Author Topic: Declaration by Fr. Eric Julien Laurent Jacqmin  (Read 5347 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Matthew

  • Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 23014
  • Reputation: +20161/-243
  • Gender: Male
Declaration by Fr. Eric Julien Laurent Jacqmin
« on: June 23, 2012, 09:16:46 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • M

    Accord pratique de la FSSPX avec Rome sans conversion 

    Arguments.

    Comme tous mes confrères dans la FSSPX, certainement j’aimerai bien, comme je l’ai fait jusqu’à présent, d’obéir à mes supérieurs, mais dans l’affaire actuelle, j’ai des doutes sérieuses que le Bien Commun soit bien servi.

         1  Mgr. Fellay motive la décision d’aller en avant avec Rome jusqu’à un accord, dans l’introduction
    ‘Mot du Supérieur général’ dans « Cor Unum » mars 2012 ) :
    p.8 « Nous ne croyons plus possible l’action du ‘rouleau compresseur’.. »
    mais le rouleau compresseur marche toujours : preuve est la lettre récente de Mgr. Pozzo à l’abbé Laguérie :
    l’IPB (Institut du Bon Pasteur) doit accepter la nouvelle messe (pour des prêtres qui viennent chez eux et n’ont pas la Messe Tridentine comme « rite propre »), ne plus tant critiquer Vatican II et enseigner le nouveau catéchisme dans le séminaire. http://lacriseintegriste.typepad.fr/weblog/2012/03/note-de-la-commission-ecclesia-dei-sur-les-conclusions-de-la-visite-canonique-de-linstitut-du-bon-pa.html
    p.6-7 : le jeune clergé est ouvert à la Tradition, nous pourrions les récupérer plus facilement  :
    considérations :
    mais il y a une longue route à aller : ils n’ont que peu de bagage, ont subi une déformation profonde
    et ils sont difficiles à convertir totalement: (preuve les contacts avec de jeunes prêtres que j’ai eus les dernier temps : de bonne foi, j’espère, et en admiration pour la Tradition, mais engourdis dans l’erreur).
    2 Un aveu est une preuve. Mgr. Fellay avoue que pour le bien de la FSSPX il faut mieux ne pas faire un accord avec Rome.  Avec cela tout est dit. Nous choisissons pour le bien commun de la  FSSPX, c’est évident, c’est la cause finale de toute société. Mais incompréhensiblement, Mgr Fellay préfère la volonté du pape, contre ce qu'il connaît comme le Bien Commun de la FSSPX :                                              
    2012 04 14 Mgr Fellay lettre aux trois évêques : « Qu’il soit noté au passage que nous n’avons pas cherché un accord pratique. Cela est faux. Nous n’avons pas refusé a priori, comme vous le demandez, de considérer l’offre du pape. Pour le bien commun de la Fraternité, nous préférions de loin la solution actuelle du statu quo intermédiaire, mais manifestement, Rome ne le tolère plus. »
    3 Mgr. Fellay a dit le 11 mai 2012 devant CNS  « I cannot exclude that there might be a split. » : « je ne peux pas exclure qu’il y ait une scission (dans la FSSPX) ».  Selon Aristote l’unité est un des plus grands biens d’une société.
    4 Même si Mgr. Fellay avait raison, alors encore un bon chef n’avance pas, avant d’avoir vérifié que la plus grande partie saine le suit : ce n’est pas la cas actuellement…une très grande partie n’est pas d’accord, avec trois évêques.
    5 Règles du ‘Discernement des esprits’ : cette décision met le trouble et le désaccord dans la FSSPX. C’est un mauvais signe.
    6 Après ce pape, qui a 85 ans, viendra un autre ; la pendule hégélienne postconciliaire s’en ira probablement vers l’autre coté: le progressisme. Et alors qui va nous protéger ?
    7 Mgr. Fellay déclare à plusieurs reprises que le Pape est si bon et bien intentionné envers la tradition. A part la constatation que cela est un argument subjectif et donc faible, il est surtout très dangereux. Le pape actuel, en favorisant la Tradition mais ne condamnant pas le progressisme (voir liste en bas *), fonctionne en effet comme un moderniste achevé :

    1e preuve : Preuve : lisons « Pascendi Dominici Gregis » de St Pie X (8 septembre 1907) :
    « nr.36 ... Disons donc, pour rendre pleinement la pensée des modernistes, que l'évolution résulte du conflit de deux forces, dont l'une pousse au progrès, tandis que l'autre tend à la conservation. La force conservatrice, dans l'Eglise, c'est la tradition, et la tradition y est représentée par l'autorité religieuse (A). Ceci, et en droit et en fait: en droit, parce que la défense de la tradition est comme un instinct naturel de l'autorité ; en fait, parce que, planant au-dessus des contingences de la vie, l'autorité ne sent pas, ou que très peu, les stimulants du progrès. La force progressive, au contraire, qui est celle qui répond aux besoins, couve et fermente dans les consciences individuelles, et dans celles-là surtout qui sont en contact plus intime avec la vie. Voyez-vous poindre ici, Vénérables Frères, cette doctrine pernicieuse qui veut faire des laïques, dans l'Eglise, un facteur de progrès? Or, c'est en vertu d'une sorte de compromis et de transaction entre la force conservatrice et la force progressive que les changements et les progrès se réalisent  (B)… »
    Conclusion : selon les modernistes c’est tout à fait normal que le pape soutienne la Tradition
    - voir texte en gras (A) - POUR faire progresser l’évolution moderniste dans l’Eglise : voir texte en gras ci-dessus (B).
    On le voit bien dans la vie du pape actuel.Comme théologien, Jozef Ratzinger était dans le « parti progressif » néomoderniste, et maintenant, comme autorité (Préfet et ensuite Pape) il convient qu’il favorise la tradition, selon cette règle moderniste ci-dessus. En effet, le pape ne s’est pas converti à la Tradition, car il a réédité après son élection de pape toutes ses œuvres de théologien erronées, sans les corriger et il vient de refuser nos arguments de Tradition dans les discussions théologiques. Il favorise seulement la Tradition, pour faire avancer le progrès hégélien. Absit !
    Le pape n’est pas convertit : la liste des faits qui le prouvent est longue :
    - 21.10.2007 : Réunion interreligieuse de Naples ;
    - 28.04.2008 : Visite de la synagogue de New York ;
    - 15.07.2008 : J.M.J. de Sydney avec sa liturgie « inculturée » et ses rituels païens ;
    - 12.05.2009 : Visite de la mosquée du Dôme de Jérusalem ;
    - 12.05.2009 : Rituel juif au Mur des lamentations ;
    - 17.01.2010 : Visite à la synagogue de Rome ;
    - 14.03.2010 : Participation active au culte luthérien à Rome ;
    - 01.05.2011 : Béatification de Jean-Paul II ;
    - 27.10.2011 : Réitération du scandale d’Assise ;
    - 2012 : les discussions théologiques démontrent la contradiction entre les pensées de Rome et la Tradition.
    Rappelons-nous aussi :
    la prière commune avec des imams dans la Mosquée bleue d’Istanbul le 30 novembre 2006,
    sa rencontre cordiale avec une « femme prêtre » anglicane à l’abbaye de Westminster le 17 septembre 2010,
    l’invitation au Vatican d’un groupe homosexuel nommé « Gay Circus » le 15 décembre 2010, qui exécuta devant lui une chorégraphie d’invertis.
    Benoît XVI a refusé de baiser le crucifix le Vendredi saint, au cours de la liturgie de l’ « adoration » de la croix, en 2009, 2010 et 2011 (nous ne savons ce qu’il est advenu en 2012).
    "L'Osservatore Romano" (français) n°3229 du 29 mars 2012, p.17 : Le pape Benoît XVI dans son homélie lors de la messe sur la place de la Révolution à La Havane (Cuba), le 28-03, y prône toujours la liberté religieuse pour tous les "croyants", qui "alimente l'espérance en un monde meilleur" (...) "Quand l' Eglise souligne ce droit ( à la liberté religieuse), elle ne réclame aucun privilège."

    Dans le même sens Mgr. Fellay déclare que la solution proposée par Rome n’est pas un piège (lettres aux évêques p.3), or il y a des preuves du contraire :

    2e preuve : Des aveux

    2001 : Un adage juridique dit qu’« un aveu est une preuve ».
    Dans deux entrevues, au « Il Giornale » et à « l’Avvenire » – à l’occasion de la présentation de son livre « L’esprit de la liturgie » – le cardinal Ratzinger soutenait qu’on était encore loin de l’accord, et il attribuait la faute de ce retard à la clôture de débats venant de la Fraternité.
    Voir DICI  nr.2 du 6 avril 2001, qui donne le texte d'une interview du Cardinal R. au journal italien « Il Giornale » le lundi 3 avril 2001. Je reprends seulement l'essentiel du texte :

    1) Le Cardinal Ratzinger dit concernant la FSSPX: « Le chemin est encore long. Je dois dire qu’il y a un fort endurcissement dans le mouvement lefebvriste ; je remarque qu’ils sont renfermés sur eux-mêmes, et cela rend problématique le processus de réconciliation, au moins à brève échéance.”
    «Les disciples de Monseigneur Lefebvre ont mal accepté la réforme liturgique post-conciliaire (…) »…

    2) Question de IG : « Quelle démarche les lefebvristes doivent-ils réaliser pour se rapprocher du Saint Siège ? »
    Le Cardinal Ratzinger de répondre :

    « Reconnaître que la liturgie du Concile est toujours la même liturgie de l'Eglise, qu'elle n'est pas une autre chose.  Reconnaître que l'Eglise rénovée du Concile n'est pas une autre Eglise, mais est toujours la même Eglise qui vit et se développe. »

    Le but des négociations est donc que nous acceptions le NOM, la liturgie postconcilaire et la nouvelle ecclésiologie (« subsistit in » etc.). Le but est donc carrément mauvais. Numquam possumus.

    3) Question de IG : « Que pouvons-nous faire pour aller à leur rencontre ? »
    Réponse du Cardinal Ratzinger:
    «Nous devons faire notre possible pour attirer ces frères et soeurs, pour leur rendre la confiance qu’ils n’ont plus. A l’intérieur de l’Église une blessure se guérit mieux: si la confrontation se déroule à l’extérieur, la distance risque au contraire de s’élargir ».
    « Nous devons reconnaître que, par la liturgie traditionnelle de Saint Pie V, ils sont toujours dans la tradition ecclésiale commune. Nous devons être généreux pour permettre que la tradition chrétienne commune s'exprime dans des formes rituelles différentes. C'est un chemin de réconciliation difficile, comme il arrive souvent dans un conflit familial. Nous devons poser un point de départ dans le processus de réconciliation. »

    Le moyen pour parvenir au but est par le moyen de générosité. Etre généreux, c'est-à-dire : ouvrir son cœur, reconnaître, permettre, poser un point de départ, processus de réconciliation.
    En pratique : la création d'une administration apostolique etc..sont le moyen généreux concret pour arriver au but.
    Conclusion : Franchement, de vouloir parvenir à un mauvais but  (ce but est avoué : de nous faire accepter les erreurs de Vatican II) par le moyen de générosité, cela s'appelle une manœuvre.
    A l'époque, Monseigneur Lefebvre l'avait déjà vu concernant la Fraternité Saint Pierre, il leur avait donné dix ans (de « générosité »)…
    Dommage que Campos etc.. sont tombé dans ce même piège. Chez l’IPB cela parait déjà après 5 ans..

    3e Ad confirmandum : un autre aveu de Pape Benoit XVI : « ce Motu proprio est simplement un acte de tolérance »
    Le 12 septembre 2008, dans l'avion qui le mène en France, Benoît XVI confirme publiquement son intention :  « ce Motu proprio (« Summorum Pontificorum » du 7 juillet 2007) est simplement un acte de tolérance»..« Il n’y a aucune opposition entre la liturgie renouvelée par le Concile Vatican II et cette liturgie».... D’une partie les amis de l’ancienne liturgie peuvent et doivent connaître les nouveaux saints, les nouvelles préfaces de la liturgie, etc… ..Dans ce sens, il me semble qu’il y a un enrichissement réciproque et c’est clair que la liturgie renouvelée est la liturgie ordinaire de notre temps. Merci. » Source : Zenit  ZF08091310 - 13-09-2008: http://www.zenit.org/article-18792?l=french
    4e Lourdes le 14 septembre 2008 devant l’ensemble des évêques de France,
    Benoît XVI-Ratzinger a continué à expliciter sa pensée, devant les ‘évêques’ de France, selon le même fil directeur : celui de l’absorption du groupuscule traditionaliste au sein de l'église conciliaire, au nom de la même tolérance :  «.. J'ai été amené à préciser, dans le Motu proprio Summorum Pontificum, les conditions d'exercice de cette charge, en ce qui concerne la possibilité d'utiliser aussi bien le missel du bienheureux Jean XXIII (1962), que celui du Pape Paul VI (1970). ..Je mesure les difficultés qui sont les vôtres, mais je ne doute pas que vous puissiez parvenir, en temps raisonnable, à des solutions satisfaisantes pour tous, afin que la tunique sans couture du Christ ne se déchire pas davantage… Efforçons-nous donc toujours d'être des serviteurs de l'unité ! »
    Soyons prudents. C’est l’ « unité dans …Vatican II » : il y a deux messes, car il y a deux groupes, il faut le conflit pour engendrer le progrès et l’évolution (cfr.Pascendi nr 36 ci-dessus) : le réforme de la réforme, « la Messe de Sainte Thèse » (c'est-à-dire selon Hégel le conflict utile et nécessaire entre une thèse et une antithèse engendre une « synthèse » qui fait progresser et évoluer).
    « Personnellement, j’allais avec la méfiance… J’ai toujours eu un sentiment de méfiance et je dois avouer que j’ai toujours la pensée que tout ce qu’ils font, c’est pour arriver à nous réduire à accepter le Concile et à accepter les réformes postconciliaires » (Mgr Lefebvre, 1988).
    5e Nous ne ferons pas ce que nous voudrions.
    Preuve : 08/06/2012 Dici:
    DICI : Une prélature personnelle est la structure canonique que vous avez indiquée dans de récentes déclarations. .. êtes-vous disposé à accepter que les œuvres à venir ne soient possibles qu’avec la permission de l’évêque dans les diocèses où la Fraternité Saint-Pie X n’est pas actuellement présente?
    Mgr Fellay : «  …. Il reste vrai – comme c’est le droit de l’Eglise – que pour ouvrir une nouvelle chapelle ou fonder une œuvre, il serait nécessaire d’avoir la permission de l’ordinaire local. Nous avons bien évidemment présenté à Rome combien notre situation actuelle était difficile dans les diocèses, et Rome est encore en train d’y travailler. Ici ou là, cette difficulté sera réelle, mais depuis quand la vie est-elle sans difficulté ? .. »
    6e Remarque importante :

    Puisque le bien commun est en jeu (l’unité de la Fraternité, la préservation certaine du dépôt de la foi), il semble utile de poser quelques principes fondamentaux à ce sujet :

    1) Citation de  « Cor Unum » nr 85, page 26 :
     "Motions [et voeux] du Chapitre général - I.1. Relations avec Rome »
     
    "Au cas où un accord avec le Saint Siège était sérieusement envisagé, un chapitre général extraordinaire serait convoqué pour traiter de la question."
     
    2) Citation de Raoul Naz "Traité de droit canonique", T 1, nr 816,
     
    "1° Chapitres" :
     
    "le chapitre général a plus de pouvoirs que le supérieur général. 
    Il peut porter des lois ou au moins prendre des mesures qui doivent rester en vigueur jusqu'au chapitre suivant."
     
    Naz ne donne pas des restrictions à ces deux principes. Il donne une référence au Dictionnaire de Droit Canonique qui confirme par toute l’histoire des familles religieuses dans l’Eglise à travers les siècles.
     
    3) Conclusion absolument évidente:
    De par l'autorité suprême de et dans la FSSPX un chapitre doit avoir lieu pour traiter de la question d'un accord prochain éventuel avec Rome.


    Le texte encadré est vérifié et approuvé par un official de la FSSPX. 
    La Tradition donne ce principe qu’on peut résumer ainsi : « Un Chapitre Général a les pouvoirs suprêmes dans une société de droit d’Eglise. Par conséquent il a les pouvoirs et le grave devoir d’élire ou de destituer toute personne d’autorité selon les exigences du Bien Commun et de vérifier et sanctionner de la fidélité aux Fondateur, à la Règle, aux Constitutions et Statuts des Chapitres Généraux passés ».
    7e « Mortalium Animos »
    Un accord subit « FSSPX avec Rome sans conversion » est tout à fait selon la doctrine de Vatican II, qui préconise une « pastorale d’unité avec tout le monde sans conversion » (Nostra Aetate, l’ « esprit d’Assise », le nouvel œcuménisme) condamnée par « Mortalium Animos ».

    8e Mgr Lefebvre

    Conférence à Flavigny, en décembre 1988 Extrait Fideliter n° 68 (mars 1989) p. 16

    « Nous devons être indemnes de compromission tant à l'égard des sédévacantistes qu'à l'égard de ceux qui veulent absolument être soumis à l'autorité ecclésiastique.
    Nous voulons demeurer attachés à Notre Seigneur Jésus-Christ. Or Vatican II a découronné Notre Seigneur. Nous, nous voulons rester fidèles à Notre Seigneur roi, prince et dominateur du monde entier. Nous ne pouvons rien changer à cette ligne de conduite.
    Aussi quand on nous pose la question de savoir quand il y aura un accord avec Rome, ma réponse est simple : quand Rome recouronnera" Notre Seigneur Jésus-Christ. Nous ne pouvons être d'accord avec ceux qui décou­ronnent Notre Seigneur. Le jour où ils reconnaîtront de nouveau Notre Seigneur roi des peuples et des nations, ce n'est pas nous qu'ils auront rejoint, mais l'Eglise catholique dans laquelle nous demeurons. »
    + Marcel LEFEBVRE,Flavignv, décembre 1988

    Conférence à Sierre (Suisse) le 27 XI 1988 Extrait du fideliter n° 89 (sept. 1992) p.12

    « C'est l'apostasie générale, c'est pourquoi nous résistons, mais les autorités romaines voudraient que nous acceptions cela. Quand j'ai discuté avec elles à Rome, elles voulaient que je reconnaisse la liberté religieuse comme le cardi­nal Béa. Mais j'ai dit non, je ne peux pas. Ma foi est celle du cardinal Ottaviani fidèle à tous les papes, et non cette doctrine nouvelle et toujours condamnée.
    Voilà ce qui fait notre opposition, et c'est pourquoi l'on ne peut pas s'entendre. Ce n'est pas tant la question de la messe, car la messe est juste­ment une des conséquences du fait qu'on a voulu se rapprocher du protestan­tisme et donc transformer le culte, les sacrements, le catéchisme, etc...
    La vraie opposition fondamentale est le Règne de Notre Seigneur Jésus-Christ. « Opportet Illum regnare », nous dit saint Paul. Notre Seigneur est venu pour régner. Eux disent non. Et nous, nous disons oui, avec tous les papes. Notre Seigneur n'est pas venu pour être caché à l'intérieur des maisons sans en sortir. Pourquoi les missionnaires, dont tant se sont faits massacrer ? Pour prêcher que Notre Seigneur Jésus-Christ est le seul vrai Dieu, pour dire aux païens de se convertir. Alors les païens ont voulu les faire disparaître, mais eux ils n'ont pas hésité à donner leur vie pour continuer à prêcher Notre Seigneur Jésus-Christ. Alors maintenant, il faudrait faire le contraire, dire aux païens « votre religion est bonne, conservez-la pourvu que vous soyez de bons bouddhistes, de bons musulmans ou de bons païens ! » C'est pour cela que nous ne pouvons pas nous entendre avec eux, car nous obéissons à Notre Seigneur disant aux apôtres : « Allez enseigner l'Évangile jusqu'aux extrémi­tés de la terre » .
    C'est pourquoi il ne faut pas s'étonner que nous n'arrivions pas à nous entendre avec Rome. Ce ne sera pas possible tant que Rome ne reviendra pas à la foi dans, le règne de Notre Seigneur Jésus-Christ, tant qu'elle donnera l'impression que toutes les religions sont bonnes. Nous nous heurtons sur un point de la foi catholique, comme se sont heurtés le cardinal Béa et le cardinal Ottaviani, et comme se sont heurtés tous les papes avec le libéralisme. C'est la même chose, le même courant, les mêmes idées et les mêmes divisions à l'intérieur de l'Église. »
    Ave Maria, ora pro nobis.
    Sacré Coeur de Jésus ayez pitié de nous.
    Abbé Eric Julien Laurent Jacqmin +
    Start your Amazon.com session by clicking this link, and my family and I get a commission on your purchase!

    Offline Matthew

    • Mod
    • *****
    • Posts: 23014
    • Reputation: +20161/-243
    • Gender: Male
    Declaration by Fr. Eric Julien Laurent Jacqmin
    « Reply #1 on: June 23, 2012, 09:18:45 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Here's the file as a Word document.

    Start your Amazon.com session by clicking this link, and my family and I get a commission on your purchase!


    Offline Matthew

    • Mod
    • *****
    • Posts: 23014
    • Reputation: +20161/-243
    • Gender: Male
    Declaration by Fr. Eric Julien Laurent Jacqmin
    « Reply #2 on: June 23, 2012, 09:19:49 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • This document seems to be a compendium of the various arguments why an agreement with Rome -- while putting aside doctrinal issues and a Roman conversion -- is a massive mistake.
    Start your Amazon.com session by clicking this link, and my family and I get a commission on your purchase!

    Offline Cristero

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 40
    • Reputation: +128/-1
    • Gender: Male
    Declaration by Fr. Eric Julien Laurent Jacqmin
    « Reply #3 on: June 23, 2012, 10:28:36 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Wow, another courageous priest putting his serious reservations in public. As you say, Matthew, it's a compilation of various sources, much taken, in fact, from Fr. Koller's sermon in Clermont Ferand. Nothing polemical, nothing different from what the SSPX has been saying for forty years. The alarming thing is the reaction it will probably solicit from the superiors. They say we must obey because nothing will change and we shall be able to continue to criticise the Council and its errors. But even BEFORE an agreement it seems no-one is allowed to even mention our differences with modernist Rome/the Pope. Even if it's a bishop of the Society giving a sermon which would not have raised an eyebrow a couple of years back, the local superiors feel they have to tell him off. Something is very wrong here.

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4430
    • Reputation: +4003/-1317
    • Gender: Male
    Declaration by Fr. Eric Julien Laurent Jacqmin
    « Reply #4 on: June 23, 2012, 09:56:43 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Anyone here speak English (or at least American)?
    Romans 5:20 "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    -I retract any and all statements I have made that are incongruent with the True Faith, and apologize for ever having made them-


    Offline AntiFellayism

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 229
    • Reputation: +798/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Declaration by Fr. Eric Julien Laurent Jacqmin
    « Reply #5 on: June 23, 2012, 10:05:47 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Seraphim
    Anyone here speak English (or at least American)?


     :laugh1:
    And now, we have a perfectly liberal Pope, my very dear brothers. As he goes to this country [the United States]which is founded upon Masonic principles, that is, of a revolution, of a rebellion against God. And, well, he expressed his admira

    Offline laurentiusjulianus

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 2
    • Reputation: +13/-0
    Declaration by Fr. Eric Julien Laurent Jacqmin
    « Reply #6 on: June 28, 2012, 03:16:40 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Can somebody translate this text of Father Jacqmin please?

     :idea:

    Offline Cristero

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 40
    • Reputation: +128/-1
    • Gender: Male
    Declaration by Fr. Eric Julien Laurent Jacqmin
    « Reply #7 on: June 28, 2012, 04:48:21 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Ok guys, here is a knocked up translation. Please feel free to improve it but at least its better than the Google things...  :laugh1:

    Practical agreement of the SSPX with Rome without conversion


    Arguments.

    Like all my colleagues in the SSPX, I certainly would like, as I have done so far, to  obey my superiors, but in the current case, I have serious doubts that  the Common Good would be served.


    A. Bishop Fellay gives as the reason for his decision to go forward with an agreement with Rome, in the introduction 'Word of the Superior General' in "Cor Unum" March 2012): p.8 "We can no longer believe that this is a  'steamroller' .. " but the steamroller is still moving forward: recent evidence is the letter of Mgr. Pozzo to Father Laguérie: IPB (Institute of the Good Shepherd) must accept the New Mass (for priests who are members; and they do not have the Tridentine Mass as their "own rite"), they must  not criticize Vatican II so much and they must teach the new catechism in their seminary.
    p.6-7: the younger clergy is open to Tradition, we could catch them more easily:
    considerations: but there is a long way to go: they have little formation, they have suffered a deep deformation and they are difficult to convert completely (proof, the  contact with young priests I've had recently: they are of good faith, I hope, and have admiration for tradition, but are steeped in error).

    B An admission is proof. Mgr. Fellay admits that for the good of the SSPX it would be better not to make an agreement with Rome. That says everything. We would like to choose for the common good of the SSPX, obviously, this is the final cause of every society. But inexplicably, Bishop Fellay prefers the desire of the Pope, against what he knows to be the common good of the SSPX:
    14 April 2012 letter of Bishop Fellay to the three bishops: "Let it be noted in passing that we have not sought a practical agreement. This is false. But we have not rejected a priori, as you request, to consider the offer of the pope. For the common good of the Fraternity, we would by far prefer the current status quo through, obviously Rome is not prepared to put up with that any longer."

    C Mgr. Fellay said May 11th, 2012 to CNS "I cannot exclude that there might be a split (in the SSPX)." According to Aristotle  unity is one of the greatest assets of a society.

    D Even if Mgr. Fellay were right, then a good leader still does not advance until he  has checked that he is being followed by a good majority: that is not the case now ... a very large part do not agree with him including three bishops.

    E Rules of 'Discernment of Spirits': This decision causes confusion and disagreement within the SSPX. It's a bad sign.

    F After this pope, who is 85 years old, there will be another; the postconciliar Hegelian pendulum will probably swing to the other side: progressivism. And then who will protect us?

    F Bishop Fellay has said repeatedly that the Pope is so good and well intentioned towards tradition. Apart from the fact that this is a subjective argument and therefore weak, it is especially dangerous. The current pope, favouring tradition but not condemning progressivism (see list below *), operates in effect as a perfect modernist:
    First proof: Proof let's read "Pascendi Dominici Gregis" St Pius X (September 8, 1907):
    "Nr.36 ... So let us say, summing up modernist thought, that an evolution results from the conflict of two forces, one pushing for progress, while the other tends to conservatism. The conservative force in the Church, it is  tradition, and tradition is represented by religious authority (A). This is so  in law and fact: in law, because the defence of tradition is like a natural instinct of authority, in fact, because, hovering over the contingencies of life,  authority does not feel, or very little, the spurs of progress. The progressive force, on the contrary, is one that meets the needs, and ferments in individual consciences, and especially in those who are in more intimate contact with life. You can clearly see  here, Venerable Brethren, this pernicious doctrine that wants to make the laity, a factor of progress in the Church. Now it is  a sort of compromise and agreement between  the conservative and the progressive force that gradual changes and progress is made (B) ... "
       Conclusion: According to the modernists is quite normal that the Pope supports Tradition.
    See text in bold (A) – IN ORDER TO  advance modernist trends in the Church: see bold text above (B).
    This is evident in the life of the present Pope. As a  theologian, Josef Ratzinger was in the "progressive party" neo modernist, and now, as authority (Prefect and then Pope) he must needs promote tradition, this modernist is acting according to the rule above. Indeed, the pope has not converted to Tradition, as he has reissued all his works from when he was an erroneous theologian when he was elected pope without correcting them and he has just refused our arguments for Tradition in the theological discussions. He favours Tradition, only to advance his Hegelian progress. Absit!

    The pope has not converted: the list of facts that prove it is long:

    21.10.2007: Interfaith Meeting of Naples;
    28.04.2008: Visit to the Synagogue of New York;
    15.07.2008: World Youth Day Sydney with its liturgy "enculturated" and pagan rituals;
    12.05.2009: Visit to the Dome of the Rock of Jerusalem;
    12.05.2009: Jewish Ritual at the Wailing Wall;
    17.01.2010: Visit to the Synagogue of Rome;
    14.03.2010: Active participation in the Lutheran worship in Rome;
    01.05.2011: Beatification of John Paul II;
    27.10.2011: Reiteration of the scandal of Assisi;
    2012: theological discussions demonstrate the contradiction between the thoughts of Rome and Tradition.

    Remember also:

    common prayer with the imams in the Blue Mosque in Istanbul on 30 November 2006
    his cordial meeting with a "woman priest" Anglican Westminster Abbey 17 September 2010,
    the invitation to the Vatican of a homosexual group called "Gay Circus" December 15, 2010, who performed before him a choreography of perverts.
    Benedict refused to kiss the crucifix on Good Friday, during the liturgy of the "adoration" of the cross, in 2009, 2010 and 2011 (we do not know what will happen in 2012).
    "L'Osservatore Romano" (French) No. 3229 of March 29, 2012, p.17: Pope Benedict XVI in his homily at the Mass on Revolution Square in Havana (Cuba), 28-03, was still advocating religious freedom for all "believers" who "nourish the hope for a better world" (...) "When the Church emphasizes this right (religious freedom), it does not claim any privilege for itself. "

    Bishop Fellay  in the same way. said that the solution proposed by Rome is not a trap (letters to the bishops p.3), but there is evidence to the contrary:

    Second proof: Admissions
    2001: A legal maxim says that "an admission is proof."
    In two interviews, the "Il Giornale" and the "Avvenire" - on the occasion of the presentation of his book "The Spirit of the Liturgy" -  Cardinal Ratzinger argued that there was still a long way to go towards an agreement , and he attributed the blame for the delay in the ending of the discussions from the side of the Society.
    See DICI No. 2 of April 6, 2001, which gives the text of an interview with Cardinal R. to  the Italian newspaper "Il Giornale" Monday, April 3, 2001. I give only the gist of the text:

    1) Cardinal Ratzinger said about the SSPX: "The road is still long. I must say there is a strong hardening in the # # # # movement, I notice that they are turned in on themselves, and this makes problematic the reconciliation process, at least in the short term."
    "The followers of Archbishop Lefebvre have resented the post-conciliar liturgical reform (...)" ...

    2) Question of IG: "What steps have the # # # # es  to make to get closer to the Holy See? "
    Cardinal Ratzinger replied: "Recognizing that the liturgy of the Council is still the same liturgy of the Church, it is not something else. Recognize that the church renovated by the Council is not another Church, but is still the same Church that lives and grows. "
    The goal of negotiations is that we accept the NOM, post conciliar liturgy, and the new ecclesiology ("subsists in" etc..). The aim is downright bad. Numquam possumus.

    3) Question of IG: "What can we do to meet them? "
    Cardinal Ratzinger's response:
    "We must do our best to attract these brothers and sisters, to give them the confidence they have lost. Inside the church a wound heals better: if the confrontation takes place outside, we shall grow further apart. "
    "We must recognize that by the traditional liturgy of Saint Pius V, they are still inside the common church tradition. We must be generous to allow that  the common Christian tradition is expressed in different ritual forms. It is a difficult path of reconciliation, as often happens in a family dispute. We need to provide a starting point in the reconciliation process. "
    The means to achieve the goal is by means of generosity. Being generous, that is to say: open your heart, recognise, allow, provide a starting point, the reconciliation process.
    In practice: the creation of an apostolic administration etc. .. are the generous practical means to attain the goal.
    Conclusion: Frankly, to try to achieve a bad goal (this goal is confessed: to make us accept the errors of Vatican II) by means of generosity, this is called a manoeuver.
    At the time, Archbishop Lefebvre had already seen this with the Fraternity of St. Peter, he gave them ten years ( of "generosity")
    Shame that Campos etc. .. have fallen into this same trap. In the IPB it seems already after 5 years ..

    3rd Ad confirmandum: another confession of Pope Benedict XVI, "the Motu Proprio is simply an act of tolerance"
    September 12, 2008, on the plane that took him to France, Benedict XVI publicly confirmed its intention: "the Motu Proprio (" Summorum Pontificorum "of July 7, 2007) is simply an act of tolerance" .. "There is no opposition between the liturgy renewed by Vatican II  and the old ".... On their side friends of the old liturgy can and should know the new saints, new prefaces of the liturgy, etc. ..... In this sense, it seems to me that there is a mutual enrichment and it is clear that the renewed liturgy is the ordinary liturgy of our times. Thank you. Source: Zenit

    4th Lourdes September 14, 2008 before all the bishops of France,
    Benedict-Ratzinger has continued to clarify his thoughts, before the bishops of France, following the same guiding principle: that of the absorption of traditionalist splinter group within the conciliar church,  in the name of the same  tolerance  ". . I was led to state in the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, the conditions for exercise of this office, regarding the possibility of using both the missal of Blessed John XXIII (1962), that of Pope Paul VI (1970). I know your difficulties, but I do not doubt that you can achieve in reasonable time, satisfactory solutions for all so that the seamless tunic of Christ be not further torn ... Let us therefore always  be servants of unity!

    Let's be careful. This is the "unity in Vatican II ...": there are two masses, because there are two groups, the conflict should lead to progress and evolution (nr cfr.Pascendi 36 above): the reform of the reform, "the Mass of St. Thesis [synthesis]" (that is to say, according to Hegel, the conflict between a useful and necessary thesis and an antithesis produces a "synthesis" that makes progress and evolves).
    "Personally, I am mistrustful ... I've always had a feeling of distrust and I must admit I've always thought that all they do is to get us to accept the Council and to accept the post-conciliar reforms "(Lefebvre, 1988).

    5th We will not do what we want
    Proof: 08/06/2012 Dici:
    DICI: A personal prelature is the canonical structure that you have indicated in recent statements. .. Are you willing to accept that future works are possible only with the permission of the bishop in the dioceses where the Society of St. Pius X is not currently present?
    Mgr: ".... It remains true - as is the law of the Church - that to open a new chapel or found a work, it would be necessary to have permission from the local ordinary. We have of course presented in Rome how our current situation was difficult in the dioceses, and Rome is still working on it. Here and there, this difficulty will be real, but since when is life without difficulties? .. "

    6th note:
    Since the common good is at stake (the unity of the Society, preserving  of the deposit of faith), it seems useful to ask some fundamental principles on this subject:

    1) Quote "Cor Unum" nr 85, page 26:
    "Motions [and decisions] of the General Chapter - I.1. Relations with Rome"
    "If an agreement with the Holy See were seriously considered, an extraordinary general chapter would be convened to address the issue."

    2) Quote of Raoul Naz "Treaty of Canon Law", T 1, nr 816,
    "Chapters":
    "General Chapter has more power than the superior general.
    It can make laws or at least take steps that must remain in effect until the next chapter. "
    Naz does not place restrictions on these two principles. He gives a reference to the Dictionary of Canon Law which confirms the history of religious families in the Church through the centuries.

    3) Conclusion absolutely clear:
    Of the supreme authority of the SSPX and a chapter must be held to address the issue of a possible imminent agreement with Rome.

    The text box is checked and approved by an official of the SSPX.
    Tradition gives this principle which can be summarized thus: "A General Chapter has supreme powers in a society of law of the Church. Therefore it has the powers and the grave duty to elect or to remove any person of authority as required by the common good and to verify and sanction fidelity to the founder, to the Rule, the Constitutions and Statutes of the General Chapters past ".

    7th "Mortalium Animos"
    An agreement of "SSPX with Rome without conversion" is entirely under the doctrine of Vatican II, which advocates a "ministry of unity with everyone without conversion" (Nostra Aetate, the "spirit of Assisi", the new ecumenism) condemned by "Mortalium Animos".

    8th Archbishop Lefebvre

    Conference in Flavigny, in December 1988 Preview Fideliter No. 68 (March 1989) p. 16

    "We must be free of compromise both with regard to sedevacantists as well as those who absolutely want to be subjected to ecclesiastical authority.
    We remain committed to our Lord Jesus Christ. But Vatican II was dethroned our Lord. We want to remain faithful to our Lord king, prince and ruler of the world. We can not change this course of action.
    So when we get asked the question when will there be an agreement with Rome, my answer is simple: when Rome recrowns "Our Lord Jesus Christ. We can not agree with those who uncrown Our Lord. The day they  recognize again our Lord King of peoples and nations, it is not us who shall have rejoined them , but they who come back to the Catholic Church in which we live. "
    + Marcel Lefebvre, Flavignv, December 1988

    Conference in Sierre (Switzerland) on 27 XI 1988 fideliter Extract from No. 89 (September 1992) p.12

    "This is a general apostasy, which is why we resist, but the Roman authorities would have us accept it. When I discussed with them in Rome, they wanted me to recognize religious freedom like Cardinal Bea. But I said no, I cannot. My faith is that of Cardinal Ottaviani faithful to all the popes, and not this new doctrine which has always been condemned.
    That's in what consists our opposition, and that is why we can not agree. It's not so much the question of the Mass, the Mass is precisely  one consequence of the fact that they wanted to get closer to Protestantism and thus transform the worship, sacraments, catechism, etc. ...
    The real fundamental opposition is the Kingdom of Our Lord Jesus Christ. "Opportet regnare Illum," says St. Paul. Our Lord came to rule. They say no. And we say yes, with all the popes. Our Lord came not to be hidden inside houses without coming outside. Why the missionaries, of whom so many were slaughtered? To preach that our Lord Jesus Christ is the only true God, to tell the pagans to convert. Then the pagans wanted to make them disappear, but they did not hesitate to give their lives to continue to preach Our Lord Jesus Christ. And now we should do the opposite, saying to the Gentiles "your religion is good, preserve it, provided you are good Buddhists, good Muslims or good pagans! "This is why we can not get along with them, because we obey our Lord saying to the apostles:" Go and teach the Gospel to the ends of the earth. "
    That is why we should not be surprised that we did not manage to make an agreement with Rome. It will not be possible until Rome  returns to the faith in the reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ, as long as it gives the impression that all religions are good. We clash on a point of Catholic faith, clash as Cardinal Bea and Cardinal Ottaviani, and as all popes clashed with liberalism. This is the same thing, the same current, the same ideas and the same divisions within the Church. "
    Ave Maria, ora pro nobis.
    Sacred Heart of Jesus have mercy on us.
    Father  Eric Julien Lawrence Jacqmin +


    Offline Diego

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1277
    • Reputation: +1/-0
    Declaration by Fr. Eric Julien Laurent Jacqmin
    « Reply #8 on: June 28, 2012, 05:04:41 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Seraphim
    Anyone here speak English (or at least American)?


    Recognizing that the destruction of the USA has already been planned, I've started studying Mandarin, have encouraged my oldest child to study Mandarin, and am teaching my children Spanish.

    We are toast.

    Offline Diego

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1277
    • Reputation: +1/-0
    Declaration by Fr. Eric Julien Laurent Jacqmin
    « Reply #9 on: June 28, 2012, 05:44:06 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • As best I can discern, these are Bp. Fellay's remaining justifications for his aggiornamento:

    (1) My Zionist handler wants it.
    (2) My prophetess wants it.
    (3) The modernist "subsisting in" the Chair of Peter wants it.
    (4) I am the King (except for my Zionist handler).

    Offline Roman55

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 276
    • Reputation: +0/-0
    Declaration by Fr. Eric Julien Laurent Jacqmin
    « Reply #10 on: June 28, 2012, 06:00:19 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Diego
    Quote from: Seraphim
    Anyone here speak English (or at least American)?


    Recognizing that the destruction of the USA has already been planned, I've started studying Mandarin, have encouraged my oldest child to study Mandarin, and am teaching my children Spanish.

    We are toast.


    The 'darkest is right before the dawn'.   :pray:


    Offline Philomena

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 50
    • Reputation: +0/-0
    Declaration by Fr. Eric Julien Laurent Jacqmin
    « Reply #11 on: June 28, 2012, 06:10:38 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • We are living in a time of the great crisis of Faith and morals as prophesied by Our Lady.  The confusion is of such magnitude that it is not only subverting the temporal sphere, but also penetrates the walls of the Church itself. Indeed, as Our Lady prophesied, the corruption of customs has become general and the precious light of Faith almost extinct.  Yet the message of Our Lady of Good Success ends with a note of great hope: When everything will seem lost and paralyzed, that will be "the happy beginning of the complete restoration. This will mark the arrival of my hour, when I, in a marvelous way, will dethrone the proud and cursed Satan, trampling him under my feet and fettering him in the infernal abyss." It is the promise echoed by Our Lady again at Fatima in 1917: "In the end, My Immaculate Heart will triumph."

    Thus it seems opportune to turn to Our Lady of Good Success and invoke Her, begging for every good success – both temporal and spiritual. It is the moment to ask for her orientation and certainty amid this storm, and the courage and strength to keep aloft the standard of the Faith.

    Finally, let us pray that Our Lady will intervene quickly to restore the Church and society, so that she may reassume her throne and reign again in glory as Queen of all the earth.

    Offline Maria Auxiliadora

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1368
    • Reputation: +1322/-128
    • Gender: Female
    Declaration by Fr. Eric Julien Laurent Jacqmin
    « Reply #12 on: June 28, 2012, 09:08:44 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Father  Eric Julien Lawrence Jacqmin +

    Quote:

    B An admission is proof. Mgr. Fellay admits that for the good of the SSPX it would be better not to make an agreement with Rome. That says everything. We would like to choose for the common good of the SSPX, obviously, this is the final cause of every society. But inexplicably, Bishop Fellay prefers the desire of the Pope, against what he knows to be the common good of the SSPX:
    14 April 2012 letter of Bishop Fellay to the three bishops: "Let it be noted in passing that we have not sought a practical agreement. This is false. But we have not rejected a priori, as you request, to consider the offer of the pope. For the common good of the Fraternity, we would by far prefer the current status quo through, obviously Rome is not prepared to put up with that any longer
    ."

    C Mgr. Fellay said May 11th, 2012 to CNS "I cannot exclude that there might be a split (in the SSPX)." According to Aristotle  unity is one of the greatest assets of a society.

    _______________________________________________________________
    My 2 cents
    Reading these quotes from Father Jacqmin brought to my mind the article from Vatican Insider which I'll paste below. It took me a while to find it, but is worth reading in view of the current circumstances. Keep in mind that this statements by + Fellay were spoken after the meeting at Albano were he met with total opposition to the "Doctrinal Preamble". The article is dated 11/4/11 and shows throughly (in my opinion) that he was determined back then to do what he's doing now with no regard for unity. Back in November, most of the faithful refused to see the truth that now is staring us at the face.
    ________________________________________________________________


    SEARCH
    11/ 4/2011
    The path to Rome
    Towards a reconciliation between Lefebvrists and the Vatican?
    Giacomo Galeazzi
    Vatican City

     

    The Lefebvrists haven't rejected the Vatican's offer, says Bernard Fellay. The superior of the Fraternity of St. Pius X intervened to stop the news leak concerning a break with the Vatican over negotiations for the reentry of the ultra-traditionalist schismatic group into the Church. “We haven't rejected the text that was presented to us by the Holy See”, assures Fellay.

     

    If the reconciliation were to take place, the superior of the Fraternity of St. Piux X would lead home a group of 200 seminarians and 450 priests. And in a period of vocational shortage, that's no small thing. After the meeting of Lefebvrist superiors that took place in Albano at the beginning of October, “several comments appeared in the newspapers about the response Msgr. Bernard Fellay must give the Roman proposal of September 14, 2011”, when the Archbishop Lefebvre's successor met in the Vatican with the heads of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. For now, nothing leads one to believe that the Catholic ultra-traditionalists won't return to the fold.

     

    Also because, according to the worst estimates, it is only a small part of the Lefebvrists who wouldn't accept Rome's proposal, a minority that would thus not participate in the reentry. The initial step was the Motu Proprio “Summorum Pontificum”, the calling card with which Benedict XVI put on paper his desire not to betray tradition, especially in the field of the liturgy. Because the liturgy is the Church, and how it prays reveals what it believes. Bernard Fellay has been, since 1994 (and will be so until 2018) the superior general of the Fraternity of St. Pius X. Consecrated bishop by Lefebvre in 1988, he ascended in just a few years to heights of the fraternity. He saw Lefebvre die after the latter had lain in a coma for a week. Fellay is the leader of the most moderate spirit of the Lefebvrists. The opposite of Msgr. Richard Williamson, who instead represents the most intransigent wing of the Fraternity, which feels that it would “never, ever” come to an agreement with Rome. “Remember”, the note released today continues, “that only the general house of the Fraternity of St. Pius X is qualified to publish an official communication or an authorized comment on this issue”.

    After the meeting in Albano, the Lefebvrists had communicated that their leadership would study the “doctrinal preamble” presented by the Holy See to “present, within a reasonable amount of time, an answer to the Roman proposals”. The preamble's contents remain classified. The German Fr. Niklaus Pfluger, Fellay's first assistant, specified in a recent interview that “the proposed text has been corrected by our side”.

    In recent days, moreover, the superior of the British district of the Lefebvrists, Paul Morgan,  revealed in a letter to his flock some details of the meeting with the Roman Curia. He accused Rome of “not recognizing the rupture between the teachings of the past and those of Vatican II” and the Vatican proposals of containing “all the elements the Society has always rejected”. For what concerns the meeting in Albano, “those present agreed that the doctrinal preamble was unacceptable and that the time has certainly not come for reaching a practical agreement, since the doctrinal issues remain unresolved”. A news leak to which the superior Fellay has wished to put a stop with today's communication.

     

     

    If the liturgy is the heart of the Lefebvrist's dissent with regard to Rome, the differences of opinion seem to be greater that what the Motu Proprio “Summorum Pontificum” is able to resolve. The Lefebvrists are requesting a direct revision of the conciliar texts – and not only to denounce their incorrect hermeneutics – beginning with the declaration “Dignitatis Humanae”, dedicated to religious freedom. In it, according to the Fraternity of St. Pius X, the Church places herself in a state of submission to a civil authority, which must grant it the right to freely express herself. According to the Lefebvrists, it should be the other way around: it is the state that must subject itself to the Catholic faith and recognize it as the state religion.

     
    The love of God be your motivation, the will of God your guiding principle, the glory of God your goal.
    (St. Clement Mary Hofbauer)

    Offline Maria Auxiliadora

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1368
    • Reputation: +1322/-128
    • Gender: Female
    Declaration by Fr. Eric Julien Laurent Jacqmin
    « Reply #13 on: June 28, 2012, 09:16:38 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Marie Auxiliadora
    Father  Eric Julien Lawrence Jacqmin +

    Quote:

    B An admission is proof. Mgr. Fellay admits that for the good of the SSPX it would be better not to make an agreement with Rome. That says everything. We would like to choose for the common good of the SSPX, obviously, this is the final cause of every society. But inexplicably, Bishop Fellay prefers the desire of the Pope, against what he knows to be the common good of the SSPX:
    14 April 2012 letter of Bishop Fellay to the three bishops: "Let it be noted in passing that we have not sought a practical agreement. This is false. But we have not rejected a priori, as you request, to consider the offer of the pope. For the common good of the Fraternity, we would by far prefer the current status quo through, obviously Rome is not prepared to put up with that any longer
    ."

    C Mgr. Fellay said May 11th, 2012 to CNS "I cannot exclude that there might be a split (in the SSPX)." According to Aristotle  unity is one of the greatest assets of a society.

    _______________________________________________________________
    My 2 cents
    Reading these quotes from Father Jacqmin brought to my mind the article from Vatican Insider which I'll paste below. It took me a while to find it, but is worth reading in view of the current circumstances. Keep in mind that this statements by + Fellay were spoken after the meeting at Albano were he met with total opposition to the "Doctrinal Preamble". The article is dated 11/4/11 and shows throughly (in my opinion) that he was determined back then to do what he's doing now with no regard for unity. Back in November, most of the faithful refused to see the truth that now is staring us at the face.
    ________________________________________________________________


    SEARCH
    11/ 4/2011
    The path to Rome
    Towards a reconciliation between ####s and the Vatican?
    Giacomo Galeazzi
    Vatican City

     

    The ####s haven't rejected the Vatican's offer, says Bernard Fellay. The superior of the Fraternity of St. Pius X intervened to stop the news leak concerning a break with the Vatican over negotiations for the reentry of the ultra-traditionalist schismatic group into the Church. “We haven't rejected the text that was presented to us by the Holy See”, assures Fellay.

     

    If the reconciliation were to take place, the superior of the Fraternity of St. Piux X would lead home a group of 200 seminarians and 450 priests. And in a period of vocational shortage, that's no small thing. After the meeting of #### superiors that took place in Albano at the beginning of October, “several comments appeared in the newspapers about the response Msgr. Bernard Fellay must give the Roman proposal of September 14, 2011”, when the Archbishop Lefebvre's successor met in the Vatican with the heads of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. For now, nothing leads one to believe that the Catholic ultra-traditionalists won't return to the fold.

     

    Also because, according to the worst estimates, it is only a small part of the ####s who wouldn't accept Rome's proposal, a minority that would thus not participate in the reentry. The initial step was the Motu Proprio “Summorum Pontificum”, the calling card with which Benedict XVI put on paper his desire not to betray tradition, especially in the field of the liturgy. Because the liturgy is the Church, and how it prays reveals what it believes. Bernard Fellay has been, since 1994 (and will be so until 2018) the superior general of the Fraternity of St. Pius X. Consecrated bishop by Lefebvre in 1988, he ascended in just a few years to heights of the fraternity. He saw Lefebvre die after the latter had lain in a coma for a week. Fellay is the leader of the most moderate spirit of the ####s. The opposite of Msgr. Richard Williamson, who instead represents the most intransigent wing of the Fraternity, which feels that it would “never, ever” come to an agreement with Rome. “Remember”, the note released today continues, “that only the general house of the Fraternity of St. Pius X is qualified to publish an official communication or an authorized comment on this issue”.

    After the meeting in Albano, the ####s had communicated that their leadership would study the “doctrinal preamble” presented by the Holy See to “present, within a reasonable amount of time, an answer to the Roman proposals”. The preamble's contents remain classified. The German Fr. Niklaus Pfluger, Fellay's first assistant, specified in a recent interview that “the proposed text has been corrected by our side”.

    In recent days, moreover, the superior of the British district of the ####s, Paul Morgan,  revealed in a letter to his flock some details of the meeting with the Roman Curia. He accused Rome of “not recognizing the rupture between the teachings of the past and those of Vatican II” and the Vatican proposals of containing “all the elements the Society has always rejected”. For what concerns the meeting in Albano, “those present agreed that the doctrinal preamble was unacceptable and that the time has certainly not come for reaching a practical agreement, since the doctrinal issues remain unresolved”. A news leak to which the superior Fellay has wished to put a stop with today's communication.

     

     

    If the liturgy is the heart of the ####'s dissent with regard to Rome, the differences of opinion seem to be greater that what the Motu Proprio “Summorum Pontificum” is able to resolve. The ####s are requesting a direct revision of the conciliar texts – and not only to denounce their incorrect hermeneutics – beginning with the declaration “Dignitatis Humanae”, dedicated to religious freedom. In it, according to the Fraternity of St. Pius X, the Church places herself in a state of submission to a civil authority, which must grant it the right to freely express herself. According to the ####s, it should be the other way around: it is the state that must subject itself to the Catholic faith and recognize it as the state religion.

     




    The link to the article:  http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/homepage/world-news/detail/articolo/lefevbriani-lefebvrians-lefebvrianos-vaticano-vatican-9620/
    The love of God be your motivation, the will of God your guiding principle, the glory of God your goal.
    (St. Clement Mary Hofbauer)

    Offline Ethelred

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1222
    • Reputation: +2266/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Declaration by Fr. Eric Julien Laurent Jacqmin
    « Reply #14 on: June 29, 2012, 02:59:09 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Diego
    As best I can discern, these are Bp. Fellay's remaining justifications for his aggiornamento:

    (1) My Zionist handler wants it.
    (2) My prophetess wants it.
    (3) The modernist "subsisting in" the Chair of Peter wants it.
    (4) I am the King (except for my Zionist handler).

    (5) My archenemy Bishop Williamson doesn't want the Aggiornamento, so I must want it.

     :scratchchin:

     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16