, 24 more to go .... and there is still Issue 13 setting still while Issue 14 is going to press..........]
.
-
.
Page 7
impression that he will never again attempt to make an agreement with unconverted Rome. But that impression is false for three reasons:
1. Bishop Fellay says vague things suggesting but never saying that he won’t make an agreement submitting the SSPX to unconverted Rome. Here is an October 2013 example of his many vague suggestions that he won’t make such a deal:
To imagine that some people continue to pretend we are
decided (still) to get an agreement with Rome. Poor people.
I really challenge them to prove they mean [sic]. They
pretend that I think something else from what I do. They
are not in my head. (9)
Note that Bishop Fellay doesn’t deny he is still open to a deal with Rome and that he would like to make one. What does he say here? He says:
1) he pities some people;
2) who are “not in [his] head”, and,
3) who pretend they know he has decided to get an agreement with Rome, and,
4) they wrongly pretend they know what he thinks, and,
5) they can’t prove what they think.
Fr. Themann, if you think Bishop Fellay is not still completely willing to make a deal submitting the SSPX to the practical control of unconverted Rome, why doesn’t he say so plainly?
2. The second reason showing that Bishop Fellay is still open to submitting the SSPX to the practical control of unconverted Rome, is that he has never admitted he was wrong in his actions last year seeking this agreement.
When a person admits he was wrong in some matter, this indicates he is less likely to make the same mistake again.
Here is the typical way Bishop Fellay phrases the matter now to escape personal responsibility: “We thank God, we have been preserved from any kind of Agreement from last year.”[sic] (10) Bishop Fellay talks as if the SSPX was spared from the destruction of a hurricane, rather than spared from the destruction which would have flowed from his own attempts to reach an agreement -- submitting the SSPX to unconverted Rome!
Although Bishop Fellay indicates here that an agreement last year would have turned out badly because Pope Francis became pope, this in no way forecloses a future agreement with unconverted Rome when the terms are “favorable.” This consideration leads us to the third reason, immediately below:
3. IF Bishop Fellay holds your extremely flexible position regarding prudence, THEN nothing will keep him from deciding to make an agreement with unconverted Rome at any future time that suits him, SINCE he has no principle controlling his actions. THEREFORE, all he would need to do is declare that circuмstances have changed. [[Please refer to the notes between pages 3 & 4, for the details leading to this logical conclusion.]]
______________________________
9. http://sspx.org/en/bishop-fellay-pope-francis (parenthetical word inserted into the original by SSPX.org; bracketed “sic” added by us).
10. http://sspx.org/en/bishop-fellay-pope-francis
[[As I check this link Jan. 25, 2014, the sspx.org site has NOT FOUND ~ they have scrubbed the website, but perhaps someone has a copy.]]
.
-
.
Page 8
Archbishop Lefebvre Recognized His Mistake in Signing the May 1988 Protocol and from Then Until His Death, He Maintained the Principle: No Agreement with Unconverted Rome!
Showing he learned his lesson, Archbishop Lefebvre maintained until his death that he would not even discuss an agreement with Rome until Rome converted. Archbishop Lefebvre repeatedly showed his resolution not to do what Bishop Fellay seeks and has sought. When asked by Fideliter magazine, “What do you think of a possible re-opening of a dialogue with Rome?” Archbishop Lefebvre made the following clear reply:
We do not have the same outlook on a reconciliation.
Cardinal Ratzinger sees it as reducing us, bringing us
back to Vatican II. We see it as a return of Rome to
Tradition. We don’t agree; it is a dialogue of the deaf.*
I can’t speak much of the future; mine is behind me --
but if I live a little while, supposing that Rome calls for a
new dialogue, then, I will put conditions. I shall not
accept being put in the position where I was during the
[May 1988] dialogue. No more!
I will put the discussion at the doctrinal level: “Do
you agree with the great encyclicals of all the popes who
preceded you? Do you agree with Quanta Cura of Pius
IX, Immortale Dei and Libertas of Leo XIII, Pascendi
Gregis of Pius X, Quas Primas of Pius XI, Humani
Generis of Pius XII? Are you in full communion with
these popes and their teachings? Do you still accept the
entire Anti-Modernist Oath [Sacrorum Antistitum]? Are
you in favor of the social reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ?”
If you do not accept the doctrine of your predecessors,
it is useless to talk! As long as you do not accept the
correction of the Council, in consideration of the doctrine
of these Popes, your predecessors, no dialogue is possible.
It is useless.
Fideliter, quoted by Fr. Laisney in Archbishop Lefebvre
and the Vatican, pp.223-224 (emphases and bracketed
date added).
So, if Bishop Fellay was following Archbishop Lefebvre, he would treat seriously Rome’s request to talk but he would keep the discussion at the doctrinal level, as Archbishop Lefebvre vowed he would, after his May 1988 mistake. This is why Archbishop Lefebvre declared the principle that “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, emphasis added.) That is, Archbishop Lefebvre declared any good priest must not make a deal with Rome until Rome rediscovers the Tradition of the Church.
The current SSPX is embarrassed by Archbishop Lefebvre’s strong principle. So you say that the current SSPX’s actions are just “normal.” You say that for the SSPX “to have some dealings with Rome is normal.” 7:19. But Bishop Fellay does not simply seek “some dealings” (to use your phrase). 7:19. Bishop Fellay wants to make an agreement submitting the SSPX to the practical control of Rome and even to the local bishops, as he admitted in his 6-8-12 DICI interview. (11)
________________________________
11. http://www.dici.org/en/news/interview-with-bishop-fellay-superior-general-of-thesociety-of-st-pius-x/
[[*"It's a dialogue of the deaf" = Does SGBF have ears to hear the voice of the Founder?! ~~ I just checked this link (11) and arrived at, "We're sorry, that page was not found. Error 404." ~ The Menzingen-denizens have scrubbed the archives again. We should be keeping track of these. Does anyone have a copy? There used to be one on YouTube. Did anyone copy that? I'm sorry to say, I saw it so many times, I got tired of seeing it again! The damage control machine in ACTION! Watch petwerp et. al. come chiming in saying, 'See! It never did exist! You made it all up!' IOW, DOWN THE MEMORY HOLE, like in 1984, George Orwell, only it's 30 years late!! HAHAHAHA]]
-
.
Page 9
Do you agree with Archbishop Lefebvre when he said that superiors (Rome) form subordinates (the SSPX), and that subordinates (SSPX) don’t form the superiors (Rome)? Because Bishop Fellay is looking to subordinate the SSPX to Rome’s practical control, the inevitable consequence is that Rome will form (i.e., corrupt) the SSPX.
Even Bishop Fellay used to recognize the ѕυιcιdє of making a practical agreement with unconverted Rome. Here is what he said in 2003, about the practical agreement which Rome made with the priests in Campos, Brazil:
- ne will dominate the other. The stronger will dominate,
and since there is a movement of submission to Rome, it is
Rome who dominates, it is the present day Church. This
Church is governed by principles, by a powerful group
which drives the Church in a very precise direction. This
direction is the immense fuzziness, otherwise known as the [[unclean]]
spirit of Vatican II. To make such an agreement, as they have,
implies that they have placed themselves in the movement
of Vatican II, in this flood-tide which is moving the conciliar
Church.
You Misrepresent
Archbishop Lefebvre’s Repudiation Of The May 1988 Protocol.
You try to justify the scandalous liberalism of Bishop Fellay’s 4-15-12 Doctrinal Preamble, by attempting to make a comparison to the May 5, 1988 protocol which Archbishop Lefebvre signed.
But there are big differences. One important difference is the significant differences in content, such as the fact that Bishop Fellay says that the new mass’s promulgation was “legitimate” whereas Archbishop Lefebvre did not say the promulgation was legitimate. (12.a) Later in our letter, we discuss this term and other terms of Bishop Fellay’s 4-15-12 Doctrinal Preamble. (12.b)
Another important difference is what happened immediately after Archbishop Lefebvre signed the protocol. Archbishop Lefebvre was pressured into signing the protocol and he recanted within hours of signing it, as soon as he had some quiet in which to reflect.
He signed the protocol at 4:30 p.m., on May 5, 1988. (Biography of Archbishop Lefebvre, p.554) He then spent a sleepless night, during which he composed his retraction letter. He declared: “Oh! How I wanted morning to come so that I could give Fr. du Chalard my letter of retraction which I had written during the night [of May 5, 1998].” (Biography of Archbishop Lefebvre, p.555)
Your version is far different from what Bishop Tissier says (above) in the Archbishop’s biography. This is what you say:
After he signed the May 5th protocol, Archbishop Lefebvre
wrote a letter to Cardinal Ratzinger the very next day. …
But in this letter to
____________________________________
12.a. See the May 5, 1988 protocol, in which Archbishop Lefebvre does not say that the new mass promulgation was “legitimate.” The protocol is available here: http://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Archbishop_Lefebvre_and_the_Vatican/Part_I/1988-05-05B.htm
12.b. See the 4-15-12 Doctrinal Preamble, in which Bishop Fellay says that the new mass was promulgated “legitimately.” His Doctrinal Preamble is available here: http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/New-very-accurate-reliable-translation-of-Fellays-Doctrinal-Statement
[[Both of these links are still active, above.]]
.
-
Here is the contents of the linked page in 12.a, above (if the Menzingen-denizens scrub that page, this will still be on CathInfo):
(http://www.sspxasia.com/Images/S.%20FX2%20top%20left%20c.jpg)(http://www.sspxasia.com/Images/S.%20FX2%20top%20right%20d.jpg)
(http://www.sspxasia.com/Images/sspx-text-e.gif)
Archbishop LEFEBVRE and the VATICAN
May 5, 1988
Protocol of Accord
This protocol contains a doctrinal declaration which Archbishop Lefebvre judged barely acceptable. Only two of the seven members of the proposed Roman Commission were to be upholders of Tradition, which was a grave handicap. Nevertheless, at that moment, His Grace saw fit to sign this Accord. In the Protocol Rome recognizes, in principle, that the episcopate is to be conferred on a member of the Society of Saint Pius X. Note how vague is left the date of an eventual consecration. Note also, that since the jurisdiction would come from the local bishop, the bishop proposed by Rome for the Society would be a powerless bishop, not able to protect the priests and faithful from modernist influences.
I. TEXT OF THE DOCTRINAL DECLARATION
I, Marcel Lefebvre, Archbishop-Bishop Emeritus of Tulle, as well as the members of the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X founded by me:
a) Promise to be always faithful to the Catholic Church and the Roman Pontiff, its Supreme Pastor, Vicar of Christ, Successor of Blessed Peter in his primacy as head of the body of bishops.
b) We declare our acceptance of the doctrine contained in §2541 of the dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium of Vatican Council II on the ecclesiastical magisterium and the adherence which is due to it.
c) Regarding certain points taught by Vatican Council II or concerning later reforms of the liturgy and law, and which do not appear to us easily reconcilable with Tradition, we pledge that we will have a positive attitude of study and communication with the Apostolic See, avoiding all polemics.
d) Moreover, we declare that we recognize the validity of the Sacrifice of the Mass and the Sacraments celebrated with the intention of doing what the Church does, and according to the rites indicated in the typical editions of the Roman Missal and the Rituals of the Sacraments promulgated by Popes Paul VI and John Paul II.
e) Finally, we promise to respect the common discipline of the Church and the ecclesiastical laws, especially those contained in the Code of Canon Law promulgated by Pope John Paul II, without prejudice to the special discipline granted to the Society by particular law.
II. JURIDICAL QUESTIONS
Considering the fact that the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X has been conceived for 18 years as a society of common life—and after studying the propositions formulated by H. E. Marcel Lefebvre and the conclusions of the Apostolic Visitation conducted by His Eminence Cardinal Gagnon— the canonical form most suitable is that of a society of apostolic life.
1. Society of Apostolic Life
This solution is canonically possible, and has the advantage of eventually inserting into the clerical Society of apostolic life lay people as well (for example, coadjutor Brothers).
According to the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1983, Canons 731-746, this Society enjoys full autonomy, can form its members, can incardinate clerics, and can insure the common life of its members.
In the proper Statutes, with flexibility and inventive possibility with respect to the known models of these Societies of apostolic life, a certain exemption is foreseen with respect to the diocesan bishops (cf. Canon 591) for what concerns public worship, the cura animarum, and other apostolic activities, taking into account Canons 679-683. As for jurisdiction with regards to the faithful who have recourse to the priests of the Society, it will be conferred on these priests either by the Ordinaries of the place or by the Apostolic See.
2. Roman Commission
A commission to coordinate relations with the different dicasteries and diocesan bishops, as well as to resolve eventual problems and disputes, will be constituted through the care of the Holy See, and will be empowered with the necessary faculties to deal with the questions indicated above (for example, implantation at the request of the faithful of a house of worship where there is no house of the Society, ad mentem, Canon 683, §2).
This commission will be composed of a president, a vice-president, and five members, of which two shall be from the Society.42
Among other things it would have the function of exercising vigilance and lending assistance to consolidate the work of reconciliation, and to regulate questions relative to the religious communities having a juridical or moral bond with the Society.
3. Condition of Persons Connected to the Society
1) The members of the clerical Society of apostolic life (priests and lay coadjutor brothers) are governed by the Statutes of the Society of Pontifical Right.
2) The oblates, both male and female, whether they have taken private vows or not, and the members of the Third Order connected with the Society, all belong to an association of the faithful connected with the Society according to the terms of Canon 303, and collaborate with it.
3) The Sisters (meaning the congregation founded by Archbishop Lefebvre) who make public vows: they constitute a true institute of consecrated life, with its own structure and proper autonomy, even if a certain type of bond is envisaged for the unity of its spirituality with the Superior of the Society. This Congregation—at least at the beginning—would be dependent on the Roman Commission, instead of the Congregation for Religious.
4) The members of the communities living according to the rule of various religious institutes (Carmelites, Benedictines, Dominicans, etc.) and who have a moral bond with the Society: these are to be given, case by case, a particular statute regulating their relations with the respective Order.
5) The priests who, on an individual basis, are morally connected with the Society, will receive a personal statute taking into account their aspirations and at the same time the obligations flowing from their incardination. The other particular cases of the same nature will be examined and resolved by the Roman Commission.43
Regarding the lay people who ask for pastoral assistance from the communities of the Society: they remain under the jurisdiction of the diocesan bishop, but—notably by reason of the liturgical rites of the communities of the Society—they can go to them for the administration of the sacraments (for the Sacraments of Baptism, Confirmation and Marriage,44 the usual notifications must still be given to their proper parish; cf. Canons 878, 896, 1122).
Note: There is room to consider the particular complexity:
1) Of the question of reception by the laity of the Sacraments of Baptism, Confirmation, Marriage, in the communities of the Society.
2) Of the question of communities practicing the rule of such and such a religious institute, without belonging to it.
The Roman Commission will have the responsibility of resolving these problems.
4. Ordinations
For the ordinations, two phases must be distinguished:
1) In the immediate future: For the ordinations scheduled to take place in the immediate future, Archbishop Lefebvre would be authorized to confer them or, if he were unable, another bishop accepted by himself.
2) Once the Society of apostolic life is erected:
• As far as possible, and in the judgment of the Superior General, the normal way is to be followed: to send dimissorial letters to a bishop who agrees to ordain members of the Society.
• In view of the particular situation of the Society (cf. infra): the ordination of a member of the Society as a bishop, who, among other duties, would also be able to proceed with ordinations.
5. Problem of a Bishop
1) At the doctrinal (ecclesiological) level, the guarantee of stability and maintenance of the life and activity of the Society is assured by its erection as a Society of apostolic life of pontifical right, and the approval of its statutes by the Holy Father.
2) But, for practical and psychological45 reasons, the consecration of a member of the Society as a bishop appears useful. This is why, in the framework of the doctrinal and canonical solution of reconciliation, we suggest to the Holy Father that he name a bishop chosen from within the Society, presented by Archbishop Lefebvre. In consequence of the principle indicated above (1), this bishop normally is not the Superior General of the Society, but it appears opportune that he be a member of the Roman Commission.
6. Particular Problems to be Resolved (By Decree or Declaration)
1) Lifting of the suspensio a divinis on Archbishop Lefebvre and dispensation from the irregularities incurred by the fact of the ordinations.
2) Sanatio in radice, at least ad cautelam, of the marriages already celebrated by the priests of the Society without the required delegation.
3) Provision for an “amnesty” and an accord for the houses and places of worship erected—or used—by the Society, until now without the authorization of the bishops.
For the convenience of our readers, we put here the text of §25 of Lumen Gentium (including footnotes found in the original), oftentimes referred to in these docuмents [Taken from, Flannery, Austin, O.P., Vatican Council II, The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Docuмents (Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1975), pp.379-381]. The passage to which Archbishop Lefebvre refers in his conference of May 10 and which condemns all the modernist bishops is the following: “This infallibility, however, with which the divine redeemer wished to endow his Church in defining doctrine pertaining to faith and morals, is co-extensive with the deposit of revelation, which must be religiously guarded and loyally and courageously expounded.” How many bishops in our days are “religiously guarding and faithfully expounding” the Deposit of Revelation?
Lumen Gentium, §25
25. Among the more important duties of bishops that of preaching the Gospel has pride of place.46 For the bishops are heralds of the faith, who draw new disciples to Christ; they are authentic teachers, that is, teachers endowed with the authority of Christ, who preach the faith to the people assigned to them, the faith which is destined to inform their thinking and direct their conduct; and under the light of the Holy Spirit they make that faith shine forth, drawing from the storehouse of revelation new things and old (cf. Mt. 13:52); they make it bear fruit and with watchfulness they ward off whatever errors threaten their flock (cf. II Tim. 4:14). Bishops who teach in communion with the Roman Pontiff are to be revered by all as witnesses of divine and Catholic truth; the faithful, for their part, are obliged to submit to their bishops’ decision, made in the name of Christ, in matters of faith and morals, and to adhere to it with a ready and respectful allegiance of mind. This loyal submission of the will and intellect must be given, in a special way, to the authentic teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, even when he does not speak ex cathedra in such wise, indeed, that his supreme teaching authority be acknowledged with respect, and sincere assent be given to decisions made by him, conformably with his manifest mind and intention, which is made known principally either by the character of the docuмents in question, or by the frequency with which a certain doctrine is proposed, or by the manner in which the doctrine is formulated.
Although the bishops, taken individually, do not enjoy the privilege of infallibility, they do, however, proclaim infallibly the doctrine of Christ on the following conditions: namely, when, even though dispersed throughout the world but preserving for all that amongst themselves and with Peter's successor the bond of communion, in their authoritative teaching concerning matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement that a particular teaching is to be held definitively and absolutely.47 This is still more clearly the case when, assembled in an ecuмenical council, they are, for the universal Church, teachers of and judges in matters of faith and morals, whose decisions must be adhered to with the loyal and obedient assent of faith.48
This infallibility, however, with which the divine redeemer wished to endow his Church in defining doctrine pertaining to faith and morals, is co-extensive with the deposit of revelation, which must be religiously guarded and loyally and courageously expounded. The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful—who confirms his brethren in the faith (cf. Lk. 22:32)—he proclaims in an absolute decision a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals.49 For that reason his definitions are rightly said to be irreformable by their very nature and not by reason of the assent of the Church, in as much as they were made with the assistance of the Holy Spirit promised to him in the person of blessed Peter himself; and as a consequence they are in no way in need of the approval of others, and do not admit of appeal to any other tribunal. For in such a case the Roman Pontiff does not utter a pronouncement as a private person, but rather does he expound and defend the teaching of the Catholic faith as the supreme teacher of the universal Church, in whom the Church’s charism of infallibility is present in a singular way.50 The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter’s successor, they exercise the supreme teaching office. Now, the assent of the Church can never be lacking to such definitions on account of the same Holy Spirit’s influence, through which Christ's whole flock is maintained in the unity of the faith and makes progress in it.51
Furthermore, when the Roman Pontiff, or the body of bishops together with him, define a doctrine, they make the definition in conformity with revelation itself, to which all are bound to adhere and to which they are obliged to submit; and this revelation is transmitted integrally either in written form or in oral tradition through the legitimate succession of bishops and above all through the watchful concern of the Roman Pontiff himself; and through the light of the Spirit of truth it is scrupulously preserved in the Church and unerringly explained.52The Roman Pontiff and the bishops, by reason of their office and the seriousness of the matter, apply themselves with zeal to the work of enquiring by every suitable means into this revelation and of giving apt expression to its contents;53 they do not, however, admit any new public revelation as pertaining to the divine deposit of faith.54
41. Complete text of §25 found at the end of this chapter, pp.77-79.
42. This paragraph replaces the notes in the April 15 minutes. See how this does not correspond to the suggestions of the representatives of the Society, but rather gives full majority to the members from outside Catholic Tradition. This is perhaps the major point of failure in this whole Protocol.
43. This whole paragraph is new. See again how it separates these priests from the moral support they were getting from their connection with the Society.
44. Here they allow the possibility to give these Sacraments.
45. Please note the choice of words! As if the need for a bishop from among Tradition would not be, first of all, for a reason of Faith: to have an authority without any compromise with the errors of the day.
46. Cf. Council of Trent, Deer. de reform., Session V, can. 2, n. 9, and Session XXIV, can. 4; Conc. Oecr. pp.645, 739.
47. Cf. Vatican Council I, Const. Dogm. Dei Filius, 3: Denzinger, 1712 (3011). Cf. the note added to schema I de Eccl. (taken from St. Rob. Bellarmine): Mansi 51, 579C; also the revised schema of Const. II de Ecclesia Christi, with Kleutgen's commentary: Mansi 53, 313 AB. Pius IX, Letter Tuas libenter: Denzinger, 1683 (2879).
48. Code of Canon Law, Canons 1322-1323.
49. Cf. Vatican Council I, Const. Dogm. Pastor aeternus: Denzinger, 1839 (3074).
50. Cf. Gasser's explanation of Vatican Council I: Mansi 52, 1213 AC.
51. Gasser, ibid.: Mansi 1214 A
52.Gasser, ibid.: Mansi 1215 CD, 1216-1217 A.
53.Gasser, ibid.: Mansi 1213
54. Vatican Council II Const. Dogm. Pastor Aeternus, 4: Denzinger, 1836 (3070).
May 5 , 1988
contents
May 5 , 1988
Courtesy of the Angelus Press, Regina Coeli House
2918 Tracy Avenue, Kansas City, MO 64109
Home | Newsletters | Library | Vocations | History | Links | Search | Contact
-
Page 9, cont'd.
Archbishop Lefebvre Recognized His Mistake
in Signing the May 1988 Protocol,
And from Then Until His Death, He Maintained the Principle:
No Agreement with Unconverted Rome.
What happened immediately after Archbishop Lefebvre
signed the May 5th protocol in 1988?
[/b][/size]
Archbishop Lefebvre was pressured into signing the protocol and he recanted within hours of signing it, as soon as he had some quiet in which to reflect.
He signed the protocol at 4:30 p.m., on May 5, 1988. (Biography of Archbishop Lefebvre, p.554)
He then spent a sleepless night, during which he composed his retraction letter. He declared: “Oh! How I wanted morning to come so that I could give Fr. du Chalard my letter of retraction which I had written during the night [of May 5,1998].” (Biography of Archbishop Lefebvre, p.555)
[The] version [that Fr. Themann proffers] is far different from what Bishop Tissier says (above) in the Archbishop’s biography. This is what [Fr. Themann says]:
After he signed the May 5th protocol, Archbishop
Lefebvre wrote a letter to Cardinal Ratzinger the
very next day. ... But in this letter to Cardinal Page 10
Ratzinger, he does not reject the protocol. He
simply adds one more provision. ...
Then, speaking in the person of Archbishop Lefebvre, [Fr. Themann says]:
I don’t take away what I said in the protocol ...
I ask for one more provision...
Then, going back to his own person, [Fr. Themann says]:
He does not reject the May 5th protocol as such.
He insists on one additional condition to test the
faith, the good faith of Rome. (8:29–11:16, emphasis added)
In this quote immediately above, [Fr. Themann says] repeatedly, that Archbishop Lefebvre “does not reject the protocol.” But [Fr. Themann is] wrong. Archbishop Lefebvre said he rejected the protocol (viz., his word was that he retracted his agreement to this protocol). (Biography of Archbishop Lefebvre, p.555)
We assume you, [Fr. Themann,] are not claiming that there is a relevant difference between the words “reject” and “retract”.
Archbishop Lefebvre called his May 6, 1988 letter a “letter of retraction.” Id.
Is that consistent with your claim that “he does not reject the protocol,” [Fr. Themann]?
Is his “retraction” consistent with your claim that he said, “I don’t take away what I said in the protocol?”
Hear your words beginning at 8:29.
Further, on May 6, 1988 after he retracted his agreement to the protocol, Archbishop Lefebvre called the protocol “infamous.” (Biography of Archbishop Lefebvre, p.555) Do you think he did not reject what he called “infamous,” Fr. Themann?
You assert about the protocol that, on May 6, 1988, “He simply adds one more provision” which you also call “one additional condition.” Id. But the truth is that Archbishop Lefebvre not only retracted the “infamous” protocol, but he gave an ultimatum to the pope.
Here is how Bishop Tissier recounts what
Archbishop Lefebvre did on May 6, 1988:
The following day, after Mass and Prime, he finished
off his letter and put it in an envelope which he showed
to Fr. du Chalard at breakfast:
‘Father, before leaving, it is essential that this letter be
taken to Cardinal Ratzinger. It’s a little bomb.’
It was a new ultimatum: [Then Bishop Tissier quotes
Archbishop Lefebvre’s letter to Cardinal Ratzinger]:
The date of June 30 was clearly given as a deadline, in
one of my previous letters. I have given you a file
concerning the candidates. There are still nearly two
months to prepare the mandate ... The holy father can
easily shorten the process so that the mandate can be
sent by mid-June.
Page 11
Were the reply to be in the negative, I would see
myself obliged in conscience to go ahead with the
consecration....
(Biography of Archbishop Lefebvre, p.555, emphasis
added, bracketed words added.)
Archbishop Lefebvre’s May 6, 1988 ultimatum was simply repeating what he had determined to do before May 6th. In January, 1988, Archbishop Lefebvre had already decided to consecrate three bishops. (Biography of Archbishop Lefebvre, in a section called, “New Ultimatum,” p.551)
“On February 2nd, Archbishop Lefebvre confirmed the news: ‘I am resolved to consecrate at least three bishops on June 30th, and I hope to have the approval of John Paul II. But if he were not to give it to me, I would do it for the good of the Church and for the continuance of Tradition’.” (Biography of Archbishop Lefebvre, in a section called, “New Ultimatum,” p. 552, emphasis added.)
On May 10, 1988, regarding the consecrations, Archbishop Lefebvre said,
“June 30th is the deadline. ... As I said on the television in
Germany: On June 30, there will be Episcopal consecrations
with or without Rome’s agreement.”
(Biography of Archbishop Lefebvre, p.556, emphasis added.)
Note the fact that Archbishop Lefebvre repeated his ultimatum on television, shows that he was keeping the public informed about what he was doing.
So you see, Father Themann, your story is very different from the narrative in Bishop Tissier’s Biography of Archbishop Lefebvre. What happened on May 5th, as Bishop Tissier explains, is that Archbishop Lefebvre was pressured into signing the protocol and he recanted within hours. He spent a sleepless night, during which he wrote his retraction of the protocol, which protocol he called “infamous,” later that day. Then, on May 6, 1988, he renewed his ultimatum that he would consecrate at least three bishops (not one bishop, as you say) and that he would perform the consecrations on June 30th, with or without the pope’s permission.
Regarding the reason for Archbishop Lefebvre retracting his agreement to the protocol, you specifically say:
[He] simply adds one more provision. And I will say it
was a practical provision. In this letter, he says the pope
must guarantee that we will have the consecration of a
bishop by June 30th. (Disc 2, track 1, 9:00.)
The explanation you give regarding why Archbishop Lefebvre changed his mind, is false.
Whereas you say that Archbishop Lefebvre changed his mind regarding the protocol because there was no promise of a bishop, read the words of Archbishop Lefebvre (below), who tells us that he withdrew his signature as a matter of principle, because Rome had not converted.
Page 12
During his Episcopal consecration sermon, Archbishop Lefebvre explains his reason for changing his mind regarding the May 1988 protocol.
-
.
Someone reading this might complain that too much attention is being spent examining tiny details. For example:
We assume you, [Fr. Themann,] are not claiming that there is a relevant difference between the words “reject” and “retract.”
Such a one might say, "What's the big deal? Why focus on whether or not Fr. Themann is splitting hairs between 'reject' and 'retract'? Don't you have something better to do with your time???"
I'd like to say this about that.
I know a DIE HARD ACCORDISTA.
This person is a professional educator, a LINGUIST, fluent in several languages.
When I discuss this topic with this linguist, this linguist leans forward and makes special emphasis on this one word, "reject."
When I repeat what we just talked about and I make special emphasis on the word, "retract," this linguist PREDICTABLY interrupts me, and insists on using the word, "reject."
Now, I ask you: How Could This Be?
Is it my fault that someone like this is so adamant on CHANGING the word that refers specifically to the actual recorded history of ABL and EXCLUSIVELY AND CONSTISTENTLY prefers to use ONLY that word which the "official party line" here expressed by Fr. Themann would have us using?
What's the big deal, you say? Well I ask you the same question. If it's not a big deal, then why change the words of the official record, and why change them EXCLUSIVELY AND CONSISTENTLY?
I am not the one INSISTING on changing the words of ABL into something OTHER than what he actually said.
THEY ARE.
.
-
.
Progress Report:
After 6 (six) more pages, we'll be on p.17, which is then halfway through Issue 12.
.
-
.
The second image on this post (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=29223&min=105#p2) shows the arm of St. Francis Xavier holding up a crucifix, and his ship in the distance, offshore. This image is currently found on the SSPX Asia website, but who knows: Maybe that will be scrubbed too, since St. Francis Xavier does not really much harmonize with the NEW GREC / BRANDING image that the Menzingen-denizens have paid so dearly to develop. So stay tuned.
That's apparently the left hand of St. Francis, if he was wont to hold the crucifix in his left hand (it makes sense because then his right hand would be free to point, gesture, and even write things on a blackboard or in the sand or on a rock wall, or whatever).
His right hand is not visible in this image, as it is "cropped off" at the bottom of the frame.
But his right hand was in fact, literally cropped off. It was actually CHOPPED OFF, long after he had died. When his remains had been discovered in a shallow grave, they were moved to a shrine in India, which still exists today. Recently Fr. Pfeiffer gave a sermon mentioning this shrine, and how he had visited there. He said that long ago, when the saint's incorrupt body had been translated there to the shrine in India, a woman chopped off his incorrupt right hand, and in the process, there was bleeding. The arm of St. Francis bled as the hand was cut off, even though it had been some hundred years since he had died. And the woman took the bleeding hand and RAN AWAY with it.
She apparently recognized its value, and she wanted to keep it safe, or something. But she wasn't explaining herself. She just took off with it.
Someone chased her down, at some distance and after some time (the distance nor the time are identified in the version I heard). And then something really interesting happened.
The right hand of the Saint was taken to the Pope, who said, "We don't really know if this is the hand of St. Francis Xavier." This was in the presence of witnesses, with the hand lying on a table in front of them, on which table there were other things, including a writing quill and a sheet of paper, which happened to be near the incorrupt hand.
While everyone watched, the hand began to move. First, it pulled itself over to the pen and picked it up. This was in the days before fountain pens, and quills needed to be dipped in an inkwell. Therefore, we can expect that this was the first move of the hand. I think it makes for better drama.
Then the hand which was not attached to any arm, mind you, pulled itself across the table and dipped the quill into the inkwell. Then the hand pulled itself across the table to the piece of paper, where it began to write, in Latin, and this is what it wrote:
Ego sum Francesco
The penmanship was "in the handwriting" of St. Francis Xavier.
Fr. Pfeiffer says that at that point, the Pope said, "Well then, this is the hand of St. Francis Xavier."
.
-
.
For safekeeping, I have uploaded the two images onto CI:
-
.
Page 12
During his Episcopal consecration sermon, Archbishop Lefebvre explains his reason for changing his mind regarding the May 1988 protocol. He starts out posing a question from a hypothetical person who does not understand the situation:
[commence quoted segment]
“And why, Archbishop, have you stopped these discussions which seemed to have had a certain degree of success?”
[The Archbishop Lefebvre answers this question]:
Well, precisely because, at the same time that I gave my signature to the Protocol, the envoy of Cardinal Ratzinger gave me a note in which I was asked to beg pardon for my errors. But if I am in error, if I teach error, it is clear that I must be brought back to the truth in the minds of those who sent me this note to sign. “That I might recognize my errors” means that, if you recognize your errors we will help you to return to the truth. What is this truth for them, if not the 'truth' of Vatican II, the 'truth' of the Conciliar Church? Consequently, it is clear that the only truth that exists today for the Vatican is the conciliar 'truth', the spirit of the Council, the spirit of Assisi. That is the truth of today.
But we will have nothing to do with this for anything in the world!
That is why, taking into account the strong will of the present Roman authorities to reduce Tradition to naught, to gather the world to the spirit of Vatican II and the spirit of Assisi, we have preferred to withdraw ourselves and to say that we could not continue. It was not possible. We would have evidently been under the authority of Cardinal Ratzinger, President of the Roman Commission, which would have directed us; we were putting ourselves into his hands, and consequently putting ourselves into the hands of those who wish to draw us into the spirit of the Council and the spirit of Assisi. This was simply not possible.
This is why I sent a letter to the Pope, saying to him very clearly: “We simply cannot accept this spirit and proposals, despite all the desires which we have to be in full union with you. Given this new spirit which now rules in Rome and which you wish to communicate to us, we prefer to continue in Tradition; to keep Tradition while waiting for Tradition to regain its place at Rome, while waiting for Tradition to re-assume its place in the Roman authorities, in their minds.” This will last for as long as the Good Lord has foreseen.
It is not for me to know when Tradition will regain its rights at Rome, but I think it is my duty to provide the means of doing that which I shall call “Operation Survival,” operation survival for Tradition. Today, this day, is Operation Survival. If I had made this deal with Rome, by continuing with the agreements we had signed, and by putting them into practice, I would have performed “Operation ѕυιcιdє.”
[end of quoted segment]
.
-
.
Page 13
Does it sound to you like Archbishop Lefebvre is telling you that he was satisfied with the 5-5-88 protocol but merely was adding another condition (viz., that he receive a bishop)?
The truth is that Archbishop Lefebvre realized he made a mistake in considering the idea of a practical agreement with unconverted Rome. He recanted his error and never wavered thereafter from his prudent determination to never make an agreement with unconverted Rome. See discussion below.
Contrast Archbishop Lefebvre’s “infamous” acceptance of the protocol for mere hours, to Bishop Fellay’s refusal to recant his even more scandalous 4-15-12 Doctrinal Preamble even 18 months later!
Rome’s Remitting the Penalty of the Excommunications While Maintaining That
the Excommunications were Justly Imposed, Demonstrates That Rome has Not
Changed in Any Relevant Way.
In the extended quote from Archbishop Lefebvre immediately above, he wisely saw that he must not make a deal with unconverted Rome because Rome considered him to be wrong and, as he said: “if I teach error, it is clear that I must be brought back to the truth in the minds of those who sent me this note to sign.”
This is still Rome’s view today. Pope Benedict XVI and his curia made this very clear in connection with the supposed (i.e., false and invalid) excommunications of the six bishops. Bishop Fellay considered his rosary crusade answered adequately when his founder’s name remained slandered. Rome’s decree remitting the penalty for the supposed excommunication says that the excommunication “no longer has juridical effect” for four of the bishops. (13) However, the Vatican continued to maintain that the six traditional bishops were wrong and that the excommunications were justly imposed in the first place. In a 3-10-09 letter, Pope Benedict called the remission of the penalty a “discreet gesture of mercy towards four Bishops.” (14)
Archbishop Lefebvre (in the quote set forth above) was wise enough to focus on the fact that Rome was wrong on doctrine. He refused to submit his Society to the practical control of Rome as long as Rome still considered the SSPX to be wrong. By contrast, the current SSPX put aside the truth that Rome still considers the SSPX wrong and sought an agreement anyway because the current SSPX cares way too much for Rome’s approval and for appearances. Here is how Archbishop Lefebvre viewed Rome’s (invalid) penalties:
The Cardinal [Ratzinger] made a threat: the consequence of an illicit
Episcopal consecration would be “schism and excommunication.”
“Schism?” -retorted the Archbishop. “If there is a schism, it is because
of what the Vatican did at Assisi and how you replied to our Dubia: the
Church is breaking with the traditional Magisterium. But the Church
against her past and her Tradition is not the Catholic Church; this is why
_______________________________
13. Decree Remitting The Excommunication "Latae Sententiae" Of The Bishops Of The Society Of St Pius X, Congregation for Bishops, 21 January 2009.
14. http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/letters/2009/docuмents/hf_benxvi_let_20090310_remissione-scomunica_en.html
.
-
.
"The discreet gesture of mercy towards four Bishops ordained validly but not legitimately..."
But don't miss the part where B16 says that in the future, the Holy See will have to pay closer attention to the Internet because it's a better source of news. Does +F disagree with him? After all, +F warns the faithful about how dangerous the Internet is. So is he "opposed to the Pope?"
Footnote 14 has a new address on the Vatican website (actually, the address looks the same, so there must be some character or space that I'm missing):
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/letters/2009/docuмents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20090310_remissione-scomunica_en.html
Content:
The Holy See
back up Search
riga
LETTER OF HIS HOLINESS POPE BENEDICT XVI
TO THE BISHOPS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
CONCERNING THE REMISSION OF THE EXCOMMUNICATION
OF THE FOUR BISHOPS CONSECRATED BY ARCHBISHOP LEFEBVRE
Dear Brothers in the Episcopal Ministry!
The remission of the excommunication of the four Bishops consecrated in 1988 by Archbishop Lefebvre without a mandate of the Holy See has for many reasons caused, both within and beyond the Catholic Church, a discussion more heated than any we have seen for a long time. Many Bishops felt perplexed by an event which came about unexpectedly and was difficult to view positively in the light of the issues and tasks facing the Church today. Even though many Bishops and members of the faithful were disposed in principle to take a positive view of the Pope’s concern for reconciliation, the question remained whether such a gesture was fitting in view of the genuinely urgent demands of the life of faith in our time. Some groups, on the other hand, openly accused the Pope of wanting to turn back the clock to before the Council: as a result, an avalanche of protests was unleashed, whose bitterness laid bare wounds deeper than those of the present moment. I therefore feel obliged to offer you, dear Brothers, a word of clarification, which ought to help you understand the concerns which led me and the competent offices of the Holy See to take this step. In this way I hope to contribute to peace in the Church.
An unforeseen mishap for me was the fact that the Williamson case came on top of the remission of the excommunication. The discreet gesture of mercy towards four Bishops ordained validly but not legitimately suddenly appeared as something completely different: as the repudiation of reconciliation between Christians and Jews, and thus as the reversal of what the Council had laid down in this regard to guide the Church’s path. A gesture of reconciliation with an ecclesial group engaged in a process of separation thus turned into its very antithesis: an apparent step backwards with regard to all the steps of reconciliation between Christians and Jews taken since the Council – steps which my own work as a theologian had sought from the beginning to take part in and support. That this overlapping of two opposed processes took place and momentarily upset peace between Christians and Jews, as well as peace within the Church, is something which I can only deeply deplore. I have been told that consulting the information available on the internet would have made it possible to perceive the problem early on. I have learned the lesson that in the future in the Holy See we will have to pay greater attention to that source of news. I was saddened by the fact that even Catholics who, after all, might have had a better knowledge of the situation, thought they had to attack me with open hostility. Precisely for this reason I thank all the more our Jєωιѕн friends, who quickly helped to clear up the misunderstanding and to restore the atmosphere of friendship and trust which – as in the days of Pope John Paul II – has also existed throughout my pontificate and, thank God, continues to exist.
Another mistake, which I deeply regret, is the fact that the extent and limits of the provision of 21 January 2009 were not clearly and adequately explained at the moment of its publication. The excommunication affects individuals, not institutions. An episcopal ordination lacking a pontifical mandate raises the danger of a schism, since it jeopardizes the unity of the College of Bishops with the Pope. Consequently the Church must react by employing her most severe punishment – excommunication – with the aim of calling those thus punished to repent and to return to unity. Twenty years after the ordinations, this goal has sadly not yet been attained. The remission of the excommunication has the same aim as that of the punishment: namely, to invite the four Bishops once more to return. This gesture was possible once the interested parties had expressed their recognition in principle of the Pope and his authority as Pastor, albeit with some reservations in the area of obedience to his doctrinal authority and to the authority of the Council. Here I return to the distinction between individuals and institutions. The remission of the excommunication was a measure taken in the field of ecclesiastical discipline: the individuals were freed from the burden of conscience constituted by the most serious of ecclesiastical penalties. This disciplinary level needs to be distinguished from the doctrinal level. The fact that the Society of Saint Pius X does not possess a canonical status in the Church is not, in the end, based on disciplinary but on doctrinal reasons. As long as the Society does not have a canonical status in the Church, its ministers do not exercise legitimate ministries in the Church. There needs to be a distinction, then, between the disciplinary level, which deals with individuals as such, and the doctrinal level, at which ministry and institution are involved. In order to make this clear once again: until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers – even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty – do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church.
In light of this situation, it is my intention henceforth to join the Pontifical Commission "Ecclesia Dei" – the body which has been competent since 1988 for those communities and persons who, coming from the Society of Saint Pius X or from similar groups, wish to return to full communion with the Pope – to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. This will make it clear that the problems now to be addressed are essentially doctrinal in nature and concern primarily the acceptance of the Second Vatican Council and the post-conciliar magisterium of the Popes. The collegial bodies with which the Congregation studies questions which arise (especially the ordinary Wednesday meeting of Cardinals and the annual or biennial Plenary Session) ensure the involvement of the Prefects of the different Roman Congregations and representatives from the world’s Bishops in the process of decision-making. The Church’s teaching authority cannot be frozen in the year 1962 – this must be quite clear to the Society. But some of those who put themselves forward as great defenders of the Council also need to be reminded that Vatican II embraces the entire doctrinal history of the Church. Anyone who wishes to be obedient to the Council has to accept the faith professed over the centuries, and cannot sever the roots from which the tree draws its life.
I hope, dear Brothers, that this serves to clarify the positive significance and also the limits of the provision of 21 January 2009. But the question still remains: Was this measure needed? Was it really a priority? Aren’t other things perhaps more important? Of course there are more important and urgent matters. I believe that I set forth clearly the priorities of my pontificate in the addresses which I gave at its beginning. Everything that I said then continues unchanged as my plan of action. The first priority for the Successor of Peter was laid down by the Lord in the Upper Room in the clearest of terms: "You… strengthen your brothers" (Lk 22:32). Peter himself formulated this priority anew in his first Letter: "Always be prepared to make a defence to anyone who calls you to account for the hope that is in you" (1 Pet 3:15). In our days, when in vast areas of the world the faith is in danger of dying out like a flame which no longer has fuel, the overriding priority is to make God present in this world and to show men and women the way to God. Not just any god, but the God who spoke on Sinai; to that God whose face we recognize in a love which presses "to the end" (cf. Jn 13:1) – in Jesus Christ, crucified and risen. The real problem at this moment of our history is that God is disappearing from the human horizon, and, with the dimming of the light which comes from God, humanity is losing its bearings, with increasingly evident destructive effects.
Leading men and women to God, to the God who speaks in the Bible: this is the supreme and fundamental priority of the Church and of the Successor of Peter at the present time. A logical consequence of this is that we must have at heart the unity of all believers. Their disunity, their disagreement among themselves, calls into question the credibility of their talk of God. Hence the effort to promote a common witness by Christians to their faith – ecuмenism – is part of the supreme priority. Added to this is the need for all those who believe in God to join in seeking peace, to attempt to draw closer to one another, and to journey together, even with their differing images of God, towards the source of Light – this is interreligious dialogue. Whoever proclaims that God is Love "to the end" has to bear witness to love: in loving devotion to the suffering, in the rejection of hatred and enmity – this is the social dimension of the Christian faith, of which I spoke in the Encyclical Deus Caritas Est.
So if the arduous task of working for faith, hope and love in the world is presently (and, in various ways, always) the Church’s real priority, then part of this is also made up of acts of reconciliation, small and not so small. That the quiet gesture of extending a hand gave rise to a huge uproar, and thus became exactly the opposite of a gesture of reconciliation, is a fact which we must accept. But I ask now: Was it, and is it, truly wrong in this case to meet half-way the brother who "has something against you" (cf. Mt 5:23ff.) and to seek reconciliation? Should not civil society also try to forestall forms of extremism and to incorporate their eventual adherents – to the extent possible – in the great currents shaping social life, and thus avoid their being segregated, with all its consequences? Can it be completely mistaken to work to break down obstinacy and narrowness, and to make space for what is positive and retrievable for the whole? I myself saw, in the years after 1988, how the return of communities which had been separated from Rome changed their interior attitudes; I saw how returning to the bigger and broader Church enabled them to move beyond one-sided positions and broke down rigidity so that positive energies could emerge for the whole. Can we be totally indifferent about a community which has 491 priests, 215 seminarians, 6 seminaries, 88 schools, 2 university-level institutes, 117 religious brothers, 164 religious sisters and thousands of lay faithful? Should we casually let them drift farther from the Church? I think for example of the 491 priests. We cannot know how mixed their motives may be. All the same, I do not think that they would have chosen the priesthood if, alongside various distorted and unhealthy elements, they did not have a love for Christ and a desire to proclaim him and, with him, the living God. Can we simply exclude them, as representatives of a radical fringe, from our pursuit of reconciliation and unity? What would then become of them?
Certainly, for some time now, and once again on this specific occasion, we have heard from some representatives of that community many unpleasant things – arrogance and presumptuousness, an obsession with one-sided positions, etc. Yet to tell the truth, I must add that I have also received a number of touching testimonials of gratitude which clearly showed an openness of heart. But should not the great Church also allow herself to be generous in the knowledge of her great breadth, in the knowledge of the promise made to her? Should not we, as good educators, also be capable of overlooking various faults and making every effort to open up broader vistas? And should we not admit that some unpleasant things have also emerged in Church circles? At times one gets the impression that our society needs to have at least one group to which no tolerance may be shown; which one can easily attack and hate. And should someone dare to approach them – in this case the Pope – he too loses any right to tolerance; he too can be treated hatefully, without misgiving or restraint.
Dear Brothers, during the days when I first had the idea of writing this letter, by chance, during a visit to the Roman Seminary, I had to interpret and comment on Galatians 5:13-15. I was surprised at the directness with which that passage speaks to us about the present moment: "Do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love be servants of one another. For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: ‘You shall love your neighbour as yourself’. But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." I am always tempted to see these words as another of the rhetorical excesses which we occasionally find in Saint Paul. To some extent that may also be the case. But sad to say, this "biting and devouring" also exists in the Church today, as expression of a poorly understood freedom. Should we be surprised that we too are no better than the Galatians? That at the very least we are threatened by the same temptations? That we must always learn anew the proper use of freedom? And that we must always learn anew the supreme priority, which is love? The day I spoke about this at the Major Seminary, the feast of Our Lady of Trust was being celebrated in Rome. And so it is: Mary teaches us trust. She leads us to her Son, in whom all of us can put our trust. He will be our guide – even in turbulent times. And so I would like to offer heartfelt thanks to all the many Bishops who have lately offered me touching tokens of trust and affection, and above all assured me of their prayers. My thanks also go to all the faithful who in these days have given me testimony of their constant fidelity to the Successor of Saint Peter. May the Lord protect all of us and guide our steps along the way of peace. This is the prayer that rises up instinctively from my heart at the beginning of this Lent, a liturgical season particularly suited to interior purification, one which invites all of us to look with renewed hope to the light which awaits us at Easter.
With a special Apostolic Blessing, I remain
Yours in the Lord,
BENEDICTUS PP. XVI
From the Vatican, 10 March 2009
© Copyright 2009 - Libreria Editrice Vaticana
top
-
.
And there are Trads who believe B16 has been some kind of FRIEND of Tradition?!
That letter, above, the one addressed "TO THE BISHOPS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH CONCERNING THE REMISSION OF THE EXCOMMUNICATION OF THE FOUR BISHOPS CONSECRATED BY ARCHBISHOP LEFEBVRE," the Bishops to whom he refers as, "Dear Brothers in the Episcopal Ministry!" -- has to be read with the same diligence as the docuмents from the Menzingen-denizens! Only in THIS case, there isn't a single sentence that can stand on its own merit.
I would hope that better could be said of what +F cranks out.
Apt commentary on that one letter alone would be well-nigh off topic for this thread on the Open Letter to Fr. Daniel Themann!
I guess it's good to make reference to it a footnote, then, otherwise 34 pages could become 68.
Therefore, I just made a new thread for this purpose, here (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Dear-Brothers-in-the-Episcopal-Ministry-the-worldwide-Catholic-bishops).
.
-
.(cont'd from page 13)
The Cardinal [Ratzinger] made a threat: the consequence of an illicit
Episcopal consecration would be “schism and excommunication.”
“Schism?” -retorted the Archbishop. “If there is a schism, it is because
of what the Vatican did at Assisi and how you replied to our Dubia: the
Church is breaking with the traditional Magisterium. But the Church
against her past and her Tradition is not the Catholic Church; this is why
Page 14
being excommunicated by a liberal, ecuмenical and
revolutionary Church is a matter of indifference to us.
Archbishop Lefebvre was concerned about Rome’s conversion. He considered the penalties (invalidly) imposed by Rome, to be “a matter of indifference”, because Rome still considered him doctrinally wrong. By contrast, the current SSPX exalts and takes great satisfaction at the mere change of appearances (i.e., the official purported remission of invalid excommunications)!
The 4-15-12 Doctrinal Preamble (a.k.a. the April Fifteenth Declaration or AFD)
You say that Bishop Fellay’s doctrinal preamble “does walk a delicate line. It doesn’t cross the line [viz., into error and compromise] but it does walk a delicate line.” 30:30. Later, you say: “Bishop Fellay writes the response [viz., the 4-15-12 Doctrinal Preamble he proposes], which admittedly walks right up to the line. It does.” 50:47.
No one who loves the Faith and is not under the influence of human respect would be willing to even come close to the line of error and compromise. This is like the fact that no one who loves God and is not under the influence of carnal passion would be willing to come close to a mortal sin against purity. One of the many reasons this is true is because of the danger of making an error in judgment which results in crossing the line.
Another reason why a man who loves the Faith and was not under the influence of human respect would never be willing to come close to the line of compromise and error, is that it is a scandal to approve a narrow part of a docuмent which is riddled with errors – as Lumen Gentium is – especially while remaining silent about the hundreds of errors in Lumen Gentium, as Bishop Fellay remained silent about them when expressing his approval of part of that conciliar docuмent. This same principle would apply to how we should treat the works of an arch-heretic conciliar theologian like Hans Kung: viz., if someone could find some narrow section of one of Kung’s books about which to express his approval, in order to please unconverted Rome, that is a scandal because the corpus of Kung’s writings is so infested with errors, as are also the docuмents of Vatican II.
Bishop Fellay tries to narrowly accept Lumen Gentium §25 under a particular aspect, in his 4-15-12 Doctrinal Preamble. Section 25 contains many errors, as does the rest of that docuмent, as is proved in this book: Lumen Gentium Annotated, Quanta Cura Press, pp. 200-203, found at http://www.scribd.com/doc/158994906_/Lumen-Gentium-Annotated .
We note that, in Bishop Fellay’s 4-15-12 Doctrinal Preamble, he specifically agrees that the principal errors of Vatican II are, in fact, reconcilable with the consistent teaching of the Catholic Church, although he says it is “difficult.” (16) A little later, Bishop Fellay says it is legitimate to “study” the text of Vatican II where it “appears” that it “cannot be reconciled with the previous Church's Magisterium.” Id. Thus, Bishop Fellay is agreeing not to take the true Catholic position that these Vatican II teachings are completely false and are the opposite of the truth. See, e.g., the hundreds of errors in a single conciliar docuмent, as shown in Lumen Gentium Annotated, cited above.
__________________________________
16. 4-15-12 Doctrinal Preamble, found at: http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/New-very-accurate-reliable-translation-of-Fellays-Doctrinal-Statement [which was posted March 10th, 2013, by suger]
.
-
.
A matter of principle (Liberals HATE matters of principle!):
This same principle would apply to how we should treat the works of an arch-heretic conciliar theologian like Hans Kung: viz., if someone could find some narrow section of one of Kung’s books about which to express his approval, in order to please unconverted Rome, that is a scandal because the corpus of Kung’s writings is so infested with errors, as are also the docuмents of Vatican II.
Liberals hate matters of principle because when one is pointed out to them, and they can't argue against it, they are EXTREMELY reluctant to concede the fact because they're afraid that the fact that they agree with the principle can then be applied to other situations when they don't want to apply the principle.
E.g., they might be willing to agree that Hans Kung's books are infested with errors, but they likely won't want to admit that Bishop Fellay remained silent about the errors of Lumen Gentium, when expressing his approval of part of that conciliar docuмent, because it's a reasonable application of the same principle.
They have even gone so far as to attempt to re-define what "principle" is, as you can see in the imbecilic posts of petwerp, earlier in this thread.
.
.
.
This is such a tiny sliver of what is going on in the Resistance, and the Resistance is such a tiny sliver of what is going on in the Church worldwide, that it is incuмbent upon Resistance-minded Catholics (who are none other than traditional Catholics, really) to pay some attention to all of this, because it is enormous. The material is piling up at record speed and it is a far cry from possible for any one person to keep up with it all.
.
-
.
Page 15
A further problem with Bishop Fellay’s words is that the phrase “entire and uninterrupted Tradition” has a different meaning for traditional Catholics, than it does for the conciliar church. The SSPX leadership used to warn against the very ambiguity Bishop Fellay employs here. The SSPX used to say plainly that conciliar Rome does not have the same understanding regarding the Church’s Magisterial teaching. For traditional Catholics, “uninterrupted Tradition” means the continuity of the doctrine which the Church has always taught. Now, by these words, Rome means a continuity of the same teaching office, viz., a pope and bishops.
Here is how the SSPX used to explain Rome’s conciliar understanding of Magisterial “continuity”:
But it is necessary to admit the plain truth and to
recognize that [in the conciliar church] the word
‘continuity’ does not have this traditional sense at all in
the current discourse of ecclesiastics. They speak
precisely about continuity with regard to a subject that
evolves over the course of time. It is not a question of
the continuity of an object, of the dogma or the doctrine
that the Church’s Magisterium proposes today, giving it
the same meaning as before. It is a question of the
continuity of the unique subject ‘Church.’ Moreover
Benedict XVI speaks not exactly about continuity but
about ‘renewal in the continuity of the one subject-
Church which the Lord has given to us.’ (17)
This new conciliar meaning of “tradition” was explained more succinctly by Fr. Pierre Marie, prior of the traditional Dominicans in Avrille: “for [Pope Benedict XVI], Tradition is living. Tradition is what it is thought to be by the Bishops living today.” (18)
In the 4-15-12 Doctrinal Preamble [the AFD], Bishop Fellay asserts that the “Second Vatican Council … illuminates – i.e. deepens and further makes explicit– some aspects of the life and of the doctrine of the Church.” In endnote 8 to this paragraph, Bishop Fellay gives the example of “the teaching on the sacramentality of the episcopacy in Lumen Gentium § 21” as something which “illuminates” the consistent teaching of the Church before Vatican II. It is plain from a review of Lumen Gentium’s §21, that Bishop Fellay here accepts many conciliar errors, including but not limited to: 1) the distinction of bishops from laymen, as being one merely of “function” (a Protestant theory); 2) 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); and 3) the blurring of the effect of the sacrament of Episcopal consecration, with the spiritual gifts given uniquely to the apostles at Pentecost (see also the footnotes in the official text of this paragraph, LG § 21). Lumen Gentium Annotated, pp. 181-185
Bishop Fellay Accepts Many Conciliar Errors in Lumen Gentium Ch. 3.
We notice you entirely omit mentioning that Bishop Fellay’s 4-15-12 Doctrinal Preamble 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,
____________________________
17. Quoted from http://www.dici.org/en/news/debate-about-vatican-ii-fr-gleize-responds-to-msgr-ocariz/
18. Interview published in the March 2013 edition of Catholic Family News, p.18 (emphasis in original.)
[Please forgive me for not including all the formatting in the following web page from dici.]
_____________________________________________________
Content of linked page (17), dici.org Debate about Vat.II Fr. Gleize Responds to Msgr. Ocariz (quoted section in bold):
_____________________________________________________
Debate about Vatican II: Fr. Gleize responds to Msgr. Ocariz
23-12-2011
Filed under Docuмents, News
(http://www.dici.org/en/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/concile_2-300x206.jpg)
concile_2
In the current issue of Courrier de Rome (no. 350, December 2011), Fr. Jean-Michel Gleize, professor of theology in Ecône, responds to the article by Msgr. Fernando Ocariz that appeared in L’Osservatore Romano on December 2, 2011 (see DICI no. 246 dated December 9, 2011). Both men participated in the doctrinal discussions on Vatican II in Rome from October 2009 to April 2011. With the kind permission of Courrier de Rome, DICI is happy to be able to present to its readers significant excerpts from this remarkable study entitled “A Crucial Question”.
(…) No doubt we could congratulate ourselves that we are finally seeing a theologian of the Holy See introduce all these nuances and thus deny quite formally, albeit implicitly, all the unilateral presentations which until now have presented the Second Vatican Council in a maximalist perspective, as an absolutely untouchable dogma that is “even more important than that of Nicaea”. However, as seductive as it may be in the nuances and distinctions that it offers, such an analysis radically conveys a postulate that is far from being self-evident. Msgr. Ocariz’ study thus avoids responding to the crucial question, which is still pending between the Society of Saint Pius X and the Holy See. More precisely, the answer to this question seems to go without saying in the view of the Opus Dei prelate, so much so that everything happens as though it had never been necessary to address it. Or as though the debate would never have to take place.
Yet this debate is more imperative than ever. It is in fact far from self-evident that the last Council could impose its authority, in all matters and for all purposes, in the eyes of Catholics as the exercise of a genuine Magisterium, demanding their adherence at the different levels that are noted. Indeed, if we recall the traditional definition of Magisterium, we really are obliged to observe that the proceedings of Vatican II hardly conform to them. Much less so, given that this wholesale novelty of the 21st Ecuмenical Council explains itself in depth in terms of absolutely unheard-of presuppositions. (…)
The fact of Vatican II: new teachings contrary to Tradition
On at least four points, the teachings of the Second Vatican Council are obviously in logical contradiction to the pronouncements of the previous traditional Magisterium, so that it is impossible to interpret them in keeping with the other teachings already contained in the earlier docuмents of the Church’s Magisterium. Vatican II has thus broken the unity of the Magisterium, to the same extent to which it has broken the unity of its object.
These four points are as follows. The doctrine on religious liberty, as it is expressed in no. 2 of the Declaration Dignitatis humanae, contradicts the teachings of Gregory XVI in Mirari vos and of Pius IX in Quanta cura as well as those of Pope Leo XIII in Immortale Dei and those of Pope Pius XI in Quas primas. The doctrine on the Church, as it is expressed in no. 8 of the Constitution Lumen gentium, contradicts the teachings of Pope Pius XII in Mystici corporis and Humani generis. The doctrine on ecuмenism, as it is expressed in no. 8 of Lumen gentium and no. 3 of the Decree Unitatis redintegratio, contradicts the teachings of Pope Pius IX in propositions 16 and 17 of the Syllabus, those of Leo XIII in Satis cognitum, and those of Pope Pius XI in Mortalium animos. The doctrine on collegiality, as it is expressed in no. 22 of the Constitution Lumen gentium, including no. 3 of the Nota praevia [Explanatory Note], contradicts the teachings of the First Vatican Council on the uniqueness of the subject of supreme power in the Church, in the Constitution Pastor aeternus. (…)
A new set of problems
In keeping with the [December] 2005 address [of Pope Benedict XVI to the Roman Curia], Msgr. Ocariz posits the principle of a “unitary interpretation”, according to which the docuмents of Vatican II and the preceding Magisterial docuмents ought to shed light on each other. The interpretation of the novelties taught by the Second Vatican Council must therefore reject, as Benedict XVI says, “the hermeneutic of discontinuity” with relation to Tradition, whereas it must affirm “the hermeneutic of reform, of renewal in continuity.” This is new vocabulary, which clearly expresses a new set of problems. The latter inspires the whole observation by Msgr. Ocariz: “One essential characteristic of the Magisterium,” he writes, “is its continuity and its homogeneity over time.”
If we speak about “continuity” or “rupture”, this should be understood, in the traditional sense, to mean a continuity or rupture that is objective, in other words, related to the object of the Church’s preaching. This is tantamount to speaking about the set of revealed truths, as the Magisterium of the Church preserves and presents them, giving them the same significance, without the possibility of a contradiction between present preaching and past preaching. Rupture would consist of attacking the immutable character of objective Tradition and would then be a synonym for logical contradiction between two statements, the respective meanings of which cannot both be true at the same time.
But it is necessary to admit the plain truth and to recognize that the word “continuity” does not have this traditional sense at all in the current discourse of ecclesiastics. They speak precisely about continuity with regard to a subject that evolves over the course of time. It is not a question of the continuity of an object, of the dogma or the doctrine that the Church’s Magisterium proposes today, giving it the same meaning as before. It is a question of the continuity of the unique subject “Church”. Moreover Benedict XVI speaks not exactly about continuity but about “renewal in the continuity of the one subject-Church which the Lord has given to us. She is a subject which increases in time and develops, yet always remaining the same, the one subject of the journeying People of God.” Conversely, he adds immediately afterward, “The hermeneutic of discontinuity risks ending in a split between the pre-conciliar Church and the post-conciliar Church.” That means that the rupture must be situated on that same level: it is a rupture between two subjects, meaning that the Church, the one subject [consisting] of the People of God, would no longer be the same before and after the Council. (…)
The knot of the dilemma
In the logic of Vatican II and of the 2005 Address [to the Roman Curia], the object as such is relative to the subject. In the logic of Vatican I, and of all the traditional teaching of the Church, the subject as such is relative to the object. These two logics are irreconcilable.
The Magisterium, in whatever era it may be, must remain the organ of the deposit of the faith. It becomes perverted to the extent in which it alters that deposit. It is false to say that divinely revealed principles that have been made explicit by the previous Magisterium are not necessarily binding, on the pretence that the subject-Church experiences them differently through the contingency of history, or that the People of God finds itself being led to establish a new relation between its faith and the modern world. Some principles that are applied in contingent matters (for instance those that form the basis of the whole social doctrine of the Church) are not contingent. No doubt, the substantial immutability of revealed truth is not absolute, because the conceptual and verbal expression of that truth can acquire greater precision. But this progress does not involve any calling into question of the meaning of the truth, which only becomes more explicit in its formulation. The principles are still necessary principles, whatever the different concrete forms they may assume when they are applied. This distinction between principles and concrete forms proves to be artificial with regard to the social doctrine of the Church; when Benedict XVI resorts to it in his 2005 Address [to the Roman Curia] in order to legitimize the Declaration Dignitatis humanae, he does so in vain.
To return to Vatican II: the fundamental question is to determine the first principle that must serve as the ultimate rule for the activity of the Magisterium. Is it the objective data of divine revelation, as it is expressed in its definitive substance through the teaching authority of Christ and the apostles, to which the ecclesiastical Magisterium is only the successor? Is it the communitarian experience of the People of God, the trustee (and not just the recipient) of the gift of the Truth as the bearer of the meaning of the faith? In the first case, the ecclesiastical Magisterium is the organ of Tradition, and it depends on the divine-apostolic teaching authority as its objective rule; the question then is whether the objective teachings of the Second Vatican Council are those of a constant Magisterium and an immutable Tradition. In the second case, the ecclesiastical Magisterium is the amalgamating spokesman of the communal awareness of the People of God, charged with establishing the spatial-temporal cohesion of the expression of the sensus fidei; Vatican II is then for the subject-Church the means of expressing in conceptual language its sensus fidei, experienced and updated with respect to the contingencies of the modern era.
Hermeneutic and reinterpretation
In Msgr. Ocariz’ view, the teachings of Vatican II are novelties “in the sense that they make explicit some new aspects which were not yet formulated by the Magisterium but which, on the doctrinal level, do not contradict the preceding Magisterial docuмents”. An accurate exegesis of the docuмents of the Council would therefore apparently presuppose the principle of non-contradiction. But appearances are deceiving, since non-contradiction no longer has the same meaning at all as it did until now.
The Magisterium of the Church has always understood this principle to mean an absence of logical contradiction between two objective statements. Logical contradiction is an opposition that is found between two propositions, one of which affirms and the other denies the same thing predicated of the same subject. The principle of non-contradiction demands that if this opposition occurs, the two propositions cannot be true at the same time. This principle is a law of the intellect and only expresses the unity of its object. Since faith defines itself as intellectual adherence to the truth proposed by God, it verifies this principle. The objective unity of the faith also corresponds to an absence of contradiction in its dogmatic statements.
The hermeneutic of Benedict XVI now understands this principle in a sense that is no longer objective but subjective, no longer intellectualistic but voluntaristic. “The absence of contradiction” is a synonym for continuity at the level of the subject. Contradiction is a synonym for rupture, at the same level. The principle of continuity does not demand first and foremost the unity of the truth. It demands first and foremost the unity of the subject that develops and grows over the course of time. It is the unity of the People of God, as it lives in the present moment, in the world of this time, to quote the suggestive title of the Pastoral Constitution [on the Church in the Modern World], Gaudium et spes. This unity is expressed solely through the authorized word of the present Magisterium, precisely insofar as it is present. Msgr. Ocariz underscores this: “An authentic interpretation of the conciliar docuмents can be made only by the Church’s Magisterium itself. That is why the theological work of interpreting passages in the conciliar docuмents that raise questions or seem to present difficulties must above all take into account the meaning in which the successive interventions of the Magisterium have understood these passages.” Let us make no mistake about it: this Magisterium which must serve as a rule of interpretation is the new Magisterium of this time, the one that resulted from Vatican II. It is not the Magisterium of all ages. As it has been rightly remarked, Vatican II must be understood in the light of Vatican II, reinterpreting in its own logic of subjective, living continuity all the teachings of the constant Magisterium.
Until now the Magisterium of the Church has never compromised itself by begging the question in this way. It has always wanted to be faithful to its mission of preserving the deposit [of faith]. Its principal justification has always been to refer to the testimonies of the objective Tradition which is unanimous and constant. Its expression has always been that of the unity of the truth. (…)
That is why nobody could be content today with the so-called “spaces for theological freedom” at the very heart of the contradiction introduced by Vatican II. The profound desire of any Catholic who is faithful to his baptismal promises is to adhere with complete filial submission to the teachings of the perennial Magisterium. The same piety demands also, with increasing urgency, a remedy for the serious deficiencies that have paralyzed the exercise of this Magisterium since the last Council. To this end the Society of Saint Pius X still desires, now more than ever, an authentic reform, meaning that it is up to the Church to remain true to herself, to remain what she is in the unity of her faith, and thus to preserve her original form, in fidelity to the mission that she received from Christ. Intus reformari. [To be reformed inwardly.] (Source : Courrier de Rome – Emphasis in bold added by the editor. – DICI no.247 dated December 23, 2011)
Full text of the study of Father Gleize in Italian (http://www.sanpiox.it/public/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=467:una-questione-cruciale-il-valore-magisteriale-del-concilio-vaticano-ii&catid=64:crisi-nella-chiesa&Itemid=81) (courtesy of the Courrier de Rome and the SSPX District of ltaly)
On the same topic :
On Adherence to the Second Vatican Council: Msgr. Fernando Ocariz and Msgr. Brunero Gherardini
Vatican Council II: a Debate That Has Not Taken Place, by Msgr. Brunero Gherardini
Bishop demands a Syllabus on the Second Vatican Council
Debate over the History of Vatican Council II
Vatican II: a debate between Romano Amerio, Msgr. Gherardini and Msgr. Pozzo
Dogmatic or pastoral ?
Msgr. Brunero Gherardini’s Judgement on the Theological Debate between Tradition and Vatican Council II
.
-
.
(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,
Page 16
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.
-
I think writing a letter would be better. And one of charity correcting any errors.
-
.
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.16):
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.
Page 17
You try to distract from this liberalism [Fr. Themann,] by making it sound as if this interview is strong. This is what you say:
Not satisfied with the assurances that he can attack, continue
to attack, … he makes a test. In early June [2012], Bishop
Fellay grants an interview with DICI, in which he attacks Vatican
II as erroneous. … He also criticizes the new mass. 32:20.
In many places, Bishop Fellay makes these same false assertions you do, to justify this horrific 6-8-12 interview. For example, in his December 28, 2012 conference in Canada, Bishop Fellay says:
I made a test. I published an interview in DICI. It was the
beginning of June. And there, I speak about the errors of
Vatican II. And I speak about – let’s say the – how bad the
new mass is.
There are two problems with Bishop Fellay’s statement above and with your repetition of his falsehoods:
Bishop Fellay says above, that he speaks about “how bad the new mass is.” In fact, he makes no mention of the new mass in the entire interview, much less does he say how bad it is. (Read the interview yourself and see.)
In the 6-8-12 DICI interview, Bishop Fellay does refer to the “errors of the Council” – but only once, as follows:
The official authorities do not want to acknowledge the
errors of the Council. They will never say so explicitly.
Nevertheless, if you read between the lines, you can see
that they hope to remedy some of these errors.
As shown in this quote, Bishop Fellay’s only reference to the errors of Vatican II is to support his false claim that Rome has become more conservative and that Rome wants to “remedy” Vatican II errors! In other words, Bishop Fellay was only mentioning the errors of Vatican II as part of assuring the faithful that the hierarchy is becoming more conservative and everything is getting better in the Church. (24)
You apparently never read the 6-8-12 DICI interview itself, [Fr. Themann,] and instead were merely repeating without examination, these falsehoods which Bishop Fellay has repeated so often, e.g., on 12-28-12. (25) Dig deeper! Inform yourself! -especially before presenting yourself as an expert to hundreds of trusting people in St. Marys, and later, to thousands of people throughout the U.S.; and now the SSPX is promoting your harmful conference internationally! Bishop Fellay’s repetitions of these same falsehoods do not make them true!
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
_____________________________
24. See the analysis here: http://www.truetrad.com/index.php/the-truth/problemswith-bp-fellay/bishop-fellay/bishop-fellay-s-dici-interview
25. 12-28-12 Ontario, Canada conference of Bishop Fellay, starting at time 45:18 of 1:39:18 at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZrOMMfW5n0
FYC:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/embed/uZrOMMfW5n0[/youtube]
NOTE: We should not miss what the modus operandi of +F is here. He is wont to accuse the Resistance of "Internet rumour" but here he is fabricating his own Internet rumour!
He never gives any examples of what he means by "Internet rumor" and here, he doesn't give any examples of the "errors of Vat.II," either!
He says he "made a test," but it's interesting to note, that nobody took his test! He gave an examination and the students didn't even show up to take it!
He claims to "speak about the errors of Vat.II and how bad the Newmass is," but in fact, these things are hardly a blip on the radar! He only pretends to mention it so that later he can claim he mentioned it!
This is all typical of Liberalism. It's the same claptrap that Obama has been dishing out on his mindless lemmings. These ERRORS OF RUSSIA have been useful tools for the Communists for a century, and now they're creeping into the SSPX.
Finally!! Halfway through TheRecusant #12!!
.
-
.
(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
Page 18
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.
.
-
.
The ink dried again. I made a mistake in the above post, with a misplaced hyphen in the URL! Shame, shame, shame on me!!
DICI does have a copy of the June 8th interview,
http://www.dici.org/en/news/interview-with-bishop-bernard-fellay-on-relations-with-rome/
I misspelled the link: "...bisho-pbernard-fellay..."
Here is the relevant 3 paragraphs:
Bishop Fellay: 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. Add to that the fact that the only example available today of a personal prelature is Opus Dei. However, and let us say this clearly, if a personal prelature were granted to us, our situation would not be the same. In order to understand better what would happen, we must reflect that our status would be much more similar to that of a military ordinariate, because we would have ordinary jurisdiction over the faithful. Thus we would be like a sort of diocese, the jurisdiction of which extends to all its faithful regardless of their territorial situation.
All the chapels, churches, priories, schools, and works of the Society and of the affiliated religious Congregations would be recognized with a real autonomy for their ministry.
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. We have quite obviously reported to Rome how difficult our present situation was in the dioceses, and Rome is still working on it. Here or there, this difficulty will be real, but since when is life without difficulties? Very probably we will also have the contrary problem, in other words, we will not be able to respond to the requests that will come from the bishops who are friendly to us. I am thinking of one bishop who could ask us to take charge of the formation of future priests in his diocese.
.
.
.
[If memory serves me correctly, at the time there was a bishop in Sri Lanka who was asking the SSPX to take charge of his diocese seminary, and the story got some coverage for a while, but that story seems to have faded away over time.]
.
-
.
I was talking about post number 101 (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=29223&min=100#p1), 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.
An Open Letter to Fr. Daniel Themann
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:
Page 2
“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.
Page 3
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.
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Page 4
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.
.
-
.
(from p. 18)
So Archbishop Lefebvre says we must stand firm, despite the fact that Rome’s conversion
Page 19
cannot be humanly expected in the foreseeable future. The SSPX now says we should change our principle to something humanly attainable – like peaceful co-existence with unconverted Rome. (27)
You say that “it is our duty to fight”. 48:40. That is true. We fight by clearly and unyieldingly standing in complete opposition to conciliar errors. We don’t “fight” by asking for permission to tell the truth, as the current SSPX has been doing. We tell the truth regardless of what the conciliar church does. Further, 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”.
Continued Negotiations after June 2012
You try to give the impression that Rome just could not understand that the negotiations ended with Bishop Fellay’s (supposed) third “no”, at the June 13, 2012 meeting with Cardinal Levada. Here are your words:
October 27, 2012, … L’Osservatory Romano published
an unsigned article from the congregation of Ecclessia Dei,
claiming that the commission is still waiting for an answer
to the June 13 doctrinal statement, even though Bishop
Fellay already answered now three times that he cannot
sign it. 38:15.
Have you not read this very Vatican Radio press release to which you refer? It includes the following:
The Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei takes this occasion
to announce that, in its most recent official communication
(6 September 2012), the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X
has indicated that additional time for reflection and study
is needed on their part as they prepare their response to
the Holy See’s latest initiatives. (28)
In other words, the Ecclesia Dei Commission told the world that the SSPX asked for more time. The SSPX has mentioned this press release many times and has never publicly denied asking for more time to prepare its response. You do not deny either, that the SSPX asked for more time. You simply act puzzled that they continued waiting for the SSPX’s answer.
This is not the first or only time Rome publicly said it understands the SSPX is preparing an answer, following the June 13, 2012 meeting. In July, Rome said it “awaits the forthcoming official Communication of the Priestly Fraternity as their dialogue with the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei continues.” (29)
Also, as late as October 2012, SSPX German District spokesman, Fr. Andreas Steiner, was still saying that the expulsion of Bishop Williamson would help the ongoing negotiations with Rome. (30)
Not only has the SSPX never denied Rome’s official, public claim that the SSPX has asked for more time to respond, but the supposed “no” you say that Bishop Fellay gave
____________________________________
27. http://www.sspx.org/sspx_and_rome/is_the_sspx_heretical_3_12-11-2012.htm
28. http://www.news.va/en/news/full-text-declaration-of-the-pontifical-commission (emphasis added; parenthetical date in the original).
29. http://www.news.va/en/news/holy-see-concerning-the-declaration-of-the-general
30. Interview of Fr. Steiner found at: http://religion.orf.at/stories/2555877/
.
.
.
The link in footnote 27 yields no results. I went to the sspx.org website and searched for "is the sspx heretical" and found no useful or likely hits (there were a bunch of pages showing that found words like "is" "the" and "sspx." Then I searched for "12-11-2012" and there were no results. Then I searched for "sspx and rome" and got 9 pages of hits, which I read through and found nothing close to the referenced topic. I searched for "humanly suspected foreseeable future" and got NO RESULTS. Finally I searched for "foreseeable future" and again got the following two results:
To live and let die
... to the artificial feeding of a man who will die in the near future of a certain illness. While the artificial feeding prevents death from ... physicians, that she was dying and would actually die in a foreseeable future, and the court considered that she was perhaps dying, ...
January 2003 - Superior General's Letter #63
... Leaving the SSPX behind Besides this wholly foreseeable evolution of minds by which the Campos priests have, whatever they ... going back to the first Apostle? To guarantee our future, we must obtain from today’s Rome clear proof of its attachment to the ...
Therefore it appears to me this topic has been scrubbed.
The link in footnote 28 is currently active and the page is displayed.
The link in footnote 29 is currently active and the page is displayed.
The interview with Fr. Steiner linked in footnote 30 is currently active and the page is displayed, in German.
.
-
.
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.
.
-
.
(from p.19)
Not only has the SSPX never denied Rome’s official, public claim that the SSPX has asked for more time to respond, but the supposed “no” you say that Bishop Fellay gave
Page 20
to Cardinal Levada during their June 13, 2012 meeting, is inconsistent with how Bishop Fellay describes this same meeting. Bishop Fellay narrates that Cardinal Levada told him that the SSPX must accept the truth and goodness of Vatican II. Bishop Fellay says that he responded: “That will be difficult.” (31)
When a traditional Catholic is told to accept the new mass (or to burn incense to false gods, or whatever), how could he respond that his acceptance of this mortal sin “will be difficult”? Do you, [Fr. Themann,] think that Archbishop Lefebvre would have answered that way? Can you see Archbishop Lefebvre responding in any way other than: “That is impossible!”
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 the current SSPX can 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 previously went with and trusted Rome). (32)
However, just like in the conciliar church, the current SSPX is not entirely consistent in this time of crisis, while becoming more liberal. So we don’t consider you as having shown the current SSPX to be “rock solid” simply because you can find some traditional statements some SSPX priest or website still makes. This is similar to the conciliar popes saying traditional and modernist things on the same subject, sometimes in the same encyclical. In other words, the problem with the current SSPX’s liberalism, does not disappear because the SSPX still sometimes talks conservatively too.
Your Weak Definition of “Traditional Catholic”
You display the current SSPX’s characteristic softness when you use the phrase, “traditional Catholic.” This is only one of countless indications of the weakening of the current SSPX. You refer to the “Ecclesia Dei side of the traditional Catholic universe” [24:30], showing you consider the indult / motu compromise groups to be part of the traditional Catholic community. Then you say something similar at 25:00, where you call the Ecclesia Dei groups who don’t think Vatican II is the problem, one “side of the traditional Catholic spectrum.”
If the indult groups were traditional Catholic, then they would not be wrong and compromisers, as they are! Traditional Catholics are those who embrace all of Catholic Tradition. But because you call the Ecclesia Dei groups “Traditional Catholic,” although they deny that Vatican II has errors and deny that the new mass is evil, your definition apparently includes everyone who embraces some amount or aspect of Catholic Tradition. Under that fuzzy definition, even Pope Francis would be a Traditional Catholic, e.g., because of his professed devotion to the Rosary and his recently stating that he prays 15 decades each day. (33)
Your weak definition of the phrase “traditional Catholic” is a typical example of the
_________________________________________
31. October 2012 Angelus Press Doctrinal Conference, Bishop Fellay conference disc 2, about 32:00 minutes into his conference.
32. One of the many examples of Rome breaking its promises to these indult groups, is Rome’s treatment of the Good Shepherd Institute. You will find this account of Rome’s faithlessness on the front page of the Remnant in the summer of 2012. This article can be purchased for a small fee, as a Remnant reprint. You can also find this same article for free here: http://www.truetrad.com/index.php/other-organizations-who-made-a-dealwith-rome/84-the-truth/consequences-of-compromise-with-modernist-rome/102-the-goodshepherd-institute
33. Quoted in the May 30, 2013 Letter to the Tertiaries of Penance of St. Dominic, Letter #84 (emphasis added).
.
-
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.
Your Strange Definition of the Phrase “Conciliar Church”
You say that, when the SSPX uses the phrase “conciliar church”, it “means the structure/ hierarchy in so far as it is infected with modernist errors.” 8:15. But Modernism has been around for a long time and existed back in St. Pius X’s time. But the conciliar church did not exist then, nor did that phrase. The truth is that the phrase “conciliar church” specifically refers to the human element of the Church only since Vatican II, and imbued with Vatican II, not modernism generally. You can see the error of your definition if you simply reflect that even you would not refer to modernist bishops of the 1950s as the “conciliar church of the 1950s.” Why? Because the phrase “conciliar church” refers to the council.
Another error in your erroneous definition of the phrase “conciliar church,” is that your definition only mentions “errors.” The truth is that this phrase refers to the entire milieu of softening, weakening and betrayal of our Lord by omission and by implication, not only by explicit errors. The phrase, “conciliar church,” encompasses all of the changes and novelties of the Vatican II church, not merely the “contrary novelties” which Bishop Fellay professes to oppose in his 4-15-12 Doctrinal Preamble.
Moreover, you err further when you contrast the traditional Catholic understanding of the phrase “conciliar church,” with the meaning understood by the sedevacantists. 8:15. You say that “when a sedevacantist uses that term, he means a different thing from the Catholic Church, … a different structure.” 8:15. You are wrong to view it as unique to the sedevacantist position to hold that the conciliar church also refers to “different structures.”
In this view, you are not faithful to Archbishop Lefebvre’s use of the phrase “conciliar church.” For example, he wrote on July 29, 1976: “This Conciliar Church is a schismatic church because it breaks with the Catholic Church of all time. It has its ... new institutions.”
You fail to understand that traditional Catholics correctly use the phrase “conciliar church” to refer to different conciliar structures / institutions such as the standing diocesan councils, national councils of bishops, parish councils, etc. Those are “different structures” and it is important for (non-sedevacantist) traditional Catholics to use the phrase “conciliar church” to refer to these different structures.
So it is clear that the phrase “conciliar church” refers to the Vatican II church in particular. We notice that the phrase “conciliar church” has almost entirely fallen out of the current SSPX’s lexicon, apparently to de-emphasize the fact that the conciliar church is the church of Vatican II.
.
-
.
(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).
.
-
.
(from the end of p.21)
So it is clear that the phrase “conciliar church” refers to the Vatican II church in particular. We notice that the phrase “conciliar church” has almost entirely fallen out of the current SSPX’s lexicon, apparently to de-emphasize the fact that the conciliar church is the church of Vatican II.
Page 22
This is an inconvenient truth for the current SSPX, because the current SSPX attempts to de-link the phrase “conciliar church” from Vatican II in particular, as a means of deemphasizing that Vatican II is the problem. The current SSPX says that it “accepts 95%” of Vatican II’s teachings and that “there is no doubt that many Vatican II texts are traditional”.
The current SSPX’s whitewashing of Vatican II contrasts greatly with the truth. See, e.g.,
what is proved in Lumen Gentium Annotated (http://www.scribd.com/doc/158994906_/Lumen-Gentium-Annotated), about that Vatican II docuмent:
It is clear that Lumen Gentium teaches things on virtually
every page which are inconsistent with the traditional
teachings of the Catholic Church. It is evident from reading
Lumen Gentium that much of its text is orthodox, at least
when an orthodox meaning is imposed upon the
ambiguities in the text, while ignoring the context which
indicates another meaning instead.
(Lumen Gentium Annotated (http://www.scribd.com/doc/158994906_/Lumen-Gentium-Annotated), p. 310, emphasis added.)
Do you agree that it betrays our Lord and the Faith to agree to accept ambiguous statements of Vatican II by imposing a meaning on the text which is against the context which shows a different meaning of those statements? An intellect which adheres to the truth and to our Lord would reject all such ambiguous statements.
We are well aware that the current SSPX has made a number of vague references, to the errors of Vatican II recently, to quell the objection that the current SSPX has gone soft on Vatican II. However, the current SSPX’s mention of Vatican II’s errors comes with little or no depth, detail or analysis. Bishop Fellay’s 12-28-12 conference is a typical example. He mentions no substance, explanation or details about Vatican II’s errors. Instead, he promotes the error that the hierarchy is becoming more conservative. (36)
{Fr. Themann is behaving as though "conciliar church" is some kind of fable, or Internet rumour! This subtle, or should I say "SUBLIMINAL MESSAGE" is itself, actually, its own Internet rumour! (36.a)}
The Lack of Firmness Shown in SSPX’s Request that Rome Free the Mass
One of the conditions for beginning discussions with Rome was that the traditional Mass be freed from all restrictions. 17:00. You say that the 2007 motu proprio does that and therefore is not an indult [18:30] and the current SSPX holds this condition fulfilled. However, the motu proprio (in article 2) still does not free the Mass to allow it to be offered on any day whatsoever, e.g., during the Sacred Triduum. (37) There are other serious restrictions, too. Id. (38)
Further, the motu proprio is only for the nostalgic priest, not for any priest who opposes the new mass on principle, because the pope declared that a priest could not “exclude celebrating according to the new books … as a matter of principle.” 7-7-07 letter of Pope Benedict XVI. Thus, the motu proprio does nothing for traditional Catholics. Although you legalistically say this condition is not technically part of the law because it is contained in the pope’s accompanying letter, nonetheless the truth is that it is part of the law as interpreted and enforced by the lawgiver, and was part of the application of the law which the Ecclesia Dei Commission used to prevent the Good Shepherd Institute from using the traditional Mass exclusively.
The SSPX’s erroneous position about the 2007 motu proprio, reminds us of another
______________________________________
36. Here is the audio of the conference: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZrOMMfW5n0 ;
{I checked: "This Video Does Not Exist."}
Here is a transcript of the conference: http://www.therecusant.com/fellay-conf-dec2012 .
{The transcript is intact. The linked page on TheRecusant's website contains the source audio URL, as above, therefore it was obviously existing at the time, but has been SCRUBBED by the owner of the audio, the ID of whom is not shown on the YouTube page which announces the non-existence of the video / audio. This is a great example of why we must copy and transcribe and archive such items when they are first available, because they constitute evidence of a bumbling Menzingen-denizen, who continues to do dumb things, and then once he realizes he did something dumb, he tries to cover it up.}
{36.a. I, Neil Obstat, added the italics and underline for emphasis to this paragraph; likewise, THE NOTE, following the section, "Your Strange Definition of the Phrase 'Conciliar Church'," as follows: Fr. Themann is behaving as though "conciliar church" is some kind of fable, or Internet rumour! This subtle, or should I say "SUBLIMINAL MESSAGE" is itself, actually, its own Internet rumour!}
37. See an analysis correcting your errors on this subject, at this link: http://www.truetrad.com/index.php/the-truth/miscellaneous/the-false-miracle-of-the-rosary-crusade
{The linked page is alive and well, thanks to truetrad.com see copy below in the first following post.}
38. Remnant report posted here: 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
{I have copied the contents of this web page in the second subsequent post, here, below.}
________________________________________
_________________XXX____________________
It seems to me there is one paragraph on page 22 that is most key to the current observations in particular and to the crisis in the SSPX in general. Sometimes it helps to re-arrange the words of an important concept to more firmly reveal its significance:
Question:
What could possibly be the motive behind Bishop Fellay's curious behavior when he promotes the obvious error that the hierarchy in Rome is becoming more conservative?
Answer:
The only possible explanation for this odd behavior is that Bishop Fellay is in denial, and is digging himself and the SSPX deeper into the deep morass of problems by his refusal to admit that his approach is erroneous, and instead, he has been using this lame smokescreen that "Rome is becoming more conservative."
Question:
When the current SSPX encounters the objection that "they have gone soft on Vatican II," what have they done about it? Have they recognized the truth in that observation and then have they forthwith corrected their error and have they stopped going soft on Vat.II as would be expected of good, Catholic leadership, or have they done something else?
Answer:
Instead of recognizing the truth in the objection that they have gone soft on Vat.II and instead of consequently proceeding to correct their erstwhile error, as they would do if they were TRUE SONS of ABL, what the current SSPX has done, has been to make a number of vague references to "the errors of Vat.II" recently; and they have done so with a purpose in mind, a fact we can observe from their behavior, even though Bishop Fellay asserts, "They are not in my head!"
Question:
What is this purpose that the current SSPX leadership has in mind when they have made a number of vague references to the errors of Vat.II recently?
Answer:
The purpose the current SSPX leadership manifestly has in mind when they have made a number of vague references recently to the 'errors of Vat.II', is to quell the objection that they have gone soft on Vat.II.
Question:
How do we know that this has been their purpose?
Answer:
We know that the purpose the current SSPX has in mind is to quell the objection that they have gone soft on Vat.II because, their mention of Vat.II's errors comes with little or no depth, detail or analysis.
Question:
Do you have any depth, detail or analysis to offer in support of this claim?
Answer:
Yes, we do have a typical example to offer, in the words of Bishop Fellay himself. In his 12-28-2012 conference in St. Mary's Kansas, he mentions neither substance nor explanation nor details about Vat.II's errors.
Question:
What, pray tell, does Bishop Fellay proffer at the Kansas 12-28 conference in lieu of any substance, explanation or details in regards to the errors of Vat.II?
Answer:
In lieu of any substance, explanation or details regarding the errors of Vat.II, at his Kansas conference of 12-28-2012 Bishop Fellay instead promotes a different error. Instead of correcting the error that he and his denizens of Menzingen have been going soft on Vat.II, he advances the new error that the hierarchy of modernist Rome is becoming more conservative!
Finally, I present again the paragraph in question, and ask you, does it not appear much more simple in concept, after having been through the question-and-answer exercise, above?
We are well aware that the current SSPX has made a number of vague references, to the errors of Vatican II recently, to quell the objection that the current SSPX has gone soft on Vatican II.
However, the current SSPX’s mention of Vatican II’s errors comes with little or no depth, detail or analysis.
Bishop Fellay’s 12-28-12 conference is a typical example. He mentions no substance, explanation or details about Vatican II’s errors.
Instead, he promotes the error that the hierarchy is becoming more conservative.
.
-
.
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.
_____________________________________________________
__________________________XXX_______________________
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 (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
-
.
Below, find a copy of the page linked in footnote 38, above. IMHO, this is a great page. It is well worth reading on separate occasions with a day or a week in between, so you have time to think about the contents.
(Please forgive me for not including all the formatting found on truetrad, because there are numerous colors, emphasis, embedded links and font styles there which I am frankly too tired right now to put in here, as it would take about another hour to get it all just right.) :
(http://www.truetrad.com/images/motu-proprio-big.gif)
Did Rome Free the Mass After the First SSPX Rosary Crusade?
Was the Motu Proprio truly a gift from heaven?
Bishop Fellay and his spokesmen have given us all the strong impression that it is as clear as can be that the Motu Proprio, which supposedly freed the Latin Mass, was the fruit of the 1st Rosary Crusade. Many people defend his conclusion to the hilt.
Now it is obvious that prayer is good; we certainly don't deny that. What we do question very much is the insistence that the Motu Proprio is a heaven-sent answer to those rosaries, as if there could be no other explanation.
Let's take a look below. Then you decide for yourself if Our Lady, Queen of the Universe, Hammer of Heresies, was truly the cause of the Motu Proprio.
Here is what the SSPX asked for:
Bishop Fellay said:
“But first of all we now insist on the preconditions. First, by granting them Rome will give us a pledge, and it will be a sign that we can trust them. They will have evidenced a certain desire for the good of tradition. We are not asking for half measures, we are asking for complete freedom of the Mass with no condition.”
Source: Bp. Fellay’s 10-14-06 interview, http://web.archive.org/web/20061111010724/http://www.dici.org/dl/fichiers/1Bp_Fellay_Conf_14-10-06.pdf
Here is another way Bishop Fellay stated the Rosary Crusade intention:
“the recognition of the right for any priest to celebrate the traditional Mass”.
Source: http://www.dici.org/en/news/special-dossier-the-decree-of-january-21-2009-three-interviews-with-bishop-bernard-fellay/
This is what actually happened:
First, the motu proprio did not free “free the Mass” simply, but was only a broader indult (i.e., permission) with conditions attached which no traditional Catholic priest could accept:
The motu proprio frees the traditional Mass but only for those priests who do not object to the new mass but are merely nostalgic for the traditional Mass. In other words, the pope’s motu proprio did not free the traditional Mass for any of those who adhere to the traditional Mass as a matter of principle. You can see this for yourself from what the pope said at the time:
"There is no contradiction between the two editions of the Roman Missal. In the history of the liturgy there is growth and progress, but no rupture. What earlier generations held as sacred remains sacred and great for us, too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful. It behooves all of us to preserve the riches which have developed in the church's faith and prayer and to give them their proper place. Needless to say, 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."
Source: Pope Benedict XVI’s 7-7-07 letter accompanying the motu proprio (bold emphasis added).
The following quotes from the 2007 motu proprio itself show some of the restrictions placed on the traditional Mass:
"Art. 2. In Masses celebrated without the people, any priest of Latin rite, whether secular or religious, can use the Roman Missal published by Pope Blessed John XXIII in 1962 or the Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1970, on any day except in the sacred triduum. For celebration in accordance with one or the other missal, a priest does not require any permission, neither from the Apostolic See nor his own ordinary.
Note carefully: anyone who rejects the new mass as a matter of principle, could not accept the new mass during the sacred Triduum either. Thus, the motu proprio is merely for the nostalgic, not for those who have firm principles and refuse to have any part in it. This fits with the pope’s statement above, that priests cannot adhere to the traditional Mass as a matter of principle.
Here's another:
"Art. 5.2. Celebration according to the missal of Blessed John XXIII can take place on weekdays, while on Sundays and on feast days there may be one such celebration."
Second, the motu proprio, at a minimum, puts the True Mass on the same level as the novus ordo mass; or even puts it on a level below the new mass:
Note that the motu proprio not only did not free the Mass but even emphasized that the traditional Mass was (at best) on par with the new mass or, actually, gave the new mass precedence. Listen to Pope Benedict:
"[T]here is the fear that the docuмent [i.e the motu proprio itself ] detracts from the authority of the Second Vatican Council, one of whose essential decisions -- the liturgical reform -- is being called into question.
This fear is unfounded. In this regard, it must first be said that the missal published by Paul VI and then republished in two subsequent editions by John Paul II obviously is and continues to be the normal form -- the "forma ordinaria" -- of the eucharistic [sic] liturgy. The last version of the "Missale Romanum" prior to the council, which was published with the authority of Pope John XXIII in 1962 and used during the council, will now be able to be used as a "forma extraordinaria" of the liturgical celebration."
Source: Pope Benedict XVI’s 7-7-07 letter accompanying the motu proprio (bold emphasis added).
Conclusion: Are Bishop Fellay and his supporters correct to assume that the motu proprio is heaven's answer to the Rosary Crusade?
Although acknowledging, in muted tones, certain “restrictions” placed on the traditional Mass, Bishop Fellay errs in telling us that the 2007 Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificuм “gives freedom to all Latin-rite priests to choose either missal in offering their daily Mass.”
Source: http://www.angelusonline.org/index.php?section=articles&subsection=print_article&article_id=2645
By contrast, the motu proprio itself shows that this is not always true, and that the motu proprio gives no help to faithful priests who reject the new mass in principle. The motu proprio, in reality, only helps the nostalgic priest.
One can regard the motu proprio as a “step in the right direction” for conciliar parishes, just as it would be, e.g., for them to abolish altar girls. However, such measures do not affect Catholics who adhere to the full traditional Faith and Sacraments of the Catholic Church.
Lastly, the motu proprio does not fulfill the SSPX request, which was the intention of the rosary crusade:
“We are not asking for half measures, we are asking for complete freedom of the Mass with no condition.”
Source: Bp. Fellay’s 10-14-06 interview, http://web.archive.org/web/20061111010724/http://www.dici.org/dl/fichiers/1Bp_Fellay_Conf_14-10-06.pdf
{My observation.........} It would seem there is a problem with the following:
Although acknowledging, in muted tones, certain “restrictions” placed on the traditional Mass, Bishop Fellay errs in telling us that the 2007 Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificuм “gives freedom to all Latin-rite priests to choose either missal in offering their daily Mass.”
The problem, it seems to me, stems from the definition of "freedom ... to choose." For if it were in the broadest sense, a particular priest would be able to choose' only the Canonized Latin Mass and therefore would NEVER choose the Newmass. But if the definition is selective, or narrow, it could be that in order to earn the 'freedom' to choose the CLM, any priest would be required to ALSO or FIRST show his GOOD WILL by demonstrating his willingness to ALSO celebrate the Newmass. Therefore, by FAILING to celebrate the Newmass, such a priest would thereby LOSE his FREEDOM to choose the CLM within the confines of these "restrictions."
.
-
"A Challenge to Fr. Daniel Themann, SSPX
18 December 2013"
What's up Neil. Fr. Themann used to say Mass at my local SSPX roughly 1.5 years ago. After Mass, he would greet and briefly chit-chat with us locals (he drove in from Kansas). At the time, I would go to whatever Mass I could make. Meaning, one week it would be the SSPX, the Indult on another. I still went to the the N.O. when I got up late. At the time I didn't think remotely about these deeper issues. I've listened to his 2 hours CD talk (referenced above); and wished I knew then what I know now - if anything to mentally dig deeper with the issues behind the scenes. Interesting breakdowns.
-
"A Challenge to Fr. Daniel Themann, SSPX
18 December 2013"
What's up Neil. Fr. Themann used to say Mass at my local SSPX roughly 1.5 years ago. After Mass, he would greet and briefly chit-chat with us locals (he drove in from Kansas). At the time, I would go to whatever Mass I could make. Meaning, one week it would be the SSPX, the Indult on another. I still went to the the N.O. when I got up late. At the time I didn't think remotely about these deeper issues. I've listened to his 2 hours CD talk (referenced above); and wished I knew then what I know now - if anything to mentally dig deeper with the issues behind the scenes. Interesting breakdowns.
Wassup, TPC. TheRecusant #12 has no date for the Open Letter, but does have "Feast of St. Teresa of Avila, 2013" on the cover. That would be October 15th, which was a Tuesday.
You're not alone. You're among the vast average of Catholics today who frequent the CLM (Canonized Latin Mass). That's nothing to be ashamed about. The majority of 'Catholics' today are apostate, for lack of a better word. Maybe I should say "lapsed." At least you're reading, and if others would read, they'd perhaps pull themselves out of their morass of unknowing eventually.
It's not too late even for Fr. Themann, but it would seem to be the case, that if he sticks it out with the present trend from Menzingen, he's going to be one of the clothing-of-sheep-canines eventually.
Since you know him, maybe he would benefit from some of your prayers. But in any case, there is a whole shipment of facts and observations in this fine Open Letter, that would go a long way toward having a most elucidating NEXT meeting if you ever get the chance.
If it were me, I hope I could keep my composure at such a meeting. There is just so much to cover here.
.
-
.
Typo -- which I just noticed. This is from post #120 (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=29223&min=120#p0)
.
(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,
Page 16
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/New-very-accurate-reliable-translation-of-Fellays-Doctrinal-Statement
{This translation refers to the Nota explicativa prævia -- does anyone have a copy of this Nota?}
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.
_________________________________________________________
_______________________XXXXXX___________________________
Does anyone have a copy of the Nota explicativa prævia referenced in the AFD fn#19?
.
-
.
I wonder how many independent chapels there are,
where the priest is aware of this:
If he celebrates two or more Latin Masses on Sunday every week,
or two or more Latin Masses on any feast day,*
he is therefore in VIOLATION of Summorum Pontificuм.
Also, if he celebrates any Mass during the sacred Triduum
as a Latin Mass instead of a NovusOrdo Newmass,
he is likewise in violation of the MP SP.
*(Most calendar days are feast days.)
Furthermore, when he uses the 1962 Missal, he is using the one
referred to as the Missal of Blessed John XXIII.
And in a few short months, they'll be calling it:
"The Missal of St. John XXIII"
Angelus Press might even come out with a
surprise special edition with that name embossed on the cover
In GOLD!
From the docuмent itself (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=29223&min=135#p0):
(The following quotes from the 2007 motu proprio itself show some of the restrictions placed on the traditional Mass):
"Art. 2. In Masses celebrated without the people, any priest of Latin rite, whether secular or religious, can use the Roman Missal published by Pope Blessed John XXIII in 1962 or the Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1970, on any day except in the sacred triduum. For celebration in accordance with one or the other missal, a priest does not require any permission, neither from the Apostolic See nor his own ordinary."
(Note carefully: anyone who rejects the new mass as a matter of principle, could not accept the new mass during the sacred Triduum either. Thus, the motu proprio is merely for the nostalgic, not for those who have firm principles and refuse to have any part in it. This fits with the pope’s statement above, that priests cannot adhere to the traditional Mass as a matter of principle.)
(Here's another):
"Art. 5.2. Celebration according to the missal of Blessed John XXIII can take place on weekdays, while on Sundays and on feast days there may be one such celebration."
-
.
(from pg. 22):
The Lack of Firmness Shown in SSPX’s Request that Rome Free the Mass
One of the conditions for beginning discussions with Rome was that the traditional Mass be freed from all restrictions. 17:00. You say that the 2007 motu proprio does that and therefore is not an indult [18:30] and the current SSPX holds this condition fulfilled. However, the motu proprio (in article 2) still does not free the Mass to allow it to be offered on any day whatsoever, e.g., during the Sacred Triduum. (37) There are other serious restrictions, too. Id. (38)
Further, the motu proprio is only for the nostalgic priest, not for any priest who opposes the new mass on principle, because the pope declared that a priest could not “exclude celebrating according to the new books … as a matter of principle.” 7-7-07 letter of Pope Benedict XVI. Thus, the motu proprio does nothing for traditional Catholics. Although you legalistically say this condition is not technically part of the law because it is contained in the pope’s accompanying letter, nonetheless the truth is that it is part of the law as interpreted and enforced by the lawgiver, and was part of the application of the law which the Ecclesia Dei Commission used to prevent the Good Shepherd Institute from using the traditional Mass exclusively.
The SSPX’s erroneous position about the 2007 motu proprio, reminds us of another
Page 23
related sign that the SSPX is weakening, viz., the current SSPX does not warn about (but instead uses!) the very terminology of the 7-7-07 motu proprio which indicates that the new mass is good, since the new mass is called the “ordinary form” and the ordinary option must be good or it is not even an option. (In other words, committing a mortal sin is not an “option.”) Thus, the weakening SSPX finds itself using the language of the conciliar church, calling the traditional Mass the “extraordinary form.” (39)
The Current SSPX’s Squishy New Policy about Attending the Indult/Motu Masses
Another example of the current SSPX making its formerly firm principles of conduct into “squishy” rules always based on the situation, is the SSPX’s new stance on the “approved” traditional Masses. It used to be that the SSPX would say that “The Motu Proprio Mass, like the Indult Mass, is therefore not for traditional Catholics.” (40)
Contrast that with the current SSPX, where clear principles are rare and becoming extinct, and where everything, more and more, depends on squishy circuмstances. Here is Bishop Fellay in a 2009 interview:
Q. What advice can you give to the faithful concerning
these priests [offering the “approved,” i.e., Ecclesia Dei
Latin Masses]? What should [ be ] the approach of the laity
be, towards them?
A. The faithful must be very cautious and not get
themselves into embarrassing situations.* They
should consult our priests before approaching these
priests. The circuмstances are so variable: every
priest is different and until it is clear that the attitude
of the priest toward the Mass is authentic, the faithful
must remain gracious while maintaining a cautious
position. (41) *(41.a)
So, the only “firm” principle that Bishop Fellay can now manage to come up with, is that a priest must have an “authentic” attitude! That “rule” is meaningless and sounds like conciliar rhetoric. (41.a)
The SSPX’s New Position Regarding the New Mass
You describe the third condition that the pope required of Bishop Fellay on 6-30-12. According to your conference, Rome required that the SSPX agree that:
[T]he new mass is valid and legitimate. The new rite
of mass is not only valid (which of course we [i.e., the
SSPX] have always said), but it is legitimate, it is licit,
it’s good (which we [i.e., the SSPX] don’t accept). 36:55.
A little later, you say that “Bishop Fellay consistently insisted on the fact that … the new mass is not legitimate.” 41:00.
However, you recognize that Bishop Fellay stated in his 4-15-12 Doctrinal Preamble that the new mass is “legitimately promulgated.” Nothing can be “legitimately promulgated” which is not legitimate. So, for example, although a government has the right to promulgate laws for its subjects, it is plain that no government has the right to promulgate an ordinance banning the Catholic Faith. That ordinance could never be legitimately
__________________________________
39. See, e.g., http://www.angelusonline.org/index.php?section=articles&subsection=print_article&article_id=2658
40. See, e.g., Can the faithful assist at the traditional Masses celebrated in virtue of the Motu proprio of Pope Benedict XVI of July 7, 2007?, by Fr. Peter Scott, posted at:
http://op54rosary.ning.com/forum/topics/can-the-faithful-assist-at-the-traditional-massescelebrated-in-v?xg_source=activity
41. http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2009/10/interview-with-bishop-bernard-fellay.html & also on: http://web.archive.org/web/20100921023539/ http://www.dici.org/en/docuмents /
interview-with-bishop-bernard-fellay-roodepoort-south-africa-september-15th-2009/ (bold emphasis added).
{41.c} See following post, below.
.
-
.
The links in the footnotes above are as follows:
In footnote 39 is this link: http://www.angelusonline.org/index.php?section=articles&subsection=print_article&article_id=2658
The linked page begins thusly (which bold area is the whole point of the link):
Letter from the Editor
I have three numbers to give you. The first is zero. This is the number of 1962 Roman Catholic Daily Missals we currently have in stock. The second number is 700. This is the number of our daily hand-missals sold last Friday to a church in the Chicago archdiocese celebrating the Mass of the Extraordinary Form (a.k.a. the Latin Mass of 1962). The third number is 105,650. This is the number of dollars contributed in September by our apostolate partners allowing Angelus Press to amp up its revised production schedule for the rest of 2007.
The docuмent linked in footnote 40 could not be found.
The docuмents linked in footnote 41
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2009/10/interview-with-bishop-bernard-fellay.html
is currently active
Likewise the following page is currently active, as well: (& also on:)
http://web.archive.org/web/20100921023539/http://www.dici.org/en/docuмents/interview-with-bishop-bernard-fellay-roodepoort-south-africa-september-15th-2009/
Note: the last link above is repaired, while the one in 41, above, is not repaired.
Finally, my footnote {41.a} is as follows (it says "41.c" by mistake):
41.a Liberals in general share this tacit principle: they abhor principles per se, try to avoid talking about them at all costs, and attempt to expunge them from textbooks and manuals wherever they can, and they try not to get caught denying principles. The reason for this common tacit principle is, that when their tacit principles are defined, it destroys their lies.
In any event, it must be asked: Regarding the quote, "The faithful must be very cautious and not get themselves into embarrassing situations," -- What is the problem with getting into an embarrassing situation? Does the author somehow think that getting into an embarrassing situation is sinful? How many martyrs got into embarrassing situations by way of their martyrdom? Did they therefore commit a sin by doing so? Doesn't it make a big difference as to what the situation is? A bank robber in the act of holding up a bank might be thought of as being in an embarrassing situation. So the embarrassment of the situation has little to do with its moral propriety or impropriety, no?
For example, the difference between making a sacrilegious confession and making a good confession is often one of embarrassment, for a good confession can be an occasion for great embarrassment, whereas in order to AVOID the embarrassment, the penitent could lie to the confessor and "save face" only to deceive and commit an additional sin.
Therefore, to say "The faithful must be very cautious and not get themselves into embarrassing situations," cannot be good advice under many circuмstances, and it is therefore very bad advice in general. So what's it doing here?!?!
.
-
.
Q. What advice can you give to the faithful concerning
these priests [offering the “approved,” i.e., Ecclesia Dei
Latin Masses]? What should the approach of the laity be,
towards them?
A. The faithful must be very cautious and not get
themselves into embarrassing situations.* They
should consult our priests before approaching these
priests. The circuмstances are so variable: every
priest is different and until it is clear that the attitude
of the priest toward the Mass is authentic, the faithful
must remain gracious while maintaining a cautious
position. (41) *(41.a)
So, the only “firm” principle that Bishop Fellay can now manage to come up with, is that a priest must have an “authentic” attitude! That “rule” is meaningless and sounds like conciliar rhetoric.
Please note, no criteria are given for how anyone can tell whether such a priest in question has an "authentic attitude toward the Mass."
What is an "authentic attitude?" Does that mean a priest who is utterly subservient to every whim of Bishop Fellay?
Does a priest have to submit his mind and will to the Master Great One before his "attitude" is "authentic?"
Is this another one of Bishop Fellay's Internet rumours that he says we should avoid?
.
-
.
It seems to me that the devil is hard at work destroying the resources and links to docuмents on the Internet that give support and background to the claims of the Resistance.
Some significant portion of the links that Recusant #12 provide are dead links, and try as I may, I cannot find any alternative access to them.
One possibility is "archive.org" but the site has been offline as often as I have tried it lately. As I understand it, you can go there and find images of what the Internet USED to have on previous days in the recent past. How anyone can have that quantity of data storage available (most of which is rarely, if ever, accessed) seems a bit hard to imagine.
One might accuse the Menzingen-denizens of eliminating these sources, but as for me, that's just a hunch. We do have evidence of +F blocking access to certain information, such as his hoarding the copyright to the Sermons of ABL, and for prohibiting the publication of a recent book by one good French priest, which is a book containing truthful data that is highly inconvenient to +F's agenda of normalization with modernist Rome.
.
-
.
(from pg. 23):
The SSPX’s New Position Regarding the New Mass
You describe the third condition that the pope required of Bishop Fellay on 6-30-12. According to your conference, Rome required that the SSPX agree that:
[T]he new mass is valid and legitimate. The new rite
of mass is not only valid (which of course we [i.e., the
SSPX] have always said), but it is legitimate, it is licit,
it’s good (which we [i.e., the SSPX] don’t accept). 36:55.
A little later, you say that “Bishop Fellay consistently insisted on the fact that … the new mass is not legitimate.” 41:00.
However, you recognize that Bishop Fellay stated in his 4-15-12 Doctrinal Preamble [Declaration, or AFD] that the new mass is “legitimately promulgated.” Nothing can be “legitimately promulgated” which is not legitimate. So, for example, although a government has the right to promulgate laws for its subjects, it is plain that no government has the right to promulgate an ordinance banning the Catholic Faith. That ordinance could never be legitimately
Page 24
promulgated because that ordinance would not be good. See footnote 21. In fact, no lawgiver can ever legitimately do anything which is evil. Thus, Bishop Fellay’s acceptance of the “legitimate promulgation” of the new mass, acknowledges the new mass’s (supposed) goodness.
Notice also that when he talks about the new mass, Bishop Fellay’s 4-15-12 Doctrinal Preamble keeps silence regarding the evil of the new mass. Assuming Bishop Fellay really held (in 2012) that the new mass is evil, was he silent about this crucial truth to gain the “benefit” he was seeking from Rome? Is this what you mean when you say that “it is our duty to fight?” 48:40.
You say that you don’t know of any SSPX priest who would say that there is nothing wrong with the new mass. 21:48. No, the current SSPX is not that candid and perhaps the current SSPX would not literally hold that position (yet).
However, the current SSPX does indirectly say many kind things about the new mass. For example, Bishop Fellay has indicated his strange opinion that sometimes our baptismal character indicates that the new mass is good:
Bishop Fellay asserts the above novel idea, which we don’t
believe has ever been taught as Catholic doctrine, concerning
the character imprinted on our souls by baptism. The
catechism and St. Thomas (Summa, IIIa, Q.63) say that this
character (which is an indelible mark) does two things: 1) it
marks us as belonging to Christ; and 2) it enables us to receive
other sacraments.
Bishop Fellay asserts the novelty that this baptismal character
also causes us to recognize the goodness of the traditional Mass.
Bishop Fellay says that, when we attend the traditional Mass, there
is a “click,” which is our baptismal character causing us to recognize
that this Mass is pleasing to God and is truly Catholic. Bishop Fellay
then says “most of the time there is absolutely no ‘click’ with the
new mass.” (42)
There are two problems here:
a) Bishop Fellay’s statements are not the traditional Catholic teaching about the role of the baptismal character. Catholics are led to recognize what is good and evil through grace, virtue and especially the gifts of the Holy Ghost, not by our baptismal character.
b) Bishop Fellay’s comments are soft on the new mass, because his comments indirectly say that at least occasionally our God-given sacramental character (which supposedly helps us to discern what is good) will give a “click” in recognition that the new mass is good!
One supposes that Bishop Fellay would say that this purported “click” would occur when the new mass is used under the “best,” [or] strictest conditions. But if the new mass is good under strict conditions, then the new mass is good in itself! [42a]
Bishop Fellay asserts that the priest’s ordination character gives a priest the same reaction, only stronger, to the traditional Mass and, sometimes, also to the new mass [!?]
__________________________________
42. All of this is on the discs sold by the Angelus, Bishop Fellay’s October 19, 2012 conference, disc 1, about minute 76. Emphasis added.
[42a] See note next post.
.
-
.
It seems to me that this is one of the strongest points of this entire Open Letter:
b) Bishop Fellay’s comments are soft on the new mass, because his comments indirectly say that at least occasionally our God-given sacramental character (which supposedly helps us to discern what is good) will give a “click” in recognition that the new mass is good!
One supposes that Bishop Fellay would say that this purported “click” would occur when the new mass is used under the “best,” [or] strictest conditions. But if the new mass is good under strict conditions, then the new mass is good in itself! [42a]
Bishop Fellay asserts that the priest’s ordination character gives a priest the same reaction, only stronger, to the traditional Mass and, sometimes, also to the new mass [!?]
42a. This purported "click" of Bishop Fellay is utter foolishness. It is entirely subjective. It is subjectivism imported into the Church's doctrine. This is what the unclean spirit of Vat.II relies on wholesale. Bishop Fellay is resorting to the wiles and snares of the devil in this.
He is turning over the objective assessment of the whole essence of the Faith of Catholics to a "click" that one supposedly "feels" which gives one the power to pass judgment on Church doctrine itself. +Williamson has warned against this problem numerous times.
+W's penchant to raise the red flag over this false doctrine of +Fellay is PERHAPS THE PRINCIPAL REASON +W WAS EXPELLED FROM THE XSPX.
+Fellay's reliance on this stupid "click" technology, this bad hypothesis, this pernicious error of deception, is so important to +Fellay and the Menzingen-denizens that they had to be free to disseminate its message without the unstoppable reaction from the VOICE OF REASON coming inexorably from the mouth of Bishop Williamson.
The good authors of the Open Letter are too well-mannered to put this into plain language for all to see, but I don't have that handicap, thank God, and by extension, also thanks to Matthew.
.
-
This purported "click" of Bishop Fellay is utter foolishness. It is entirely subjective. It is subjectivism imported into the Church's doctrine. This is what the unclean spirit of Vat.II relies on wholesale. Bishop Fellay is resorting to the wiles and snares of the devil in this.
Foolishness indeed! The Novus Ordo service is not Catholic, it is not a work of the Catholic Church and essentially has nothing to do with the Catholic Faith but that it was imposed upon the Church by the wicked enemies of thet same Church.
Such fools who are clicked by this false ritual have very serious problems with their clarity about the nature of the Religion.
-
.
(from pg. 24):
There are two problems here:
a) Bishop Fellay’s statements are not the traditional Catholic teaching about the role of the baptismal character. Catholics are led to recognize what is good and evil through grace, virtue and especially the gifts of the Holy Ghost, not by our baptismal character.
b) Bishop Fellay’s comments are soft on the new mass, because his comments indirectly say that at least occasionally our God-given sacramental character (which supposedly helps us to discern what is good) will give a “click” in recognition that the new mass is good!
One supposes that Bishop Fellay would say that this purported “click” would occur when the new mass is used under the “best,” [or] strictest conditions. But if the new mass is good under strict conditions, then the new mass is good in itself! [42a]
Bishop Fellay asserts that the priest’s ordination character gives a priest the same reaction, only stronger, to the traditional Mass and, sometimes, also to the new mass [!?]
Page 25
His assertion is apparently a novelty for the priestly character also. Id.
On another occasion, Bishop Fellay indicated that the new
mass is good when used under the “strictest” conditions.
The SSPX quoted Cardinal Canizares as saying: On one
occasion, Bishop (Bernard) Fellay, who is the leader of the
Society of St. Pius X, came to see me and said, “We just
came from an abbey that is near Florence. If Archbishop
(Marcel) Lefebvre had seen how they celebrated there, he
would not have taken the step that he did”… The missal used
at that celebration was the Paul VI Missal in its strictest form.
We leave aside that Bishop Fellay apparently attended a new mass, despite the duty of all Catholics to avoid all sacrilege! In this statement quoted by Cardinal Canizares, Bishop Fellay says that, if Archbishop Lefebvre had seen the new mass celebrated strictly, then he would not have taken “the step that he did.” This “step” must refer either to founding the SSPX or opposing the new mass.
What Bishop Fellay necessarily implies is that Archbishop Lefebvre was reacting against particular abuses occurring in the celebration of the new mass and that Archbishop Lefebvre would not have otherwise considered it necessary to found the SSPX (or to oppose the new mass), if only the new mass would have been celebrated without abuses.
In other words, Bishop Fellay is indicating that Archbishop Lefebvre would have considered the new mass acceptable in its “strict” form!
a) Here is another example of Bishop Fellay’s softness on the new mass, this time from a 2013 interview. He states: “[W]hat needs to be corrected [regarding the new mass] … can be done by an instruction from the Congregation for the Divine Cult and the Discipline of the Sacraments.” Id. As an example of what needs to be corrected, Bishop Fellay mentions the need for a more accurate translation of the new mass into the vernacular. Id. In two ways, Bishop Fellay indicates that the new mass is not inherently bad and is not itself the problem:
The example he gives about what needs to be corrected regarding the new mass, does not address the inherent evil of the new mass but only translations and abuses; and
b) The Vatican Congregation does not have the power to remake the new mass itself. Thus, when Bishop Fellay says the Vatican Congregation can make the necessary corrections related to the new mass, he is implying that the new mass itself does not need to be simply destroyed or entirely and radically changed.
SSPX Liberalism Did Not Begin In 2011
In your hypothetical third objection [39:10] which you treat as if it came from persons opposed to the current SSPX liberalism, you suppose it to be granted by them that “up until 2011, so the argument goes, Bishop Fellay put doctrine in first place. Now he puts the practical agreement, the canonical structure in first place.” As is true of most people resisting the current SSPX’s liberalism, we hold that Bishop Fellay’s slide into liberalism began much earlier.
___________________________________
43. http://www.sspx.org/superior_generals_news/what_bishop_fellay_really_said_to_cardinal_canizares_about_the_new_mass_1-21-2013.htm ; see the analysis here:
http://www.truetrad.com/index.php/the-truth/problems-in-the-sspx/slow-subtle-poisonfrom-the-sspx/all-poison-newest-first/233-bishop-fellay-s-scandalous-comment-in-favor-ofthe-new-mass
44. http://www.dici.org/en/docuмents/interview-of-bishop-fellay-in-nouvelles-de-france/ & http://www.sspx.org/superior_generals_news/pope_benedicts_last_major_act_bishop_fellay_interview_2-15-2013.htm
45. http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/docuмents/rc_con_ccdds_pro_20000628_profilo_it.html
Note: I have not verified the links in these 3 footnotes, so I have no idea if they're working or not at this time.
.
-
.
(from pg. 25):
SSPX Liberalism did Not Begin in 2011
In your hypothetical third objection [39:10] which you treat as if it came from persons opposed to the current SSPX liberalism, you suppose it to be granted by them that “up until 2011, so the argument goes, Bishop Fellay put doctrine in first place. Now he puts the practical agreement, the canonical structure in first place.” As is true of most people resisting the current SSPX’s liberalism, we hold that Bishop Fellay’s slide into liberalism began much earlier.
Page 26
We have been concerned for years before that; e.g., when Bishop Fellay accepted one of Pope John Paul II’s favorite phrases, referring to the Jews as our “Elder Brothers” in early 2009. (46) However much Bishop Fellay might rationalize to himself that he gives this phrase a different meaning in his own mind, than the conciliar church does, it is a grave scandal.
As St. Thomas teaches, there should be such a bright line separating us from heretics, that “with us and heretics, the very words ought not to be in common, lest we seem to countenance their error.” Summa, IIIa, Q.16, a.8, Respondeo. [46a]
Likewise, in 2009, Bishop Fellay was already so weak that he said that, after the deal with Rome, his “hope is that we be sufficiently protected to exercise the apostolate to be able to do good, without being always stopped from action by juridical reasons.” (47) Obviously, hoping, without ensuring we can do good, is insufficient, especially knowing that unconverted Rome is solidly anti-Traditional in attitude and doctrine and has repeatedly broken its promises in order to squelch Tradition. See, e.g., footnote 32 above. Father, it speaks volumes about you that you think Bishop Fellay’s words here are the words of a man who puts doctrine first!
Although Bishop Fellay’s liberalism has been increasing for a long time, the reaction of priests and laymen recently, has been greater because Bishop Fellay’s recent liberalism has been greater. For example, Bishop Fellay said last year that:
[Religious liberty] is used in so many ways. And looking
closer, I really have the impression that not many know
what really the Council says about it. The Council is
presenting a religious liberty which, in fact, is a very, very
limited one: very limited! (48)
Notice that Bishop Fellay is not condemning religious liberty [as Pope Gregory XVI and Pius IX did, but instead, +F is taking sides with the most pernicious principle of John XXIII: to not condemn error -- as shown in his M.R.S. of Oct. 11th, 1962]. He says that the Council’s religious liberty “is a very, very limited one: very limited!” [48a]
A little later in this video interview, Bishop Fellay addresses “which principle is involved to” justify Catholics demanding freedom to practice the true religion. Bishop Fellay says, “We would argue that there might be another principle which would be more accurate to justify [seeking freedom for the Catholic Church].” (49)
Pope Gregory XVI and Pope Pius IX condemned religious liberty as “insanity.” See, http://www.scribd.com/doc/46116957/Social-Kingship-of-Our-Lord . By contrast, Bishop Fellay says that there “might be” [!] another principle which would “be more accurate!” Is this how Bishop Fellay fulfills his “duty to fight?” [See pp. 16, 19, 24] Is he putting truth first? [49a]
Further, not only did Bishop Fellay fail to condemn religious liberty, but he said that this (false) “right” declared by the council, “is a very, very limited one: very limited!” In this also, what Bishop Fellay says is false. [49b] Here is what the council itself says [this is Vat.II, plus commentary by Fr. Abbott; see footnote]:
“[N]or is anyone to be restrained from acting in
accordance with his own beliefs, whether privately
or publicly, whether alone or in association with
others....” Vatican II teaches that this religious liberty
“continues to exist even in those who do not live up to
their obligation of seeking the truth and adhering to it.”
Id. Vatican II does say that religious liberty has
“due limits,” but makes clear that these limits concern
peace and safety: “nor is the exercise of this right to be
impeded, provided that the just requirements of public
order are observed.” Id. (50)
___________________________________
46. http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2009/02/fellay-jews-are.html
[46a] This principle of St. Thomas carries implications. By extension and as applied to music, for example, it could well be adapted to read as follows: “With us and heretics, the very words, melodies and harmonies ought not to be in common, lest we seem to countenance their error, or lest we seem to offend God by our apparent complicity with their heresies, or lest we might arouse in the hearts and minds of anyone present who has converted from protestantism because the music they hear recalls to their minds and hearts the very heresies they had abandoned when they abjured their erstwhile longstanding error.”
47. http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2009/07/fellay-speaks-talks-begin-in-autumnof.html (emphasis added).
48. Bishop Fellay interview – listen at minute 1:25 of 6:00 at: http://www.youtube.com/watch ?v=DdnJigNzTuY&feature=topics (emphasis added).
[48a] [This penchant of going soft on Vat.II now translates into going soft on the condemnation of error. It is a going-softness that spreading like a disease. It is spreading into the minds and hearts of the Faithful through the bad leadership of the SSPX, of which +Fellay is the most prominent example. The feigned tension between +F and +de Mallerais and +de Glarreta is just for show. The only real tension is between +F and +W.]
49. Bishop Fellay interview – http://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=DdnJigNzTuY&feature=topics -- listen at minute 2:30 of 6:00 (emphasis added).
[49a] Find this Open Letter references to "duty to fight" in their various contexts, on pages 16, 19, 24 and 26. ~ See the following post for more on "the question of truth."
[49b] What Bishop Fellay says here is "false" because he is saying that the religious liberty of Vat.II is "very, very limited," whereas we can all see by reading the references quoted that the religious liberty of Vat.II was not "limited" at all, but was rather very, very far-reaching and all-encompassing.
50. Docuмents of Vatican II, Fr. Abbott (General Editor), Dignitatis Humanae, pp. 679-680 (emphasis added).
Some of these links work and others don't. Additionally, those from page 25:
43. http://www.sspx.org/superior_generals_news/what_bishop_fellay_really_said_to_cardinal_canizares_about_the_new_mass_1-21-2013.htm ; see the analysis here:
http://www.truetrad.com/index.php/the-truth/problems-in-the-sspx/slow-subtle-poisonfrom-the-sspx/all-poison-newest-first/233-bishop-fellay-s-scandalous-comment-in-favor-ofthe-new-mass
44. http://www.dici.org/en/docuмents/interview-of-bishop-fellay-in-nouvelles-de-france/ & http://www.sspx.org/superior_generals_news/pope_benedicts_last_major_act_bishop_fellay_interview_2-15-2013.htm
45. http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/docuмents/rc_con_ccdds_pro_20000628_profilo_it.html
-
.
Is he putting truth first? [Footnote 49a, on page 26, above]
The Open Letter asks if Bishop Fellay is putting truth first in the examples given. But as Bill Clinton said, "It all depends on the meaning of the word, 'is'." Well, actually, in this particular case, it all depends on the meaning of the word "truth."
We can go directly to the words of Fr. Themann to explore that definition, for in a summary page quoted in another thread or two here on CI, Fr. Themann make the alarming announcement of a most curious proposition, the likes of which may well had never been committed to paper before this particular instance.
He wrote:
"Truth is not firstly a question of words but of the ideas for which the words stand."
I'd like to take this opportunity to point out that since this curious and ambiguous statement says that, among other things, truth is a question, how much further does one need to go down that road before one arrives at "the question of truth?"
How many ways are there to ask a question of truth? It would seem there may be no end to the ways.
One of the ways would be asking, "Is he putting truth first?"
But for Fr. Themann, who says that truth is firstly a question of the ideas for which words stand, why would anyone criticize him for proposing or implying, that when Bishop Fellay says there might be another principle that would be more accurate than Catholics demanding freedom to justify practicing the true religion, that this could be +Fellay's way of putting truth first? That is, when we begin with the foundational principle that truth is not firstly a question of words but of the ideas for which the words stand, how then would can we say that anyone is not being consistent with their stated principles when they say there might be another principle that would be more accurate than Catholics demanding freedom to justify practicing the true religion?
When one starts playing around with words, mixing in modern idioms (A is not firstly a question of B, &c.) and playing fast and loose with language, there are consequences.
When you are a prominent Catholic priest, putting down in writing what truth is, what truth is not, what truth firstly is, what truth is not firstly, what truth is OTHER than what it is not firstly, and so on, it might fool some of the readers some of the time, but it's not going to deceive even the elect, insomuch as it would seem possible for it to do so (cf. Mt. xxiv. 24).
.
-
.
This purported "click" of Bishop Fellay is utter foolishness. It is entirely subjective. It is subjectivism imported into the Church's doctrine. This is what the unclean spirit of Vat.II relies on wholesale. Bishop Fellay is resorting to the wiles and snares of the devil in this.
Foolishness indeed! The Novus Ordo service is not Catholic, it is not a work of the Catholic Church and essentially has nothing to do with the Catholic Faith but that it was imposed upon the Church by the wicked enemies of thet same Church.
Such fools who are clicked by this false ritual have very serious problems with their clarity about the nature of the Religion.
Thank you, J.Paul -- your observation is helpful. It's really important that we recognize the FALLACY of these little drops of poison that are being doled out by the SSPX priests and bishops (not the good ones but the Fellayites who are running the show, pretty much).
Regarding the other theme, the "question of truth,"....................
The fact that any discussion of this ambiguous nonsense proposition of Fr. Themann is met with silence on CathInfo is really disappointing. Everyone is running away from it like it's radioactive or something.
What's the matter, members? Too much trouble to think a little deeper for a few minutes?
Fr. Themann said,
"Truth is not firstly a question of words but of the ideas for which the words stand."
And when I hold this out and show how it is AMBIGUOUS, and DECEPTIVE and UNBECOMING FOR ANY PRIEST TO ASSERT, all I get is crickets?
This is a demonstration of Modernism in action. The unclean spirit of Vatican II is alive and well, and it's eating into your own heart and soul, and you don't even know it. Because if it were otherwise, you would be responding to this topic, which is found on 4 separate threads in 3 different forums, so far.
Modernism is a disease, and one of its symptoms is that you do not know that you are infected.
.
-
.
Page 27
So the council says that this (false) “right” to religious liberty is entirely unlimited as long as society does not erupt in violence!
Instead of being “very, very limited,” [50.a] it is the same very broad “right” espoused by the Freemasons in Article 10 of the French Revolution’s 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man: “No one can be molested for his opinions, even for his religious opinions, provided their manifestation does not trouble the public order established by law.”
In the 10-31-12 SSPX priests’ newsletter, Cor Unum, the SSPX tried to explain away Bishop Fellay’s statements on religious liberty by telling its priests that:
Bishop Fellay had the intention of making them [viz., Catholic
News Service, who was interviewing him] understand that true
religious liberty is much more limited than they think and that
it does not involve a right to error. (51)
Do you [Fr. Themann] really believe the SSPX’s explanation here? Bishop Fellay says, “The Council is presenting a religious liberty ...”. Do you think he really meant “true religious liberty?”
----------------------XXX------------------------
Father Themann, we have merely made a small start in presenting the vast catalogue of evidence (from the SSPX’s own mouth), answering your question: “Resistance to What?”
We have only scratched the surface of the evidence which we could give, and it is as plain as day that the current SSPX has been slowly weakening for a long time.
We limit ourselves to one more example. This one is from Bishop Fellay’s 6-8-12 DICI interview, in which he makes many scandalous and poisonous statements.
Bishop Fellay says that he “would like to hope that ... Vatican II belongs to Tradition.” (52) Saying this, Bishop Fellay avoids telling the essential truth: that Vatican II does not belong to Catholic Tradition. Instead Bishop Fellay “hopes” it does! Any true traditional Catholic knows that Vatican II is a “counter-syllabus” and is the French Revolution in the Church. Bishop Fellay’s “hope” that Vatican II is traditional, is like “hoping” that Martin Luther’s teachings are completely orthodox – we know it is a false and vain hope.
You Falsely Deny that SSPX Priests are being Muzzled
You were asked this question: “Has there been any official edicts from the superior general for the Society not to talk about certain sensitive types of matters?” Disc 2, track 2, 49:00.
And you responded: “People have actually asked me that and the answer is ‘no’, of course not.” Id. [52.a]
Many, many times your superiors have given their priests directives which muzzle them against the increasing liberalism of the SSPX. At the end of this letter, we enclose one of countless examples which might “refresh your memory.” This example is a 6-7-12 letter from U.S. District Superior, Fr. Rostand, discussed below.
This 6-7-12 email letter arrived right before Bishop Fellay’s 6-8-12 DICI interview would be made public. This interview was packed with liberalism and compromises from beginning to end. Bishop Fellay knew there could be a strong reaction from some of his
______________________________
[50.a] [As +Fellay eagerly asserts in his interview with CNS with much feigned unction (which captures the attention of women, apparently)]
51. http://www.truetrad.com/index.php/component/content/article/81-all/true-arguments/243-menzingen-s-revealing-10-31-2012-internal-letter?highlight=YToxOntpOjA7czo4OiIxMC0zMS0xMiI7fQ==
52. 6-8-12 DICI interview at http://www.dici.org/en/news/interview-with-bishop-bernard-fellay-on-relations-with-rome/
[52.a] Fr. Themann does not specify whose answer this is (he says, "THE answer is..." indicating that he could be unwilling to say that it is HIS answer, but rather it could be an answer he was TOLD to give), but it likely would SEEM to be the answer he would have received from his superiors, when he had asked them, "What should I tell them when they ask this question about priests being muzzled?" (Presuming he had asked such a question) In the next 2 pages the possibility that Fr. Themann was not personally given such directives is explored, however, there is much more to the story............
-
Alas Neil, the troops are weary and weakened.
They need to wake up out of their stupor!
-
.
(from pg. 27):
You Falsely Deny that SSPX Priests are being Muzzled
You were asked this question: “Has there been any official edicts from the superior general for the Society not to talk about certain sensitive types of matters?” Disc 2, track 2, 49:00.
And you responded: “People have actually asked me that and the answer is ‘no’, of course not.” Id. [52.a]
Many, many times your superiors have given their priests directives which muzzle them against the increasing liberalism of the SSPX. At the end of this letter, we enclose one of countless examples which might “refresh your memory.” This example is a 6-7-12 letter from U.S. District Superior, Fr. Rostand, discussed below.
This 6-7-12 email letter arrived right before Bishop Fellay’s 6-8-12 DICI interview would be made public. This interview was packed with liberalism and compromises from beginning to end. Bishop Fellay knew there could be a strong reaction from some of his
Page 28
more anti-liberal priests. Therefore, the districts contacted their priests to make sure they were muzzled.
Three days before the 6-8-12 interview [on June 5th], Fr. Rostand had a conference call with his priors to organize them to muzzle their priests. (See the 6-7-12 Rostand letter [found on page 31 of this issue], below.) (53) Then Fr. Rostand followed up with his priors by email letter, reminding them to keep a short leash on their priests. Id. [This "short leash" directive is contained in the exhibit e-mail on p. 31.]
Fr. Rostand’s letter gives a few “reminders” to his priors and tells them to “communicate these reminders to your priests.” Id. Fr. Rostand cautions his priors that his “reminders” are for the priests only. Id. He reminds his priors that his “reminders” should neither be disclosed to laymen nor published or posted on the internet. Id.
Fr. Rostand reminds the priors that no priest is permitted to prepare any formal written article connected to the situation in Rome. Id. These “formal communications” are “reserved to the General House” in Menzingen.
Id.
However, Fr. Rostand tells his priests they should speak about the SSPX’s situation with Rome but should only “speak generally” [53.a] and should repeat what is contained in the “public communications by the superiors.” Id. Fr. Rostand reminds the priors that “if a priest is unsure of what may be said/should be said, then that priest should contact the District House for further information” about what to say. Id. (emphasis added)
Fr. Rostand reminds the priors that they should not give their “own opinions” and they should “avoid bitterness and undue criticism of our brother priests.” Id.
Fr. Rostand tells his priests that:
The charity of respect for, and loyalty to, our lawful
superiors, demanded by the virtue of obedience, means
allowing them the opportunity to present and explain
things at the opportune time. Id.
Lastly, Fr. Rostand reminds his priests of the SSPX rules for preventing the sharing of information by the laity. He says:
∙ Beware recording/publishing of sermons, etc., which can
easily be used against us. (54)
∙ Remind the faithful that they are not to record or publish
(or even simply pass along to a friend via the internet)
without your express consent.
∙ Remind the faithful that this is not an arbitrary decision, or
one designed to keep sermons hidden, but rather exists
to prevent the spread of discord, and the fomenting of
a revolutionary spirit. Id.
Now Fr. Themann, because you are not a prior, perhaps you have never seen this 6-7-12 letter before, and perhaps you have never heard about the similar district directives to the priors. Perhaps you have naively thought that your own superior was the only one muzzling his priest-subordinates. Because of your non-superior status, you really were not in a position to speak with knowledge about an edict passed down by the superior general, through the district superiors, to the priors, and then to the regular priests like you.
__________________________
53. See, the analysis here: http://www.truetrad.com/index.php/the-truth/problems-with-bp-fellay/bishop-fellay/bishop-fellay-s-dici-interview
[53.a] [This EDICT that Fr. Rostand doles out by e-mail, that his priests should only speak in general terms regarding the SSPX-Rome situation: Fr. Themann is doing JUST THAT (see footnote 52.a) throughout this "Resistance to What?" diatribe. Whether his complicity is knowing or innocent is for him to decide, and for his judge to pronounce. Any of us who know a fence-sitter SSPX priest, we ought to ask him: "Were you informed by your superior that you must only speak in general terms regarding the situation between Rome and the Society?" A more pointed question would be, "Were you encouraged to be vague or ambiguous in describing the SSPX-Rome dealings?" Be sure not to explore the latter question until first you test the waters with the former question.]
54. One example of this tactic of the current SSPX, is at your conference in St. Marys where the faithful were forbidden to record your conference. Disc 1, track 1, 1:20. Was the current SSPX afraid that the recordings of the laity might contain inconvenient material edited out of the official SSPX recording? If not, why does the SSPX care, if the laity make their own recordings of a free conference which would be distributed free, as a 2-CD set?
.
-
Alas Neil, the troops are weary and weakened.
They need to wake up out of their stupor!
Dear holysoulsacademy, I have no claim to not being weary or weakened, myself! It has taken me ever since mid-November (4 months!) to post these pages of this one issue, Recusant #12, and now, we're on the verge of issue #15. All the posts of Issue 12 are here on this one thread for easy reference.
Curiously, it's one of the most outstanding issues, but it is the only one, so far, that departs from the usual format of the other 13 of them.
A year ago, I came to the realization that TheRecusant has all the marks of being an historical benchmark for what happened to the SSPX to answer a lot of questions future generations might have. I only had to order a few back-issues to be up to speed on everything from day one. I now have a stack of them, 14 issues, and counting, and they are absolutely stellar.
Anyone coming into this cold has plenty of catching up to do, but at least here is the body of work that can be a first step to knowing the truth.
It seems that the entire world is at war with the truth. The easy thing to do would be to ignore all this. It is a constant struggle to keep up with the hard news, and it is the most natural thing to become weary and weakened in the process.
The Fellayite SSPX priests and faithful are doing the easy thing, and slacking off.
Are we going to be like them, or are we going to be fighters, like ABL?
I recently gave copies of one letter found on page 10 of Issue 10, to three friends whom I knew would appreciate it. They were quite thankful. One of them asked me, "What is the Recusant?" Now I have to find some select pages from several issues to copy for her, and if she has a computer, provide for her a list of Ecclesia-Militans archives containing PDF files of all the Recusant issues.
.
-
.
Consequently, Fr. Themann or any other SSPX priest, would be literally "obedient" by answering any questions about this exhibit e-mail from Fr. Rostand by making a vague reference to how we should not pay any attention to 'Internet rumours'.
Notice, he shouldn't identify the e-mail as an 'Internet rumour', because that would be disobedient!
Bishop Fellay (the subtle bishop!) never has (and probably never will) exemplified what he means by 'Internet rumour' because he does not want to be responsible in the future for having made any such specific claim. Like any liberal politician, he strives for ambiguous words so as to leave himself an 'out' in the future.
.
-
.
(from page 28)
Now Fr. Themann, because you are not a prior, perhaps you have never seen this 6-7-12 letter before, and perhaps you have never heard about the similar district directives to the priors. Perhaps you have naively thought that your own superior was the only one muzzling his priest-subordinates. Because of your non-superior status, you really were not in a position to speak with knowledge about an edict passed down by the superior general, through the district superiors, to the priors, and then to the regular priests like you.
Page 29
For that reason, you should have expressed your lack of information with which to answer the question one way or another, instead of denying that the superior general is muzzling his priests.
But do you really claim to be ignorant that the SSPX priests are being muzzled by their superiors? Either way, to the laity whom you misled for 2½ hours earlier this year, the result is the same. But there will be a difference for you at your Judgment.
The “Reaction” Which You Say Is Lacking, to the SSPX Liberalism
Besides your false denial that the SSPX priests are being muzzled, you give this “proof” that the SSPX has not changed: “[If] I would start announcing the mass times across the street at the novus ordo church, all of you in this room would react.” Disc 2, track 2, 50:00. You say it shows that the SSPX has not drifted into liberalism because if the SSPX did drift, then SSPX priests would “react”. Id.
Some priests did react. They are sometimes called the “Resistance”. Actually your example is rather close to what the SSPX did on its Polish District website. As mentioned above, that SSPX website posted the ordination schedules of the Ecclesia Dei compromise groups, earlier this year.
It is true that most SSPX priests did not react publicly to the SSPX’s accelerated liberalism beginning in 2012. But the current SSPX situation is, as it were, the 1960s within the SSPX. Fifty years ago, in the 1960s, most good priests did not react. Instead, living silently with compromise, they gradually became callous to, and then embraced, the conciliar revolution.
We should not expect the majority of priests or people to react to the slow liberalizing of the SSPX any more than the majority of priests or people reacted to the slow liberalizing of the conciliar church in the 1960s. Those who think that traditional Catholic priests and laymen today are somehow a stronger, better group than the average priests and laymen in the 1960s, give themselves way too much credit. Some of us writing this letter can make this comparison from our own knowledge.
Cardinal Ratzinger recognized that gradualism is the key to avoiding a resistance. [54.a] Quoting and citing him, the Remnant summarized his opinion as follows:
the imposition of the Novus Ordo upon the faithful
in a mere six months was a great mistake. Cardinal
Ratzinger believed it should have taken at least ten
years. Why? Cardinal Ratzinger knew that a
fundamental change on the scale of introducing a
new Mass must be gradually revealed to the faithful
over a long period of time if they were to eventually
accept it. The New Mass being imposed practically all at
once over six months was not enough time. This
rapid implementation led to many leaving the Church
and the formation of resistance groups such as the SSPX.
_________________________
[54.a] [Comparison should be made here to the "soft Communism" of Antonio Gramschi, and Italian political theoretician who proposed that the 'hard communism' of Stalin, Mao Tse Tung and Fidel Castro was no longer as effective as a more gradual version, which has been adopted in most of Europe and in the United States after World War II.]
.
-
.
I forgot to add the footnote #55 after this:
(from page 29)
Cardinal Ratzinger recognized that gradualism is the key to avoiding a resistance. [54.a] Quoting and citing him, the Remnant summarized his opinion as follows:
the imposition of the Novus Ordo upon the faithful
in a mere six months was a great mistake. Cardinal
Ratzinger believed it should have taken at least ten
years. Why? Cardinal Ratzinger knew that a
fundamental change on the scale of introducing a
new Mass must be gradually revealed to the faithful
over a long period of time if they were to eventually
accept it. The New Mass being imposed practically all at
once over six months was not enough time. This
rapid implementation led to many leaving the Church
and the formation of resistance groups such as the SSPX. (55)
Page 30
Cardinal Ratzinger is correct. The slower the revolution moves, the fewer people will react. The SSPX revolution has been moving slowly for many years. For example, GREC began only a couple of years after Archbishop Lefebvre died. It was only when the SSPX got impatient in 2012 and tried to move too fast, that it encountered open resistance. The SSPX has learned to be more patient since then. (56)
Use of SSPX Internal Docuмents
Multiple SSPX priests disclosed the three SSPX internal docuмents used above, because of the deception they contain. We hold that the justness of their revealing these deceptive docuмents (and us using them here) is similar to Pope Pius IX and Pope Leo XIII commanding the publication of the Alta Vendita private papers of the freemasons, for the good of the Church.
Unlike your own approach to prudence, we are acting on principle, in matters of prudence. Here are the principles we used when publicly disclosing these three internal SSPX docuмents. We hold the principle that private docuмents should generally remain private, just like a person’s particular sins should generally remain hidden.
However, there is a superseding principle which applies here and in the case of those two good popes’ publication of the freemasons’ private papers. That superseding principle is that the privacy of papers should not be used as a cloak of darkness to assist in subverting souls.
This is like the superseding principle that a person’s private sins must be disclosed on some occasions, e.g., if it is the best way you have to prevent a child molester from being hired as your young nephew’s piano teacher, for private lessons. So, if you and the SSPX leadership don’t want SSPX internal docuмents revealed, then tell the truth, especially on matters having a significant effect on many souls!
A Final Word About Your Conference
Because you talked so long (2 ½ hours!), our letter was unavoidably long. We addressed many of your points in this open letter, attempting to help the faithful and correct the scandal you have caused. We certainly have not addressed all of your errors but we addressed as many as we did to give the faithful a basis for assessing whether they should consider you a suitable guide and whether they should consider you and the SSPX worthy
of their trust.
Again, you can contact us at Father.Themann.Answered@gmail.com and we would be glad to discuss this further.
We will pray for you; please pray for us!
Yours truly in Christ.
www.TheRecusant.com
_________________________________
55. Remnant, The Ides of April, posted April 10, 2012, http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2012-0415-dupuy-ides-of-april-sspx-rome.htm [Note: Historically, the SSPX has always been the Resistance!]
56. See, e.g., http://www.therecusant.com/grec-book-review
[56.a] The Resistance was born of the Menzingen-denizens trying to advance the revolution TOO FAST. Just as Ratzinger said about Paul VI's Novus Ordo agenda, that he tried to make it happen too fast, and if Paul VI had gradually brought it in over a 10-year period then +Lefebvre and other reactionaries would not have risen up with their Resistance at that time.
.
-
.
I wasn't able to download page 31 alone as an image, so that I could post it here. I could scan page 31 from my physical issue #12 but I'm not doing that. If another member would like to post an image of Page 31, that would be great.
If anyone has a copy of Adobe Acrobat (not just "Reader") or Foxit Phantom PDF editor, you could post a copy here of page 31 (without showing all the other pages too) as an image.
If you want to see page 31, download the PDF from ecclesiamilitans.com at the following address:
http://www.ecclesiamilitans.com/the_recusant_-_issue_12_-_december_2013_supplementary.pdf
.