.
For convenience's sake, here is a copy of the post I linked
above, from the earlier thread, posted at 2:30 pm my time
(which was 5 hours before I had noticed it).
Dear friends, we have to be careful with Google translate, because sometimes it gives a false sense. My English is bad, but I 'll try to correct the wrong meaning of certain sentences :
"The policy of the SSPX towards Rome until the General Chapter of 2006 included, was to wait for a conversion of Rome before seeking a canonical structure. But this policy was changed by Bishop Fellay in 2011-2012 after the total opposition revealed by our discussions with Rome. We could not expect any full conversion of Rome. So Bishop Fellay tried to test Rome on our critic of the Council. [he tried] That Rome accepts at least that we criticized the Council. It was hoped that Rome would accept. But on June 13, 2012, Rome (by Cardinal Levada) maintained the requirement of acceptance of the council as "magisterial" (1). And Bp Fellay did not sign anything, refusing to accept that. That's all. Bishop Fellay has not signed anything and nothing happened and we have not been "excommunicated" as Cardinal Levada threatened us. And Benedict XVI withdrew, seeing he had made "everything he could" to bring us back to the council, and that it did not work. That's the thing. "
"So, dear Father, do not go into battle against Bishop Fellay because finally, ultimately, its strategy was successful: without break, without breaking, it maintains a relationship with the Romans, [a relationship] which will be able to begin again with the new Pope, on a basis which [will be] still and always doctrinal."
Dom Thomas said that because Bp Tissier says that Bp Fellay's strategy was successful, it means that Bp Tissier is not against a practical deal with Rome anymore.
He also said that the end of the quote shows that they are ready to begin again with the new pope and so the will to make an agreement with Rome is confirmed.
So he said to be careful with the 27th June declaration because this declaration is not clear : for instance, it does not say that the new mass is not legitimately promulgated, and the article 11 means that the will of a practical deal is not dead.
I am tempted to go through this and make additional suggestions, but
this is exhausting! -Because, I don't know what I'm doing!! I know
English well enough but not French.
Perhaps we ought to wait for TheRecusant to pick up on this. They
have access to very good French-English translation skills. There isn't
anything in the Latest News area yet, nor in the Reference Materials
section. Perhaps another week?
But in any event, I expect some kind of statement from Fr. Pfeiffer
and/or Fr. Hewko soon. They would never have had Pablo running
a video camera inside the private Chapel in Chicago if they did not
plan on making an announcement. For to do so wouldn't be fair to
their audience. And I'm sure that they'd be in touch with TheRecusant
on the matter of translations. There is a linked docuмent from Dom
Tomas de Aquino in French (I'm guessing that's the original, but I
wouldn't be too shocked if the original is actually Portuguese or
even Spanish!!) that
avec l'immaculee blogspot has on the source
page. We would like to see a good English version of that, too,
which would be just a matter of someone fixing up the Google
Translate version.
I've already tried to read that and it gave me a headache, literally!
Copy follows [I'm not going to touch the content of this]:
Friday, July 19, 2013
Three streams - Dom Thomas Aquinas
Three streams
by Dom Thomas Aquinas
Three currents are emerging in Tradition for some time.
The first, true to instructions of Archbishop Lefebvre, goes on to say: "No practical agreement without conversion of Rome." This is the voice of common sense and faith. This current is abused today because he speaks and he speaks because St. Paul says: "The heart believes in justice, but the mouth confession for salvation" (Rom.10: 11).
The second, he seeks a so-called "necessary reconciliation" with the conciliar Church. This approach is contrary to common sense, contrary to the instructions of Archbishop Lefebvre and the resolutions of the General Chapter of 2006, repeated: "No practical agreement without conversion of Rome."
The second stream is based not on doctrine but on diplomacy and abuse of authority. Diplomacy towards Rome, abuse of authority with respect to good priests, threatened and hunted, with respect to the faithful also denied the sacraments.
A third stream is placed between the first two. Rather this current agrees with the first. He does not believe in this "necessary reconciliation," but he expects and silent. That reflects, among many priests and many faithful anguish at what can happen to them. God alone knows the dramas within families, communities and among priests. Faithful and priests know very well that if they start to speak against the policy Menzingen, the consequences will be brutal, as we have seen in Mexico and elsewhere: private faithful of the holy communion, absolution, priests transferred expelled or reduced to a forced silence, ...
This third approach is tending to disappear, people finding their place is in the first or in the second. This is because this behavior is unstable by definition, though, for the faithful at least, it can last longer. Japan Catholic families remained silent for more than two centuries about their faith. Some believers may keep silent for a while if they are threatened to be deprived of the sacraments, schools, etc..
But among priests and bishops especially in this attitude tends to disappear quickly by choosing either the first or the second position. Bishop Tissier de Mallerais was the first current when he wrote with his brother bishops letter of April 7, 2012 the General Council. His gait was private but his thoughts were known. He subsequently gave an interview to Rivarol and did not hide his thoughts during conversations with several priests. Despite this position remained discrete.
But gradually, Bishop Tissier began in the third stream, the silence, unstable and full of dangers to the current moment. Not only Bishop Tissier kept silence increasingly extended, but he advised others to be quiet. "When pastors are silent, barking dogs," replied the heroic Father Chazal.
The wolf is in the fold. We must shout. But Bishop Tissier silent. Why? Because he thinks that the strategy succeeded Bishop Fellay and it was not finally so bad as that. But let him speak. This is a private letter of 11 March 2013. It is free to adjust its thinking, but here's what he wrote to the author of these lines: "The policy of the SSPX to Rome, to the General Chapter of 2006 including, was waiting for a conversion Rome before seeking a canonical structure. But this policy was changed by Bishop Fellay in 2011-2012 as a result of total opposition revealed in our discussions with Rome. You could not expect any full conversion of Rome. So Bishop Fellay Rome attempted to test our critical of the Council. Rome What we accept at least criticize the Council . It was hoped that Rome would sell. But on June 13, 2012, Rome (by Cardinal Levada) maintained the requirement of acceptance of the council as "magisterial" (1). And Msgr Fellay did not sign anything, refusing to accept that. That's all. Bishop Fellay has not signed anything and nothing happened and we have not been "excommunicated" as we threatened Cardinal Levada. And Benedict withdrew seeing he had made ​​"everything he could" to bring us back to the council, and it did not work. That's the thing."
"So, dear Father, do not go into battle against Bishop Fellay because ultimately, ultimately, its strategy was successful: without break, without breaking, it maintains a relationship with the Romans, who will walk away with the new Pope, on even doctrinal basis and always."
"The always doctrinal policy"
[/b]
As we can see, Bishop Tissier approaches increasingly Bishop Fellay. Presumably he did this to try to save the Brotherhood, keep united and back on track without breaking. This is a laudable desire, but its effect is disastrous. It's too concede that Bishop Fellay said, "Finally, ultimately, its strategy has been successful." If the agreement has not been signed on June 13, is due to a last minute maneuver the Pope and Bishop Fellay who did not want to cause a split in the Brotherhood and consecrations of new 'traditional bishops' by Bishop Tissier. This is
not the reward of a well-reprehensible policy of Bishop Fellay.
[Can anyone explain to me what "a well-reprehensible
policy" is?! Or, "not the reward of " same?!]
Bishop Fellay changes the decisions of the General Chapter of 2006 and grows to an agreement with Rome with a more ambiguous language. He says enormities than ever we heard from the lips of Archbishop Lefebvre, the enormities that only members of the Ecclesia Dei are able to say ... And all this even before an agreement is signed. What will it then if he comes to sign one in the future?
If there is a strategy that was successful in Bishop Fellay is that of having silenced all internal reaction of the Brotherhood. Even Bishop Tissier, so talented and yet so firm to expose errors or heresies current Pontiffs became silent before the 180 º degrees of the Brotherhood against decision of the General Chapter of 2006. It was also before the aberrant statements of Bishop Fellay.
But some will say, the declaration of June 27 it not put an end to this? Why do not you recognize that the Brotherhood has not changed its doctrine and its orientation?
It is true that the presence of Bishop Tissier next to Bishop Fellay may seem at first sight that the doctrinal basis is lacking in Bishop Fellay will be compensated and that the legitimate promulgation of the New Mass, the acceptance of the New Code, the validity all the sacraments according to the new ritual (included confirmation etc.). will no longer be on the agenda. However, there is concern in reality quite the opposite as the declaration of June 27 upheld the blur on the new Mass: nowhere it was stated that she was not legitimately enacted. As for the other points of the statement, they require a very careful study because of contradictory statements by Bishop Fellay.
We will wait to believe the return of the Brotherhood with the guidelines of Archbishop Lefebvre that the door of an agreement without converting Rome is closed. However, if the strategy of Bishop Fellay was good, according to Bishop Tissier, the same strategy may therefore again. No, the door is not closed. Bishop Tissier, thus approving the strategy of Bishop Fellay (that is to say that "Rome at least accept that we criticized the Council"), then says he is not against a practical agreement without doctrinal agreement. The declaration of June 27 says explicitly in Article 11 where it claims to be able to criticize the mistakes. Conducting Menzigen vis-à-vis both priests and faithful friends and communities confirms the pertinacity of the General Council of the Society in this new direction.
Some say he was wrong Menzingen recognizes. This is not true, however. Bishop Fellay has explicitly said he admitted having committed any error except to have misunderstood the intention of the pope (see Annex No. 4 of the circular letter to the priests of the Society October 31, 2012 published by
truetrad .)
[Let it be noted that truetrad has gone defunct and
whatever was on the site might now be lost. Please
make copies of everything and post it on multiple
websites. The best archives are hard copy pages
kept in a safe place, one that is not at risk for flood
damage or fire or NWO destruction. The link above
takes you to another avec l'immaculee page. ]
If Bishop Fellay regretted his attitude, all those who have been punished and expelled from the SSPX in recent times because of the crisis would be welcomed and reintegrated into the Brotherhood.
But that's not all. There is the new language of the Superior General, which states that religious freedom is "very, very limited" in the texts of Vatican II, there is a statement of the Council whose doctrines are, he said, not quite did what we thought (see interview with Bishop Fellay on CNS, May 11, 2012), there is the General Council response to the three bishops April 14, 2012, you must keep it all in memory.
We expect an unambiguous line from Menzingen, because in matters of faith, there are no half measures. In matters of faith, there are only two camps: that of our Lord and of his enemies. If Henry V did not want a ring because he had to deal with the Revolution, especially since we do not have to deal with the enemies of the universal reign of our Lord.
We are told that in human affairs,
dial or we'll never see the end of this crisis. To this we reply with Bishop Freppel that God does not ask us the victory, but the struggle. Support human failures, yes. We all have. But accept doctrinal compromises, we can not. possumus No.
[Help!! What is "dial or we'll never see the end of this crisis?"
Who is Bishop Freppel?]
May Our Lady help us. It has the highest degree the horror of sin and error. This is the horror we ask - that horror which is characteristic of the Immaculate.
At the end of his Heart will triumph and we with him, it is our firm hope. We expect, not our merits, because we know we do not deserve it, but her motherly kindness. Like Saint said Therese of the Child Jesus: "Ask, ask, and He will give it, not because you deserve it, but because He is good." It is the goodness of God and that He has given us for mother we hope the final victory already promised.
"At the end of my Heart Immaculate triumph."Fr Th Aquinas
Note Bishop Tissier de Mallerais:
(1) And Benedict XVI in his letter to Bishop Fellay June 30, 2012.
["At the end of his Heart will triumph and we with him,
it is our firm hope," and, "At the end of my Heart Immaculate
triumph." -- uuhh, let me guess... NOT! ]