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.

   That much is true.

   I guess we will see soon enough who holds greater sway over the rank and file SSPX clergy: Bishop WIlliamson or Bishop Fellay.

   Bishop Fellay recently bragged that he could "lead home(!)" 450 priests and 200 seminarians.

   In this, I detect an implicit admission that the devil has attacked Bishop Fellay with scruples, for since when have we SSPXers ever felt we were not already "home."

   It is Rome who has left, not us.  

   So I find this remark very troubling, but very revealing, of the present intentions of Bishop Fellay.

   He wants to sign because he feels a need, whatever other reasons he may contrive.

   Well, if he pulls away 450 of 660 priests, Bishop Williamson had better be brushing up on his episcopal consecration rubrics!!

PS: Any thoughts on whether the other bishops would follow Bishop Fellay?

I saw this posted on Ignis Ardens.

http://radiocristiandad.wordpress.com/2011...bre-los-hechos/

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!

What of the rumors regarding a General Chapter meeting?

Can you elaborate regarding these new businesses?

Father Christian Bouchacourt
Letter in various languages.

Original Spanish

Martínez, 12 de octubre de 2011

†
Fraternidad Sacerdotal San Pío X
Distrito América del Sur
El Superior

Estimados Padres,

Recién volví de Roma hace unas horas y quiero comunicarles algunas noticias relativas a la reunión a la que fuimos convocados por nuestro Superior General, Mons. Fellay. Se trataba de una reunión de información.

Según decía el comunicado que se publicó, concurrieron a la misma los miembros del Consejo General, todos los Superiores de Distrito y tres de los cuatro obispos.

En efecto Mons. Williamson no fue a Albano. También había sido convocado a la reunión, pero Mons. Fellay había añadido dos condiciones: que cierre su blog y mantenga el secreto sobre el contenido del preámbulo que Roma entregó a la FSSPX. Mons. Williamson no accedió por lo menos a una de las dos condiciones, y por el mismo hecho renunció a participar de la reunión en Albano.

La sesión se desenvolvió en tres tiempos. En primer lugar Mons. Fellay presentó un balance histórico de las relaciones con Roma. En segundo lugar Mons. de Galarreta y el Padre de Jorna hablaron de las discusiones doctrinales en Roma. Por último se presentó el preámbulo doctrinal proporcionado por la Congregación para la Doctrina de la fe, firmado por el Cardenal Levada.

No es necesario que recuerde los hechos históricos relativos a nuestras relaciones con Roma. Uds. ya los conocen en lo esencial. Respecto a las discusiones doctrinales, se estudiaron cuatro temas capitales: el Novus Ordo Missae, la libertad religiosa, la eclesiología –Lumen Gentium, el “subsistit in” y la colegialidad–, el Magisterio y la Tradición.

Nuestros contradictores no buscaron responder nuestros argumentos sino que permanentemente intentaron demostrar que no existe ninguna ruptura con la Tradición. Reconocieron que la libertad religiosa, la colegialidad, etc. son nociones nuevas, pero –según dijeron– contenidas implícitamente en la Tradición y explicitadas por el Concilio Vaticano.

El clima de las discusiones fue cordial, lo cual no impidió que cada uno manifestara francamente sus posiciones. Nuestros contradictores permanecieron herméticos a nuestros argumentos, por los menos exteriormente.

El texto del docuмento entregado a Mons. Fellay y a sus Asistentes sigue siendo confidencial. Sin embargo puedo comunicarles algunos elementos relativos a su contenido. Tiene dos partes: un preámbulo doctrinal y un breve proyecto de solución canónica para la FSSPX.

El preámbulo se basa sobre el protocolo de acuerdo que en su momento su propuso a Mons. Lefebvre, pero en forma más restrictiva.

Se nos pide reconocer a la luz de Tradición católica al Vaticano II y a las enseñanzas posteriores de los Papas hasta el día de hoy. Además deberíamos aceptar, por un lado, el Catecismo de la Iglesia Católica, que constituye un compendio de la doctrina conciliar, y por otro, el Código de Derecho Canónico publicado en 1983, con una aplicación adaptada a la disciplina particular otorgada a la FSSPX.

Asimismo deberíamos reconocer la legitimidad del Novus Ordo. Según las explicaciones de los canonistas del Vaticano, la palabra “legitimo” quiere decir “legal”… Esta no es la acepción recibida comúnmente.

Después seguiría una profesión de fe y un juramento de fidelidad.

Por último, si firmásemos este preámbulo, se nos otorgaría una prelatura personal, parecida a la estructura canónica del Opus Dei.

Queda claro que este preámbulo, con el contenido que tiene, no puede ser firmado, aunque se le aporten modificaciones. La situación de la Iglesia conciliar, las declaraciones del Papa en Alemania, el próximo encuentro en Asís manifiestan que la situación no es apropiada para firmar semejante docuмento. Nos encontraríamos aplastados por el sistema, tal como lo fueron las congregaciones “motu propio”.

Mons. Fellay mandará su respuesta dentro de unas semanas, y tal vez publicará una declaración doctrinal que no tendrá nada que ver con la que se nos presentó y no será aceptada por Roma.
Aunque existe una apertura canónica por parte de Roma, la situación doctrinal en la Iglesia no ha cambiado.

Roma nos necesita, necesita que nos reunamos con ellos para demostrar que el Vaticano II no está en ruptura con la Tradición, y para neutralizar el ala progresista que anhela una ruptura manifiesta con la Tradición. Está claro que no podemos seguir este camino. Debemos mantenernos firmes y esperar que Roma dé nuevos pasos. Roma retrocede cada vez más, pero todavía no lo suficiente.

¡Por lo tanto el combate continúa! Les pido que mantengan la confidencialidad sobre el contenido de esta circular. Uds. pueden informar a sus fieles que no se firmó nada y que la situación sigue siendo idéntica a la que teníamos antes del 14 de septiembre. Cuando yo visite sus prioratos les proporcionaré más detalles respecto a la situación presente.

Por último quiero contarles que el lunes pasado fui a Roma para rezar ante la Cátedra de San Pedro. También llegué a subir la Scala Santa, pidiendo a Nuestro Señor que alcance a cada uno de nosotros, los sacerdotes del Distrito, la fidelidad inquebrantable al combate llevado por Mons. Lefebvre por el bien de las almas, de la Iglesia y de la Tradición. Pensar en la tragedia que vive la Iglesia de hoy debe estimular nuestro celo por la santificación de las almas que fueron entregadas a nuestro cuidado.

Les aseguro mi oración fraterna en los Corazones de Jesús y María.
Padre Christian BOUCHACOURT





English Translation

Wednesday 12th October, 2011

Dear Fathers,

I just arrived from Rome a few hours ago and I want to share with you some news concerning the meeting that we were summoned to by our General Superior Bishop Fellay. It was an informative meeting.

As related in the published statement, the General Council members, all the District Superiors and three of the four bishops attended the meeting.

Indeed Bishop Williamson did not go to Albano. He had been summoned for the meeting, but Bishop Fellay had added two conditions: to close his blog and to keep secret the content of the preamble that Rome delivered to the SSPX. He didn’t agree to at least one of the two conditions, and because of this, he could not take part in the Albano meeting.

The session unfolded in three stages. First of all, Bishop Fellay presented an historical assessment of the relations with Rome. Secondly, Bishop de Galarreta and Father Jorna spoke about the doctrinal discussions in Rome. Finally, the doctrinal preamble provided by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, signed by Cardinal Levada, was presented.

It is not necessary to relate the historical facts concerning our relations with Rome. You already know the essentials. Regarding the doctrinal discussions, four cardinal topics were studied: the Novus Ordo Missae, Religious Liberty, Ecclesiology - Lumen Gentium, the "subsistit in" and Collegiality - the Magisterium and Tradition.

Our opponents did not seek to answer our arguments but constantly tried to show that there is no break with Tradition. They recognized that Religious Liberty, Collegiality, etc. are new notions, but - as they said – they are implicitly contained in Tradition and are made explicit by the Second Vatican Council.

The climate of the discussions was cordial, but it did not prevent each party openly manifesting their positions. Our opponents remained closed to our arguments, at least outwardly.

The text of the docuмent given to Bishop Fellay and his Assistants remains confidential. But I can tell you some elements of its content. It has two parts: a doctrinal preamble and a brief project of canonical solution for the SSPX.

The preamble is based on the Protocol of Agreement that was once proposed to Archbishop Lefebvre, but in more restrictive form.

It is asked of us to recognize Vatican II in the light of Catholic Tradition and of papal teaching to the present day. In addition we should accept, on the one hand, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which constitutes a Compendium of the Council Doctrine, and on the other hand, the Code of Canon Law published in 1983, with an application adapted to the particular discipline granted to the SSPX.

Likewise we have to recognize the legitimacy of the Novus Ordo. According to the explanations of the canonists of the Vatican, by the word "legitimate" they want to mean "legal" … This is not the commonly received meaning.

Then would follow a Profession of Faith and an Oath of Loyalty.

Finally, if we would sign the preamble, there would be granted to us a Personal Prelature, similar to the canonical structure of Opus Dei.

Clearly, this preamble with its content cannot be signed even though modifications can be made to it. The situation of the Conciliar Church, the pope's remarks in Germany, the next Assisi meeting show that the situation is not appropriate to sign such a docuмent. We would be crushed by the system, as were the "motu propio" congregations.

Bishop Fellay will send his response in a few weeks, and perhaps he will respond with a doctrinal statement that has nothing to do with the one presented to us, one which will not be accepted by Rome.

Though a canonical opening exists on the part of Rome, the doctrinal situation in the Church has not changed.

Rome needs us, it needs us to meet with them in order to prove that Vatican II is not breaking with Tradition, and to neutralize the progressive wing which yearns to rupture with Tradition. Clearly we cannot continue this way. We must stand and wait for Rome to make new steps. Rome recedes more and more, but still not enough.

So the battle continues! I ask you to maintain the confidentiality of the contents of this circular. You can tell the faithful that nothing was signed and that the situation remains identical to what we had before September 14th. When I visit your priories I will provide more details about the situation.

Finally I want to tell you that last Monday I went to Rome to pray before the Chair of Saint Peter. Also I managed to climb the Holy Steps, asking Our Lord to give to each of us, the priests of the District, unwavering loyalty to the combat undertaken by Archbishop Lefebvre for the good of souls, for the Church and for Tradition. To think about the tragedy through which the Church of today lives must stimulate our zeal for the sanctification of all the souls that are dedicated to our care.

I assure you of my fraternal prayers in the Hearts of Jesus and Mary.
Father Christian BOUCHACOURT



Italian Translation

Mercoledi 12 ottobre 2011

Cari Padri,
Sono appena arrivato da Roma poche ore fa e voglio condividere con voi alcune notizie circa l'incontro cui siamo stati convocati dal nostro Superiore Generale Mons. Fellay. E’ stato un incontro informativo

Come riferito nel comunicato pubblicato, i membri del Consiglio generale, tutti i Superiori di distretto e tre dei quattro vescovi hanno partecipato alla riunione.

Infatti il vescovo Williamson non è andato ad Albano. Era stato convocato per l'incontro, ma Mons. Fellay aveva aggiunto due condizioni: chiudere il suo blog e mantenere segreto il contenuto del preambolo che Roma ha consegnato alla FSSPX. Lui non era d'accordo ad almeno una delle due condizioni e per questo non poteva prendere parte alla riunione di Albano.

La sessione si è svolta in tre fasi. Prima di tutto, Mons. Fellay ha presentato una valutazione storica dei rapporti con Roma. In secondo luogo, Mons. de Galarreta e Padre Jorna hanno parlato delle discussioni dottrinali a Roma. Infine è stato presentato il preambolo dottrinale fornito dalla Congregazione per la Dottrina della Fede, firmato dal cardinale Levada.

Non è necessario fare una relazione sui fatti storici dei nostri rapporti con Roma. Sapete già l'essenziale. Per quanto riguarda le discussioni dottrinali, quattro temi cardine sono stati studiati: il Novus Ordo Missae, la libertà religiosa, l’Ecclesiologia (Lumen gentium, il "subsistit in" e la collegialità), il Magistero e la Tradizione.

I nostri interlocutori (usa la parola contradictores, avversari n.d.t.) non hanno cercato di rispondere alle nostre argomentazioni, ma hanno costantemente cercato di dimostrare che non c'è nessuna rottura con la Tradizione. Hanno riconosciuto che libertà religiosa, collegialità, ecc sono concetti nuovi, ma - come dicevano - sono implicitamente contenuti nella Tradizione e sono resi espliciti dal Concilio Vaticano II.

Il clima delle discussioni è stato cordiale, ma non ha impedito che ogni parte manifestasse apertamente le proprie posizioni. I nostri avversari sono rimasti chiusi alle nostre argomentazioni, almeno esteriormente.

Il testo del docuмento consegnato Mons. Fellay ei suoi assistenti rimane confidenziale. Ma posso dirvi alcuni elementi del suo contenuto. Ha due parti: un preambolo dottrinale e un breve progetto di soluzione canonica per la FSSPX.

Il preambolo è basato sul Protocollo di Accordo che una volta fu proposto a Mons. Lefebvre, ma in forma più restrittiva
Viene chiesto a noi di riconoscere il Concilio Vaticano II alla luce della Tradizione cattolica e dell'insegnamento del Papa ai giorni nostri. Inoltre dovremmo accettare, da un lato, il Catechismo della Chiesa Cattolica, che costituisce un Compendio della Dottrina del Concilio, e d'altra parte, il Codice di Diritto Canonico pubblicato nel 1983, con un'applicazione adatta alla particolare disciplina concessa al FSSPX.

Allo stesso modo dobbiamo riconoscere la legittimità del Novus Ordo. Secondo le spiegazioni dei canonisti del Vaticano, con la parola "legittimo" vogliono dire "legale" ... Questo non è il significato comunemente ricevuto.

Poi seguirebbe una Professione di Fede e un Giuramento di Fedeltà.

Infine, se firmassimo il preambolo, ci sarebbe concessa una Prelatura personale, simile alla struttura canonica dell'Opus Dei.

Chiaramente, questo preambolo con il suo contenuto non può essere firmato anche se è possibile apportare modifiche ad esso. La situazione della Chiesa Conciliare, le dichiarazioni del Papa in Germania, il prossimo incontro di Assisi mostrano che in questa situazione non è opportuno firmare tale docuмento. Verremmo schiacciati dal sistema, come lo furono le congregazioni "motu propio".

Mons. Fellay invierà la sua risposta in poche settimane, e forse lui risponderà con una dichiarazione dottrinale che non ha nulla a che vedere con quello presentato a noi e che non sarà accettata da Roma.

Anche se esiste un'apertura canonica da parte di Roma, la situazione dottrinale della Chiesa non è cambiata.

Roma ha bisogno di noi, ci deve incontrare al fine di provare che il Vaticano II non è in rottura con la Tradizione, e per neutralizzare l'ala progressista che anela alla rottura con la Tradizione. Chiaramente non possiamo continuare su questa strada. Dobbiamo fermarci e aspettare che Roma faccia nuovi passi. Roma si allontana sempre di più, ma ancora non abbastanza.

Quindi la battaglia continua! Vi chiedo di mantenere la riservatezza del contenuto di questa circolare. Si può dire al fedele che nulla è stato firmato e che la situazione rimane identica a quella che avevamo prima del 14 settembre. Quando visiterò i vostri priorati vi fornirò maggiori dettagli sulla situazione

Infine, vorrei dirvi che Lunedi scorso sono andato a Roma per pregare davanti alla Cattedra di San Pietro. Inoltre sono riuscito a salire la Scala Santa, chiedendo al Signore di dare a ciascuno di noi, i sacerdoti del Distretto, incrollabile fedeltà al combattimento intrapreso da Mons. Lefebvre per il bene delle anime, per la Chiesa e per la Tradizione. Pensare alla tragedia che coinvolge la Chiesa di oggi vive deve stimolare il nostro zelo per la santificazione di tutte le anime che sono state date alle nostre cure.

Io vi assicuro la mia preghiera fraterna ai Cuori di Gesù e Maria.
Padre Christian BOUCHACOURT



French Translation

Mercredi, le 12 octobre, 2011

Chers Pères,


Je viens d’arriver de Rome il y a quelques heures et je veux vous faire part de ce qui s’est passé à la réunion à laquelle nous avons été convoqués par notre Supérieur Général, Mgr  Fellay. C’était une réunion d’information.


Selon la déclaration qui a été publiée, les membres du Conseil général, tous les Supérieurs de District et trois des quatre évêques ont assisté à la réunion.


En effet, Mgr Williamson ne s’est pas rendu à Albano. Il avait été convoqué pour la rencontre, mais Mgr Fellay avait ajouté deux conditions: qu’il ferme son blog et qu’il garde secret le contenu du préambule que Rome avait donné à la FSSPX. Il n’était pas d’accord sur au moins une des deux conditions, et, de ce fait, il n’a pas pu participer à la réunion d’Albano.


La session s’est déroulée en trois étapes. Tout d’abord, Mgr Fellay a présenté une évaluation historique des relations avec Rome. Deuxièmement, Mgr de Galarreta et l’abbé Jorna ont parlé des discussions doctrinales à Rome. Enfin, le préambule doctrinal fourni par la Congrégation pour la Doctrine de la Foi, signé par le Cardinal Levada, a été présenté.


Il n’est pas nécessaire de relater les faits historiques concernant nos relations avec Rome. Vous connaissez déjà l’essentiel. En ce qui concerne les discussions doctrinales, quatre sujets importants ont été étudiés : Le Novus Ordo Missae, la liberté religieuse, l’ecclésiologie – Lumen Gentium, le «subsistit in» et la collégialité – le Magistère et la Tradition.


Nos adversaires n’ont pas cherché à répondre à nos arguments mais ont constamment essayé de montrer qu’il n’y a pas de rupture avec la Tradition. Ils ont reconnu que la liberté religieuse, la collégialité, etc. sont des notions nouvelles, mais – comme on dit – elles sont implicitement contenues dans la tradition et sont rendues explicites par le Concile Vatican II.


Le climat des discussions était cordial, mais il n’a pas empêché chaque parti de manifester ouvertement ses positions. Nos adversaires sont restés fermés à nos arguments, du moins extérieurement.


Le texte du docuмent donné à Mgr Fellay et ses adjoints reste confidentiel. Mais je peux vous exposer quelques éléments de son contenu. Il comporte deux parties: un préambule doctrinal et un bref projet de solution canonique pour la Fraternité.


Le préambule est basé sur le protocole d’accord qui fut une fois proposé à Mgr Lefebvre, mais sous une forme plus restrictive.

Il nous est demandé de reconnaître le Concile Vatican II à la lumière de la Tradition catholique et de l’enseignement du pape à l’époque actuelle. En outre, nous devrions accepter, d’une part le Catéchisme de l’Église Catholique, qui constitue un Compendium de la Doctrine du Concile, et d’autre part le Code de Droit Canonique publié en 1983, avec une application adaptée à la discipline particulière accordée à la FSSPX.


De même, nous devons reconnaître la légitimité du Novus Ordo. Selon les explications des canonistes du Vatican, par le mot «légitime» ils veulent dire «légal» ... Ce n’est pas le sens communément reçu.


Puis suivrait une profession de foi et un serment de loyauté.

Enfin, si nous voulions signer le préambule, il nous serait accordé une prélature personnelle semblable à la structure canonique de l’Opus Dei.


De toute évidence, ce préambule avec son contenu ne peut être signé, bien que des modifications puissent y être apportées. La situation de l’Église conciliaire, les remarques du pape en Allemagne, la prochaine réunion d’Assise montrent que la situation n’est pas propice à la signature d’un tel docuмent. Nous serions écrasés par le système, comme le furent les congrégations du «motu propio».


Mgr Fellay enverra sa réponse dans quelques semaines, et peut-être répondra-t-il par une déclaration doctrinale qui n’a rien à voir avec celle qui nous est présentée, celle qui ne sera pas acceptée par Rome.


Bien que l’ouverture canonique existe de la part de Rome, la situation doctrinale dans l’Église n’a pas changé.

Rome a besoin de nous, elle a besoin de nous rencontrer afin de prouver que Vatican II n’est pas en rupture avec la Tradition, et de neutraliser l’aile progressiste qui aspire à une rupture avec la Tradition. Il est clair que nous ne pouvons pas continuer ainsi. Nous devons rester ferme et attendre que Rome prenne de nouvelles mesures. Rome recule de plus en plus, mais pas encore assez.


Donc, la bataille continue! Je vous demande de maintenir confidentiel le contenu de cette circulaire. Vous pouvez dire aux fidèles que rien n’a été signé et que la situation reste identique à ce que nous avions avant le 14 septembre. Lors de ma prochaine visite à vos prieurés je fournirai plus de détails sur la situation.


Enfin je tiens à vous dire que lundi dernier je suis allé à Rome pour prier devant la Chaire de Saint Pierre. J’ai également réussi à gravir la Scala Sancta (le Saint Escalier), pour demander à Notre Seigneur de donner à chacun de nous, les prêtres du district, une loyauté indéfectible pour le combat entrepris par Mgr Lefebvre, pour le bien des âmes, pour l’Église et la tradition. Réfléchir sur la tragédie que traverse l’Eglise d’aujourd’hui doit stimuler notre zèle pour la sanctification de toutes les âmes qui sont confiées à nos soins.


Je vous assure de mes prières fraternelles dans les Cœurs de Jésus et Marie.
Abbé Christian BOUCHACOURT

   Bishop Fellay recently bragged that he could "lead home(!)" 450 priests and 200 seminarians.

When did he say this?

Quote from: stevusmagnus

Quote from: Seraphim

   Bishop Fellay recently bragged that he could "lead home(!)" 450 priests and 200 seminarians.

When did he say this?

Before word of the revolt of his plan got out:

http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/es/homepage/vaticano/dettagliospain/articolo/9620/

Should read: "Before word of the revolt AGAINST HIS PLAN got out:"

Quote from: Seraphim

Quote from: stevusmagnus

Quote from: Seraphim

   Bishop Fellay recently bragged that he could "lead home(!)" 450 priests and 200 seminarians.

When did he say this?

Before word of the revolt of his plan got out:

http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/es/homepage/vaticano/dettagliospain/articolo/9620/

No hablo whatever language this is.

Here is a Google translation:

On the Road to Rome
Towards a reconciliation between ####s and the Vatican?
GIACOMO GALEAZZI
THE VATICAN CITY

The ####s have not rejected the offer of the Vatican, was the word of Bernard Fellay. The superior of the fraternityFellahint Pius X has intervened to stop the leaking of news about a possible break with the Vatican in the negotiations for the return of the schismatic group of ultra traditionalists to the Church. "We have not rejected the text which was presented to us by the Holy See," said Fellay.

If the peace process becFellahreality, the superior of the fraternity of Saint Pius X, says that he would lead back home a group of 200 seminarians and 450 priests. And in a period of scarcity of vocations, that would not be a small thing. After the meeting of the superiors of the ####s which took place in Albano at the beginning of October there, "has come to light various comments related to the response Bishop Bernard Fellay would give to the proposals subFellah by Rome on September 14, 2011", when the successor of Archbishop Lefebvre met with the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in the Vatican. To this day, nothing indicates that the Catholic ultra traditionalists will not re-enter the fold of Rome.

In the worst case, only a small part of the ####s would not accept the proposal of Rome, and only a minority party would remain outside of the return. The step that set in motion the process was the Motu Proprio "Summorum Pontificuм" in which Benedict XVI demonstrated his willingness not to betray the past, especially in the liturgical field. Because the liturgy is the Church, and the way in which we pray reflects that which we believe. Bernard Fellay since 1994, is (and will remainFellahtil 2018) superior general of the society of St. Pius X. He was consecrated Bishop by Lefebvre in 1988 and was promoted in a few years to the summit of the fraternity. He saw Lefebvre die after being unconscious for a week in a coma. Fellay leads the ranks of the more modFellahthinking ####s. He is the opposite of Bishop Richard Williamson, which on the other hand, represents the most uncompromising part of the fraternity, in a word, "never again" a compromise with Rome. "Remember – the note that was disseminated today continues saying - that only the general House of the Fraternity of Saint Pius X is allowed to publish an official statement or an approved comment on this subject".

After the meeting in Albano the ####s reported that the heads would study the "doctrinal preamble" submitted by the Holy See "to submit, within a reasonable time period, a response to the Roman proposals". The content of the "preamble" is reserved. The German, Fr. Nicholas Pfluger, first assistant to Fellay, stated in a recent interview, thFellahe proposed text allows corrections on our part".

During these days, in addition, the superior of the British district of the ####s, Fr. Paul Morgan, has revealed in a news letter to his faithful some details of the meeting in the Roman Curia, where he said that Rome "does not recognize the split between the teachings of tradition and the Second Vatican Council", and the proposals of the Vatican contain "all the elements which the society has always rejected". With regard to the meeting at Albano, "those present were in agreement that the doctrinal preamble was clearly unacceptable and the time of reaching any kind of practical agreement where doctrinal issues have not yet been resolved has not come". A leak of news that the superior Fellay has remedied with today’s releaseFellah
If the liturgy is the central nucleus of the dissent of the ####s with Rome, the differences seem to have a greater force than the Motu Proprio "Summorum Pontificuм" can resolve on its own. The ####s request a direct revision of the Conciliar texts and not only denouncing its incorrect hermeneutics, starting with the declaration "Dignitatis Humanae" dedicated to religious freedom. In it, in the view of the Fraternity of Saint Pius X, the Church is placed in a state of subjection in respect to civil authority which then has to guarantee the right of freedom of expression. For the ####s, on the other hand, it would have to be the opposite: the State is subject to the Catholic faith and it should recognize it as the State religion.