They must have read +W E.C.s it has been five weeks since the conference.

http://www.dici.org/en/docuмents/bishop-de-galarreta-i-think-the-pope-will-lean-towards-a-one-sided-recognition/


Bishop de Galarreta: “I think the pope will lean towards a one-sided recognition.”

26-02-2016  
Filed under Docuмents

Bishop de Galarreta gave a conference in Bailly, near Versailles, on January 17, 2016. He exposed the present situation in the Church and informed his audience of the present state of the relations between Rome and the Society of St. Pius X. He directed the Society of St. Pius X’s commission of theologians during the doctrinal discussions with Rome from 2009 to 2011. Here are the most important extracts from his conference, transcribed by DICI.
5_galarreta-econe

Bishop Alfonso de Galarreta.

The crisis of the Faith worsens and arouses public reactions

In the first part of his conference, Bishop de Galarreta explained that “a will to draw all of the consequences contained in the principles of Vatican Council II” is developing in Rome. Now that the conciliar ideas of ecuмenism, religious liberty and collegiality are established, according to the Roman authorities, it is morality’s turn to be infected with a form of evolutionism: “It is already the case with dogma and with the truth (according to the progressivists); it is already the case with ecuмenism, religious liberty, collegiality, the whole liberal revolutionary spirit… so why not morality, too? In the end, it was incoherent not to apply evolution to morality, too;” it, too, is called to adapt to “man’s life, habits, laws, and the evolution of things…”

Nonetheless, the Argentinian prelate recognized that in the face of this disaster, there is a reaction: “Now we are starting to see reactions in the actual, official Church. And deep reactions, for some do realize that there is a doctrinal problem, a problem of faith. They realize that there is also a problem in the conciliar and post-conciliar magisterium. They are starting to ask questions and, this is very important, they understand that to oppose this complete rupture with Tradition, they have to react and necessarily oppose the authorities who diffuse these errors. So we see cardinals, bishops, priests and laymen beginning to react, and in the right way, even in an excellent way, sometimes very firmly.”

A double proposal from Rome: Doctrinal and canonical

Bishop de Galarreta then related that in the summer of 2015 the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith proposed a personal prelature along with a doctrinal declaration. And he explained that the “Superior General sent both Roman texts to all the major superiors and to some theologians of the Society, as well as to the bishops, so they could analyze them and give him our opinion.”

About the doctrinal declaration, the Argentinian bishop admitted: “What we see in the doctrinal declaration is that there is no longer Cardinal Ratzinger’s profession of faith. The Roman authorities ask us to make Pius IV’s profession of faith, that is, the profession of faith of the Council of Trent. Also, in the previous profession, there was a paragraph on religious liberty. They have suppressed this requirement. Ecuмenism has been removed. On the Mass they had asked us to recognize the validity and the legitimacy. Now they ask us to recognize the validity of the new sacraments and the new Mass according to the typical edition, the original Latin edition. The Society has always recognized this. You see, they are taking away their conditions in an effort to succeed.”

Then Bishop de Galarreta explained that the Superior General thought it important to answer the Roman offer to recognize the Society “as it is” with a preliminary answer that was anything but vague: “Bishop Fellay told us, ‘before answering this proposal from the Congregation of the Faith, I am going to write them an exhaustive explanation to make it very clear how we are and how we act, what we preach, what we do, what we do not do, and what we are not ready to do’,” – in order to find out if the Society really is accepted “as it is”.

The Argentinian prelate then voiced his reservations for a profound doctrinal reason: “They still wish above all to make us accept, if only vaguely, if only in principle, Vatican Council II and its errors.” And he added that this Roman desire can be seen on the practical level in the canonical proposal: “There is always, in one way or another, a submission to the Roman dicasteries or to the bishops.” Which leads him to declare that personally, he would refuse the Roman proposals: “For me, an agreement with today’s Rome is out of the question.” He added that this is a prudential refusal, dictated by the circuмstances – in the absence of the necessary warrantees for the life of the Society – and he was careful to distinguish himself from those who make this refusal an absolute.

“We do not refuse, you see, in an absolute and theoretical way the possibility of an agreement with Rome. That is what distinguishes us from the ‘Resistance’. For them it is a principle. It is a doctrinal question: ‘You cannot admit the possibility of an agreement with Rome without being liberal.’ Such is not our position. It is important to repeat it: it was not Archbishop Lefebvre’s position. He signed a protocol for an agreement with Rome. And at that time, even when he broke it off after the protocol, the Archbishop said: ‘it is because the necessary conditions for our protection, for our survival, are not there.’ Because they wish to deceive us, because they do not wish to give us Tradition, because they wish to bring us over to Vatican II. It is because the conditions are not there. He said, ‘If they had granted me the conditions, the conditions I had requested, I would have signed.’ Archbishop Lefebvre said that after the consecration of the bishops. And he explained, ‘If I signed a protocol for an agreement, it was because there was nothing against the faith.’ Neither in the contents, nor in the act of signing. This is obvious. So we continue along these lines.”
Le palais de la Congrégation pour la doctrine de la foi.

The building of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

Towards a unilateral recognition of the Society?

In the second part of his conference, and beyond the proposals of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Bishop de Galarreta publicly confided that he thinks the pope may soon confer a status on the Society of St. Pius X:

“I think, and this is the other aspect of things, that this pope who tells anyone who will listen that we are Catholic, who says and repeats that the Society is Catholic, that we are Catholic, will never condemn us, and that he wants our ‘case’ taken care of. I think– and he has already started down this path – that when he sees that we cannot agree with the Congregation of the Faith, I think that he will overreach any doctrinal, theoretical, practical condition, or any condition whatsoever… He is going to take his own steps towards recognizing the Society. He has already begun; he is simply going to continue. And I am not saying what I desire but what I foresee. I foresee, I think that the pope will lean towards a one-sided recognition of the Society, and that by acts rather than by a legal or canonical approach.”

Bishop de Galarreta admitted that “this de facto recognition would have a good, a beneficial effect: it is a rather extraordinary apostolic opening, and it would have an extraordinary effect.” But he adds that there would then be two risks: that of creating an internal division and that of conditioning our preaching in certain circuмstances. And he wondered: “It would take an extraordinary wisdom and prudence, a very great firmness and clarity. Are we capable of this?”

The Argentinian prelate answered by asking his audience to keep a supernatural confidence in the face of these eventualities: “If that is what Providence sends us, then we will have the necessary graces to overcome the difficulties and deal with them as we should, but of course, only to the extent that it is not produced by our will but imposed upon us. If our ideas are clear, we can always take advantage of it and draw the good from it. But in this hypothetical case, – I am giving you my opinion based on conjectures, right? – in this case I think we will have the necessary graces to persevere and do the good we must do in our Holy Mother the Church. God will never deny us or stop giving us the means to persevere in the faith and in the good fight, if we always remain in the faith, in hope, in charity, in the strong confession of the faith, in our daily sanctification.”

Fear of risks and trust in Divine Providence

And he concluded after raising an objection: “So you are going to tell me: ‘In these cases there is a risk!’ – Yes, of course. In life there are many risks; in war there are even more. We are at war. So it will be as God wishes. But I have trust in Providence; I have complete trust in the love of Our Lord Jesus Christ for His Holy Church. So as long as we do not seek it, even if it happens, I think we must not panic. Nothing changes. It is the same fight that goes on, the same lines. We must simply take advantage of these areas of freedom that are left to us. In a war, if the enemy abandons the trenches, we have to take them over; if the enemy falls back, we must go forward. You don’t stay home because there are risks. We must act prudently, and we must take courage. And above all, we must have trust in God. It is the fight for God. Our trust is in Him and in the Blessed Virgin Mary.

“Personally I am not at all worried about the future of the Society or Tradition; however, for the future of society, of our nations that were once Catholic and even of the official Church, yes, I am worried and pessimistic. We can foresee that things are evolving for the worst. And it is when we are coming to a much more desperate, extreme situation that Divine Providence intervenes; God, who always uses divine means, intervenes. Our Lord is always the master of events and of history. And not only in general, but also in particular. So if the Gospel tells us that not one hair of our head falls, that all the hairs on our head are counted, that not a sparrow falls without the permission of God, I think we must remain peaceful. That is how we maintain an equitable judgment on objective realities and preserve an attitude that is not only balanced, but also Catholic, Christian and holy. That is the wisdom Archbishop Lefebvre passed on to us, this Catholic attitude. We can certainly continue along these lines in the present situation of the Hoy Church today, and in the face of all the eventualities that will soon present themselves.”

(source: FSSPX/MG – DICI no.331 dated Feb. 26, 2016)

So now you have it:

1) The 1988 accord only failed because the Society was not guaranteed protection.

2) An agreement with Rome would not be against the faith.

3) Roman recognition would be beneficial.

 

After fighting the good fight for decades, The Remnant has become just another "conservative" magazine. They added to the heading: "Coming Soon: Unilateral Recognition of the Society of St. Pius X"

The link below is Michael Matt's comment on the DICI article posted on this thread.

http://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/fetzen-fliegen/item/2340-coming-soon-unilateral-recognition-of-the-society-of-st-pius-x

REMNANT COMMENT: A wise question, indeed!  "Are we capable of this?" Here the good bishop displays a sensus catholicus and fundamental prudence that leaves us absolutely confident that indeed the SSPX is in good hands and understands clearly what is at stake, and that partly what is at stake is something intangible.  

Obviously, Francis is going to regularize the SSPX. Why? Well, the old adage should sum things up quite nicely: Keep your friends close but your enemies closer.

The question we all must ask ourselves is this: When it comes to regularization of the SSPX, what's in it for today's Vatican? Let me repeat that: What’s.in.it.for.them?  

Do we really believe that Francis the Great — the man who refuses to judge ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ priests, who will travel to Sweden next October to celebrate the Protestant Revolt, who thinks atheists go to heaven and Jєωs need not convert — do we really believe that that man is deeply concerned about the souls of the adherents to the SSPX and their...ahem..."schism"?  Really?!

And if that's not it, what is it?

In my opinion (and that’s all this is), the Vatican knows full well that opposition against their diabolical revolution against the old Faith comes principally from one source, and that so long as that source remains out from under their control -- well, they can't control their opposition.

This time around, the Vatican will not make demands of the SSPX regarding Vatican II (for one thing, Vatican II is too traditional for them now. They don't accept Vatican II anymore!). They will make no demands regarding the New Mass. In fact, as Bishop de Galarreta here admits, the Vatican will make no demands on the SSPX whatsoever. They will simply regularize the SSPX by decree, and then sit back and watch the SSPX be torn in half.   It's called divide and conquer, and it is a strategy as old as the Garden of Eden.

Even the neo-Catholic world is finally waking up to the fact that Peter’s chair is occupied by a man who despises the old Catholic Faith. A principled counterrevolution against the regime of Pope Francis, led by 650 SSPX priests around the world, would be unstoppable right now….and a deeply divided Vatican knows it.  Thus, no condition will be imposed, and the Vatican will make the SSPX a deal they literally can't refuse.

There is no conspiracy in the SSPX. The Vatican is doing this on its own, in my opinion, with Francis calling all the shots. Can the SSPX handle this "beneficence" of Pope Francis?  'It would take an extraordinary wisdom and prudence, a very great firmness and clarity. Are they capable of this?’ -- that is the question.

When it comes to the regularization of the SSPX, be careful what you wish for.

Pray for the SSPX, one of the last best hopes of the Church. I’m confident that Bishop Fellay and his team are on the side of the angels. Now let us wait and see what the devils will bring.

Bishop Fellay's problem is that he thinks the SSPX can come to an agreement with the Conciliar Church as long as the CC offers the right conditions. And it's just a matter of waiting for the right conditions to be offered. He doesn't see that the SSPX must never reach an agreement with the CC (whatever their promises) because it means putting the traditionalist remnant under the control of the Conciliar Church.

So the Resistance would say rightly that traditionalists can NEVER come to an agreement with the Conciliar Church.

The German traditionalist priest, Fr Hans Milch, who used to help the SSPX and who died in 1987, wrote extensively in his newsletters in the early 1980s about the mission of the SSPX and its relationship with Rome. A summary of his ideas would be:

When the Pope and the upper hierarchy CONVERT to the traditional Faith and have the WILL and the ABILITY to bring the whole Church back to tradition, that will be the moment when the SSPX will join them, to help bring about the conversion of the rest of the Church. There will then be no threat to them from Rome as they will be on the same side as the Pope. He expected there to be a large falling away at that time, of those who would not accept the true Faith.

He totally condemned the idea that the SSPX could reach any agreement with the Conciliar Church with the aim of converting it step-by-step from inside. He called this "Additivism" - the idea that the CC could be brought by degrees closer to tradition if pushed from within, and said it simply wouldn't work. No conversion happens like that. (Cf. Archbishop Lefebvre: "It's not the subjects who make the superiors, but the superiors who make the subjects.")

The SSPX must wait until the conversion at the top is clear, absolute and irreversible, and exists together with the will and authority to convert the rest of the Church. Bishop Fellay (and the FSSP and the Indult groups) are clearly trapped in the illusion of Additivism, and Pope Francis, or any other Conciliar Pope, will clearly have no 'Mercy' on any of them, once he has them all under his control.

   

Does this sound like a "One-sided recognition"?

Zenit has an interview (In Italian only) of February 25, 2016 with Msgr. Guido Pozzo about the posible recognition of the SSPX. Here is a fairly decent google translation:

Quote from: Zenit Interview with Msgr. Guido Pozo

February 25, 2016
 
Excellence, in 2009 Pope Benedict XVI lifted the excommunication to the Society of St. Pius X. This means that now I'm back into communion with Rome?
With the remission of the excommunication of Benedict XVI to the bishops of the SSPX censorship (2009), they are no longer subject to this serious of ecclesiastical penalties. With this measure, however, the SSPX is still in an irregular position, because it has not received canonical recognition by the Holy See. As long as the Society has no canonical status in the Church, its ministers do not exercise in a legitimate way the ministry and the celebration of the sacraments. According to the formula endeavored by the then Cardinal Bergoglio in Buenos Aires and confirmed by Pope Francis to the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, the members of the SSPX are Catholics in the path toward full communion with the Holy See. This full communion will come when you will be the canonical recognition of the Fraternity.

What steps have been taken by the Holy See in these seven years to promote the rapprochement of the Society of St. Pius X?
Following the lifting of the excommunication in 2009, they were initiated a series of meetings between doctrinal experts appointed by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which is closely linked to the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei after the Motu proprio of Benedict XVI unitatem Ecclesiae (2009 ), and experts of the SSPX to discuss and exchange views on major doctrinal issues underlying the dispute with the Holy See: the relationship between Tradition and Magisterium, the question of ecuмenism, interreligious dialogue, religious freedom and of the liturgical reform, in the context of teaching of Vatican Council II.
This comparison, which lasted about two years, made it possible to clarify the respective theological positions on the subject, to highlight the convergence and divergence points.
In subsequent years the doctrinal talks continued with some targeted initiatives deepening and clarification of the issues under discussion. At the same time contacts between the superiors of the Ecclesia Dei Commission and the Higher and other members of the SSPX they have favored the development of a climate of trust and mutual respect, which must be the basis of a process of rapprochement. Must overcome mistrust and stiffeners that are understandable after so many years of fracture, but can be gradually dissipated if the mutual attitude changes and if the differences are not considered to be insurmountable walls, but as discussion points that deserve to be explored and developed into a useful clarification to the whole Church. We are now at a stage that I believe constructive and oriented to achieve the desired reconciliation. The gesture of Pope Francis to grant to the faithful Catholics of receiving validly and lawfully the sacrament of reconciliation and anointing of the sick by the bishops and priests of the SSPX during the Holy Year of Mercy, is clearly the sign of the will of the Holy Father favor the path towards full and stable canonical recognition.

What are the obstacles that still stand in the way to the final reconciliation?
I would distinguish two levels. The proper doctrinal level, which concerns some differences about individual topics proposed by the Second Vatican Council and the post-conciliar Magisterium, relating to ecuмenism, the relationship between Christianity and the world religions, religious freedom, especially in the relationship between Church and State , some aspects of liturgical reform. The level of mental and psychological attitude, which is to move from a position of polemical and antagonistic confrontation, to a position of listening and mutual respect, esteem and confidence, as it should be between members of the same Body of Christ, which is the church. We need to work on both of these levels. I think the rapprochement undertaken has given some fruit, especially for this change in attitude by both parties and it is worth pursuing that.
Even on the issue of the Second Vatican Council, I think that the SSPX must reflect on the distinction, which is fundamental and absolutely nullifying my opinion, between the authentic mens of Vatican II, his intentio docendi, as shown by the official Acts of the Council, and that I would call the "paraconcilio", ie the set of theological and practical attitudes guidelines, which accompanied the course of the Council itself, then pretending to cover herself with her name, and that the public, thanks to the influence of the mass media, overlapped often the true thought of the Council. Often in discussions with the SSPX, the opposition is not the Council, but the "spirit of the Council", which makes use of some expressions or formulations of the conciliar docuмents to open the way for interpretations and positions that are far away and sometimes exploit the true thought reconcile. Also as regards the criticism Lefebvrian on religious freedom, to the bottom of the discussion seems to me that the SSPX position is characterized by the defense of traditional Catholic doctrine against the agnostic secularism of the State and against secularism and ideological relativism and not against the right of person not to be constricted or obstructed by the State in the exercise of the profession of religious faith. However, these are issues that will be a topic for discussion and clarification even after the full reconciliation. What appears crucial is to find a full convergence on what is required to be in full communion with the Apostolic See, namely the integrity of the Catholic Creed, the constraint of the sacraments and the acceptance of the Supreme Magisterium of the Church. The Magisterium, which is not above the Word of God written and transmitted, but serves it, is the authentic interpreter also of previous texts of the Magisterium, including those of the Second Vatican Council, in the light of the perennial Tradition, which develops in the Church with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, not with a novelty contrary (which would deny the Catholic dogma), but with a better understanding of the deposit of faith, in the same doctrine, the same sense and in the same judgment (in eodem scilicet dogmate , et eademque sententia eodem sensu, cf. First Vatican Council, Const. Dogmatic Constitution. Dei Filius, 4). I believe that on these points converge with the SSPX is not only possible, but necessary. This does not affect the ability and the legitimacy to discuss and explore other particular issues, I mentioned above, that do not concern matters of faith, but rather pastoral guidelines and prudential judgments, and not dogmatic, on which you can also have different points of view. So this is not to ignore or domesticate the differences on some aspects of the pastoral life of the Church, but it is aware that the Second Vatican Council there are doctrinal docuмents, intending to revive already defined truth of faith or truth of Catholic doctrine (eg . Const. Dogmatic Constitution. Dei Verbum Constitution. Dogmatic Constitution. Lumen Gentium), and there are docuмents that intend to suggest directions or guidelines for practical action, that is, for the pastoral life as an application of the doctrine (Decl. Nostra Aetate, ibid Decree , Declaration. Dignitatis humanae). The adherence to the teachings of the Magisterium varies according to the degree of authority and truth of their own category of magisterial docuмents. I do not know that the SSPX has denied the doctrines of faith or truth of Catholic doctrine taught by the Magisterium. The criticisms concern instead statements or claims regarding the renewed pastoral care and ecuмenical relations with other religions, and some issues prudential order in the Church's relationship and society, Church and State. On liturgical reform, I will only mention a statement that Msgr. Lefebvre wrote to Pope John Paul II in a letter dated 8 March 1980: "As the Mass of the Novus Ordo, despite all the reservations that you have to do about it, I do not I never claimed that it is invalid or heretical. " Therefore reserves the rite of Novus Ordo, which are obviously not to be underestimated, they do not refer either to the validity of the celebration of the sacrament nor the straight Catholic faith. It will therefore be appropriate to continue the discussion and clarification of these reserves.

On the occasion of Mercy it arrived a conciliatory gesture by Pope Francis: the Catholic faithful can receive the sacrament of reconciliation even by priests belonging to the fraternity. What does this measure? He believes that this gesture can actually re-open a dialogue that, for some time, seemed to have stalled?
As I said above, the dialogue with the SSPX has never stranded. It is rather decided that it would continue in a less official and formal form, to give space and time to a maturing of relations in line attitude of trust and mutual understanding to foster a climate more suitable relationships where also place the time of theological and doctrinal discussion. The Holy Father encouraged the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei from the start of his pontificate to pursue this style of reporting and comparison with the SSPX. In this context, the soothing and magnanimous gesture of Pope Francis in the Year of Mercy circuмstance has undoubtedly helped to calm further the state of relations with the Society, showing that the Holy See has the rapprochement and reconciliation at heart, who will also have a canonical covering. I hope and wish that the same feeling and the same will also be shared by the SSPX.

https://it.zenit.org/articles/a-che-punto-e-il-dialogo-con-i-lefebvriani/

Yes, it does sound one-sided in the favor of Vatican II.

Did Archbishop Lefebvre actually state, "As the Mass of the Novus Ordo, despite all the reservations that you have to do about it, I do not I never claimed that it is invalid or heretical." By the very fact that the SSPX is allowed to give absolution in Confession and the Anointing of the Sick, there is already the sharing of the Sacraments. That cannot be denied.

That the SSPX will be forced to accept the Novus Ordo Liturgies and even concelebrate in them  is obvious or else how can SSPX attend papal masses, which will be required of them in the future.

Yesterday, I picked up and read the April, 2001 edition of The Angelus where I found the same phrase being used today "as we are."  Bishop Schneider used it within the last year.  It seems, 15 years after Fr. Schmidberger's conference the SSPX will be accepted "as they are" (whether they like it or not).

This is a fascinating read with all that has occurred in the last 15 years as a backdrop; the mention of the excommunications, freeing the Latin Mass, etc.  And, there were even internet rumors back then too.

The Nitty Gritty

First, all and any solutions would have to include the bishops, all our priests, our priest-friends, the faithful, and those communities who are linked in friendship with us. Partial precedents exist. There are different models, different canonical forms, which give us an idea of how and where a solution could be found.

Second, we must continue to fight errors; that is not only a permission, it is a duty, a holy duty. It is a duty to fight against this desacralization, this de-Christianization; it is a duty to fight against religious liberty, against ecuмenism, against collegiality.

Third, we need absolute guarantees that we have the means to continue our work: the bishops, the priories, and so on. So I think there is no other alternative than, if Rome wants a solution, they take us as we are. This was done with the Ukrainians in 1596. The Ukrainians were accepted as they were. A solution must be like the building up of a fortress, where the enemy cannot enter but where we can shoot out.

Finally, if we have a solution, the fight will not be over; rather, the true fight will begin, in a certain sense, and the question will be, "Who converts whom?" If we convert them, then it is good; if they convert us, then it is very bad. So, the aim, my dear friends, is clear. The aim is to work for the triumph of Catholic Tradition, fully and publicly recognized by Rome. The question is how to reach this aim. Is it really now a possibility? Has the hour of God come or not? – We do not know. In any case, the very latest news is that Cardinal Hoyos has said, "Okay, we recognize that the old Mass is not abrogated and is legitimate, but we cannot say it publicly because there will be too much of a rebellion, and difficulties with the bishops. We cannot say it publicly." But that is what we want. We want it to be said publicly. Their private conviction is not so interesting. What is interesting is what they say publicly. So long as they do not say this publicly, we have told them we will not go one step further. They must say this publicly. That is a decisive step.

It is important to see that the freeing of the Latin Mass is not the only matter, far from it! There are other problems – a lot of other problems! But it is the first step, an important step.

So you see, really, that it is a time for prayer and a time for work. There are two things which are important. On the one side, prayer, on the other side that we keep a profound unity among us, because the devil will do everything to try to split us up. I heard just today that on the Internet there are rumors that a contract was signed with Rome, that Bishop de Galarreta did not agree with this, and that he left the Society of Saint Pius X. That is all false. There is no agreement, first of all. Secondly, there is unity among us. But we must be very vigilant.