Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: Matthew on July 10, 2012, 01:51:32 PM
-
Dear all,
Please find attached a comprehensive critique (English translation of the original French) by Mgr de Galarreta of the original version of the Doctrinal Preamble received by Mgr Fellay from Cardinal Levada on 14th September 2011 (but which is substantially the same as the "modified" version received by Mgr Fellay from Cardinal Levada on 13th June 2012, as confirmed by the internal circular letter of 25th June 2012 of Fr Thouvenot, the General Secretary of the SSPX). The Doctrinal Preamble was presented by Mgr Fellay during the meeting of the General Chapter of the SSPX which took place at Albano on 7-8th October 2011.
After this meeting, Menzingen (the General House of the SSPX) issued a press communiqué stating that "the twenty-eight persons in charge of the Society of St Pius X present at the meeting – seminary rectors, district superiors from all over the world – manifested a profound unity in their will to maintain the Faith in its integrity and its fullness, faithful to the lesson which Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre left them, according to St Paul’s “Tradidi quod et accepi – I have handed over what I myself have received” (I Cor 15:3)."
(Links:
www.dici.org/en/news/press-release-from-the-general-house-of-the-priestly-society-of-st-pius-x/
www.dici.org/actualites/communique-de-la-maison-generale-de-la-fraternite-sacerdotale-saint-pie-x-albano/)
As Fr Paul Morgan, Superior of British District of the SSPX, stated in the November 2011 issue of the British District newsletter (which was published in late October 2011): "... the stated consensus of those in attendance was that the Doctrinal Preamble was clearly unacceptable and the time has certainly not come to pursue any practical agreement as long as the doctrinal issues remain outstanding. It was also agreed that the Society should continue its work of insisting upon the doctrinal questions in any contacts with the Roman authorities."
It is my understanding that the rejection of the Doctrinal Preamble by the majority of the superiors in attendance was almost entirely as a result of the forceful and logical arguments presented by Mgr de Galarreta in the attached study.
Yours in Christ,
PS - You will not find a copy of the November 2011 newsletter on the website of the British District of the SSPX (www.sspx.co.uk), as an instruction was received by Menzingen for its removal, as confirmed in the press communiqué by Menzingen of 2nd November 2011:
"Since the meeting of the seminary Rectors and District Superiors of the Society of St. Pius X in Albano (Italy) on October 7, 2011, several comments have been published in the press about the answer that Bishop Bernard Fellay should give to the Roman propositions of September 14th.
It has to be recalled that only the SSPX’s General House has the competency to publish an official communique or authorized comment on the subject."
(Links:
www.dici.org/en/news/press-release-from-the-general-house-of-the-priestly-society-of-st-pius-x-november-2-2011/
www.dici.org/actualites/communique-de-la-maison-generale-de-la-fraternite-saint-pie-x-2-novembre-2011/)
-
Matthew,
What is the difference between this translation and the one I placed on another thread?
-
Well, apparently several people didn't notice the other one.
My wife told me the same thing -- that it was already posted here.
But the "11 downloads" suggests that this translation is "news" for many people.
This is a real translation, too, not a Google translation attempt.
I just received it by e-mail this morning.
-
Could it be any more persuasive? How does Menzingen argue against that?
-
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 minds otherwise, before there is in us the conviction, consensus and the decision to change, otherwise it will only cause division and, by reaction, squabbling, anarchy.
How should we understand this? Is Bishop de Galarreta saying that they, those who decide SSPX's future including himself, should wait until they get the conviction to change?
He seems to be more worried because of the possible reaction than because of the agreement itself. He is even talking about preparing minds.
Do we have here something like Bolsheviks and Mensheviks? If so, Bishop Fellay would be among Bolsheviks, while Bishop de Galarreta would be among Mensheviks. Both walking in the same direction, but one being more prudent, going more slowly than the other.
-
Dear all,
Please find attached ...
... PS - You will not find a copy of the November 2011 newsletter on the website of the British District of the SSPX (www.sspx.co.uk), as an instruction was received by Menzingen for its removal, as confirmed in the press communiqué by Menzingen of 2nd November 2011: ...
...It has to be recalled that only the SSPX’s General House has the competency to publish an official communique or authorized comment on the subject."
...
If Eric Idle, Terry Jones or John Cleese were to comment on this, they would say
that, "As I recall, it has to be recalled that it has to be recalled; if, that is, I recall."
-
Well, apparently several people didn't notice the other one.
My wife told me the same thing -- that it was already posted here.
But the "11 downloads" suggests that this translation is "news" for many people.
This is a real translation, too, not a Google translation attempt.
I just received it by e-mail this morning.
The layout is the same as the one I posted. Are you sure it is an improved translation?
-
Well, apparently several people didn't notice the other one.
My wife told me the same thing -- that it was already posted here.
But the "11 downloads" suggests that this translation is "news" for many people.
This is a real translation, too, not a Google translation attempt.
I just received it by e-mail this morning.
Matthew, I just did a pdf comparison between the docuмent I posted and the docuмent you posted and they are identical. You must have gotten the docuмent from someone that it was originally e-mailed to or someone who received it up the line.
-
Well, apparently several people didn't notice the other one.
My wife told me the same thing -- that it was already posted here.
But the "11 downloads" suggests that this translation is "news" for many people.
This is a real translation, too, not a Google translation attempt.
I just received it by e-mail this morning.
Matthew, I just did a pdf comparison between the docuмent I posted and the docuмent you posted and they are identical. You must have gotten the docuмent from someone that it was originally e-mailed to or someone who received it up the line.
And by the way, it is a Google based translation with modifications. So much for your criticism of Google. :dancing-banana:
-
After this meeting, Menzingen (the General House of the SSPX) issued a press communiqué stating that "the twenty-eight persons in charge of the Society of St Pius X present at the meeting – seminary rectors, district superiors from all over the world – manifested a profound unity in their will to maintain the Faith in its integrity and its fullness, faithful to the lesson which Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre left them, according to St Paul’s “Tradidi quod et accepi – I have handed over what I myself have received” (I Cor 15:3)."
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/ (http://www.catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/defense/mdsspx.htm)
Part Ten of the Series:
The Illicit Episcopal Consecrations of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre
"Far be it from me to set myself up as pope! I am simply a bishop of the Catholic Church who is continuing to transmit Catholic doctrine. I think, and this will certainly not be too far off, that you will be able to engrave on my tombstone these words of St. Paul: 'Tradidi quod et accepi - I have transmitted to you what I have received,' nothing else. I am just the postman bringing you a letter. I did not write the letter, the message, this Word of God. God Himself wrote it; Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself gave it to us. As for us, we just handed it down, through these dear priests here present and through all those who have chosen to resist this wave of apostasy in the Church, by keeping the Eternal Faith and giving it to the faithful. . . "
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, June 30, 1988
-
My previous post is an excerpt of a much larger web page. It is rather appropriate for
the topic of this docuмent from Bp de Galarreta (which no one seems capable of
accurately translating from the French!) in many ways, for it touches on the danger
of the SSPX becoming required to adopt Modernist principles if it were to become
regularized under similar conditions that other traditional groups have been such
as Campos in Brazil. Here is a larger excerpt from the same page. While I could
find no date of publication for this work by Derksen, it seems it would have been
around 1990, for he always refers to JPII as Pope and no dates beyond that are
found at first glance. B16's policies are exactly in line with his predecessor's for
they are of the same mind in doctrinal matters, so this is effectively applicable to
our present year of 2012:
(What I have copied is the last paragraph of Part 9, and all of Part 10 --
I have embedded the links as found in the original, for your convenience.)
A Defense of the Society of St. Pius X and it's current legal Status (http://www.catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/defense/mdsspx.htm)
by Mario Derksen
The Illicit Episcopal Consecrations of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre
Part 1: Refuting Claims of Excommunication Before June 30, 1988
Part 2: Bait and Switch!
Part 3: Canon Backfire!
Part 4: Salvation of souls is the paramount necessity!
Part 5: Schism or the Syllogism of Truth?
Part 6: Why not the indult?
Part 7: True Papal Authority and the Necessity of Keeping the Faith Alive
Part 8: Rome is burning and still the Pope refuses to recognize the fires of destruction
Part 9: Salvation of souls is the issue!
Part 10: Illusion and Appearance
Part 11: Admissions of Acceptance
Part 12: The Illicit Episcopal Consecrations of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre
[end of Part 9 of the series]:
Objection 24: So, precisely what harmful or sinful thing did John Paul II command Archbishop Lefebvre to do? You can't tell me that not allowing him to consecrate bishops is harmful or sinful!
Answer: Looked at in the light of the entire discourse with Lefebvre and the past 40 years, it is indeed. Let me explain. Since the closing of Vatican II in 1965 and the imposition of the New Mass in 1969, Rome has not allowed any man to be ordained a bishop who was either at odds with Vatican II or opposed the New Mass. But one cannot agree with everything Vatican II say - specifically not religious liberty or that the Muslims adore the True God - and endorse or tolerate the New Mass and still be an orthodox Catholic, so it follows that since the mid to late 1960's, Rome has not permitted a single orthodox Catholic to become a bishop. This is outrageous! More than 30 years without a single good bishop, that is, without a single bishop who teaches nothing but sound doctrine and only allows traditional, orthodox liturgy! This means that we exclusively have shepherds who are not fit to be our shepherds! Now, certainly, some, perhaps many, Novus Ordo bishops are entirely sincere and have a great love for Christ, His Mother, and the Church, and sincerely wish to do the right thing. But sincerity is not at issue here. A bishop who sincerely teaches Vatican II is nevertheless very dangerous to souls. Being led to hell sincerely helps one not in the least. So, personally sincere or not, it doesn't matter. It remains an objective truth that the Novus Ordo bishops we now have are either deceivers or deceived. And that means we have a horrendous state of emergency in the Church. So, given this background, and given that in 1988, just after the first Assisi fiasco from 1986, there were no signs at all that this was going to change soon (and of course, as expected, it got a lot worse, as we now know), and so the Pope's command to Lefebvre not to ordain those four bishops really constituted a refusal of the Pope to allow the continuation and spread of the True Catholic Faith-and that is obviously sinful and harmful to the Faith and the salvation of countless souls, which is the Church's highest law. Let's remember that Rome's back-and-forth trickery had made it clear to Lefebvre that there was no interest on Rome's part to assure a successor to Lefebvre and the continuation of the SSPX and the True Catholic Faith, and so we cannot look at the papal prohibition to consecrate bishops on June 30, 1988, in isolation. It has to be viewed within the entire context of the debacle since Vatican II, and so viewed, it becomes clear that the survival of authentic Catholicism was at stake and thus the salvation of souls put in grave danger. Therefore, John Paul II's refusal to let Lefebvre consecrate on that specific day was both sinful and harmful to souls.
Illusion and Appearance
Part Ten of the Series:
The Illicit Episcopal Consecrations of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre
"Far be it from me to set myself up as pope! I am simply a bishop of the Catholic Church who is continuing to transmit Catholic doctrine. I think, and this will certainly not be too far off, that you will be able to engrave on my tombstone these words of St. Paul: 'Tradidi quod et accepi - I have transmitted to you what I have received,' nothing else. I am just the postman bringing you a letter. I did not write the letter, the message, this Word of God. God Himself wrote it; Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself gave it to us. As for us, we just handed it down, through these dear priests here present and through all those who have chosen to resist this wave of apostasy in the Church, by keeping the Eternal Faith and giving it to the faithful. . . "
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, June 30, 1988
I am now continuing to answer objections that can be or have been brought up against my theses in installments 1-5 (http://www.dailycatholic.org/2003mdi.htm), which exonerate Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishops Antonio de Castro Mayer, Richard Williamson, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Alfonso de Galarreta, and Bernard Fellay from the charges of excommunication and schism due to the illicit episcopal consecrations of June 30, 1988. In installments 6-9 (http://www.dailycatholic.org/2003mdi.htm), I answered 24 possible objections. This is where I'm picking up now.
Objection 25: You traditionalists from the SSPX are hypocrites. Look at what your dearly-beloved Pope St. Pius X said in a speech in 1909: "Do not allow yourselves to be deceived by the cunning statements of those who persistently claim to wish to be with the Church, to love the Church, to fight so that people do not leave Her... But judge them by their works. If they despise the shepherds of the Church and even the Pope, if they attempt all means of evading their authority in order to elude their directives and judgments..., then about which Church do these men mean to speak? Certainly not about that established on the foundations of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus Himself as the cornerstone (Eph. 2:20)" [Pope St. Pius X (May 10, 1909)]. Is this not precisely what the SSPX has been doing, trying to evade the authority of the Pope and the other ecclesial superiors in the Vatican while always saying that they love the Church and fight for her?
Answer: This is surely a most favorite passage for Novus Ordos to quote against traditionalists, especially since it came from the great St. Pius X. Clearly, what we have here is the Neocatholics trying to fight us with our own weapons, but it really amounts to not much more than beating a person with his own arm. Of course, St. Pius X had in mind exactly those very people who are today running the Church: the modernists. He chastises them for their lip service to the Pope and the Magisterium while they are actually working to undermine the Church. It would be preposterous to suggest that once these very people he condemned are actually in charge of the Church, that we should then no longer seek to defend the Truth and appeal to perennial Church teaching and discipline in order to protect ourselves from their errors, their novelties, their spiritual danger and harm. The very hierarchy of the Newchurch is the one that "despise[es] the [previous] shepherds of the Church and even the Pope" by attempting "all means of evading their authority in order to elude their directives and judgments…."
Let's face it: the modernists at Vatican II broke and circuмvented their anti-modernist oath, which they all had to take as a requirement for ordination. Today's hierarchy thinks it is no longer bound to obey previous Church doctrines, as they are "outdated," "pre-Vatican II," or simply "belong to the past." They may not put it that way, but we can always see that when they appeal to the "development" of these doctrines that has supposedly occurred with or after Vatican II. Vatican II is now used, legitimately or not, as an excuse to ignore, contradict, or obfuscate perennial Church teaching. Does not John Paul II claim to be a devoted son of Mary? Does he not pretend to defend and love the Church and her teachings? Does not Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz claim to be orthodox? Does not Cardinal Hoyos claim to respect and love the Traditional Mass? Make no mistake about it: it is those very people that are now running the Church that St. Pius X talked about when he made his statements about those who only claim to fight for the Church when they are actually disobeying Church authority, doctrine, and discipline. Somehow, people nowadays think that being loyal to the Church only means being loyal to what's coming from the Vatican right now, as though they could safely disregard the warnings, admonitions, teachings, and condemnations of the previous 2,000 years, as long as the "current Vatican" pretends that they are no longer relevant, applicable, or in force. Case in point: the Vatican's de facto teaching that the Jews are in a saving covenant with God, and that they need not become Catholic to go to Heaven. If that doesn't contradict perennial Church teaching, then the word "contradict" has no meaning.
Through the horrendous decisions of John XXIII just before Vatican II, many of the heterodox "theologians" who have shaped the post-conciliar church were rehabilitated practically overnight. Take Fr. John Courtney Murrary, S.J., for example. In 1955, he was forbidden to propagate his heterodox theory of religious liberty. Ten years later this very heresy was "official Church teaching," as they like to call it.
I appeal to you, dear reader, to examine the fruits. Examine the fruits of the teachings of traditional Catholicism, and then compare those fruits to those of the Novus Ordo church---and you tell me which is the rotten tree. You tell me who is really loyal to the Pope (not just the current Pope but all Popes!) and who really loves the Church. In his speech of May 10, 1909, St. Pius X mentioned that if those heretics and dissenters he was rebuking indeed love and defend "the church," then we're no longer talking about the same church! And this is eminently clear now. There is no question that people like John Paul II, Cardinal Ratzinger, Cardinal Arinze, Cardinal Kasper, George Weigel, etc., no longer have an accurate picture of the Church. For them, the "church" starts with Vatican II, for all practical purposes. They look at the Church through the irremovable prism of Vatican II, and what they see is not the Catholic Church but some sick mockery of the Holy Church. How accurate was the vision that the Venerable Anne Catherine Emmerich received of the "new church" that the modernists have been building?
"I saw many pastors cherishing dangerous ideas against the Church. . . . They built a large, singular, extravagant church which was to embrace all creeds with equal rights: Evangelicals, Catholics, and all denominations, a true communion of the unholy with one shepherd and one flock. There was to be a Pope, a salaried Pope, without possessions. All was made ready, many things finished; but, in place of an altar, were only abomination and desolation. Such was the new church to be, and it was for it that he had set fire to the old one; but God designed otherwise" (K. E. Schmoger, Life and Revelations of Anne Catherine Emmerich (http://www.tanbooks.com/?page=shop/flypage&product_id=184&), Vol. 2, pp. 352-53).
And this is why the SSPX bishops, prudent as they are, refused to fall into the "Campos trap," and we thank God for that. Campos thinks it has finally reached the long-desired goal, full acknowledgement by Rome and the traditional Faith and Mass. But they have apparently still not understood how things work in Rome. The New Religion of the New Vatican and the traditional Faith or the traditional Mass do not go together. And Rome will not tolerate the Old Faith. Before long, Campos will have to fully walk in line with the New Religion or face charges of dissent, insubordination, schism, excommunication. I know of no single indult community that has not yet had to compromise. And it will be no different for Campos. The SSPX bishops warned Campos, but they would not listen. In my personal estimation, the death of John Paul II will herald the death of the indult. They may wait with Campos until Bishop Rifan grows old and wants a new bishop, before they will confront them with the choice of either the New Religion or Excommunication. And then it will be 1988 all over again, so to speak.
The Neocatholic objection to the traditionalist and especially SSPX position here by quoting St. Pius X is one more piece of evidence that they have fallen into the trap that the Masonic blueprint for the subversion of the Catholic Church, the Permanent Instruction of the Alta Vendita, has laid: "You wish to establish the reign of the chosen ones on the throne of the prostitute of Babylon, let the Clergy march under your standard, always believing that they are marching under the banner of the apostolic Keys" (please see John Vennari's lecture on the evidence of the Masonic infiltration of the Catholic Church (http://www.catholicintl.com/index.asp?page=Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ.asp&dir=epologetics)). And so now since the pontificate of John XXIII, we have had the blind leading the blind! What is the result? They "both fall into the pit" (Matthew 15:14).
Objection 26: The truth is that the SSPX suspend obedience to the Pope to such a degree that, in reality, they do not acknowledge his superiority at all. Anything the pope says is questioned, meticulously dissected, and critiqued by the SSPX.
Answer: Unfortunately, the situation in the Church has reached such a horrendous state that it is indeed most prudent to dissect everything that comes from this Pope. I mean, let's put it bluntly: our Pope is a modernist. I believe he is also a Sillonist, a humanist, and an indifferentist. It would be the height of foolishness to simply take everything that comes out of Rome and accept it. We must be so stringent because we must take very good care of our souls, as the True Faith is the most precious pearl we have! It is a most lamentable pity that this is how we must proceed, but the state of the Church and the salvation of souls simply requires it. This has nothing to do with denying his authority or superiority.
Objection 27: As regards the SSPX's defense against the accusation of schism, Pope John Paul II warned Archbishop Lefebvre that the illicit consecration would be interpreted by him to be a schismatic act. In his letter to Archbishop Lefebvre dated June 9, 1988, the Pope wrote: "I exhort you, Reverend Brother, not to embark upon a course which, if persisted in, cannot but appear as a schismatic act whose inevitable theological and canonical consequences are known to you." Therefore, Lefebvre cannot say after the consecrations that the schismatic nature of his act is not in canon law, as the Supreme Legislator, the authentic interpreter of Canon Law, the Pope, made clear to him that his act would be considered schismatic. So there.
Answer: Please go back and read my answer to Objection 1 (http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/2003Mar/1marmdi.htm), for it deals with what constitutes a schismatic act, and that is not arbitrary, which is what it would be if it depended merely on the Pope's say-so and nothing else. The truth is that a papal statement on whether something is schismatic is neither sufficient nor necessary in order to make it schismatic. So, even if John Paul II told Archbishop Lefebvre that he would consider his illicit consecration a schismatic act, that by itself doesn't make it schismatic. Yes, John Paul II is the authentic and ultimate interpreter of Canon Law, but interpreting existing canons is one thing; inventing new ones is another.
Now, of course the Pope can very well add new canons to the Code. But my main argument here is that the Pope cannot make something schismatic that is not inherently so, and besides, though the Pope mentioned this in a private letter to the Archbishop, this was not included in the canonical warning of June 17, 1988! In fact, as I said before, absolutely no mention of schism was made in the canonical warning of June 17! None whatsoever!! The only issue was excommunication.
Now, what is Archbishop Lefebvre expected to go by as far as the canonical issues are concerned if not the Vatican's very own canonical warning? For all we know, Archbishop Lefebvre could have thought that the Pope had withdrawn his caveat of schism since it was no longer mentioned in the canonical warning. It should be clear that as far as canonical weight is concerned, the canonical warning trumps the private letter.
But even aside from that, we can still argue that John Paul II was not clear enough in his letter. In fact, obfuscation, ambiguity, and vagueness are the hallmarks of John Paul II's writings, and so we should not be surprised that the Pope was not precise or clear in his June 17th letter to Archbishop Lefebvre, either. He said: "I exhort you, Reverend Brother, not to embark upon a course which, if persisted in, cannot but appear as a schismatic act whose inevitable theological and canonical consequences are known to you." Now, let's examine this closely: John Paul says that Lefebvre's looming illicit consecrations would "appear" schismatic. Why the vagueness? Are we to conclude that the Pope is trying to say it would merely "appear" schismatic, as opposed to actually be schismatic, perhaps? I can find no reason why the Pope would choose to write "cannot but appear schismatic" when he could have very well written "is schismatic" or "cannot but be schismatic." Besides, something that merely appears can appear in one way to one person and in another way to another person. So when the Pope says that Lefebvre's illicit consecrations will "appear" schismatic, we must ask: to whom? To the Pope? To the clergy? To the faithful? To the world? We are not told.
Of course, we know that upon the day of consecration, during his sermon, Archbishop Lefebvre made it crystal-clear that there was no spirit of schism involved:
"We are not schismatics! . . .There is no question of us separating ourselves from Rome, nor of putting ourselves under a foreign government, nor of establishing a sort of parallel church as the Bishops of Palmar de Troya have done in Spain. . . . It is out of the question for us to do such things. Far from us be this miserable thought to separate ourselves from Rome! On the contrary, it is in order to manifest our attachment to Rome that we are performing this ceremony. It is in order to manifest our attachment to the Eternal Rome, to the Pope, and to all those who have preceded these last Popes who, unfortunately since the Second Vatican Council, have thought it their duty to adhere to grievous errors which are demolishing the Church and the Catholic Priesthood. . . . Far be it from me to set myself up as pope! I am simply a bishop of the Catholic Church who is continuing to transmit Catholic doctrine. I think, and this will certainly not be too far off, that you will be able to engrave on my tombstone these words of St. Paul: "Tradidi quod et accepi - I have transmitted to you what I have received," nothing else. I am just the postman bringing you a letter. I did not write the letter, the message, this Word of God. God Himself wrote it; Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself gave it to us. As for us, we just handed it down, through these dear priests here present and through all those who have chosen to resist this wave of apostasy in the Church, by keeping the Eternal Faith and giving it to the faithful. . . . We have done all we could, trying to help Rome to understand that they had to come back to the attitudes of the holy Pius XII and of all his predecessors. Bishop de Castro Mayer and myself have gone to Rome, we have spoken, we have sent letters, several times to Rome. We have tried by these talks, by all these means, to succeed in making Rome understand that, since the Council and since aggiornamento, this change which has occurred in the Church is not Catholic, is not in conformity to the doctrine of all times. This ecuмenism and all these errors, this collegiality - all this is contrary to the Faith of the Church, and is in the process of destroying the Church. This is why we are convinced that, by the act of these consecrations today, we are obeying the call of these Popes and as a consequence the call of God, since they represent Our Lord Jesus Christ in the Church."
[from www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Episcopal-Consecration.htm (http://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Episcopal-Consecration.htm)]
Dear readers, I ask you now: are these the words of a stubborn schismatic, someone who denies the authority of the Pope or wishes to separate himself from him?
As an aside, I wish to mention that if Pope John Paul II were truly worried about what might appear schismatic, he wouldn't kiss the Koran, hold hands with the Eastern Orthodox (who deny the primacy of the Pope and several dogmas), allow them to receive Catholic sacraments under certain conditions, or give credence to their false, damnable religion by acknowledging them as "sister churches." Nor would he clear a convent's rooms of Catholic items so that pagans can offer sacrifices to their demons and false deities.*
In light of all that, his supposed concern about what would "appear schismatic" appears - pardon the pun! - without serious foundation.
*[It seems to me Derksen refers here to the preparations that were made at
the convent in Assisi before the interreligious meetings of 1986 and 2001.]
[The web page quoted above is one small part of a much larger archive of
traditional Catholic information found readily accessible for free using the INDEX
page of the parent site. Here is a glimpse at the sub-index page you can find by
selecting "Apologetics" under TOPICS (on the left side by the angels) and then
"Defense of Archbishop Lefebvre and the Society of St. Pius X" (on the right side
under "What's your question" by the other angels). The page from which the
above is quoted is linked here, below, where the bolded title is "A Defense of the
Society... Derksen." I have not embedded these links. If you want to view them
access the main site by clicking here (http://www.catholicapologetics.info/), and then after the Home page loads,
then follow the steps I just described in this paragraph.]:
Michael Voris (Real Catholic TV) - Interview on the SSPX
A Conciliar Theologians Question on The SSPX and current situation
On Current Negotiation with Rome
Cardinal Castrillón: SSPX not in schism
Msgr. Brunero Gherardini's view of the SSPX and the current situation in the Church.
Papal Letter on the lifting of the (unjust) excommunication on the SSPX
The Papal Decree itself (for historical Purposes).
A Catholic Analysis of the Traditional Catholic Position
A Defense of the Society of St. Pius X and it's current legal Status-By Mario Derksen
Faq's on the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X - By Bishop Richard Williamson
Abp. Marcel Lefebvre and the Society of St. Pius X - by Michael Davies
A Canonica & Theological Study on the SSPX - by SISI NONO
Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre - by Michael Davies
More from Michael Davies
The Case of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre - a Trial by Canon Law - by Charles Nemeth
The Church Laws and the Legal Status of the SSPX
Mgr. Lefebvre & Religious Liberty
The Suppressed interview with Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre
Vatican Admits Society of Saint Pius X Masses Fulfill Sunday Obligation
A Handbook for Catholics in the Current Crisis - A great work as it helps clarify all those annoying questions
THE SSPX & Its Approval by Rome
An Open Letter to Confused Catholics - by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre
A Canonical Study: The Validity of Confessions and Marriages in SSPX - by Fr. Ramon Angles
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre - A short biography By Father Ramon Angles
The Three great gifts of God - The Papacy, the Eucharist and the Blessed Virgin Mary - By Archbishop Lefebvre
Where is the real Schism ? - By Christopher A. Ferrara
Pharisaic Scandal! - - Are you Scandalized?
Our Declaration of Faith - By Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre
Letter of St. Athanasius - Apt words for our time!
What are Catholics to think of the Indult Mass?
"The true friends of the people are neither innovators, nor revolutionaries, but traditionalists"-Pope St. Pius X , (Letter on the Sillon, 25 August 1910).
CATHOLIC APOLOGETICS INFORMATION
-
There is one reference to "Summer 1996 issue of the Latin Mass" regarding a
quote by Fr. Murray (Fr. Gerard E. Murray, J.C.D., of the Catholic University of
America), in the Answer to Objection 28 (contained in Part 11, which I did not
copy in my previous post). Therefore, Derksen's work was probably published
after 1996.
-
The key paragraph is a quote from ABL at the end of III. The Doctrinal Question ...
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.
Thus, the positions will be clear. The stakes are not small.
We are not content when they say to us, “You may say the traditional Mass, but you must accept the Council.
What opposes us is doctrine; it is clear. (Fideliter, No. 66, p. 12-14)
*When he says, "the correction of the Council," he is leaving a WEAKNESS open
for the Modernists to use to their advantage. Vatican II cannot be corrected. As a
friend told me, so long as you give Modernists a chance to "interpret Vatican II" or
to somehow "work with it" to get sound teaching and principles, you are going to
lose. They will weasel their corruptions into whatever they touch, infected hands
that they are. The principles you get will not be sound, they will be corrupted, for
no Modernist will deign to approve such a thing without having it include his
version of reality, which is subjectivism itself. Canon Gregory Hesse tried for 15
years to evoke some kind of Catholic sense from the docuмents of Vatican II and
he concluded it is impossible. Modernism is everywhere in them, like a contagion
and a plague, in the very language that is used. It is irreparable. It must be
discarded wholesale. It is of no use whatsoever. As soon as you admit one small
piece of it, you open the door to admitting the whole of it. It's a losing battle.
The key summary is the last paragraph by +de Galarreta:
BEWARE OF DANGER!
For the good of the Fraternity and Tradition, "Pandora's box" must be closed as quickly as possible, to avoid the
stigma and the demolition of the authority, disputes, dissensions and divisions, perhaps with no return. In this
sense, the real question that needs answering is: what are the other requirements, ad intra and ad extra, in the
case of a hypothetical "good" proposal, completely acceptable in itself, for us to try to make an agreement?
The authorities cited by Archbishop Lefebvre allow us to answer them with clarity and firmness.
+Bishop Alfonso de Galarreta
In other words, even if a hypothetical, good proposal, completely acceptable in itself, were
to be brought forth for our approval, what we would see there is not the whole of reality. It
would not honestly represent the "ins and outs" of what we would face once we experience
the application of its implementation over subsequent years. "What are the other
requirements, you know: the requirements that are not to be found, literally, in the
proposal itself? To know what would be required of us, since experience is our teacher (read:
ONCE BITTEN TWICE SHY) we refer back to the authorities cited by Archbishop Lefebvre, for
they allow us to answer this question, to know what would be required of us, with clarity and
firmness.
These SSPX bishops have long experience in saying a lot in a few words. I think it helps to
see a little expansion on what they say, filling in the blanks, using their own examples and
message expounded elsewhere in their own writings. You can't blame them for being terse. It
is a way for them to teach us to think. And it comes with their office, really, so it's sort of
natural for them to speak so. But the fact that this is translated from French makes it even
more prone to confusion due to the nuances of language, such that a French message from a
bishop, which is already densely packed with meaning, translated into English, very likely
misses some crucial information because of the fact that it was translated, and translation is
an art that goes by more than literal word-for-word definition. Words put together have their
own definition; phrases take on new meaning beyond their constituent words; concepts
expounded by phrases relate to each other, and together have meaning more than the sum
of the phrases.
But custom translation is expensive, and, in this case you might need to have a priest or a
cleric who knows something of the bishop's thinking, to make a really reliable translation. And
preferably, the bishop himself would have to approve the final product. As things are right now,
getting all that done in the middle of the General Chapter is a lost cause, for all the clerics of
the SSPX are under restrictive rules proclaimed by +Fellay in advance, so as to apparently
keep this kind of thing from happening during the Chapter this week.
We are very fortunate to have the bishop's words to see while the Chapter is taking place;
even if the translation is not pristine.
-
Have you seen this?
http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=10166
-
Have you seen this?
http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=10166
Fr. Ceriani seems to have a different translation!
And so we come to a point raised by Bishop de Galarreta:
QUOTE
«In this sense, the real question to be answered is: what are the other conditions required, ad intra and ad extra, in the hypothetical case of a "good" proposal, totally acceptable in itself, to try to make a deal?»
And the bishop answers:
QUOTE
«The quoted texts of Archbishop Lefebvre enable us to respond with clarity and firmness.»
However, these texts have been available for thirty and forty years, and in the last twelve, particularly in the last three, they have been completely ignored, distorted and even used in the opposite direction intended by the author, that is, oriented towards a practical agreement...
What will provide the reopening of Pandora's box, if it is that it has been closed?
Father Juan Carlos Ceriani
Quoted texts? Our copy has "authorities cited." That's a whole 'nuther bag o' apples.
I was wondering why +de Galarreta doesn't come out with more material like
+Williamson and +de Mallerais. Maybe this is the reason: when he puts out one
page, it gets mistranslated by several separate people, and then the world erupts
with dissension on what was meant by what he said. That ought to discourage him
from making any more statements!
-
Have you seen this?
http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=10166
Fr. Ceriani seems to have a different translation!
And so we come to a point raised by Bishop de Galarreta:
QUOTE
«In this sense, the real question to be answered is: what are the other conditions required, ad intra and ad extra, in the hypothetical case of a "good" proposal, totally acceptable in itself, to try to make a deal?»
And the bishop answers:
QUOTE
«The quoted texts of Archbishop Lefebvre enable us to respond with clarity and firmness.»
However, these texts have been available for thirty and forty years, and in the last twelve, particularly in the last three, they have been completely ignored, distorted and even used in the opposite direction intended by the author, that is, oriented towards a practical agreement...
What will provide the reopening of Pandora's box, if it is that it has been closed?
Father Juan Carlos Ceriani
Quoted texts? Our copy has "authorities cited." That's a whole 'nuther bag o' apples.
I was wondering why +de Galarreta doesn't come out with more material like
+Williamson and +de Mallerais. Maybe this is the reason: when he puts out one
page, it gets mistranslated by several separate people, and then the world erupts
with dissension on what was meant by what he said. That ought to discourage him
from making any more statements!
Well let me read all this before answering... the translation into English is not Fr Ceriani´s. Let me check the translation. I`ll be back as soon as I can.
-
Have you seen this?
http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=10166
Fr. Ceriani seems to have a different translation!
And so we come to a point raised by Bishop de Galarreta:
QUOTE
«In this sense, the real question to be answered is: what are the other conditions required, ad intra and ad extra, in the hypothetical case of a "good" proposal, totally acceptable in itself, to try to make a deal?»
And the bishop answers:
QUOTE
«The quoted texts of Archbishop Lefebvre enable us to respond with clarity and firmness.»
However, these texts have been available for thirty and forty years, and in the last twelve, particularly in the last three, they have been completely ignored, distorted and even used in the opposite direction intended by the author, that is, oriented towards a practical agreement...
What will provide the reopening of Pandora's box, if it is that it has been closed?
Father Juan Carlos Ceriani
Quoted texts? Our copy has "authorities cited." That's a whole 'nuther bag o' apples.
Indeed, the English translation is wrong. The original French says: "les textes cités de Msgr Lefebvre..." (the quoted texts of Msgr. Lefebvre...")
-
Quoted texts? Our copy has "authorities cited." That's a whole 'nuther bag o' apples.
The docuмent in French reads:
Les textes cités de Monseigneur Lefebvre nous permettent d’y répandre avec clarté et fermeté.
Fr. Ceriani's text, in Spanish, reads:
Los textos de Monseñor Lefebvre citados nos permiten responder con claridad y firmeza.
-
Well, then, tell me if I'm barking up the wrong tree, here.
The "quoted texts of the Archbishop" seems to mean the things that he said or the
recorded writings that were his words or his letters. No?
And, "The authorities cited by Archbishop Lefebvre allow us to spread it with clarity
and firmness," seems to mean that ABL quoted other authorities, and that we can
use those quotes to spread ABL's teachings with clarity and firmness. No?
Ignis Ardens English translation (http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=10068&st=0&#last)
I'd like to know what +de Galarreta was trying to say here.
-
Well, then, tell me if I'm barking up the wrong tree, here.
The "quoted texts of the Archbishop" seems to mean the things that he said or the
recorded writings that were his words or his letters. No?
And, "The authorities cited by Archbishop Lefebvre allow us to spread it with clarity
and firmness," seems to mean that ABL quoted other authorities, and that we can
use those quotes to spread ABL's teachings with clarity and firmness. No?
Ignis Ardens English translation (http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=10068&st=0&#last)
I'd like to know what +de Galarreta was trying to say here.
... in English.
I'd like to know -- in English. I don't trust the translator bots.
-
I'd like to know what +de Galarreta was trying to say here.
... in English.
I'd like to know -- in English. I don't trust the translator bots.
Well, it has to be translated, since the docuмent is not in English.
I trust Fr. Ceriani's translation, since he studied in Econe and spent many years in France. So, he understands French.
And so we come to a point raised by Bishop de Galarreta:
QUOTE
«In this sense, the real question to be answered is: what are the other conditions required, ad intra and ad extra, in the hypothetical case of a "good" proposal, totally acceptable in itself, to try to make a deal?»
And the bishop answers:
QUOTE
«The quoted texts of Archbishop Lefebvre enable us to respond with clarity and firmness.»
However, these texts have been available for thirty and forty years, and in the last twelve, particularly in the last three, they have been completely ignored, distorted and even used in the opposite direction intended by the author, that is, oriented towards a practical agreement...
What will provide the reopening of Pandora's box, if it is that it has been closed?
Father Juan Carlos Ceriani
To me, it is obvious that Bishop de Galarreta is referring to ABL's texts. That's the literal meaning of the sentence and then, Fr. Ceriani's comment goes in the same sense: "these text have been available for thirty and forty years". Which texts? Archbishop Lefebvre's, of course.
In other writings, Fr. Ceriani has accused the SSPX to have distorted ABL's writings, so there is not doubt he is referring to them and he understands Bishop de Galarreta is referring to them as well.
-
I'd like to know what +de Galarreta was trying to say here.
... in English.
I'd like to know -- in English. I don't trust the translator bots.
Well, it has to be translated, since the docuмent is not in English.
I trust Fr. Ceriani's translation, since he studied in Econe and spent many years in France. So, he understands French.
And so we come to a point raised by Bishop de Galarreta:
QUOTE
«In this sense, the real question to be answered is: what are the other conditions required, ad intra and ad extra, in the hypothetical case of a "good" proposal, totally acceptable in itself, to try to make a deal?»
And the bishop answers:
QUOTE
«The quoted texts of Archbishop Lefebvre enable us to respond with clarity and firmness.»
However, these texts have been available for thirty and forty years, and in the last twelve, particularly in the last three, they have been completely ignored, distorted and even used in the opposite direction intended by the author, that is, oriented towards a practical agreement...
What will provide the reopening of Pandora's box, if it is that it has been closed?
Father Juan Carlos Ceriani
To me, it is obvious that Bishop de Galarreta is referring to ABL's texts. That's the literal meaning of the sentence and then, Fr. Ceriani's comment goes in the same sense: "these text have been available for thirty and forty years". Which texts? Archbishop Lefebvre's, of course.
In other writings, Fr. Ceriani has accused the SSPX to have distorted ABL's writings, so there is not doubt he is referring to them and he understands Bishop de Galarreta is referring to them as well.
Thanks. That helps. You are bringing into the message something I couldn't know
by the words alone: the fact that Fr. Ceriani has so accused the SSPX "in other
writings," which also goes a long way to explaining why he was on +Fellay's hit
list! I know that Fr. Ceriani was expelled (an ecclesiastical crime in itself -- I knew
Fr. Frederick Schell, who was "expelled" by the local bishop because Fr. said he
could not distribute Holy Communion in the hand, and the lousy bishop made that
a "dealbreaker") as a priest in Argentina, if I'm not mistaken, which is where
+Williamson was posted for a few years.
But there is one point that remains, for me:
When Fr. Ceriani says this:
What will provide the reopening of Pandora's box, if it is that it has been closed?
-- is he using some kind of Spanish idiom in the phrase, "if it is that it has been
closed," such that the literal words do not convey the true meaning? Because I
do not see that as an effective ending to his message if it were to be given in
English as a first language. If I heard a priest give this speech, ending like that,
I would be going, "Huh?"
I highly doubt his Spanish language audience was going, "Que?"
I want to know what they were thinking when they understood him, that's all.
I checked the source:
radiochristiandad.wordpress.com (http://radiocristiandad.wordpress.com/2012/07/06/p-ceriani-mons-de-galarreta-y-la-caja-de-pandora/#more-21566)
-- and found this:
Ahora bien, esos textos están a disposición desde hace treinta y cuarenta años; y en los últimos doce, particularmente en los últimos tres, han sido completamente ignorados, tergiversados y hasta utilizados en sentido contrario al del autor, es decir, en orden a obtener un acuerdo práctico…
¿Qué proporcionará la reapertura de la caja de Pandora, si es que ella ha sido cerrada?
Padre Juan Carlos Ceriani
-- caja de Pandora is obviously Pandora's box, and we all know what that is --
"...si es que ella ha sido cerrada" looks to me more like, if it is that she has been
closed, and I suppose "she" can mean the box, if the box is feminine (I'm not
sure how Spanish works in this instance), or maybe it's Pandora who closed the
box? Or what? Because "...if it is that it has been closed" leaves a sense of
something missing in English. We don't talk like that, in other words. We would not
use those words to say what that says.
We would say, "Why would we provide for Pandora's box to be reopened, when
we've already managed to keep it closed?" Or something like that. Unless that isn't
what Fr. Ceriani is intending to communicate.
These are the last words of his talk, and the final few words usually carry some
kind of "punch," or summary, of everything that has come before, if the speaker is
effective, and I know Fr. Ceriani is effective. He wouldn't be in trouble if he were
ineffective!! :laugh1:
-
Thanks. That helps. You are bringing into the message something I couldn't know
by the words alone: the fact that Fr. Ceriani has so accused the SSPX "in other
writings," which also goes a long way to explaining why he was on +Fellay's hit
list! I know that Fr. Ceriani was expelled (an ecclesiastical crime in itself -- I knew
Fr. Frederick Schell, who was "expelled" by the local bishop because Fr. said he
could not distribute Holy Communion in the hand, and the lousy bishop made that
a "dealbreaker") as a priest in Argentina, if I'm not mistaken, which is where
+Williamson was posted for a few years.
Fr. Ceriani was not actually expelled, but he got a first canonical admonition after sustaining "difficult" discussions with several SSPX authorities including Bishop Fellay. Fr. Ceriani received the admonition and was asked to remain in silence in February of 2009. He still answered the admonition but decided to abandon the Society later, in the same year and wrote a letter explaining in extenso the details of his fight in defense of the Tradition inside the Society and the poor answers he received from its authorities.
By that time he was in Fort-de-France, in Martinique. He then returned to his homeland: Argentina.
But there is one point that remains, for me:
These are the last words of his talk, and the final few words usually carry some
kind of "punch," or summary, of everything that has come before, if the speaker is
effective, and I know Fr. Ceriani is effective. He wouldn't be in trouble if he were
ineffective!! :laugh1:
Well, here we are facing a language barrier. My English is not that good, but I'll do my best trying to express Fr. Ceriani's idea in his writing. :scratchchin:
¿Qué proporcionará la reapertura de la caja de Pandora ...
Here Fr. Ceriani is asking what will come out of Pandora's box when reopened. And then he adds
si es que ella ha sido cerrada
meaning "if it even has been closed". As if he was in doubt that the box had ever been closed.
Anyway, I think the central point in Fr. Ceraini's writing about Bishop de Galarreta's docuмent is:
« 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 nor prudent to undertake on the preparation of the spirits in an opposite direction, before there is among us the conviction, consensus and the decision to change. The opposite only causes division and, by reaction, a war, the anarchy.»
Then, if we understand properly, what is right and prudent to the bishop is to obtain among them the conviction, the consensus and the decision to change accordingly to the practical agreement and then to prepare the spirits to accept it.
That's why I posted few days ago:
How should we understand this? Is Bishop de Galarreta saying that they, those who decide SSPX's future including himself, should wait until they get the conviction to change?
He seems to be more worried because of the possible reaction than because of the agreement itself. He is even talking about preparing minds.
Do we have here something like Bolsheviks and Mensheviks? If so, Bishop Fellay would be among Bolsheviks, while Bishop de Galarreta would be among Mensheviks. Both walking in the same direction, but one being more prudent, going more slowly than the other.
-
si es que ella ha sido cerrada
meaning "if it even has been closed". As if he was in doubt that the box had ever been closed.
Indeed that`s the idea. I`d have translated it "if it has ever been closed" but not 100% sure :)
-
Indeed that`s the idea. I`d have translated it "if it has ever been closed" but not 100% sure :)
Yes, absolutely. You're right. Thanks, Cristian.
-
Indeed that`s the idea. I`d have translated it "if it has ever been closed" but not 100% sure :)
Yes, absolutely. You're right. Thanks, Cristian.
De nada! :)
-
si es que ella ha sido cerrada
meaning "if it even has been closed". As if he was in doubt that the box had ever been closed.
Indeed that`s the idea. I`d have translated it "if it has ever been closed" but not 100% sure :)
Very good. Now we're getting somewhere. Thanks!
If I were to say that in closing, I would use: "And these misapplications of the
good Archbishop's teachings would provide for the re-opening of Pandora's box;
if, that is, it's ever been indeed closed!"
Now that's a horse of a different color!
(Translate THAT into Spanish! "Pues, esto tener una caballo de color differente?")
If we carry that ending back and look at the rest of the warning from
+de Galarreta, what happens now?
As the principal role in the 3-year negotiation process, +de Galarreta was privy to
a most unobstructed view of what is really going on, doctrinally, in Rome. In
reporting back to +Fellay and the Society at large, his message is to shut down
all contacts with the B16 megolith, for it is nothing but a "Pandora's box" of
misery, pestilence and death! The Preliminary Note and the Doctrinal Preamble
from B16 are confusing, misleading, false, and bad in essence!
The ostensible willingness to criticize the Council is an enigmatic, cunning, and
well-set trap!
The Preliminary Note and Doctrinal Preamble is worse than the 1988 Protocol that
+ABL rejected as unacceptable!
...And pretending otherwise is providing for the re-opening of Pandora's box; if,
that is, Pandora's box was ever closed in the first place!
.............. some may need to catch their breath at this point: I did! .................
Meanwhile, back at the Menzingen Ranch, +Fellay maintains that the Doctrinal
Preamble of 2012 is better than the 1988 Protocol.
Does anyone sense a little tension here? The "horse of a different color" is "back at
the ranch."
-
si es que ella ha sido cerrada
meaning "if it even has been closed". As if he was in doubt that the box had ever been closed.
Indeed that`s the idea. I`d have translated it "if it has ever been closed" but not 100% sure :)
Very good. Now we're getting somewhere. Thanks!
If I were to say that in closing, I would use: "And these misapplications of the
good Archbishop's teachings would provide for the re-opening of Pandora's box;
if, that is, it's ever been indeed closed!"
Now that's a horse of a different color!
(Translate THAT into Spanish! "Pues, esto tener una caballo de color differente?")
If we carry that ending back and look at the rest of the warning from
+de Galarreta, what happens now?
As the principal role in the 3-year negotiation process, +de Galarreta was privy to
a most unobstructed view of what is really going on, doctrinally, in Rome. In
reporting back to +Fellay and the Society at large, his message is to shut down
all contacts with the B16 megolith, for it is nothing but a "Pandora's box" of
misery, pestilence and death! The Preliminary Note and the Doctrinal Preamble
from B16 are confusing, misleading, false, and bad in essence!
The ostensible willingness to criticize the Council is an enigmatic, cunning, and
well-set trap!
The Preliminary Note and Doctrinal Preamble is worse than the 1988 Protocol that
+ABL rejected as unacceptable!
...And pretending otherwise is providing for the re-opening of Pandora's box; if,
that is, Pandora's box was ever closed in the first place!
.............. some may need to catch their breath at this point: I did! .................
Meanwhile, back at the Menzingen Ranch, +Fellay maintains that the Doctrinal
Preamble of 2012 is better than the 1988 Protocol.
Does anyone sense a little tension here? The "horse of a different color" is "back at
the ranch."
Well really, the path is clear. To engage in anything other that a withdrawal from this process would be folly. And he who does so in the clear light of the facts, is himself foolish and unfaithful to the oaths and creed which he professes.
Who will follow the manure trail to Rome?
-
You might say that I'm imagining what Fr. Ceriani's speech would sound like if Fr.
Pfeiffer were to deliver it in English. I don't have a sense of connotation in Spanish,
but I do know that Fr. Pfeiffer doesn't mince his words. On the contrary, he drives
them home with power and authority. Very inspirational! And you see: it has after
effects, for now, he hasn't given the sermon yet and I'm already imagining it!