I think we should not have too much hope with Bp Tissier de Mallerais, because of the declaration he signed on the 27th June. I suppose that Fr Pfeiffer and Fr Hewko just wanted to see him to try to convince him, and so they had an appointment in Chicago, where, anyway, they were going, because there is a Resistance center here. Pablo was with them and made a little video to give us this piece of news. But the name "sermon" is a misunderstanding and not accurate and does not mean that Bp Tissier is supporting us. He scolded Fr Chazal and he is still against us, except if he converted between the 27th of June and now... But it is not likely.
The letter of Bp Tissier to Dom Thomas de Aquino http://aveclimmaculee.blogspot.fr/2013/07/reflexions-sur-la-lettre-de-mgr-tissier.html (http://aveclimmaculee.blogspot.fr/2013/07/reflexions-sur-la-lettre-de-mgr-tissier.html), the sermon given on the Pentecost during the pilgrimage and the 27th June Declaration are all going in the same direction : Bp Tissier thinks that now it is possible to make a deal with Rome if we are allowed to criticize the Council Vatican II.
.
Saturday, July 20, 2013
Reflections on the letter of Bishop Tissier Dom Thomas Aquinas
Reflections on the letter of Bishop Tissier Dom Thomas Aquinas
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-JHkC2shpTRU/UerEw0IjfrI/AAAAAAAACd4/iUH9FmVdzfc/s1600/tissier.jpg)
In his article Three currents (http://aveclimmaculee.blogspot.fr/2013/07/trois-courants-dom-thomas-daquin.html), Dom Thomas Aquinas reveals an excerpt from a letter that Bishop Tissier de Mallerais sent on March 11, 2013:
"The policy of the SSPX [toward] Rome until the General Chapter of 2006 [inclusive], was waiting for [the] conversion [of] Rome before seeking a canonical structure. But this policy was changed by Bishop Fellay in 2011-2012 as a result of [Rome's] total opposition [to our demand] revealed in our discussions with Rome. You could not expect any full conversion of Rome. So Bishop Fellay - Rome attempted to test our [criticism] of the Council. Rome - What we [would] accept [is to] at least [be able to] criticize the Council. It was hoped that Rome would sell [buy it?]. But on June 13, 2012, Rome (by Cardinal Levada) maintained the requirement of [our] acceptance of the council as 'magisterial.'(1) And Msgr Fellay did not sign anything, refusing to accept that. That's all. Bishop Fellay did not sign anything and nothing happened and we have not been 'excommunicated' as we [were] threatened [by] 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 finally, 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."
We will think about the sentences in red text:
1) So Bishop Fellay - Rome attempted to test our [criticism] of the Council.
First, note that Bishop Tissier naively believes the lie of Bishop Fellay lie that Bishop Fellay would have required Rome to criticize the Council. Just read the statement of 15 April 2012 to see that Bishop Fellay had no intention to criticize the Council, when it was signed in Rome. Rather, he wanted to accept the full light of Tradition : "The statements of Vatican II and Papal Magisterium post on the relationship between the Catholic Church and non-Catholic Christian denominations, as well as the social duty of religion and the right to religious freedom, the formulation is difficult compatible with previous doctrinal statements of the Magisterium, must be understood in the light of the full and uninterrupted Tradition, consistent with the truths previously taught by the Magisterium of the Church."
He also considered that the Second Vatican Council, "informs - that is to say, deepens and explicit later - some aspects of the life and doctrine of the Church, implicitly present in it or not yet formulated conceptually."
So where is the criticism of the Council supposedly claimed by Bishop Fellay in this text? Maybe in Article 6, as Bishop Tissier? Here it is :
"6. This is why it is legitimate to promote a legitimate discussion the study and theological explanation of expressions and formulations of the Second Vatican Council and the subsequent Magisterium, where they seem irreconcilable with the previous magisterium of the Church."
Yes, it is sure that the criticism of Bishop Fellay was extremely "powerful" and "effective" [- NOT! -] when it says just above this paragraph 6 that all the texts of the Council and of the [later] Magisterium should be [manditorially] interpreted in the light of Tradition, and he erected [it] in good standing, without naming the false doctrine of the hermeneutic of continuity of Benedict XVI!
In paragraph 6 it says that some of these texts seem irreconcilable with the previous teaching of the Church. If they do not seem to reconcile this is that they can actually be!
2) But on June 13, 2012, Rome (by Cardinal Levada) maintained the requirement of acceptance of the council as [being] "magisterial."
This is false. The declaration of April 15 already implicitly declared the Second Vatican Council as "magisterial" since the whole accepted in the light of Tradition. There is nothing new between April 15 and June 13, 2012, if not a change of tactics last minute, because of the reaction of Bishop Tissier.
3) Bishop Fellay signed nothing
When Bishop Fellay said in the Cor Unum 104 that there are fundamental differences so-called "unacceptable" between the statement of 15 April 2012 and the proposed Rome June 13, 2012 text, this is wrong. There is NO substantive difference between the two texts. This has been demonstrated in this article.
Bishop Fellay has refused to sign, not because Rome wanted him to accept Vatican II as "magisterial", but to avoid a split in the SSPX and the sacred traditional to the new fraternity would have created around Bishop Tissier.
4) finally, ultimately, its strategy has been successful
Bishop Tissier here approves Bishop Fellay in the new direction he gave to the Society: make a [practical agreement without any] doctrinal agreement.
5) maintains a relationship with the Romans, who will walk away with the new Pope, on an even basis and always doctrinal.
This sentence is the most problematic of all for Bishop Tissier, here, playing with words, as Bishop [de Galarreta a Villepreux] saying, "We have established the conditions that could lead to hypothetically consider a canonical normalization. And if you think about it - This has been done, it is just taking any doctrinal issue, liturgical ... and she has been as a practical requirement."
That is, at present, Bishop Tissier cleverly tries [to get Dom Thomas to see that] the agreement may also [possess] at the same time, a good doctrinal basis.
What is a doctrinal agreement? [Being in] doctrinal agreement with someone is to have the same doctrine. Doctrinal agreement with Rome [therefore] means having the same doctrine as Rome. A doctrinal agreement is synonymous with conversion of Rome.
[Considering] an agreement with a "doctrinal basis" with a heretic conciliar pope is not possible. Is wanting once again [to] make [to] us as white something that is black. Why not rather say to Dom Thomas: I've changed my mind. Finally, I am for a practical agreement. This [way,] would [it not] have been more frank and clear?
Francis [François] was not elected at the time of this letter. But now we know the new pope. François believes that faith is above all an experience that [Cardinal] Kasper is a great theologian, does not believe in the miracle of the loaves and think that Ramadan can bring spiritual fruit* for souls.
Consider an agreement with a "doctrinal basis" with him and all [an entirely] conciliar pope is surreal. It is once again want us to look at the reality otherwise it is ... It's a bit of powder in the eyes of [the] innocent who believe that we can have confidence in those who govern the Brotherhood.
*[Perhaps Card. Kasper thinks Ramadan can bring spiritual BAD fruit to souls.]
.....................
It seems to me the errors of Russia are being imposed, such that
we're looking at PERESTROIKA in the ExSPX. This is a GLASNOST
conversion of Rome, by which it is rather a change in the ExSPX
as to how Rome's doctrinal stand is SUBJECTIVELY PERCEIVED by
the ExSPX -- that is to say, "the conversion of Rome" consists of
the ExSPX accepting that the doctrinal questions are now resolved,
because it's all how you look at it. As my sorry-state acquaintance
of 50+ years told me:
"COMMUNISM IS WHAT YOU MAKE OF IT."
I'm sure Dom Tomas de Aquino would understand this. :geezer:
P.S. It seems odd to me that Dom Tomas would let slip by the bad
term "previous Magisterium" and "present Magisterium" (Nr. 1/6). This
has never before been used in the history of the Church, so he must
have a real good reason not to nail this problem right here.
....................
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.
Three attitudes have been emerging in Tradition for some time.
The first, faithful to the directive of Abp. Lefebvre, continues to say: “No practical accord without the conversion of Rome.” It is the voice of good sense and of faith. This attitude is abused today because of what it says and it says that because St. Paul told us: “For, with the heart, we believe unto justice: but, with the mouth, confession is made unto salvation.” Romans 10:10.
The second searches for a so-called « necessary reconciliation » with the Conciliar Church. It is an approach contrary to good sense, contrary to the directives of Abp. Lefebvre as well as the resolution of the 2006 General Chapter which repeated: “No practical agreement without the conversion of Rome.”
This second attitude rests not on doctrine, but on diplomacy and on the abuse of authority. Diplomacy vis-à-vis Rome, abuse of authority vis-à-vis the good priests, threatened and hunted, vis-à-vis the faithful as well, denied the sacraments.
A third attitude sits between the first two. This attitude thinks rather like the first. It does not believe in this “necessary reconciliation,” but it waits and keeps silent. This attitude conveys, with numerous priests and faithful, an anxiety about what my happen to them. God alone knows the turmoil in the midst of families and communities and among priests. Faithful and priests know very well that if they begin to speak against the politics of Menzingen, the consequences will be brutal, like has already been seen in Mexico and elsewhere: faithful being denied holy communion, absolution, priests being transferred, expelled or reduced to a forced silence . . .
However, this third attitude tends to disappear, the people finding their place either with the first or the second. That because this behavior is unstable by definition, even though, for the faithful at least, it can last a long time. In Japan, the Catholic families kept silent about their faith for nearly two centuries. Some faithful will perhaps keep silent for a good while if they see themselves being denied the sacraments, the schools, etc.
But with the priests and above all the bishops, this attitude tends to disappear rather quickly through the choice of the first or second attitude. Bishop Tissier de Mallerais was of the first attitude when he, with his confreres, wrote the Letter from the Three Bishops dated April 7, 2012 to the General Council. His approach was private, but his thoughts were known. Consequently, he gave an interview to Rivarol and did not hide his thoughts during conversations with several priests. Despite this, his position remains discreet.
But, little by little, Bishop Tissier has put himself into the third attitude, that of silence, an unstable attitude and full of danger at the moment. Not only does Bishop Tissier keep a more and more prolonged silence, but he counsels other to keep quiet. As Fr. Chazal heroically answered him, “When the shepherds are quiet, the dogs bark."
The wolf is in the sheepfold. We must cry out. But Bishop Tissier remains silent. Why ? Because he thinks that Bishop Fellay’s strategy worked and, in the end, it was not so bad after all. But let’s let him speak. It was in a private letter dated March 11, 2013. He is free to correct his thinking, but here is what he wrote to the author of these lines:
“The SSPX policy towards Rome up to and including the 2006 General Chapter, was to wait for the conversion of Rome before looking for a canonical structure. But this policy was been changed by Bishop Fellay in 2011-2012 following the total opposition revealed by our discussions with Rome. We can no longer hope for the total conversion of Rome. At that time, Bishop Fellay tried to test Rome on our criticism of the Council. So Rome more or less accepted our criticizing the Council. We could hope that Rome would give in. But on June 13, 2012, Rome (through Cardinal Levada) maintained the demand for acceptance of the Council as being “magisterial.” Bishop Fellay signed nothing, refusing to accept that. That’s all! Bishop Fellay signed nothing and nothing happened and we have not been “excommunicated” as we were threatened by Cardinal Levada. And Benedict XVI has retired seeing that he had done “everything he could” to bring us back to the Council, and it did not work. There it is!
Then, dear Father, fight with Bishop Fellay, because in the end, his strategy worked: breaking nothing, ruining nothing, he maintained a relationship with the Romans which could be started up again with the new Pope, on a another and always doctrinal basis.”
“Policy- always doctrinal”
As we can see, Bishop Tissier is drawing closer and closer to Bishop Fellay. We can think that he did this in an attempt to save the Society, to maintain unity and to keep it on track without breaking it. It is a commendable desire, but the result is disastrous. It is too much to concede to Bishop Fellay to say that “finally and definitively, his strategy succeeded.” If the accord was not signed last June 13 it was because of a last minute maneuver by the Pope and Bishop Fellay who did not want to bring about a split in the Society and newly consecrated traditional bishops by Bishop Tissier. It was not the result Bishop Fellay’s reprehensible policy.
Bishop Fellay changed the decisions of the 2006 General Chapter and pushed an accord with Rome in more than ambiguous language. He affirms outrageous remarks that we would never have heard from the mouth of Abp. Lefebvre, outrageous remarks that only the members of Ecclesia Dei would be capable of saying . . . and all this even before an accord is signed. What will he do then if he comes to sign one in the future?
If there was a strategy of Bishop Fellay’s that succeeded, it was that of having muzzled all internal reaction in the SSPX. Even Bishop Tissier, so talented and yet so firm in exposing errors and seeing the heresies of the current popes, became silent when faced with the 180º shift in the Society against the decision of the 2006 General Chapter. He also kept quiet about Bishop Fellay’s absurd declarations.
But, as some say, did not the June 27 Declaration put a end to this affair? What are you waiting for—recognize that the Society has changed nothing of its doctrine and orientation?
It is true that Bishop Tissier’s presence next to Bishop Fellay may make it look at first sight as if the doctrinal basis which Bishop Fellay lacks will be compensated for 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 a real concern of quite the opposite, that the declaration of June 27 is vague on the new Mass: nowhere does it state that it was not legitimately promulgated. As for the other points of the declaration, they require a very careful study because of Bishop Fellay's contradictory statements.
We will wait to believe in the return of the Society to the orientation of Archbishop Lefebvre, to believe that the door of an agreement without the conversion of Rome is closed. However, if Bishop Fellay’s strategy was good, according to Bishop Tissier, the same strategy may be started up again. No, the door is not closed. Bishop Tissier, by approving Bishop Fellay’s strategy (that is to say “that Rome more or less accepts our criticizing the Council”), affirms that he is no longer against a practical agreement without a doctrinal agreement. The June 27 Declaration says so explicitly in Article 11, where it claims to be able to criticize the errors. Menzigen’s conduct vis-à-vis priests, the faithful, and friendly communities confirms the pertinacity of the General Council of the Society in this new orientation.
Some say that Menzingen realizes that it was wrong. That is not true. To the contrary, Bishop Fellay has explicitly said that he does not admit to having committed any error except for being mistaken about the intentions of the Pope (see: Annex no. 4 to the Circular Letter to Society Priests of October 31, 2012 published by truetrad .) (1)
If Bishop Fellay regretted his attitude, all those who have been recently punished and expelled from the SSPX because of this crisis should be welcomed back and reintegrated into the Society.
But that’s not all. The Superior General speaks a new language which states that religious liberty is “very, very limited” in the texts of Vatican II. There is a declaration on the Council that its doctrines are, as he says, not quite what we thought (see: Bishop Fellay’s interview by CNS of May 11, 2012). And there is the General Council’s response of April 14, 2012, to the three bishops—we must keep all this in mind.
We are waiting for unambiguous behavior by Menzingen, because in matters of the faith, there are no half measures. In matters of the faith, there are only two camps: that of Our Lord and that of His enemies. If Henry V did not want a crown because he must compromise with the revolution, all the more so we do not want to compromise with the enemies of the universal Reign of Our Lord.
We are told that in human affairs, we must compromise or we will never see the end of this crisis. To this we reply, with Bishop Freppel, that God does not ask victory from us, but combat. Put up with human failures, yes. We all have. But accept doctrinal compromises, we cannot. Non possumus.
May Our Lady help us. She possesses the highest degree of horror of sin and error. It is for this horror that we ask, this horror which is characteristic of the Immaculate. In the end, her Heart with triumph and us with her; this is our firm hope. We wait for it, not through our merits, because we know that we do not deserve it, but through her motherly kindness. As St. Thérèse of the Child Jesus said, “Ask, ask, and He will give it to you, not because you deserve it, but because He is good.” It is from the goodness of God and she who He has given to us for a mother that we dare to hope for the final victory already promised. “In the end, my Immaculate Heart will triumph.”
Fr. Th. d'Aquin
1.)From truetrad.com :
4) At the conference he gave to priests at Ecône on September 4, 2012, Bp. Fellay admitted that he had made a mistake.
In fact, the Superior General admitted that he had “been mistaken or been deceived” on a very precise and limited point. He was trying to understand the exact position of the Pope who, though knowing perfectly well our profound disagreement on Vatican II, evidently wanted to recognize us. The answer surmised by Bp. Fellay was the following: The Pope was agreeing to reduce the extent of the obligation of adhering to the Council in theological discussions concerning legitimate disputed points. It was only after receiving Card. Levada’s letter on June 13th that it became clear that the idea of the Council’s being optional and not obligatory in conscience, was false. It is only on this point that Bp. Fellay said that he had been mistaken.
Here is my very quick translation:QuoteThree attitudes have been emerging in Tradition for some time.
The first, faithful to the directive of Abp. Lefebvre, continues to say: “No practical accord without the conversion of Rome.” It is the voice of good sense and of faith. This attitude is abused today because of what it says and it says that because St. Paul told us: “For, with the heart, we believe unto justice: but, with the mouth, confession is made unto salvation.” Romans 10:10.
The second searches for a so-called « necessary reconciliation » with the Conciliar Church. It is an approach contrary to good sense, contrary to the directives of Abp. Lefebvre as well as the resolution of the 2006 General Chapter which repeated: “No practical agreement without the conversion of Rome.”
This second attitude rests not on doctrine, but on diplomacy and on the abuse of authority. Diplomacy vis-à-vis Rome, abuse of authority vis-à-vis the good priests, threatened and hunted, vis-à-vis the faithful as well, denied the sacraments.
A third attitude sits between the first two. This attitude thinks rather like the first. It does not believe in this “necessary reconciliation,” but it waits and keeps silent. This attitude conveys, with numerous priests and faithful, an anxiety about what my happen to them. God alone knows the turmoil in the midst of families and communities and among priests. Faithful and priests know very well that if they begin to speak against the politics of Menzingen, the consequences will be brutal, like has already been seen in Mexico and elsewhere: faithful being denied holy communion, absolution, priests being transferred, expelled or reduced to a forced silence . . .
However, this third attitude tends to disappear, the people finding their place either with the first or the second. That because this behavior is unstable by definition, even though, for the faithful at least, it can last a long time. In Japan, the Catholic families kept silent about their faith for nearly two centuries. Some faithful will perhaps keep silent for a good while if they see themselves being denied the sacraments, the schools, etc.
But with the priests and above all the bishops, this attitude tends to disappear rather quickly through the choice of the first or second attitude. Bishop Tissier de Mallerais was of the first attitude when he, with his confreres, wrote the Letter from the Three Bishops dated April 7, 2012 to the General Council. His approach was private, but his thoughts were known. Consequently, he gave an interview to Rivarol and did not hide his thoughts during conversations with several priests. Despite this, his position remains discreet.
But, little by little, Bishop Tissier has put himself into the third attitude, that of silence, an unstable attitude and full of danger at the moment. Not only does Bishop Tissier keep a more and more prolonged silence, but he counsels other to keep quiet. As Fr. Chazal heroically answered him, “When the shepherds are quiet, the dogs bark."
The wolf is in the sheepfold. We must cry out. But Bishop Tissier remains silent. Why ? Because he thinks that Bishop Fellay’s strategy worked and, in the end, it was not so bad after all. But let’s let him speak. It was in a private letter dated March 11, 2013. He is free to correct his thinking, but here is what he wrote to the author of these lines:
“The SSPX policy towards Rome up to and including the 2006 General Chapter, was to wait for the conversion of Rome before looking for a canonical structure. But this policy was been changed by Bishop Fellay in 2011-2012 following the total opposition revealed by our discussions with Rome. We can no longer hope for the total conversion of Rome. At that time, Bishop Fellay tried to test Rome on our criticism of the Council. So Rome more or less accepted our criticizing the Council. We could hope that Rome would give in. But on June 13, 2012, Rome (through Cardinal Levada) maintained the demand for acceptance of the Council as being “magisterial.” Bishop Fellay signed nothing, refusing to accept that. That’s all! Bishop Fellay signed nothing and nothing happened and we have not been “excommunicated” as we were threatened by Cardinal Levada. And Benedict XVI has retired seeing that he had done “everything he could” to bring us back to the Council, and it did not work. There it is!
Then, dear Father, fight with Bishop Fellay, because in the end, his strategy worked: breaking nothing, ruining nothing, he maintained a relationship with the Romans which could be started up again with the new Pope, on a another and always doctrinal basis.”
“Policy- always doctrinal”
As we can see, Bishop Tissier is drawing closer and closer to Bishop Fellay. We can think that he did this in an attempt to save the Society, to maintain unity and to keep it on track without breaking it. It is a commendable desire, but the result is disastrous. It is too much to concede to Bishop Fellay to say that “finally and definitively, his strategy succeeded.” If the accord was not signed last June 13 it was because of a last minute maneuver by the Pope and Bishop Fellay who did not want to bring about a split in the Society and newly consecrated traditional bishops by Bishop Tissier. It was not the result Bishop Fellay’s reprehensible policy.
Bishop Fellay changed the decisions of the 2006 General Chapter and pushed an accord with Rome in more than ambiguous language. He affirms outrageous remarks that we would never have heard from the mouth of Abp. Lefebvre, outrageous remarks that only the members of Ecclesia Dei would be capable of saying . . . and all this even before an accord is signed. What will he do then if he comes to sign one in the future?
If there was a strategy of Bishop Fellay’s that succeeded, it was that of having muzzled all internal reaction in the SSPX. Even Bishop Tissier, so talented and yet so firm in exposing errors and seeing the heresies of the current popes, became silent when faced with the 180º shift in the Society against the decision of the 2006 General Chapter. He also kept quiet about Bishop Fellay’s absurd declarations.
But, as some say, did not the June 27 Declaration put a end to this affair? What are you waiting for—recognize that the Society has changed nothing of its doctrine and orientation?
It is true that Bishop Tissier’s presence next to Bishop Fellay may make it look at first sight as if the doctrinal basis which Bishop Fellay lacks will be compensated for 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 a real concern of quite the opposite, that the declaration of June 27 is vague on the new Mass: nowhere does it state that it was not legitimately promulgated. As for the other points of the declaration, they require a very careful study because of Bishop Fellay's contradictory statements.
We will wait to believe in the return of the Society to the orientation of Archbishop Lefebvre, to believe that the door of an agreement without the conversion of Rome is closed. However, if Bishop Fellay’s strategy was good, according to Bishop Tissier, the same strategy may be started up again. No, the door is not closed. Bishop Tissier, by approving Bishop Fellay’s strategy (that is to say “that Rome more or less accepts our criticizing the Council”), affirms that he is no longer against a practical agreement without a doctrinal agreement. The June 27 Declaration says so explicitly in Article 11, where it claims to be able to criticize the errors. Menzigen’s conduct vis-à-vis priests, the faithful, and friendly communities confirms the pertinacity of the General Council of the Society in this new orientation.
Some say that Menzingen realizes that it was wrong. That is not true. To the contrary, Bishop Fellay has explicitly said that he does not admit to having committed any error except for being mistaken about the intentions of the Pope (see: Annex no. 4 to the Circular Letter to Society Priests of October 31, 2012 published by truetrad .) (1)
If Bishop Fellay regretted his attitude, all those who have been recently punished and expelled from the SSPX because of this crisis should be welcomed back and reintegrated into the Society.
But that’s not all. The Superior General speaks a new language which states that religious liberty is “very, very limited” in the texts of Vatican II. There is a declaration on the Council that its doctrines are, as he says, not quite what we thought (see: Bishop Fellay’s interview by CNS of May 11, 2012). And there is the General Council’s response of April 14, 2012, to the three bishops—we must keep all this in mind.
We are waiting for unambiguous behavior by Menzingen, because in matters of the faith, there are no half measures. In matters of the faith, there are only two camps: that of Our Lord and that of His enemies. If Henry V did not want a crown because he must compromise with the revolution, all the more so we do not want to compromise with the enemies of the universal Reign of Our Lord.
We are told that in human affairs, we must compromise or we will never see the end of this crisis. To this we reply, with Bishop Freppel, that God does not ask victory from us, but combat. Put up with human failures, yes. We all have. But accept doctrinal compromises, we cannot. Non possumus.
May Our Lady help us. She possesses the highest degree of horror of sin and error. It is for this horror that we ask, this horror which is characteristic of the Immaculate. In the end, her Heart with triumph and us with her; this is our firm hope. We wait for it, not through our merits, because we know that we do not deserve it, but through her motherly kindness. As St. Thérèse of the Child Jesus said, “Ask, ask, and He will give it to you, not because you deserve it, but because He is good.” It is from the goodness of God and she who He has given to us for a mother that we dare to hope for the final victory already promised. “In the end, my Immaculate Heart will triumph.”
Fr. Th. d'Aquin
1.)From truetrad.com :
4) At the conference he gave to priests at Ecône on September 4, 2012, Bp. Fellay admitted that he had made a mistake.
In fact, the Superior General admitted that he had “been mistaken or been deceived” on a very precise and limited point. He was trying to understand the exact position of the Pope who, though knowing perfectly well our profound disagreement on Vatican II, evidently wanted to recognize us. The answer surmised by Bp. Fellay was the following: The Pope was agreeing to reduce the extent of the obligation of adhering to the Council in theological discussions concerning legitimate disputed points. It was only after receiving Card. Levada’s letter on June 13th that it became clear that the idea of the Council’s being optional and not obligatory in conscience, was false. It is only on this point that Bp. Fellay said that he had been mistaken.
:confused1:
Regardless of which interpretation is correct, WHY is the SSPX departing from the directions of ABL by talking with Rome when she remains obviously unconverted? I can think of only one reason, a change in the hearts and minds of the leadership of the SSPX.