Read an Interview with Matthew, the owner of CathInfo

Author Topic: Letter of Three SSPX Bishops to Bishop Fellay in English  (Read 4829 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline FSPX

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 4
  • Reputation: +60/-0
  • Gender: Male
Letter of Three SSPX Bishops to Bishop Fellay in English
« on: May 10, 2012, 04:44:07 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Reverend Superior General, Reverend First Assistant, Reverend Second Assistant,

    For several months, as many people know, the General Council of the FSSPX is seriously considering Roman proposals for a practical agreement, after the doctrinal discussions of 2009 to 2011 proved that a doctrinal agreement is impossible with current Rome. By this letter the three bishops of the FSSPX who do not form part of the General Council wish to let him know, with all due respect, of the unanimity of their formal opposition to any such agreement.
    Of course, on the two sides of current division between the Counciliar Church and the FSSPX much wish that the Catholic unity be restored. Honor to those on both sides. But since reality governs everything, and to the reality all these sincere desires must yield, namely that since Vatican II the official authorities of the Church have deviated from the Catholic truth, and today they are shown to be quite given to always remaining faithful to the Counciliar doctrines and practices. The Roman discussions, the “doctrinal preamble” and Assisi III are bright examples of this.
    The problems arising to the Catholics by the Second Vatican Council are profound. In a conference, which seems like the last doctrinal will of Mgr Lefebvre, which was given to priests of the Society at Ecône a half year before his death, after having briefly summarized the history of the liberal Catholicism resulting from the French Revolution, he recalled how the Popes have always fought this attempt at a reconciliation between the Church and the modern world, and he declared that the combat of Society of St. Pius X against the Vatican II was exactly the same combat. He concluded:

    “The more one analyzes the documents of the Vatican II and their interpretation by the authorities of the Church, and the more one realizes that they are neither superficial errors nor a few particular errors such as ecumenism, religious freedom, collegial structure, but rather a total perversion of the spirit, a whole new philosophy founded upon Subjectivism… It is very serious! A total perversion! … That is really alarming.”

    But, is the thinking of Benedict XVI is better in this respect than that of John Paul II? It is enough to read the study made by one of us three, The Faith in Peril from Reason, to realize that the thought of the current Pope is also impregnated of subjectivism. It is all the subjective imagination of the man in the place of the objective reality of God. It is all the Catholic religion subjected to the modern world. How can one believe that a practical agreement can arrange such a problem?
    But, some will say to us, Benedict XVI is really well disposed towards the Society and its teaching. As a subjectivist this can easily be the case, because liberals subjectivists can tolerate even the truth, but not if one refuses to tolerate error. He would accept us within the framework of relativistic and dialectical pluralism, with the proviso that we would remain in “full communion,” in relation to the authority and to other “ecclesiastical entities .” For this reason the Roman authorities can tolerate that the Society continue to teach Catholic doctrine, but they will absolutely not permit that it condemn Counciliar teachings. That is why an even purely practical agreement would necessarily silence little by little the Society, a full critique of the Council or the New Mass. By ceasing to attack the most important of all the victories of the Revolution, the poor Society would necessarily cease being opposed to the universal apostasy of our sad times and would get bogged down. Ultimately, what will guarantee that we will remain protected from the Roman curia and the bishops? Pope Benoit XVI?
    One denies it in vain, this slip is inevitable. Doesn't one see already in the Fraternity symptoms of a lessening in its confession of the Faith? Today, alas, the contrary has become “abnormal”. Just before the consecration of the bishops in 1988 when many good people insisted to Mgr Lefebvre so that he reach a practical agreement with Rome that would open a large field of apostolate, he said his thoughts to the four new bishops: “A large field of apostolate perhaps, but in ambiguity, and while following two directions opposed at the same time, and this would finish by us rotting.” How to obey and continue to preach all the truth? How to reach an agreement without Society “having rotted” on the contrary?
     And when one year later, Rome seemed to make true gestures of benevolence towards Tradition, Archbishop Lefebvre was always wary. He feared that they are only “maneuvers to separate us from the largest number of faithful possible. This is the perspective in which they seem to be always giving a little more and even going very far. We must absolutely convince our faithful that it is no more than a maneuvers, that it is dangerous to put oneself into the hands of Conciliar bishops and Modernist Rome. It is the greatest danger threatening our people. If we have struggled for twenty years to avoid the Conciliar errors, it was not in order, now, to put ourselves in the hands of those professing these errors.” According to Archbishop Lefebvre the characteristic of the Society is, more than to just denounce the errors by their name, but rather to effectively and publicly oppose the Roman authorities which has spread them. How will one be able to make an agreement and make this public resistance to the authorities, including the Pope? And after having fought during more than forty years, will the Society now have to be put into the hands of the modernists and liberals whose pertinacity we have just come to observe?
    Your Excellency, Fathers, take care! You want to lead the Society to a point where it will no longer be able to turn back, to a profound division of no return and, if you end up to such an agreement, it will be with powerful destroying influences who will not keep it. If up until now the bishops of the Society have protected it, it is precisely because Mgr Lefebvre refused a practical agreement. Since the situation has not changed substantially, since the condition prescribed by the Chapter of 2006 was by no means carried out (a doctrinal change in Rome which would permit a practical agreement), at least listen to your Founder. It was right 25 years ago. It is right still today. On his behalf, we entreat you: do not engage the Society in a purely practical agreement.

    With our most cordial and fraternal greetings,
    In Christo and Maria,

    Mgr. Alfonso de Galarreta
    Mgr. Bernard Tissier de Mallerais
    Mgr. Richard Williamson


    Offline bernadette

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 417
    • Reputation: +584/-115
    • Gender: Female
    Letter of Three SSPX Bishops to Bishop Fellay in English
    « Reply #1 on: May 10, 2012, 04:41:41 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • You're being taken to task over on Rorate Caeli for posting this letter...


    Never mind...it's been addressed already on another thread...I've been away from the computer all day...


    Offline Wessex

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1311
    • Reputation: +1951/-361
    • Gender: Male
    Letter of Three SSPX Bishops to Bishop Fellay in English
    « Reply #2 on: May 10, 2012, 05:31:58 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: bernadette
    You're being taken to task over on Rorate Caeli for posting this letter...


    Never mind...it's been addressed already on another thread...I've been away from the computer all day...




    It suspects an English mole!  Wasn't me, honest, Gov ......

    Offline bernadette

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 417
    • Reputation: +584/-115
    • Gender: Female
    Letter of Three SSPX Bishops to Bishop Fellay in English
    « Reply #3 on: May 10, 2012, 05:46:33 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Wessex
    Quote from: bernadette
    You're being taken to task over on Rorate Caeli for posting this letter...


    Never mind...it's been addressed already on another thread...I've been away from the computer all day...




    It suspects an English mole!  Wasn't me, honest, Gov ......

    :roll-laugh1:

    Offline John Grace

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5520
    • Reputation: +120/-6
    • Gender: Male
    Letter of Three SSPX Bishops to Bishop Fellay in English
    « Reply #4 on: May 10, 2012, 05:55:54 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • This is the corrected English  version of the letter of the three Bishops to +Fellay and the General Council.

    Quote
    Reverend Superior General, Reverend First Assistant, Reverend Second Assistant,
     
    For several months, as many people know, the General Council of the FSSPX has seriously been considering Roman proposals for a practical agreement, after the doctrinal discussions of 2009 to 2011 proved that a doctrinal agreement is impossible with current Rome. By this letter the three bishops of the FSSPX – who do not form part of the General Council – wish to let him know, with all due respect, of the unanimity of their formal opposition to any such agreement.
     
    Of course, on the two sides of current division between the Conciliar Church and the FSSPX many wish that Catholic unity be restored. Honor to those on both sides. But reality governs everything, and all these sincere desires must yield to the reality that since Vatican II the official authorities of the Church have deviated from the Catholic truth, and today they are shown to be quite determined to always remain faithful to the Conciliar doctrines and practices. The Roman discussions, the “doctrinal preamble” and Assisi III are clear examples of this.
     
    The problems arising from the Second Vatican Council to Catholics are profound. Six months before his death, Mgr Lefebvre gave a conference at Ecône to the priests of the Society, which seems like his last doctrinal will. After having briefly summarized the history of liberal Catholicism resulting from the French Revolution, he recalled how the Popes have always fought this attempt at reconciliation between the Church and the modern world, and he declared that the combat of the Society of St. Pius X against Vatican II was exactly the same combat. He concluded:
     
    “The more one analyzes the documents of Vatican II and their interpretation by the authorities of the Church, the more one realizes that they are neither superficial errors nor a few particular errors such as ecumenism, religious freedom, collegial structure, but rather a total perversion of the spirit, a whole new philosophy founded upon Subjectivism… It is very serious! A total perversion! … That is really alarming.”
     
    But, is the thinking of Benedict XVI better in this respect than that of John Paul II? It is enough to read the study made by one of us three, Faith Imperiled by Reason, to realize that the thought of the current Pope is also impregnated with subjectivism. It is the subjective fantasy of man instead of the objective reality of God. It is the Catholic religion subjected to the modern world. How can one believe that a practical agreement can solve such a problem?
     
    But, some will say to us, Benedict XVI is really well disposed towards the Society and its teaching. As a subjectivist this can easily be the case, because liberal subjectivists can tolerate even the truth, but not if one refuses to tolerate error. He would accept us within the framework of relativistic and dialectical pluralism, with the proviso that we would remain in “full communion”, in relation to the authority and to other “ecclesiastical entities”. For this reason the Roman authorities can tolerate that the Society continue to teach Catholic doctrine, but they will absolutely not permit that it condemn Conciliar teachings. That is why an even purely practical agreement would necessarily silence, little by little, the Society, and any critique of the Council or the New Mass by the Society. By ceasing to attack the most important of all the victories of the Revolution, the poor Society would necessarily cease being opposed to the universal apostasy of our sad times and would get bogged down. Ultimately, who will guarantee that we will remain protected from the Roman curia and the bishops? Pope Benedict XVI?
     
    One denies it in vain, this slide is inevitable. Doesn’t one see already in the Society symptoms of a lessening in its confession of the Faith? Today, alas, the contrary has become “abnormal”. Just before the consecration of the bishops in 1988 when many good people insisted to Mgr Lefebvre that he reach a practical agreement with Rome that would open a large field of apostolate, he said his thoughts to the four new bishops: “A large field of apostolate perhaps, but in ambiguity, and while following two opposing directions at the same time, this would result in rotting us.” How to obey and continue to preach the truth? How to reach an agreement without the Society “having rotted” in such contradiction?
     
    And when one year later, Rome seemed to make true gestures of benevolence towards Tradition, Archbishop Lefebvre was still wary. He feared that they are only “maneuvers to separate us from the largest number of faithful possible. This is the perspective in which they seem to be always giving a little more and even going very far. We must absolutely convince our faithful that it is no more than a maneuver, that it is dangerous to put oneself into the hands of Conciliar bishops and Modernist Rome. It is the greatest danger threatening our people. If we have struggled for twenty years to avoid the Conciliar errors, it was not in order, now, to put ourselves in the hands of those professing these errors.” According to Archbishop Lefebvre, the aim of the Society is more than to just denounce the errors by their name, but rather to effectively and publicly oppose the Roman authorities which have spread them. How can one reconcile making an agreement with public resistance to the authorities, including the Pope? And after having fought for more than forty years, will the Society now have to be put into the hands of the modernists and liberals whose pertinacity we have just come to observe?
     
    Your Excellency, Fathers, do be careful! You are leading the Society to a point from which it will no longer be able to turn back, to a deep division of no return and to destructive, powerful influences with which the Society will not be able to cope, if you come to such an agreement. If up to now the bishops of the Society have protected it, it is precisely because Mgr Lefebvre refused a practical agreement. Since the situation has not changed substantially, and since the condition laid down by the Chapter of 2006 has not come to realization (a doctrinal change in Rome which would permit a practical agreement), listen again to your Founder. He was right 25 years ago. He is still right today. On his behalf, we entreat you: do not engage the Society in a purely practical agreement.
     
    With our most cordial and fraternal greetings,
     
    In Christo and Maria,
     
    Mgr. Alfonso de Galarreta
     
    Mgr. Bernard Tissier de Mallerais
     
    Mgr. Richard Williamson

     
     


    Offline jazzyjeff

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 2
    • Reputation: +8/-0
    Letter of Three SSPX Bishops to Bishop Fellay in English
    « Reply #5 on: May 10, 2012, 05:58:12 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Thanks for leaking this, Fr Morgan.  :dancing:

    Offline Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 18069
    • Reputation: +8204/-625
    • Gender: Male
    Letter of Three SSPX Bishops to Bishop Fellay in English
    « Reply #6 on: May 11, 2012, 12:45:26 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Pope Benoit XVI? The original must have been French.

    This letter is the voice of reason. We have to ponder why Bp. Fellay doesn't
    sound like this. The field is obviously 3 against 1, and the majority of
    rank-and-file Society members side with the majority.

    This situation is explosive.

    The 3 good bishops have the power and the duty to protect what they can
    of the SSPX, before it's too late. They should convene an emergency session,
    and move to have Fellay deposed. Otherwise, he'll have 6 more years to
    continue his corrupting influence.

    12 years is far too long. They should change that, as well.
    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.

     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16