II
We declare that we accept the teachings of the Magisterium of the Church in the substance of Faith and Morals, adhering to each doctrinal affirmation in the required degree, according to the doctrine contained in No.25 of the dogmatic constitution Lumen Gentium of the Second Vatican Council.(1)
25. Among the principal duties of bishops the preaching of the Gospel occupies an eminent place.(39*) For bishops are preachers of the faith, who lead new disciples to Christ, and they are authentic teachers, that is, teachers endowed with the authority of Christ, who preach to the people committed to them the faith they must believe and put into practice, and by the light of the Holy Spirit illustrate that faith. They bring forth from the treasury of Revelation new things and old,(164) making it bear fruit and vigilantly warding off any errors that threaten their flock.(165) Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the docuмents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.
Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they nevertheless proclaim Christ's doctrine infallibly whenever, even though dispersed through the world, but still maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter, and authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held.(40*) This is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecuмenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church, whose definitions must be adhered to with the submission of faith.(41*)
And this infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed His Church to be endowed in defining doctrine of faith and morals, extends as far as the deposit of Revelation extends, which must be religiously guarded and faithfully expounded. And this is the infallibility which the Roman Pontiff, the head of the college of bishops, enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith,(166) by a definitive act he proclaims a doctrine of faith or morals.(42*) And therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly styled irreformable, since they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, promised to him in blessed Peter, and therefore they need no approval of others, nor do they allow an appeal to any other judgment. For then the Roman Pontiff is not pronouncing judgment as a private person, but as the supreme teacher of the universal Church, in whom the charism of infallibility of the Church itself is individually present, he is expounding or defending a doctrine of Catholic faith.(43*) The infallibility promised to the Church resides also in the body of Bishops, when that body exercises the supreme magisterium with the successor of Peter. To these definitions the assent of the Church can never be wanting, on account of the activity of that same Holy Spirit, by which the whole flock of Christ is preserved and progresses in unity of faith.(44*)
But when either the Roman Pontiff or the Body of Bishops together with him defines a judgment, they pronounce it in accordance with Revelation itself, which all are obliged to abide by and be in conformity with, that is, the Revelation which as written or orally handed down is transmitted in its entirety through the legitimate succession of bishops and especially in care of the Roman Pontiff himself, and which under the guiding light of the Spirit of truth is religiously preserved and faithfully expounded in the Church.(45*) The Roman Pontiff and the bishops, in view of their office and the importance of the matter, by fitting means diligently strive to inquire properly into that revelation and to give apt expression to its contents;(46*) but a new public revelation they do not accept as pertaining to the divine deposit of faith.(47*)
Bishop Fellay's Doctrinal Preamble
Presented to Rome
15th April, 2012
I
We promise to be always faithful to the Catholic Church and to the Roman Pontiff, the Supreme Pastor, Vicar of Christ, Successor of Peter, and head of the body of bishops.
II
We declare that we accept the teachings of the Magisterium of the Church in the substance of Faith and Morals, adhering to each doctrinal affirmation in the required degree, according to the doctrine contained in No.25 of the dogmatic constitution Lumen Gentium of the Second Vatican Council.(1)
III
1. We declare that we accept the doctrine regarding the Roman Pontiff and regarding the college of bishops, with the Pope as its head, which is taught by the dogmatic constitution Pastor Aeternus of Vatican I and by the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium of Vatican II, chapter 3 (de constitutione hierarchica Ecclesiae et in specie de episcopatu), explained and interpreted by the nota explicativa praevia in this same chapter.
2. We recognise the authority of the Magisterium to which alone is given the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, in written form or handed down (2) in fidelity to Tradition, recalling that "the Holy Ghost was not promised to the successors of Peter in order for them to make known, through revelation, a new doctrine, but so that with His assistance they may keep in a holy and expressly faithful manner the revelation transmitted by the Apostles, that is to say, the Faith."(3)
3. Tradition is the living transmission of revelation "usque as nos"(4) and the Church in its doctrine, in its life and in its liturgy perpetuates and transmits to all generations what this is and what She believes. Tradition progresses in the Church with the assistance of the Holy Ghost(5), not as a contrary novelty(6), but through a better understanding of the Deposit of the Faith(7).
4. The entire tradition of Catholic Faith must be the criterion and guide in understanding the teaching of the Second Vatican Council, which, in turn, enlightens - in other words deepens and subsequently makes explicit - certain aspects of the life and doctrine of the Church implicitly present within itself or not yet conceptually formulated(8).
5. The affirmations of the Second Vatican Council and of the later Pontifical Magisterium relating to the relationship between the Church and the non-Catholic Christian confessions, as well as the social duty of religion and the right to religious liberty, whose formulation is with difficulty reconcilable with prior doctrinal affirmations from the Magisterium, must be understood in the light of the whole, uninterrupted Tradition, in a manner coherent with the truths previously taught by the Magisterium of the Church, without accepting any interpretation of these affirmations whatsoever that would expose Catholic doctrine to opposition or rupture with Tradition and with this Magisterium.
6. That is why it is legitimate to promote through legitimate discussion the study and theological explanations of the expressions and formulations of Vatican II and of the Magisterium which followed it, in the case where they don't appear reconcilable with the previous Magisterium of the Church(9).
7. We declare that we recognise the validity of the sacrifice of the Mass and the Sacraments celebrated with the intention to do what the Church does according to the rites indicated in the typical editions of the Roman Missal and the Sacramentary Rituals legitimately promulgated by Popes Paul VI and John-Paul II.
8. In following the guidelines laid out above (III,5), as well as Canon 21 of the Code of Canon Law, we promise to respect the common discipline of the Church and the ecclesiastical laws, especially those which are contained in the Code of Canon Law promulgated by John-Paul II (1983) and in the Code of Canon Law of the Oriental Churches promulgated by the same pontiff (1990), without prejudice to the discipline of the Society of Saint Pius X, by a special law.
Notes--
(1) Cf. the new formula for the Profession of Faith and the Oath of Fidelity for assuming a charge exercised in the name of the Church, 1989; cf. Code of Canon Law, canon 749,750, §2; 752; CCEO canon 597; 598, 1 & 2; 599.
(2) Cf. Pius XII, Humani Generis encyclical.
(3) Vatican I, Dogmatic Constitution, Pastor Aeternus, Dz. 3070.
(4) Council of Trent, Dz. 1501: “All saving truth and rules of conduct (Matt. 16:15) are contained in the written books and in the unwritten traditions, which, received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ Himself, or from the Apostles themselves,[3] the Holy Ghost dictating, have come down to us, transmitted as it were from hand to hand.”
(5) Cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Dei Verbum, 8 & 9, Denz. 4209-4210.
(6) Vatican I, Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius, Dz. 3020: “Hence, also, that understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church has once declared; and there must never be recession from that meaning under the specious name of a deeper understanding "Therefore […] let the understanding, the knowledge, and wisdom of individuals as of all, of one man as of the whole Church, grow and progress strongly with the passage of the ages and the centuries; but let it be solely in its own genus, namely in the same dogma, with the same sense and the same understanding.'' [Vincent of Lerins, Commonitorium, 23, 3].”
(7) Vatican I, Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius, Dz. 3011; Anti-modernist Oath, no. 4; Pius XII, Encyclical Letter Humani Generis, Dz 3886; Vatican Council II, Dogmatic Constitution Dei Verbum, 10, Dz. 4213.
(8) For example, like the teaching on the sacraments and the episcopacy in Lumen Gentium, no. 21.
(9) There is a parallel in history in the Decree for the Armenians of the Council of Florence, where the porrection of the instruments was indicated as the matter of the sacrament of Order. Nevertheless theologians legitimately discussed, even after this decree, the accuracy of such an assertion. Pope Pius XII finally resolved the issue in another way.
Quote from: Bishop Fellay's Doctrinal PreambleII
We declare that we accept the teachings of the Magisterium of the Church in the substance of Faith and Morals, adhering to each doctrinal affirmation in the required degree, according to the doctrine contained in No.25 of the dogmatic constitution Lumen Gentium of the Second Vatican Council.(1)Quote from: Lumen Gentium25. Among the principal duties of bishops the preaching of the Gospel occupies an eminent place.(39*) For bishops are preachers of the faith, who lead new disciples to Christ, and they are authentic teachers, that is, teachers endowed with the authority of Christ, who preach to the people committed to them the faith they must believe and put into practice, and by the light of the Holy Spirit illustrate that faith. They bring forth from the treasury of Revelation new things and old,(164) making it bear fruit and vigilantly warding off any errors that threaten their flock.(165) Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the docuмents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.
Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they nevertheless proclaim Christ's doctrine infallibly whenever, even though dispersed through the world, but still maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter, and authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held.(40*) This is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecuмenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church, whose definitions must be adhered to with the submission of faith.(41*)
And this infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed His Church to be endowed in defining doctrine of faith and morals, extends as far as the deposit of Revelation extends, which must be religiously guarded and faithfully expounded. And this is the infallibility which the Roman Pontiff, the head of the college of bishops, enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith,(166) by a definitive act he proclaims a doctrine of faith or morals.(42*) And therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly styled irreformable, since they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, promised to him in blessed Peter, and therefore they need no approval of others, nor do they allow an appeal to any other judgment. For then the Roman Pontiff is not pronouncing judgment as a private person, but as the supreme teacher of the universal Church, in whom the charism of infallibility of the Church itself is individually present, he is expounding or defending a doctrine of Catholic faith.(43*) The infallibility promised to the Church resides also in the body of Bishops, when that body exercises the supreme magisterium with the successor of Peter. To these definitions the assent of the Church can never be wanting, on account of the activity of that same Holy Spirit, by which the whole flock of Christ is preserved and progresses in unity of faith.(44*)
But when either the Roman Pontiff or the Body of Bishops together with him defines a judgment, they pronounce it in accordance with Revelation itself, which all are obliged to abide by and be in conformity with, that is, the Revelation which as written or orally handed down is transmitted in its entirety through the legitimate succession of bishops and especially in care of the Roman Pontiff himself, and which under the guiding light of the Spirit of truth is religiously preserved and faithfully expounded in the Church.(45*) The Roman Pontiff and the bishops, in view of their office and the importance of the matter, by fitting means diligently strive to inquire properly into that revelation and to give apt expression to its contents;(46*) but a new public revelation they do not accept as pertaining to the divine deposit of faith.(47*)
This is nothing more than the JPII 1989 "Profession of Faith" and "Oath of Fidelity" in disguise. If this is still in effect, the SSPX has been checkmated by Rome.
(https://i.imgflip.com/2cpqt0.jpg)
Someone asked me for it, and I had to dig it up. Just a "back to basics" post, to remember what the Resistance is all about..
..
This THING ought to be pinned at the head of the forum because it's that important!!
.
Just a few weeks ago I had a conversation with a fellow Trad who is very much okay with what's up in the SSPX, and I was having a hard time believing what I heard him say. So I asked if he agreed with a couple of the points of the 2012 AFD (Fr. Chazal's favorite name for it, and I agree with him!), and he had no idea what I was talking about. I had to recall ALL THE VARIOUS TITLES and repeat them to him (April Fifteenth Declaration, Doctrinal Preamble, Doctrinal Declaration). He stared blankly at me in disbelief as if he had never realized that there had been a gaggle of titles for the same docuмent (Note: this historical FACT is evidence that there was a degree of deception attached to it from the beginning!) and at first he doubted that there ever had BEEN any such docuмent. I had to drag him through the whole history of the thing before he began to recall that +Fellay had ever produced any such a thing. It was all too much like talking to a flat-earther about objective reality!! So don't think it's useless to have such discussions with nay-sayers. We need the practice!
.
I started to tell him the story of how it was quietly circulated at first, MONTHS after it had been turned over to Rome, and how Fr. David Hewko, SSPX (he'd never heard of Fr. Hewko!), had first read it in his hotel room in France where he had pulled off his shoes and was caring for the blisters on his feet from walking the pilgrimage there, when he held the AFD for the first time and was just peacefully reading as if it was going to be just another one of those circulars from Menzingen like he was used to reading, when he stopped, and realized, "Wait a minute! This THING is different! This is not like the other Cor Unums I have seen in the past..." I started to explain this important history and my friend lost interest and tried to change the subject! He didn't want to recognize that the AFD might be subtly suspect, or that it would require special attention. It's as though any HINT of criticism of +Fellay's actions is proximate to offensive to pious ears! I asked him if he had ever heard of Fr. Patrick Girouard, who had to escape UNDER DISGUISE from the SSPX in Canada to go set up an independent Chapel in Vancouver. He said, "No," and wasn't interested. He had other things to think about.
.
If that isn't bad enough, at the very end, once he realized there had been an AFD (but he had never heard that name for it! it was like, "oh, that one letter where he was communicating with Rome about future plans for the Society, yeah, that was no big deal...") he ultimately took issue with me on its contents and dug in his heels. He said that the SSPX would never make concessions on a doctrinal level with Rome, and that I must have my facts mixed up. Remember, this is a man who has contempt for Vat.II. Then I asked him if he recalls the history of GREC (Groupe de Réflexion Entre Catholiques -- you've got to have your vocabulary DOWN PAT!) ; and it was back to square one. He reverted to denying there had ever been any GREC and that I must be really confused. He wanted to know where I got my information, and I told him there are numerous websites with all this information, which is verifiable using any search engine, and that's when he lost it!
.
He said, "OH, so YOU believe all the INTERNET RUMOURS!"
.
This is what we're up against. The Internet is a wonderful resource but some people think that if it's not to be found online then it isn't real, and others (reactionaries to this phenomenon) say that everything online is not to be believed!
.
My recommendation is to obtain a physical copy of every important docuмent you can, and this is one of them, and then you can say that you read it in a reliable copy, and offer them to see it. DO NOT MENTION THE INTERNET!! Tell them that next week or whenever it is you'll see them again, that you'll bring a copy and they can read it for themselves. We have to be so diligent because this is important stuff. It is happening NOW, and we can't let history slip through our fingers.
.
Here's a sobering thought: Centuries ago, you'd be showing someone a HANDWRITTEN DOcuмENT and they would be obliged to grant it credibility because EVERY docuмent was handwritten. Would they believe you today if you showed them something handwritten? NO WAY. There was a time, say 50 years ago, when showing them a periodical or a magazine or a Church bulletin or some page run off on a mimiograph machine (precursor to Xerox) it would be respectable. But no more! Today, Anyone Can Run Off Copy Using a Printer/Computer. So it's a matter of presentation. You have to be somehow convincing in HOW you say what you have to say, while you show them the printed copy, preferably from an official bulletin or book, with a verifiable publisher, such as Angelus Press.
.
Matthew here says, "I had to dig it up." That means it was on the verge of being forgotten, or at least it's not at the ready for quick access and reference!
.
.Man, that brought back memories of the 3rd grade, the smell of that purple mimio ink. Thanks for th good memory
Here's a sobering thought: Centuries ago, you'd be showing someone a HANDWRITTEN DOcuмENT and they would be obliged to grant it credibility because EVERY docuмent was handwritten. Would they believe you today if you showed them something handwritten? NO WAY. There was a time, say 50 years ago, when showing them a periodical or a magazine or a Church bulletin or some page run off on a mimiograph machine (precursor to Xerox) it would be respectable. But no more! Today, Anyone Can Run Off Copy Using a Printer/Computer. So it's a matter of presentation. You have to be somehow convincing in HOW you say what you have to say, while you show them the printed copy, preferably from an official bulletin or book, with a verifiable publisher, such as Angelus Press.
.
Matthew here says, "I had to dig it up." That means it was on the verge of being forgotten, or at least it's not at the ready for quick access and reference!
.
I don't know. I think that these guys are well beyond Modernism. Bishop Williamson has often spoken about relativism. Modernism is much more subtle than what these guys are doing. It's slippery and subtle. Ratzinger was a true Modernist, so was Wojtyla. But they've come out of the closet and into the open now. You'll find a lot of pure modernism in pre-Vatican II theologians and in things like The Catholic Encyclopedia ... where a lot of it has the veneer of orthodoxy with the subtle injection of heterodox thoughts. There's nothing subtle about these guys anymore. One could reasonably argue the +Fellay and the neo-SSPX are Modernist. They're Modernists of the Traditional variety (such as the ones St. Pius X combatted).I keep repeating it, it is 1964 all over again. Back then everybody did the Latin Mass just like the SSPX does today. The SSPX parents of what is today the 45 and unders, turned their children over to the SSPX to teach them the faith, and the SSPX did the same as the clergy did in the 1950's, prepare them for the 1960's. And now we are entering the 1960's all over again. The future trads are not going to be the SSPXers, there will be some that come out of it, but the majority will follow the path of the 1960's.
"... the lonely road of true conviction as freelance priests."Me likest this one :cowboy:
Modernisms to be understood in the light of tradition is such a pile of nonsense and indicates how so many of these clerics have become mentally frozen and theologically bankrupt. The future for them is either as grateful newcomers in the Roman pantheon of anything goes or as founder members of yet another crazy Christian denomination with a small following. Modernity has numbed them into accepting these secure alternatives rather than the lonely road of true conviction as freelance priests.Indeed, If one looks at the overall history of this group, they have always been on a subtle march towards integrating with modernism of Vatican II. They thought that they could take part from a distance, which led to ideas like "prudential truths", and "in the light of Tradition". True conviction and hard principles were never at issue, as they would not have allowed the society to claims of, an irregular situation, but would have demanded a more formal level separation based on the demands of orthodoxy and the purity of Catholic doctrine.
Indeed, If one looks at the overall history of this group, they have always been on a subtle march towards integrating with modernism of Vatican II. They thought that they could take part from a distance, which led to ideas like "prudential truths", and "in the light of Tradition". True conviction and hard principles were never at issue, as they would not have allowed the society to claims of, an irregular situation, but would have demanded a more formal level separation based on the demands of orthodoxy and the purity of Catholic doctrine.Form instead of substance has been the trad scene with some exceptions. Had Rome been more generous with her indults the Society would not have existed. We have seen how easily trads have over time been persuaded by a crafty leadership to soften their stance. And I scream every time I hear about prudence! These expressions are created with inbuilt contradiction as numbing devices and to give an intelligentsia greater detachment when dealing with inquisitive laymen. Language can be a wonderful tool but it can also be lethal. And churchmen certainly know how to use it!
They have from the beginning, had the appearance of Tradition, with the underlying faint odor of something else.
This interview goes with it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdnJigNzTuY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdnJigNzTuY)
Bump!
I think I was wrong, at least as far as Fellay is concerned.Exactly, Byzcat. +Fellay and Co are running the sspx like FSSP-lite. It’s just a matter of time before they become indult. That’s why we bash the new-sspx like we do; they make a mockery of what +ABL built and stood for. They make a mockery of all of Tradition for the last 50 years.
To be honest I won't pretend to be 100% sure who's right, but I see no meaningful sense in which what Bishop Fellay says differs from FSSP.
+ABL b) We declare our acceptance of the doctrine contained in §2541 (http://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Archbishop_Lefebvre_and_the_Vatican/Part_I/1988-05-05B.htm#41B) (https://www.blogger.com/null) of the dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium of Vatican Council II on the ecclesiastical magisterium and the adherence which is due to it.after http://tradicat.blogspot.com/2015/07/doctrinal-preamble-april-15-2012-vs.html
Exactly, Byzcat. +Fellay and Co are running the sspx like FSSP-lite. It’s just a matter of time before they become indult. That’s why we bash the new-sspx like we do; they make a mockery of what +ABL built and stood for. They make a mockery of all of Tradition for the last 50 years.I don't want to be like "its not like that at my SSPX chapel" but our SSPX priest is actively preaching against Vatican II right now, not just "misinterpretations of it" and I doubt he's the only one. Though I'm sure there's a mix depending on where you go.
I don't want to be like "its not like that at my SSPX chapel" but our SSPX priest is actively preaching against Vatican II right now, not just "misinterpretations of it" and I doubt he's the only one.This is very strong statement https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQL-pFxrgFQ . One of the European (non English speaking) districts issued another video "we will not collaborate" with modernist Rome.
I don't want to be like "its not like that at my SSPX chapel" but our SSPX priest is actively preaching against Vatican II right now, not just "misinterpretations of it" and I doubt he's the only one. Though I'm sure there's a mix depending on where you go.
I am hearing that there are rumors (?) that Bergoglio will be publishing his attack on Ratzinger's Summorum Pontificuм tomorrow. I wonder how it will affect the SSPX compared to the current indults.Keep in mind that according to the SSPX, SP was supposed to represent a change in Rome, which in turn would ostensibly justify a change in the SSPX’s posture towards a practical accord.
https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2021/07/urgent-prayers-highly-reliable-source.html
Perhaps this deserves a new thread....
I am hearing that there are rumors (?) that Bergoglio will be publishing his attack on Ratzinger's Summorum Pontificuм tomorrow. I wonder how it will affect the SSPX compared to the current indults.
https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2021/07/urgent-prayers-highly-reliable-source.html
Perhaps this deserves a new thread....
I don't want to be like "its not like that at my SSPX chapel" but our SSPX priest is actively preaching against Vatican II right now, not just "misinterpretations of it" and I doubt he's the only one. Though I'm sure there's a mix depending on where you go.
...
I don't know whether Fr. Palliargani (isn't he the one in charge of SSPX ATM) agrees with +Fellay here or not though. I've heard some people say they think he's tougher.
Who’s your priest?Fr. Sulzen.
That's probably just because their hopes of a "recognition" have dimmed. You'll notice that when they're closing in on an agreement with Rome, their rhetoric softens, but when the talks break down, they magically become more anti-Vatican II again.See, softened rhetoric makes a lot of sense to me. That's human nature, and also, it makes sense from an R and R perspective anyway, you *want* to be in communion with the hierarchy, but you *don't* want to compromise and promote error. As you know, Archbishop Lefebvre also changed his "tone" based on how discussions were going with the authorities. Its the nature of the beast. If the authority isn't even willing to give an inch you're naturally going to be more resentful towards them than if they seem willing to talk things out.
Exactly, Byzcat. +Fellay and Co are running the sspx like FSSP-lite. It’s just a matter of time before they become indult. That’s why we bash the new-sspx like we do; they make a mockery of what +ABL built and stood for. They make a mockery of all of Tradition for the last 50 years.
http://www.saintspeterandpaulrcm.com/Bulletin-Announcements/ANNOUNCEMENTS.htm (http://www.saintspeterandpaulrcm.com/Bulletin-Announcements/ANNOUNCEMENTS.htm)
+ Vicente Jiménez Zamora Archbishop of Zaragoza
This letter sent by Archbishop of Zaragoza, Spain, Vicente Jiménez Zamora, to Fr. Philippe Brunet Superior of the FSSPX in Spain Casa San Jose 28607 EL ÁLAMO (Madrid). Fr. Brunet submitted a formal request to Archbishop Zamora to renew the Indult for his community to offer the Extra-ordinary form of the Roman rite, i.e., the 1962 Bugnini transitional Novus Ordo Missal. This letter is the denial of that request.
This letter is important because it proves two things that Ss. Peter & Paul Roman Catholic Mission has said for many years. Firstly, it proves that the SSPX has already been regularized by Rome. That it has, contrary to Archbishop Lefebvre's direction, established a practical solution with Rome before a doctrinal solution. This has not been revealed by the inner circle of SSPX leadership to the rank and file priests or the faithful who attend their chapels and finance their operations, but it has been evident from necessary canonical deductions drawn for a long time from actions of their leadership.Secondly, it demonstrates that the 1962 Missal, aka, the Extra-ordinary form, an Indult and grant of legal privilege, can be denied by any authority for any reason whatsoever. Anyone who has accepted this grant, by so doing, has accepted in principle that it is a privilege, and therefore has conceded that he possess no legal or moral recourse to its denial.Those who are intent upon defending the Catholic faith and passing it their children cannot do so by supporting the Indult community or any of its institutional structures.
Fr. Sulzen.A certainly valid priest. I looked into his orders a few years back (maybe more now) when he was at a SSPX parish in Northern, NJ. I sometimes went to him for confession when I was in the area.
That's probably just because their hopes of a "recognition" have dimmed. You'll notice that when they're closing in on an agreement with Rome, their rhetoric softens, but when the talks break down, they magically become more anti-Vatican II again.
https://adelantelafe.com/analisis-juridico-del-reconocimiento-de-la-fsspx-en-argentina-un-avance-mas-alla-de-benedicto-xvi/
Legal analysis of the recognition of the FSSPX in Argentina (updated)
The news of the recognition, by the Secretariat of Cults of the Argentine Nation, of the Priestly Fraternity San Pio X as part of the Roman Catholic Church is a very important legal act for the implications that it entails. This analysis in no way refers to the questions that arose since the ordinations of four Bishops by Monsignor Lefevbre, nor to the subsequent rapprochement with the Holy See, nor to all the questions that have been debated in these decades about the insertion of the FSSPX in the Roman Catholic Apostolic Church. It is a strict legal analysis of the Resolution of the Secretariat of Cults under the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Worship of the Argentine Republic. I will try to be as schematic, clear and synthetic as possible.
1)In Argentina's domestic legislation, the Catholic Church has a very particular status: it is a legal person under public law, according to article 33 of the Civil Code, a legal nature that it shares with the national state, the provinces, the municipalities and the autarchic entities. It is the only non-state legal person under public law, enjoying a higher hierarchy than any association or society you can imagine (banks, multinationals, football clubs, etc.).
2) Constitutionally, the Argentine state is obliged to uphold the Roman Catholic Apostolic Cult and constitutes the official religion of the country, which implies that the Argentine Bishops enjoy remuneration identical to that of a federal judge, in addition to having tax exemptions. There are also multiple connections between State and Church, such as chaplainries in the army, police, prison service and provincial police that are paid for by the state, with priests covering categories of public administration agents (national, provincial or municipal, as the case may be).
3) The Holy See and the Argentine Nation have a Concordat approved by Law 17032 that regulates international relations between both states, constituting an important source of public law. From this concordat arises Law 24.483, which in its article 1 grants civil legal personality to the Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life that enjoy public legal personality in the Catholic Church, with its sole inscription in a register to be maintained by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Worship.
4) Based on Law 24.483 and its regulatory decree 491, the Archbishop of Buenos Aires Mario Aurelio Cardenal POLI requests that the Priestly Fraternity of San Pio X be framed in the terms of said law and be granted recognition, by the Argentine State, as an Institute of Consecrated Life. The application dates from February 23, 2015 and Resolution 25/15 that grants it is dated March 17 of the same year, in an extremely fast process.
5) According to the grounds of the decree published in the Official Gazette of the Argentine Republic, in his petition Cardinal Poli maintains that until the FSSPX finds the definitive framework in the Universal Church, it is taken into account as an Association of Diocesan Law in the terms of article 298 of the Code of Canon Law, and also adds that it is in the process of formation (in fieri) as a Society of Apostolic Life.
6) If you access the official website of the Secretariat of Cults of Argentina there is a Registry of recognized cults in the country (evangelicals, Buddhists, Africanists, etc.) and a Registry of Institutes of Consecrated Life under the terms of Law 24483. This registration is exclusive to the Catholic Church and the forms (with instructions) for its processing are on the web.
7) For its constitution must be accompanied, among other things, the decree of erection of the association, the Constitutions, the consent of the ecclesiastical authority, the Memory (with structure of the institute, form of government, universal supreme authority and local authorities, date of installation in the country, main activities that develops), the appointment of the Superior Major in Argentina, legal headquarters, etc. The papers must be presented, translated into the national language and copies duly certified by the Nunciature, or by the Argentine Embassy to the Holy See, or by the General Secretariat of the Argentine Episcopal Conference, or by the Diocesan Curia competent by reason of domicile (Buenos Aires in this case).
8) In conclusion, it can be said that: a) There is no doubt that both Cardinal Poli (as Archbishop of Buenos Aires) and the Argentine Nation recognize the FSSPX as an integral part of the Roman Catholic Church; b) From the reading of Resolution 25/15, of the domestic legislation of Argentina and of the official forms of the website of the Secretariat of Cults there is also no doubt that the procedure has the express agreement of the FSSPX, the only one that can provide each and every one of the bureaucratic requirements demanded, mainly constitutions, form of government and authorities; c)The FSSPX was registered with the n°381 among the Institutes of Consecrated Life dependent on the Catholic Church. None of the other non-Catholic Christian cults recognized by Argentina are part of the Catholic Church and therefore do not enjoy the benefits that the law provides to their official religion, beyond the treatment and aid that governments provide for the fulfillment of their purposes.
Es posible interpretar que este acto jurídico del Estado Argentino, además del valor simbólico por ser la tierra de S.S. Francisco, tiene un efecto jurídico de grandes proporciones cuyas consecuencias se extienden a la Iglesia Universal. El Cardenal Poli, Arzobispo de Buenos Aires, está otorgando, directa e indirectamente (a través del estado argentino) personería jurídica en los términos del Código de Derecho Canónico Universal.
It is possible to interpret that this legal act of the Argentine State, in addition to the symbolic value for being the land of H.S. Francis, has a legal effect of great proportions whose consequences extend to the Universal Church. Cardinal Poli, Archbishop of Buenos Aires, is granting, directly and indirectly (through the Argentine state) legal personality under the terms of the Code of Universal Canon Law.
I reiterate that this means a step forward beyond Benedict XVI. As reported by ACI Prensa on June 27, 2013 in his note "Lefebvristas reaffirm schism and end the dialogue with the Catholic Church" Fr. Lombardi (who refers to Pope Benedict XVI), said that "as long as the Fraternity does not have a canonical status in the Church its ministers do not exercise a legitimate ministry in it". And the same note quotes a statement from the Holy See of February 2009 warned that "the lifting of the excommunication has freed the bishops from a very serious penalty, but it has not changed the legal situation of the Fraternity of St. Pius X, which at the present time does not enjoy any canonical recognition in the Catholic Church."
Legal Reasoning must be nourished by Logic. One thing cannot "be and not be" at the same time. Res.25/15 of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Worship of the Argentine Republic has changed the situation dramatically. Today the FSSPX – on the initiative of the Archbishop of Buenos Aires – is an association of the faithful in the terms of article 298 of the Code of Canon Law and is on its way to being an Institute of Consecrated Life, enjoying full recognition within the Roman Catholic Apostolic Church.
H.T (Argentine Jurist)
UPDATE (14/04) In Adelante la Fe we have asked this prominent jurist to make an assessment of the various information, from both parties, that try to downplay the importance of this news indicating that it is something merely "administrative". Here's his response: "After the news of the recognition of the Argentine state to the FSSPX, there have been communications, from both sides, that obscure more than clarify.
I reread the relevant parts of the Code of Canon Law and am even more convinced that there is no way to consider the FSSPX part of the Church in Argentina and not in the rest of the world. It violates all legal logic.
The fact that it is a purely administrative procedure - in order to freely exercise apostolic life - has no basis because they have been in our country for decades, with seminaries, temples, schools and other assets, which they were able to acquire as a non-profit civil association. What is the administrative improvement? Evade Income Tax? Get salaries and subsidies?
It would be a very serious situation where they do not commune with Rome but do receive the benefits in Argentina for being "Romans".
The procedure took about fifteen working days, unsuitful for any bureaucratic procedure, unless the presentation was made absolutely neat, without missing anything and managed in advance with the authority. The File is bar fifteen (/15) which shows that it began this year and is not a mere note from Poli accompanying a 2011 procedure, as stated by Agencia DICI. It is impossible for this to be reached without the agreement of Rome and Econe."
(http://www.saintspeterandpaulrcm.com/Bulletin-Announcements/ANNOUNCEMENTS_files/image031.jpg)
They ARE an indult. If you click the link below and scroll down, you will see the LETTER in Spanish sent by the Archbishop of Zaragoza, Spain to Fr. Philippe Brunet, SSPX DS in Spain. I don't know how to post it. A translation will be also included. The link is a commentary from our Bulletin in York, PA.
(http://www.saintspeterandpaulrcm.com/Bulletin-Announcements/ANNOUNCEMENTS.htm)
The Translation:
Zaragoza, December 18, 2019 The Archbishop of Zaragoza Fr. Philippe Brunet Superior of the FSSPX in Spain Casa San Jose 28607 EL ÁLAMO (Madrid)
Dear Fr. Philippe:
I received your kind letter of 13 December 2019, in which you ask me to renew the Indult to celebrate Holy Mass in the Extraordinary Form, which my predecessor, Bishop Manuel Ureña, granted aloud, through the priest D. Waldir Consuega, former pastor of Calaceite. In reply to this letter, I communicate the following:
1. I had no knowledge of the subject until now.
2. I am not renewing the permit because I know that in Calaceite there are not enough people to celebrate Holy Mass in the Extraordinary Form. The participants belong to other parishes which are not in the Diocese of Zaragoza. Moreover, it is not practical for the full communion of the parish community of Calaceite.
3. With the same date, I am sending a copy of this letter to the present parish priest, Rev. Mr. Arturo Hollman Ladino Gutiérrez, in order not to authorize Father José M Jiménez, in charge of the Region of Catalonia and Aragon, to celebrate in any of the parishes, which he has entrusted to his pastoral care.
With my affection and blessing,
+ Vicente Jiménez Zamora Archbishop of Zaragoza
I though I post the Juridical Analysis by an Argentinian lawyer hired by Adelate La Fe after the SSPX was regularized/recognized in Argentina. I did a duckduckgo.com tedious translation (only 1000 words at a time) but a very good translation. Adelante la Fe and Rorate Caeli had the English official translation at one time but disappeared. All the emphasis is theirs. There is no point on speculating. The Argentinian regularization constituted a "back door entrance" into Rome. Fr. Pflugger had stated at the time that 'the train to Rome is leaving and those who will get on will get on'. Most of the SSPX members may not be aware of this, but think about it, WHO are the new leaders of the SSPX? Fr.Pagliariani, +de Galarreta and Fr. Bouchacourt all three where in Argentina for a long time or are Argentinan. Coincidence? No! All of them would understand the implications of the regularization. I would not be surprised if the new Motu Proprio (expected tomorrow) will lead to the SSPX Prelature overseeing all the Summorum Pontificuм communities.