CathInfo.com

Quote from: Seraphim

Quote from: Telesphorus

Quote from: Seraphim

  Could it be because his colleages elected him to do just that?

Define colleagues.  Certainly not the order as a whole.

I am not aware of anyone having disputed the legitimacy of his election to Superior General.

Which is another way of saying that it is a bit crazy to pretend to expect a Superior General to think someone else ought to be running the show while he was elected to do that very thing.

What one can justly dispute is whether or not he represents the majority of the priests in the SSPX, because most priests have no say.

I would imagine that the text of Fr. Bouchacourt's Letter will eventually surface unless they are intentionally holding it back for some good reason. They seem to have a good nose for sniffing things out in South America.

The following is a friend's translation of one of several interesting reports that can be found on the South American, Argentine-based, blog Radio Cristiandad.
http://radiocristiandad.wordpress.com/2011...bre-los-hechos/

SSPX: LETS TELL THE TRUTH ABOUT THE FACTS
Wednesday November 2, 2011

Yesterday, November 1st, the 41st anniversary of the founding of the Society of St. Pius X, a letter from the British District Superior, Father Paul Morgan, circulated on the internet but, because of its content, was quickly intercepted and removed.

To understand the gravity of these facts, we must remember that on Monday, October 10th, Radio Cristiandad had issued an important memorandum:

This memorandum referred to ELEISON COMMENTS 162 (21-VIII-2010) DISCUSSIONS BLIND-SIDED ?

In August 2010, Bishop Williamson launched a DANGER ALERT:

* The discussions between Rome and the SSPX are running into a doctrinal brick wall

* A political deal which would simply go round the side of the doctrinal blockage

* Benedict XVI is thinking of a "Motu Proprio" which would accept the SSPX "back into the Church" once and for all, yet require from the SSPX no explicit acceptance of Vatican II or the New Mass, but only, for instance, the acceptance of John-Paul II's 1992 "Catechism of the Catholic Church", which is substantially modernist but in a quiet way.

Let us remember his Eleison Comment text:

“While the Rome-Society of St Pius X discussions are, by accounts from both sides, running into a doctrinal brick wall, reports from France and Germany together with a rumor from Rome spell danger for Catholics. That danger is a political deal which would simply go round the side of the doctrinal blockage. Politics threaten to circuмvent doctrine.

From France and Germany, it was told me a few weeks ago that a large proportion of Catholics attending SSPX Mass centers are only hoping and waiting for some agreement to come out of the discussions. If - repeat, if -- this is true, it is very serious. Such Catholics may get full marks for wishing not to be cut off from what appears to be Rome, but they get low marks for not grasping that as long as the discussions remain doctrinal, there is no way in which the neo-modernist teaching of Vatican II can be reconciled with the Catholic doctrine of the true Church. Such Catholics may venerate and love Archbishop Lefebvre as they see him, but they have not understood what he was all about. They had best wake up if they are not in one way or another to fall into the arms of the neo-modernist Romans.

Agreement in front of doctrine means politics before religion, unity before truth, man before God. God before man means truth before unity, religion before politics and doctrine being more important than any non-doctrinal agreement. Only dreamers could not foresee the Rome-SSPX discussions running into a doctrinal brick wall. Only politicians can wish for any non-doctrinal agreement to come out of them.

Alas, to all appearances Benedict XVI sincerely believes in the Newchurch of Vatican II which is to unite in its bosom all men absolutely, regardless of whether they believe or not in the one true doctrine of the Faith. Therefore he sincerely wishes to gather in the SSPX as well - and he does not normally have too much longer to live ! So the blockage of doctrinal discussions should not unduly worry him. He must be looking to cut a political deal with the SSPX, in order to unite it with the rest of the Newchurch. It follows that he must ask of the SSPX neither too much, or it would refuse the deal, nor too little, because then the rest of the Newchurch would rise up in protest.

The rumor from Rome is precisely that he is thinking of a "Motu Proprio" which would accept the SSPX "back into the Church" once and for all, yet require from the SSPX no explicit acceptance of Vatican II or the New Mass, but only, for instance, the acceptance of John-Paul II's 1992 "Catechism of the Catholic Church", which is substantially modernist but in a quiet way. Thus the SSPX would not appear to its followers to be accepting the Council or the New Mass, yet it would be softly, softly, beginning to go along with the substance of neo-modernism.

Thus all seekers of unity would be content. Only not believers in Catholic doctrine.

DANGER ! “

As we all know, a denial immediately arrived from the SSPX’s Superior General concerning Bishop Williamson's comment.

The denial was given to Brian Mershon and published in The Remnant on August 25th, 2010:

"August 24, 2010—Superior General Bishop Bernard Fellay of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), one of four bishops whose excommunications were lifted by Pope Benedict XVI in January 2009, today categorically denied any knowledge of an alleged special motu proprio being planned by the Holy See for the SSPX as stated recently by SSPX Bishop Richard Williamson. This rumored MP would not require the SSPX to take any sort of oath of acceptance where Vatican II and the New Mass are concerned.

“I’m very annoyed by the whole thing,” said Bishop Fellay. “Bishop Williamson’s statement is an unauthorized statement and is his own personal statement and not that of the Society.”

“It has never been the policy of the Society to base any kind of action or policy on gossip. I have absolutely no knowledge of any motu proprio.”

Earlier this week, Bishop Richard Williamson—who has allegedly been asked to refrain from publicly speaking on matters outside of faith and morals by the SSPX leadership—wrote a letter that was published initially on his website and then picked up by traditionalist internet Rorate Caeli blog.

In the letter, Bishop Williamson warns Catholics about the “danger” of a rumored motu proprio designed to lure the SSPX lay faithful into union with Rome and said, “…there is no way in which the neo-modernist teaching of Vatican II can be reconciled with the Catholic doctrine of the true Church.”

Doctrinal Discussions Continue
Bishop Williamson also said that according to both Holy See and SSPX sources, the ongoing doctrinal discussions have allegedly “run into a brick wall.”

However, in today’s interview Bishop Fellay categorically denied this assertion. He said that the doctrinal talks with the SSPX representatives and Holy See theologians are ongoing and proceeding as planned with the next meeting scheduled in September.

“There is nothing changed,” said Bishop Fellay. “All of this is gossiping and rumors and I’ll have nothing to do with rumors and gossiping. All of this is void—empty.”

“For the time being, everything is fine and everything is going smoothly according to plan,” he said."

Well, then, on Monday, October 10th, a reader (always well informed as she already told us about the meeting at Albano, of which we had the scoop on September 14th) left us a comment about what happened in Albano:

http://radiocristiandad.wordpress.com/2011...paso-en-albano/

She says in her letter:

“Dear Friends:

From a very good source I pass on this information: What the “doctrinal” preamble contains, and what must be accepted by the SSPX, is the Catechism of the Catholic Church as the reference of faith. When +Fellay revealed the contents to the bishops and priests gathered, both Bishop Tissier and De Galarreta objected, as well as Father Nely and the majority of District Superiors.

Seeing this situation, +Fellay and Fr Pflugger had to pull back and then stated their opposion as well. But the final answer has not been given yet, and it is +Fellay who has the last word.

Apparently it's a major setback for Bishop Fellay.”

Yesterday, as we reported, Fr. Morgan’s letter circulated, and was despotically censored by Bishop Fellay.

The Letter of the Superior of [Britain, Ireland and Scandinavia - translator’s correction] says: "... So it was perhaps not surprising to learn that the proposed doctrinal basis for any canonical agreement in fact contained all those elements which the Society has consistently rejected, including acceptance of the New Mass and of Vatican II as expressed in the New Catechism.... "

Today we find the Press Release of the General House of the Society of St. Pius X, which reads as follows:

"Since the meeting of the seminary Rectors and District Superiors of the Society of St. Pius X in Albano (Italy) on October 7, 2011, several comments have been published in the press about the answer that Bishop Bernard Fellay should give to the Roman propositions of September 14th.

It has to be recalled that only the SSPX’s General House has the competency to publish an official communiqué or authorized comment on the subject.

Until further notice, one should reference the communique of October 7, 2011. (DICI of 11/02/11)."

To the content of this press release we can only give the following answer: it is false to claim that "several comments have been published in the press about the answer that Bishop Bernard Fellay should give to the Roman propositions of September 14th."

What the "several comments in the press” actually state is that the content of the proposal is in fact the Catechism of the Catholic Church or, more precisely, the acceptance of the New Mass and Vatican II, as expressed in the New Catechism.

Remember that the Eleison Comment of Bishop Williamson and our reader's letter made reference to the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

It’s about this that Bishop Bernard Fellay must give an answer ... but he delays things, as if there was another possibility than the negative, as if he has to give it great thought.

He should give the same answer to the propositions of September 14th as his subalterns gave answer on October 7th in Albano. But Bishop Fellay seems not to understand… or, perhaps, he understands very well.

In his Eleison Comments162 Bishop Williamson said: “From France and Germany, it was told me a few weeks ago that a large proportion of Catholics attending SSPX Mass centers are only hoping and waiting for some agreement to come out of the discussions”.

Well, on the official German website of the Society there was published today [November 2nd - translator] the following:

"Internet Rumors
News - From the Society
Wednesday, November 2, 2011 at 15:00

Currently, there are rumors on the internet that the Society of St. Pius X would "reject an agreement with Rome."

The reason is a circular letter of the English District Superior, Father Paul Morgan, that could be read for a short time yesterday on the internet, in which he allegedly claimed something similar.

Because this message has now been picked up by newspapers and agencies, the General House of the Society of St. Pius X. in Menzingen (Switzerland) responded and released the following brief note:"

There then follows the press release.

So, then, these are only rumors and it is not therefore true that the Society of St. Pius X "would reject a deal with Rome".

Such is stated to us by the former Superior General of the Society, former Superior of the Seminary, now the District Superior in Germany and Bishop Fellay's right arm .

So far, that is the truth concerning the available facts.

In these terms... so many lies! So many political lies!