My Friend Nicholas has made a very good post on the blog Durendal and given me permission to post it on CathInfo.
S.S.P.X Regularization?
And we must not waver for one moment either in not being with those who are in the process of betraying us. Some people are always admiring the grass in the neighbor's field. Instead of looking to their friends, to the Church's defenders, to those fighting on the battlefield, they look to our enemies on the other side. "After all, we must be charitable, we must be kind, we must not be divisive, after all, they are celebrating the Tridentine Mass, they are not as bad as everyone says" —but THEY ARE BETRAYING US —betraying us! They are shaking hands with the Church's destroyers. They are shaking hands with people holding modernist and liberal ideas condemned by the Church. So they are doing the devil's work.
Archbishop Lefebvre's address to his priests given in Econe, Switzerland on September 6, 1990
Little by little one gives up the fight and ends by accepting the situation. Everything in Campos still looks traditional, no doubt, so that the people see nothing different. The shrewder ones among them, however, note the tendency of the priests to speak more often and respectfully about news from Rome, omitting their past warnings and ignoring the present day deviations. To become accustomed to this situation and to cease to correct it is a great danger.
Bp. Fellay - Superior General's Letter to Friends & Benefactors #63. January 6, 2003
I started writing this post in September 2010, but decided to set it aside, deciding that it was all rumour and innuendo. Yet it seems to me that all the speculation and rumour having currency in traditionalist circles this time is different, and therefore does warrant some commentary for the precise reason that Bp. Fellay elucidated in 2003: "to become accustomed to this situation and cease to correct it is a great danger."
And indeed, setting aside the speculation for a moment, can anyone honestly say that even absent a deal, the S.S.P.X has had a tendency to "speak more often and respectfully about news from Rome" in recent years? Can anyone honestly say that the leaders of the Society have not "prudently" softened their rhetoric when it came to speaking against "present day deviations"? So even if there is not a "deal" before the end of May, as is the latest rumour, in my view it is appropriate to partake of sounding the alarm bells in this re-enactment of the 1960s and 70s (as it seems to me things are playing out)?
I've not had time to read a tenth of what is out there on the impending "deal" with Rome, but what I have read makes it clear beyond any reasonable doubt in my mind that the sellout is finally here. All the recent communiqués and conferences given by those in power certainly lead to this conclusion. Certainly the weak "denial" from Menzingen that this is "a process" gives one little hope that a purely practical agreement is NOT in the offing. Fr. Rostand's recent letter stating "Let us remember that it is to our Superior General, and only to him, that has been entrusted by the law of the Church and the will of Archbishop Lefebvre the delicate task of our relations with Rome" perhaps does not indicate in itself that there will be a regularization -- but it certainly indicates that such a thing can happen suddenly and without input or objection from anyone.
Reasders may or may not have seen the translation of Fr. Pfluger's recent conference: http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=9296&st=0 the summary at Rorate Caeli seems to be accurate, and the salient points would be that:
(1) Events of the past year have prompted Bishop Fellay to place aside the principle of “No practical solution without doctrinal agreement”;
(2) Recent weeks have revealed that the Pope is so much interested in a canonical solution for the Society that he is ready to seal a deal, even if the Society does not recognize the disputed texts of Vatican II and the New Mass ... Under these circuмstances the Superior General, Bishop Bernard Fellay, does not consider it possible to reject the Pope’s proposal. It would be tantamount to a lapse into Sedevacantism (i.e. anyone who disagrees is a sedevacantist);
(3) The crisis is over ... the wish of young priests to say the Old Mass – has become unstoppable, despite intimidation and oppression. In fact, this movement is now so strong that the Fraternity will be able to resist attacks on Tradition from modernist Bishops.
It seems inescapable that Bp. Fellay is intent on raising the white flag. We have seen this play out in Le Barroux, F.S.S.P., Campos, Institut du Bon Pasteur, etc. etc. ad nauseum. We know what will happen. Again, I would point out how the S.S.P.X has already softened its position before even being "accepted" ... are we to believe that the S.S.P.X will become MORE hardline and more openly so after being given its gilded cage? It will be a huge disaster for the Faith and tradition precisely because ALMOST EVERYONE WILL GO ALONG WITH IT. This truly is a replay in miniature of the 1950s/60s/70s. Catholics will again have their faith taken away bit by bit and who will stand against it?
Many have been arguing that to raise such concerns and "indulge" in speculation is wrong, and only leads to divisions. No doubt, those who were uncomfortable with changes in the 1960s were accused of the same. Is it better to sit and do nothing? Maybe sounding the alarms will do no good, but I would rather know that I did SOMETHING no matter how insignificant. What else can we do other than complain? I am open to suggestions ...
Posted by Nicholas D.C. Wansbutter
http://rencesvals.blogspot.ca/
Typical of Mr. Wansbutter to be "open to suggestions." If I can think of any, I'll certainly try to send it his way. This whole thing is making my head swim. I am very grateful that we are given these materials in advance so we have time to take it all in. It would be absolutely overwhelming to be hit with it all at once, rather like an avalanche.
Maybe that's why Rome demands secrecy. They want the power of an avalanche, to wipe out Tradition!
Thanks for this, LordPhan. (I enlarged it so I could read it more easily, and perhaps others can too.) I recognize the name from the old Dinoscopus days, when I learned to always appreciated what dear Mr. Wansbutter had to contribute. This is no different.
How true. If Catholics had resisted the innovations at Vatican II from the start, the revolution wouldn't have succeeded as it did. And so too, today. Why should we have to give away our Faith in small slices?
***************************
(from the second post in this thread)
...It lacks supernatural spirit ... If one is ready to grant that divine providence conducts the affairs of men, while leaving them their liberty, then one must also accept that the gestures in our favour of the last few years come from Providence. Now, these gestures indicate a line - not always a straight line - but a line clearly in favour of Tradition. Why should this line suddenly come to an end when we are doing all we can to remain faithful and when our efforts are being accompanied by no few prayers on our part? Would the Good Lord drop us at the most decisive moment? That makes no sense. ...to act as He wishes...
Whose fantasy is this? The line doesn't "come to an end" just because Catholics hold fast to the Faith they have received. This is stupid. Of course it "makes no sense," because it's founded on a big lie!
To presume that the Good Lord is dropping us if we don't comply with Rome's latest subjectivism scheme is sheer nonsense.
This was the refrain in 1976, 1988 and later, that the SSPX simply must knuckle under to the wacko demands of Rome "or ELSE, it's OVER."
Well, it isn't "over," is it!
No, it's not.
It's still going on. And the "line" doesn't "suddenly come to an end," either.
+Fellay exposes his hand here. He is so personally invested in making SOME KIND of "deal" happen with Rome during his lifetime, he's willing to bet the farm on his long time buddy Ratzinger being the guy who will give him the opportunity; and Benedict XVI fears he's going to die before he can make his one lasting mark, with a "deal" for the SSPX. These are two birds of a feather.
We don't have to sign any deal with Rome if Rome persists in it's subjectivist apostasy and continues to refuse to discuss doctrine in the same sense and in the same meaning held by the Fathers and Doctors of the Church throughout the ages.
So it's a "Mexican stand-off?" So be it. The world won't come to an end.
Rather, even if the world does come to an end, we will have kept the Faith as we have received it. We will have fought the good fight. All will be well.
As for "the 3" and "the 1" -- if +Fellay persists in his headstrong dealmaking-at-any-cost, then it's evident that "the 3" are prepared to do what needs to be done. And they will certainly have vociferous support from the rank-and-file Catholics, among whom are many who rarely get the opportunity to assist at an SSPX Mass site.
Topic: Letter of Three SSPX Bishops to Bishop Fellay - PDF (Read 116131 times)