Author Topic: Catalog of Compromise, Change, and Contradiction in the SSPX (Read 45891 times)

X · « **Reply #70 on:** March 13, 2019, 11:00:00 AM »

#70: Contradiction (Reforming Rome "From Within"):

In his Christmas (2013) conferences to the SSPX brothers in Flavigny, Fr. Pfluger (then First Assistant to the Superior General) laid out the plan (*) to begin the conversion of Rome by first intensifying contacts with the "conservative" conciliar clergy:

"The reform is to work, to circulate “in capite et in membris” [of head and of members] simultaneously. In capite, is in relation to the Pope and to Rome and it has consisted in the doctrinal discussions and our efforts which have not been crowned with success for the moment. In membris is in our relations with the faithful, with parishes and the conservative clergy. We must now intensify contact in membris."
https://www.therecusant.com/fr-pfluger-jan14

This explains the explosion of tradcuмenical conciliar collaboration taking place since throughout the world: The visits of Cardinal Brandmuller and Bishop Schneider to the SSPX seminaries; the joint participation at public conferences (e.g., Catholic Identity Conference) and private meetings (e.g., that described at Dordogne between SSPX and Ecclesia Dei priests), and various visits of Bishops (e.g., Bishop Huounder in Switzerland, etc.):

Fr. Pfluger continues:

"The Bishop [Fellay?] has said that [it] is numbers that speak...People always do the same stupid things! Change will come from the increase of these initiatives and by their meeting and union...The current problem is either to open up to others or to fall back on oneself. So how do we overcome this crisis?" (Ibid).

That is to say, it is by a grass roots effort that Rome will slowly, slowly convert, from the bottom up.

Did Archbishop Lefebvre share that position?

Did he believe, at and after the time of the 1988 consecrations, that "working from within," from the bottom up, was a viable strategy for restoring the Church, and bringing Rome back to Tradition?

On September 6, 1990, he said otherwise:

"Firstly, what Church are we talking about? If you mean the Conciliar Church, then we who have struggled against the Council for twenty years because we want the Catholic Church, we would have to re-enter this Conciliar Church in order, supposedly, to make it Catholic. That is a complete illusion. It is not the subjects that make the superiors, but the superiors who make the subjects. Amongst the whole Roman Curia, amongst all the world's bishops who are progressives, I would have been completely swamped. I would have been able to do nothing, I could have protected neither the faithful nor the seminarians."
http://sspx.org/en/one-year-after-consecrations

This thread itself evinces the wisdom of the Archbishop's position, as its contents are but the ill fruits of Bishop Fellay's rejection of it (showing quite clearly on which side the conversion has been transpiring).

(*): Whether this was truly a genuine (albeit ill-founded) plan to bring about a grassroots conversion of Rome, or merely a convenient pretext to excuse and justify a practical accord, we do not here judge. To accept it as such is to give a heavy benefit of the doubt. Neverthelss, for the sake of the present argument, we will take Fr. Pfluger at his word, and compare his thoughts to those of Archbishop Lefebvre for the sake of those who would advance Fr. Pfluger's "strategy" as the true motive.

X · « **Reply #71 on:** March 13, 2019, 08:24:49 PM »

#71: Compromise ("Unequivocal" Signs: The Mass):

In Bishop Fellay's Letter to Friends and Benefactors #73 of 10/23/08, Bishop Fellay restated the purpose of the SSPX's two preconditions for entering into doctrinal discussions with modernist Rome:

"From the beginning when Rome approached us and proposed some solutions, that is, at the beginning of 2001, we clearly stated that the manner in which Church authorities were treating the problems raised by those who desired to attempt the experience of Tradition with Rome did not inspire confidence in us. Logically we had to expect to be treated in like manner once the issue of our relationship with Rome would have been settled. Since that time, and in order to protect ourselves, we have been asking for concrete actions which would unequivocally show Rome’s intentions towards us: the traditional Mass for all priests, and the withdrawal of the decree of excommunication."
http://archives.sspx.org/superior_generals_news/sup_gen_ltr_73.pdf

And according to SSPX mythology, these two preconditions for sitting down to doctrinal discussions were fulfilled, in the 2007 promulgation of the motu proprio Summorum Pontificuм, and the 2009 decree of the Congregation for Bishops remitting the "excommunication" of the four bishops.

But was it really true? Had the SSPX received an "unequivocal" satisfaction of its requests?

In order to ascertain whether Rome's actions were "unequivocal," one must first be able to compare and contrast that which was requested, with that which was granted.

A. What was requested regarding the Traditional Latin Mass?

With regard to the Traditional Latin Mass, the request was made by Bishop Fellay directly to Pope Benedict XVI, during a personal audience of 8/29/05:

"Finally, we expressed our requests: that hostility towards the Tradition, which makes traditional Catholic life (is there any other?) practically impossible in the conciliar Church, be changed. We asked that this be done by granting full liberty to the Tridentine Mass..."
http://sspx.org/en/bishop-fellays-meeting-pope-benedict-xvi

B. What was granted regarding the Traditional Latin Mass?

Summorum Pontificuм places several conditions upon priests saying the traditional Mass: "by this Apostolic Letter we decree the following: The conditions for the use of this Missal laid down by the previous docuмents Quattuor Abhinc Annos and Ecclesia Dei are now replaced as follows:

-Article 2 states only priests without a congregation can celebrate the true Mass without permission (and even then, not for the Easter Triduum);

-Article 3 says members of religious communities cannot say the true Mass without permission of their major superiors;

-Article 4 allows for some spontaneous attendance of private traditional Masses, but they are apparently not to be announced;

-Article 5 says the TLM is limited to parishes where groups requesting it are "stable," and under the governance of the bishop per Can. 392, avoiding discord in the parish; in churches other than parishes, the rector bust grant permission;

-Article 6 says the readings may be proclaimed in the vernacular (at the altar, or from the pulpit? No answer is given);
https://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/motu_proprio/docuмents/hf_ben-xvi_motu-proprio_20070707_summorum-pontificuм.html

C. Appraisal:

Obviously, that which was granted does not correspond to that which was requested.

Nobody, therefore, could objectively conclude that the promulgation of Summorum Pontificuм represents an "unequivocal" action in favor of Tradition.

On the contrary, Summorum Pontificuм is a classic example of equivocation.

The reality is that after declaring the TLM had never been abrogated, Summorum Pontificuм effectively abrogated it, not merely by these restrictive conditions, but by declaring that the Novus Ordo is the "ordinary" rite of the Roman Church, and the TLM an "extraordinary" form of the Roman Mass:

That which Rome says was free is now demoted and restricted!

How is that an unequivocal action in favor of Tradition?

X · « **Reply #72 on:** March 14, 2019, 07:16:40 PM »

#72: Compromise ("Unequivocal" Signs: The "Excommunications"):

Unlike the case of the first precondition (i.e., "the traditional Mass for all priests"), where the equivocation was discovered by comparing the incongruity between that which was requested and that which was granted, in the case of the second precondition (i.e., "the withdrawal of the decree of excommunication"), the equivocation is contained within the request itself:

"From the beginning when Rome approached us and proposed some solutions, that is, at the beginning of 2001, we clearly stated that the manner in which Church authorities were treating the problems raised by those who desired to attempt the experience of Tradition with Rome did not inspire confidence in us. Logically we had to expect to be treated in like manner once the issue of our relationship with Rome would have been settled. Since that time, and in order to protect ourselves, we have been asking for concrete actions which would unequivocally show Rome’s intentions towards us: the traditional Mass for all priests, and the withdrawal of the decree of excommunication."
http://archives.sspx.org/superior_generals_news/sup_gen_ltr_73.pdf

But the SSPX has always maintained that the "excommunications" were invalid, and therefore non-existent. Consequently, what should have been requested was not a "withdrawal" of the "excommunications," but a declaration of nullity (since Rome cannot "withdraw" something which does not exist).

Conversely, to request to "withdraw" something, is to acknowledge its existence.

A "withdrawal" (or "lifting") by Rome, therefore, logically represents a reaffirmation of the juridical validity of the excommunications: That which was declared in 1988 was right and just, but from an (alleged) sense of mercy, we are "remitting" the penalties (i.e., rescinding a just and valid penalty).

A "declaration of nullity," on the other hand, expresses a very different reality.

It would represent an implicit acknowledgement of fault and injustice on the part of Rome, and simultaneously, an acknowledgement of that which the SSPX had always maintained: That the "excommunications" were never valid in the first place.

Consequently, Rome's acceding to the SSPX's request to "withdraw" the "excommunications" is certainly not an "unequivocal" sign of Rome's goodwill toward the Society (and the proof of Rome's ill will are the lingering "excommunications" of Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop de Castro Mayer).

If one reads the official declaration "remitting" the "excommunications" from the Congregation for Bishops, the entire context of the decree is one of an extension of mercy to the SSPX: "You were legitimately excommunicated, but in order to get you to sign an accord, we will 'remit' the penalty."

It practically says so in as many words:

"His Holiness Benedict XVI in his paternal concern for the spiritual distress which the parties concerned have voiced as a result of the excommunication, and trusting in their commitment, expressed in the aforementioned letter, to spare no effort in exploring as yet unresolved questions through requisite discussions with the authorities of the Holy See in order to reach a prompt, full and satisfactory solution to the original problem has decided to reconsider the canonical situation of Bishops Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta, resulting from their episcopal consecration.

This act signifies a desire to strengthen reciprocal relations of trust, and to deepen and stabilize the relationship of the Society of St Pius X with this Apostolic See. This gift of peace, coming at the end of the Christmas celebrations, is also meant to be a sign which promotes the Universal Church's unity in charity, and removes the scandal of division.

It is hoped that this step will be followed by the prompt attainment of full communion with the Church on the part of the whole Society of St Pius X, which will thus bear witness to its genuine fidelity and genuine recognition of the Magisterium and authority of the Pope by the proof of visible unity."
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cbishops/docuмents/rc_con_cbishops_doc_20090121_remissione-scomunica_en.html

Menzingen would have you believe a "withdrawal" of the excommunications can only be interpreted as a per se sign of Rome's good will.

But for Rome, this is but a means to an end: A "regularized" SSPX is one subject to conciliar authority (Personal Prelature notwithstanding), and therefore it will be able to exert a much more direct and deleterious influence upon Tradition:

"Little by little we must expect other steps...However, we must not be in a hurry. What is important is that in their hearts there no longer be rejection. Communion found again in the Church has an internal dynamism of its own that will mature."
http://archives.sspx.org/sspx_and_rome/rome_sspx_campos_part_2.htm

Consequently, it seems clear that Rome's acceding to Bishop Fellay's request to "withdraw" (but not "nullify") is far from an "unequivocal" sign.

X · « **Reply #73 on:** March 15, 2019, 06:13:24 PM »

#73: Compromise (The "Dialogue of the Deaf"):

"THESE ARE WHAT WE CALL VERY DANGEROUS PROPOSALS"

"Because what is dangerous is their effects. These proposals tend to push the superiors of the Society to engage in discussions that will quickly become negotiations where, by nature, one must concede one thing to obtain or preserve another thing deemed preferable. In this case, with interlocutors of bad "faith" - remember what Archbishop Lefebvre said - we have much more to lose than to gain, and because we have nothing to give up, any concession is then a loss. This is proven by all of the agreements of the Ecclesia Dei rallies.

However, this fact escapes most of the faithful who do not understand what neo-Modernism is (an almost incurable disease of the intelligence and soul from which the Pope himself is suffering), they will fantasize about peace, unity and reconciliation, and aspire so much to these "agreements" that they will forget prudence and patience and come to accuse our superiors of lacking diplomacy, being too demanding or even betraying them by sectarianism! And these "faithful", more impatient than faithful, will abandon the fraternity to join the rallies of the Good Shepherd or Saint Peter who await them with open arms, all abandoning the doctrinal struggle to be at peace with Rome."

-Paul Chaussee,

"Critical Analysis" (of Fr. Celier's book "Benedict XVI and the Traditionalists"), p. 26

https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/first-time-in-english-bishop-fellay's-plan/

The presumption underlying the two preconditions to sitting down to doctrinal discussions all along (ad extra), was that only a Rome actively working to return to Tradition could unequivocally concede perfect freedom to the true Mass, and declare the excommunications null. But as we discussed in the previous two posts, that is not what transpired. Instead, Rome was able to formulate declarations which constrained and demoted the true Mass, and reaffirmed the legitimacy of the 1988 "excommunications" (even as it "remitted" them). Consequently, an SSPX which was seeking unequivocal proofs of Rome's willingness and desire to return to Tradition ought to have declared those preconditions unsatisfied, and refused to proceed to doctrinal discussions.

In such measure as Rome's equivocal declarations implied a refusal to render the signs of goodwill the SSPX was looking for, doctrinal discussions would seem, on the surface, to be a "dialogue of the deaf," with each side still committed to its prior positions, as Bishop Williamson explained:

“I think that will end up as a dialogue of the deaf. The two positions are absolutely irreconcilable. 2+2=4 and 2+2=5 are irreconcilable. Either those who say 2+2=4 renounce the truth and agree that 2+2=5 — that is, the SSPX abandons the truth, which God forbids us to do — or those who say 2+2=5 convert and return to the truth. Or the two meet halfway and say that 2+2=4-1/2. That’s wrong. Either the SSPX becomes a traitor or Rome converts or it’s a dialogue of the deaf.”
http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2010/01/19/bishop-williamson-says-vatican-sspx-talks-dialogue-of-the-deaf/

Rome surely understood this, but from their perspective, there was still a chance the SSPX would decide 2+2 could equal 4.5.

But that didn't really matter: Rome was going through the motions toward a pre-ordained end. After pretending it had conceded the SSPX's two preconditions, and then entertained two years of doctrinal discussions (the results of which it considered mostly unimportant, except insofar as it strengthened the bonds between the Romans and SSPX), it was ready for the SSPX to consider an offer.

Only a few months after the conclusion of the discussions (of which Bishop de Galarreta told us the Romans would hear nothing of the SSPX's arguments), Bishop Fellay announced that the SSPX had received a (secret) "doctrinal preamble" which was an offer for regularization, and a few months after that, convened a gathering of all the major superiors in Albano, Italy to consider the offer.

Six months after that Albano convocation, Bishop Fellay signed the preamble (more commonly known as the "April 15 Doctrinal Declaration") the day after being implored by the three other bishops not to.

Now look what just happened here:

Somehow, Bishop Fellay and the SSPX went from discussions to negotiations!

And how did that happen?

By agreeing to sit down with the enemy to "dialogue" in the first place, despite the unfulfilled preconditions (the mere fact of which demonstrated Rome was still the enemy).

Recall Mr. Paul Chaussee's observation in the introductory comments to this entry:

"These proposals tend to push the superiors of the Society to engage in discussions that will quickly become negotiations where, by nature, one must concede one thing to obtain or preserve another thing deemed preferable."

And:

"In this case, with interlocutors of bad "faith" - remember what Archbishop Lefebvre said - we have much more to lose than to gain, and because we have nothing to give up, any concession is then a loss. This is proven by all of the agreements of the Ecclesia Dei rallies."

But remember, this rapprochement with apostate Rome is all part of what Archbishop Lefebvre called "Operation ѕυιcιdє," whereas the SSPX is only mortally wounded.

It needs to finish the job.

Consequently, Fr. Pagliarani has chased down the modernists to resume negotiations:

"According to the SSPX, “The Holy See says the same when it solemnly declares that no canonical status can be established for the Society until after the signing of a doctrinal docuмent.” Therefore, everything impels the Society to resume theological discussions with the awareness that the Good Lord does not necessarily ask the Society to convince its interlocutors, but rather to bear unconditional witness to the faith in the sight of the Church.”
https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/doctrine-remains-problem-in-relations-sspx-affirms-after-vatican-meeting-32527

Fr. Pagliarani is telling Rome he wants to negotiate another doctrinal declaration, and he is content to enter into pluralism.

I have no doubt he will receive one (and it won't really matter what it says): Once the pen hits paper, the coup d'grace (decapitation) will be simultaneous, and the body will no longer tremble.

There will be te deum's sung all over the world, but they will only be celebrating the final annihilation of Tradition and the legacy of Archbishop Lefebvre

X · « **Reply #74 on:** March 16, 2019, 10:10:07 AM »

#74: Compromise (Doctrine Comes Second):

In June/2012, Bishop Fellay gave an interview to DICI in which he explained his priorities regarding relations with Rome:

"We were not the ones who asked for an agreement; the pope is the one who wants to recognize us. You may ask: why this change? We are still not in agreement doctrinally, and yet the pope wants to recognize us! Why? The answer is right in front of us: there are terribly important problems in the Church today. These problems must be addressed. We must set aside the secondary problems and deal with the major problems."
https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2012/06/rome-sspx-important-interview-with-sspx.html

For the Superior General of Archbishop Lefebvre's SSPX, doctrine was a "secondary problem!"

Obviously, this is in stark contrast to Archbishop Lefebvre's post-consecratory position:

"I will place the discussion at the doctrinal level: “Do you agree with the great encyclicals of all the popes who preceded you? Do you agree with Quanta Cura of Pius IX, Immortale Dei and Libertas of Leo XIII, Pascendi Gregis of Pius X, Quas Primas of Pius XI, Humani Generis of Pius XII? Are you in full communion with these Popes and their teachings? Do you still accept the entire Anti-Modernist Oath? Are you in favor of the social reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ? If you do not accept the doctrine of your predecessors, it is useless to talk! As long as you do not accept the correction of the Council, in consideration of the doctrine of these Popes, your predecessors, no dialogue is possible. It is useless.”
https://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Archbishop_Lefebvre_and_the_Vatican/Part_II/1988-11.htm

Note that in the interview of Bishop Fellay, he is responding to the contradiction between his position and that of Lefebvre's, and attempting to justify that contradiction on the alleged "change in Rome."

We have already rebutted that notion in posts #5, 23, 57, and elsewhere.

CathInfo.com

Author Topic: Catalog of Compromise, Change, and Contradiction in the SSPX (Read 45891 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