According to Bp. de Galarreta's recent conference at Bailly near Paris on Jenuary 17, 2016, a "one-sided only" or "unilateral" recognition of the Society would be imminent: “I think the pope will lean towards a one-sided recognition”.
"Unilateral" or "one-sided only" is just a figure of speech anyway, since, as Abp. Lefebvre commented, this just cannot take place: being accepted by Rome automatically implies some kind of compensation in return, notably self-censorship, which has already been implemented for a few years by Menzingen. What would it then be if an official recognition were to silence for good, despite given assurances, the voice of Catholic Faith and Tradition against Conciliar Rome?
Bp. de Galarreta says: "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."
Well! This is a lie! Since, for Abp. Lefebvre also, it was a "principle" given in his 1990 Spiritual Journey, just like in his 1974 Declaration, even clearly saying about his 1988 Roman attempt: "I went even farther than I should have gone” (Fideliter), i.e. no agreement with Rome so long as she has not converted; this would be a suicide! "Had we accepted, we would be dead by now ! We would not have lasted one year!"
To refuse to endorse Menzingen and the 2012 General Chapter's new policy, which accepts an agreement with Rome before her conversion, obviously does not mean that one would refuse it as a "principle" after her conversion. Whether one agrees with Resistance priests or not, this is pure slander on the part of Bp. de Galarreta. This mental manipulation allows them to accuse all those who do not support the 2012 new policy of being sedevacantists.
Anyway, after a short honeymoon, who could stop Pope Francis, possibly with the help of some "black sheep" insider, to say: "I have decided to allow all priests in the SSPX to use both forms of the Roman Rite"? - Or who could stop him, after a couple of years, from tearing up and reshuffling completely with his own hands a subdued Society, as he just did himself with the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate? - And then how about the faithful?
The instructions given are: "Stop thinking! - Just close your eyes, and trust in God!"
Bishop de Galarreta: “I think the pope will lean towards a one-sided recognition.”
Filed under Documents
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.
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 ecumenism, 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 ecumenism, 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. Ecumenism 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 circumstances – 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.
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 circumstances. 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 Holy Church today, and in the face of all the eventualities that will soon present themselves.”