Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: SeanJohnson on November 28, 2011, 05:32:38 PM
-
Interview with the SSPX Superior General:
The Doctrinal Preamble
Interview granted by Bishop Bernard Fellay, Superior-General of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X (FSSPX / SSPX) to its institutional news agency, DICI. The interview was released just moments ago.
_______________________________
Why is the Doctrinal Preamble that Cardinal Levada delivered to you on September 14 still surrounded by so much secrecy, both on the part of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and by the Society of St. Pius X? What is this silence hiding from the priests and faithful of Tradition?
This discretion is normal for any important proceeding; it ensures the seriousness of it. It so happens that the Doctrinal Preamble that was delivered to us is a docuмent which can be clarified and modified, as the accompanying note points out. It is not a definitive text. In a little while we will draw up a response to this docuмent, noting frankly the doctrinal positions that we regard as indispensable. Our constant concern since the start of our talks with the Holy See—as our interlocutors know very well—has been to present the traditional position with complete loyalty.
Discretion is required on Rome’s part also, because this docuмent—even in its present state which needs many clarifications—runs a great risk of arousing opposition from the progressives, who do not accept the very idea of a discussion about the Council, because they consider that this pastoral council is indisputable or “non-negotiable”, as though it were a dogmatic council.
Despite all these precautions, the conclusions of the meeting of the superiors of the Society of St. Pius X in Albano on October 7 have been divulged on the Internet by various yet consistent sources.
There is no lack of indiscretions on the Internet!
It is true that this Doctrinal Preamble cannot receive our endorsement, although leeway has been allowed for a “legitimate discussion” about certain points of the Council. What is the extent of this leeway? The proposal that I will make in the next few days to the Roman authorities and their response in turn will enable us to evaluate our remaining options. And whatever the result of these talks may be, the final docuмent that will have been accepted or rejected will be made public.
Better to point out the difficulties and solutions
Since this docuмent, in your view, is not very clear, wouldn’t the simplest thing be to send its authors a flat refusal?
The simplest thing, perhaps, but not the most courteous. Since the note that accompanies it foresees the possibility of making clarifications, to me it seems necessary to ask for them instead of refusing them a priori. This in no way prejudges the response that we will give.
Since the debate between Rome and us is essentially doctrinal and mainly concerns the Council, the clarifications that we do or do not obtain will have the not insignificant advantage of making more evident where the difficulties are and where the solutions are; this is true also because this debate concerns not only the Society of St. Pius X but the entire Church as well. This is the spirit that has constantly guided our theological discussions during these past two years.
This docuмent serves as a preamble to a canonical statute; doesn’t this implicitly abandon the marching orders that you had defined, which foresaw a doctrinal solution first before any practical agreement?
It is indeed a doctrinal pre-amble, the acceptance or rejection of which will then determine whether or not some canonical status is obtained. Doctrine is by no means being put in second place. And before committing ourselves to an eventual canonical status, we are studying this preamble minutely with the criterion of the Tradition to which we are faithfully bound. For we have not forgotten that there are many doctrinal differences at the origin of the dispute between Rome and us these past forty years; setting them aside in order to obtain a canonical status would expose us to the danger of seeing the same differences crop up inevitably, which would make the canonical status not just precarious but quite simply unlivable.
Therefore basically nothing has changed after these two years of theological discussions between Rome and the Society of St. Pius X?
These discussions have enabled our theologians to present straightforwardly the principal points of the Council that cause difficulties in light of the Church’s Tradition. In parallel with and perhaps thanks to these theological discussions, during the past two years voices other than our own have made themselves heard formulating critiques of the Council that second ours. Thus Msgr. Brunero Gherardini, in his studyEcuмenical Council Vatican II: A Much-Needed Discussion, insisted on the different degrees of authority of the conciliar docuмents and on the “contrary spirit” that crept into the Second Vatican Council from the start. Similarly Bishop Athanasius Schneider had the courage, during a conference in Rome in late 2010, to ask for a Syllabus condemning the errors in interpreting the Council. Along the same lines, the historian Roberto de Mattei has nicely demonstrated the contrary influences exerted on the Council, in his most recent book, The Second Vatican Council: A History Never Before Written. We should mention also the Petition sent to Benedict XVI by those Italian Catholic intellectuals who are calling for a more in-depth examination of the Council.
All these initiatives, all these interventions clearly show that the Society of St. Pius X is not alone in seeing the doctrinal problems that Vatican II poses. This movement is extending and it can no longer be stopped.
Yes, but these university studies, these learned analyses do not contribute any concrete solutions to the problems that this council poses hic et nunc [here and now].
These studies highlight the doctrinal difficulties caused by Vatican II and consequently show why adherence to the Council is problematic. This is an essential first step.
In Rome itself, the evolving interpretations given to religious liberty, the modifications that have been made on this subject in the Catechism of the Catholic Church and in the Compendium of it, the corrections that are currently being studied for the Code of Canon Law… all this shows the difficulties that you run into when you try to abide by the conciliar docuмents at all costs, and from our perspective this nicely shows the impossibility of adhering in a stable way to a doctrine in motion.
Isn’t the Creed sufficient identification for a Catholic?
In your view, what is doctrinally stable today?
The only doctrine ne varietur [safeguarding against change] is quite obviously the Creed, the profession of the Catholic faith. The Second Vatican Council was intended to be pastoral; it did not define any dogma. It did not add to the articles of faith: “I believe in religious liberty, in ecuмenism, in collegiality….” Wouldn’t the Creed still be sufficient today to identify someone as Catholic? Doesn’t it still express the whole Catholic faith? When people renounce their errors and join the Catholic Church, are they now required to profess their faith in religious liberty, ecuмenism or collegiality? As for us, the spiritual sons of Archbishop Lefebvre, who always refrained from setting up a parallel Church and always intended to be faithful to Eternal Rome, we have no difficulty in adhering fully to all the articles of the Creed.
In this context, can there by a solution to the crisis in the Church?
Short of a miracle, there can be no instantaneous solution. Wanting God to give the victory without asking armed men to engage in battle, to quote St. Joan of Arc, is a form of desertion. Wanting an end to the crisis without feeling concerned or involved is not really to love the Church. Providence does not dispense us from the duty of our state in life, wherever it has placed us, or from assuming our responsibilities and responding to the graces that it grants us.
The present situation of the Church in our formerly Christian countries is a tragic decline in vocations: four ordinations in Paris in 2011, only one in the diocese of Rome for 2011-2012. This is an alarming scarcity of priests: think of the pastor in Aude (department in south-central France) who has 80 worship sites. These dioceses in France are anemic to the point where in the very near future they will have to be regrouped just as the parishes have already been regrouped…. In a word, the ecclesiastical hierarchy today is heading structures that are much too large for the constantly decreasing numbers of personnel, which is strictly speaking an unmanageable situation, and not just on the economic level…. To use an image, it would be necessary to maintain a convent designed for 300 nuns while there were only 3 left. Can things continue that way for another ten years?
Some young bishops and priests who are inheriting this situation are becoming more and more aware of the sterility of 50 years of openness to the modern world. They do not place the blame exclusively on the secularization of society; they are asking about the responsibility of the Council which opened the Church up to a world that was becoming completely secularized. They wonder whether the Church could adapt to modernity to that extent without adopting its spirit.
These bishops and these priests are asking themselves these questions, and some of them are asking us… discreetly, like Nicodemus. We answer them that, confronted with this scarcity, one must find out whether Tradition is Catholic: is it merely an option or is it a necessary solution? To say that it is an option is to minimize or else deny the crisis in the Church and to try to be content with measures that have already proven ineffective.
Opposition from bishops
Even if the Society of St. Pius X obtained a canonical status from Rome, it nevertheless could not offer any solution on the ground, because the bishops would oppose it, as they did with the Motu Proprio on the Traditional Mass.
This opposition against Rome by the bishops was expressed in a muted but effective way with regard to the Motu Proprio on the Tridentine Mass, and it continues to be manifested stubbornly by some bishops with regard to the pro multis in the Canon of the Mass, which Benedict XVI, in keeping with Catholic doctrine, wants to have translated “for many” and no longer “for all”, as in most liturgies in the vernacular. Indeed, some bishops’ conferences persist in keeping that incorrect translation, again quite recently in Italy.
Thus the pope himself is experiencing this dissent by some bishops’ conferences, on this topic and on many others, which makes it possible for him to understand easily the ferocious opposition that the Society of St. Pius X will no doubt encounter from the bishops in their dioceses. They say that personally Benedict XVI wants a canonical solution; he would also have to be willing to take the measures that will render it truly effective.
Is the seriousness of the present crisis the reason why you have launched a new Rosary crusade?
In asking for these prayers I wanted above all the priests and the faithful to become more closely united to Our Lord and to His Holy Mother by the daily recitation of the Rosary and by profound meditation on its mysteries. We are not in an ordinary situation that would allow us to be content with routine mediocrity. An understanding of the current crisis is not based on rumors spread via the Internet, nor will solutions come from political astuteness or diplomatic negotiations. One must look at this crisis with the eyes of faith. Only constant reliance on Our Lord and Our Lady will make it possible for all the priests and the faithful who are devoted to Tradition to maintain this unity of outlook that supernatural faith procures. In this way we will be united during this period of great confusion.
In praying for the Church, for the consecration of Russia, as the Blessed Virgin requested at Fatima, and for the triumph of her Immaculate Heart, we are lifting our minds above our all-too-human aspirations, we are surpassing our all-too-natural fears. Only at that height can we really serve the Church, in carrying out the duties of the state of life that is entrusted to each one of us.
Menzingen, November 28, 2011
-
All these initiatives, all these interventions clearly show that the Society of St. Pius X is not alone in seeing the doctrinal problems that Vatican II poses. This movement is extending and it can no longer be stopped.
So why not show us the preamble and tell us how it shows any sign of recognition of the problems with Vatican II? It would appear from reports it did the opposite.
-
All these initiatives, all these interventions clearly show that the Society of St. Pius X is not alone in seeing the doctrinal problems that Vatican II poses. This movement is extending and it can no longer be stopped.
So why not show us the preamble and tell us how it shows any sign of recognition of the problems with Vatican II? It would appear from reports it did the opposite.
I trust the people in charge and I've waited for this likely longer than you've been alive.
-
All these initiatives, all these interventions clearly show that the Society of St. Pius X is not alone in seeing the doctrinal problems that Vatican II poses. This movement is extending and it can no longer be stopped.
So why not show us the preamble and tell us how it shows any sign of recognition of the problems with Vatican II? It would appear from reports it did the opposite.
I trust the people in charge and I've waited for this likely longer than you've been alive.
Oh yeah, Augustine! What are you waiting for? For the SSPX to be swallowed up by the cchurch of the beast, because they cant recognize it as such?
-
All these initiatives, all these interventions clearly show that the Society of St. Pius X is not alone in seeing the doctrinal problems that Vatican II poses. This movement is extending and it can no longer be stopped.
So why not show us the preamble and tell us how it shows any sign of recognition of the problems with Vatican II? It would appear from reports it did the opposite.
Didn't +Fellay answer this in the article??
All I can say is lets pray for the heads of the SSPX and the men in Rome that they do the will of God. If we can't do that, we're lost anyways.
-
All these initiatives, all these interventions clearly show that the Society of St. Pius X is not alone in seeing the doctrinal problems that Vatican II poses. This movement is extending and it can no longer be stopped.
So why not show us the preamble and tell us how it shows any sign of recognition of the problems with Vatican II? It would appear from reports it did the opposite.
Didn't +Fellay answer this in the article??
Did he divulge the contents of the preamble?
Second hand reports say it had nothing to do with the discussions that have taken place before and is simply the reassertion of what has always been demanded.
What is the point of theater? Having discussions irrelevant to the agreement, not divulging the discussions, not divulging the preamble, then saying that it shows that Vatican II has been recognized to be a problem?
You can be sure if a large part of the SSPX priests were against the agreement that this is an attempt at railroading, bait and switch, that sort of thing.
-
You asked why not show the contents-
Here's what he said:
This discretion is normal for any important proceeding; it ensures the seriousness of it. It so happens that the Doctrinal Preamble that was delivered to us is a docuмent which can be clarified and modified, as the accompanying note points out. It is not a definitive text. In a little while we will draw up a response to this docuмent, noting frankly the doctrinal positions that we regard as indispensable. Our constant concern since the start of our talks with the Holy See—as our interlocutors know very well—has been to present the traditional position with complete loyalty.
Discretion is required on Rome’s part also, because this docuмent—even in its present state which needs many clarifications—runs a great risk of arousing opposition from the progressives, who do not accept the very idea of a discussion about the Council, because they consider that this pastoral council is indisputable or “non-negotiable”, as though it were a dogmatic council.
Despite all these precautions, the conclusions of the meeting of the superiors of the Society of St. Pius X in Albano on October 7 have been divulged on the Internet by various yet consistent sources.
There is no lack of indiscretions on the Internet!
It is true that this Doctrinal Preamble cannot receive our endorsement, although leeway has been allowed for a “legitimate discussion” about certain points of the Council. What is the extent of this leeway? The proposal that I will make in the next few days to the Roman authorities and their response in turn will enable us to evaluate our remaining options. And whatever the result of these talks may be, the final docuмent that will have been accepted or rejected will be made public.
You may not like his reason, but he gave it nonetheless.
-
Yeah, those "reasons" alright, but absolutely nothing to suggest that there is recognition of the problems with Vatican II. From what has been said it's evident the preamble has shown no retreat on Vatican II.
There's no justification for hiding the SSPX hiding their heological position, and the Vatican's theological position.
The only reason to do it is to present an agreement as accomplished fact, while keeping people in the dark and unable to criticize the terms of the agreement while it is hatched.
-
The only reason to do it is to present an agreement as accomplished fact, while keeping people in the dark and unable to criticize the terms of the agreement while it is hatched.
He did say, "whatever the result of these talks may be, the final docuмent that will have been accepted or rejected will be made public." If people don't like what the group has accepted or rejcted, they're free to leave the Society at any time, like you and I have right, albeit for different reasons? No one is chained to the Society's Tabernacles.
-
The only reason to do it is to present an agreement as accomplished fact, while keeping people in the dark and unable to criticize the terms of the agreement while it is hatched.
He did say, "whatever the result of these talks may be, the final docuмent that will have been accepted or rejected will be made public." If people don't like what the group has accepted or rejcted, they're free to leave the Society at any time, like you and I have right, albeit for different reasons? No one is chained to the Society's Tabernacles.
It isn't up to the society what's right and wrong. It's not "their business"
What's right and wrong is everyone's business, and it isn't right to foist an agreement that's already been decided on the faithful and pretend that it's a sign of a rollback of Vatican II, because it isn't. Any agreement that does not have its result the true conversion of the people in Rome is just an acquiesence to an inevitable collapse of tradition in the SSPX.
-
It isn't up to the society what's right and wrong. It's not "their business"
What's right and wrong is everyone's business, and it isn't right to foist an agreement that's already been decided on the faithful and pretend that it's a sign of a rollback of Vatican II, because it isn't. Any agreement that does not have its result the true conversion of the people in Rome is just an acquiesence to an inevitable collapse of tradition in the SSPX.
If its everyone's business, then logically it is their business right? And I can't say that I'm as confident in +Fellay as I would be in +Williamson or even +Tisser(based on his actions), however, the people who attend the SSPX should be up to date with what's happening in the SSPX. All we can hope and pray for is the will of God.
-
[f its everyone's business, then logically it is their business right?
Yes, what I mean is, they cannot dismiss the concerns of the faithful over what sort of doctrinal issues are being discussed regarding a possible agreement with the claim that it's "their business" - not ours. That is absurd.
-
I don't know about that Leonard. Have you ever been in a room full of people with an opinion? Could you imagine how counter productive I would be? I guess the way I look at it is, if I don't like how the society is conducting business, then I'll leave; if they're going to turn into another FSSP, I'll leave.
-
I don't know about that Leonard. Have you ever been in a room full of people with an opinion? Could you imagine how counter productive I would be? I guess the way I look at it is, if I don't like how the society is conducting business, then I'll leave; if they're going to turn into another FSSP, I'll leave.
Counter-productive to what end? Why the fear of scrutiny?
-
Why do you call Telesphorus "Leonard"?
-
I don't know about that Leonard. Have you ever been in a room full of people with an opinion? Could you imagine how counter productive I would be? I guess the way I look at it is, if I don't like how the society is conducting business, then I'll leave; if they're going to turn into another FSSP, I'll leave.
Counter-productive to what end? Why the fear of scrutiny?
What causes you to interpret it as "fear of scrutiny"? Especially by armchair lay theologians? Religious orders are not a democracy. Demanding that the Superiors of all religious societies, and by extension all such orders throughout history, must reveal all their work or be immediately suspected of evil doing is absurd on its face. As I once mentioned, you wouldn't last a day in any traditional religious order, especially those of the past. You sound like a reformed novus ordo politico-religious activist. You're making a personal problem into a worldwide issue and imputing your own jaundiced personal opinions and interpretations as fact.
But again, if the SSPX is really dealing with nothing but a sect devoid of authority or any legitimacy at all, a religion that is formally different than the Catholic religion, your concerns are certainly misplaced.
-
With enough money in a safe Swiss bank and a portfolio of solid investments, the Society can carve out a profitable enterprise by salvaging the best pickings from the old church likely to appeal to a higher order of 'friend and benefactor' and show great indifference to the dross that dares to inconvenience its elitist proceedings. Bp. Fellay, the CEO of SSPX Corp., acts in the same way as any top European bureaucrat or bank executive (without the Jєωιѕн name) as he manipulates, lies, deceives and plots his way into some new 'religious' entity in the making. A merger with another delinquent enterprise down the road in Rome may be of their mutual benefit if it can fool even more Catholics into believing something that was abandoned a long time ago.
-
Everyone here is a freakin mystic. :gandalf:
-
What causes you to interpret it as "fear of scrutiny"?
There is no other explanation for keeping it secret, other than that they are afraid people will comment on it. The excuse given by Bishop Fellay is that the Pope is afraid of the "progressives" commenting on it. But since he won't even give the text to his own priests, and they seem to resist the agreement so far, it's pretty clear that there is a fear of scrutiny even by his fellow priests.
Catholic doctrine isn't a secret of the lodge, but it might as well be, if you accept the mysterious prating of neo-modernist theologians, I don't know who can fully understand it without some sort of training in the field.
You try to personalize this but the simple fact is that the teachings of Catholic doctrine concern everyone, they aren't a matter to keep secret, and those who say it's "none of the laity's" business what points of Catholic doctrine are being proposed and negotiated behind closed doors apparently don't understand the purpose of the SSPX, which isn't about coming to secret agreements behind closed doors with modernists.
-
This isn't a private debate of theologians who have the same Faith trying to determine how Church teachings can be properly expressed. These are two sides, negotiating Church doctrine, coming at the question from positions that are fundamentally irreconcilable. The reason to keep it secret is to conceal the fact that there are negotiations going on - doctrine can't be negotiated.
-
This isn't a private debate of theologians who have the same Faith trying to determine how Church teachings can be properly expressed. These are two sides, negotiating Church doctrine, coming at the question from positions that are fundamentally irreconcilable. The reason to keep it secret is to conceal the fact that there are negotiations going on - doctrine can't be negotiated.
You don't know that doctrine is being negotiated Tele...
-
This isn't a private debate of theologians who have the same Faith trying to determine how Church teachings can be properly expressed. These are two sides, negotiating Church doctrine, coming at the question from positions that are fundamentally irreconcilable. The reason to keep it secret is to conceal the fact that there are negotiations going on - doctrine can't be negotiated.
You don't know that doctrine is being negotiated Tele...
The Vatican sends a draft, the SSPX sends back suggested changes. That's negotiation.
-
This isn't a private debate of theologians who have the same Faith trying to determine how Church teachings can be properly expressed. These are two sides, negotiating Church doctrine, coming at the question from positions that are fundamentally irreconcilable. The reason to keep it secret is to conceal the fact that there are negotiations going on - doctrine can't be negotiated.
You don't know that doctrine is being negotiated Tele...
The Vatican sends a draft, the SSPX sends back suggested changes. That's negotiation.
Yep. :rahrah:
-
I don't think a sell-out will happen. Bishop Williamson and Bishop Tissier don't seem interested in any "reconciliation" with Rome, it appears that Bishop Fellay is the only one who really wants to do it. Surely he knows that if he accepts this preamble, there will most likely be a split. Then again, maybe he doesn't care. He doesn't seem to care much.
-
This isn't a private debate of theologians who have the same Faith trying to determine how Church teachings can be properly expressed. These are two sides, negotiating Church doctrine, coming at the question from positions that are fundamentally irreconcilable. The reason to keep it secret is to conceal the fact that there are negotiations going on - doctrine can't be negotiated.
You don't know that doctrine is being negotiated Tele...
The Vatican sends a draft, the SSPX sends back suggested changes. That's negotiation.
No, that's called correcting the Vatican and setting forth one's position. By your standard, any kind of interaction must be construed as "negotiation" or "compromising." One wonders how you can even engage in debate without falling under the sword of your own self-sustained delusion.
Your reply to my post was but a regurgitation of your previous statement so I really don't see any need to further engage. Your imagination is second only to the artifically verbose and affected "Wessex" whose concocted posts are barely intelligible but nevertheless flow from a fecund, albeit dark, imagination.
-
I don't think a sell-out will happen. Bishop Williamson and Bishop Tissier don't seem interested in any "reconciliation" with Rome, it appears that Bishop Fellay is the only one who really wants to do it. Surely he knows that if he accepts this preamble, there will most likely be a split. Then again, maybe he doesn't care. He doesn't seem to care much.
Well I think a sellout is on the cards. Why? For one, Maxyboy and his businesses he started for the SSPX with his and Bishop Fellays signature on it. So if Bishop Fellays goes over all property goes as well. Those Priests etc that don't follow have nowhere to go but to Rome.
Saying that I hope I am wrong and you are right
-
Details? What are those businesses?
-
Details? What are those businesses?
It is pretty well docuмented. Why do you ask this question, this is the second time if I'm not mistaken?
-
This isn't a private debate of theologians who have the same Faith trying to determine how Church teachings can be properly expressed. These are two sides, negotiating Church doctrine, coming at the question from positions that are fundamentally irreconcilable. The reason to keep it secret is to conceal the fact that there are negotiations going on - doctrine can't be negotiated.
You don't know that doctrine is being negotiated Tele...
The Vatican sends a draft, the SSPX sends back suggested changes. That's negotiation.
No, that's called correcting the Vatican and setting forth one's position. By your standard, any kind of interaction must be construed as "negotiation" or "compromising." One wonders how you can even engage in debate without falling under the sword of your own self-sustained delusion.
Your reply to my post was but a regurgitation of your previous statement so I really don't see any need to further engage. Your imagination is second only to the artifically verbose and affected "Wessex" whose concocted posts are barely intelligible but nevertheless flow from a fecund, albeit dark, imagination.
Nice try, Caminus.
"A rose by any other name is but a rose just the same."
Bishop Fellay is given a preamble in which he is asked to accept the new catechism, etc.
If he accepts it, there is no negotiation.
If he sends something else back, it is negotiation.
-
I don't think a sell-out will happen. Bishop Williamson and Bishop Tissier don't seem interested in any "reconciliation" with Rome, it appears that Bishop Fellay is the only one who really wants to do it. Surely he knows that if he accepts this preamble, there will most likely be a split. Then again, maybe he doesn't care. He doesn't seem to care much.
Well I think a sellout is on the cards. Why? For one, Maxyboy and his businesses he started for the SSPX with his and Bishop Fellays signature on it. So if Bishop Fellays goes over all property goes as well. Those Priests etc that don't follow have nowhere to go but to Rome.
Saying that I hope I am wrong and you are right
I can hold 10 SSPX priests at my house alone.
Surely theere are others who can take care of the rest if they don't want to follow the sell-out:)
-
This isn't a private debate of theologians who have the same Faith trying to determine how Church teachings can be properly expressed. These are two sides, negotiating Church doctrine, coming at the question from positions that are fundamentally irreconcilable. The reason to keep it secret is to conceal the fact that there are negotiations going on - doctrine can't be negotiated.
You don't know that doctrine is being negotiated Tele...
The Vatican sends a draft, the SSPX sends back suggested changes. That's negotiation.
No, that's called correcting the Vatican and setting forth one's position. By your standard, any kind of interaction must be construed as "negotiation" or "compromising." One wonders how you can even engage in debate without falling under the sword of your own self-sustained delusion.
Your reply to my post was but a regurgitation of your previous statement so I really don't see any need to further engage. Your imagination is second only to the artifically verbose and affected "Wessex" whose concocted posts are barely intelligible but nevertheless flow from a fecund, albeit dark, imagination.
Nice try, Caminus.
"A rose by any other name is but a rose just the same."
Bishop Fellay is given a preamble in which he is asked to accept the new catechism, etc.
If he accepts it, there is no negotiation.
If he sends something else back, it is negotiation.
You dare negotiate with me? :laugh1:
-
I heard myself, in person, Bishop Tissier de Mallerais, say with shock, that they had theological discussions with Rome for 2 years, and the preamble mentions not one word about it. That it simply says (my words) this is what we'll give you (Rome will give the SSPX) if you accept us as we are, Vatican II and all.
Three Bishops of the SSPX are against it, Bishop Fellay can't act alone, he does not own the SSPX properties, he can be removed as the Superior General. He can take people with him, priests and laity, but he can't take the properties. That said, I doubt he will do that. Don't be fooled, the SSPX bishops are very close.
-
I don't find it shocking considering the weakness of the Vatican's position. The SSPX refuses to allow them to hide behind their ambiguity, fluid verbiage and ill-defined positions.
-
I heard myself, in person, Bishop Tissier de Mallerais, say with shock, that they had theological discussions with Rome for 2 years, and the preamble mentions not one word about it. That it simply says (my words) this is what we'll give you (Rome will give the SSPX) if you accept us as we are, Vatican II and all.
Three Bishops of the SSPX are against it, Bishop Fellay can't act alone, he does not own the SSPX properties, he can be removed as the Superior General. He can take people with him, priests and laity, but he can't take the properties. That said, I doubt he will do that. Don't be fooled, the SSPX bishops are very close.
Maurice Pinay's latest Blog (http://www.mauricepinay.blogspot.com/2011/11/church-council-up-for-discussion-not.html) on the subject is an outstanding read...
Also, if I'm not mistaken, +Fellay's term is up in 2012.
-
I heard myself, in person, Bishop Tissier de Mallerais, say with shock, that they had theological discussions with Rome for 2 years, and the preamble mentions not one word about it. That it simply says (my words) this is what we'll give you (Rome will give the SSPX) if you accept us as we are, Vatican II and all.
Three Bishops of the SSPX are against it, Bishop Fellay can't act alone, he does not own the SSPX properties, he can be removed as the Superior General. He can take people with him, priests and laity, but he can't take the properties. That said, I doubt he will do that. Don't be fooled, the SSPX bishops are very close.
Maurice Pinay's latest Blog (http://www.mauricepinay.blogspot.com/2011/11/church-council-up-for-discussion-not.html) on the subject is an outstanding read...
Also, if I'm not mistaken, +Fellay's term is up in 2012.
Thanks for sharing. Here it is also
http://www.mauricepinay.blogspot.com/2011/11/church-council-up-for-discussion-not.html
Church Council Up for Discussion, Not "The h0Ɩ0cαųst"
Bp. Fellay has given an 'interview' in his familiar style intended to dispel suspicions raised by his secretive negotiations with the suspicious characters in Rome where "there is no lack of indiscretions!" The 'interview' doesn't accomplish its goal.
The 'interview' is largely unremarkable: reassuring words, summary deflection of justified suspicion and criticism, summary dismissal of internet channels not under Fellay control, redirection of focus back onto an apparition claimed by 3 children in Portugal 100 years ago, reemploying the busywork of tens of millions of rosaries--all very familiar and predictable. The 'interview' can be read here:
http://www.dici.org/en/news/interview-with-bishop-bernard-fellay-superior-general-of-the-society-of-st-pius-x-the-society-of-st-pius-x-and-the-doctrinal-preamble/
One item mentioned in the 'interview' is very relevant to us here. I quote:
"... leeway has been allowed for a 'legitimate discussion' about certain points of the [Second Vatican] Council."
Note that the Novus Ordo Church allows 'discussion' of its own teaching. In this context, 'discussion' concerns doubts and outright denials. The SSPX denies that certain points contained within the authoritative docuмents of the Novus Ordo Church's Second Vatican Council can be reconciled with the perennial teaching of the Catholic Church. The Novus Ordo has allowed the SSPX to present its case to this effect in doctrinal 'dialogues' over the past two years. The Novus Ordo is now negotiating an arrangement to bring the SSPX into 'full communion' while allowing discussion of doubts of its own authoritative teachings. This was also stated in a February 2009 statement from the Pope's Secretary of State:
"... the Holy See will not fail, in ways judged opportune, to engage with the interested parties in examining outstanding questions, so as to attain a full and satisfactory resolution of the problems that caused this painful rupture."
Note, however, that this typically lenient allowance pertaining to the Novus Ordo's own teachings is immediately followed by a mandate in absolute terms virtually unseen in Rome in the past 100 years:
"The positions of Bishop Williamson with regard to the Shoah are absolutely unacceptable and firmly rejected by the Holy Father ...
In order to be admitted to function as a Bishop within the Church, Bishop Williamson must also distance himself in an absolutely unequivocal and public way from his positions regarding the Shoah ..."
Nota bene, it is not demanded that Bishop Williamson absolutely and unequivocally publicly distance himself from his doubts regarding relativistic Novus Ordo teaching on religious liberty, collegiality, ecuмenism. No, these "outstanding questions" are open to "examination." No such questions or examination can be countenanced in the absolutist realm of "The h0Ɩ0cαųst," however. Here we see the resurrection of the old ipse dixit and anathema that are otherwise entirely unheard of from Catholic prelates for nearly 100 years.
This is remarkable, is it not? In light of this, perhaps readers may understand where Rabbi Michael Berenbaum is coming from when he says, “As I observe young people in relativistic societies seeking an absolute for morals and values, they now can view the h0Ɩ0cαųst as the transcendental move away from the relativistic, and up into the absolute ..." How opportune for Rabbi Berenbaum and "The h0Ɩ0cαųst" that the authorities of the Catholic Church hold "The h0Ɩ0cαųst" to be absolute while Church teachings are ever increasingly relativised away.
Bishop Fellay certainly knows how to go with the relativist/absolutist flow of the Noahide Novus Ordo. Soon after the February 2009 statement from the Pope's Secretary of State was issued, Bp. Fellay was interviewed in Der Speigel saying that he would cast Bp. Williamson out of the SSPX if he "denied" "The h0Ɩ0cαųst" again:
SPIEGEL: So why don't you exclude Williamson from the society?
Fellay: That will happen if he denies the h0Ɩ0cαųst again.
Bp. Fellay was just blending in with Pope Benedict who a month earlier had admonished Catholics not to "forget or deny" "The h0Ɩ0cαųst," and Archbishop Reinhard Marx who proclaimed, “Every denial of the h0Ɩ0cαųst must be punished harshly,” Cardinal Vingt-Trois who exclaimed, "Being a Catholic is radically incompatible with denying the h0Ɩ0cαųst," Cardinal Kasper announcing, "No h0Ɩ0cαųst denial can be allowed or permitted, It's absolutely clear that a h0Ɩ0cαųst denier can't have a room, a space in the Catholic Church."
There may be space between the SSPX Superior and the Novus Ordo on religious liberty and a number of other matters, but where "The h0Ɩ0cαųst" is concerned, which Rabbi Ignaz Maybaum said "replaced Golgotha" and Pope John Paul II said was "The Golgotha of the modern world,", Bp. Fellay and the Novus Ordo sing in perfect unison.
It seems to me a case of swallowing a very large camel while straining out gnats.
-
All these initiatives, all these interventions clearly show that the Society of St. Pius X is not alone in seeing the doctrinal problems that Vatican II poses. This movement is extending and it can no longer be stopped.
So why not show us the preamble and tell us how it shows any sign of recognition of the problems with Vatican II? It would appear from reports it did the opposite.
I trust the people in charge and I've waited for this likely longer than you've been alive.
Oh yeah, Augustine! What are you waiting for? For the SSPX to be swallowed up by the cchurch of the beast, because they cant recognize it as such?
What can I say, I don't think it's reasonable to believe that the light on the Hill has gone out and that the Pope has lost his office or his authority?
I think Archbishop Lefebvre chose wisely.
-
Radio Cristiandad has the article in Spanish
http://radiocristiandad.wordpress.com/
-
"In asking for these prayers I wanted above all the priests and the faithful to become more closely united to Our Lord and to His Holy Mother by the daily recitation of the Rosary and by profound meditation on its mysteries. We are not in an ordinary situation that would allow us to be content with routine mediocrity. An understanding of the current crisis is not based on rumors spread via the Internet, nor will solutions come from political astuteness or diplomatic negotiations. One must look at this crisis with the eyes of faith"
If part of this Rosary Crusade that Bishop Fellay asks of us is to ask The Blessed Virgin Mary to guide the SSPX in the right direction, one wonders what signs Bishop Fellay is expecting if as we have heard that a large number of Superiors at the Albano meeting spoke up against the acceptance of the preamble. When three out of the four SSPX Bishops do not agree with the preamble. When two district superiors have spoken openly against the preamble. I would say the signs were pretty clear a long time ago. And at least three quarters of the SSPX are united. Dare I say that a St Ignatius retreat for the Bishops and Priests who have to make the decision might have been a wise move.
Would you trust modernist Rome with tradition?
NOT BLOOMIN LIKELY!!!