Author Topic: Bishop Fellay bombarded in his bunker at the Chapter (Read 4868 times)

Orinoco · « **on:** November 02, 2013, 01:15:56 PM »

(Thanks to La Sapiniere via Un Eveque s'est Leve - the commentary has been abridged but Fr de Jorna's intervention is complete)

This docuмent was distributed to all members of the General Chapter (of the SSPX) in July 2012 and read out loud to all present. No objection to it was raised from any member.

Father de Jorna (Rector of the seminary at Econe, Switzerland) proves that Bishop Fellay’s “Doctrinal Declaration “ of April 2012 amounts to the “hermeneutic of continuity”' of Benedict XVI.

Criticism of the doctrinal statement of 15 April 2012

Fr de Jorna at the General Chapter of July 2012

/ II. Of the Doctrinal Declaration

Absolutely necessary distinctions must be made concerning the magisterium. We accept all the magisterium [official teaching]of the Church until Vatican II. But since then, there is a new magisterium, for the most part opposed to the previous magisterium. We cannot, therefore, declare that we accept this new magisterium as magisterium of the Church.

"Either we are with his [John Paul II’s] predecessors who proclaimed the truth of all time, who are consistent with the Church from the Apostles until Pope Pius XII . Or we are with the Council and then we are against the predecessors of the current Pope . You have to choose, there is a choice to be made. It is clear that Tradition is with the 250 popes who preceded Pope John XXIII and the Second Vatican Council. That is clear. Or the Church has always been wrong. This is the situation in which we find ourselves. We must be firm, clear and determined not to hesitate. "(Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre , 14 May 1989 , in the French review “Vue de Haut,” no. 13 p. 70).
This distinction is all the more important now that Benedict XVI has declared his intention:

"The issues to be addressed now are essentially doctrinal in nature, particularly those concerning the acceptance of the Second Vatican Council and the post -conciliar magisterium of the Popes ... the magisterial authority of the Church cannot be frozen in 1962 and this must be very clear for the Society [of St Pius X] " (Benedict XVI, Letter to the Bishops of the world concerning the remission of the excommunication of the four SSPX bishops, March 10, 2009).

On the other hand, the 1989 profession of faith was consistently rejected by our founder because it required adherence to Vatican II.

III 1 . of the Doctrinal Declaration

We cannot accept the doctrine of “Lumen Gentium” chapter III. Even understood in the light of the Note previa , no . 22 to “Lumen Gentium,” it retains all its ambiguity because it still implies that there is in the Church a double subject of the Primacy [the Pope alone AND the Pope with all the bishops] and opens the door to the denial of the teaching of Vatican I ( DS 3054 ).

Archbishop Lefebvre insisted on this error on the occasion of the publication of the new 1983 Code of [Canon Law]) . This § III , 1 does not avoid a serious ambiguity in that it declares acceptance of both the teaching of Vatican I on the primacy of the Pope and of Vatican II on collegiality., It is at least seriously questionable whether this is possible. And the Holy See will not fail to see the possibility and even the duty to interpret the first Vatican Council according to Vatican II. Archbishop Lefebvre would never have signed these statements and there is no reference to ch .III of “Lumen Gentium” in the1988 Protocol.

III , 2 and 3 of the Doctrinal Declaration.

“Tradition” can be understood in three ways:
1)   the subject [who does the transmitting],
2)    the act [of transmitting]
3)   the object [that which is transmitted])

The modernists play on the ambiguity of this plurality of meanings. Only Tradition in the sense of “subject” and “act” may be called “living”, not Tradition in the sense of “object.”

The latter is unchangeable in its meaning. It would have been better to have taken the words from our doctrinal discussions and to have spoken only of “constant” Tradition. The anti -modernist oath ( DS 3548-3549 ) clearly rejects the false notion of the new living tradition when it evokes " the absolute and immutable truth " of Divine Tradition.” These clarifications are all the more essential since Benedict XVI develops a false meaning of Tradition along evolutionary lines .

On the other hand, to say that "the Church perpetuates and transmits all that she is and all that she believes” is not unambiguous. Firstly because, for Benedict XVI and Vatican II, the fundamental subject that transmits Tradition is the Church, meaning the whole People of God, a living subject making its way through history, and secondly because the magisterium of the Church does not pass on what the Church “is and believes "; it preserves, transmits and defends the objective deposit of faith received from Christ and the Apostles − all the truths revealed by God, keeping always the same meaning. For Benedict XVI , the Church, “People of God,” transmits its belief by which is meant an “experience” of immanentist connotation. It would be better to say that the Magisterium of the Church teaches with authority, in the name of God, the definitive and immutable meaning of the revealed Truth , having recourse to the normative expressions which are the dogmas.

III , 4 and 5 . of the Doctrinal Declaration

We cannot say, without being more precise, that Vatican II, “enlightens, deepens and clarifies certain aspects of the life and doctrine of the Church.” For, in the mind of Benedict XVI, Vatican II wanted to redefine the relationship between the faith of the Church and certain essential elements of modern thought. This led to a contradiction or serious putting into question of the constant teaching of the Catholic Tradition on several key points. Religious freedom is in contradiction with Tradition. Ecuмenism and collegiality also break with Tradition. Let us remember that in 1978 Archbishop Lefebvre said:

“We profess the Catholic faith fully and completely ... We reject and anathematize all that was rejected and anathematized by the Church ... Insofar as the texts of Vatican II and the post- conciliar reforms oppose the doctrine expounded by those popes from before Vatican II , and give free rein to the errors they condemned, that we feel in conscience bound to make serious reservations about these texts and these reforms. "(French review, Itineraires, n. 233, May 1978, p. 108-109 ) .

It is necessary to repeat that our founder always said:
"…saying that we see, we judge the docuмents of the Council in the light of Tradition, obviously means that we reject those that are contrary to tradition; that we interpret according to Tradition those which are ambiguous; and that we accept those that are conform to tradition.”( Vue de Haut, n. 13, p. 57). These precisions are all the more necessary in that the Roman authorities play on the word Tradition. "In the mind of the Holy Father [John Paul II] and that of Cardinal Ratzinger, if I understand correctly, it would be necessary to integrate the decrees of the Council into Tradition; make it so they fit in at any cost. This is an impossible undertaking." (Vue de Haut, n. 13, p. 57).

We cannot let it be understood that it is possible and necessary to reconcile Vatican II and Tradition, we would lose the freedom to denounce errors and we would be in a golden cage amid the "spaces of theological freedom” that Bishop Ocariz speaks of .

/ III , 7 . of the Doctrinal Declaration

We cannot simply assert that the Novus Ordo Missae is valid. The New Mass is bad in itself. It presents an occasion of the sin of infidelity. This is why it cannot oblige under pain of sin in one’s duty to sanctify the Sunday. At a time when Rome recognizes the two rites it is necessary to remember, " concerning the New Mass, let us immediately destroy this absurd idea that if the New Mass is valid, you can participate. The Church has always forbidden attending the Masses of schismatics and heretics, even if they are valid. It is obvious that we cannot participate in sacrilegious Masses, or Masses that put our faith in danger. " (Archbishop Lefebvre, La messe de toujours, Fr Troadec, Clovis, 2005, p . 391 )

/ III 8 .of the Doctrinal Declaration

We have always refused the new Code of 1983. It is "imbued with ecuмenism and personalism , it sins gravely against the very purpose of the law" ( Archbishop Lefebvre , Ordinances of the SSPX Orders p. 4). In addition, this new Code conveys the spirit of the new ecclesiology; democratic and collegialist .

Conclusion.

This statement is profoundly ambiguous and sins by omission against the clear and distinct denunciation of the principal errors that are still rampant within the Church and destroy the faith of Catholics . This statement, as it stands, suggests that we accept the premise of the "hermeneutic of continuity ." Such a docuмent, if it were the principle of an agreement, would make such an agreement equivocal from the start and would favour any subsequent drifting away [from our original positions]. (here ends Fr de Jorna's text)

After Fr de Jorna’s presentation, Father Pagliarani (Rector of the Argentinian seminary at La Reja) rose and broke the silence in favour of Bishop Fellay in these terms :

"Dear colleagues! We are surely not going to give a slap in the face to our superior by demanding a retraction from him! This will be done implicitly in the Final Declaration of the Chapter."

Then they went on to another topic ... The case was closed.

The “resistants” were out-manoeuvred. They could not move on to the next phase which would have been the call for Bishop Fellay’s resignation. The Chapter participants were led to believe that the Declaration was withdrawn with an implicit disapproval of its author. Bishop Tissier was deceived like the others. In a letter, dated 29 March 2013, he said it was "tacitly concluded that there was no need to dwell on this subject, as it was obvious that the Superior General regretted his “faux pas” and was resolved not to do it again."(Official Bulletin of the French District [destined for priests] No. 251, Annex to the Circular Letter No. 2013-04)

The Chapter concluded that Bishop Fellay had understood the intrinsic evil of the Declaration and that he tacitly disapproved of his thoughts.

However, since the Chapter, Bishop Fellay has continued to defend the contents of his statement. To do this, he has abused the oath of the Chapter. Bishop Fellay thought that, since the members had promised to remain silent, no one would dare to contradict the official version of the General House.

This “official version” presents the doctrinal statement as a "minimalist text which could lead to confusion among us" ( Bishop Fellay , Cor Unum 102); or, a " sufficiently clear text " ( Bishop Fellay, Écône , 7 September 2012) . A doctrinal statement in which "any ambiguity was avoided on our judgment of the Council, including the famous hermeneutic of continuity. A Declaration which "was not understood by many prominent members of the Society, who saw ambiguity or a rallying to the thesis of the hermeneutic of continuity." ( Bishop Fellay , Cor unum 104, Note on the doctrinal statement of 15 April 2012).

If Bishop Fellay considered his text to be unambiguous, why did he not answer the presentation of Fr de Jorna ? Why didn’t he help, during the Chapter, the "prominent members of the Society” to understand his statement? Why allow Fr Pagliarani to spring to his defence in order to prevent “a slap in the face" and to focus on "an implicit withdrawal," and afterwards to claim that his statement was too subtle, no longer useful but basically sound.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #1 on:** November 02, 2013, 03:55:48 PM »

Fr. Rioult's book, "The Impossible Reconciliation" corroborates this intervention of Fr. de Jorna.

It also corroborates the opposition of Fr. Pagliarani.

What is interesting to me about this post, however, is that it raises the issue of the binding nature of the Oath taken by the Chapter capitulants.

Normally, when something is said in confidence, it may be disclosed without sin, if the common good demands it.

An example of this would be the divulgence of the Letter of the Three Bishops. The response it generated from the General Council was an explicit admission of their reluctant willingness to harm the common good of the SSPX, for fear of additional Roman sanctions.

That being the case, there was no sin in leaking it (contrary to Menzingen's claims), and instead it was a very meritorious and heroic act of fortitude and charity, knowing what consequences and repercussions must surely follow, should this Letter be released to defend the common good of the SSPX.

But with regard to divulging information from the General Chapter, the matter is a bit more complicated, because the issue of an oath is involved.

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, there are 4 types of oaths, and the one in question would be considered a "promissory oath," and goes on to explain that:

"Certain conditions are requisite before a promissory oath entails the obligation of fulfilling it, notably the intention of swearing and of binding oneself, full deliberation, the lawfulness of making the promise, as well as the lawfulness and possibility of executing it, etc. Several causes may put an end to this obligation: intrinsic causes, such as a notable change occurring after the taking of the oath, the cessation of the final cause of the oath; or extrinsic causes, such as annulment, dispensation, commutation, or relaxation granted by a competent authority, a release, express or tacit, either by the person in whose favour the obligation was undertaken, or by a competent authority to whom the beneficiary is subject."
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11176a.htm

My point being that the divulgence of this information hopefully means either that not all of the Chapter conversations were covered by an oath (which would explain and justify the dissemination of this information), or, the persons revealing this information considers himself to have been exempted by one of the causes excusing from adhesion to the oath contained in the preceding paragraph.

Changing subjects:

It was interesting also, what was said about the capitulants believing Bishop Fellay had recognized his errors, and was "resolved not to do it again."

On the one hand, it would explain the universal silence of even Bishop Tissier.

On the other hand, it is difficult to understand why, then, the June 27, 2013 Declaration of the Three SSPX Bishops would include a clause #11 (which seems to leave the door open to a future merely practical accord).

Perhaps the answer was that, at that time (i.e., 6-27-13), Bishop Fellay had indeed given up on the doctrines and ambiguities contained within the AFD, yet still remained hopeful regarding a merely practical accord some day.

Fast-forward 4 months to thee present, and his recent statements (e.g., Angelus Press Conference), and he appears even to have given up on that.

This is why I say that, if you look at what the SSPX is doing now (Priebke funeral; Bishop Fellay himself violating the prime directive of the branding campaign not to criticize Rome or Vatican II; etc), and especially since the 6-27-13 declaration, these actions can easily be construed as incremental rewinding of the arguments and acts put in place to facilitate a practical accord.

This is why I give the benefit of the doubt, watch, and wait.

And if at some future point, Menzingen should again start saying and doing things which seem to be heading in the wrong direction, I have the luxury of changing my position and backing away again.

The point being that a charitable approach risks nothing.

Machabees · « **Reply #2 on:** November 02, 2013, 03:56:08 PM »

Quote from: Orinoco

(Thanks to La Sapiniere via Un Eveque s'est Leve - the commentary has been abridged but Fr de Jorna's intervention is complete)

This docuмent was distributed to all members of the General Chapter (of the SSPX) in July 2012 and read out loud to all present. No objection to it was raised from any member.

Father de Jorna (Rector of the seminary at Econe, Switzerland) proves that Bishop Fellay’s “Doctrinal Declaration “ of April 2012 amounts to the “hermeneutic of continuity”' of Benedict XVI.

Criticism of the doctrinal statement of 15 April 2012

Fr de Jorna at the General Chapter of July 2012

(...)

Conclusion.

This statement is profoundly ambiguous and sins by omission against the clear and distinct denunciation of the principal errors that are still rampant within the Church and destroy the faith of Catholics . This statement, as it stands, suggests that we accept the premise of the "hermeneutic of continuity ." Such a docuмent, if it were the principle of an agreement, would make such an agreement equivocal from the start and would favour any subsequent drifting away [from our original positions]. (here ends Fr de Jorna's text)

(...)

JohnAnthony,

Does this Docuмent [another one] finally answer your question?

Once again, and again, again, and again, our statements are validated that Bishop Fellay had COMPROMISED the Catholic Faith?

If you choose still not "see it", you can address the rest of your questions to Fr. de Jorna, Rector of the seminary at Econe, Switzerland.

Machabees · « **Reply #3 on:** November 02, 2013, 04:04:16 PM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson

Fr. Rioult's book, "The Impossible Reconciliation" corroborates this intervention of Fr. de Jorna.

It also corroborates the opposition of Fr. Pagliarani.

What is interesting to me about this post, however, is that it raises the issue of the binding nature of the Oath taken by the Chapter capitulants.

Normally, when something is said in confidence, it may be disclosed without sin, if the common good demands it.

An example of this would be the divulgence of the Letter of the Three Bishops. The response it generated from the General Council was an explicit admission of their reluctant willingness to harm the common good of the SSPX, for fear of additional Roman sanctions.

That being the case, there was no sin in leaking it (contrary to Menzingen's claims), and instead it was a very meritorious and heroic act of fortitude and charity, knowing what consequences and repercussions must surely follow, should this Letter be released to defend the common good of the SSPX.

But with regard to divulging information from the General Chapter, the matter is a bit more complicated, because the issue of an oath is involved.

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, there are 4 types of oaths, and the one in question would be considered a "promissory oath," and goes on to explain that:

"Certain conditions are requisite before a promissory oath entails the obligation of fulfilling it, notably the intention of swearing and of binding oneself, full deliberation, the lawfulness of making the promise, as well as the lawfulness and possibility of executing it, etc. Several causes may put an end to this obligation: intrinsic causes, such as a notable change occurring after the taking of the oath, the cessation of the final cause of the oath; or extrinsic causes, such as annulment, dispensation, commutation, or relaxation granted by a competent authority, a release, express or tacit, either by the person in whose favour the obligation was undertaken, or by a competent authority to whom the beneficiary is subject."
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11176a.htm

My point being that the divulgence of this information hopefully means either that not all of the Chapter conversations were covered by an oath (which would explain and justify the dissemination of this information), or, the persons revealing this information considers himself to have been exempted by one of the causes excusing from adhesion to the oath contained in the preceding paragraph.

Changing subjects:

It was interesting also, what was said about the capitulants believing Bishop Fellay had recognized his errors, and was "resolved not to do it again."

On the one hand, it would explain the universal silence of even Bishop Tissier.

On the other hand, it is difficult to understand why, then, the June 27, 2013 Declaration of the Three SSPX Bishops would include a clause #11 (which seems to leave the door open to a future merely practical accord).

Perhaps the answer was that, at that time (i.e., 6-27-13), Bishop Fellay had indeed given up on the doctrines and ambiguities contained within the AFD, yet still remained hopeful regarding a merely practical accord some day.

Fast-forward 4 months to thee present, and his recent statements (e.g., Angelus Press Conference), and he appears even to have given up on that.

This is why I say that, if you look at what the SSPX is doing now (Priebke funeral; Bishop Fellay himself violating the prime directive of the branding campaign not to criticize Rome or Vatican II; etc), and especially since the 6-27-13 declaration, these actions can easily be construed as incremental rewinding of the arguments and acts put in place to facilitate a practical accord.

This is why I give the benefit of the doubt, watch, and wait.

And if at some future point, Menzingen should again start saying and doing things which seem to be heading in the wrong direction, I have the luxury of changing my position and backing away again.

The point being that a charitable approach risks nothing.

Then let Bishop Fellay release from prison the other two Bishops he still has hold up...

That would be a charitable approach.

John Anthony · « **Reply #4 on:** November 03, 2013, 07:12:47 PM »

Dear Maccabees,

You ask me:

"Does this Docuмent [another one] finally answer your question?

"Once again, and again, again, and again, our statements are validated that Bishop Fellay had COMPROMISED the Catholic Faith?"

Well, no.

Bishop Fellay was not compromising the faith in the April 15 declaration.
His statements on the matter (see your own remarks below) have made that quite clear. He was trying to convince the Vatican that the Society is not effectively SVist, while making clear the basic nature of the Society's commitment to tradition.

As regards the Vatican, it was all academic; the Pope abandoned a no doctrinal compromise regularization, and that was that.

The effect on the opponents of Bishop Fellay’s pursuit of a no doctrinal compromise was another story, although not quite the one that you and your source tell.

"Father de Jorna (Rector of the seminary at Econe, Switzerland) proves that Bishop Fellay’s “Doctrinal Declaration “ of April 2012 amounts to the “hermeneutic of continuity”' of Benedict XVI."

Fr. de Jorna said that the declaration was ambiguous; that it sinned by omission (a curious statement for an eminent theologian: docuмents do not sin). He did not say that it amounted to the hermeneutic of reform and continuity.

Are Fr. Pagliarani's remarks are on the record, or are they hearsay? I ask because the “slap in the face” remarks seem rather undiplomatic, since +Fellay was presumably among those listening to Fr. de Jorna’s denunciation.

On the other hand, Fr. Pagliarini’s further remark that the official chapter declaration would eliminate any ambiguity seems the logical thing to say, particularly since at that point not many people even knew that the April 15 declaration existed. If memory serves, it was some months before the Resistance got around to leaking it; or may it wasn’t until the SSPX started distributing the dossier on the events of 2011-12 in Cor Unum.

"The “resistants” were out-manoeuvred. They could not move on to the next phase which would have been the call for Bishop Fellay’s resignation."

Do you have evidence that any such thing was in anyone's mind? And if it was, that Fr. Pagliarani's remarks would have "out-manoeuvred" them? He was just another capitulant.

"The Chapter participants were led to believe that the Declaration was withdrawn with an implicit disapproval of its author. Bishop Tissier was deceived like the others. In a letter, dated 29 March 2013, he said it was "tacitly concluded that there was no need to dwell on this subject, as it was obvious that the Superior General regretted his “faux pas” and was resolved not to do it again."(Official Bulletin of the French District [destined for priests] No. 251, Annex to the Circular Letter No. 2013-04)".

Led to believe by whom? +Fellay was there, and apparently said nothing, and was asked nothing. So “deceived” doesn’t seem the appropriate word.

“The Chapter concluded that Bishop Fellay had understood the intrinsic evil of the Declaration and that he tacitly disapproved of his thoughts.”

Says who? Does your source read (multiple) minds?

“However, since the Chapter, Bishop Fellay has continued to defend the contents of his statement. To do this, he has abused the oath of the Chapter. Bishop Fellay thought that, since the members had promised to remain silent, no one would dare to contradict the official version of the General House.”

I beg your pardon? Fr. de Jorna’s denunciation is in the official version; so is Bishop Tissier’s letter. This was all published with the approval of the Superior General. What isn’t disclosed are the heremeneutics of the author of the piece you are relying on, and he wasn’t at the Chapter.

“This “official version” presents the doctrinal statement as a "minimalist text which could lead to confusion among us" ( Bishop Fellay , Cor Unum 102); or, a " sufficiently clear text " ( Bishop Fellay, Écône , 7 September 2012) . A doctrinal statement in which "any ambiguity was avoided on our judgment of the Council, including the famous hermeneutic of continuity. A Declaration which "was not understood by many prominent members of the Society, who saw ambiguity or a rallying to the thesis of the hermeneutic of continuity." ( Bishop Fellay , Cor unum 104, Note on the doctrinal statement of 15 April 2012).”

This, indeed, is what +Fellay has been saying right along.

“If Bishop Fellay considered his text to be unambiguous, why did he not answer the presentation of Fr de Jorna ? Why didn’t he help, during the Chapter, the "prominent members of the Society” to understand his statement?”

“Why allow Fr Pagliarani to spring to his defence in order to prevent “a slap in the face" and to focus on "an implicit withdrawal," and afterwards to claim that his statement was too subtle, no longer useful but basically sound.”

The possibility of regularization was by then as dead as a doornail. Fr. de Jorna had his say, and let it go at that. If there was going to be a split over the April 15 declaration, the only public critic of the declaration at the Chapter showed no inclination to start it. Neither did two-thirds of the authors of the letter of the three bishops. To anyone with experience in exercising authority, this was clearly a time to keep silent about the past, and work on the future. That is what +Fellay did.

I would suggest that whatever the future brings, it will not bring something like the April 15 declaration, because it will not bring something like six months or so of the Society’s listening to one thing from the Pope, and something else from the CDF.

I continue to believe that in this whole mess, it was +Fellay who wore the mantle of ABL. Leaders must lead, and leadership involves judgment calls. Those not in authority in the SSPX, including bishops and seminary directors, must follow. It is to be noted that +Tissier said this in as many words, and I would guess that Fr. de Jorna is of the same mind.

Graham · « **Reply #5 on:** November 03, 2013, 09:00:58 PM »

John Anthony, your "no compromise regularization" attempt to reframe the terms of discussion unfortunately falls flat. I encourage you to revisit the interview of Bp. Tissier with Rivarol: http://www.therecusant.com/bp-tissier-rivarol .

Quote

RIVAROL: Much of the "reintegration" imminent Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) in the "official Church". What is it exactly?

Bishop Tissier de Mallerais: "Reinstatement": the word is false. The Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) has never left the Church. It is at the heart of the Church. The Church is where there preaching of the true faith. The project of "formalization" of the SSPX leaves me cold. We do not need it and the Church does not need it. We are already on the pinnacle, as a sign of contradiction that attracts noble souls, which attracts many young priests despite our pariah status. We would have to put our light under a bushel by our integration into the conciliar orb. This status being proposed is a personal prelature, similar to that of Opus Dei, a statute for a state of peace. But currently we are in a state of war in the Church. This would be a contradiction to want to "regularize the war."

Quote

R: So how do you solve this disagreement between the SSPX and Benedict XVI, considered scandalous by many?

Bishop Tissier: It is true that the SSPX is a "stumbling block" for those who resist the truth (1 Peter 2: 8) and this is good for the Church. If we were "reintegrated," we would, by that act, cease being the thorn in the side of the conciliar church, cease being a living reproach to the loss of faith in Jesus Christ, in His divinity, in His kingship.

Quote

R: But, Sir, you with your two colleagues have written a letter to HE Bishop Fellay rejecting a purely practical agreement with Benedict XVI. What are the reasons for the refusal?

Bishop Tissier: The dissemination of our letter is due to an indiscretion of which we are not guilty. We reject a purely practical agreement because the doctrinal issues are paramount. Faith comes before legality. We can not accept a legalization without the problem of faith being resolved. Submitting unconditionally now to a higher authority imbued with modernism would be to expose us to having to disobey. So why bother? Archbishop Lefebvre said in 1984: "we do not place ourselves under an authority when that authority has full power to destroy us." And I think that is wisdom. I would like for us to produce a text that, waiving the diplomatic finesse, clearly affirms our faith and, as a consequence, our refusal of conciliar errors. This proclamation would have the advantage of firstly speaking the truth openly to Pope Benedict XVI who is the first to have the right to truth, and secondly to restore the unity of Traditional Catholics around a combative and unequivocal profession of faith.

Etcetera. Bp. Tissier outlines neatly why there was and is no such thing as a "no compromise regularization" with neo-modernist Rome.

The fact, then, is that a "practical agreement" is implicitly doctrinal: admitting that the true faith can be subordinated to neo-modernist error is a doctrinal compromise of the highest order.

Bp. Fellay's profound error can't be camouflaged as a "prudential" project.

John Anthony · « **Reply #6 on:** November 03, 2013, 09:17:59 PM »

Quote from: Graham

John Anthony, your "no compromise regularization" attempt to reframe the terms of discussion unfortunately falls flat. I encourage you to revisit the interview of Bp. Tissier with Rivarol: http://www.therecusant.com/bp-tissier-rivarol .

Quote
RIVAROL: Much of the "reintegration" imminent Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) in the "official Church". What is it exactly?

Bishop Tissier de Mallerais: "Reinstatement": the word is false. The Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) has never left the Church. It is at the heart of the Church. The Church is where there preaching of the true faith. The project of "formalization" of the SSPX leaves me cold. We do not need it and the Church does not need it. We are already on the pinnacle, as a sign of contradiction that attracts noble souls, which attracts many young priests despite our pariah status. We would have to put our light under a bushel by our integration into the conciliar orb. This status being proposed is a personal prelature, similar to that of Opus Dei, a statute for a state of peace. But currently we are in a state of war in the Church. This would be a contradiction to want to "regularize the war."

Quote
R: So how do you solve this disagreement between the SSPX and Benedict XVI, considered scandalous by many?

Bishop Tissier: It is true that the SSPX is a "stumbling block" for those who resist the truth (1 Peter 2: 8) and this is good for the Church. If we were "reintegrated," we would, by that act, cease being the thorn in the side of the conciliar church, cease being a living reproach to the loss of faith in Jesus Christ, in His divinity, in His kingship.

Quote
R: But, Sir, you with your two colleagues have written a letter to HE Bishop Fellay rejecting a purely practical agreement with Benedict XVI. What are the reasons for the refusal?

Bishop Tissier: The dissemination of our letter is due to an indiscretion of which we are not guilty. We reject a purely practical agreement because the doctrinal issues are paramount. Faith comes before legality. We can not accept a legalization without the problem of faith being resolved. Submitting unconditionally now to a higher authority imbued with modernism would be to expose us to having to disobey. So why bother? Archbishop Lefebvre said in 1984: "we do not place ourselves under an authority when that authority has full power to destroy us." And I think that is wisdom. I would like for us to produce a text that, waiving the diplomatic finesse, clearly affirms our faith and, as a consequence, our refusal of conciliar errors. This proclamation would have the advantage of firstly speaking the truth openly to Pope Benedict XVI who is the first to have the right to truth, and secondly to restore the unity of Traditional Catholics around a combative and unequivocal profession of faith.

Etcetera. Bp. Tissier outlines neatly why there was and is no such thing as a "no compromise regularization" with neo-modernist Rome.

The fact, then, is that a "practical agreement" is implicitly doctrinal: admitting that the true faith can be subordinated to neo-modernist error is a doctrinal compromise of the highest order.

Bp. Fellay's profound error can't be camouflaged as a "prudential" project.

Dear Graham,

Please describe to me the doctrine of the Church that a no doctrinal compromise regularization would violate.

I would also be interested in your reason for continuing concern with something that did not happen, and is not likely to happen any time soon.

This, of course, is a question for any Resistant.

Graham · « **Reply #7 on:** November 03, 2013, 09:58:18 PM »

Quote from: John Anthony

Dear Graham,

Please describe to me the doctrine of the Church that a no doctrinal compromise regularization would violate.

The circular way you phrased this request indicates to me a certain bad faith on your part. Obviously, if a "no doctrinal compromise regularization" existed, then such a regularization, by definition, would not violate any doctrines. But Bp. Tissier has already shown why your phrase "no doctrinal compromise regularization" is a contradiction in terms: subordinating the Faith to neo-modernist heretics is a doctrinal compromise in itself, an apparent admission that tradition is subordinate to neo-modernist heresy.

Quote from: John Anthony

I would also be interested in your reason for continuing concern with something that did not happen, and is not likely to happen any time soon.

Because Bp. Fellay's willingness to compromise demonstrates profound error, and his subsequent promotion of this error shows that he has not rectified his mentality. The deal is off for the time being, but in addition to the loss of moral authority occasioned by the desire for a practical agreement in the first place, the leadership's inclination towards one remains:

Quote from: Bp Fellay to BXVI, June 2012

I had believed that you were disposed to leave till a later date the resolution of outstanding disagreements over certain points of the Council and liturgical reform, rather like when the Council of Florence, in order to achieve union, overlooked the question of the Greeks allowing divorce following adultery, and I committed myself in this perspective despite the fairly strong opposition in the ranks of the Society and at the price of substantial disruption. And I fully intend to continue to do my best to pursue this path to reach the necessary clarifications.

As late as the resignation of BXVI, Bp. Fellay was publically articulating his hope for the Society's reintegration with neo-modernist Rome:

Quote from: Interview of Bishop Fellay in “Nouvelles de France”, Feb. 2013

Your Excellency, would you appreciate it if the last major act of Benedict XVI’s pontificate could be the reintegration of the Society of St. Pius X?

For a moment I thought that, with his resignation, Benedict XVI would perhaps make a final gesture in our favor as Pope. That being said, I have a hard time seeing how he could do so. We will probably have to wait for the next Pope. I will even go so far as to say, at the risk of surprising you, that the Church has more important problems than the Society of St. Pius X, and in a way, it is by resolving these problems that the problem of the Society will be solved.
(...)

There appears to be a long-term effort afoot, caused by a weakening of faith at the top of the SSPX. Thus the issue remains current.

Machabees · « **Reply #8 on:** November 03, 2013, 11:07:00 PM »

Quote from: John Anthony

Dear Maccabees,

You ask me:

"Does this Docuмent [another one] finally answer your question?

"Once again, and again, again, and again, our statements are validated that Bishop Fellay had COMPROMISED the Catholic Faith?"

Well, no.

Bishop Fellay was not compromising the faith in the April 15 declaration.
His statements on the matter (see your own remarks below) have made that quite clear. He was trying to convince the Vatican that the Society is not effectively SVist, while making clear the basic nature of the Society's commitment to tradition.

As regards the Vatican, it was all academic; the Pope abandoned a no doctrinal compromise regularization, and that was that.

The effect on the opponents of Bishop Fellay’s pursuit of a no doctrinal compromise was another story, although not quite the one that you and your source tell.

"Father de Jorna (Rector of the seminary at Econe, Switzerland) proves that Bishop Fellay’s “Doctrinal Declaration “ of April 2012 amounts to the “hermeneutic of continuity”' of Benedict XVI."

Fr. de Jorna said that the declaration was ambiguous; that it sinned by omission (a curious statement for an eminent theologian: docuмents do not sin). He did not say that it amounted to the hermeneutic of reform and continuity.

Are Fr. Pagliarani's remarks are on the record, or are they hearsay? I ask because the “slap in the face” remarks seem rather undiplomatic, since +Fellay was presumably among those listening to Fr. de Jorna’s denunciation.

On the other hand, Fr. Pagliarini’s further remark that the official chapter declaration would eliminate any ambiguity seems the logical thing to say, particularly since at that point not many people even knew that the April 15 declaration existed. If memory serves, it was some months before the Resistance got around to leaking it; or may it wasn’t until the SSPX started distributing the dossier on the events of 2011-12 in Cor Unum.

"The “resistants” were out-manoeuvred. They could not move on to the next phase which would have been the call for Bishop Fellay’s resignation."

Do you have evidence that any such thing was in anyone's mind? And if it was, that Fr. Pagliarani's remarks would have "out-manoeuvred" them? He was just another capitulant.

"The Chapter participants were led to believe that the Declaration was withdrawn with an implicit disapproval of its author. Bishop Tissier was deceived like the others. In a letter, dated 29 March 2013, he said it was "tacitly concluded that there was no need to dwell on this subject, as it was obvious that the Superior General regretted his “faux pas” and was resolved not to do it again."(Official Bulletin of the French District [destined for priests] No. 251, Annex to the Circular Letter No. 2013-04)".

Led to believe by whom? +Fellay was there, and apparently said nothing, and was asked nothing. So “deceived” doesn’t seem the appropriate word.

“The Chapter concluded that Bishop Fellay had understood the intrinsic evil of the Declaration and that he tacitly disapproved of his thoughts.”

Says who? Does your source read (multiple) minds?

“However, since the Chapter, Bishop Fellay has continued to defend the contents of his statement. To do this, he has abused the oath of the Chapter. Bishop Fellay thought that, since the members had promised to remain silent, no one would dare to contradict the official version of the General House.”

I beg your pardon? Fr. de Jorna’s denunciation is in the official version; so is Bishop Tissier’s letter. This was all published with the approval of the Superior General. What isn’t disclosed are the heremeneutics of the author of the piece you are relying on, and he wasn’t at the Chapter.

“This “official version” presents the doctrinal statement as a "minimalist text which could lead to confusion among us" ( Bishop Fellay , Cor Unum 102); or, a " sufficiently clear text " ( Bishop Fellay, Écône , 7 September 2012) . A doctrinal statement in which "any ambiguity was avoided on our judgment of the Council, including the famous hermeneutic of continuity. A Declaration which "was not understood by many prominent members of the Society, who saw ambiguity or a rallying to the thesis of the hermeneutic of continuity." ( Bishop Fellay , Cor unum 104, Note on the doctrinal statement of 15 April 2012).”

This, indeed, is what +Fellay has been saying right along.

“If Bishop Fellay considered his text to be unambiguous, why did he not answer the presentation of Fr de Jorna ? Why didn’t he help, during the Chapter, the "prominent members of the Society” to understand his statement?”

“Why allow Fr Pagliarani to spring to his defence in order to prevent “a slap in the face" and to focus on "an implicit withdrawal," and afterwards to claim that his statement was too subtle, no longer useful but basically sound.”

The possibility of regularization was by then as dead as a doornail. Fr. de Jorna had his say, and let it go at that. If there was going to be a split over the April 15 declaration, the only public critic of the declaration at the Chapter showed no inclination to start it. Neither did two-thirds of the authors of the letter of the three bishops. To anyone with experience in exercising authority, this was clearly a time to keep silent about the past, and work on the future. That is what +Fellay did.

I would suggest that whatever the future brings, it will not bring something like the April 15 declaration, because it will not bring something like six months or so of the Society’s listening to one thing from the Pope, and something else from the CDF.

I continue to believe that in this whole mess, it was +Fellay who wore the mantle of ABL. Leaders must lead, and leadership involves judgment calls. Those not in authority in the SSPX, including bishops and seminary directors, must follow. It is to be noted that +Tissier said this in as many words, and I would guess that Fr. de Jorna is of the same mind.

John Anthony,

I think I found a way to express what so many of us have been laboring to bring you to see within the "dark room" you are in.

In your nature, as a secular Lawyer, you take a "case" and break it down into "microns", and then you pick and choose your "microns" and build "your" defense.

Lets make an example.

There is a poisoned cake. The cake has poison in it. The poison is identified. Everyone knows what the injected poison is. That is sufficient; you cannot eat it.

What you do is. You acknowledge that there is a cake. In beginning to build your "case" to defend against it being poisoned, you call the known poison "alleged". Then you take that known poison that was identified and break that poison down to is many components and microns. From there, you build your "case" by taking only "parts" of those microns in its fundamental components, and then say those parts of the "microns" within themselves are NOT poison.

So, with a very l-o-n-g bridge of its missing links, you jump back over to the real poison, and say with a "micro-theory" that it is NOT POISON.

That is what the Menzingen administration has been doing for over a year in its "style" of putting out fires with those type of "micron-theorys"; like Fr. Themman's conference freshly comes to mind.

John Anthony. The nature of poison in its formed state IS poison. You cannot take a bite of a cake, and in your mouth "separate" the microns of that poison to make it "digestible". It is still poison; that is the nature of what it is.

Here are two examples (from many) of the n-sspx "micron-theory".

First example:

The new mass is "Legitimately Promulgated" (Bishop' Fellay's April 15, 2012 Doctrinal Declaration). Fact, to the author, with everything else surrounding it, the new mass is Legitimate. Fact, when caught red handed with modernist speak, the "micron-theory" comes out to say:

Legitimate is legitimate. Promulgated is to promulgate. But it takes an "Authority" to "promulgate" it. So "micron-theory" builds it back to say: the Author meant "Legitimately authorized to Promulgated". :rolleyes:

Example two:

One of your own from above.

Quote

Fr. de Jorna said that the declaration was ambiguous; that it sinned by omission (a curious statement for an eminent theologian: docuмents do not sin). He did not say that it amounted to the hermeneutic of reform and continuity.

Here is another "micron-theory". You break the Declaration down into micron parts. There is an Author of the Declaration. The Declaration is ambiguous (and more). The Declaration is a "Docuмent". The Docuмent is a piece of paper with ink on it. It came from a computer. (etc...). There is a Fr. de Jorna. He is an eminent theologian. He stated that the Declaration was ambiguous. He also stated that the [Declaration] sinned by omission.

Now you use your fancy secular Lawyer "micron-theory" to "defend" the author by only adding back parts of those microns; while discarding the rest to result in no poison.

Here you go... You replace Fr. de Jorna's word of Declaration; to the paper of a "docuмent". Next, in your choice of using the isolated micron of a docuмent, you deduce that "paper", docuмent (by itself) does not sin. You bridge it back "empty" of the rest of its natural components; result for you, since a paper docuмent cannot sin, there is NO poison in the Declaration. :rolleyes:

When an honest approach in its nature is, a Declaration is the thoughts DECLARED by an author. That Declaration went onto a paper docuмent; signed; and sent out to execute the authors will. The Declaration, as Fr. de Jorna's stated, is ambiguous (and more); that it, the Declaration, not docuмent as you would like to micron it, sinned by omission.

Conclusion, the thoughts of the Author that created that Declaration was ambiguous; and that [it], the Declaration being the internal thoughts of the author, sinned by omission. As an eminent theologian knows, it is only people that can sin; not paper as you would have it.

Please John Anthony. Not only do you, and Menzingen, not play fairly, you both perverse the nature of the things; you add to the crisis. Desist.

I pray that you both will have the humility to look up at the Majesty of God and see that His Church suffers.

By both of you stopping your antics, it will help much for this crisis to go away; like in the same desire for the bigger picture with conciliar Rome.

With prayers...

Machabees · « **Reply #9 on:** November 03, 2013, 11:45:12 PM »

I forgot to close-the-loop on John Anthony's 'Micro-theory" on what he does.

Which is, once he established his new micro-theory, and comes back to say that there is "no poison" in the poison, that is when he cleverly tries to "engage" you to "discuss" in his end-run; then, quickly like a clam closing its shell, to say that the Catholic Resistance has "no substance"; and we are poorly "disillusioned" and "disobedient".

He learned well the "art" of Menzingen...

:kick-can:

Wessex · « **Reply #10 on:** November 04, 2013, 05:52:34 AM »

Not so much bombarded but noting who his friends are and those who are not and doing the revenge bit after the Chapter has been tamed. The 'cardinal's hat' moment came and went and is unlikely to revisit the bishop while in office, although his chosen successors may later reap the benefit of his thwarted ambition. All that investment must not go to waste!

Am tired of all this 'giving the benefit of the doubt' to those clearly wilful and deceitful. Traditionalists are prone to much wishful-thinking to the point of self-destruction; a side effect of all this trust in authority, good or bad! Oh, well, the SSPX population can continue to swing with the leadership and continue to anchor their hopes and desires to the appearance of tradition, leaving the substance to those possessing grace of state. Now that V2 is not negotiable and is hardening, there is now little scope for flexibility and clever interpretation. And so conservatism is back in vogue in Menzingen and its pulpits may return to the evils of the French Revolution!

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #11 on:** November 20, 2013, 11:23:36 AM »

.this post ID.

The server cut out twice while I was trying to post this.

.

Make that three times. I'm glad I kept a copy on Notepad!

http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=post&s=reply&t=28122
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=post&s=reply&t=28122

(Yes, it is the same URL --- just making sure!)

.

This thread is quite noteworthy.

I would like to thank Machabees, Orinoco, Graham and Wessex

for addressing the fine points and raising apt questions which bring to
light the fallacies and deception that we are being 'required' to imbibe
from the denizens of Menzingen.

I am reminded of the words on the St. Benedict Medal: Ipse venea bibas.
(Telling the devil to "drink your poison yourself.")

It seems to me not unrelated that I picked up a copy of EC 268 that
I had Xeroxed for distribution to my friends, and I noticed something
in it that I had missed before.

The relevance of this to the present thread is that once we realize that
there is deliberate deception going on from Menzingen, we should not
be averse to notice where else it could be going on, in the various
docuмents and "things that didn't happen."

Fellayites like John Anthony like to harp on the fact that something
"didn't happen," as being somehow proof that we should forget all
about it.

Well here's something else that "didn't happen."

Recall a year ago, as Advent approached, we were expecting a new
edition of the "1962 Missal" from Rome, one that uses 'that title',
but is actually a 2012 missal with a deceptive front cover.

And it was Internet forums like CI that blew the whistle on that. :whistleblower:

Otherwise, it might well have happened -- something else that wasn't
and now they want us to FUGGEDABOUDIT!!!

It seems to me that I now have a strong clue as to what that was
all about. I would hazard a guess that someone came up with the
idea that all they have to do is get the SSPX to agree to the exclusive
use of the 1962 missal, and once they have that fish in the bag,
so to speak, then switch the missal with an updated version that
they call the "1962 Missal" but it's really halfway NovusOrdo, and
all the sheeple of the Society, like John Anthony, et. al., will scamper
to the fore and acclaim that we must blindly follow the Great Leader
who says that "everything's back to normal" or whatever.

And the Sean Johnsons of the world will continue to give the "benefit
of the doubt" to the dubious machinations in and of themselves.

The relevant paragraph of the EC 268 is as follows:

Quote from: Bishop Williamson, in EC CCLXVIII,

The second condition requires exclusive use of the 1962 liturgy.
Again, well and good, insofar as the 1962 liturgy is no such betrayal of
the Faith as is the Conciliar liturgy imposed by Rome from 199 onwards.

All stop! Key word: INSOFAR. I underlined it so you can find it real quick.

For if the 1962 liturgy remains as it is, all well and good (as +W says, but
as you may suspect, I have my reservations on several levels, not the
least of which is the severe reduction in the amount of Scripture readings
that the 1962 liturgy entails compared to the pre-1954 missal, but yes,
that's another topic).

But if the 1962 liturgy is slyly twisted into something else with a "new
edition of the 1962 liturgy" like they had in the works merely one year ago,
then, NO, "all" is not "well and good."

Quote

But do we not right now see Rome preparing to impose on Traditional
congregations that have submitted to this authority a "mutual enrichment"
Missal, mixing Tradition and the NovusOrdo?

Precisely! When I first read this a year ago, I did not connect the dots.
But +W was hot on the trail of the deception afoot, which is why +F saw
fit to expel him before the whole thing blows up in his face, for once he
gets away with expelling a bishop in a pious union (the first time in the
history of the Church that any such bishop was ever expelled, no less!)
then he would be able to demonize everything +W says from thence
forth, or, would be able to otherwise weasel around even usurping +W's
own words and messages as he has indeed done the past month or two.

Quote

Once the SSPX were to have submitted to Rome why should it be any
more protected?

And that is the bottom line, the one that John Anthony tries doggedly to
gloss over and to pretend that it doesn't exist, and Sean Johnson falls prey
to the ruse before our eyes. And it's all right here in this short and
archive-able thread of merely two days' duration early this month.

.

cosmas · « **Reply #12 on:** November 24, 2013, 10:32:27 AM »

My two cents on Bishop Fellay's attempted sellout of Pius X Society. He's been dealing with Rome since the year 2000 that we know of back and forth discussions G.R.E.C. etc. His involvement with marano, Max Krah, the episode of getting Bishop Williamson sidelined, then kicked out. The Branding Company that was hired to put a softer touch to the Pius x Society to try to get rid of its CHURCH MILITANT SPIRIT, the silencing and ostrasizing of any parishoners that might try to question whats going on in the society , the multitudinous of great priests that have gotten thrown out for even questioning their superior, The doubletalk, the ambiguous language of Bishop Fellay "we accept 95 % of Vatican II " which 5 % percent do we not accept ? Did you have a mouse in your pocket when you said we ? I know i can't speak for everyone but i know there is more wrong with vatican ii than 5 % . Because of Bishop Fellay's rubbing elbows so long with the ROMANS, they have rubbed off on him. The ambiguous language is a biggie, if he himself can not see it we are in big trouble. He has become modernist in his thinking, he should not be leading Archbishop Lefebre' Society of Pius X and should step down post haste.

John Grace · « **Reply #13 on:** November 24, 2013, 12:04:15 PM »

cosmas,

Great zeal in your comment but regarding this. What percentage of laity have actually asked questions? How can one be silenced if they haven't spoken? This is the crux of the problem.

As Cassini has demonstrated of Ireland, laity kept out of the fight, they have a chapel, the Mass. All is ok. There is no agreement.

Sure even a 'Stbrigidswell' stated clearly of only finding docuмents several months after they being in the public docuмent. It's incredible.

Quote

the silencing and ostrasizing of any parishoners that might try to question whats going on in the society

John Grace · « **Reply #14 on:** November 24, 2013, 01:14:14 PM »

Quote

And the Sean Johnsons of the world will continue to give the "benefit
of the doubt" to the dubious machinations in and of themselves.

Nobody objections to giving a person the benefit of the doubt but when fact suggests otherwise many are being disingenuous. Same applies to material on the internet. A person obviously doesn't believe it without checking the matter out.

I had this experience with a cleric based in St George's House. He changed his tune when the facts were proven and did agree to discuss with his Superior. Had I not pressed him, he would happily have finished the conversation thinking I had made something up. To a degree he tried to make me out to be a liar.

People move on though. A Mrs. Brady in England never contacted me again after an apology I received. I'm glad I didn't continue to subscribe to their magazine. She apologised for sending it to me despite me requesting they stop sending it. I sent it back after 'William of Norwich' exposed the Zionism and the SSPX. They are not deserving of financial support yet even after that folk in Ireland still gave money.

If the SSPX need money they are more than welcome to contact their Zionist friends for a financial dig out.