CathInfo.com

#76: Compromise (Hermeneutic of Continuity):

In the summer of 2009, Bishop Tissier de Mallerais had just completed writing a 140 page masterpiece, analyzing the mind and thinking of Pope Benedict XVI titled Faith Imperiled by Reason (of which the entire docuмent is attached below), which roundly exposed the Hegelian philosophical errors that had infected Benedict since his early days as a priest, and consequently how the "thesis + antithesis = synthesis" accounted for liberalism in theology.

Perhaps the clearest example of this Hegelial "synthesizing" in action are Benedict XVI's plans for the Roman Missal.  Already in 2003, he had implied a future synthesis of the two rites in a letter to a German college professor:

"I believe that in the long term the Roman Church must have a single Roman Rite...The Roman Rite of the future should be a single rite, celebrated in Latin or in vernacular, but standing completely in the tradition of the rite that has been handed down"
https://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/f019ht_HybridMass_Arnold.htm

By 2007, this mangled mind had already evolved, and begun synthesizing, as is clear in the motu proprio Summorum Pontificuм, in which Benedict no longer perceives two distinct rites as he did in 2003, but rather, one right with two usages: An "ordinary" and an "extraordinary."
https://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/motu_proprio/docuмents/hf_ben-xvi_motu-proprio_20070707_summorum-pontificuм.html

Moreover, in the letter which accompanied Summorum Pontificuм, the "synthesizing" continued, with Benedict XVI announcing he would like to see elements of the old usage "enriched" with elements of the new:

"For that matter, the two Forms of the usage of the Roman Rite can be mutually enriching: new Saints and some of the new Prefaces can and should be inserted in the old Missal.  The “Ecclesia Dei” Commission, in contact with various bodies devoted to the usus antiquior, will study the practical possibilities in this regard."
http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/letters/2007/docuмents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20070707_lettera-vescovi.html

It was necessary to provide this digression, in order that the reader clearly perceive the destructive force of "the traditional" Benedict XVI's corrupted intellect, because in what has become known as the "hermeneutic of continuity," Benedict XVI had proposed to apply this Hegelian hermeneutic of reconciling opposites to the entire conciliar and post-conciliar reform, which would effectively hide or mask the doctrinal deviations of the past 55-60 years, and through synthesis, demonstrate a perverted and false "continuity."

Consequently, Bishop Tissier de Mallerais's book was a tremendous service to the Church, and a bulwark against the progression of conciliar corruption.  That being the case, one would have expected the SSPX to give it worldwide publicity, publish it in multiple languages, and shout its contents from the rooftops.

But alas, this was 2009, in the era of ralliement, and that kind of publicity was reserved for books tending in the opposite direction (e.g., The book tours organized for Fr. Celier's "Benedict XVI and the Traditionalists" by the French District recounted in post #69).  With Benedict showing so much "tradition," how could the SSPX publish a book irrefutable demonstrating, exposing, and refuting his rank liberalism?  What would be the consequences for the ralliement?  Why, Pope Benedict might be led to believe that there was resistance within the SSPX to being "synthesized" into conciliar "conservatives!

The result was death by silence.  So far as I am aware, the book was not actively suppressed, as in the case of Fr. Pivert's book (discussed in post #38 of this thread).  But with the savaging of Bishop Williamson in full swing at the time of its publication, taking action against yet another SSPX bishop may have seemed perhaps too vulgar and risky a display of power.  And what would happen if it induced Bishop Tissier to "team up" with Bishop Williamson?  That could set the ralliement back decades!  Best to just let Bishop Tissier do his writing, but give it no fanfare.  It was, after all, an intellectual work.  Few would read it.  There were no pictures.  Soon enough, it would fade from memory in all but a few staunch Lefebvrists, whom the Society desired to purge from its ranks and pews anyway.

But it was less than three years later, after the failed (?) doctrinal discussions of 2009-2011, the SSPX had received a secret "doctrinal preamble" which, among several other odious provisions, asked the SSPX to consent to what was essentially the very same "hermeneutic of continuity" rejected by Bishop Tissier, and the SSPX as a whole in former times (For example, see this pre-2012 memory-holed article titled "Hermeneutic of the Hermeneutic of Continuity", originally available here: http://www.sspxseminary.org/component/content/article/6/502.html, but fortunately retained here: http://tradicat.blogspot.com/2014/08/hermeneutic-of-hermeneutic-of.html, which is well worth taking the time to read).

That preamble (more commonly known as the April 15, 2012 Doctrinal Declaration) contained these provision:

"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.

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."
https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/bp-fellay-april-15th-declaration-do-you-know-whats-in-it/

And with a stroke of the pen, Bishop Fellay had accepted Benedict XVI's "hermeneutic of continuity."

Subsequent protestations to the contrary are devoid of value, because actions speak louder than words.  

Neither does it matter that, upon seeing the ensuing furor and division which had arisen within the ranks of the SSPX, Benedict rejected Bishop Fellay's signature, and presented him a counter-offer he knew the bishop must reject (i.e., so as to give Bishop Fellay the appearance of being the one doing the rejecting, and therefore still traditional, ,in order to preserve his authority: Rome did not want to lose its man at the forthcoming General Chapter a few months down the road, and endanger the planned ralliement).

What matters is not that, by Rome's rejection, this Doctrinal Declaration and its "hermeneutic of continuity" failed to become official SSPX policy, but that as Fr. Cottier wrote upon the fall of Campos, "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/what_catholics_need_to_know.htm

Bishop Fellays signature showed incontrovertibly that indeed, there had been a "maturation," and that there was no longer any "rejection."

100 articles to the contrary will not be able to hide the act of his signature to the Doctrinal Declaration, because once again, actions speak louder than words.


Obitur Dictum: Shortly after the 2009 publication of Bishop Tissier's Faith Imperiled by Reason, he published another slightly larger work on the same subject, but more focused on the Pope's theology, called The Strange Theology of Benedict XVI.  That book has not been translated into English, but a summary of it by Don Curzio Nitoglia can be machine translated here: http://www.doncurzionitoglia.com/monstissier_falsa_teologia_bxvi.htm

#78: Compromise (Eroding Conditions - Part II: From 4 Bishops to 1?):

In post #28, we saw that the SSPX 2012 General Chapter has produced a list of three allegedly absolutely essential conditions (and three merely "desirable" conditions, which means they were no conditions at all), to be fulfilled before executing a canonical agreement with unconverted Rome.  We saw that already by 2017, with the acceptance of the new "pastoral guidelines" regulating SSPX marriages, the second of the three "absolutely essential" conditions (i.e., Retaining current sacramental practice, including marriage) had been voluntarily sacrificed.  Subsequently, we saw in post #33 that the two remaining (allegedly) absolutely essential conditions had been replaced by a single new absolutely essential condition: To survive "as we are."

So in the space of just a few short years, the Society had gone from complete freedom for integral Tradition, to a state of bartering for it on the basis of 6 conditions, which were really only three conditions, one of which was soon jettisoned to reduce the operative conditions to two, and which was eventually further whittled down to a solitary purely defensive condition to survive "as we are."

The reader of this thread can decide for himself whether the SSPX has also surrendered this lone remaining condition as well.

But returning to the original three 2012 "absolutely essential" conditions, it is disturbing to see the diplomatic weakness evident in what the SSPX was willing to concede in condition three:

"3. The guarantee of at least one bishop."
[Not surprisingly, the SSPX has also memory-holed yet another piece of evidence of compromise, as this page is no longer up: https://sspx.org/en/SSPX_FAQs/sspx_2012_general_chapter.htm  However, the conditions are preserved here: https://www.therecusant.com/2012chapter-six-conditions]

Stephen Fox, in his e-book "Is this Operation ѕυιcιdє" comments on this concession:

"Condition 3 (the guarantee of at least one bishop) means that the Society could be "reduced" to only one bishop and is concerning in view of the position of Rome that the position of the 'other 3 bishops' will be dealt with separately." (p. 14)
https://www.cathinfo.com/files/operation-ѕυιcιdє-20121029.pdf
https://isthisoperationѕυιcιdє.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/operation-ѕυιcιdє-published-20121029.pdf

In defense of this foolish condition/concession, the SSPX championed an article by Brian Mershon, in which he gives the SSPX rationale for this condition:

"In 1988, Rome in practice did not act according to this commitment and gave the Archbishop reasonable grounds for concluding that the promise of a bishop had not been and would not in any reasonable time frame be met. All the Chapter does here is repeat the same requirement of Archbishop Lefebvre. They do not in any way suggest that their action would differ from his if, in fact, the Roman authorities of today repeated the behavior of those in 1988 (recognizing that one of them is the same person, the present Holy Father)."
http://archives.sspx.org/sspx_and_rome/wrong_or_right_conditions_for_the_sspxs_future10-2-2012.htm

There are a number of problems with Mr. Mershon's defense, the biggest of which seems to be a loss of historical context surrounding the episcopal consecrations: Why does he think that after originally requesting a single bishop from Rome, the Archbishop ended up consecrating four?  The answer is because what caused him to consecrate against the Pope's "no" was because Rome's stalling tactics caused him to discern that Rome was not acting in good faith.  

In other words, so long as the benefit of the doubt regarding Rome's intentions toward Tradition and the SSPX could be plausibly defended, the Archbishop could be satisfied with just one bishop: A Rome well-disposed toward Tradition could always give them another when needed.  But a Rome ill-disposed toward Tradition, which was simply waiting for him to die (and Tradition with it), called for another strategy altogether.  It called for "Operation Survival," whereby multiple consecrations would preserve the principle of continuity and perpetuity of Tradition.  

So historical context provides the explanation (and necessity) of Archbishop Lefebvre's change in strategy, and the number of bishops he deemed necessary to preserve Tradition and the SSPX.

Consequently, it stands to reason that, if Rome is still ill-disposed toward Tradition (as Bishop Fellay sometimes admits, in order to appear appease the troops and faithful: "Here we are then, at Easter 2013, and the situation in the Church remains almost unchanged."  https://sspx.org/en/publications/letters/april-2013-superior-generals-letter-80-1856), then voluntarily consenting to be reduced to a single bishop on the basis of a pre-1988 Lefebvre who at the time of the 1987 Protocol was still willing to allow for the possibility of goodwill in Rome ("I hoped until the last minute that in Rome we would witness a little bit of loyalty."  https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/archbishop-lefebvre-said-what-separated-sspx-from-rome-in-1991/), is completely inadmissible.  


Obitur Dictum: I can no longer find  the Fideliter #79 (January - February 1991) on SSPX.org.  Can you?