Author Topic: Catalog of Compromise, Change, and Contradiction in the SSPX (Read 45478 times)

X · « **Reply #90 on:** March 24, 2019, 07:47:32 AM »

#90: Change (Roman Ratification of General Chapter Election):

On January 12, 2018 the French periodical La Croix ran an interesting story based on a January 8 article which appeared on an unspecified SSPX website regarding the upcoming 4th General Chapter and the election of the Superior General and his two Assistants.

On that subject, La Croix provides this interesting excerpt from the article, which also seems to be supplemented by subsequent commentary from Fr. Bouchacourt(*):

"The General Chapter is "above all" an opportunity to "verify that the statutes are faithfully applied, always in the spirit that presided over the foundation," the site says. For this purpose, several aspects of the life of society will be reviewed: "common and liturgical life, apostolate and administration, sanctification of members, fight of the faith".

A so-called interim chapter was held in 2012, at mid-term, to review the life of the Society.

"It is a question of knowing if we are indeed faithful to the main mission of the FSSPX, namely the sanctification of the clergy", Father Christian Bouchacourt, Superior of the District of France, reminds La Croix. Relations with Rome will of course be at the heart of the discussions. "Moreover, as soon as a new superior is elected, the decision is immediately transmitted to the Vatican," he says. Canonically, the vote must even be ratified by the Roman authorities...."
https://www.la-croix.com/Religion/Catholicisme/France/Fraternite-Saint-Pie-X-elira-nouveau-superieur-mois-juillet-2018-01-12-1200905367

On the surface, it makes no sense for the SSPX to send election results to Rome for ratification, because officially the SSPX was suppressed by Rome in 1975. Hence, the logical reaction of Rome would be to reject the elections results, regardless of what it determined, as illegitimate and illicit.

On the other hand, if with a wink of the eye, Rome has extended to the SSPX a "recognition of tolerance ad tempus" (i.e., a provisional recognition to see how the SSPX will "behave") as the Avrille Dominicans have suggested is the plan, then it makes complete sense why the SSPX would act as though Rome had authority and jurisdiction over their congregation.
https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/towards-a-'canonical-recognition-of-tolerance'-ad-tempus/

Regardless of whether or not this recognition of tolerance ad tempus reflects the current understanding between Rome and the Society or not, this novel development is troubling in what it suggests:

The SSPX does not send election results to Rome just so it can ignore Rome's decision if it should refuse to ratify the results!

And while it seems that, to all appearances, the results were agreed upon under the table before the General Chapter even commenced (as evinced by the election of the Superior General and both Assistants in the opening day of the Chapter, whereas it was not until the 9th day of the 2006 General Chapter that these elections were made), without much, if any, deliberation, the fact of sending election results to Rome evinces a subjection at some level to Roman authority.
[Link showing dates of 2006 General Chapter https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2006/07/sspx-general-chapter-declaration.html]
[Link showing date of 2006 General Chapter election results: https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2006/07/sspx-general-chapter-declaration.html]

What was the SSPX going to do if Rome rejected the election results? Hold new elections, apparently, until Rome approved of the results? But it seems the SSPX was not worried about that possibility, and this confidence coupled with the haste with which the elections were made and submitted to Rome is interesting to say the least.

But all that aside, the troubling evolution in the internal working of the SSPX here is that the SSPX has consented to surrender control of its highest ranking officers to modernist Roman authority.

And if Rome approves of the current administration (problematic in itself!), it seemingly closes the road to the possibility of future elected officers who might attempt to break the SSPX free of modernist influence in the future (e.g., Fr. Beauvais; Bishop Tissier de Mallerais; etc.).

(*) The style of the La Croix article is confusing, and it is difficult to tell when they are quoting the uncited SSPX article directly, recounting the subsequent comments of Fr. Bouchacourt, or adding their own commentary.

It seems that when they are using quotation marks, they are probably citing from the unspecified SSPX website.

But they also seem to have had da follow-up conversation with Fr. Bouchacourt about that article, as they say, "Fr. Christian Bouchacourt, Superior of the District of France, reminds La Croix."

And then there is the "Canonically, the vote must even be ratified by the Roman authorities..." This sentence is not contained within quotation marks. Is it La Croix putting in its own words something contained in the SSPX article? Is La Croix paraphrasing Fr. Bouchacourt? Is La Croix adding its own commentary without saying so? Hard to tell.

What is clear is that the common understanding of the La Croix article is that the SSPX has sent election results to Rome for ratification, and in the 15 months that have passed since this article ran, we are not aware of any SSPX clarification or denial of this reading of events (which it should and would have done, had there been some misunderstanding on such a critical point).

X · « **Reply #91 on:** March 24, 2019, 02:13:38 PM »

#91: Change (Anti-Feminist Articles Hit the Memory Hole):

On March 28, 2014 the SSPX published an article titled "Defeminization of women continues," published here:

https://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/defeminization-women-continues-3687

Unfortunately, if you click on that link, you will receive an "Access Denied" message, as the article has been withdrawn from the website.

What was in the article that the SSPX thought twice about publishing?

A caption underneath a picture of a feminist march reveals the PR problem in Rome the SSPX wished to avoid:

"Has Vatican II changed the role of women in society and the Church? And do both the feminist movement and gender theory actually uphold or betray a woman's true dignity?"

In other words, per the branding campaign which rejects criticism of Roman modernism or attacks on Vatican II, this article might have been poorly received in Rome, insofar as it lays the blame for invasive feminism, the collapse of traditional gender roles, and calls it a betrayal of woman's true dignity.

Not the kind of thing you want to say to those you are trying to convince that you have changed!

Curiously, as is the case with many SSPX articles, at bottom there is a list directing the reader to similar content. One of those articles is titled "Is Feminism a Harmful Movement?" That article was once available here: http://sspx.org/en/feminism-harmful-movement

However, if you click on that link, you once again get an "Access Denied" message.

What was the problem with this article?

Well, with the previous article, the SSPX appeared to be fearful of offending modernist Rome by assigning the blame for feminism to Vatican II. In this latter article, however, there is not a word about Rome or Vatican II. Neither is there any doctrinal error (in fact, the article is classic 1980's SSPX Catholicism from start to finish).

The only plausible reason I can think of to remove the article from circulation is that it contradicts the new open, branded social norms invading the worldly, modern SSPX enclaves, and presents much too stark a contrast between the old and new SSPX:

This old article by Fr. Leo Boyle would be extremely condemnatory toward, say, 100% of the women in the US District office wearing manly attire, or career women bringing you the news on the SSPX YouTube channel (and wearing a business suit to do it), etc.

Consequently, a beautiful article had to hit the memory hole to prevent such comparisons, because remember:

"Rome is taking us as we are!" and "We won't quit preaching the truth in season and out of season!"

But there is an undeniable patters here of suppressing traditional content in favor of projecting a more modern image.

Matthew will be attaching both articles, which his wizardry has been able to salvage from the archives.

X · « **Reply #92 on:** March 25, 2019, 05:44:18 AM »

#92: Contradiction (Hiding the Deal: "We are Back to Square One"):

Bishop Fellay is a man who learned well from Cromwell the need to move incrementally, and at times, to even declare a setback if necessary to calm nerves and tensions arising from a too hasty entrance into conciliar pluralism. Toward this end, he has frequently declared that "We are back to square one" (or similar words to that effect) in order to mask the concessions and compromises made and received, as if to imply that the SSPX was back to where it was before the ralliement.

However, the more perceptive clergy and faithful noticed that whatever Bishop Fellay may have said about being "back to square one" (or equivalent statements), the situation did not return to the previous status quo: Both Bishop Fellay and modernist Rome retained what they had agreed upon over the years. They simply paused temporarily to recover some little stability before moving forward again.

Note carefully also that Bishop Fellay's frequent claims to being "back to square one" have transpired at critical times for the ralliement process, when opposition has been particularly intense, thereby showing the true purpose for making this demonstrably false claim, once again to calm tensions and create the illusion of returning to s state of pre-ralliement normalcy in the SSPX.

Here are some examples of this technique in action:

1) The leak of the Letter of the Three Bishops: This letter threatened to split the SSPX wide open, clearly demonstrating the internal gulf separating Bishop Fellay from the other three bishops on the subject of "reconciling" with modernist Rome, who, getting cold feet at the 11th hour and fearing the SSPX might depose Bishop Fellay at the upcoming General Chapter a few months later, rejected Bishop Fellay's April 15, 2012 General Chapter Declaration, and proposed a counter-offer it knew the bishop must reject. This Roman ploy created the illusion of Bishop Fellay cancelling the practical accord with Rome, on the false implication that he was standing hard on Tradition. Consequently, at the ordination sermon in Econe on 6/29/2012, Bishop Fellay stated:

"If up to now we have said almost nothing, it is because we do not have much to tell you. Up to now, things are at a stage, we can say, of full stop. In the sense that there have been to's and fro's, there have been exchanges, effectively, dealings, proposals, but we are back at the point of departure."
http://archives.sspx.org/news/2012_archive/econe_ordinations_2012/econe_ordinations_2012.htm#sermon

But there was no rejection of a merely practical accord; no rejection of the six conditions which paved the way for it; no withdrawal on the part of Rome of canonical jurisdiction to try its own priests; no return to the pre-2012 status quo.

2) The pastoral guidelines for diocesan authority over SSPX marriages: Many more compromises transpired between Rome and the SSPX between 2012 and the March/2017 guidelines: The granting of jurisdiction to hear confessions and tacit approval to ordain priests being the two biggest maneuvers by Rome. So when the pastoral guidelines were announced, it was too blatant a subjection and entanglement in the modernist/conciliar church to disguise, and a revolt ensued. What was left but to sign on the dotted lone?

A couple months later, once again in Econe at a luncheon after the 6/29/2017 ordinations, Bishop Fellay stated:

"It is like in the Game of the Goose. We were almost at the end and then we landed on the ‘go back to start’ square. Everything has fallen to the ground, it is necessary to begin again from square one."
https://novusordowatch.org/2017/07/sspx-fellay-game-of-the-goose/

But had everything really fallen to the ground? Had Rome taken back its ordinary jurisdiction to hear confessions (or did Menzingen renounce it)? Was the SSPX no longer able to ordain priests, administer Extreme Unction, or receive delegations from the diocesan bishops for marriages?

Was not Bishop Fellay telling the world only a few months earlier that he only awaited for Rome's stamp of approval?
https://novusordowatch.org/2017/01/sspx-bishop-fellay-vatican-stamp-approval/

So we see the technique in action once again, to calm tensions and create the illusion of returning to the pre-ralliement status quo, while in reality it was nothing more than a pause to allow some degree of stability to return before marching forward once more.

Or, as Tradidi.com so succinctly explains it:

"It is important to make a distinction between the objective and the tactic. The tactic of the Romans and the Neo-SSPX seems to be to oscillate for a while between square 1 and square 2 (or at least to give that impression), just like in order to break metal one only has to bend it back and forth a number of times until it finally snaps. But the objective has always been, and still is, to find a practical way for the Neo-SSPX to cohabitate with the modernists in Rome, to find a place for them in the ecuмenical zoo.
To be precise, we are no longer oscillating between square 1 and square 2, but rather between square 5 and square 6. It’s just that all the concessions and cooperation achieved in square 1 to 5 have now become accepted as the new normal by the frogs in the boiling water. As these frogs always extend “the line in the sand” forward, every new step will appear to them as step 2, until one day they will wake up, or rather “arrive without waking up”, at their destination."

[Note: I could not find this quote on Tradidi, but it is attributed to them here: http://tradcatresist.blogspot.com/2018/ -See entry for 11/28/18]

X · « **Reply #93 on:** March 26, 2019, 07:36:08 PM »

#93: Change (Extorting Holy Orders for Loyalty?):

In late June, 2012 three Dominican subdeacons from Avrille, France and three Deacons from the Capuchins of Morgon were among those on retreat, preparing for their forthcoming ordinations to the diaconate and priesthood six days hence (on June 29). Abruptly, they were extracted from among their colleagues, and sent back to their respective monasteries, and told they would no longer be ordained.

What had happened? Had someone come forward regarding impediments to the reception of further major orders? Had their seminary professors second-guessed their former favorable appraisals of the candidates' academic or moral fitness?

On the contrary:

According to what has become known as the Steffeshausen Memorandum, Avrille provides some context to the June 25 letter of the General House in which the postponement of ordinations is announced:

"In the afternoon of 21 June 2012, the Secretary General of the SSPX called the Father Prior of Avrille. After having reproached him for playing in the refectory a sermon of a prior of the SSPX who was hostile to the agreement with Rome, he added, 'Father, if we sign an agreement with Rome, will you follow us?' Father Prior, a little surprised, explained to him that if there were an agreement with Rome, it would be on the basis of the Doctrinal Declaration that Bishop Fellay had sent to Rome in April and that we had not yet even seen. 'Indeed, you are not familiar with this text, but I cannot tell you about it. You must trust us.'

Father Prior asked him for two days to reflect on the matter, which he obtained with difficulty.

The next day on June 22, at 9:26 AM, without waiting for the two days to pass, we received a fax from Bishop Fellay, followed by an email from the Secretary General, informing us of the refusal to ordain to the diaconate the three brothers who were to be ordained at Econe on 29 June. Bishop Fellay wrote in his fax:

'Confidence in the Superior General of the Society of Saint Pius X has been shaken in your friary; therefore, I think it is necessary to postpone the ordination of the candidates you have presented for the ceremony to be held 29 June next, at Econe...We will wait until confidence has been restored; this will be better for everyone!'

Fr. Thouvenot wrote in his email:

'I did my best to relate to Bishop Fellay the conversation we had yesterday, but obviously the simple fact that you had your community listen to Fr. Koller's crazy sermon, as well as the fact that you needed more than 24 hours to respond to a simple question of trust in his authority, are enough to convince him that he needs to postpone the ordinations. This morning he forwarded a fax to you informing you of it. In the hope that you will fall into line and reestablish normal relations of harmonious collaboration, I assure you of my religious devotion.'"
http://www.ecclesiamilitans.com/steffeshausen_foundation.pdf (See pp. 7-8.)

A circular letter from the general House to SSPX priests et al by Fr. Christian Thouvenot explained the reason for cancelling the ordinations:

"Finally, Bp. Fellay has decided to postpone the ordinations of the Dominicans of Avrillé and Capuchins of Morgon that were to take place in Écône on June 29. This postponement of Holy Orders was motivated simply by the wish to ensure the loyalty of these communities before the imposition of hands on their candidates (cf. I Tim. 5, 22)."
https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2012/06/for-record-confidentiality-like-water.html

Note that the scriptural citation adduced as a justification for the postponement of ordination is neither here nor there: The moral and intellectual fitness for the reception of Holy Orders which this passage pertains to had long since been ascertained by the superiors of the various candidates. In fact, the stated justification of ensuring loyalty of the respective communities to Menzingen follows nearly as a non-sequitur.

But were not these communities independent and exempt from the jurisdiction of the SSPX bishops? How then could the loyalty of their independent and exempt communities be adduced as grounds for withholding ordinations, when Archbishop Lefebvre had stated on 4/27/81 that he did not want to be Master General of the Dominicans, whereas in October/2012 at the Benedictine monastery at Bellaigue, Bishop de Galarreta informed Father Prior that he must consider Bishop Fellay as taking the place of the Master General of the Order?
(Ibid., p.9)

This illegitimate arrogation of "authority" represented a raw and unjust departure from the position of Archbishop Lefebvre with regard to the religious communities.

Moreover, to withhold ordination on the basis of these communities' fidelity to the Church and Tradition, and refusing to go along with Bishop Fellay's revolution and sellout is objectively an indefensible abuse of the episcopacy, in the case where the ordinands are all adjudged to be perfectly fit candidates for major orders.

Consequently, the postponement tactic of Bishop Fellay was nothing more than coercion or spiritual blackmail, having nothing to do with the fitness of the candidates, whatever pretext Bishop Fellay may have tried to create with the reference to I Tim. 5, 22.

PS: It would not be the last time Bishop Fellay would abuse his authority in this manner. In 2016, the Capuchins had recently published a book explaining why a deal with unconverted Rome was not acceptable. Soon thereafter, they sided with the 7 French Deans, who wrote a letter of opposition to the SSPX's acceptance of the 2017 "Pastoral guidelines" subjecting SSPx marriages to conciliar authority. Consequently, Bishop Fellay reverted to his extortion tactics, threatening for a 2nd time to withhold ordinations from Morgon. You can read about that incident here: https://tradidi.com/menzingen-refuses-to-ordain-the-capuchins-deacons

X · « **Reply #94 on:** March 27, 2019, 06:18:21 AM »

#94: Compromise (The First Rosary Crusade):

On July 16, 2006 Bishop Fellay's Letter to the Faithful announced that:

"The Society has the intention of presenting a spiritual bouquet of a million Rosaries to the Sovereign Pontiff for the end of the month of October, month of the Rosary.
These Rosaries will be recited for the following intentions:

To obtain from Heaven for Pope Benedict XVI the strength required to completely free up the Mass of all time, called the Tridentine Mass.
For the return of the Social Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ.
For the triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

We are calling you, therefore, to a true Crusade of the Rosary."
https://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/Society_of_Saint_Pius_X/Bishop_Fellays_Letter_post_General_Chapter.htm

We have already discussed whether or not Bishop Fellay received from Rome what he had requested, and concluded in the negative in post #71 of this thread.

Our concern here is to consider the sincerity of the request made in this first Rosary Crusade.

Why?

Because this announcement was made in July/2006, but only three months later, while the Rosary Crusade was still in progress, Bishop Fellay spoke of the "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."
(Cor Unum #85) (*)

And then, of course, in July 2007, the motu proprio Summorum Pontificuм was promulgated (i.e., almost exactly one year after Bishop Fellay's announcement of the first Crusade.

The obvious concern here is that, with Bishop Fellay's October admission that he expected an imminent motu proprio, it makes it look like Bishop Fellay had called for a Crusade to effect an end already agreed upon, and more than this, that the purpose of the Crusade was not so much to bring about the already agreed upon result, but to make it look as though the Blessed Virgin herself was in support of the reconciliation process (a suggestion that Bishop Tissier explicitly denied, as quoted in post #15 of this thread).

Is there some other explanation? Had Bishop Fellay learned of the imminence of the forthcoming motu proprio sometime between the July announcement launching the Crusade, and his October announcement? Or, had Bishop Fellay launched the Crusade merely in the hopes that Rome would follow through on a promise made to him?

Possibly, but in light of the tremendous scandal caused by the Crusade(s), of which the general House was surely aware, one would have expected that if such were the case, the SSPX would have clarified (particularly in the wake of Fr. Rioult's book The Impossible Reconciliation, wherein this timeline is laid out, and of which the General House was also well aware).

That they did not strengthens such a reading of events, and particularly in light of similar "incongruities" in the subsequent Rosary Crusades, of which we shall now discuss.

(*) I have not yet been able to secure the French version of Cor Unum from Which Fr. Rioult surely quoted from, but I do have the Spanish version, and as you can see, it is substantially (nearly identically) the same, stating:

"At the same time that it is announced to us the supposed imminent appearance of a motu proprio that would replace the one of 1988 to give greater freedom to the Mass, giving it a right equal to the new Mass."

CathInfo.com

Author Topic: Catalog of Compromise, Change, and Contradiction in the SSPX (Read 45478 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