Author Topic: Catalog of Compromise, Change, and Contradiction in the SSPX (Read 45252 times)

X · « **Reply #15 on:** February 23, 2019, 08:37:28 AM »

#15: Contradiction (Bishop Tissier de Mallerais vs Himself):

In 2012, Bishop Tissier de Mallerais was quite relieved a merely practical accord with modernist Rome had been narrowly averted, even citing the intervention of the Blessed Virgin to save the SSPX from disaster:

"Let us trust in the Blessed Virgin who got us out of a tight corner, it is true. This year, she got us out of this tight corner, she did not want any of this talk of an agreement; in other words, that we would go to Rome to submit ourselves to the Conciliar authorities...Dear Faithful, how could you want us to submit ourselves to such a Hierarchy? It would have been impossible to collaborate, it would have been a bogus collaboration, a lie. We would never have collaborated and we would have been constantly persecuted, threatened by the bishops and by Rome. How could one survive in such conditions? With the obligation of signing a misleading text, ah no!"
http://www.dominicansavrille.us/the-g-r-e-c/

But by 2016, Bishop Tissier had quite a change of heart:

"But now there is obviously [on] the part of Pope Francis, a provision to recognize us without these conditions. We say 'Go!' Because things are moving and they still need progress."
http://laportelatine.org/publications/entret/2016/entretien_mgr_tissier_25_ans_mgr_lefebvre_160325/entretien_mgr_tissier_25_ans_mgr_lefebvre_160325.php

English translation here: https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/bp-tissier-changed-his-position-2016-interview

X · « **Reply #16 on:** February 23, 2019, 09:29:13 AM »

#16: Contradiction (Bishop Tissier vs Archbishop Lefebvre):

Bishop Tissier de Mallerais in 2016:

"Archbishop Lefebvre has never posed as a condition of recognition by our new Rome, Rome abandons errors and conciliar reforms."
http://laportelatine.org/publications/entret/2016/entretien_mgr_tissier_25_ans_mgr_lefebvre_160325/entretien_mgr_tissier_25_ans_mgr_lefebvre_160325.php

Archbishop Lefebvre, on the contrary, said (just weeks before his death):

"Finally the Pope is more ecuмenist than ever. All the false ideas of the Council continue to develop, to be reaffirmed with ever greater clarity. They are hiding less and less. It is absolutely inconceivable that we can agree to work with such a hierarchy."
http://laportelatine.org/publications/entret/1991/mgr_lefebvre_fideliter_janvier_1991.php

X · « **Reply #17 on:** February 23, 2019, 10:00:28 AM »

#17: Contradiction (Still More Acceptance of Doctrinal Pluralism from Bishop Fellay):

As we saw earlier, this was Bishop Fellay's public (but not private) position regarding a doctrinally pluralistic agreement with unconverted Rome in 2003:

"But if this is the new concept of the Church, then why not grant a little cage to the dinosaurs? If you already have all the birds and all kinds of animals, why not have a little place for the "fossils" which they think us to be? There is a condition, though: the dinosaurs have to stay in their cage. Imagine crocodiles or dinosaurs all over the zoo! Never! So the Tridentine Mass for everybody? - No! For the dinosaurs in their little cage? - Fine. So when Rome comes to us with a big smile, that is their ulterior motive. That is, we grant you a place, but you must stay very quiet there and not move. So we come to them and we say, "Well, we are sorry, but there is no zoo." The Catholic Church is not a zoo. This comparison may show you how deep is the difference of vision. As long as things are at that level, it is just unthinkable that we should be able to reach a basic or fundamental agreement. It is impossible. And, once again, let us look at Campos."
http://archives.sspx.org/sspx_and_rome/what_catholics_need_to_know.htm

But after Rome refused Bishop Fellay's signature of the April 15, 2012 "Doctrinal Declaration," Bishop Fellay wrote to Pope Benedict XVI, and stated his willingness to set doctrinal considerations aside:

"I had believed that you were disposed to postpone until later the resolution of the disputes that still remain over certain points of the Council and of the liturgical reform...so as to effect a union."
-Letter of Bishop Fellay to Pope Benedict XVI (6/17/12)

[Original complete Letter available here: http://www.lasapiniere.info/archives/649]

X · « **Reply #18 on:** February 23, 2019, 11:03:24 AM »

#18: Compromise: (Branding Campaign: From GREC to You!)

The GREC is a group of diocesan, SSPX, and indultarian clergy and laymen who have been working "discreetly but not secretly" for a practical accord between the SSPX and modernist Rome since the mid-1990's.

One of the key strategies in the GREC quest for a practical accord between the SSPX and modernist Rome was for the Society to cease attacking the Roman modernists for their continual scandals.

As an excellent article by a Dominican of Avrille titled "The G.R.E.C.(Groupe de Réflexion Entre Catholiques or: Group for Reflection Among Catholics): A once hidden story, now revealed"
explains:

"The leaders of the GREC seem to have been concerned with bringing about the cessation of attacks against today’s Rome. To quote Father Lelong [diocesan GREC kingpin]:

Quote

At that time, all too often aggressive and polemical points-of-view were being expressed both on the part of those Catholics attached to tradition14, as well as on that of those who claimed to follow the spirit of the Council. These were not contributing to bring about that climate of peace and mutual confidence which is necessary in the search for a true reconciliation (p. 33).
The Society of Saint Pius X must understand that, even if it has much to bring to the Church of Rome, it also has much to receive from it. Therefore, it must stop rejecting Vatican II in its entirety (p. 85).

In their letter to Benedict XVI of the 9th July 2008, which we have already quoted and which is so important, the leaders of the GREC (therefore, the unofficial representatives of Tradition as well?) desired to reassure the Pope on this point:

Quote

We ask the leaders of this Society to cease declarations and polemical articles which criticize the Holy See (p. 50).

On the 20th June 2008, Father Lelong and several members of the GREC had written to Bishop Fellay:

Quote

Are you not afraid that by refusing the repeated calls of the Holy Father and by permitting yourselves to criticize him unjustly and systematically, the Society will end up taking a path which will lead it inevitably to separate itself from Holy Church, as has – alas! – happened throughout history? (p. 39).

http://www.dominicansavrille.us/the-g-r-e-c/

Was Bishop Fellay receptive to these pleas of the modernists for the SSPX to drop their aggressive polemics?

It would seem so, in light of the following developments:

1) Fr. Wegner announces he has contracted with a branding campaign which has advised him to drop the attacks against modernist Rome:
https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/fr-girouard's-sermon-revealing-fr-wegner's-branding-campaign/msg644678/#msg644678

2) Fr. Wegner's Angelus announcement regarding the new "positive message" and style, "bare of any aggressive or imposing element" (Scroll down and click on pic to enlarge and read Fr. Wegner's announcement): https://www.traditioninaction.org/Questions/B999_M065_SSPX.html

3) The 2012 Letter of Archbishop di Noia to Bishop Fellay (and subsequently forwarded by Bishop Fellay to all SSPX priests) asking them not to preach against modernist Rome:
https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2013/01/di-noias-letter-full-text-in-french.html

If you have wondered why your priests no longer condemn Vatican II or Roman modernism like they used to (or why priests ordained from 2009 or later never condemned it in the first place!), you have here your explanation:

The SSPX sold out Archbishop Lefebvre's combat for the faith in pursuit of a practical accord, according to a plan hatched by the modernists themselves.

X · « **Reply #19 on:** February 23, 2019, 12:57:58 PM »

#19: Contradiction (Tradcuмenism):

Archbishop Lefebvre considered collaboration with the rallied/approved once-traditional groups like the FSSP or IBP impossible:

"And we must not waver for one moment either in not being with those who are in the process of betraying us. Some people are always admiring the grass in the neighbor's field. Instead of looking to their friends, to the Church's defenders, to those fighting on the battlefield, they look to our enemies on the other side. "After all, we must be charitable, we must be kind, we must not be divisive, after all, they are celebrating the Tridentine Mass, they are not as bad as everyone says"—but they are betraying us—betraying us! They are shaking hands with the Church's destroyers. They are shaking hands with people holding modernist and liberal ideas condemned by the Church. So they are doing the devil's work.

Thus those who were with us and were working with us for the rights of Our Lord, for the salvation of souls, are now saying, "So long as they grant us the old Mass, we can shake hands with Rome, no problem." But we are seeing how it works out. They are in an impossible situation. Impossible. One cannot both shake hands with modernists and keep following Tradition. Not possible. Not possible.
Now, stay in touch with them to bring them back, to convert them to Tradition, yes, if you like, that's the right kind of ecuмenism! But give the impression that after all one almost regrets any break, that one likes talking to them? No way! These are people who call us corpse-like traditionalists, they are saying that we are as rigid as corpses, ours is not a living Tradition, we are glum-faced, ours is a glum Tradition! Unbelievable! Unimaginable! What kind of relations can you have with people like that?
http://sspx.org/en/two-years-after-consecrations

But today's Society no longer sees any problem in this regard (after all, a "regularized" SSPX needs to learn how to play well with the other children in the "ecuмenical zoo").
Consequently "tradcuмenical" collaboration, or gestures implying same, has become commonplace in Europe and America:
For example:

-In 2013 the SSPX Polish District website mentioned indult priestly ordinations in the same breath as SSPX ordinations: The mask had momemtarily slipped, and in the wake of intense and immediate scandal, the Polish District moved quickly to scrub the website, and eliminated reference to the indult communities:
https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/all-one-happy-family-on-sspx-polish-website/

-But by 2015, there was no more need for masks, and the SSPX was openly collaborating in joint SSPX-diocesan-Ecclesia Dei ventures, such as the so-called "Catholic Identity Conference, where pics show SSPX and indult priests standing side by side:
https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/2032-catholic-identity-conference-makes-history

-Or, in 2018: https://catholicidentityconference.org/index.php/speakers

Can you imagine Archbishop Lefebvre attending such an event, or posing for pics with those whom he says "are doing the devil's work?"

CathInfo.com

Author Topic: Catalog of Compromise, Change, and Contradiction in the SSPX (Read 45252 times)

X

Re: Catalog of Compromise, Change, and Contradiction in the SSPX

X

Re: Catalog of Compromise, Change, and Contradiction in the SSPX

X

Re: Catalog of Compromise, Change, and Contradiction in the SSPX

X

Re: Catalog of Compromise, Change, and Contradiction in the SSPX

X

Re: Catalog of Compromise, Change, and Contradiction in the SSPX