Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: GertrudetheGreat on July 29, 2012, 08:57:43 PM
-
QUOTE (Clare @ Jul 29 2012, 08:01 PM)
Perhaps this thread is the place to post an excerpt from Fr Morgan's latest letter:
QUOTE
...
As mentioned by Bishop Fellay in his ordination sermon at Econe on 29th June, the talks concerning a possible practical agreement with Rome are now back to square one (and this due to their insistance on the acceptance of Vatican II and the New Mass). Hence, as the declaration states, the Society is 'waiting for the day when an open and serious debate will be possible which may allow the return to Tradition of the ecclesiastical authorities.' This indeed has been the Society's policy to date.
It is to be hoped that the faithful who have been understandably troubled by the prospect of a practical settlement without sufficient doctrinal redress on the part of Rome, will be reassured by the reiteration of this policy, and by the Society's restated opposition to the errors of Vatican II and 'the reforms that issued from it,' as well as its steadfast attachment to 'the Catholic Faith in all its purity and integrity.'
On our side we must not neglect the work of sanctification, which begins with ourselves, 'as faith without good works is dead,' and hence the good combat for Catholic Tradition must not serve as an excuse from the pursuit of virtue.
Significant also in the declaration is the clarification that an extraordinary general chapter with a deliberative vote would have to be called in the event of any eventual settlement with the Roman authorities - at such time as the ecclesiastical authorities return to Tradition. This means the chapter as a whole would have a binding vote on the issue.
-
QUOTE (Clare @ Jul 29 2012, 08:01 PM)
Perhaps this thread is the place to post an excerpt from Fr Morgan's latest letter:
QUOTE
...
As mentioned by Bishop Fellay in his ordination sermon at Econe on 29th June, the talks concerning a possible practical agreement with Rome are now back to square one (and this due to their insistance on the acceptance of Vatican II and the New Mass). Hence, as the declaration states, the Society is 'waiting for the day when an open and serious debate will be possible which may allow the return to Tradition of the ecclesiastical authorities.' This indeed has been the Society's policy to date.
It is to be hoped that the faithful who have been understandably troubled by the prospect of a practical settlement without sufficient doctrinal redress on the part of Rome, will be reassured by the reiteration of this policy, and by the Society's restated opposition to the errors of Vatican II and 'the reforms that issued from it,' as well as its steadfast attachment to 'the Catholic Faith in all its purity and integrity.'
On our side we must not neglect the work of sanctification, which begins with ourselves, 'as faith without good works is dead,' and hence the good combat for Catholic Tradition must not serve as an excuse from the pursuit of virtue.
Significant also in the declaration is the clarification that an extraordinary general chapter with a deliberative vote would have to be called in the event of any eventual settlement with the Roman authorities - at such time as the ecclesiastical authorities return to Tradition. This means the chapter as a whole would have a binding vote on the issue.
How significant can it be to rely on a General Chapter that had 29(!) votes against Bishop Williamson?
Maybe someone should send Fr. Pffeifer's last sermon (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X71PNh5Qo6I&list=HL1343593010&feature=mh_lolz) to Fr. Morgan.
-
It seems that almost all the SSPX clergy believe that we have a Pope in Rome. On one side we have those like Bp Fellay who feel that the current incuмbent is traditional enough to make a deal with, while on the other we have those like Bp Williamson who think otherwise. It doesn't seem that there are any real sedevacantist clergy in the Society.
What this means is that sooner or later, the SSPX will head towards Rome.
Other Traditional Catholic clergy have in the past commented on the question of a split within the SSPX. They believe that even if this Society does split, all it would mean that one segment would be fully incorporated into Rome, while the other would carry on as before, namely, recognizing but resisting the Pope, praying for him and the local ordinary in the Canon of the Mass, and using the 1962 liturgical books.
-
It seems that almost all the SSPX clergy believe that we have a Pope in Rome. On one side we have those like Bp Fellay who feel that the current incuмbent is traditional enough to make a deal with, while on the other we have those like Bp Williamson who think otherwise. It doesn't seem that there are any real sedevacantist clergy in the Society.
What this means is that sooner or later, the SSPX will head towards Rome.
Other Traditional Catholic clergy have in the past commented on the question of a split within the SSPX. They believe that even if this Society does split, all it would mean that one segment would be fully incorporated into Rome, while the other would carry on as before, namely, recognizing but resisting the Pope, praying for him and the local ordinary in the Canon of the Mass, and using the 1962 liturgical books.
If SSPX is sedevacantist, then it should be called SSPV, no?
-
Gertrude the Great, are you sure he wrote that ? Could you tell us, please, where is the original letter ? I couldn't find it on the Internet. Thank you in advance.
-
QUOTE (Clare @ Jul 29 2012, 08:01 PM)
Perhaps this thread is the place to post an excerpt from Fr Morgan's latest letter:
QUOTE
...
As mentioned by Bishop Fellay in his ordination sermon at Econe on 29th June, the talks concerning a possible practical agreement with Rome are now back to square one (and this due to their insistance on the acceptance of Vatican II and the New Mass). Hence, as the declaration states, the Society is 'waiting for the day when an open and serious debate will be possible which may allow the return to Tradition of the ecclesiastical authorities.' This indeed has been the Society's policy to date.
It is to be hoped that the faithful who have been understandably troubled by the prospect of a practical settlement without sufficient doctrinal redress on the part of Rome, will be reassured by the reiteration of this policy, and by the Society's restated opposition to the errors of Vatican II and 'the reforms that issued from it,' as well as its steadfast attachment to 'the Catholic Faith in all its purity and integrity.'
On our side we must not neglect the work of sanctification, which begins with ourselves, 'as faith without good works is dead,' and hence the good combat for Catholic Tradition must not serve as an excuse from the pursuit of virtue.
Significant also in the declaration is the clarification that an extraordinary general chapter with a deliberative vote would have to be called in the event of any eventual settlement with the Roman authorities - at such time as the ecclesiastical authorities return to Tradition. This means the chapter as a whole would have a binding vote on the issue.
A lot has happened since June 29th and as AntiFellayism points out: "How significant can it be to rely on a General Chapter that had 29(!) votes against Bishop Williamson?".
The rumor that the answer was "no" to the deal was a threat to +Fellay because the Spanish district superior was made to ask for a retraction from Vidal.
Next, the "secret letter" leaks and is in fact not a "no" and even Rome remains very hopeful and confident to the point that +Fellay has to wait for his reply because everyone at the CDF are going on "vacation". The "doctrinal dicussions" continuing is proven by the "secret letter" to be nothing but negotiating.
So, it is pointless bringing up old news and starting a thread on this old statement. We wait for +Fellay to make his next move, which should be shortly because he seems more than eager to be "more fully reintegrated into the church" with little or no regard for Tradition, ABL, his bishops, faithful or in fact The Church.
May I suggest that if you wish to continue this discussion, you transfer it to the topic: 'Did +Fellay lied?'
-
QUOTE (Clare @ Jul 29 2012, 08:01 PM)
Perhaps this thread is the place to post an excerpt from Fr Morgan's latest letter:
QUOTE
...
As mentioned by Bishop Fellay in his ordination sermon at Econe on 29th June, the talks concerning a possible practical agreement with Rome are now back to square one (and this due to their insistance on the acceptance of Vatican II and the New Mass). Hence, as the declaration states, the Society is 'waiting for the day when an open and serious debate will be possible which may allow the return to Tradition of the ecclesiastical authorities.' This indeed has been the Society's policy to date.
The problem with this is, under +Fellay, the definition of "Tradition" is changed.
What he is laying down is an evolved "Tradition," more acceptable to Rome, and
therefore one that is possible to "return" to, since it is not the Tradition handed
down to and passed on by +ABL. Listen to Fr. Pfeiffer's 9th Sunday aft. Pent.
sermon, July 29th, 2012.
If you find the target is impossible to hit, then move the target, and say that it's
the same target. So they would lead you to believe...
It is to be hoped that the faithful who have been understandably troubled by the prospect of a practical settlement without sufficient doctrinal redress on the part of Rome, will be reassured by the reiteration of this policy, and by the Society's restated opposition to the errors of Vatican II and 'the reforms that issued from it,' as well as its steadfast attachment to 'the Catholic Faith in all its purity and integrity.'
On our side we must not neglect the work of sanctification, which begins with ourselves, 'as faith without good works is dead,' and hence the good combat for Catholic Tradition must not serve as an excuse from the pursuit of virtue.
Significant also in the declaration is the clarification that an extraordinary general chapter with a deliberative vote would have to be called in the event of any eventual settlement with the Roman authorities - at such time as the ecclesiastical authorities return to Tradition. This means the chapter as a whole would have a binding vote on the issue.
A lot has happened since June 29th and as AntiFellayism points out: "How significant can it be to rely on a General Chapter that had 29(!) votes against Bishop Williamson?".
The rumor that the answer was "no" to the deal was a threat to +Fellay because the Spanish district superior was made to ask for a retraction from Vidal.
Next, the "secret letter" leaks and is in fact not a "no" and even Rome remains very hopeful and confident to the point that +Fellay has to wait for his reply because everyone at the CDF are going on "vacation". The "doctrinal dicussions" continuing is proven by the "secret letter" to be nothing but negotiating.
So, it is pointless bringing up old news and starting a thread on this old statement.
It might well seem pointless to you, Marie A, but then you're not a troll.
We wait for +Fellay to make his next move, which should be shortly because he seems more than eager to be "more fully reintegrated into the church" with little or no regard for Tradition, ABL, his bishops, faithful or in fact The Church.
So what else is new? He's been sandbagging this fort for at least 15 years.
Why would he change now?
May I suggest that if you wish to continue this discussion, you transfer it to the topic: ['Did +Fellay lie?']
But - but - but - trolls like to have it their way, like at Burger King.
-
I am curious regarding the mention about the 'Spanish Distric Superior was made to ask for a retraction from Vidal'... What retraction and who is Vidal? I must have missed something along the way. Thank you in advance.
-
I am curious regarding the mention about the 'Spanish District Superior was made to ask for a retraction from Vidal'... What retraction and who is Vidal? I must have missed something along the way. Thank you in advance.
Good question. I second the motion!
-
How significant can it be to rely on a General Chapter that had 29(!) votes against Bishop Williamson?
Maybe someone should send Fr. Pffeifer's last sermon (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X71PNh5Qo6I&list=HL1343593010&feature=mh_lolz) to Fr. Morgan.
Father Morgan lives in the same house as Bp. Williamson. I'm sure he knows what's what.
-
I am curious regarding the mention about the 'Spanish District Superior was made to ask for a retraction from Vidal'... What retraction and who is Vidal? I must have missed something along the way. Thank you in advance.
Good question. I second the motion!
Well I guess someone from the SSPX in Spain had 'prematurely' announced the answer from the SSPX to Rome was "no deal" and they were forced to retrieve such announcement by the evil forces of Menzingen.
I think that's what the post refers to but I have no idea about its details though.
Coming from Menzingen and neo-sspx nothing surprises me anymore.
-
I am curious regarding the mention about the 'Spanish District Superior was made to ask for a retraction from Vidal'... What retraction and who is Vidal? I must have missed something along the way. Thank you in advance.
Good question. I second the motion!
When the SSPX General Chapter ended on July 14th, an announcement was made on DICI http://www.dici.org/en/news/sspx-press-communique-of-july-14-2012/ that "The General Chapter will soon make a common statement to Rome, which will then be made public."
A liberal Spanish publication, Radio Digital, published an article written by Jose Manuel Vidal who claimed he was told by two priests in the Spanish disctrict of the SSPX that "there was no deal". Implying that the answer was No. Then Church Militant on http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yrmQzmLtlY reported that the SSPX was demanding a retraction for the "no deal statement". This was confirmed and the announcement was posted somewhere on CathInfo and IA.
Next, DICI released the Society of St. Pius X General Chapter Statement which was supposed to be the answer to Rome (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=19735&min=0&num=10) and said nothing but the "secret letter" was soon leaked and showed that in fact it was not a "no deal" reply. You can follow the rest at this link: http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/FrThouvenots-leaked-letter-Condition-described-on-Chapter-July-18th.
Let me know if this answers your question, if not let me know or someone else may explain better.
-
How significant can it be to rely on a General Chapter that had 29(!) votes against Bishop Williamson?
Maybe someone should send Fr. Pffeifer's last sermon (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X71PNh5Qo6I&list=HL1343593010&feature=mh_lolz) to Fr. Morgan.
Father Morgan lives in the same house as Bp. Williamson. I'm sure he knows what's what.
Sounds right to me.
-
I found an English translation of the retraction here at this link:http://cathcon.blogspot.com/2012/07/sspx-general-chapter-and-its.html I'm not familiar with this website but I saw the Spanish announcement.
Monday, July 16, 2012
SSPX demands retraction from Spanish journalist
In the meantime, the District Superior of Spain and Portugal, Father de Montagut denies Vidal's report and demands a correction. One more example of obviously harassing fire, constantly targeted, which inflame matters. This includes the media mood music in the German speaking area around Bishop Richard Williamson is one with which the SSPX indirectly to be moved into the area of ​​anti-Semitism and h0Ɩ0cαųst denial. It is not difficult to recognize behind this intention the desire that the talks between Rome and to Econe should collapse . But it is still not gone that far. The General House itself has n now announced that each member of the General Chapter, was bound by an oath on the Bible to secrecy about the content and course of the Chapter Assembly. Any published information from journalists and on the internet regarding the General Chapter will therefore flatly denied, combined with a call not to place any self-created rumors into the wider world. This is a translation of the emboldened part of the article. The whole article translated here.
-
How significant can it be to rely on a General Chapter that had 29(!) votes against Bishop Williamson?
Maybe someone should send Fr. Pffeifer's last sermon (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X71PNh5Qo6I&list=HL1343593010&feature=mh_lolz) to Fr. Morgan.
Father Morgan lives in the same house as Bp. Williamson. I'm sure he knows what's what.
I really hope you're right.
I'm just afraid then those wasn't Fr. Morgan's words because if so +W would most definitely disagree in saying that calling the Chapter (as is) prior to a deal would be really significant after all.
There's a saying that goes on to say that the enemies might live by our side, but I hope and pray this is NOT the case.
-
It seems that almost all the SSPX clergy believe that we have a Pope in Rome. On one side we have those like Bp Fellay who feel that the current incuмbent is traditional enough to make a deal with, while on the other we have those like Bp Williamson who think otherwise. It doesn't seem that there are any real sedevacantist clergy in the Society.
What this means is that sooner or later, the SSPX will head towards Rome.
Other Traditional Catholic clergy have in the past commented on the question of a split within the SSPX. They believe that even if this Society does split, all it would mean that one segment would be fully incorporated into Rome, while the other would carry on as before, namely, recognizing but resisting the Pope, praying for him and the local ordinary in the Canon of the Mass, and using the 1962 liturgical books.
If SSPX is sedevacantist, then it should be called SSPV, no?
No, SSPV stands for the Society of Saint Pius V :dancing:
-
I am curious regarding the mention about the 'Spanish Distric Superior was made to ask for a retraction from Vidal'... What retraction and who is Vidal? I must have missed something along the way. Thank you in advance.
Vidal is a Spanish journalist who claimed that the Spanish District Superior had announced that the deal was off. That is, before the General Chapter Declaration was released by Menzingen.
-
It seems that almost all the SSPX clergy believe that we have a Pope in Rome. On one side we have those like Bp Fellay who feel that the current incuмbent is traditional enough to make a deal with, while on the other we have those like Bp Williamson who think otherwise. It doesn't seem that there are any real sedevacantist clergy in the Society.
What this means is that sooner or later, the SSPX will head towards Rome.
Other Traditional Catholic clergy have in the past commented on the question of a split within the SSPX. They believe that even if this Society does split, all it would mean that one segment would be fully incorporated into Rome, while the other would carry on as before, namely, recognizing but resisting the Pope, praying for him and the local ordinary in the Canon of the Mass, and using the 1962 liturgical books.
If SSPX is sedevacantist, then it should be called SSPV, no?
Our Traditional Chapel is not SSPX but we still pray for the Pope. We do Not use the John XXIII 1962Missal which were originally written to leave out the Leotine prayers. The 1962 missal was a phase to prepare for the novus ordo.
We use 1945 St andrew, marian St. joseph missals. Some are being newly reproduced.
The Maronites don't do vatican II and they are not under lcoal novus ordo bishops and yet they are under the Pope.
-
Gertrude the Great, are you sure he wrote that ? Could you tell us, please, where is the original letter ? I couldn't find it on the Internet. Thank you in advance.
Sorry, it's quoting Clare from Iginis Ardens. She's in the UK and posted it on her forum. I presume she's typed it up from the printed newsletter, which at some point will be posted on the SSPX UK Web site as they usually are.
-
Fr Morgan is one of the better Society priests for certain.
-
I am curious regarding the mention about the 'Spanish District Superior was made to ask for a retraction from Vidal'... What retraction and who is Vidal? I must have missed something along the way. Thank you in advance.
Good question. I second the motion!
When the SSPX General Chapter ended on July 14th, an announcement was made on DICI http://www.dici.org/en/news/sspx-press-communique-of-july-14-2012/ that "The General Chapter will soon make a common statement to Rome, which will then be made public."
A liberal Spanish publication, Radio Digital, published an article written by Jose Manuel Vidal who claimed he was told by two priests in the Spanish disctrict of the SSPX that "there was no deal". Implying that the answer was No. Then Church Militant on http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yrmQzmLtlY reported that the SSPX was demanding a retraction for the "no deal statement". This was confirmed and the announcement was posted somewhere on CathInfo and IA.
Next, DICI released the Society of St. Pius X General Chapter Statement which was supposed to be the answer to Rome (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=19735&min=0&num=10) and said nothing but the "secret letter" was soon leaked and showed that in fact it was not a "no deal" reply. You can follow the rest at this link: http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/FrThouvenots-leaked-letter-Condition-described-on-Chapter-July-18th.
Let me know if this answers your question, if not let me know or someone else may explain better.
I tried your link:
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/FrThouvenots-leaked-letter-Condition-described-on-Chapter-July-18th
It gives me a thread that's 6 years old, the last posts made in 2006.
Some kind of system error?
-
I found an English translation of the retraction here at this link:http://cathcon.blogspot.com/2012/07/sspx-general-chapter-and-its.html I'm not familiar with this website but I saw the Spanish announcement.
Monday, July 16, 2012
SSPX demands retraction from Spanish journalist
In the meantime, the District Superior of Spain and Portugal, Father de Montagut denies Vidal's report and demands a correction. One more example of obviously harassing fire, constantly targeted, which inflame matters. This includes the media mood music in the German speaking area around Bishop Richard Williamson is one with which the SSPX indirectly to be moved into the area of ​​anti-Semitism and h0Ɩ0cαųst denial. It is not difficult to recognize behind this intention the desire that the talks between Rome and to Econe should collapse . But it is still not gone that far. The General House itself has n now announced that each member of the General Chapter, was bound by an oath on the Bible to secrecy about the content and course of the Chapter Assembly. Any published information from journalists and on the internet regarding the General Chapter will therefore [be] flatly denied, combined with a call not to place any self-created rumors into the wider world. This is a translation of the emboldened part of the article. The whole article translated here.
The link you provide doesn't have any retraction in it. The only mention of Vidal is
this:
In this regard the Spanish progressive religious journalist, José Manuel Vidal wrote, referring to the Spanish superiors, that a reconciliation "definitely failed", since on the preamble sent from Rome on 13th of June to the SSPX was "unacceptable".
Also, the DICI link you provided above does not open. Could be the server is
overloaded. But who knows?
www.dici.org/en/news/sspx-press-communique-of-july-14-2012/
Anyway, .........
First Fellay works out a schedule with Rome for freeing up the Canonized Latin Mass,
and lifting the "excoms," then asks for millions of Rosaries to pray for the Collegial
Consecration of Russia to the IHM. But when the Mass is freed and the "excoms"
are lifted, +Fellay claims those are answers to the Rosary crusade, even though
he knew all along it was part of the plan.
Now he's demanding sworn secrecy of the Chapter capitulants over the content of
the Chapter discussions.
It sure looks like he's got a lot to hide from the world.
-
I found an English translation of the retraction here at this link:http://cathcon.blogspot.com/2012/07/sspx-general-chapter-and-its.html I'm not familiar with this website but I saw the Spanish announcement.
Monday, July 16, 2012
SSPX demands retraction from Spanish journalist
In the meantime, the District Superior of Spain and Portugal, Father de Montagut denies Vidal's report and demands a correction. One more example of obviously harassing fire, constantly targeted, which inflame matters. This includes the media mood music in the German speaking area around Bishop Richard Williamson is one with which the SSPX indirectly to be moved into the area of ​​anti-Semitism and h0Ɩ0cαųst denial. It is not difficult to recognize behind this intention the desire that the talks between Rome and to Econe should collapse . But it is still not gone that far. The General House itself has n now announced that each member of the General Chapter, was bound by an oath on the Bible to secrecy about the content and course of the Chapter Assembly. Any published information from journalists and on the internet regarding the General Chapter will therefore [be] flatly denied, combined with a call not to place any self-created rumors into the wider world. This is a translation of the emboldened part of the article. The whole article translated here.
The link you provide doesn't have any retraction in it. The only mention of Vidal is
this:
In this regard the Spanish progressive religious journalist, José Manuel Vidal wrote, referring to the Spanish superiors, that a reconciliation "definitely failed", since on the preamble sent from Rome on 13th of June to the SSPX was "unacceptable".
Also, the DICI link you provided above does not open. Could be the server is
overloaded. But who knows?
www.dici.org/en/news/sspx-press-communique-of-july-14-2012/
Anyway, .........
First Fellay works out a schedule with Rome for freeing up the Canonized Latin Mass,
and lifting the "excoms," then asks for millions of Rosaries to pray for the Collegial
Consecration of Russia to the IHM. But when the Mass is freed and the "excoms"
are lifted, +Fellay claims those are answers to the Rosary crusade, even though
he knew all along it was part of the plan.
Now he's demanding sworn secrecy of the Chapter capitulants over the content of
the Chapter discussions.
It sure looks like he's got a lot to hide from the world.
This is what was posted at IA in the thread named: SSPX Demands Retraction for NO--Deal Announcement, From: 'Church Militant TV" with a tranlation. Religion Digital had the link to the Spanish website but I can't find it now. http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=10221&st=0
QUOTE Tomorrow morning, July 16, the Superior of the Society of St. Pius X in Spain and Portugal will send a fax to the Director of Digital Religion, José Manuel Vidal, demanding that he correct the July 14 article titled "The Lefebvrists will announce tomorrow they say no to Rome" in which he reported the alleged intent of the Abbot of Montagut to publicly announce a formal response to the congregation concerning a possible agreement with the Holy See.
Madrid, July 15, 2012
QUOTE El padre Juan Maria de Montagut Superior de la Fraternidad San Pío X en España y Portugal enviará mañana día 16 un burofax al director de Religión Digital, Señor José Manuel Vidal, exigiéndole la rectificación de la información que con fecha 14 de julio titula: ” Los lefebvrianos anunciarán mañana que dicen “no” a Roma ” , y en la que adelantó la supuesta intención del Padre Montagut de anunciar públicamente una repuesta oficial de la Congregación respecto a un posible acuerdo con la Santa Sede.
Madrid, 15 de julio de 2012
-
Also from IA:
http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=10225
QUOTE
"In a couple of days the General House of FSSPX will issue a communiqué"
Source: Bractwa Kaplañskiego Œw. Piusa X
Dispatch on General Chapter of the Society
It is claimed on the Internet that on Sunday, July 15th, I purportedly said that there „would be no agreement with Rome”. In fact, I informed the faithful about the General Chapter, which concluded its meeting in the spirit of the utter unanimousness, and that I find this fact to be another miraculous act of Blessed Virgin Mary, who has lent a sympathetic ear to prayers of Her children, asking Her to protect Catholic Tradition. As for the contacts between the Holy See and our Society, I asked the fold to pray even more fervently for the Holy Father and that the number of prelates, who would wish for canonical recognition of the Society, which would not require any kind of trade-off on her part, would grow up. I also said that the current state of relations between FSSPX and Rome had been described by our Superior General in his sermon on June 29th, i.e. that we were back at status quo of September 14th, 2011, when the doctrinal preamble was set forth, which for the Society was absolutely impossible to accept. I also added that our Superior General was preparing reply to the proposition submitted by Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on June, 13th; in his reply he would also inform Roman authorities about conclusion reached during General Chapter’s meeting. In a couple of days the General House of FSSPX will issue a communiqué on this matter.
Fr. Karl Stehlin FSSPX
-
Thank you for this precision, Gertrude...
-
It seems that almost all the SSPX clergy believe that we have a Pope in Rome. On one side we have those like Bp Fellay who feel that the current incuмbent is traditional enough to make a deal with, while on the other we have those like Bp Williamson who think otherwise. It doesn't seem that there are any real sedevacantist clergy in the Society.
What this means is that sooner or later, the SSPX will head towards Rome.
Other Traditional Catholic clergy have in the past commented on the question of a split within the SSPX. They believe that even if this Society does split, all it would mean that one segment would be fully incorporated into Rome, while the other would carry on as before, namely, recognizing but resisting the Pope, praying for him and the local ordinary in the Canon of the Mass, and using the 1962 liturgical books.
The SSPX is not sedevacantist. It follows the principles of its heroic founder, who I quote:
"Why do I maintain relations with Rome? Why do I keep going to Rome? Because I think that Rome is the center of Catholicism, because I think that there cannot be any Catholic Church without Rome. Consequently, if our purpose is to find a way of setting the Church straight again, it is by turning to Rome that maybe, with the grace of God, we may perhaps manage to set the situation straight. It is not one single bishop like myself who can set the whole situation straight in the Catholic Church. That is why I strive to keep on going to Rome and to plead the cause of Tradition. Because I am persuaded that it is by Tradition that the Catholic Church will recover its position as it was before the Second Vatican Council, and the means of its true progress. In the first place, I must tell you that I am under no illusions —the situation in Rome is very grave, very grave. …. Why does Rome still go on receiving me? Why do they still consider me with a certain respect?
Because they know that I have seminaries, that I have now ordained nearly 200 priests since 1970 and that I have 250 seminarians in my seminaries. They know that very well and that's what counts at Rome. They no longer have any seminaries. Their seminaries are empty or they are Modernist seminaries. Now they know that at Econe, at Ridgefield, at Zaitzkofen, and at Buenos Aires, we are forming true priests. They know that very well and they admire our young priests. So, that is what makes even more of an impression on them than my words, writings or meetings.
They are well aware that this year I ordained thirty priests. So that's what I think it is. And they are perfectly well aware that our priests are spread throughout the world. They know of the existence of our traditional groups throughout the world, and a little everywhere in the world. We are striving to extend. They know we have many priories in Europe, in all the European countries. They know, moreover, that there are other traditional priests, that we are not alone, that we support other traditional priests in their work. So all of that scares them a little. They are forced to reckon with us.
And that is how I think we will succeed one day in convincing Rome that they must return to Tradition."
- Archbishop Lefebvre, Long Island Conference, 1983.