Author Topic: Catalog of Compromise, Change, and Contradiction in the SSPX  (Read 21533 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline X

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 612
  • Reputation: +607/-52
  • Gender: Male
Re: Catalog of Compromise, Change, and Contradiction in the SSPX
« Reply #30 on: February 26, 2019, 11:47:31 AM »
  • Thanks!6
  • No Thanks!0
  • #30: Contradiction (Fr. Robinson's Book Signals a "New Attitude" in Menzingen):

    For decades, Bishop Fellay gave conferences in which he spoke of an alleged "new attitude in Rome" and in more recent years an alleged "new openness to Tradition."  

    For its part, Rome might observe a "new attitude in Menzingen," which moves well beyond the tenets of the branding campaign (by which the SSPX was made to cease war on conciliar and Roman modernism, as was explained in post #26 of this thread), and into the active promotion of modernism.

    One of the things Francis could point to (besides everything else cited in this thread) evincing this "new attitude in Menzingen" would be the 2018 release of Fr. Paul Robinson's book "The Realist Guide to Religion and Science."
    https://angeluspress.org/products/the-realist-guide-to-religion-and-science

    Surely Rome smiled when it learned that:

    -The book would be published by a conciliar publishing company;

    -The Foreword written by Novus Ordo priest.  

    -Fr. Robinson would champion the exegetical interpretations of Fr. Stanley Jaki (a modernist who questioned the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, as well as the literal interpretation of Gen: 1-3, which was the near-unanimous consensus of Church Fathers);

    -The book would feature a denial of a global flood;

    -The book would feature a denial of a young age for the earth (thereby purporting to remove a significant obstacle to the acceptance of evolution);

    -The book would reject the consensus of the Fathers' literal interpretation of the Genesis creation account;

    -The book would represent an endorsement of the heretical historico-critical method of exegesis;

    -The book would suggest a redefinition of scriptural inerrancy by admitting the possibility of error into Biblical historical accounts;

    -The book would reject the traditional Martyrology's account of a young earth:

    “In the year, from the creation of the world, when in the beginning God created heaven and earth, five thousand one hundred and ninety-nine; from the flood, two thousand nine hundred and fifty-seven; from the birth of Abraham, two thousand and fifteen; from Moses and the coming of the Israelites out of Egypt, one thousand five hundred and ten; from the anointing of King David, one thousand and thirty-two; in the sixty-fifth week, according to the prophecy of Daniel; in the one hundred and ninety-fourth Olympiad; in the year seven hundred and fifty-two from the founding of the city of Rome; in the forth-second year of the empire of Octavian Augustus, when the whole world was at peace, in the sixth age of the world, Jesus Christ, eternal God, and Son of the eternal Father, desirous to sanctify the world by His most merciful coming, having been conceived of the Holy Ghost, and nine months having elapsed since His conception, is born in Bethlehem in Juda, having become man of the Virgin Mary.”
    Martyrologium Romanum (reading for the 25th day of December

    In the old days, the SSPX used to publish articles like this one by Dr. Terry Jackson, defending young earth theory and the global extent of the Flood:
    http://archives.sspx.org/against_sound_bites/devolution_of_evolution.htm

    Or this one, condemning the idea that we have as yet not discovered the "true meaning" of Genesis ( and that the near-unanimous consent of the Fathers was wrong):
    https://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/SiSiNoNo/1998_March/Evolutionism.htm

    Neither can one make the argument that as a single priest, Fr. Robinson's book it not representative of SSPX opinion.  True, there has been no Menzingen declaration to this effect (Thank heavens!), but shortly after the book's release, it was the SSPX's US District itself which coordinated and promoted a book launch in St. Mary's, KS.  The SSPX therefore cannot be absolved of sponsorship.
    https://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/sspx-priest-releases-new-book-realist-guide-religion-and-science-35276

    Shortly thereafter, evolution zealots invaded Cathinfo to defend their pet (one of them a St. Mary’s college professor).  It didn’t matter that Fr. Robinson himself denied evolution.  His championing of old earth theory had ostensibly removed the barricade and placed the SSPX upon a new trajectory in that direction, and Rome knew it.

    The purpose of this book was to telegraph to Rome that the Society was down with modernity, and Rome need not fear them staining the conciliar church’s reputation by projecting “ignorant pre-conciliar attitudes” “disproven” by “science.”

    Offline X

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 612
    • Reputation: +607/-52
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Catalog of Compromise, Change, and Contradiction in the SSPX
    « Reply #31 on: February 26, 2019, 07:22:05 PM »
  • Thanks!5
  • No Thanks!0
  • #31: Contradiction (Fudging the Truth?)

    In April, 2013 Fr. Daniel Themann gave a notorious conference titled "Resistance to What?" in St. Mary's, KS, which was designed to run damage control against a mounting pile of evidence adduced by the Resistance, all of which tended to demonstrate that the SSPX was compromising on many issues in pursuit of a practical accord with unconverted Rome.

    At a certain point, Fr. Themann addressed the matter of avoiding speaking against Roman modernism, or anything running contrary to the branding campaign, stating:

    "Have there been any official edicts from the Superior General for the Society not to talk about certain sensitive types of matters? People have actually asked me that, and the answer is no, of course not.”
    http://www.stmaryskssspxmc.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/The_Recusant_Issue_11_Nov_Dec_2013.pdf (See p. 33)

    Yet only a few months prior, in December/2012, Bishop Fellay forwarded to all the priests of the SSPX a letter from Archbishop di Noia, in which the latter implored priests to drop the combat against modernism (and having been forwarded to them by their Superior General, the message was clear: These are marching orders):

    "In these circumstances, while hope remains strong, it is clear that something new must be injected into our conversations if we are not to appear to the Church, to the general public, and indeed to ourselves, to be engaged in a well-meaning but unending and fruitless exchange. Some new considerations of a more spiritual and theological nature are needed, considerations that transcend the important but seemingly intractable disagreements over the authority and interpretation of Vatican Council II that now divide us, considerations that focus rather on our duty to preserve and cherish the divinely willed unity and peace of the Church.  It seems opportune that I should introduce these new considerations in the form of a personal Advent letter addressed to you as well as to the members of the Priestly Fraternity..What, then, is being asked of the Priestly Fraternity in the present situation? Not to abandon the zeal of your founder, Archbishop Lefebvre. Far from it! Rather you are being asked to renew the flame of his ardent zeal to form men in the priesthood of Jesus Christ. Surely, the time has come to abandon the harsh and counterproductive rhetoric that has emerged over the past years..Attention should certainly be paid to the passages of the Magisterium that seem difficult to reconcile with magisterial teaching, but these theological questions should not be the focus of your preaching or of your formation."
    https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2013/01/di-noias-letter-full-text-in-french.html

    What was this but exactly that which Fr. Themann denied:

    An official mandate directly from the Superior General not to preach polemics against Vatican II and the Roman modernists (Not in the form of a personally written order, it is true, but all understood the Superior General does not take the unprecedented step of forwarding to every priest of the SSPX a letter in this matter only so they can disregard it!).

    And what of the screen shot of the email of 6/7/12 which appeared in The Recusant #11 from Fr. Arnaud Rostand's (i.e., Fr. Themann's own District Superior) email to the priors of the US District, advising priests that:

    "Formal communication regarding the situation with Rome is reserved to the General House. ... If a priest is unsure of what may be/should be said, then that priest should contact the District House..."
    http://www.stmaryskssspxmc.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/The_Recusant_Issue_11_Nov_Dec_2013.pdf

    From the Superior General, to the District Superiors, to the Priors, to the priests, the orders clearly affirm exactly that which Fr. Themann denied:

    An edict from the Superior General -via the implicit endorsement of the position of Archbishop di Noia-  to avoid polemics regarding the situation in the Church and Rome.


    Offline X

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 612
    • Reputation: +607/-52
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Catalog of Compromise, Change, and Contradiction in the SSPX
    « Reply #32 on: February 26, 2019, 09:19:24 PM »
  • Thanks!4
  • No Thanks!0
  • #32: Change (Rank Liberalism: "The Flying Squirrel"):

    In the summer of 2013, the French Resistance website Avec l'Immaculee ("With the Immaculate") broke the story regarding a new SSPX periodical being circulated in India.  It was called (bizarrely) "The Flying Squirrel," and read like any mainstream conciliar parish newsletter:

    Articles featured a deranged sermon by Pope Francis, a panegyric regarding the communist Jesuit destroyer, Fr. Arrupe, a glowing review of World Youth Day, a blurb about the Jesuit Center for Human Rights,  a sentimental story about a Pentecostal minister αrrєѕтed for his Pentecostalism, a new radio station launched by the Bishop of Cochin, something about "our passion for football" by the Opus Dei founder, an article on new age "centering prayer," and on and on.  

    You can see it all for yourself right here: https://aveclimmaculee.blogspot.com/2013/11/un-journal-accordiste-et-liberal-de-la.html

    How did the SSPX respond?

    Well, as usual, they don't respond at all until these things hit the internet, and in this case, it was Fr. Brucciani who made the response:

    "Dear Mr -------,
    Quote
    Quote Don't worry, we have not gone all liberal. You are not the first to express wonder [about The Flying Squirrel] and so I put together an official statement:
    The Flying Squirrel was conceived and produced by Fr. Christophe Beaublat who is now the prior in India. About 120 copies were printed for distribution in our Indian Mass Centres. The controversial edition [of The Squirrel] referred to in the open letter to Bishop Fellay was printed without my approval one week before Fr Beaublat took over as prior. When I pointed out the controversial parts of the edition (controversial because passages could be interpreted as a sign of liberalism), Fr. Beaublat did not agree with my judgement. I did not insist that the copies be destroyed before they were distributed because I judged:
    Quote
    Quote Unfortunately, I did not foresee the scurrilous campaign of the dishonourable priests who have the effrontery of calling themselves the "Resistance" or even worse, "The Marian Corps". Fr. Beaublat is not a liberal, he is just indulgent (perhaps to a fault). As far as I am aware, Fr. Beaublat must now submit any further publications to the District Superior before printing...

    Father Robert Brucciani
    https://www.therecusant.com/apps/blog/show/40969832-sspx-modernism-the-flying-squirrel-scandal-deepens

    A very interesting statement from Fr. Brucciani about Fr. Beaublat not being a liberal, since less than two years later, Fr. Beaublat left the SSPX for the conciliar church!

    In other words, we have, for all intents and purposes, a conciliar SSPX priest spewing rank liberalism into an SSPX periodical being defended by the future District Superior of England.

    The company always comes first.

    Had Fr. Brucciani rejected, rather than defended, the actions of Fr. Beaublat, I would not here be writing about the matter.

    Offline X

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 612
    • Reputation: +607/-52
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Catalog of Compromise, Change, and Contradiction in the SSPX
    « Reply #33 on: February 27, 2019, 11:03:30 AM »
  • Thanks!4
  • No Thanks!0
  • #33: Contradiction (Eroding Conditions):

    In post #28, we saw that at the 2012 General Chapter, the SSPX had overturned its previous policy of not considering an accord with Rome before the doctrinal issues were resolved, and instead declared there to be 3 sine qua non (i.e., absolutely essential) conditions to be met before the SSPX could consider a canonical "regularization."

    We saw that the second of these allegedly "absolutely essential" conditions was the right to continue their then-current sacramental practice, not only as regards the liturgy, but also the other sacraments (including marriage).  

    And then less than five years later, we observed with dropped jaws the SSPX gleefully surrender this allegedly sine qua non condition, thereby altering its sacramental practice to bring it into line with Cardinal Mueller's "pastoral guidelines" for SSPX marriages.

    But a couple months before accepting those March 27, 2017 "pastoral guidelines," the SSPX itself had already contradicted its three allegedly "sine qua non" conditions, and whittled them down to one:

    "I think we do not have to wait for everything to be resolved in the Church, for all the problems to be solved. But a certain number of conditions are necessary, and for us the essential condition is our survival. So I have told Rome, very clearly, that, just as Archbishop [Marcel] Lefebvre used to say in his day, we have a sine qua non condition: if this condition is not met, then we will not move. And this condition is for us to be able to remain as we are, to keep all the principles that have kept us alive, that have kept us Catholic."
    http://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/bp-fellay-gives-rome-clear-condition

    In all likelihood, Bishop Fellay was aware of the forthcoming promulgation of the pastoral guidelines which would change SSPX sacramental practice, and in order to avoid highlighting the blatant violation of its own previously declared condition, pre-empted focus on that violation by shifting the goalposts, and redefining what was "essential:"

    From three sine qua non conditions in 2012, to one sine qua non condition in 2017.

    As regards this new allegedly sine qua non condition of Rome "accepting us as we are," this thread more than suffices to demonstrate that this condition has also been repeatedly violated and disregarded by Menzingen.

    It is no longer a case of Rome agreeing to accept the SSPX as they are, but as they have become.

    Offline X

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 612
    • Reputation: +607/-52
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Catalog of Compromise, Change, and Contradiction in the SSPX
    « Reply #34 on: February 27, 2019, 06:01:24 PM »
  • Thanks!4
  • No Thanks!0
  • #34: Contradiction (SSPX Priests Attend the Indult Mass):

    Archbishop Lefebvre and the old SSPX pulled no punches in teaching the faithful why the Ecclesia Dei communities had sold out the fight for tradition, and that therefore we ought not to attend their Masses:

    "The Fraternity of St. Peter is founded upon more than questionable principles, for the following reasons:

    Quote
    • to take away the Mass of all time (for the Novus Ordo Missae is not another form of this, question 5),
    • to grant it to those only who accept the same Conciliar Church’s novel orientations (in life, belief, structures),
    • to declare non-Catholic those who deny this by word or deed (An interpretation of "Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism [of Archbishop Lefebvre] is a grave offense against God and carries the penalty of excommunication." Ecclesia Dei Afflicata), and,
    • to professes itself in a certain way in communion with anyone calling himself “Christian,” and yet to declare itself out of communion with Catholics whose sole crime is wanting to remain Catholic (Vatican II, e.g., Lumen Gentium, §15; Unitatis Redintegratio §3).

    Quote
    • they reject the Novus Ordo Missae only because it is not their “spirituality” and claim the traditional Latin Mass only in virtue of their “charism” acknowledged them by the pope,
    • they seek to ingratiate themselves with the local bishops, praising them for the least sign of Catholic spirit and keeping quiet on their modernist deviations (unless perhaps it is a question of a diocese where they have no hopes of starting up), even though by doing so they end up encouraging them along their wrong path, and
    • note, for example, the Fraternity’s whole-hearted acceptance of the (New) Catechism of the Catholic Church (question 14), acceptance of Novus Ordo professors in their seminaries, and blanket acceptance of Vatican II’s orthodoxy (question 6).
    They are therefore Conciliar Catholics and not traditional Catholics.

    This being so, attending their Mass is:
        - accepting the compromise on which they are based,
        - accepting the direction taken by the Conciliar Church and the consequent destruction of the Catholic Faith and practices, and
        - accepting, in particular, the lawfulness and doctrinal soundness of the Novus Ordo Missae and Vatican II.


    That is why a Catholic ought not to attend their Masses."

    But that was the SSPX before the ralliement (or rather, before the ralliement was made public!).

    Now days, the SSPX has swept these teachings under the rug, and what could serve as a better example to illustrate the repudiation of these teachings than the scandalous example of SSPX priests attending the first Mass of a newly ordained priest of the Institute of Christ the King in Belgium.

    "On Saturday, September 12, 2015, Canon Pierre Dumain celebrated his first Mass in the Basilica of Saint Joan of Arc du Bois Chenu in Domremy. The young priest's family is based in Liffol-le-Petit.  Ordained a priest on July 2 in Florence, Italy, by Cardinal Raymond Burke for the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest, he celebrated the Holy Sacrifice according to the extraordinary rite of the Catholic Church in the presence of his family, friends and many faithful. Several canons attended the Mass as well as priests from the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter, the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X, Father Fourgerolle, the Diocese of Langres, and the Rector of the Basilica Father Lambert, the parish priest of Domremy.  The homily was given by Bishop Gilles Wach, founder of the Institute of the Sovereign King Christ Priest, a canonical apostolic life society of pontifical right founded in 1990."

    Could there be a greater example depicting the extent of the metamorphosis of the Fellay-led SSPX away from the positions of Archbishop Lefebvre (who, as we showed in post #19, viewed the indult groups as betrayers, shaking hands with the enemy, and doing the devil's work)?

    Can you imagine Archbishop Lefebvre sitting down to a sermon by (pseudo) Monsignor Wach?

    Does this rallied SSPX have anything in common with its founder besides saying the same Mass?




    Offline X

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 612
    • Reputation: +607/-52
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Catalog of Compromise, Change, and Contradiction in the SSPX
    « Reply #35 on: February 28, 2019, 06:02:53 AM »
  • Thanks!4
  • No Thanks!0
  • #35: Contradiction (Bishop Fellay: If only Archbishop Lefebvre had seen this Novus Ordo...)

    In January/2013, Cardinal Antonio Canizares (Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship) told the Catholic News Agency the following story:

    “On one occasion,” Cardinal Canizares recalled, “Bishop (Bernard) Fellay, who is the leader of the Society of St. Pius X, came to see me and said, ‘We just came from an abbey that is near Florence.  If Archbishop (Marcel) Lefebvre had seen how they celebrated there, he would not have taken the step that he did.’”
    “The missal used at that celebration was the Paul VI Missal in its strictest form,” the cardinal added."
    https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/cardinal-if-lefebrve-had-seen-proper-mass-he-may-not-have-split

    Had Bishop Fellay simply been misunderstood?

    Did the Cardinal not really understand what Bishop Fellay was trying to tell him?

    The SSPX immєdιαtely responded with a "clarification:"

    "As very often in such circumstances, a phrase has been interpreted badly."
    http://archives.sspx.org/superior_generals_news/what_bishop_fellay_really_said_to_cardinal_canizares_about_the_new_mass_1-21-2013.htm

    Possibly, but it is difficult to imagine a cardinal (aware of the significance of what he was about to tell the world) would make such a statement unless he was sure of his understanding of what had been said.

    As for those who might be wondering why Bishop Fellay was attending a new Mass in the first place, the SSPX noted in the same apologia:

    "Nevertheless for a while - and until these new damaging effects were clearly recognized - Archbishop Lefebvre did not strictly prohibit attendance at the New Mass. It was only after a few years that he prohibited the seminarians from going to the New Mass while on their holiday’s vacations."

    Very true, Your Excellency.  But this was 2013, not 1972!

    Offline X

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 612
    • Reputation: +607/-52
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Catalog of Compromise, Change, and Contradiction in the SSPX
    « Reply #36 on: February 28, 2019, 12:45:05 PM »
  • Thanks!4
  • No Thanks!0
  • #36: Contradiction (Fr. Schmidberger vs Fr. Schmidberger):

    In April of 1991, it was Fr. Franz Schmidberger (Superior General) who delivered Archbishop Lefebvre's funeral sermon, and in a wonderful statement of fidelity to the founder declared his continuity and fidelity to him:

    "As long as the spirit of destruction blows in the bishoprics and the Roman dicasteries, there will be no possible harmonization or agreement. We want to work for the construction of the Church and not for its demolition."
    http://syllabus-errorum.blogspot.com/2016/04/p-franz-schmidberger-el-sepulturero.html?m=1

    By 2016, "the spirit of destruction" was "blowing in the bishoprics and the Roman dicasteries" as never before, under the worst pope in the 2,000 year history of the Church.

    Obviously, talk of an agreement with ultra-modernist Rome would be even more preposterous than it was in 1991, right?

    Wrong!

    In a scandalous internal letter (originally composed in German, but leaked and translated into French, and eventually translated into English with the translation receiving the authorization of Fr. Schmidberger himself), he opined thusly:

    "So it seems that the moment has come to normalize the situation of the Society for various reasons"
    https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2016/04/considerations-schmidberger-letter.html

    It was a perfect contradiction:

    An agreement, according to the new Fr. Schmidberger, was no longer impossible with ultra-modernist Rome.

    Offline X

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 612
    • Reputation: +607/-52
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Catalog of Compromise, Change, and Contradiction in the SSPX
    « Reply #37 on: February 28, 2019, 04:57:41 PM »
  • Thanks!4
  • No Thanks!0
  • #37: Change (SSPX Priest Wears Conciliar Vestments):





    Fr. Michel de Sivry
    August 9, 2014 - St. Peter's Basilica


    Not only is this priest wearing the conciliar chasuble (without maniple; amice uncertain), but he is also wearing red (the proper liturgical color for the conciliar calendar, but not for the votive Mass of the BVM he celebrated in the traditional rite, which should have been white).  

    And of course, the women in the background are not veiled.  

    The altar boys are late on the scene.  

    There are no altar cards on the altar.  

    Etc.

    According to Rorate Coeli (https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/08/sspx-priest-celebrates-mass-in-saint.html), Fr. de Sivry had received permission to say Mass from the Basilica, but reading some of the comments following this report, I would say that claim is capable of question: http://southernorderspage.blogspot.com/2014/08/bσɱbshell-sspx-priest-and-congregation.html

    Highly capable.

    Rather, it all adds up to Fr. de Sivry pulling a fast one with the sacristan (as several of the comments noticed) for the sake of saying Mass at St. Pius X's altar.

    Sloppy and inappropriate, but signs of the times.

    Video of the Mass is available from the French District website here:



    Offline X

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 612
    • Reputation: +607/-52
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Catalog of Compromise, Change, and Contradiction in the SSPX
    « Reply #38 on: February 28, 2019, 08:13:31 PM »
  • Thanks!4
  • No Thanks!0
  • #38: Compromise (The Story Surrounding the Suppression of Fr. Pivert's Book):

    In 2013, Fr. Francois Pivert (then SSPX - France) amassed a remarkable compilation of Archbishop Lefebvre's writings, conferences, sermons, and interviews, and assembled them into a book called "Son Excellence Mgr. Lefebvre: Nos rapports avec Rome" ("His Excellency Monsignor Lefebvre: Our relations with Rome").  As Fr. Pivert explains, "The book that you have in your hands is composed essentially of texts of Monsignor Lefebvre."

    350 pages of them, all of which tended to reject the possibility of ralliement with unconverted Rome, and by implication painted Bishop Fellay (and his supporters) in a very bad light.

    In response, on December 20, 2013 the General House, via Fr. Christian Thouvenot (Secretary General - SSPX) issued an internal letter to Bishops, superiors, and the priests of the French District, stating:

    "In addition, Circular Letter No. 2013 - 06/08 of 12 August 2013 contained a notice concerning an unauthorized book: "His Excellency Monsignor Lefebvre: Our Relations with Rome", published without authorization. Since then, our Superior General has written to our confrere, Father Pivert, a letter in which he prohibits this book from being distributed - despite a large number of texts by our founder - on the grounds that it is misleading and that it distorts the position that Monsignor Lefebvre had in his relations with the Holy See. He has sent him a study that substantially corroborates his own judgment, which I ask you to find attached. Therefore, I ask you to ensure that this book is no longer distributed in our chapels, press tables and catalogues."
    http://img110.xooimage.com/views/2/4/a/lc-2013.12.2-page-001-55d3a68.jpg/

    Very well.  What is in this study which "substantially corroborates" Bishop Fellay's own judgment?

    Well, were it not for the courageous leak of Fr. Matthieu Salenave (then SSPX - France), who desired to expose the lies of Menzingen in pursuit of an accord which flagrantly violated the position of Archbishop Lefebvre, we might never have known!

    For his courageous fidelity to Archbishop Lefebvre, and disseminating this document, Fr. Salenave was expelled from the SSPX.

    Why?

    What was revealed in it that so infuriated Bishop Fellay and the accordists?

    Here are a couple pertinent samples:

    1. The study objects to Fr. Pivert's contention that all the talks Archbishop Lefebvre had with Rome were geared toward bring them back to Tradition:

    "It is obvious that, in the eyes of the founder of the FSSPX, the real reason for these relationships - which Father Pivert never mentions in his comments - is to normalize the situation of the Fraternity. Rome is not for the Archbishop a movement or a party to be converted like any other, but rather the head of the Church. For him, Peter's primacy is not an optional article of faith and everything must be done to find common ground with the Apostolic See."  (Attached study, p. 9)

    Yet to the bishops-elect in 1988, Archbishop Lefebvre said:

    "As I wrote to them on June 2, however courteous our conversations have been, they have persuaded us that the moment for an understanding has not yet come. We must have some protection against the spirit of Assisi. They never tackle the basic problem, never! So all our efforts have gone for nothing. We have been at cross purposes in these conversations. On our side, we are expecting the return of Tradition to Rome.
    http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/To_the_Four_Bishops_Elect_June_13_1988.htm

    And in fidelity to this purpose of Archbishop Lefebvre's position, the 2006 SSPX General Chapter Declaration said:

    "Likewise, the contacts made from time to time with the authorities in Rome have no other purpose than to help them embrace once again that Tradition which the Church cannot repudiate without losing her identity. The purpose is not just to benefit the Society, nor to arrive at some merely practical impossible agreement. When Tradition comes back into its own, "reconciliation will no longer be a problem, and the Church will spring back to life". "
    http://archives.sspx.org/superior_generals_news/2006_general_chapter/declaration_of_2006_general_chapter.htm

    Already, we can see it is Fr. Pivert, and not Bishop Fellay, who has the better grasp on Archbishop Lefebvre.  No wonder Bishop Fellay wanted to overturn the General Chapter Declaration!


    Or this one:


    2. Though we earlier quoted Archbishop Lefebvre as describing the Ecclesia Dei communities as betrayers of tradition, and doing the devil's work (See post #19 of this thread), Bishop Fellay has quite another idea"

    "The attitude towards the Ecclesia Dei circles is counterproductive...Throughout the pages, we discover fairly harsh judgments against them that are not put into context...Between the consecrations and his death, [Arch]bishop Lefebvre had little time to see these communities evolve...Finally, the facts showed that they were able to resist the assaults. In 1999, they overcame an attempt by Rome to bring them into line and, gradually, almost all of the sixteen signatories of a letter advocating biritualism had to leave the FSSP. Today, there are 250 priests celebrating exclusively the ancient rite. No one can say that [Arch]Bishop Lefebvre would have maintained the same apprehension as in 1988 over the years. At the same time, if we look at [Arch]Bishop Lefebvre's correspondence, we can also find more moderate pieces towards the Ecclesia Dei communities, conceding the fact that they are not rallied in spirit and that they have the advantage of reminding the bishops daily of what Tradition is."

    These two examples suffice to show the great divergence in the thinking of Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop Fellay, both as regards the purpose of contacts with Rome, as as regards their thinking about the Ecclesia Dei communities (and consequently, why Fr. Salenave was expelled for revealing the contents of Bishop Fellay's thinking to an SSPX clergy and faithfulto whom  Bishop Fellay wanted hold out the illusion of continuity with the founder).

    Offline X

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 612
    • Reputation: +607/-52
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Catalog of Compromise, Change, and Contradiction in the SSPX
    « Reply #39 on: March 01, 2019, 06:21:59 AM »
  • Thanks!4
  • No Thanks!0
  • #39: Contradiction (Is Pope Francis a Modernist?):

    The hard part about being a diplomat, is that such persons find it very difficult -wanting to be pleasing to both sides- to maintain a principled position.  

    This was no more evident than in a sermon given by Bishop Bernard Fellay during the solemn Pontifical Mass given on Sunday, October 13, 2013 at St. Vincent de Paul’s Church in Kansas City, Missouri for the Angelus Press Conference.  Commenting on a scandalous statement by Pope Francis, Bishop Fellay explained:

    "That’s pure Modernism, my dear brethen. We have in front of us a genuine Modernist...How much time will be needed for people with authority in the Church to stand up and to say ‘by no means!’ [will we accept this new teaching]."
    https://sspx.org/en/node/2599

    Well, shortly thereafter Rome came calling, and the faithful were treated to yet another Bishop Fellay "clarification" (demonstrating that he was he not able to follow his own advice and "stand up" to Roman modernism).  This clarification was quickly posted on the SSPX website, and almost as quickly deleted, after being caught in an embarrassing attempt to explain away the contradiction, thereby highlighting Bishop Fellay's diplomatic weakness:
    http://sspx.org/en/bishop-fellay-pope-francis

    But Novus Ordo Watch quoted his reversal (er, "clarification"):

    “I used the word ‘modernist;’ I think that it was not understood by everybody. Perhaps I should have said a modernist in his actions. Once again, he is not a modernist in the absolute, theoretical sense: a man who develops a whole coherent system; that coherence does not exist.”  
    https://novusordowatch.org/2013/12/interview-fellay-francis-talks-too-much/

    Oh?

    The same website rightly observes, "Bp. Fellay seems to be contradicting his earlier accusation against Francis here, because he called Bergoglio a “genuine Modernist” precisely in the context of false teaching – not action."

    And the NCR also recognized this latest Bishop Fellay "clarification" as a reversal of his previous statements (as does any sane man with reading comprehension) when it states:

    "Bishop Fellay, who had been critical of Pope Francis, calling him a “genuine modernist,” later clarified that he regretted his choice of words, because it gave the mistaken impression he viewed Pope Francis as a heretic."
    http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/sspx-and-the-church-dialogue-in-limbo#ixzz2nGiHlbej

    This is the weakness, ambivalence, and equivocation which has so often characterized the SSPX since the ralliement shifted into high gear in 2000 (and especially since 2012).




    Offline X

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 612
    • Reputation: +607/-52
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Catalog of Compromise, Change, and Contradiction in the SSPX
    « Reply #40 on: March 01, 2019, 02:26:10 PM »
  • Thanks!4
  • No Thanks!0
  • #40: Change (The Expulsion of Bishop Williamson - Part I):

    On October 24, 2012 the SSPX General House in Menzingen announced that it had been decided on October 4 to expel Bishop Richard Williamson from the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X:

    "Bishop Richard Williamson, having distanced himself from the management and the government of the SSPX for several years, and refusing to show due respect and obedience to his lawful superiors, was declared excluded from the SSPX by decision of the Superior General and its Council, on October 4th, 2012."
    https://fsspx.news/en/news-events/news/communiqu%C3%A9-general-house-society-saint-pius-x-october-24-2012-22586

    Having been excluded from the meeting of major superiors in Albano, Italy the previous year (gathered to consider the Doctrinal Preamble submitted by Rome), and then excluded again from participating in the General Chapter in June, 2012, it seemed Bishop Fellay had determined to have no more opposition to his reorientation and sellout of the SSPX to modernist Rome.

    The two reasons usually adduced as examples of "disobedience" were:

    1) The refusal to close his weekly Eleison Comments, which regularly warned the faithful and clergy of the sellout underway;

    2) The "unauthorized" apostolic visit to Brazil to confer the sacrament of confession to Dom Tomas Aquinas' faithful at the Holy Cross Monastery.

    Regarding this latter excuse, we shall have more to say in our next post.

    For the present purpose, it suffices to cite the fact of Bishop Williamson's expulsion, noting that the primary purpose of it was to remove an obstacle to the ralliement and facilitate the talks regarding same with Rome (per SSPX German District spokesman, Fr. Andreas Steiner):

    "The decision [to expel Bishop Williamson] will certainly facilitate the talks [with Rome]."
    https://religion.orf.at/stories/2555877/


    Offline X

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 612
    • Reputation: +607/-52
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Catalog of Compromise, Change, and Contradiction in the SSPX
    « Reply #41 on: March 02, 2019, 05:38:17 AM »
  • Thanks!4
  • No Thanks!0
  • #41: Change (The Expulsion of Bishop Williamson - Part II):

    In the previous post, we saw that one of the two main reasons adduced as justification for the expulsion of Bishop Williamson from the SSPX was the bishop's "unauthorized" pastoral visit to Dom Thomas Aquinas's Holy Cross Monastery to offer confirmations to the faithful attached thereto.

    But what was the historical context within which this pastoral visit transpired?

    Why were the General House and the South American District so enraged?

    One familiar with the strained relationship between Dom Thomas Aquinas and Menzingen between 2000 - 2012 will know the answer, and this succinct description by the Dominicans of Avrille tells the reader all he needs to know:

    "When Benedict XVI issued his Motu Proprio on the “extraordinary rite”, Father Thomas Aquinas refused to sing the Te Deum at Sunday Mass, as asked by Bishop Fellay to greet the papal document.  Furthermore, on the occasion of the alleged lifting of the alleged excommunications, Father Thomas Aquinas wrote a letter to Bishop Fellay in which he announced that he would not obey if an agreement with conciliar Rome took place.  Soon after, Bishop de Galarreta and Father Bouchacourt came to the monastery to tell Father Thomas Aquinas that he had fifteen days to leave Santa Cruz, otherwise the monastery would no longer receive any help or sacraments from the SSPX.  With Bishop Williamson’s spiritual assistance, Father Thomas Aquinas was able to stay at the monastery.  On 8 September 2012, he wrote: 'Unity must be based on the truth, that is to say on the Catholic Faith; and the words and attitudes of Bishop Fellay are unfortunately not those of a disciple of Archbishop Lefebvre who defended the truth without compromise...'"
    http://www.dominicansavrille.us/presentation-of-bishop-dom-thomas-aquinas-o-s-b-part-2/#easy-footnote-bottom-1

    And there it is: Bishop Fellay was trying to spiritually starve and extort the Benedictines into compromise, while Bishop Williamson was charitably subverting Bishop Fellay's punitive coercion and helping the Benedictines to stay faithful to Archbishop Lefebvre.

    This is the true cause of the punitive expulsion of Bishop Williamson: He kept subverting Bishop Fellay's sellout.

    But what jurisdiction did Bishop Fellay and the SSPX have over the exempt religious orders?

    None!

    Had not Archbishop Lefebvre written to Dom Thomas Aquinas that, "You must revere and consult the bishops of the SSPX, but they do not have jurisdiction over you because, as Prior of the Monastery, you must have autonomy."
    http://nonpossumus-vcr.blogspot.com/2016/02/quien-es-dom-tomas-de-aquino-ferreira.html#more

    Note also that, in the Communique released shortly after Bishop Williamson's visit by Fr. Bouchacourt (then South American District Superior), he implies that Bishop Williamson's visit was not necessary, since "for many months" the SSPX had already planned to perform confirmations in Brazil (and by implication, also for Dom Thomas Aquinas).
    http://archives.sspx.org/sspx_and_rome/fr_christian_bouchacourt_8-6-2012_communique.htm

    However, that implication is not consistent with Bishop Fellay's earlier declaration to Dom Thomas Aquinas that, unless he resigned, the monastery would no longer receive financial or spiritual assistance.  Nor would it have made any sense for Bishop Williamson to have gone to Brazil in the first place, if confirmations for Santa Cruz were already scheduled (i.e., Dom Thomas would not have needed him.  What would be the point?).

    Offline X

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 612
    • Reputation: +607/-52
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Catalog of Compromise, Change, and Contradiction in the SSPX
    « Reply #42 on: March 02, 2019, 01:41:17 PM »
  • Thanks!4
  • No Thanks!0
  • #42: Contradiction (The Expulsion of Bishop Williamson - Part III):

    In post #40, we noted the expulsion of Bishop Williamson, the reasons adduced for said expulsion (i.e., refusal to close the Eleison Comments and his "unauthorized" pastoral visit to Brazil), and the convenient impact said expulsion was perceived to have upon negotiations between the SSPX and Rome, according to the SSPX German District spokesman, Fr. Andreas Steiner.

    In post #41, we discussed the historical tensions surrounding the relationship between Menzingen and Santa Cruz, resulting from Dom Thomas Aquinas's refusal to abandon the position of Archbishop Lefebvre, and the punitive response by Bishop Fellay as both punishment and coercion, which led to Bishop Williamson's "unauthorized" pastoral visit.

    In this third and final installment regarding the subject of Bishop Williamson's expulsion, we examine the doctrine of necessity to consider applied to Bishop Williamson's pastoral visit, in order to determine whether, according to Catholic doctrine, it was truly "unauthorized" (and consequently, whether or not his expulsion, in such measure as it was based upon this pastoral visit, was just):

    In July and September/1999, The Angelus included an English-language edition insert of SiSiNoNo featuring a brilliant 2-part theological study defending the 1988 episcopal consecrations.  Part I of that study concerned the doctrine of necessity and the duties and powers of priests and bishops trapped therein; Part II concerned the application of this doctrine in the face of the Pope's "no."
    https://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/SiSiNoNo/1999_July/The_1988_Consecrations.htm
    https://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/SiSiNoNo/1999_September/The_1988_Consecrations.htm

    Essentially, the article (and the SSPX) argued the following points:

    1) There existed a state of grave general spiritual necessity, because:

    -"Many souls"

    -"are threatened in spiritual goods"

    -"of great importance (e.g., faith and morals)"

    and

    "are without hope of help from their legitimate pastors."


    2) In that situation:

    -There is a duty, sub gravi (i.e., grave), on the part of bishops,

    -To come to the assistance of the faithful,

    -With the jurisdiction springing from the request of the faithful (not the authorization of the superior),

    -And to refuse to do so is a mortal sin.


    3) In carrying out this duty, Archbishop Lefebvre had no obligation to receive permission from the Pope because:

    - "In such extraordinary circumstances, says Dom Grea, the episcopacy proceeded "resolute in the tacit consent of its Head rendered certain by necessity" (op. cit. vol.I, p.220). Dom Grea does not say that the consent of the pope rendered the bishops certain of the necessity. On the contrary, the necessity rendered them certain of the consent of the pope. Precisely why did the necessity render the consent of their Head "certain," consent that in reality those bishops were ignoring? - Evidently because in necessity the positive judgment of Peter is owed." (Ibid, Part I)

    4) And as regards the "no" of the Pope:

    -"It makes no difference to what we have just said if recourse to the pope is made materially impossible by external circumstances, as in the historical cases recalled by us [in Part 1].  But it is the pope himself who is favoring or promoting a course for the Church infected by neo-Modernism which threatens the goods fundamental to souls, goods indispensable for the salvation of souls, e.g., faith and morals. If the pope himself is the cause or partial-cause, and even, given his supreme authority, the ultimate cause of the grave and general spiritual necessity in which there is no hope of help from the lawful pastors, then what effect will recourse to the pope obtain in such circumstances? He will be physically accessible, but morally inaccessible. Recourse to him will be certainly physically possible but morally impossible, and if it be attempted, it will result naturally in the pope's saying "No" to the act which the extraordinary circumstances require "in order that adequate provision be made" (ST, op. cit. in Part 1) for the grave general necessity of souls." (Ibid, Part II)

    And:

    -"These circumstances, however, will have the effect of rendering the duty of help more difficult and perhaps even heroic on account of the easily foreseeable consequences. It will be denied that there is any state of necessity! The rebuke implied in the act of helping the people will draw down upon whoever does so revulsion and unjust accusations."  (Ibid, Part II)

    and finally:

    5) "For that reason the subject, having prudently examined the circumstances and been informed by the “doctrinal rules” or by the “principles of theology and law” that it is “beyond the power of legislator” to bind anyone to respect the law when it causes grave harm to so many souls, and that to obey in such a case would be “evil and a sin,” he may not - indeed, he must not - submit to the law or to the command“on his own authority,” “by his own judgment.” Hence, by his own initiative, he refuses submission “without recourse to the superior,” that is to say, without any dispensation or approval on the part of the said superior. The reason, writes Suarez, is: that in such a case the authority of the superior cannot have any effect; indeed, even if he were to will that the subject, after having had recourse to him, should observe the law, the latter would not be able to obey him because he must obey God rather than man and hence in such a case its is out of place (“impertinens”) to ask for permission." (Ibid, Part II)

    Now, these quotes are applied to the case of allegedly "unauthorized" episcopal consecrations (i.e., consecrations which are, in truth, authorized by the state of necessity regardless of what the superior -in this case, the Pope- says).

    It does not take much imagination to see all these principles applied to the case of Bishop Williamson's pastoral visit to Brazil:

    1) When Bishop Fellay levied a punitive sanction against Dom Thomas Aquinas's monastery and faithful for not going along with the sellout of Tradition to modernist Rome, and refused to provide the sacraments of Order and Confirmation (and presumably also holy oils?), he immєdιαtely created a state of grave general spiritual necessity, because there were now "many souls" who were "threatened in spiritual goods" of "great importance" and who were "without hope of help from their legitimate pastors."

    2) Yet Bishop Williamson -as bishop- had the grave duty to come to the aid of the faithful, which he could not refuse without committing mortal sin.

    3) In the performance of this duty, there was no obligation to obtain the consent of Bishop Fellay, because that consent was owed.

    4) And had Bishop Williamson nevertheless asked permission, it would have been predictable declined, because though Bishop Fellay would be physically accessible, he would be morally inaccessible (i.e., Because Bishop Fellay, same as John Paul II above, was the ultimate cause of the necessity!), which nevertheless would not relieve Bishop Williamson of the grave duty the request from Santa Cruz had placed upon him.  

    Moreover, Bishop Williamson's action was heroic in view "of the easily foreseeable consequences:"

    Implicitly, Fr, Bouchacourt's letter (quoted in post #41) stating confirmations had already been scheduled to be performed less than two months after Bishop Williamson's visit was a pre-emption of the claim of necessity...if such scheduling could be substantiated.  

    But as we discussed, if Bishop Fellay had already interdicted Dom Thomas Aquinas, then why were confirmations scheduled?  And why was Dom Thomas Aquinas calling upon Bishop Williamson if such was the case?

    5) At any rate, we arrive with Suarez at the same conclusion:

    "For that reason the subject, having prudently examined the circumstances and been informed by the “doctrinal rules” or by the “principles of theology and law” that it is “beyond the power of legislator” to bind anyone to respect the law when it causes grave harm to so many souls, and that to obey in such a case would be “evil and a sin,” he may not - indeed, he must not - submit to the law or to the command“on his own authority,” “by his own judgment.” Hence, by his own initiative, he refuses submission “without recourse to the superior,” that is to say, without any dispensation or approval on the part of the said superior. The reason, writes Suarez, is: that in such a case the authority of the superior cannot have any effect; indeed, even if he were to will that the subject, after having had recourse to him, should observe the law, the latter would not be able to obey him because he must obey God rather than man and hence in such a case its is out of place (“impertinens”) to ask for permission." (Ibid, Part II)

    Consequently, we conclude that the expulsion of Bishop Williamson, in such measure as it was based upon this heroic pastoral visit, was unjust.

    Offline X

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 612
    • Reputation: +607/-52
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Catalog of Compromise, Change, and Contradiction in the SSPX
    « Reply #43 on: March 03, 2019, 06:46:31 AM »
  • Thanks!4
  • No Thanks!0
  • #43: Change (General Councillors):

    Leading up to the 2012 General Chapter of the SSPX, the US District published an article titled "How it Works: The SSPX's General Chapter," in which it explained, among other things:

    "The General Chapter is the supreme and extraordinary authority of the Society of St. Pius X. The ordinary authority is the Superior General assisted by his council. The General Chapter is the only entity able to amend the Statutes."
    http://sspx.org/en/how-it-works-sspxs-general-chapter

    That said, the same article noted that the council was comprised of the Superior General and his 1st and 2nd Assistants:

    "Ordinary authority in the SSPX: the Superior General and his Assistants: the General Council.  According to the Statutes, the Assistants are meant to assist. Their first duty is to advise. Together with the Superior General, they form the General Council." (Ibid)

    But by 2018, the winds of change were blowing.  The Society was fatigued by the turbulence of the last several years, and the prospect of re-electing Bishop Fellay for another twelve-year term (a 36-year reign?) was exasperating and demoralizing.  On the other hand, although the "plan to proceed by stages" toward a practical accord was 85% accomplished, which in theory could make the replacement of Bishop Fellay acceptable in the eyes of Rome, he would still need to be near the action, overseeing, and informing his protege of all the water which had passed under the bridge, introducing him to Roman contacts, revealing what had yet to be accomplished, and most importantly, ensuring continuity vis-a-vis Rome between the old regime and the new.

    To accomplish this goal, it was decided at the 2018 General Chapter to create a new position: Two "General Councillors" would now be added to form part of the council:

    "On July 20, two General Coucillors were elected to serve on the Council of the Superior General; they are Bishop Bernard Fellay, former Superior General (1994-2018, and Fr. Franz Schmidberger, former Superior General (1982-1994) and current director of the Herz Jesu Seminary in Zaitzkofen (Germany)."
    https://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/general-chapter-sspx-comes-end-39488

    By this artifice, the two most well connected and informed men in Rome retained their influence, and signaled to the world all would remain as it had been for the last 6-7 years.


    Offline X

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 612
    • Reputation: +607/-52
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Catalog of Compromise, Change, and Contradiction in the SSPX
    « Reply #44 on: March 03, 2019, 01:42:36 PM »
  • Thanks!4
  • No Thanks!0
  • #44: Contradiction (Fr. Pfluger's "Forgetfulness"):

    On 12/31/14, an interview with Fr. Nicklaus Pfluger (then, 1st Assistant to the Superior General) appeared in the German periodical Der Gerade Weg, in which Fr. Pfluger attempted to justify the contradiction between the 2006 General Chapter declaration (i.e., No practical accord before until Rome returns to Tradition) and that of 2012 ("We have determined and approved the necessary conditions for an eventual canonical normalization [with unconverted Rome].").

    He stated:

    "None of us, amongst the superiors, could have imagined in 2006 that...the Pope would declare that the “old Mass” was never abrogated, that it had its place within the Church. In 2006, Rome’s attitude towards us was aggressive, apodictic... "

    [NB: Der Gerade Weg has since removed both the original German, and their own English translation from their website, but the latter can still be viewed in the Internet Archive (see PDF attachments to this post), or here:

    https://web.archive.org/web/20150319210654/http://dergeradeweg.com/2015/02/17/interivew-with-father-niklaus-pfluger-on-the-challenges-of-our-time-english-edition-the-straight-path/]

    But Fr. Pfluger, what are you saying?  

    You yourself knew!  You all knew!

    Was it not Bishop Fellay who, in Cor Unum #85 of (October/2006) spoke of an:

    "imminent arrival of a motu proprio which would replace that of 1988 so as to give more freedom to the Mass, an equal right to the new Mass."
    (Rioult, Fr. Olivier.  The Impossible Reconciliation (2013 English edition, p. 16)

    What, then, are we to make of your contention that in 2006 the promulgation of Summorum Pontificum was unforeseeable (and the alleged implication that, because of it, Rome was no longer opposed to Tradition, thereby justifying the new position promulgated by the 2012 General Chapter)?


     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16