CathInfo.com

Lesser Publicized Earlier Letter and Sermon of Fr Ringrose
Appeared in St Athanasius Weekly Bulletin


Fr Ringrose
St Athanasius Church
23 Aug 2012

It Is Not Father Ringrose Against the Society...yet.


It has been said that Fr. Ringrose “sets his face against the Society.” ( I am not quite sure what that means. This is not a commonly used expression in English, so I suspect that originates with someone whose native language is not English.) Let me state that I have been a “friend of the Society” for over 30 years, and I do not see myself as anything less today. But when one's friend is taking a course that is dangerous and possibly self-destructive, a true friend must at least attempt to help his friend back to the right path. That is why I signed, for lack of a better term, the Declaration of Vienna.

The Society seems to be on a dangerous path of compromising with Modernist Rome. This has become very clear to me only in the past year, although in retrospect I can see that this has been the case much longer.

Those who are against an accord with Modernist Rome are accused of making Vatican II into a super-heresy. Well, it is! If Modernism is the synthesis of all heresies, then Vatican II is Modernism on steroids. Many things that were condemned by St. Pius X are now brought “inside the Church,” and made official doctrine. For this reason, Vatican II is far more dangerous than even the original Modernism.

The “anti-accordistas” are accused, in not so many words, of a practical sedevacantism. Whether Benedict XVI is pope or not, isn't really the issue. He cannot be followed. He may at times say things that sound orthodox, but look at his actions -- visiting ѕуηαgσgυєs and Protestant temples and convoking Assisi III! The only safe course is to follow the popes of Tradition (i.e. the pre-Vatican II popes). This is what Archbishop Lefebvre did, and this is why we followed him. It is not that the truth can never be uttered by Benedict XVI, it is the mixture of truth and error that creates the danger. One false statement makes the whole sentence false. Any high school test-taker should know this much. The reason we cannot follow Protestantism is not that Protestantism contains no truth at all (most Protestants believe in the Trinity), but that Protestantism, along with whatever truth it may retain, also contains error. For this same reason we cannot follow Benedict. He mixes truth with error, and his deeds tell us very clearly what he is about.

The anti-accordistas are said to be lacking a supernatural spirit. We should not mistake naivety for a supernatural spirit. Our Lord told us to be wise as serpents!

They are told only the superiors have the grace of state to guide the Society. That is true when the superiors are upholding the Faith, but Vatican II has shown us that superiors cannot be followed when they work against the Faith. The Archbishop said that the master stroke of Satan was to use obedience to superiors to get us to be disobedient to the Faith. In Vatican II there was a separation of faith and obedience. We seem to be witnessing something similar in the Society today. Before Vatican II we could safely follow our superiors. After Vatican II we could not. Before “accord-fever” took over, the Society superiors could be safely followed. Now we have to be more cautious.

During and after Vatican II there was an attempt to silence or marginalize anyone who was against this “new Pentecost,” as it was called. Anyone who was around then surely remembers this. The same tactics seem to be used against those who oppose a Society-Modernist Rome accord today. Those within the Society are expelled, or threatened with expulsion. If not that, they are banished to some position where they have little ability to influence anyone. Those outside the Society are said to have “turned their face against the Society,” and that those who take their guidance from the Society should not attend their Masses. One begins to wonder whether it is prudent at all to take one's guidance from the Society while it is on its present course. It seems like Vatican II all over again – a sort of Vatican II within the Society.

It is foolishness to think that Modernist Rome has changed for the better and is now on a path back to Tradition. Just look at the actions of Benedict XVI. Even recently he appointed a man to head the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith who should himself be investigated by it. It is because I am a friend of the Society that I, poor little nobody that I am, appeal to them to wake up! See what is happening! See what you are doing! See what a dangerous path you are on! Realize, as the Archbishop came to realize in 1988, that Rome can only be trusted once Rome wants the true Faith as much as we do. We wait for this day, and we pray for Our Lady's help to make this day come soon! Until then, we follow the true Rome of 2000 years, and we oppose the false Rome of Modernism.

Last Public Words of Opposition of Bishop de Galarreta
Only a Couple Weeks Before He Became an Accordista at the 2012 SSPX General Chapter
Taken from the Crusaders of the Immaculate Heart of Mary website (6-28-12):



REFLECTIONS AROUND THE ROMAN PROPOSAL

ROMAN TEXT

To limit myself to the "Preliminary Note" and "doctrinal Preamble", I must say straight away that they are confusing, misleading, false and bad in essence. Even the apparent openness to criticism of the Council is enigmatic and cunning, well-trained trap (... self {?} Thread... expressions or formulations... as "interpretive criteria of Catholic doctrine necessary...", that is to say, according to" Preamble" II and III, 2, especially in fine). This docuмent is substantially unacceptable. It is worse than the 1988 Protocol, in particular in relation to the Council and the post-conciliar magisterium.

Archbishop Lefebvre said:
Our true believers, those who understand the problem and we have just helped to continue the straight and firm and the Tradition of faith, feared the steps I made in Rome. They told me it was dangerous and that I was wasting my time. Yes, of course, I hoped until the last minute in Rome have to testify a little bit of loyalty. You can not blame me for not doing the maximum. So now, those who say to me, you must agree with Rome, I can safely say that I went even farther than I should have stayed (Fideliter no. 79, p. 11).


Fideliter said:
What do you think of the statement of Cardinal Ratzinger establishing an oath of fidelity and that includes a profession of faith?


Archbishop Lefebvre said:
First is the Creed, which poses no problem. He remained intact. The first and second paragraphs do not raise difficulties. These are things in common theologically. But the third is very bad.

This is practically align what the bishops from around the world now believe. In the preamble it is also clear that this paragraph was added because of the spirit of the Council. It refers to the Council and the so-remote teaching today is that of conciliar. He should have added: as this magisterium is in full compliance with the Tradition.

As this formula is dangerous. This shows the spirit of these people that it is impossible to agree. This is absolutely ridiculous and false as some have done-to make this oath of allegiance as a resurgence of anti-modernist oath removed from the, Council. While the venom is in the third paragraph that seems purposely to force those who have rallied to this sign of faith and assert their full agreement with the bishops.

It is as if the time of Arianism had been told, now you agree with all that think the Arian bishops.

No I am not exaggerating, it is clearly stated in the introduction. This is disingenuous. One may wonder if we did not want to Rome, thereby correcting the text of the Protocol. Although it does not satisfy us, it seems too in our favor in Article 3 of the doctrinal statement, because it does not express enough the need to submit to the Council.

So I think they are catching up now. They are likely to sign these docuмents to the seminarians of the Fraternity of St. Peter before their ordination and priests of the Fraternity, which will then be obliged to make an official act of rallying to the conciliar Church.

Unlike the protocol, these new texts we submit to the Council and all the conciliar bishops. It is their spirit and we do not change (Fideliter, no. 70, p. 16).


Fideliter said:
Do you think the situation has deteriorated further since you had before-the sacred-initiated conversations that led to the drafting of the Protocol of 5 May 1988?


Archbishop Lefebvre said:
Oh yes! For example the fact of the profession of faith which is now claimed by Cardinal Ratzinger since the beginning of 1989. This is a very serious matter. Because it asks all those who joined or could do to make a profession of faith in the docuмents of the Council and the post-conciliar reforms. For us it is impossible (Fideliter No. 79, p. 4).


PRINCIPLE OF JUDGMENT

In fact it fits perfectly with the thought and the Roman position that the Commission has expressed all along the doctrinal discussions. It is essential to the current issue to bear in mind the unmistakable conclusion that we just did on this occasion: they are not ready to give up Vatican II Council, nor the liberal doctrines of it, and their intention , their obvious desire, it brings back is to us. At most, Rome would accept a rebalancing and better formulation, again as part of the "hermeneutic of renewal in continuity". And then we can discuss and we are very useful... to endorse the revival of the reform with continuity.

AGREEMENT IMPOSSIBLE

The proposed docuмent does confirm that it is illusory and unrealistic to believe that we could reach an agreement good practice, appropriate and warranted, and even just acceptable to both parties. Given the circuмstances, it is certain that at the end, after long parliaments, we arrive at absolutely nothing. So, why we get involved?

REASONS FOR REFUSAL

Following the proposal Roman, the real question, crucial, is: should we, can we, we take the path of a "possible" agreement first practice? Is it prudent and appropriate to maintain contacts with Rome to such an agreement?

For me the answer is clear: we must reject this path because we can not do a wrong to a property arrives (though also uncertain) and because this will necessarily lead to pain (very certain) for the good common that we have, for the Fraternity and the Family Tradition.
The following summarizes some of the reasons for my point of view:

OBEY WHOM, WHAT?

I. How to submit and obey authorities who continue to think, to preach, and to govern by modernists? We have goals and purposes contrary, even different ways, how to work under them?

The problem is not the subjective intentions, but objective, clear, the observation that we have just made their desire: Vatican II acceptance of the Council and its liberal principles. Essentially nothing has changed, there is no "return".

Archbishop Lefebvre said:
These are things that are easy to say. Get inside the church, what does this mean? And First Church of what your talking about? If this is the conciliar Church, that we should have fought against it for twenty years because we want the Catholic Church, we were back in the conciliar Church to supposedly make it Catholic. It is an illusion total. These are topics that are pa superiors but the superiors who are the subjects (Fideliter No. 70, p. 6)


Archbishop Lefebvre said:
I do not think this is a real return. It's like a fight, when one has the impression that the troops v.ont a little too far, they are kept, it slows down a little momentum of Vatican II, because the advocates of the council will too far. Besides these theologians were very wrong to be excited. These bishops are all acquired at the Council and the post-conciliar reforms, ecuмenism and charismatic.

Apparently they do something a little more moderate, some traditional religious sense, but it is not deep. The fundamental principles of the Council, the mistakes of the Council, they receive them, they put them into practice. This is no problem. Rather, I would say it is they who are the hardest with us. It is they who most require that we submit to the principles of the Council (Fideliter No. 70, p. 12).


Archbishop Lefebvre said:
It was perfectly clear, and this illustrates their mindset. There is no question of them abandoning the new mass. On the contrary, and this is obvious. Therefore what can be appears as a concession is actually a ploy to reach away from us as possible to the faithful. It is in this perspective that they seem to always give a little more and go very far. We absolutely need to convince the faithful that it is a maneuver, that is a danger of getting into the hands of bishops and conciliar modernist Rome. This is the greatest danger that threatens them. If we fought for twenty years to avoid errors conciliar, this is not to put us now in the hands of those who profess (Fideliter No. 70, p. 13-14).


AFFECT THE CONFESSION OF FAITH

II. How then do not go against the defense and public confession of faith, against the public need protection the faithful and the Church?

In this regard, if we make an agreement we are purely practical, in the present circuмstances, already in the duplicity and ambiguity. The very fact is a public testimony and a message: we cannot be in "full communion" with the authorities who remain modernists.

We can not do it either ignores the context, that is to say, events and constant teachings in the life of the Church today: repeated visits to Protestant churches and ѕуηαgσgυєs, beatification (soon to be canonized) by Jean Paul II, III Sitting, preaching time and inconvenience of religious freedom, and a long etcetera.

Moreover, if we make an agreement we will lose freedom of speech, we must mute our public criticism of the facts, authorities and even some texts of the Council and the post-conciliar magisterium.

To understand and illustrate the points 1 and II, just look what happened with all the rallies, from F. St. Pierre to the IBP: they are inevitably confronted with the choice to surrender or betray their commitments... and this is the first to arrive.

Fideliter said:
When we see that Dom Gerard and the Fraternity of St. Peter got to keep the liturgy and catechism, no-they say-they have nothing conceded, some who are troubled to find themselves in difficult situations with Rome, may be tempted to join the long turn by lassitude. "They come well, they say, to agree with Rome without having nothing dropped. "


Archbishop Lefebvre said:
When they say they did not give up, it's wrong. They dropped the ability to counter Rome. They can not say anything. They must remain silent given the favors granted to them. They are now impossible to denounce the errors of the conciliar Church. Slowly they join, if only by the profession of faith that is requested by Cardinal Ratzinger. I think Dom Gerard is about to publish a little book written by one of his monks, on religious freedom and that will try to justify it (Fideliter No. 79, p. 4-5).


Fideliter said:
Since the coronations there is more contact with Rome, however, as you told, Cardinal Oddi called you saying: "We need things work out. Have a little forgiveness to the Pope and it is ready to welcome you. " So why not try this last approach and why you think it impossible?


Archbishop Lefebvre said:
It is absolutely impossible in the current climate of Rome is becoming worse. We must not delude ourselves. principles who now run the conciliar Church are increasingly openly contrary to Catholic doctrine.

Before the Commission on Human Rights United Nations, Cardinal Casaroli said recently: "I wish to dwell a little on a specific aspect of the fundamental freedom of thought and act according to conscience, therefore free to religion... The Catholic Church and her Supreme Pastor, who has made human rights one of the major themes of his preaching, did not fail to recall that in a world made by man and for man , the whole organization of society has meaning insofar as it makes the human dimension of central concern. " Hear it in the mouth of a cardinal! God does not talk about it!


For his part Cardinal Ratzinger, by presenting a river on the relationship between the Magisterium and theologians, says he says "for the first time with clarity" that "decisions of the Magisterium can not be the last word on the matter as such" but "a kind of interim arrangement... The core remains stable but the particular aspects which have an influence on the circuмstances of time may need further corrections. In this regard it may be noted the declarations of the popes of the last century. Decisions antimodernist have done a great service... but they are now outdated. " And now, the page of modernism is turned! These reflections are absolutely insane.

Finally the Pope is more than ever ecuмenist. All misconceptions of u Council continue to flourish, to be reaffirmed with ever greater clarity. They hide less. It is therefore absolutely inconcevabl e that we can agree to work with a similar hierarchy (Fideliter No. 79, p. 3-4).


Fideliter said:
You said, pointing to Dom Gerard and others: "They betrayed us. Now they give out to those who demolish the church, the Liberals, the modernists. " Is not that a bit harsh ?


Archbishop Lefebvre said:
But no. They appealed to me for fifteen years. It's not me who went to pick them. It is they themselves who came to me and ask for support, to ordinations, the friendship of our priests along with the opening of our priories to help financially. They all used us as they could. We did a good heart and even generously. I was pleased to make these ordinations, to open our homes so they can benefit from the generosity of our benefactors... And then, suddenly, I phone: we no longer need you, it's over. We will go to the Archbishop of Avignon. We are now in agreement with Rome. We signed a protocol.

This is not a light heart that we had trouble with Rome. It's not for fun that we had to fight. We did it for principles, to keep the Catholic faith. And they agreed with us. They collaborated with us. And then suddenly we abandon the fight for true ally with demolition under the pretext that they be given some privileges. This is unacceptable.

They have virtually abandoned the fight of faith. They can not attack Rome.

This was also the Father of Blignières. He changed completely. He who had written a whole volume to condemn religious freedom, he now writes in favor of religious freedom. This laugh is not serious. We can no longer count on men like these, who did not understand the doctrinal question.
I think in any case they commit a grave error. They have gravely sinned by acting as they did, knowingly and with a casualness implausible (Fideliter No. 79, p. 6).


QUESTION DOCTRINAL, ESSENTIAL PROBLEM

III. We must look at the context in which they intend to incorporate us. An agreement is, like it or not, we integrate into their system in a thinking and reality data that do not depend on us but who depend on their thinking, their theology and their action. And this is how they will be presented (see Campos, text signed by Mgr. Licinio).

But we have just seen in doctrinal discussions what is their design: pure modernism revised and corrected.

In particular there will be implied that we would accept three principles implicitly:

1. Relativism of truth, even dogmatic, need for pluralism in the Church. For them we have the experience and charisma of Tradition, good and useful to the Church, but only partial truth.

System and their modernist dialectic (claiming the contrary) allows them to integrate ourselves in the name of "unity in diversity", as positive and necessary Il1ême, provided we are in full communion (obedience to authority and respect for others and ecclesial) and that we remain open to dialogue, always looking for the truth.

Proof of this is that they are ready to accept after the statement, both sides, a doctrinal opposition to faith-and essential-land.

How implicitly accept this principle, by explicit integration in their system and the official interpretation they give, then it is the foundation of modernism and is destructive of all natural and supernatural truth?

It is accepting the relativism of Tradition, the only true faith.

2. Can be interpreted in accordance with any Vatican II Tradition. We can help find, if necessary, the "right" interpretation. This is the "hermeneutic of continuity". "The hermeneutic of rupture" (while it is true) must be rejected, because neither teaching nor the post-conciliar Vatican II major have been mistaken. After the discussions and the proposed docuмent, it is only too clear, they would accept us as part of the first and reject the second.

This is Vatican II endorsement.

Archbishop Lefebvre said:
The response to our objections which have been sent from Rome by intermediaries, all tended to show that there was no change but a continuation of the Tradition. These are statements that are worse than those of the Council's Declaration on Religious Freedom. This is the real official lie.

As long as we remain attached to Rome conciliar ideas: religious freedom, ecuмenism, collegiality... will be wrong. This is serious because it goes into practical achievements. This is what justifies the Pope's visit to Cuba. Pope visits or receives Communist leaders torturers and murderers with blood on the hands of Christians, as if they were as worthy as decent people (Fideliter No. 70, p.10).


3. The truth of faith is changing, as dogmas, formulas and dogmatic definitions of faith are only significant approaches to the mysteries of faith. The core remains, everything else evolves with time, culture, historical circuмstances, experience and the experience of God's people.

Therefore Tradition is alive, Tradition is Vatican II, condemnations of liberalism and modernism are exceeded.

Archbishop Lefebvre said:
That's why they wanted Vatican II is a pastoral council and not a dogmatic council, because they do not believe in infallibility. They do not want a definitive truth. Truth must live and must evolve. It may possibly change over time, with history, science, etc.... Infallibility, she never fixed a formula and a truth that no longer change. That they can not believe it. It is we who are with infallibility, it is not the conciliar Church. It is against the infallibility, it is absolutely certain.

Cardinal Ratzinger is against the infallibility of the Pope is against the infallibility of its philosophical training. Whether one understands us, we are not against the Pope as he represents all the values of the apostolic see, which are immutable, the See of Peter, but against the Pope is a Modernist who does not believe in his infallibility, which makes ecuмenism. Obviously we are against the conciliar Church which is practically. schismatic , even if they do not accept it. In practice it is virtually a Church excommunicated, because 'it's a modernist church. They are the ones ql: i you excommunicate us, then we want to remain Catholic. We want to stay with the Catholic Pope and the Catholic Church. That's the difference (Fideliter No. 70, p. 8).


Archbishop Lefebvre said:
But specifically, we are not in the same truth. For them the truth is progressive, the truth changes with time, and Tradition: Vatican II is today. Tradition for us is what the Church has taught since the apostles to the present. For them, no, it's tradition Vatican II resumes itself all that was said earlier. Historical circuмstances are such that now we must believe that Vatican II did. This has happened before, here no longer exists. It belongs to the time spent. That is why the Cardinal did not hesitate to say "The council is an anti-Vatican II Syllabus." One wonders how a Cardinal of the Holy Church can say that the Council of Vatican II is an anti-Syllabus, very official act of Pope Pius IX encyclical Quanta Cura in. It is unimaginable.
I said one day to Cardinal Ratzinger: "Eminence, it is necessary that we choose: either religious freedom as in the Council, or Ie Syllabus of Pius IX. They are contradictory and should be chosen. "Then he told me:" But my Lord we are not at the time of the Syllabus. - Ah! I said, then truth changes with time. So what you say Today?, Tomorrow it will no longer true. There is no way to agree, it is in continual evolution. It becomes impossible to speak."

They have that in mind. He repeated: "There is more than a church is the Church of Vatican II. Represents Vatican II-Tradition." Unfortunately, the Church opposes Vatican II Tradition. This is not the same (Fideliter No. Occasional -29 to 30 June, p. 15).


Archbishop Lefebvre said:
Certainly the question of the liturgy and the sacraments is very important, but it's not the most important. The most important is that of faith. For us it is resolved. We have the faith of all times, the Council of Trent, the Catechism of St. Pius X, of all councils and all the popes before Vatican II.
For years they tried to Rome to show that everything in the Council was fully compliant with the Tradition. Now they are discovered. Cardinal Ratzinger had never spoken with such clarity. There is no tradition. There is more deposition to be transmitted. Tradition in the Church, that is what the Pope said today. You must submit to what the Pope and the bishops said today. For them this is the tradition, the famous tradition alive, the only ground of our condemnation.

Now they no longer seek to prove that what they say is consistent with what was written Pius IX promulgated to what the Council of Trent. Not all this is over, it is exceeded, as the cardinal says Ratzinger. It is clear and they could have said so sooner. It was not worth PARLET us to discuss. Now is the tyranny of authority, because he no longer any rule. We can no longer refer to the past.

In a sense the thing now becoming clearer. They always give us more reason. We deal with people who have a different philosophy than ours, another way of seeing, which are influenced by all philosophers and modern subjectivist. For them there is no fixed truth, there is no dogma. Everything is changing. This is an absolutely Masonic design. This is really the destruction of faith. Fortunately, we, we continue to build on the tradition! (Fideliter, no. 79, p. 9).



Archbishop Lefebvre said:
The Pope wants to unity outside the faith. It is a communion. Communion to whom? What? What?, It is no longer a unit. This can be done only in the unity of the faith. This is what the Church has always taught. It is. Why there were the missionaries, to convert to the catholic faith ic. Now you must not convert. The Church is no longer a hierarchical society, it is a communion. Everything is distorted. It is the destruction of one (1 notion of the Church, Catholicism. This is very serious and this explains why many are Catholics who abandon the faith, (Fidelitei, no. 79, p. 8).


THE REAL BATTLE DOCTRINAL

In all revolutions, "the frenzy" and "terror" there is a time of consolidation in the new situation, a period of institutionalization. On the other hand it is foreseeable that, if returned there, it is gradual. So we know in advance that there will be phases - more confusing: next to a best in practice and perhaps the intention, a little more order (all relative to the worst ) there. will necessarily worsen over the clarity of things, the error will be misleading , and seductive, less obvious and more subtle, in short, much more dangerous... able to deceive even the elect. The error is more ambiguous and dangerous when it collects more to the truth, such as counterfeit currency.

So we know in advance that our struggle and our position will be less and less understood, more difficult to explain, justify and maintain. Things will necessarily evolve like that: it is necessary to a proper response from us, so to speak, inversely proportional to the confusion.

The three reasons cited above show that we are in this phase of a false restoration, of a false return. The attitude of the Pope and the Roman Curia, much more confused, contradictory, seductive and has the appearance of Tradition.

One must distinguish the good aspects of the current pontificate, incidental or occasional, education and leadership doctrine.

But our fight is doctrinal. This is the field of doctrine that is played in victory or defeat of faith and therefore of all church property.

Cardinal Pie said:
One would think that some men do not want some order in the facts as to revive the disorder with impunity in their minds, and they require some physical security in the sky that to have the right to again, without too much danger, the old fabric of their lies for a moment interrupted by fear? fools, for not yet understood that it is ultimately the field of doctrine that is won or lost the battles that decide the future! No, a whole portion of society can not keep it longer this attitude in which we are still condemned to painting: the pen still in hand to teach the same principles, under arms for exterminate the consequences down the happy evening in the street to shoot the acts caused by the doctrines and by the examples in the morning. Contradiction constantly renewed, and that will continue only so long as men who have some authority and some influence over their fellows, sincerely embrace the Christian truth and practice (Works, Vol. II, p. 170-171).


Fideliter said:
Cardinal Oddi said recently: "I am convinced that the break will not last long and that Archbishop Lefebvre regain the early Church of Rome." Also there be ready for the Pope and Cardinal Ratzinger felt that "Lefebvre" is not over. In your last letter you said the Holy Father to wait more time for the return of Rome to Tradition. What do you think of a possible resumption of talks with Rome?


Archbishop Lefebvre said:
We do not have the same way of thinking about reconciliation. Cardinal Ratzinger sees in the direction of reducing us, bring us back to Vatican II. We, as we see a return from Rome to Tradition. It does not get along. It is a dialogue of the deaf. I can not speak much for the future, because mine is behind me. But if I live a little and assuming that by some time Rome will make a call, we want to see us again, resume language, at that time it was I who would pose conditions. I will not accept as being in the situation we found ourselves at conferences. It's over.

I would ask the question in terms of doctrine: Do you agree with the great encyclicals of all the popes who preceded you. Is - that you agree with Quanta Cura of Pius IX, Immortale Dei, Libertas Leo XIII, Pius X Pascendi, Quas Primas of Pius XI, Pius XII, Humani Generis? Are you in full communion with the pope and with their claims? Do you still accept the anti-modernist oath? Do you support the social reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ?
If you do not accept the doctrine of your predecessors, it is unnecessary to speak. As you will not have agreed to reform the Council in considering the doctrine of the Popes who preceded you, there is no possibility of dialogue. It's useless.

The positions would be clearer as well.
This is not a small thing between us. It is not enough we are told: you can tell the old Mass, but we must accept that. No, it's not that we object to is the doctrine. It is clear. (Fideliter, NiO. 66, p. 12-14).


ENTER THE CONFLICT

IV. Move towards a practical agreement would be to deny our word and our commitments to our priests, our faithful, and Rome in front of everyone. This would have hugely negative consequences ad intra and ad extra.

There is no change in the doctrinal point of view from Rome that would justify ours. On the contrary, the discussions have shown they will not accept anything in our criticisms.

It would be absurd for us to go in the direction of a practical agreement after the result of discussions and findings. Otherwise, one would think that Msgr. Riffan and Father Aulagnier were right.

Such an approach would show a serious diplomatic weakness on the part of the fraternity, and indeed, more than diplomatic. It would be a lack of consistency, honesty and firmness, which would have effects like loss of credibility and moral authority we enjoy.

IMPLOSION OF BROTHERHOOD

V. The mere fact of us down this path will lead us in doubt, dispute, distrust, parties, and especially the division. Many superiors and priests have a legitimate problem of consciousness and will oppose it. The authority and the very principle of authority will be questioned, undermined.

We can not go to the trailer in our contacts with Rome, we must keep the commands, mark the time and conditions. So we need a line defined in advance, clear and firm, independent of stress and possible maneuvers Roman.

Accordingly, it is not the moment to change the decision of the Chapter of 2006 (no practical agreement without resolving the doctrinal issue) and it is not right or prudent to embark on preparing for the senses otherwise, before there is in us the conviction, consensus and the decision to change, otherwise the only cause division and, by reaction, a little war, anarchy.

WARNING ALLOWED

VI. The warning of RP Ferrer, secretary of the Cardo Cafiizares: "Do not agree with Rome, she can not keep it promise you." We received other warnings similar to Rome.

KEEP THE LINE

So what to do, what to say?

What we have better to do this is to keep the line that has ensured the cohesion and survival of the Brotherhood and gave lots of fruits vis-à-vis Rome to the Church. They hesitate, they begin to sell their building collapses, they can not live without us... Remain steadfast in our policy and expect that there are clear conditions secure and guaranteed. As reported Bishop. Lefebvre after the coronation, it will be, unfortunately, the situation worsens at home... until they are ready to release Vatican II.

We could answer that views the outcome of the discussions, for faithfulness and loyalty to God, to our consciousness, even to the Church and to the Holy See, we can not engage in a practical way first, but as we have already said, we remain open to cooperate or participate in a study and doctrinal criticism of the Council.

FOLLOW THE PROVIDENCE

If they then cut us a break from the constant voltage means that the contacts for the Brotherhood, would be welcome and, in my view, providential. Anyway, knowing they would soon long to talk with us.

In conclusion, we must not get ahead of Providence, it is she who will solve the crisis. We must be very careful about the temptation sub specie boni , avoid the rush, wait, and only go down that path when there will be no one doubts that Rome (the Pope) wants the Tradition, they have a fair idea of it, it is prudent and that it is the will of God. We need more reasons to change that line to stay in safe and proven that we have. However, the opposite happens.

Archbishop Lefebvre said:
Without dwelling on the fact that many things were not, the focus was on the high expectations that give rise to the charismatic and Pentecostal. In Rome, they want to be convinced of that. They stubbornly closed their eyes to the catastrophe of the Council and they are trying to accomplish , on the ruin to which they are currently leading the Church. And they want us to enter into this current. If we take a step in that direction, if we submit to authority without warranty, more or less long term, two, three or five years, we will lose the tradition. But we do not want to lose it. We therefore can not submit ourselves to authorities who want us to lose the tradition.

As I have already stated, if I went to Rome to discuss, it is because I wanted to try to see if we could reach agreement with the ecclesiastical authorities, while putting us away from their liberalism and safeguarding Tradition. Force me has been clear that no agreement could be reached that gives us both warranties and the belief that Rome wanted to sincerely contribute to the preservation of tradition.

I waited until June 5 to write to the Pope: "I'm sorry, but we can not hear us. You do not have the same goal as us. By this access, ord your goal is to bring us back to the Council. Mine is rather to be able to maintain outside the Council and its influences" (Fideliter, no. 68, p. 15).


BEWARE OF DANGER!

For the good of the Brotherhood and Tradition, must be closed as quickly as possible "Pandora's box", to avoid the stigma and the demolition of the authority, disputes, dissensions and divisions, perhaps no return.

In this sense, the real question to be answered laquelie esfla: what are the other requirements, ad intra and ad extra, in the hypothetical case of a proposal "good", totally acceptable in itself, to try to make an agreement?

The authorities cited by Archbishop Lefebvre allow us to spread it with clarity and firmness.

+ Bishop Alfonso de Galarreta

Source website



Fellay argues case for reconciliation with Rome.
Posted on May 12, 2012 Leave a Comment

Letter of the General Council of the Society of Saint Pius X.

We publish an important letter from the Superior General of the Society of St Pius X (SSPX), Bishop Bernard Fellay, together with two other members of the Society’s General Council, First Assistant Fr. Niklaus Pfluger and Second Assistant Fr. Alain-Marc Nély.  The letter is dated April 14, 2012 and has been addressed to the other SSPX bishops Tissier de Mallerais, Williamson, and De Galarreta.

The letter is of great moment.  It indicates that Bishop Fellay and his team are attempting to lead the SSPX toward a final resolution of its canonical status in union with Rome. The letter explains the policy of the General Council in its negotiations with Rome.  However, the letter also indicates that Fellay is at odds with the other three SSPX bishops and that, unless he can win them over, a real schism that could develop around the intransigent three.

This letter was first translated by, and published on, the Rorate Caeli blogspot.




The Most Reverend Tissier de Mallerais, Williamson, and De Galarreta

Your Excellencies,

Your collective letter addressed to the members of the General Council received our full attention. We thank you for your solicitude and charity. Allow us in our turn, with the same concern for justice and charity, to make the following observations.

First of all, the letter indeed mentions the gravity of the crisis gripping the Church and precisely analyzes the nature of the ambient errors that pullulate in the Church. Nonetheless, the description is marred by two defects in relation to the reality in the Church: it is lacking in a supernatural spirit and at the same time it lacks realism.

The description lacks a supernatural spirit. To read your letter, one seriously wonders if you still believe that the visible Church whose seat is at Rome is indeed the Church of Our Lord Jesus Christ, a Church horribly disfigured, to be sure, a planta pedis usque ad verticem capitis, but a Church that in spite of all still has as its head Our Lord Jesus Christ. One gets the impression that you have been so scandalized that you no longer accept that it can still be the true Church. For you, it would seem to be a question whether Benedict XVI is still the legitimate pope. And if he is, there is a question as to whether Jesus Christ can still speak through him. If the pope expresses a legitimate will concerning us which is good and which does not order anything contrary to the commandments of God, have we the right to neglect or to dismiss this will? Otherwise, on what principle do you base your actions? Do you not believe that if Our Lord commands us, He will also give us the means to carry on our work? Now, the pope has let us know that an abiding concern for the regularization of our situation for the good of the Church lies at the very heart of his pontificate, and also that he knew very well that it would be easier both for him and for us to leave things as they stand now. And so it is indeed a decided and legitimate will that he is expressing.

With the attitude you recommend, no room is left for the Gideons or the Davids or for those who count on the Lord’s help. You reproach us with being naïve or fearful, but rather it is your vision of the Church that is too human, and even fatalistic. You see the dangers, the plots, the difficulties, but you no longer see the assistance of grace and of the Holy Ghost. If one grants that Divine Providence leads the affairs of men while safeguarding their liberty, it is also needful to admit that the gestures in our favor over the last several years are also under its guidance. Now, they trace a line– not straight–but clearly in favor of Tradition. Why should this suddenly stop when we are doing our utmost to be faithful and to intensify our prayer? Will the good God let us fall at the most critical moment? That does not make a lot of sense, especially as we are not trying to impose on Him the least self-will, but are trying to examine events closely so as to discern what God wants, and being disposed to all that shall please Him. At the same time, your description is lacking in realism as regards both the degree of the errors and their extent.

Degree: Within the Society, some are making the conciliar errors into super heresies, absolute evil, worse than anything, in the same way that the liberals have dogmatized this pastoral council. The evils are sufficiently dramatic; there is hardly any reason to exaggerate them further (cf. Roberto de Mattei, Une histoire jamais écrite, p. 22; Mgr. Gherardini, Un débat à ouvrir, p. 53, etc.). Needful distinctions are not being made, whereas Mgr. Lefebvre did make the necessary distinctions on the subject of liberals several times. i This failure to distinguish is leading one or the other of you to a hardening of your position. This is a grave matter because this caricature no longer corresponds with reality and in future it will logically end in a real schism. And it may well be that this fact is one of the arguments that urges me to delay no longer in responding to the Roman authorities.

Extent: On the one hand, you saddle the current authorities with all the errors and evils to be found in the Church while leaving aside the fact that they are trying at least partly to disengage themselves from the most serious of them (the condemnation of the “hermeneutic of rupture” denounces real errors). On the other hand, you act as if ALL of them are implicated in this pertinacity (“they’re all modernists,” “all are rotten”). Now that is manifestly false. The great majority are still caught up in the movement, but not all.

So that, coming to the most crucial question, the possibility of our surviving in the conditions of recognition of the Society by Rome, we do not reach the same conclusion as you do.

Let us note in passing that it was not we who were looking for a practical agreement. That is untrue. We have not refused a priori to consider, as you ask, the Pope’s offer. For the common good of the Society, we would prefer by far the current solution of an intermediary status quo, but clearly, Rome is not going to tolerate it any longer.

In itself, the solution of the proposed personal prelature is not a trap. This is apparent from the fact, first of all, that the present situation in April 2012 is quite different from that of 1988. To pretend that nothing has changed is an historical error. The same evils afflict the Church, the consequences are even worse and more obvious than before; but at the same time we have observed a change of attitude in the Church, helped by the gestures and acts of Benedict XVI toward Tradition. This new movement, which began at least ten years ago, has been growing. It has reached a good number (still a minority) of young priests, seminarians, and even includes a small number of young bishops who clearly stand out from their predecessors, who confide in us their sympathy and support, but who are still pretty well stifled by the dominant line in the hierarchy in favor of Vatican II. This hierarchy is losing speed. This perception is not an illusion, and it shows that it is no longer illusory for us to contemplate an “intramural” struggle, the difficulty of which we are not unaware. I have been able to observe at Rome that however much the talk about the glories of Vatican II we’ll be dinned with is still on the lips of many, it is no longer in people’s heads. Fewer and fewer believe it.

This concrete situation, with the canonical solution that has been proposed, is quite different from that of 1988. And when we compare the arguments that Archbishop Lefebvre made at the time, we conclude that he would not have hesitated to accept what is being proposed to us. Let us not lose our sense of the Church, which was so strong in our venerated founder.

The history of the Church shows that recovery from the conflicts that beset it usually occurs gradually, slowly. And once one problem is resolved, something else starts up—oportet haereses esse. To require that we wait until everything is regulated before reaching what you call a practical agreement is not realistic. Seeing how things happen, it is likely that it will take decades for this crisis to come to an end. But to refuse to work in the field because there are still weeds that may crowd out or hamper the good grain is a curious reading of the Biblical lesson: It is our Lord Himself who gave us to understand by the parable of the wheat and the cockle that there will always be, in one form or another, weeds to be uprooted and grappled with in His Church…

You cannot know how your attitude these last months–quite different for each one of you–has been hard on us. It has kept the Superior General from communicating and sharing with you these weighty matters, in which he would have so willingly involved you had he not found himself before such a strong and passionate incomprehension. How he would have liked to be able to count on you, on your advice and counsel at such a delicate passage in our history. It has been a great trial, perhaps the greatest of his superiorate. Our venerated founder gave the bishops of the Society a precise function and duties. He made it clear that the unifying principle of our society is the Superior General. But for some time now, you have tried, each in his own way, to impose on him your point of view, even in the form of threats, even publically. This dialectic between truth and faith on one side and authority on the other is contrary to the spirit of the priesthood. At least he might have hoped that you would try to understand the arguments that have moved him to act as he has these last years, according to the will of Divine Providence.

We do pray for each one of you, that in this battle which is far from being over we may find ourselves all together for the greater glory of God and for the love of our dear Society.

May our Risen Lord and our Lady deign to protect you and bless you,

+Bernard Fellay

Niklaus Pfluger+

Alain-Marc Nély+