Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: Cristera on September 23, 2011, 01:20:21 PM
-
Italy: Meeting of Superiors of the Society of St. Pius X
23-09-2011
Filed under From Rome, News
As announced in the interview given to DICI on the 14th September 2011, following the meeting with Cardinal William Levada, Mgr. Bernard Fellay will consult the Superiors of the SSPX about the doctrinal preamble, given to him by the prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The Society’s Superiors will meet together behind closed doors in the Italian District Headquarters, in Albano, the 7th and 8th October 2011. (DICI 09-23-11)
DICI (http://www.dici.org/en/news/italy-meeting-of-superiors-of-the-society-of-st-pius-x/)
-
A nice closed-door meeting.
-
A nice closed-door meeting.
Were you expecting an invitation? :laugh1:
-
Curious... will all 4 bishops be there?
-
Curious... will all 4 bishops be there?
^
THIS IS A GOOD QUESTION
-
hmmm October 7-9th is the Angelus Conference where the District Superior of the USA is supposed to be speaking, not only that but Bishop Tissier de Mallerais is supposed to be there aswell, he is theologically comparable to Bishop Williamson.
-
hmmm October 7-9th is the Angelus Conference where the District Superior of the USA is supposed to be speaking, not only that but Bishop Tissier de Mallerais is supposed to be there aswell, he is theologically comparable to Bishop Williamson.
I wonder, LP, if they will still bring him to the meeting since this is/was sort of last minute, and I would assume take precedence? I remember speaking with +Tissier and driving him to the airport years ago with my father, when I was confirmed by him. A very humble and holy man. God bless him and all Bishops of tradition in these times.
-
Curious... will all 4 bishops be there?
I don't think so.
Firstly, it's a meeting of the superiors according to the press.
Secondly, Bishop Williamson is virtually not existing anymore for Menzingen, Stuttgart, etc.
For example, Bp Fellay's first assistant Fr Pfluger who's Krah's mentor and protector, visited the British SSPX district in March 2011. The German SSPX newsletter May 2011 published a photo with the following subtitle:
In March 2011 the SSPX first assistent Fr Niklaus Pfluger visitied the priests of Great Britain
However, the photo didn't show Bishop Williamson. So he's virtually not existing for the SSPX anymore. (Fr Schmidberger is the German district superior and before him Fr Pfluger was. See PDF May 2011 (http://www.piusbruderschaft.de/images/stories/mitteilungsblatt/2011/mb_2011_05.pdf), page 26, for the photo and the subtitle.)
That's different even to the freelancing priests who work for some SSPX districts whilst not being members of the fraternity. On district meeting photos they're usually shown however.
P.S. Bishop Tissier de Mallerais is supposed to be there aswell, he is theologically comparable to Bishop Williamson.
Theoretically yes. Unfortunately however, practically Bishop Tissier doesn't dare to even uphold his script "The Faith Imperilled by Reason" about B16's heresies, because Menzingen forbid to criticise B16.
However Bishop Williamson does brings practically four (or five!) recent ECs explaining the script in details for the laity. What a brave shepherd! He knows that the souls vitally need truth and clarity, not half-truths and doubletalk, and that for a true priest or bishop to ignore that fact would be false obedience. God bless him!
-
Fr Morgan has stated the meeting is not to be "seen as anything untoward"
http://www.sspx.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=366:district-superiors-letter-september-2011-&catid=114:district-superiors-letter&Itemid=86
Rome meeting
As mentioned in the previous newsletter, Bishop Fellay and the two Assistants will be meeting with Cardinal Levada in Rome on 14th September with regard to the outcome of the talks which took place these past two years on the doctrinal issues.
It is speculated that the Society’s canonical situation may also be addressed at this occasion, but it is important to remember that Bishop Fellay has repeatedly said, for example, in his Letters to Friends and Benefactors that any practical agreement could not come before a resolution of the doctrinal questions.
The Superior General and the District Superiors will also be meeting at Albano, near Rome, from 6-8th October, but this has regard to media communications generally, and should not be seen as anything untoward.
-
What a brave shepherd! He knows that the souls vitally need truth and clarity, not half-truths and doubletalk, and that for a true priest or bishop to ignore that fact would be false obedience. God bless him!
GOD BLESS BISHOP WILLIAMSON!
Thanks Ethelred.
-
Dawn Marie related the following elsewhere online.
I just saw this posted on another forum:
Fr. Rostand celebrated Mass this morning in St. Marys. In his homily he touched upon the issue of the preamble. The impression I got was that without some wildly unrealistic concessions on Rome's part, the preamble has about a snowball in hell's chance of being signed. I thought Fr. Rostand made it very clear that a purely practical agreement, such as a personal prelature, was completely off the table. Basically he said that they will follow the example of Archbishop Lefebvre and not sign a practical agreement; that the SSPX's sole purpose is to preserve the Faith. Most notably in my opinion, he used very Bishop Williamson-esque language in speaking of the "new faith" that the Council introduced. And this is the United States District Superior!
May it please God to be accurate.
Hollingsworth then replied
I'm not certain when Fr. R was at St. Mary's saying these things, and whether he visited Post Falls before visiting SM's. Fr. R. held a well-attended meeting at PF, I know for certain. We were away on vacation and did not get the opportunity to hear him. But good friends inform us he got pretty arrogant and cavalier when the subject of the preamble came up. Our friends report that at least twenty people walked out of the meeting in disgust. Fr R. is reported to have told the assembled that the preamble and the present dealings with Rome were none of the laity's business; that none of us should bother to write SSPX headquarters, or text, or phone them with inquiries or complaints; that, in a word, we should all just buzz off and let the big boys handle it! This may not be a totally accurate reflection of his attitude and demeanor, but we got it from people whom we trust. I'll be happy to offer any corrections as more information becomes available. I would like to think that ICC's new pastor might explain the situation from the pulpit for those of us who entertain grave misgivings. But, alas, he does not apparently speak much English. Go figure.
Dawn Marie
Well I don't know whether that is accurate or not but if it is, that way of thinking is of course ridiculous as many people's lives will be affected by the outcome of this situation and it is the business of many souls what happens.
On the other side of the coin, I do understand that they are probably inundated with "texts", "faxes", "emails" "letters" and "phone calls" and that can drive anyone to be snippy in a sense when they feel like they are under so much pressure.
Bishop Fellay is big on wanting people to trust him, and to trust that he will not do anything which would put the SSPX in danger.
Everyone is very on edge about all of this, priests and faithful alike. It would be helpful if Bp. Fellay and "others" like Father Rostand, would be kind and generous of heart to remember that, and to take into consideration that the results WILL affect many, many lives now and in the future, not just theirs.
We are all a feisty bunch, the whole lot, but being dismissive to peoples concerns is not helpful.
Everything is at stake here and people are worried.
But I think it all comes down to trusting in God.
Lord Thy will be done, whatever that may be.
-
Ethelred, you are a mine of information. Alas, so many people are now openly sidelining Bp. Williamson in conformity with leadership policy. He is the trade-off in getting the world to believe the Society is no longer a reactionary force.
-
But good friends inform us he got pretty arrogant and cavalier when the subject of the preamble came up. Our friends report that at least twenty people walked out of the meeting in disgust. Fr R. is reported to have told the assembled that the preamble and the present dealings with Rome were none of the laity's business
These supercilious priests are a disgrace to the priesthood.
-
Ethelred, you are a mine of information. Alas, so many people are now openly sidelining Bp. Williamson in conformity with leadership policy. He is the trade-off in getting the world to believe the Society is no longer a reactionary force.
Thank you Wessex for your words and your wise judgement on the SSPX' sad dealing with Bishop Williamson. Clearly, Menzingen can't wait to get rid of the hated Bishop Williamson who's "just" a truth-teller. However, the SSPX leaders will have to give account for their years of injustice against Bishop Williamson and the truth, and they shouldn't forget: Menzingen proposes, God disposes!
(We too should not forget this. It may look like the Pfluger-Krah-Fellay fraction is victorious on most fronts, but still God has the last word. Let's also remember that Bishop Williamson is with God.)
Since Bishop Fellay has said he will consult the SSPX leaders, that would normally mean a General Chapter. So, in case he wants to sign Newrome's offer (I think he would like to), he would have to bring the General Chapter around to his point of view.
Then what part will the three other bishops have in this? In theory no special part, but in practice the three other bishops would carry special weight with their priestly colleagues. And if all three bishops were against the agreement with Newrome, Bishop Fellay would have a hard time in swinging the General Council behind it. As an experienced diplomat and politician with good knowledge in double-thinking, he would rather find a way of making it appear that the three bishops' opinion had been his own opinion all along...
So what are the other three bishops going to do with their special role in practice?
1. I'm sure from Bishop Williamson's statements and EC sermons, that he would never accept an agreement with the modernist Newrome.
2. If we look at Bishop Galarreta's recent Ecône sermon, we see that he several times attacked the Newpope B16 in a sharp way, a little bit like Archbishop Lefebvre did. The Bishop underlined it by letting his "ammunition" being served on a silver tablet, i.e. the quotes from Ratzinger which the bishop then read and attacked. Personally I don't think he would agree with a Newrome agreement.
3. Bishop Tissier is known to be theologically very anti Newrome and anti Newpope B16. However, from my observation (his script on B16's thinking, his treatment of Fr Merano, etc) I think that courage is a weak point. Still, considering the importance of the Newrome's offer, I think that with a higher probability the bishop would join the first-mentioned two bishops.
Let's wait and see.
-
I am sure that Bp. Fellay would like to be remembered for ending the 'rebellion' and could in time eclipse ABL in the eyes of all those endlessly wishing and praying to be united with Rome if he were to succeed. To what extent is Bp. de Castro Mayer now remembered?
The bishops of the Society are already in auxiliary positions and could be gently put out to grass with a new structure. But I have always maintained that as the 'rebellion' largely started in France, it will end there and that Bp. Tissier may be more important in shaping the future that we realise.
-
But good friends inform us he got pretty arrogant and cavalier when the subject of the preamble came up. Our friends report that at least twenty people walked out of the meeting in disgust. Fr R. is reported to have told the assembled that the preamble and the present dealings with Rome were none of the laity's business
These supercilious priests are a disgrace to the priesthood.
You seem to forget how presumptuous, entitled and rash the laity who attend these chapels can be.
-
You seem to forget how presumptuous, entitled and rash the laity who attend these chapels can be.
The only reason these priests have any legitimacy is the extent they stand for the truth of the Catholic Faith. Now if it's none of the laity's business what sort of doctrinal statements are being "negotiated" behind closed doors then there's really no point in following priests who the alleged Pope says exercise no ministry in the Church.
These priests are rash in the extreme, and are a disgrace, but if they think the laity are rash in questioning them, they have no idea how "rash" "rashness" can be.
-
In order to make this clear once again: until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers – even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty – do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church.
So then the Pope says the SSPX has no legitimate ministry until doctrinal questions are clarified. Now the SSPX priests say these doctrinal questions in the so-called "doctrinal preamble" are not the laity's business?
That is fatal arrogance.
-
SSPX is all new to me. I didn't even know what it meant until after I joined this site.
-
Dear Wessex, thanks for your words. I think the following information is good news:
In the beginning of this week there was a SSPX' meeting of all priests working or staying in Federal Republic of Germany, with their district superior Fr Schmidberger. That's a bare 50 priests or so.
The special speaker was Bp Fellay's first assistant, Fr Pfluger from Menzingen.
He's a Swiss-German priest and the mentor of Zionist Krah (or the other way round). Some say he's the most dangerous cleric in the entire SSPX. Verifiable he's one of the clerics who hate Bishop Williamson the most.
On this meeting Fr Pfluger tried for about two hours to advocate a SSPX agreement with Newrome. He mentioned that they want a contract with Newrome, basing on an edited version of Newrome's offer.
He's being fully supported by Fr Schmidberger's assistant and public relation man Fr Steiner, who also edits the messy official SSPX newsletter where for example he wrote that crazy Big-Bang propagation in spring 2010 (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=16108&min=37).
Although Fr Schmidberger doesn't speak as openly as Fr Pfluger on this matter, good sources tell me that considering a contract with Newrome Fr Schmidberger is in the same boat with Pfluger and Steiner.
After Fr Pfluger's Newrome speech, the old father Franz-Josef Maeßen stood up and gave a short but intense five minute speech. With his specious arguments he completely swept away in five minutes what Fr Pfluger said in two hours.
The speechless Fr Pfluger didn't reply anything, which is a rare moment!
Fr Maeßen's underlined as the crux of the matter, that Newrome was modernist at the time of Archbishop Lefebvre and is absolutely modernist today, so no agreement is possible.
As an additional information: Fr Maeßen was a former German SSPX district superior, he's uncompromisingly pro Archbishop Lefebvre, and by now he usually stays in an old people's home and is just working sometimes in SSPX chapels (where he gives very ardent sermons with an immense love for Archbishop Lefebvre). In contrast to some younger priests he's not in fear of certain superiors.
Now comes the crowning moment:
After his short speech, about three-quarters of the priests applauded Fr Maeßen !
(And I know of priests who liked to applaud too, but didn't dare because of potential sanctions against them.)
I think this is good news concerning certain superiors' sell-out to Newrome.
Of course the battle is not over yet, because the superiors could do what they want. However, there's also the Bishops Williamson, Galarreta and Tissier with their influence on a whole series of priests.
It looks like the powerful Newrome friends in the SSPX will have a hard time! May God prevent their betrayal of Archbishop Lefebvre's work and bless the clerics who're loyal to him!
-
Ethelred:
After Fr Pfluger's Newrome speech, the old father Franz-Josef Maeßen stood up and gave a short but intense five minute speech. With his specious arguments he completely swept away in five minutes what Fr Pfluger said in two hours.
Ethelred, I put "specious" in bold type. Did you mean that Fr. Mae(b)en's arguments were specious? I tend to think you didn't. Please clarify. Thanks.
-
Ethelred: After Fr Pfluger's Newrome speech, the old father Franz-Josef Maeßen stood up and gave a short but intense five minute speech. With his specious arguments he completely swept away in five minutes what Fr Pfluger said in two hours.
Ethelred, I put "specious" in bold type. Did you mean that Fr. Mae(b)en's arguments were specious? I tend to think you didn't. Please clarify. Thanks.
Dear Hollingsworth, thank you for your point! That word was indeed a complete mistake by me. I meant the exact opposite! I'm very sorry.
So, in order to correct it:
After Fr Pfluger's "we want a contract with Newrome" speech, the elder former German district superior Fr Franz-Josef Maeßen stood up and gave a short but intense 3-4 minute speech.
With his impressive arguments ("bestechende Argumente" in German) Fr Maeßen completely swept away in a few minutes what Fr Pfluger said in two hours.
After Fr Maeßen's counterattack, Fr Pfluger was not only silent but pale. He was unable to reply anything.
As I wrote in the other related thread (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/SSPX-Spokesman-If-the-General-Superior-Agrees-The-Society-Will-Come-Along), please dear German-speaking Cathinfo users: If you happen to know other SSPX priests in the German district, please ask them about the German SSPX priest meeting which took place last Monday/Tuesday and then please confirm or correct what I wrote. Thank you!
Good bless all SSPX clerics who're still loyal to Archbishop Lefebvre!
-
You can hear the substance of Fr. Rostand's conference here: http://sspx.org/district_news/update_on_sspx_rome_fr_rostand_conference_9-30-2011.htm. He gave this in KCMO before the others.
Also, the contents of the Doctrinal Preamble are not the laity's business - not at this juncture in any case. Too many of us often forget that the SSPX is a *religious congregation* that has a right to its privacy regarding its private affairs just like any other religious order of the Catholic Church.
One other thing, if people are not satisfied with what has just been said above (and thus the basis for Fr. Rostand's comments, which were not cavalier, but said in his typical French candor style), then WHAT THEY LACK IS TRUST AND HOPE which is completely unfounded considering the SSPX has never departed from the same path as set by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.
We can (and should) pray for the superiors of the SSPX, that as they have done in the past, they will listen to the Holy Ghost in making whatever decision must be made - and not follow the desire of certain pro-sedevcantist types who can offer no solution at all to the problem of the crisis in the Church.
-
Also, the contents of the Doctrinal Preamble are not the laity's business - not at this juncture in any case. Too many of us often forget that the SSPX is a *religious congregation* that has a right to its privacy regarding its private affairs just like any other religious order of the Catholic Church.
Let me get this straight - "the right to privacy" regarding the doctrines that Catholics must believe? That their followers will have to accept? "Right to privacy" - sounds like something from the pro-choice camp really. Differing views on religious liberty are a "choice."
The SSPX has no legitimate ministry in the Church according to Benedict XVI. They deny that, saying that they are standing for the Faith. Yet they won't talk about what they're negotiating, so that they can spring this thing pertaining to Faithful as a fait accompli. Putrid arrogance.
One other thing, if people are not satisfied with what has just been said above (and thus the basis for Fr. Rostand's comments, which were not cavalier, but said in his typical French candor style), then WHAT THEY LACK IS TRUST AND HOPE which is completely unfounded considering the SSPX has never departed from the same path as set by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.
That must be why they suppressed the publication of his sermons. Bishop "elder brothers" Fellay has certainly said and done many things we can be certain Archbishop Lefebvre would never have done.
-
Augustine Baker:
You seem to forget how presumptuous, entitled and rash the laity who attend these chapels can be.
On expects ignorant remarks like this to be made of by the irresponsible members of the major media- but by a traditional Catholic? Augustine, let me inform you, without fear of contradiction in all likelihood, that you know nothing about the alleged rashness of the SSPX laity and its alleged sense of entitlement. You have pure opinion and speculation to guide you in that assessment. I dare say that even within the confines of your own chapel you have no concrete basis upon which to make such a statement.
-
Also, the contents of the Doctrinal Preamble are not the laity's business - not at this juncture in any case. Too many of us often forget that the SSPX is a *religious congregation* that has a right to its privacy regarding its private affairs just like any other religious order of the Catholic Church.
Let me get this straight - "the right to privacy" regarding the doctrines that Catholics must believe? That their followers will have to accept? "Right to privacy" - sounds like something from the pro-choice camp really. Differing views on religious liberty are a "choice."
The SSPX has no legitimate ministry in the Church according to Benedict XVI. They deny that, saying that they are standing for the Faith. Yet they won't talk about what they're negotiating, so that they can spring this thing pertaining to Faithful as a fait accompli. Putrid arrogance.
One other thing, if people are not satisfied with what has just been said above (and thus the basis for Fr. Rostand's comments, which were not cavalier, but said in his typical French candor style), then WHAT THEY LACK IS TRUST AND HOPE which is completely unfounded considering the SSPX has never departed from the same path as set by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.
That must be why they suppressed the publication of his sermons. Bishop "elder brothers" Fellay has certainly said and done many things we can be certain Archbishop Lefebvre would never have done.
This entire post sounds like something a Communist would post. Using pure rhetoric and trying to compare things that are unrelated to produce a point that has no basis in logic. Shame on you Tele.
-
For the millionenth time, there were no "Negotiations".
The Doctrinal Talks, were the statements of the Doctrinal Positions of each side.
You are being fed or trying to feed misinformation Tele. Another Fail. Did your Muslim friends in the Kingdom of Satan tell you this?
-
Negotiations are kept secret. There's no need to keep one's doctrinal positions secret, or the doctrinal positions of one's adversaries. There's only a need to keep negotiations secret, so people can't object until it's too late.
-
This entire post sounds like something a Communist would post. Using pure rhetoric and trying to compare things that are unrelated to produce a point that has no basis in logic. Shame on you Tele.
They have a "right to privacy" regarding their positions on Church doctrine?
That is insanity.
-
The whole religious liberty angle is closely connected in fact to the issue of government tolerance of contraception which in turn is connected to the legalization of abortion. Fr. John Courtney Murray who authored Dignitatis Humanae argued that freely available contraception was a matter of religious liberty. And Benedict XVI has said the use of such devices could be a "first step towards morality." I suppose when you advocate things like that or start making agreements with people like that, you argue for a "right to privacy" when it comes to what your position is on Catholic doctrine.
-
Negotiations are kept secret. There's no need to keep one's doctrinal positions secret, or the doctrinal positions of one's adversaries. There's only a need to keep negotiations secret, so people can't object until it's too late.
+1
-
Bishop Williamson is not at Albano for the meetings.
-
Bishop Williamson is not at Albano for the meetings.
Excellent news.
So they can't use Bishop Williamson as fig-leaf for their betrayal of Archbishop Lefebvre.
Thanks Seraphim.
God bless Bishop Williamson!
-
Ethelred:
So they can't use Bishop Williamson as fig-leaf for their betrayal of Archbishop Lefebvre.
Good point. I think they've got a problem. The SSPX leaders met behind closed doors in Albano, in order, apparently, to study and take a closer look at the infamous "Preamble." That meeting having ended, they're planning to scrutinize the docuмent even more closely into the indefinite future. Of course, we stillknow really nothing of its contents; and Fr. Rostand and other leaders do not hesitate to tell the faithful that it's none of their business. You have to wonder at this point what kind of story Fellay & Co. may be trying to concoct for eventual release to the press. You can't keep that 'poker face' on forever. You can't match and raise indefinitely. Somebody's got to call their hand eventually. And I have a strange feeling, after all is said and done, that the SSPX is not even holding a pair.
-
And you should see some of the mental gymnastics being employed by indultarians over at Rorate Coeli in their feeble attempts to explain and/or justify Bishop WIlliamson's absence.
Worth a few chuckles.
-
Bishop Williamson 'Eleison Comments' from August 2010.
ELEISON COMMENTS CLXII (Aug.21, 2010) : DISCUSSIONS BLIND-SIDED ?
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 rumour 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, I was told me a few weeks ago that a large proportion of Catholics attending SSPX Mass centres 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 rumour 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 !
Kyrie eleison.
-
ELEISON COMMENTS CXCIV (April 2, 2011) : NOW WHERE ?
If, as seems to be the case, the doctrinal discussions over the last year and a half between Rome and the SSPX have persuaded neither Rome to convert nor the SSPX to betray, then the question arises, where do we go from here ? Surely the crisis of Vatican II proved if anything the need for Catholics to do some thinking for themselves on such a question, and not just follow their leaders blindly - are not millions of Catholics still being softly led into apostasy ? That is why to the bishops of the SSPX a fighting Gaul puts a threefold question, surely serious enough to deserve an answer (his questions are abbreviated and adapted) :--
In your opinion, does the recent announcement of Assisi III, solemn commemoration of John-Paul II's ecuмenical encounter of various religions held in Assisi 25 years ago, add anything new to what we already know of the ecuмenical course being followed by Benedict XVI ?
Answer : It is one more proof that the Church leadership in Rome is intent upon persevering along the disastrous path of giving official Catholic approval to all sorts of false religions. "I do not think we can say," Archbishop Lefebvre once said, "that Rome has not lost the Faith."
In your opinion, does this announcement prove or disprove the opportuneness of doctrinal discussions being undertaken between the SSPX and Rome ? Answer : It surely proves the opportuneness of their coming to an end. While they were going on, they did have collateral advantages, well enumerated by Bishop de Galarreta (see EC 156, July 10, 2010). However, their mere taking place at all also had the disadvantage of creating in souls either false hopes or true fears of a pseudo-reconciliation between doctrinal positions which are, in reality, absolutely irreconcilable. The announcement of Assisi III has helped to put an end to such hopes and fears, at least for the moment - but dreamers cling to their dreams !
Just as Assisi I was a major incentive for Archbishop Lefebvre to consecrate four bishops in 1988, should the announcement of Assisi III be encouraging the SSPX to consecrate more bishops ? Answer : The SSPX's Superior General answered this question two months ago in the USA. He said that if the circuмstances of 1988 which drove the Archbishop to consecrate were repeated, then there would be more bishops. The question then becomes: are the circuмstances of Assisi III repeating those of Assisi I ? One can only reply, opinions vary. Many serious Catholics think the circuмstances have grown much worse, but that is not necessarily the opinion of Bishop Fellay, who as Superior General is responsible for such a major decision for the SSPX.
Then back to our original question: where now for the SSPX ? The answer is clear. It must continue along the path set for it by its Founder, namely firm resistance to the (at least objective) apostates in Rome, making known as widely as possible the Archbishop's diagnosis of the otherwise insoluble problems of Church and world. His solution is simply to maintain Catholic life in accordance with the pre-Conciliar Catholic doctrine and morals of all time, for the greater glory of God and for the salvation of as many souls as possible.
Kyrie eleison.
-
Fr Morgan SSPX
http://www.sspx.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=390:district-superiors-letter-november-2011&catid=114:district-superiors-letter&Itemid=86
District Superior's Letter November 2011
My dear brethren
The meeting of the Society’s superiors took place at Albano on 7-8th October as announced in last month’s newsletter, and Bishop Fellay did indeed use this opportunity to discuss the ‘Doctrinal Preamble’ text as received from Cardinal Levada on 14th September.
The first day of the meeting covered three issues: an overview of the contacts with Rome since 1987; a summary of the doctrinal discussions; and an oral exposition of the Doctrinal Preamble docuмent itself.
With regard to the doctrinal talks it was disappointing to note that the Roman commission failed to acknowledge the break between traditional and conciliar teachings. Instead it insisted upon the ‘hermeneutic (interpretation) of continuity,’ stating that the new teachings included and improved the old!
It was interesting to learn that the 14th September meeting had not touched upon the doctrinal talks at all, but rather was dedicated to expounding possible practical solutions for the Society.
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. Indeed, the docuмent itself conveys the impression that there is no crisis in the Church...
Hence the stated consensus of those in attendance was that the Doctrinal Preamble was clearly unacceptable and that the time has certainly not come to pursue any practical agreement as long as the doctrinal issues remain outstanding. It also agreed that the Society should continue its work of insisting upon the doctrinal questions in any contacts with the Roman authorities.
In many ways we can see the hand of Providence in this meeting, falling as it did on the Feast of the Holy Rosary, given the clarification of Rome’s persistence in the modern errors, and the consequent necessity of continuing with the fight against modernism through fidelity to Catholic Tradition.
The second day of the meeting was dedicated to its original theme, that of communications and the media.
* * *
The Assisi III meeting is taking place on the very day I write these few lines, at which occasion we are holding a day of reparation here at St George’s House, with all-day exposition of the Blessed Sacrament.
The scandal of this inter-religious gathering can be resumed into three points:
i/ It commemorates and celebrates the scandal of Assisi I;
ii/ It replaces the Faith with religious liberty as the means to obtain world peace;
iii/ It promotes on a practical level relativism and religious indifference.
-
http://the-hermeneutic-of-continuity.blogspot.com/2011/09/mass-for-success-of-sspx-negotiations.html
Sunday, 25 September 2011
Gerald Purves said...
Attended St Pius V Chapel in Groombridge,on Sunday 16th October 2011.It was announced by Father Paul Morgan Sspx,that negotiations have failed.
10/17/2011 4:25 PM
-
The District Superior's Letter November 2011 has removed from the British District website.
-
Menzingen is trying to suggest Fr Morgan is spreading rumours. The 'doctrinal preamble' was rejected in Albano by the District Superiors and the Bishops. The German District posted this.
http://www.piusbruderschaft.de/archiv-news/727-aus_der_bruderschaft/6029-geruechte-im-internet
Gerüchte im Internet
Zur Zeit kursieren Gerüchte im Internet, die Priesterbruderschaft St. Pius X. würde "eine Einigung mit Rom ablehnen".
Der Grund ist ein Rundschreiben des englischen Distriktoberen, Pater Paul Morgan, das gestern für kurze Zeit im Internet zu lesen war, in dem er ähnliches behauptet haben soll.
Weil diese Meldung mittlerweile von Zeitungen und Agenturen aufgegriffen wurde, hat das Generalhaus der Priesterbruderschaft St. Pius X. in Menzingen (Schweiz) reagiert und folgende kurze Notiz veröffentlicht:
Seit dem Treffen der Oberen der Seminare und Distrikte der Priesterbruderschaft St. Pius X. in Albano (Italien) am 7. Oktober 2011, erscheinen verschiedene Kommentare in der Presse bezüglich der Antwort, welche Bischof Bernard Fellay auf die römischen Vorschläge vom 14. September 2011 geben wird.
Es wird daran erinnert, dass allein das Generalhaus der Priesterbruderschaft St. Pius X. berechtigt ist, ein offizielles Kommuniqué oder einen autorisierten Kommentar bezüglich dieser Thematik zu veröffentlichen.
Bis weitere Informationen erscheinen, gilt die Pressemitteilung vom 7. Oktober 2011.
Menzingen, 2. Nov. 2011
Currently, there are rumors on the Internet, the Fraternity of St. Pius X. would "reject an agreement with Rome."
The reason is a circular letter of the English District Superior, Father Paul Morgan, which was read yesterday for a short time on the Internet, in which he allegedly claimed 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:
Since the meeting of the upper districts of the seminars and the Fraternity of St. Pius X. Albano (Italy) on 7 Published in October 2011, various comments in the press about the response that Bishop Bernard Fellay of the Roman proposals of 14 Be September 2011.
It is recalled that only the General House of the Society of St. Pius X. is entitled to publish an official communiqué or authorized to comment on these issues.
Appear to further information, the press release is dated 7 October 2011.
Menzingen, 2nd Nov. 2011
Source: dici.org
-
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2011/11/02/sspx-leaders-rejected-vatican-statement-says-superior/
Leaders of the Society of St Pius X (SSPX) have agreed that the doctrinal preamble presented to them by the Vatican is “completely unacceptable”, according to the society’s district superior in Britain.
In a newsletter posted online and subsequently removed, Fr Paul Morgan said SSPX superiors had rejected the doctrinal principles set out by the Vatican as the basis for further discussion.
The superiors met last month in Albano, Rome, but said they would only issue a response to the Vatican after further study.
In an official statement today the SSPX said that “only the General House of the Society of St Pius X is entitled to make public an official communiqué or authorised commentary on this matter”.
In his letter Fr Morgan said it was “disappointing” that the doctrinal statement, handed to SSPX leaders by Cardinal William Levada, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, “failed to acknowledge the break between traditional and conciliar teachings”.
“Instead,” he wrote, “it insisted upon the ‘hermeneutic [interpretation] of continuity’, stating that the new teachings included and improved upon the old!
“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. Indeed, the docuмent itself conveys the impression that there is no crisis in the Church…
“Hence the stated consensus of those in attendance was that the doctrinal preamble was clearly unacceptable and that the time has certainly not come to pursue any practical agreement as long as the doctrinal issues remain outstanding.”
The Vatican statement listed several principles that the SSPX had to agree with in order to move towards full conciliation with Rome.
It came after two years of doctrinal talks between leaders of the SSPX and officials at the Vatican.
-
The truth, not secrecy, will set you free.
-
Fr. Morgan is a district superior, who was present at the meeting in Albano. The link goes to an actual SSPX site. Doesn't sound like rumors to me.
P.S. thanks for the info post, John Grace.
-
Just when I am about to rejoice that the SSPX is holding the line after all, here we are plunged back into the realm of doubt by this strange suppression of Fr. Morgan's revelations.
What is Menzingen up to?
Enough of this stuff!
-
Thank goodness the truth is starting to leak out, despite Bishop Fellay's attempts to suppress it!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/homepage/world-news/detail/articolo/lefebvriani-lefebvrians-lefebvrianos-fellay-vaticano-vatican-9584/
Lefebvrians: Internal dissent against agreement with Rome
The English Superior of the Society of Saint Pius X, has written to Catholics to inform them on the outcome of the meeting with other clerics to decide on the Vatican’s proposal
Andrea Tornielli
vatican city
Still no news from the Society of Saint Pius X, which was called to give a response to and sign the “doctrinal preamble” sent by the Ecclesia Dei commission last 14 September, asking the Lefebvrians to profess the faith, as is required by anyone who assumes an ecclesiastical role.
But something is beginning to trickle through in relation to the meeting of the Society’s Superiors, which was held on 7 and 8 October in Albano Laziale. The Superior of the Lefebvrians in the United Kingdom, Father Paul Morgan, discussed this in a letter published in November’s bulletin, sent out to the faithful yesterday.
Fr. Morgan recounted that during the meeting in Albano, a summary of the contact between the Society and Holy See authorities from 1987 up until today, was presented, along with a summary of the doctrinal talks that took place in recent months. “An oral presentation of the doctrinal preamble was also given.” Morgan said that Mgr. Bernard Fellay, the Society of Saint Pius X’s Superior, did not deliver the written text he had received from the Vatican, but only presented it, evidently to avoid news leaks.
The UK’s Lefebvrian leader went on to say: “In as far as the doctrinal discussions are concerned, it is regrettable that Rome’s commission failed to recognise the rift that exists between traditional and conciliar teachings. Insisting instead on the hermeneutics of continuity... and claiming that new teachings include and develop older ones.”
What really came as a surprise, was Fr. Morgan’s surprise: the hermeneutics of continuity with regards to reform, that is, the Second Vatican Council’s entry into the history of councils and its reading in the light of a former tradition, even in its developments and updates, represent the key suggested by Benedict XVI. It is also difficult to imagine that its closest collaborators in the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Card. William Levada, Mgr. William Levada and Mgr. Guido Pozzo, who are engaged in dialogue with Saint Pius X, would have proposed a different one.
The letter sent by the English Superior, read: “It was interesting to learn that the 14th September meeting (the one which took place in the Vatican, when the Preamble was delivered - Ed.) had not touched upon the doctrinal talks at all, but rather was dedicated to expounding possible practical solutions for the Society.”
“So it was perhaps not surprising to learn – Morgan wrote - 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.
Indeed, the docuмent itself conveys the impression that there is no crisis in the Church...”
A negative opinion, therefore, emerged in relation to the text that resulted from the talks with Vatican authorities. The Society’s Superior in the UK, added that some participants found the Doctrinal Preamble “clearly unacceptable and that the time has certainly not come to pursue any practical agreement as long as the doctrinal issues remain outstanding. It also agreed that the Society should continue its work of insisting upon the doctrinal questions in any contacts with the Roman authorities.” An outright rejection of the Preamble then.
A brief communiqué, sent this afternoon by the Generalate of the Society of Saint Pius X in Rome, seemed to promptly respond to Fr. Morgan’s bulletin. It recalled that after the meeting between Superiors held on 7 October in Albano, various comments appeared in the press. But it also reminded that “only the Generalate was authorised to send an official communiqué or an authorised comment on the matter.” In other words, Fr. Morgan was only speaking in a personal capacity.
There is no doubt, however, that these comments indicate the difficulties and disputes which Mgr. Fellay is currently undergoing. According to some rumours, the other two Lefebvrian bishops present in Albano, Tissier de Mallerais and Alfonso de Gallareta, also expressed the dissent towards the Doctrinal Preamble and towards the agreement proposed by the Holy See. The fourth bishop, Richard Williamson, who has taken an even greater opposing stance towards the text, was not present at the meeting.
-
Two things strike me as particularly preposterous:
1) Bishop Fellay calls a secret meeting in Albano to discuss a secret Doctrinal Preamble, and asks the assembled Superiors to vote on the acceptability of a text which remains....secret?
2) All the Superiors appear to reject the unknown, verbally explicated Preamble, but Bishop Fellay doesn't want the world to know that (as evinced by deleting the announcement of Fr. Morgan from the UK SSPX website)?
This is very strange.
-
This is very strange.
No it isn't. It's a typical Fellay-type manuever.
-
This is very strange.
No it isn't. It's a typical Fellay-type manuever.
I don't understand why Bishop Fellay thinks he is the best person to run the society.
-
This interesting post appeared over at a certain semi-trad site:
Bishop Fellah has given an interview to an Italian news reporter in response to the information provided by Fr. Paul Morgan. The news report is available on Vatican Insider but is only available in French and Spanish.
I am posting, below my comments, my English translation from the Spanish version posted on Vatican Insider. The link to the Spanish post is:
http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/es/homepage/vaticano/dettagliospain/articolo/9620/
In this article, for the first time as far as I have seen, Bishop Fellay is claiming that the SSPX "requests a direct revision of the Conciliar texts" and yet according to Fr. Morgan, there is nothing in the "Doctrinal Preamble" that address the need for necessary revisions in the Vatican II texts and that it "does not recognize the split between the teachings of tradition and the Second Vatican Council." I am not aware that Bishop Fellay has ever, like Archbishop Lefebvre did, insisted that elements of the Vatican II texts are "contrary to the Magisterium of the Church," that a “wholesale revision of the text” and “noteworthy revisions of docuмents” were necessary. If he is now saying that revisions are necessary, why would he want a reconciliation with modernist Rome before necessary questions of the Faith are resolved?
Fr. Morgan also said, that "all the elements which the society has always rejected" are present in the "Doctrinal Preamble" and that at 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."
If Bishop Fellay is not calling Fr. Morgan a liar, it is something very close to it. His claim that without a doctrinal resolution he can "lead back home a group of 200 seminarians and 450 priests" and that, "In the worst case, only a small part of the Lefebvrists would not accept the proposal of Rome," indicates that he intends to accept, regardless of internal opposition, the "Doctrinal Preamble" and whatever structural accommodation Rome offers which includes accepting the legitimacy of the Novus Ordo and the "Reform of the Reform," and the paradigm of the "hermeneutic of continuity." He apparently believes any doctrinal problems are a simple question of cosmetics.
Fr. Alains Lorans, a “spokesman for the SSPX” who knows the content of the "Doctrinal Preamble", said in a recent interview for a SSPX publication in the “Pastor’s Corner”, that “Rome knows exactly our positions, and it is with this clear knowledge that Cardinal Levada presented this doctrinal preamble to Bishop Fellay.” Fr. Lorans also said, “An agreement with Rome would solve the canonical situation of the Society of St. Pius X. But this is not as important as to give back to Tradition—often scorned, or persecuted for the last forty years—its right of existence within the Church. This process already began with the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificuм which declared that the traditional Mass had never been abrogated. If, after the thorough reading which Rome wants him to have, Bishop Fellay may give his agreement, the Society will certainly be favorable to it.”
This is nothing more than an offer to be a conservative voice in a pluralistic Church. To “give back to Tradition its right to exist within the Church” sounds like a campaign slogan. It is now and has always been a matter of defending the Faith without which it is “impossible to please God.”
There is no indication that Bishop Fellay understands the implications of "1989 Profession of Faith" with its novel article requiring "submission of the mind and will" to the "authentic magisterium."
Br. Joseph
On the Road to Rome
Towards a reconciliation between Lefebvrists and the Vatican?
GIACOMO GALEAZZI
THE VATICAN CITY
The Lefebvrists 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 Lefebvrists 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 Lefebvrists 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 Lefebvrists. 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 Lefebvrists 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 Lefebvrists, 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 Lefebvrists with Rome, the differences seem to have a greater force than the Motu Proprio "Summorum Pontificuм" can resolve on its own. The Lefebvrists 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 Lefebvrists, 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.
-
This was posted on another forum.
Someone is telling a bare-faced lie. But who?
Bishop Fellay?
The journalist?
Fr. Morgan (along with Bishop Tissier de Mallerais and Fr. Rostand, both of who affirmed at the Angelus Press conference that the preamble had been rejected by the assembled SSPX hierarchy)?
Bishop Fellay quoted by Vatican Insider journalist:
"We have NOT rejected the text of the Statement issued to us by the Holy See", assured Fellay.
«Non abbiamo rigettato il testo che ci è stato presentato dalla Santa Sede», assicura Fellay.
http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/homepage.../articolo/9620/
4/11/2011
IN CAMMINO VERSO ROMA?
Giacomo Galeazzi
Citta' del Vaticano
I lefebvriani non hanno rifiutato l’offerta Vaticano, parola di Bernard Fellay. Il superiore della fraternità San Pio X è intervenuto per fermare le fughe di notizie circa una rottura con il Vaticano sulle trattative per il rientro del gruppo scismatico ultra-tradizionalista nella Chiesa. «Non abbiamo rigettato il testo che ci è stato presentato dalla Santa Sede», assicura Fellay.
Se la rappacificazione avvenisse il superiore della fraternità San Pio X riporterebbe a casa un gruppo di 200 seminaristi e 450 preti. E in un periodo di magra vocazionale, non sarebbe poca roba. Dopo la riunione dei superiori dei lefebvriani che si è svolta ad Albano a inizio ottobre, «sono apparsi diversi commenti sulla stampa sulla risposta che monsignor Bernard Fellay deve dare alle proposte romane del 14 settembre 2011», quando il successore dell’arcivescovo Lefebvre ha avuto in Vaticano un incontro con i vertici della congregazione per la Dottrina della fede. A oggi, dunque, niente la scia pensare che gli ultratradizionalisti cattolici non rientrino in seno a Roma.
Anche perché nella peggiore delle ipotesi sarebbe soltanto una piccola parte dei lefebvriani a non accettare le proposte di Roma, una parte minoritaria che resterebbe dunque staccata dal rientro. Il passo d’avvio è stato il Motu Proprio «Summorum Pontificuм» il biglietto da visita col quale Benedetto XVI ha messo nero su bianco la volontà di non tradire il passato, soprattutto in campo liturgico. Perché la liturgia è la Chiesa, e da come essa prega traspare ciò in cui crede. Bernard Fellay è dal 1994 (e lo sarà ancora fino al 2018) superiore generale della Fraternità San Pio X. Consacrato vescovo da Lefebvre nel 1988, ascese in pochi anni ai vertici della Fraternità. Lui, Lefebvre, lo ha visto morire dopo una settimana di coma incosciente. Fellay è il capofila dell’anima più moderata dei lefebvriani. Il contrario di monsignor Richard Williamson che invece, della Fraternità, rappresa l’ala più intransigente, quella insomma del “mai e poi mai” un compromesso con Roma. «Si ricorda - continua la nota diffusa oggi - che soltanto la casa generalizia della fraternità San Pio X è abilitata a pubblicare un comunicato ufficiale o un commento autorizzato su questo tema».
Dopo la riunione di Albano i lefebvriani avevano comunicato che i vertici avrebbero studiato il «preambolo dottrinale» presentato dalla Santa Sede per «presentare, in un lasso di tempo ragionevole, una risposta alle proposte romane». Il contenuto del «preambolo» rimane riservato. Il tedesco don Niklaus Pfluger, primo assistente di Fellay, aveva precisato, in una recente intervista, che «il testo proposto ammette delle correzioni da parte nostra».
In questi giorni, inoltre, il superiore del distretto britannico dei lefebvriani, Paul Morgan, come riportato da Vatican Insider, ha rivelato in una lettera ai suoi fedeli alcuni dettagli dell’incontro nella Curia romana, accusando Roma di «non riconoscere la rottura tra gli insegnamenti della tradizione e quelli del Concilio Vaticano II» e le proposte vaticane di contenere «tutti gli elementi che la società ha sempre respinto». Quanto alla riunione di Albano, «i presenti sono stati d’accordo nel considerare chiaramente inaccettabile il preambolo dottrinale e che non è certo arrivato il tempo di raggiungere un qualche accordo pratico nella misura in cui le questioni dottrinali rimangono irrisolte». Una fuga di notizie alla quale il superiore Fellay ha voluto mettere un argine con il comunicato odierno.
Se la liturgia è il cuore del dissenso dei lefebvriani nei confronti di Roma, le divergenze sembrano avere un respiro più ampio che il Motu Proprio «Summorum Pontificuм» non può da solo risolvere. I lefebvriani sollecitano una revisione diretta dei testi conciliari e non soltanto per denunciare una loro scorretta ermeneutica, a partire dalla dichiarazione «Dignitatis Humanae» dedicata alla libertà religiosa. In essa, a giudizio della fraternità San Pio X, la Chiesa si pone in uno stato di sudditanza rispetto a un’autorità civile che le deve garantire il diritto della libera espressione. A parere dei lefebvriani, invece, dovrebbe essere il contrario: è lo Stato che deve sottomettersi alla fede cattolica e riconoscerla come religione di Stato.
-
Two things strike me as particularly preposterous:
1) Bishop Fellay calls a secret meeting in Albano to discuss a secret Doctrinal Preamble, and asks the assembled Superiors to vote on the acceptability of a text which remains....secret?
2) All the Superiors appear to reject the unknown, verbally explicated Preamble, but Bishop Fellay doesn't want the world to know that (as evinced by deleting the announcement of Fr. Morgan from the UK SSPX website)?
This is very strange.
Perhaps this is what " diabolical disorientation " means. All this for canonical recognition from the Novus Ordo organization, 99,99% of whose clergy say the New Mass, and 99.99% of whose faithful attend this very same Mass.
-
This is very strange.
No it isn't. It's a typical Fellay-type manuever.
I don't understand why Bishop Fellay thinks he is the best person to run the society.
Could it be because his colleagues elected him to do just that?
-
This was posted on another forum.
Someone is telling a bare-faced lie. But who?
Bishop Fellay?
The journalist?
Fr. Morgan (along with Bishop Tissier de Mallerais and Fr. Rostand, both of who affirmed at the Angelus Press conference that the preamble had been rejected by the assembled SSPX hierarchy)?
Bishop Fellay quoted by Vatican Insider journalist:
"We have NOT rejected the text of the Statement issued to us by the Holy See", assured Fellay.
«Non abbiamo rigettato il testo che ci è stato presentato dalla Santa Sede», assicura Fellay.
http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/homepage.../articolo/9620/
4/11/2011
IN CAMMINO VERSO ROMA?
Giacomo Galeazzi
Citta' del Vaticano
I lefebvriani non hanno rifiutato l’offerta Vaticano, parola di Bernard Fellay. Il superiore della fraternità San Pio X è intervenuto per fermare le fughe di notizie circa una rottura con il Vaticano sulle trattative per il rientro del gruppo scismatico ultra-tradizionalista nella Chiesa. «Non abbiamo rigettato il testo che ci è stato presentato dalla Santa Sede», assicura Fellay.
Se la rappacificazione avvenisse il superiore della fraternità San Pio X riporterebbe a casa un gruppo di 200 seminaristi e 450 preti. E in un periodo di magra vocazionale, non sarebbe poca roba. Dopo la riunione dei superiori dei lefebvriani che si è svolta ad Albano a inizio ottobre, «sono apparsi diversi commenti sulla stampa sulla risposta che monsignor Bernard Fellay deve dare alle proposte romane del 14 settembre 2011», quando il successore dell’arcivescovo Lefebvre ha avuto in Vaticano un incontro con i vertici della congregazione per la Dottrina della fede. A oggi, dunque, niente la scia pensare che gli ultratradizionalisti cattolici non rientrino in seno a Roma.
Anche perché nella peggiore delle ipotesi sarebbe soltanto una piccola parte dei lefebvriani a non accettare le proposte di Roma, una parte minoritaria che resterebbe dunque staccata dal rientro. Il passo d’avvio è stato il Motu Proprio «Summorum Pontificuм» il biglietto da visita col quale Benedetto XVI ha messo nero su bianco la volontà di non tradire il passato, soprattutto in campo liturgico. Perché la liturgia è la Chiesa, e da come essa prega traspare ciò in cui crede. Bernard Fellay è dal 1994 (e lo sarà ancora fino al 2018) superiore generale della Fraternità San Pio X. Consacrato vescovo da Lefebvre nel 1988, ascese in pochi anni ai vertici della Fraternità. Lui, Lefebvre, lo ha visto morire dopo una settimana di coma incosciente. Fellay è il capofila dell’anima più moderata dei lefebvriani. Il contrario di monsignor Richard Williamson che invece, della Fraternità, rappresa l’ala più intransigente, quella insomma del “mai e poi mai” un compromesso con Roma. «Si ricorda - continua la nota diffusa oggi - che soltanto la casa generalizia della fraternità San Pio X è abilitata a pubblicare un comunicato ufficiale o un commento autorizzato su questo tema».
Dopo la riunione di Albano i lefebvriani avevano comunicato che i vertici avrebbero studiato il «preambolo dottrinale» presentato dalla Santa Sede per «presentare, in un lasso di tempo ragionevole, una risposta alle proposte romane». Il contenuto del «preambolo» rimane riservato. Il tedesco don Niklaus Pfluger, primo assistente di Fellay, aveva precisato, in una recente intervista, che «il testo proposto ammette delle correzioni da parte nostra».
In questi giorni, inoltre, il superiore del distretto britannico dei lefebvriani, Paul Morgan, come riportato da Vatican Insider, ha rivelato in una lettera ai suoi fedeli alcuni dettagli dell’incontro nella Curia romana, accusando Roma di «non riconoscere la rottura tra gli insegnamenti della tradizione e quelli del Concilio Vaticano II» e le proposte vaticane di contenere «tutti gli elementi che la società ha sempre respinto». Quanto alla riunione di Albano, «i presenti sono stati d’accordo nel considerare chiaramente inaccettabile il preambolo dottrinale e che non è certo arrivato il tempo di raggiungere un qualche accordo pratico nella misura in cui le questioni dottrinali rimangono irrisolte». Una fuga di notizie alla quale il superiore Fellay ha voluto mettere un argine con il comunicato odierno.
Se la liturgia è il cuore del dissenso dei lefebvriani nei confronti di Roma, le divergenze sembrano avere un respiro più ampio che il Motu Proprio «Summorum Pontificuм» non può da solo risolvere. I lefebvriani sollecitano una revisione diretta dei testi conciliari e non soltanto per denunciare una loro scorretta ermeneutica, a partire dalla dichiarazione «Dignitatis Humanae» dedicata alla libertà religiosa. In essa, a giudizio della fraternità San Pio X, la Chiesa si pone in uno stato di sudditanza rispetto a un’autorità civile che le deve garantire il diritto della libera espressione. A parere dei lefebvriani, invece, dovrebbe essere il contrario: è lo Stato che deve sottomettersi alla fede cattolica e riconoscerla come religione di Stato.
While I agree this smells fishy, I suppose it is possible that what was relayed at the Angelus conference was a rejection of the Preamble as it presently stands, whereas Bishop Fellay can truthfully say that only the Preamble in its present form has been rejected, not the signing of a future revision of the Preamble.
Of course, even if this were the case, it would still be bad news, insofar as it would imply Bishop Fellay's determination to sign an agreement with modernist Rome, not to help convert them and the Church back to sound doctrine, but merely "to give tradition its rights in the Church" (which would mean that the SSPX agrees to be but another conservative flavor in the pluralist Church as "Br. Joseph" says.
It is hard for me to see a good outcome from any of this, except and unless Bishop Fellay announces this whole process is dead and finished until Rome comes back to their (Catholic) senses.
-
I don't understand why Bishop Fellay thinks he is the best person to run the society.
I doubt that the pages of history will reveal a petty tyrant who didn't think he was the best thing that ever happened to the people whom he ruled. When such a ruler is finally revealed for what he really is, his iron-fistedness only increases. He never steps down voluntarily so that a more worthy ruler may take his place. That's just not the way it works.
-
Cristera has posted this also.
Father Bouchacourts letter to his priests
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=16641#p0
I have just heard from a very well connected laywoman that not only have Padres Schmidberger, Rostand and Morgan, and Excellency Tissier, spoken on the question of “No Deal” with Rome. This friend says that Padre Bouchacourt, the Superior for South America, issued a letter to all his priests on 12 October saying what all the above clerics have said. I wonder why Padre Morgan is in crosshairs of Excellency Fellay?
-
I don't understand why Bishop Fellay thinks he is the best person to run the society.
I doubt that the pages of history will reveal a petty tyrant who didn't think he was the best thing that ever happened to the people whom he ruled. When such a ruler is finally revealed for what he really is, his iron-fistedness only increases. He never steps down voluntarily so that a more worthy ruler may take his place. That's just not the way it works.
The post by 'Dumb Ox' came to mind when reading your post, hollingsworth.
The moderators are to be commended on the suppression of the private communication sent by Bishop Fellay to Bishop Williamson, on 23rd September, a translated version of which has recently been made public and was linked to on this forum.
The question that should be asked is who ultimately benefits from this private communication being made public.
When the obvious conclusion is drawn it may, perhaps, present a more likely scenario of its leaking.
Bishop Williamson certainly does not stand to gain from its publication at the present time. It was published without his permission and he is angry that it has been made public; a fact that can be easily confirmed should anyone wish to phone and ask him about it.
Its publication merely results in more internal SSPX pressure being put upon His Lordship, and his good name eaten away with suspicions that he has been - as the text of the communication boldly claims - indiscreet. It makes him look very foolish in his choice of trusted friends and advisors, and it gives the appearance of the good bishop being prone to allowing his emotions to rule his reason in a misguided attempt to hit back at Bishop Fellay.
On the other hand, Bishop Fellay does not gain from its publication either. His control freakery, machiavellian operating procedure, despotism and spiteful way of treating people he finds himself at odds with - things all well known amongst SSPX clerics - is now apparent for the world to see and to understand.
So who else could have leaked this communication - sent to Williamson by Fellay in the form of an email, not a letter, and written in French?
It is certain that the communication was copied to a number of Fellay's inner circle at Menzingen and further afield.
Two names from amongst this circle come immediately to mind. Fr. Pfluger, who for some time now has been attempting to play off and discredit both Williamson and Fellay to anyone who will listen in the hope of fulfilling his own puffed-up ambitions in regard to SSPX.
Behind Pfluger stands the shadowy figure of the Liberal "He who shall remain nameless".
"He who shall remain nameless", Menzingen's lawyer introduced to the inner circles of SSPX by Fr. Pfluger, is a conduit between Menzingen and the world of Finance, Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ and Judaism.
For the past three years "He who shall remain nameless", with the co-operation of Fellay and Pfluger, has been hell-bent on attempting to remove Bishop Williamson from within SSPX; a fact well-established and chronicled by the "bannedgate" investigation and by Stephen Heiner.
It is clear that neither Williamson nor Fellay stand to gain from the publication of the content of this private email at the present time. The ultimate beneficiaries of its publication are Pfluger, "He who shall remain nameless", Masonry and Judaism.
It appears to be very likely that those who have allowed publication of this private email have been played by the enemy.
-
Could it be because his colleages elected him to do just that?
Define colleagues. Certainly not the order as a whole.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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?
That should read 450 of 560 priests.
-
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!
-
Bishop Fellay recently bragged that he could "lead home(!)" 450 priests and 200 seminarians.
So I find this remark very troubling, but very revealing, of the present intentions of Bishop Fellay.
Yes, I find the remark troubling myself. It reinforces the accusation made by some to the effect that the SSPX considers itself a church within a Church, from which true traditional graces flow, and outside of which salvation is nearly impossible. Though I attend an SSPX chapel, I have never considered it "home."
-
What of the rumors regarding a General Chapter meeting?
-
Bishop Fellay recently bragged that he could "lead home(!)" 450 priests and 200 seminarians.
So I find this remark very troubling, but very revealing, of the present intentions of Bishop Fellay.
.
Now is the time to keep an eye on what Max Krah is doing. I have a sneaky suspicion that they Krah, Fr's Phlugger and Nely and Bishop Fellay and of course rome don't really care who follows them back. With all those new businesses that were opened up with only Krah and Bishop Fellays signature on them, they probably have taken control where all the SSPX property goes.
They surely would have thought that out after what happened way back with the nine that left with the SSPX property
-
Can you elaborate regarding these new businesses?
-
Can you elaborate regarding these new businesses?
I can but it will take time. It happened when Maxy Krah came on the scene back in 2009. Below is a quote from an Eddie D in 2009.
(Quote)January 19, 2009
One day before Fr. Schmidberger’s press release, Maximilian Krah was appointed as delegate to the Board, and manager, of the company Dello Sarto AG. The Chairman of the company is Bishop Bernard Fellay and the Board Members are First Assistant, Fr. Niklaus Pfluger, and the SSPX Bursar General, Fr. Emeric Baudot.
The purpose of the company is stated as being (Google translation):
“Advice on asset management issues and the care and management of assets of domestic and foreign individuals, corporations, foundations and other bodies, in particular of natural or legal persons which the Catholic moral, religious and moral teaching in its traditional sense of obligation and see, and the execution of projects for the mentioned persons, as well as advising on the implementation of these projects; whole purpose of description according to statutes.”
In other words, Dello Sarto AG appears to be an investment company that speculates, one has to assume, with SSPX funds in financial and other markets in the search for profits for various SSPX projects. But is it possible to get involved in today’s financial markets without being exposed to the risk and/or practice of usury?
The company was commercially registered on January 13, 2009 and issued 100 shares at 1,000 Swiss francs, giving it an initial capital of 100,000 Swiss francs.
As far as the checkbook is concerned, Maximilian Krah and Bishop Fellay alone are enabled individually to issue a payment of funds, while Frs. Pfluger and Baudot are required to obtain a co-signature to do so. Krah is not a cleric, but exercises greater financial powers than the First Assistant or Bursar. (unquote)
He is also on the board of other companies belonging to SSPX
-
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
-
Can you elaborate regarding these new businesses?
I can but it will take time. It happened when Maxy Krah came on the scene back in 2009. Below is a quote from an Eddie D in 2009.
(Quote)January 19, 2009
One day before Fr. Schmidberger’s press release, Maximilian Krah was appointed as delegate to the Board, and manager, of the company Dello Sarto AG. The Chairman of the company is Bishop Bernard Fellay and the Board Members are First Assistant, Fr. Niklaus Pfluger, and the SSPX Bursar General, Fr. Emeric Baudot.
The purpose of the company is stated as being (Google translation):
“Advice on asset management issues and the care and management of assets of domestic and foreign individuals, corporations, foundations and other bodies, in particular of natural or legal persons which the Catholic moral, religious and moral teaching in its traditional sense of obligation and see, and the execution of projects for the mentioned persons, as well as advising on the implementation of these projects; whole purpose of description according to statutes.”
In other words, Dello Sarto AG appears to be an investment company that speculates, one has to assume, with SSPX funds in financial and other markets in the search for profits for various SSPX projects. But is it possible to get involved in today’s financial markets without being exposed to the risk and/or practice of usury?
The company was commercially registered on January 13, 2009 and issued 100 shares at 1,000 Swiss francs, giving it an initial capital of 100,000 Swiss francs.
As far as the checkbook is concerned, Maximilian Krah and Bishop Fellay alone are enabled individually to issue a payment of funds, while Frs. Pfluger and Baudot are required to obtain a co-signature to do so. Krah is not a cleric, but exercises greater financial powers than the First Assistant or Bursar. (unquote)
He is also on the board of other companies belonging to SSPX
Interesting:
1) Who appointed Krah as a delegate to the Board?
2) Why him?
3) What primary purpose does he serve there?
4) What other roles does he play within the SSPX drama (e.g., I remember reading that he was sent to England to heckle Bishop Williamson, and it is not clear to me how such a role could be related to his position as delegate to the Board)?
5) You mentioned when the company was formed, there was a small issuance of stock/shares: So this is a public company? If so, could I buy all the shares and exercise a controlling influence on the finances of the SSPX?
-
Bishop Fellay recently bragged that he could "lead home(!)" 450 priests and 200 seminarians.
When did he say this?
-
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/
-
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:"
-
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.
-
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.
-
Here is a better translation:
The English version from the Vatican Insider
http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/homepage/the-vatican/detail/articolo/9620/
QUOTE
Towards a reconciliation between Lefebvrists and the Vatican?
Giacomo Galeazzi
Vatican City
The Lefebvrists haven't rejected the Vatican's offer, says Bernard Fellay. The superior of the Fraternity of St. Pius X intervened to stop the news leak concerning a break with the Vatican over negotiations for the reentry of the ultra-traditionalist schismatic group into the Church. “We haven't rejected the text that was presented to us by the Holy See”, assures Fellay.
If the reconciliation were to take place, the superior of the Fraternity of St. Piux X would lead home a group of 200 seminarians and 450 priests. And in a period of vocational shortage, that's no small thing. After the meeting of Lefebvrist superiors that took place in Albano at the beginning of October, “several comments appeared in the newspapers about the response Msgr. Bernard Fellay must give the Roman proposal of September 14, 2011”, when the Archbishop Lefebvre's successor met in the Vatican with the heads of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. For now, nothing leads one to believe that the Catholic ultra-traditionalists won't return to the fold.
Also because, according to the worst estimates, it is only a small part of the Lefebvrists who wouldn't accept Rome's proposal, a minority that would thus not participate in the reentry. The initial step was the Motu Proprio “Summorum Pontificuм”, the calling card with which Benedict XVI put on paper his desire not to betray tradition, especially in the field of the liturgy. Because the liturgy is the Church, and how it prays reveals what it believes. Bernard Fellay has been, since 1994 (and will be so until 2018) the superior general of the Fraternity of St. Pius X. Consecrated bishop by Lefebvre in 1988, he ascended in just a few years to heights of the fraternity. He saw Lefebvre die after the latter had lain in a coma for a week. Fellay is the leader of the most moderate spirit of the Lefebvrists. The opposite of Msgr. Richard Williamson, who instead represents the most intransigent wing of the Fraternity, which feels that it would “never, ever” come to an agreement with Rome. “Remember”, the note released today continues, “that only the general house of the Fraternity of St. Pius X is qualified to publish an official communication or an authorized comment on this issue”.
After the meeting in Albano, the Lefebvrists had communicated that their leadership would study the “doctrinal preamble” presented by the Holy See to “present, within a reasonable amount of time, an answer to the Roman proposals”. The preamble's contents remain classified. The German Fr. Niklaus Pfluger, Fellay's first assistant, specified in a recent interview that “the proposed text has been corrected by our side”.
In recent days, moreover, the superior of the British district of the Lefebvrists, Paul Morgan, revealed in a letter to his flock some details of the meeting with the Roman Curia. He accused Rome of “not recognizing the rupture between the teachings of the past and those of Vatican II” and the Vatican proposals of containing “all the elements the Society has always rejected”. For what concerns the meeting in Albano, “those present agreed that the doctrinal preamble was unacceptable and that the time has certainly not come for reaching a practical agreement, since the doctrinal issues remain unresolved”. A news leak to which the superior Fellay has wished to put a stop with today's communication.
-
Here is a better translation:
The English version from the Vatican Insider
http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/homepage/the-vatican/detail/articolo/9620/
QUOTE
Towards a reconciliation between ####s and the Vatican?
Giacomo Galeazzi
Vatican City
The ####s haven't rejected the Vatican's offer, says Bernard Fellay. The superior of the Fraternity of St. Pius X intervened to stop the news leak concerning a break with the Vatican over negotiations for the reentry of the ultra-traditionalist schismatic group into the Church. “We haven't rejected the text that was presented to us by the Holy See”, assures Fellay.
If the reconciliation were to take place, the superior of the Fraternity of St. Piux X would lead home a group of 200 seminarians and 450 priests. And in a period of vocational shortage, that's no small thing. After the meeting of #### superiors that took place in Albano at the beginning of October, “several comments appeared in the newspapers about the response Msgr. Bernard Fellay must give the Roman proposal of September 14, 2011”, when the Archbishop Lefebvre's successor met in the Vatican with the heads of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. For now, nothing leads one to believe that the Catholic ultra-traditionalists won't return to the fold.
Also because, according to the worst estimates, it is only a small part of the ####s who wouldn't accept Rome's proposal, a minority that would thus not participate in the reentry. The initial step was the Motu Proprio “Summorum Pontificuм”, the calling card with which Benedict XVI put on paper his desire not to betray tradition, especially in the field of the liturgy. Because the liturgy is the Church, and how it prays reveals what it believes. Bernard Fellay has been, since 1994 (and will be so until 2018) the superior general of the Fraternity of St. Pius X. Consecrated bishop by Lefebvre in 1988, he ascended in just a few years to heights of the fraternity. He saw Lefebvre die after the latter had lain in a coma for a week. Fellay is the leader of the most moderate spirit of the ####s. The opposite of Msgr. Richard Williamson, who instead represents the most intransigent wing of the Fraternity, which feels that it would “never, ever” come to an agreement with Rome. “Remember”, the note released today continues, “that only the general house of the Fraternity of St. Pius X is qualified to publish an official communication or an authorized comment on this issue”.
After the meeting in Albano, the ####s had communicated that their leadership would study the “doctrinal preamble” presented by the Holy See to “present, within a reasonable amount of time, an answer to the Roman proposals”. The preamble's contents remain classified. The German Fr. Niklaus Pfluger, Fellay's first assistant, specified in a recent interview that “the proposed text has been corrected by our side”.
In recent days, moreover, the superior of the British district of the ####s, Paul Morgan, revealed in a letter to his flock some details of the meeting with the Roman Curia. He accused Rome of “not recognizing the rupture between the teachings of the past and those of Vatican II” and the Vatican proposals of containing “all the elements the Society has always rejected”. For what concerns the meeting in Albano, “those present agreed that the doctrinal preamble was unacceptable and that the time has certainly not come for reaching a practical agreement, since the doctrinal issues remain unresolved”. A news leak to which the superior Fellay has wished to put a stop with today's communication.
The previous quote makes it look like the writer is speculating on Bishop Fellay's ability to "lead home 450 priests and 200 seminarians."
In this translation/quotation, it is Bishop Fellay himself saying this, according to the writer:
Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2011 3:29 pm Post subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bishop Fellah has given an interview to an Italian news reporter in response to the information provided by Fr. Paul Morgan. The news report is available on Vatican Insider but is only available in French and Spanish.
I am posting, below my comments, my English translation from the Spanish version posted on Vatican Insider. The link to the Spanish post is:
http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/es/homepage/vaticano/dettagliospain/articolo/9620/
In this article, for the first time as far as I have seen, Bishop Fellay is claiming that the SSPX "requests a direct revision of the Conciliar texts" and yet according to Fr. Morgan, there is nothing in the "Doctrinal Preamble" that address the need for necessary revisions in the Vatican II texts and that it "does not recognize the split between the teachings of tradition and the Second Vatican Council." I am not aware that Bishop Fellay has ever, like Archbishop Lefebvre did, insisted that elements of the Vatican II texts are "contrary to the Magisterium of the Church," that a “wholesale revision of the text” and “noteworthy revisions of docuмents” were necessary. If he is now saying that revisions are necessary, why would he want a reconciliation with modernist Rome before necessary questions of the Faith are resolved?
Fr. Morgan also said, that "all the elements which the society has always rejected" are present in the "Doctrinal Preamble" and that at 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."
If Bishop Fellay is not calling Fr. Morgan a liar, it is something very close to it. His claim that without a doctrinal resolution he can "lead back home a group of 200 seminarians and 450 priests" and that, "In the worst case, only a small part of the Lefebvrists would not accept the proposal of Rome," indicates that he intends to accept, regardless of internal opposition, the "Doctrinal Preamble" and whatever structural accommodation Rome offers which includes accepting the legitimacy of the Novus Ordo and the "Reform of the Reform," and the paradigm of the "hermeneutic of continuity." He apparently believes any doctrinal problems are a simple question of cosmetics.
Fr. Alains Lorans, a “spokesman for the SSPX” who knows the content of the "Doctrinal Preamble", said in a recent interview for a SSPX publication in the “Pastor’s Corner”, that “Rome knows exactly our positions, and it is with this clear knowledge that Cardinal Levada presented this doctrinal preamble to Bishop Fellay.” Fr. Lorans also said, “An agreement with Rome would solve the canonical situation of the Society of St. Pius X. But this is not as important as to give back to Tradition—often scorned, or persecuted for the last forty years—its right of existence within the Church. This process already began with the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificuм which declared that the traditional Mass had never been abrogated. If, after the thorough reading which Rome wants him to have, Bishop Fellay may give his agreement, the Society will certainly be favorable to it.”
This is nothing more than an offer to be a conservative voice in a pluralistic Church. To “give back to Tradition its right to exist within the Church” sounds like a campaign slogan. It is now and has always been a matter of defending the Faith without which it is “impossible to please God.”
There is no indication that Bishop Fellay understands the implications of "1989 Profession of Faith" with its novel article requiring "submission of the mind and will" to the "authentic magisterium."
Br. Joseph
On the Road to Rome
Towards a reconciliation between Lefebvrists and the Vatican?
GIACOMO GALEAZZI
THE VATICAN CITY
The Lefebvrists 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 Lefebvrists 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 Lefebvrists 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 Lefebvrists. 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 Lefebvrists 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 Lefebvrists, 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 Lefebvrists with Rome, the differences seem to have a greater force than the Motu Proprio "Summorum Pontificuм" can resolve on its own. The Lefebvrists 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 Lefebvrists, 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.
-
In the previous English translations, it makes it look like the writer (not Bishop Fellay) is speculating that Bishop Fellay can "bring home 450 priests and 200 seminarians."
And so the remark about "Bishop Fellay bragging that he can bring home (!) 450 priests and 200 seminarians" would not be justified.
But in this English translation, the remark is directly attributed to Bishop Fellay:
Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2011 3:29 pm Post subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bishop Fellah has given an interview to an Italian news reporter in response to the information provided by Fr. Paul Morgan. The news report is available on Vatican Insider but is only available in French and Spanish.
I am posting, below my comments, my English translation from the Spanish version posted on Vatican Insider. The link to the Spanish post is:
http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/es/homepage/vaticano/dettagliospain/articolo/9620/
In this article, for the first time as far as I have seen, Bishop Fellay is claiming that the SSPX "requests a direct revision of the Conciliar texts" and yet according to Fr. Morgan, there is nothing in the "Doctrinal Preamble" that address the need for necessary revisions in the Vatican II texts and that it "does not recognize the split between the teachings of tradition and the Second Vatican Council." I am not aware that Bishop Fellay has ever, like Archbishop Lefebvre did, insisted that elements of the Vatican II texts are "contrary to the Magisterium of the Church," that a “wholesale revision of the text” and “noteworthy revisions of docuмents” were necessary. If he is now saying that revisions are necessary, why would he want a reconciliation with modernist Rome before necessary questions of the Faith are resolved?
Fr. Morgan also said, that "all the elements which the society has always rejected" are present in the "Doctrinal Preamble" and that at 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."
If Bishop Fellay is not calling Fr. Morgan a liar, it is something very close to it. His claim that without a doctrinal resolution he can "lead back home a group of 200 seminarians and 450 priests" and that, "In the worst case, only a small part of the Lefebvrists would not accept the proposal of Rome," indicates that he intends to accept, regardless of internal opposition, the "Doctrinal Preamble" and whatever structural accommodation Rome offers which includes accepting the legitimacy of the Novus Ordo and the "Reform of the Reform," and the paradigm of the "hermeneutic of continuity." He apparently believes any doctrinal problems are a simple question of cosmetics.
Fr. Alains Lorans, a “spokesman for the SSPX” who knows the content of the "Doctrinal Preamble", said in a recent interview for a SSPX publication in the “Pastor’s Corner”, that “Rome knows exactly our positions, and it is with this clear knowledge that Cardinal Levada presented this doctrinal preamble to Bishop Fellay.” Fr. Lorans also said, “An agreement with Rome would solve the canonical situation of the Society of St. Pius X. But this is not as important as to give back to Tradition—often scorned, or persecuted for the last forty years—its right of existence within the Church. This process already began with the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificuм which declared that the traditional Mass had never been abrogated. If, after the thorough reading which Rome wants him to have, Bishop Fellay may give his agreement, the Society will certainly be favorable to it.”
This is nothing more than an offer to be a conservative voice in a pluralistic Church. To “give back to Tradition its right to exist within the Church” sounds like a campaign slogan. It is now and has always been a matter of defending the Faith without which it is “impossible to please God.”
There is no indication that Bishop Fellay understands the implications of "1989 Profession of Faith" with its novel article requiring "submission of the mind and will" to the "authentic magisterium."
Br. Joseph
On the Road to Rome
Towards a reconciliation between Lefebvrists and the Vatican?
GIACOMO GALEAZZI
THE VATICAN CITY
The Lefebvrists 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 Lefebvrists 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 Lefebvrists 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 Lefebvrists. 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 Lefebvrists 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 Lefebvrists, 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 Lefebvrists with Rome, the differences seem to have a greater force than the Motu Proprio "Summorum Pontificuм" can resolve on its own. The Lefebvrists 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 Lefebvrists, 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.
-
Dumb Ox posted this on Ignis Ardens forum
+Tissier Prepared to Consecrate More Bishops?, Rejection of the Preamble
Le Courrier de Tychique
Correspondence addressed to:
M. Jean Marc Chabanon
168, Route du Grobon – 01400 – Chatillon sur Chalaronne
No. 389
“The greatest disorder of the mind is to see things as one would like to see them, and not as they really are.” - Bousset, “Treatise on the love of God and oneself”
Sunday 13th November 2011
22nd Sunday after Pentecost.
Mgr. Lefebvre wanted reconciliation with Rome!
The expectation in which we are being held, concerning the response which will be given by the SSPX to apostate Rome, can but lead us to conjecture as to what it might be, with opinions seeming very diverse. Obviously we have absolutely no possibility at all of influencing the decision which Mgr. Fellay will make, and moreover we do not intend to do so. He alone will assume the responsibility for his act. But we are nevertheless left the freedom to reflect on the various arguments that are advanced from one side or the other with a view to an eventual reconciliation...
It is absolutely true that Mgr. Lefebvre wanted reconciliation. He did everything to bring it about. He met several times with Cardinal Ratzinger, and he even signed the protocol of agreement which was presented to him, before realising that it was a trap and withdrawing his signature. In the midst of this veritable haggling to which he was subjected by the Cardinal, he wrote a letter to him on 6th May 1988, which closed with these words: “In the hope that my request will not be an insurmountable obstacle to the reconciliation in progress, in fraternal respect I remain Eminence, Yours, in Christo et Maria..” Perfectly clear! On 6th May 1988 he talked of a “reconciliation in progress”. He still wanted it, therefore, that much is certainly true. But not at any price...!
On 24th May he met him once again, concerning the majority of Society members in the envisaged Roman commission, and the consecration of Bishops. Rome's propositions appeared to him to be inadmissible. He telephoned us from Rome to enquire after the health of my spouse, and also to tell us that he was “in discussions with Rome”. He didn't despise the laity – he kept them informed. On 30th May the Cardinal wrote him a letter, in which he said: “At the moment of concluding, I can only say to you once again, as last Tuesday, and with the utmost gravity: when one considers the positive contents of the agreement which the benevolence of John Paul II has allowed us to arrive at, there is no proportion between the last difficulties which you have expressed and the damage which the failure to reach an agreement now would constitute, a rupture on your part with the Apostolic See, and merely for these motives. You must put your trust in the Holy See, whose generosity and understanding, recently shown towards you and to the Society, constitute the best guarantee for the future.” (Source: amdg.free.fr/mess) How little they knew of Archbishop Lefebvre's fighting spirit! With an unfailing determination, braced with immutable Catholic doctrine, and the irrefutability of his arguments, he gave not an inch of ground, and courageously assumed the rupture which had become unhealable in his eyes. On 10th June, 1988, Feast of the Sacred Heart, he warned us in a personal letter: “Dear Monsieur and Madame Barret, (...) at the moment we are witnessing the last contacts with Rome, since I must receive Cardinal Ratzinger's secretary, who is bringing me a letter signed by the pope. But for me, persuaded as I am that we cannot trust the Assisi Pope, I no longer want to pay too much attention to these threats or occasional offers which hide bad intentions. They have not changed, except for the worse. We are getting everything ready for the consecration of four candidates on 30th June. Tradition, the Church, the Catholic Faith will be able to survive amidst the ruins.” His decision had been taken!
From that point on nothing could make him reconsider his position. On 4th March 1991, in his preface to the first edition of “Notes on the Revolution in the Church” by Fr. Giulio Tam, he wrote: “The Roman authorities' adhesion to, and their diffusion of, the Masonic errors condemned repeatedly by their predecessors is a great mystery which ruins the foundations of the Catholic Faith. This harsh and painful reality obliges us in conscience to organise the defence of our Catholic Faith on our own. The fact of sitting in the seat of authority is no longer, alas, a guarantee of orthodoxy of the faith of those sitting there! The Pope is now ceaselessly diffusing the principles of a false religion, the result of which is a general apostasy. This reading amply justifies our conduct for the support and restoration of Our Lord Jesus Christ and of His Blessed Mother on earth as in Heaven.”
That was on 4th March, 1991. On 25th March of the same year, three weeks later, Monsignor gave up his beautiful soul to God, whom he had served so much on earth.
Let's speak the Truth!
At the heart of the Society of St. Pius X, the gnostic infiltrators – and very influential ones – never cease to justify the ralliement (compromise with the opposition) that they are calling for, by the immoderate use of some quotations from the Archbishop... selected quotations! Quotations which go in the direction of their objectives! A biased choice if indeed it is one! What shall we call the strategy which they are employing, which consists in only referring to texts which comes from the time before the adoption, by the Archbishop, of the hard line which I have just been speaking about? That is to say, those from before 1988... They cannot be unaware of those quotes which come from later on, since it is they who are trying to censor them, precisely because it would reduce their efforts to zero! Is this not a case of dishonesty pure and simple?
“To survive amidst the ruins”!
Archbishop Lefebvre wrote to us that he was going to consecrate four bishops so that “Tradition, the Church, the Catholic Faith will be able to survive amidst the ruins.” In his preface to “Notes on the Revolution in the Church” he affirmed that he wished to work for “...the restoration of Our Lord Jesus Christ and of His Blessed Mother on earth as in Heaven.” These words are the most recent, the last from his life! It is therefore incontestable that they express, in a way, his “last wishes”.
The seriously misled “Ralliement”
We know that on the 7th and 8th of last October, the superiors of the SSPX were assembled in Albano (Italy). During the course of this meeting, Mgr. Fellay presented orally the “Doctrinal Preamble” which Cardinal Levada had communicated to him on 14th September. On 27th October following from this, Mgr. Tissier de Mallerais declared in Toronto that he would not sign any agreement with Rome, after having declared that he can “consecrate whoever he wishes, whenever he wishes, and wherever he wishes, without having to demand the opinion of Benedict XVI”! This declaration contained, within itself, a refusal of the Doctrinal Preamble, which had been only been communicated to the assembled superiors by word of mouth... which robbed them of any possibility of a serious analysis. Not long after this, we learned that Mgr. de Galarreta approved these words of Mgr. Tissier de Mallerais. And then came the resounding publication of the publication of the letter from the District Superior of Great Britain, Fr. Paul Morgan, dated 1st November, in which we can read “...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. (...) Hence the stated consensus of those in attendance was that the Doctrinal Preamble was clearly unacceptable and that the time has certainly not come to pursue any practical agreement as long as the doctrinal issues remain outstanding.” (Site: “La crise intégriste”)
It is understandable that such a bomb had caused a panic in Menzingen which, in the hours that followed, issued a brief statement claiming total and exclusive control of all information concerning this episode! This is where we are at!
It is clear that Mgr. Fellay has been disowned, if not discredited. This dramatic episode, if it has the merit of reassuring all those who feared a surreptitiously prepared compromise with Rome (“ralliement”), will not be without consequence. Will Mgr. Fellay override the expressed majority wishes of those at the heart of the Society and will he sign the insidious Preamble, in spite of everything...? Nothing allows us to say so, at the moment...! But if the internal turmoil continues, it will be suicidal...!
It still remains that this episode only confirms our premonitions concerning the preparation of minds, by the clique of gnostic, infiltrator clerics, to a supposedly “essential” agreement, and curiously one supported by a hierarchy often contemptuous and aggressive towards those who cried wolf!
Dumb Ox stated in a comment
In this explosive text, Max Barret makes reference to a "gnostic infiltration" of SSPX.
Common sense directs me to warn Ignis members before anyone begins to comment about this particular reference that the Moderators will undoubtedly maintain an extremely hard-line in regard to this subject, and I strongly suspect that anyone who attempts to link to malicious and calumnious disinformation sites such as Virgo Maria or Traditio, or who pursue speculation, will be immediately banned.
There is a certain truth to what Max Barret affirms in this regard, but the subject is not one that is open to the speculation of those who do not know the confirmed history and undeniable facts of the case, without great danger of spreading serious calumny.
If anyone wishes me to present a very brief factual history of what is known and undeniable, I will be pleased to do so.
-
Dumb Ox posted this on Ignis Ardens forum
+Tissier Prepared to Consecrate More Bishops?, Rejection of the Preamble
Le Courrier de Tychique
Correspondence addressed to:
M. Jean Marc Chabanon
168, Route du Grobon – 01400 – Chatillon sur Chalaronne
No. 389
“The greatest disorder of the mind is to see things as one would like to see them, and not as they really are.” - Bousset, “Treatise on the love of God and oneself”
Sunday 13th November 2011
22nd Sunday after Pentecost.
Mgr. Lefebvre wanted reconciliation with Rome!
The expectation in which we are being held, concerning the response which will be given by the SSPX to apostate Rome, can but lead us to conjecture as to what it might be, with opinions seeming very diverse. Obviously we have absolutely no possibility at all of influencing the decision which Mgr. Fellay will make, and moreover we do not intend to do so. He alone will assume the responsibility for his act. But we are nevertheless left the freedom to reflect on the various arguments that are advanced from one side or the other with a view to an eventual reconciliation...
It is absolutely true that Mgr. Lefebvre wanted reconciliation. He did everything to bring it about. He met several times with Cardinal Ratzinger, and he even signed the protocol of agreement which was presented to him, before realising that it was a trap and withdrawing his signature. In the midst of this veritable haggling to which he was subjected by the Cardinal, he wrote a letter to him on 6th May 1988, which closed with these words: “In the hope that my request will not be an insurmountable obstacle to the reconciliation in progress, in fraternal respect I remain Eminence, Yours, in Christo et Maria..” Perfectly clear! On 6th May 1988 he talked of a “reconciliation in progress”. He still wanted it, therefore, that much is certainly true. But not at any price...!
On 24th May he met him once again, concerning the majority of Society members in the envisaged Roman commission, and the consecration of Bishops. Rome's propositions appeared to him to be inadmissible. He telephoned us from Rome to enquire after the health of my spouse, and also to tell us that he was “in discussions with Rome”. He didn't despise the laity – he kept them informed. On 30th May the Cardinal wrote him a letter, in which he said: “At the moment of concluding, I can only say to you once again, as last Tuesday, and with the utmost gravity: when one considers the positive contents of the agreement which the benevolence of John Paul II has allowed us to arrive at, there is no proportion between the last difficulties which you have expressed and the damage which the failure to reach an agreement now would constitute, a rupture on your part with the Apostolic See, and merely for these motives. You must put your trust in the Holy See, whose generosity and understanding, recently shown towards you and to the Society, constitute the best guarantee for the future.” (Source: amdg.free.fr/mess) How little they knew of Archbishop Lefebvre's fighting spirit! With an unfailing determination, braced with immutable Catholic doctrine, and the irrefutability of his arguments, he gave not an inch of ground, and courageously assumed the rupture which had become unhealable in his eyes. On 10th June, 1988, Feast of the Sacred Heart, he warned us in a personal letter: “Dear Monsieur and Madame Barret, (...) at the moment we are witnessing the last contacts with Rome, since I must receive Cardinal Ratzinger's secretary, who is bringing me a letter signed by the pope. But for me, persuaded as I am that we cannot trust the Assisi Pope, I no longer want to pay too much attention to these threats or occasional offers which hide bad intentions. They have not changed, except for the worse. We are getting everything ready for the consecration of four candidates on 30th June. Tradition, the Church, the Catholic Faith will be able to survive amidst the ruins.” His decision had been taken!
From that point on nothing could make him reconsider his position. On 4th March 1991, in his preface to the first edition of “Notes on the Revolution in the Church” by Fr. Giulio Tam, he wrote: “The Roman authorities' adhesion to, and their diffusion of, the Masonic errors condemned repeatedly by their predecessors is a great mystery which ruins the foundations of the Catholic Faith. This harsh and painful reality obliges us in conscience to organise the defence of our Catholic Faith on our own. The fact of sitting in the seat of authority is no longer, alas, a guarantee of orthodoxy of the faith of those sitting there! The Pope is now ceaselessly diffusing the principles of a false religion, the result of which is a general apostasy. This reading amply justifies our conduct for the support and restoration of Our Lord Jesus Christ and of His Blessed Mother on earth as in Heaven.”
That was on 4th March, 1991. On 25th March of the same year, three weeks later, Monsignor gave up his beautiful soul to God, whom he had served so much on earth.
Let's speak the Truth!
At the heart of the Society of St. Pius X, the gnostic infiltrators – and very influential ones – never cease to justify the ralliement (compromise with the opposition) that they are calling for, by the immoderate use of some quotations from the Archbishop... selected quotations! Quotations which go in the direction of their objectives! A biased choice if indeed it is one! What shall we call the strategy which they are employing, which consists in only referring to texts which comes from the time before the adoption, by the Archbishop, of the hard line which I have just been speaking about? That is to say, those from before 1988... They cannot be unaware of those quotes which come from later on, since it is they who are trying to censor them, precisely because it would reduce their efforts to zero! Is this not a case of dishonesty pure and simple?
“To survive amidst the ruins”!
Archbishop Lefebvre wrote to us that he was going to consecrate four bishops so that “Tradition, the Church, the Catholic Faith will be able to survive amidst the ruins.” In his preface to “Notes on the Revolution in the Church” he affirmed that he wished to work for “...the restoration of Our Lord Jesus Christ and of His Blessed Mother on earth as in Heaven.” These words are the most recent, the last from his life! It is therefore incontestable that they express, in a way, his “last wishes”.
The seriously misled “Ralliement”
We know that on the 7th and 8th of last October, the superiors of the SSPX were assembled in Albano (Italy). During the course of this meeting, Mgr. Fellay presented orally the “Doctrinal Preamble” which Cardinal Levada had communicated to him on 14th September. On 27th October following from this, Mgr. Tissier de Mallerais declared in Toronto that he would not sign any agreement with Rome, after having declared that he can “consecrate whoever he wishes, whenever he wishes, and wherever he wishes, without having to demand the opinion of Benedict XVI”! This declaration contained, within itself, a refusal of the Doctrinal Preamble, which had been only been communicated to the assembled superiors by word of mouth... which robbed them of any possibility of a serious analysis. Not long after this, we learned that Mgr. de Galarreta approved these words of Mgr. Tissier de Mallerais. And then came the resounding publication of the publication of the letter from the District Superior of Great Britain, Fr. Paul Morgan, dated 1st November, in which we can read “...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. (...) Hence the stated consensus of those in attendance was that the Doctrinal Preamble was clearly unacceptable and that the time has certainly not come to pursue any practical agreement as long as the doctrinal issues remain outstanding.” (Site: “La crise intégriste”)
It is understandable that such a bomb had caused a panic in Menzingen which, in the hours that followed, issued a brief statement claiming total and exclusive control of all information concerning this episode! This is where we are at!
It is clear that Mgr. Fellay has been disowned, if not discredited. This dramatic episode, if it has the merit of reassuring all those who feared a surreptitiously prepared compromise with Rome (“ralliement”), will not be without consequence. Will Mgr. Fellay override the expressed majority wishes of those at the heart of the Society and will he sign the insidious Preamble, in spite of everything...? Nothing allows us to say so, at the moment...! But if the internal turmoil continues, it will be suicidal...!
It still remains that this episode only confirms our premonitions concerning the preparation of minds, by the clique of gnostic, infiltrator clerics, to a supposedly “essential” agreement, and curiously one supported by a hierarchy often contemptuous and aggressive towards those who cried wolf!
Dumb Ox stated in a comment
In this explosive text, Max Barret makes reference to a "gnostic infiltration" of SSPX.
Common sense directs me to warn Ignis members before anyone begins to comment about this particular reference that the Moderators will undoubtedly maintain an extremely hard-line in regard to this subject, and I strongly suspect that anyone who attempts to link to malicious and calumnious disinformation sites such as Virgo Maria or Traditio, or who pursue speculation, will be immediately banned.
There is a certain truth to what Max Barret affirms in this regard, but the subject is not one that is open to the speculation of those who do not know the confirmed history and undeniable facts of the case, without great danger of spreading serious calumny.
If anyone wishes me to present a very brief factual history of what is known and undeniable, I will be pleased to do so.
Are you aware of any citation for Bishop Tissier's comments about being willing to consecrate bishops?
-
According to the thread on Ignis Ardens, Bishop Tissier de Mallerais made this statement in Toronto shortly after the meeting in Albano.
-
According to the thread on Ignis Ardens, Bishop Tissier de Mallerais made this statement in Toronto shortly after the meeting in Albano.
Does it give a citation for this claim, or is it just someone saying he said it?
-
Can you elaborate regarding these new businesses?
I can but it will take time. It happened when Maxy Krah came on the scene back in 2009. Below is a quote from an Eddie D in 2009.
(Quote)January 19, 2009
One day before Fr. Schmidberger’s press release, Maximilian Krah was appointed as delegate to the Board, and manager, of the company Dello Sarto AG. The Chairman of the company is Bishop Bernard Fellay and the Board Members are First Assistant, Fr. Niklaus Pfluger, and the SSPX Bursar General, Fr. Emeric Baudot.
The purpose of the company is stated as being (Google translation):
“Advice on asset management issues and the care and management of assets of domestic and foreign individuals, corporations, foundations and other bodies, in particular of natural or legal persons which the Catholic moral, religious and moral teaching in its traditional sense of obligation and see, and the execution of projects for the mentioned persons, as well as advising on the implementation of these projects; whole purpose of description according to statutes.”
In other words, Dello Sarto AG appears to be an investment company that speculates, one has to assume, with SSPX funds in financial and other markets in the search for profits for various SSPX projects. But is it possible to get involved in today’s financial markets without being exposed to the risk and/or practice of usury?
The company was commercially registered on January 13, 2009 and issued 100 shares at 1,000 Swiss francs, giving it an initial capital of 100,000 Swiss francs.
As far as the checkbook is concerned, Maximilian Krah and Bishop Fellay alone are enabled individually to issue a payment of funds, while Frs. Pfluger and Baudot are required to obtain a co-signature to do so. Krah is not a cleric, but exercises greater financial powers than the First Assistant or Bursar. (unquote)
He is also on the board of other companies belonging to SSPX
Interesting:
1) Who appointed Krah as a delegate to the Board?
2) Why him?
3) What primary purpose does he serve there?
4) What other roles does he play within the SSPX drama (e.g., I remember reading that he was sent to England to heckle Bishop Williamson, and it is not clear to me how such a role could be related to his position as delegate to the Board)?
5) You mentioned when the company was formed, there was a small issuance of stock/shares: So this is a public company? If so, could I buy all the shares and exercise a controlling influence on the finances of the SSPX?
Krah is not a cleric so why is he in a position of such influence within the SSPX? Have 'Seraphim' questions been answered?