Author Topic: LETTER TO OUR FELLOW PRIESTS (Read 1262 times)

Cristera · « **on:** December 19, 2012, 03:40:37 PM »

Letter to our fellow priests
Second quarterly contact letter among members of the Society (SSPX)
(number 2 – Fall 2012)

This time, we propose to come back over a key directive given by our General Superior in “Cor Unum”, thanks to thoughts provided by a fellow priest quoted on the site “AntiModernisme.info”.

“It is of the utmost importance to work on all sides to encourage everywhere supernatural principles that oppose distrust, this corrosive and destructive worm of human relations and of all societies.” Bernard Fellay, Cor Unum number 102, Summer 2012.

Fact number one: the ridge line established by Bishop Lefebvre
“In this letter dated April 17th, I followed the approach undertaken by Bishop Lefebvre in 1988 […] It was about statement of the following type: “I recognize that the new Mass is valid, if it is celebrated with the intention to do what the Church does.” In that sentence, it is not mentioned that the Mass is bad, because that is what we keep saying! Coming from the other side of the ridge line, we say: “The Mass is bad, but if it is celebrated correctly, then it remains valid.” (Bishop Fellay, Brignoles, May 4th 2012 – Nouvelles de Chrétienté number 135).

Do these two versions really correspond to one single ridge line? One is equivocal because incomplete (valid Mass), the other is not equivocal (Mass being illegitimate even though it is a valid Mass) ! Father de Cacqueray stated: “the truth should not be sidestepped”; “Let’s put a stop to political nit-picking” said Bishop Tissier. Indeed, the vocabulary used by the enemy (ordinary rite instead of illegitimate Mass favouring heresy) must be denounced, because the acceptance of those words prepares the acceptance of the thought. First, imposture is not denounced, then it becomes common place, and then finally it is accepted. Further, does this “ridge line” really match that of Bishop Lefebvre?

“Their own ideas, it is to succeed to have authority on us in order to bring us to accept the Council and conciliar reforms. They have not changed one iota since the Council, on the contrary, they are all the more strong that now they have some sort of tradition in Rome. […] They cannot admit in their mind that we anatomize everything that they do. “But come on, it is the Mass that I celebrate everyday” stated Cardinal Ratzinger […] “are you going to deter the faithful to attend those masses?” It is not me who responded, it is Father Laroche: “yes, because it is a protestant Mass”. “If this is how you see things, then the commission will have plenty of work to do … “ said Cardinal Ratzinger. Yes, because for them, the mandate of the commission is to bring about reconciliation. No, their intention has not changed because their principles have not changed. […] For them, there is only one Church, it is the Church of Vatican II” (Flavigny, June 11, 1988).

Fact number two: two prominent persons are being forgotten

On January 24th 2009, Bishop Fellay communicated as follows: “the excommunication of the bishops consecrated by Bishop Lefebvre on June 30, 1988, which had been delivered by the Congregation for the Bishops in a July 1, 1988 decree and which we have always disputed, has been taken out in another decree established by the same Congregation on January 21, 2009, upon the request of Pope Benoît XVI. We express our filial gratitude to the Holy Father for this act […]’’

The decree for the lifting of the excommunication Latae sententiae of the bishops of the Society (SSPX), indicates that Bishop Fellay, in a letter dated December 15, 2008, “appealed once again to lift excommunication”. The same decree also indicates that “Pope Benoît XVI – receptive as would be a father, to the spiritual uneasiness communicated by those concerned due to the sanction of excommunication, and trusting their commitment, expressed in the letter identified above, to not spare any effort to study in depth, during necessary colloquium with Authority of the Holy See, questions that remains unresolved, so as to find quickly a solution that is complete and satisfactory to the problem identified initially – decided to reconsider the canonical situation of Bishops Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tisser de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galaretta, that resulted from their episcopal consecration. […] It is being wished that this step soon brings about the entire Society (SSPX) to enter into full communion with the Church, giving thus clear indication of a real loyalty and true recognition of the role and authority of the Pope through evidence of visible unity.”[1]

The Roman decree does not mention Bishop de Castro Mayer nor Bishop Lefebvre. This is only logical since the decree speaks about a lifting of the sanction and not about a revocation. This concerns the forgiveness that “a father” applies to repentant sons afflicted by a spiritual uneasiness coming from “the scandal caused by the dissension”. And only living beings can benefit from papal indulgence. The joy of the Superior General and his “filial gratitude towards the Holy Father” have they not been hasty, inept and ambiguous? This “gratitude”, does that not imply a concession towards the modernists and ingratitude towards those two prominent figures of the faith which memory continues to be blackened? All the more since the person that caused their “excommunication”, Jean-Paul II, grimly remembered, has been (by a supreme imposture) “beatified” and exalted on the altar. “This new climate”, could that really announce “an early recognition of the rights of the catholic tradition”?

Fact number three: own will

“The Chapter (the general one) is a legal entity representing the entire Society […] The General Chapter has more powers than the Superior General who is elected by the General Chapter. The General Chapter can bring about laws or at least take measures that must stay in force until the next Chapter.” (Naz, Traité de droit canonique, Tome 1, No. 816 &1)

Yet, the will expressed by the General Chapter in year 2006, concerning relations with Rome, was double: 1) “In case an agreement with the Holy See is seriously envisaged, an Extraordinary General Chapter will be called for in order to discuss the issue.” 2) “The contacts” that the Society “occasionally maintains with Roman authorities” have not as an objective “to reach an impossible simply practical agreement”.[2] Yet, on those two points, the Superior General went publicly against the will of the Chapter.

Bishop Fellay, by considering only the signature of the 1988 protocol, neglected the conclusions of Bishop Lefebvre after year 1988. Between Rome and Menzingen, as long as there was no “yes”, the objective was to continue to discuss in order to reach an agreement that would solve things “simply at the practical level”. The sign of the Providence so followed or the will of God so sought, were only investigated in just one way: in the way to match the own will of the Superior General. To that end, he turned down and penalised all voices that expressed their opposition. He decided to do without wise advice by keeping secrets the terms of the discussion, under false pretext (the secrecy enabled him to denounce any opposition as being based on rumours). Bishop Fellay even confided, in private, to some priests in Austria, between May 17 and 20th: “The General Chapter in July will not gather to discuss the acceptance of the agreement, but simply to be informed of the new statutes of the Society”. But, these words, later on, were denied by Bishop Fellay. Because, as he said to Father Ceriani, on February 17th 2009 in Flavigny: “You understand, Father Ceriani, all this, it is only politics.” Else, as specified by Father Pflüger, on September 29, 2011 in Hattensheim: “Diplomacy plays here a key role.”

Fact number four: the common good of the Society

“It should be noted, by the way, that we have not sought a practical agreement. That is untrue. We have not refused a priori, as you are asking, to consider the offer from the Pope. For the common good of the Society, we would prefer by far the current solution of the statu quo which is an interim solution, but it is obvious that Rome does no longer tolerate that situation.” (Bishop Fellay to the three Bishops, letter dated April 14th 2012),

Yet the three Bishops had been writing: “Bishop Fellay, Father Pflüger and Father Nély, please be careful, you are leading the Society in a direction where it will be impossible for the Society to go back, you are leading the Society to dissensions where a come-back will be impossible, and, should you succeed to reach such an agreement, you would be surrendering the Society to highly powerful destructive influences that the Society will not be able to cope with. If, until now, the Bishops of the Society have been able to protect the Society, it is precisely because Bishop Lefebvre refused a practical agreement. Given that the situation has not changed substantially, given that the condition expressed by the Chapter in 2006 has not materialised (doctrinal change on the part of Rome that would permit a practical agreement), do continue to listen to your founding father.’’

In spite of that, on June 13th 2012, Bishop Fellay went to Rome with the intent to sign the agreement that was 100% practical. If he suffered a setback (he was not able to sign) it was thanks to Rome that added explicitly two conditions that were too grossly inacceptable. On June 13th, it is Benoît XVI who saved us from a suicidal operation. “We express our filial gratitude to the Holy Father for that action”!

Fact number five: the case of the three Bishops

Once the episcopal correspondence was disclosed, Bishop Fellay, on May 11th 2012, confided to the American press (CNS): “I cannot rule out that there might be a split” within the Society (SSPX).

On May 16th 2012, a press release from Vatican City informed that “given the stand taken by the three Bishops, the case of the three Bishops of the Society will have to be handled separately and individually.” On June 8 2012, Bishop Fellay stated to DICI (no. 256), concerning the refusal of his fellow Bishops, of an agreement that would be simply practical: “About their sentiments, I do not rule out the possibility that they might change. […] I believe that if my fellow Bishops see and understand that from legal and practical matters, there is in the Roman proposal a true opportunity for the Society “to restore everything in Christ”, in spite of all the troubles that exist currently in the Church, then they will be in a position to adjust their judgement, – then, that is with the canonical status in hand and with the facts under their eyes. Yes, I believe so, I hope so.”

On June 14th 2012, Vatican City, after having transmitted to Bishop Fellay the project for a personal prelacy, communicated again that “the situation of the three Bishops of the Society will be treated separately and individually.” But, on the same day, Menzingen indicated that, during this two hours meeting that took place between Bishop Fellay and Cardinal Levada: “the situation of the three other Bishops of the Society had not been mentioned.”

Bishop Fellay said he was convinced that the will of the Pope was to give us recognition, without saying the price to pay: “Yes, the Pope himself wants it. I have enough precise evidence of that in my possession that enables me to claim that what I say is true…“ (DICI no. 256). But, on June 14th, after two years of discussions, Menzingen finds out that there remains “doctrinal difficulties” about the “Council Vatican II and the Novus Ordo Missae”. This late discovery is stunning, because it was not needed to read between the lines to know that; what was required was just to be able to read:

“Two fears were mainly opposed to that docuмent […]. First, there was the fear to reduce, so doing, the authority of the Council Vatican II, and to shed some doubt on one of its key decision: the liturgical reform: This fear does not have any ground.”[3]

“Myself, I have seen, in the years that followed 1988, that, thanks to the come-back of communities previously separated from Rome, their internal climate has changed; that the return in the large and vast common Church enabled to bypass unilateral positions and attenuated strong positions in such a way that, as a result, positive forces have emerged to the benefit of the whole group.”[4]

How has Bishop Fellay been able to give his preference to his “new friends in Rome” [5] against his former and clear-sighted fellow Bishops? Mainly, how is it possible for him to have tried or even accepted to solve the fate of the Society without the three Bishops? Admittedly, during his 18 years as a superior, Bishop Fellay has never betrayed. But during their 25 years as Bishops, our three other Bishops have they ever fell short in the good battle? Then, why did he show contempt for their advice that is prudent and true to the wish of the 2006 Chapter?

Fact number six: deliberate vagueness

“About the response I sent to Rome on April 17th […], I have the impression that this is suitable. In our circle, I believe that it will have to be explained properly, because there are (in that docuмent) expressions or statements that are so much on the ridge line that if you do not have a positive mind or if you put on black or pink glasses, you will see things one way or the other. Then it will be necessary to explain to you that this letter does not change anything to our position. But, if one wants to read the letter in a crooked way, it will be possible to understand this letter the wrong way.” (Bishop Fellay, Brignolles, May 4th 2012 – Nouvelles de Chrétienté no. 135)

If it is possible to read the letter of Bishop Fellay the wrong way, it is because the letter is ambiguous. If the letter suits Rome, it is because it no longer represents the thoughts of the Society, because our thoughts, from a doctrinal point of view, cannot be acceptable to modernist Rome: rejection of Vatican II and its reforms, rejection of the bastard Mass of Paul VI, rejection of the canonisation of Jean-Paul II, …

Bishop Fellay felt “that the Roman authorities” were “too much in a hurry. We would like to put on the brake, but we do not really know where the brake is.” Bishop Fellay thus does not know that the brake to stop Rome is the directives outlined by our founder: “if you do not accept the doctrine of your predecessors, it is useless to talk. As long as you do not agree to reform the Council, taking into account the doctrine of those Popes that are your predecessors, dialogue is not possible. It is useless.”[6]

The person who does not know where the brake is, is he capable to lead others? Shouldn’t his driving licence be withdrawn, for safety reasons?

Fact number 7: Vatican II in the Tradition

“The Pope says that the Council must be viewed in the large tradition of the Church, that it must be understood in the context of the Church. These are statements with which we fully agree, without a doubt.” (CNS, May 11th, 2012); “Many people understand wrongly the Council. […] The Council presents a religious freedom that is a freedom that is very, very limited; […] After the discussions, we found out that the errors that we believed were sourced from the Council, in fact are not sourced from the Council but result from the general interpretation which has been made.” (Bishop Fellay, YouTube, Traditionalist leader talks about his movement, Rome).

This is very far from “I accuse the Council” pronounced by Bishop Lefebvre as “a necessary response to the “I excuse the Council” of Cardinal Ratzinger!”[7] When Bishop Fellay writes: “the entire tradition of catholic faith must be the criterion and the guide to understand the teachings of Council Vatican II, which in turn clarifies some aspects of the life and of the doctrine of the Church which are implicitly included in the Church even though not explicitly formulated”[8], does he still believe that Vatican II has been “the contrary to the Syllabus”? One of the participants to doctrinal discussions revealed that “about fifteen (15) different formulae” for each text of Vatican II “were successively presented” to the Society to facilitate our acceptance. In spite of that, Bishop Fellay continued to speak up proudly: “it is the Pope who really wants this canonical recognition, he is not laying a trap for us.” (DICI number 256)

Fact number eight: since when is life free of difficulties?

In their apostolate, the Society Saint Peter or the ecclesia Dei are totally subdued to the power of bishops. They have thus no freedom. When they try to open their mouth, immediately their apostolate is taken away from them, it is a dead end for them … it is not the type of solution that we need. We need to enjoy real autonomy … I have received enough words from the Pope that indicate that it is really and truly his will.” (Bishop Fellay, Brignoles, May 4th, 2012); “It remains true – as is the right of the Church – that, to open a new Chapel or to create a Charity, it will be necessary to obtain the permission of the local Church authority. […] Here and there, this difficulty will be real, but since when is life free of difficulty?” (Bishop Fellay, DICI no 256 dated June 8th, 2012)

When a Superior, facing a problem of this magnitude, responds with such thoughtlessness and supports such vagueness: one can only be stunned. Saint Bernard, writing in a filial spirit to Pope Eugene III, was right: “it is a monstrous thing to have a supreme high ranking role fulfilled by a low-grade character”.

Conclusion

All this may be has only been a dreadful misunderstanding and an appalling mistake. Let us pray with generosity holy Pie X for our Superior General. Because it is only by taking a straight line when speaking, by retracting those statements that are crooked and by withdrawing sanctions against those who have been thinking the right way and who dared to speak up (the fathers Abrahamowig, Ceriani, Pfeiffer, Chazal, …) that he will be able to restore trust.

“I am ready and willing, if on one issue or another, it were proved that I am mistaken … I am ready and willing to retract …“ (Bishop Lefebvre, Ecône, June 21, 1978).

The editorial office

[1] Of the Congregation for the Bishops, January 21st, 2009.

[2] Cor Unum, number 85, October 2006.

[3] Letter of Benoît XVI, July 7, 2007.

[4] Letter of Benoît XVI, March 10, 2009.

[5] Cor Unum number 101, March 2012.

[6] Interview with the magazine FIDELITER, September 1988.

[7] Bishop Marcel Lefebvre, ils l’ont découronné, page 233, FIDELITER.

[8] Father Pflüger, conference dated June 5th 2012 in Saint-Joseph-des-Carmes. Worth reminding that the version of the announcement addressed to Rome on December 15 2008, that went into press and that meant to be read in public by priests, read as follows: “We wholly adhere to all Council until Vatican II for which we express reservations”, whereas the version later corrected by Menzingen, in response to complaints, but negated by Rome, claimed the following: “we accept and adhere all Council until Vatican I. But we can only express reservations about Council Vatican II because the objective of Vatican II was, according to Pope Jean XXIII and Paul VI, to be a Council that would be ‘different from previous Councils’.”

SOURCE

stgobnait · « **Reply #1 on:** December 19, 2012, 03:52:24 PM »

and then what happened......candle lit churhes detatched, flowers not on the alter. just for decoration... abuse....

stgobnait · « **Reply #2 on:** December 19, 2012, 05:10:42 PM »

and you have returned,, have you found family..... dont think so....happy with that....catholic,,,? you tell me.......

Ecclesia Militans · « **Reply #3 on:** December 19, 2012, 06:27:28 PM »

What exactly is this letter and who wrote it?

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #4 on:** December 20, 2012, 07:19:52 AM »

Quote from: Ecclesia Militans

What exactly is this letter and who wrote it?

I went to the antimoderisme.com website (accessed by clicking the "source" button at the end of the article), and it just says the "editorial office."

Apparently the article is the work of the editor of this website.

I was hoping it was written by a priest.

But it is still a good article.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #5 on:** December 20, 2012, 07:23:01 AM »

Quote from: Seraphim

Quote from: Ecclesia Militans
What exactly is this letter and who wrote it?

I went to the antimoderisme.com website (accessed by clicking the "source" button at the end of the article), and it just says the "editorial office."

Apparently the article is the work of the editor of this website.

I was hoping it was written by a priest.

But it is still a good article.

Upon a further review, the Letter itself states that it is written by at least 1 priest (read the 1st sentence of the letter).

Apparently, the priest is unknown, but in this same sentence acknowledges himself to be an SSPX priest.

Interesting.

Wish the editor of the antimodernisme.com website could elaborate!

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #6 on:** December 21, 2012, 07:08:09 AM »

Any word yet on who wrote this letter?