I received this by e-mail today. It is from a former accordista, a former SSPX seminarian friend of mine.


[Editor's Note: conscience compels publicly assembling the following for evaluation; it is hoped that this note is entirely unsubstantiated overreaction, but the scope of credible alarm warrants at least this meagre and humble compilation - all emphases added. Feel free to spread/post/comment/criticize/blackball as needed.  Fiat mihi secundum verbum tuum.]

*****

http://www.dici.org/en/news/interview-with-bishop-bernard-fellay-on-relations-with-rome/

Interview with Bishop Bernard Fellay on relations with Rome
June 8th, 2012

...

A canonical solution before a doctrinal solution?
DICI: Most of those who are opposed to the Society’s acceptance of a possible canonical recognition allege that the doctrinal discussions could have led to this acceptance only if they had concluded with a doctrinal solution, in other words, a “conversion” by Rome.  Has your position on this point changed?

Bishop Fellay: It must be acknowledged that these discussions have allowed us to present clearly the various problems that we experience with regard to Vatican II.  What has changed is the fact that Rome no longer makes total acceptance of Vatican II a prerequisite for the canonical solution.  Today, in Rome, some people regard a different understanding of the Council as something that is not decisive for the future of the Church, since the Church is more than the Council.  Indeed, the Church cannot be reduced to the Council;  she is much larger.  Therefore we must strive to resolve more far-reaching problems.  This new awareness can help us to understanding what is really happening:  we are called to help bring to others the treasure of Tradition that we have been able to preserve.

So the attitude of the official Church is what changed;  we did not.  We were not the ones who asked for an agreement;  the pope is the one who wants to recognize us.  You may ask:  why this change?  We are still not in agreement doctrinally, and yet the pope wants to recognize us! Why?  The answer is right in front of us:  there are terribly important problems in the Church today.  These problems must be addressed.  We must set aside the secondary  problems and deal with the major problems. [Editor's Note: what is more "major" than DOCTRINE?  *Is* Bishop Fellay saying that DOCTRINE is a "secondary problem"?  "Secondary" to WHAT?  What "major problems" supercede DOCTRINE in importance?]  This is the answer of one or another Roman prelate, although they will never say so openly;  you have to read between the lines to understand.

...

DICI: A personal prelature is the canonical structure that you mentioned in recent statements.  Now, in the Code of Canon Law, canon 297 requires not only informing diocesan bishops but obtaining their permission in order to found a work on their territory.  Although it is clear that any canonical recognition will preserve our apostolate in its present state, are you inclined to accept the eventuality that future works may be possible only with the permission of the bishop in dioceses where the Society of Saint Pius X is not present today?

Bishop Fellay: There is a lot of confusion about this question, and it is caused mainly by a misunderstanding of the nature of a personal prelature, as well as by a misreading of the normal relation between the local ordinary and the prelature.  Add to that the fact that the only example available today of a personal prelature is Opus Dei.  However, and let us say this clearly, if a personal prelature were granted to us, our situation would not be the same.  In order to understand better what would happen, we must reflect that our status would be much more similar to that of a military ordinariate, because we would have ordinary jurisdiction over the faithful.  Thus we would be like a sort of diocese, the jurisdiction of which extends to all its faithful regardless of their territorial situation.

All the chapels, churches, priories, schools, and works of the Society and of the affiliated religious Congregations would be recognized with a real autonomy for their ministry.

It is still true—since it is Church law—that in order to open a new chapel or to found a work, it would be necessary to have the permission of the local ordinary.  We have quite obviously reported to Rome how difficult our present situation was in the dioceses, and Rome is still working on it.  Here or there, this difficulty will be real, but since when is life without difficulties? Very probably we will also have the contrary problem, in other words, we will not be able to respond to the requests that will come from the bishops who are friendly to us.  I am thinking of one bishop who could ask us to take charge of the formation of future priests in his diocese.

In no way would our relations be like those of a religious congregation with a bishop;  rather they would be those of one bishop with another bishop, just like with the Ukrainians and the Armenians in the diaspora.  And therefore if a difficulty is not resolved, it would go to Rome, and there would then be a Roman intervention to settle the problem.

...

*****

On June 26th, 2012, who did Pope Benedict XVI appoint to be second-in-command for the Rome-SSPX doctrinal discussions?  This man:

http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/archbishop-dinoia-ecclesia-dei-and-the-society-of-st.-pius-x

And who was named on June 30th, effective July 2nd, to head the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith i.e. directly answerable to the Sovereign Pontiff, the man who will oversee both the doctrinal discussions and "working on"  said "Roman interventions" as they occur?  This man:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerhard_Ludwig_M%C3%BCller#Doctrinal_views
http://www.cfnews.org/page10/page43/page43.html

But what of the Holy Father himself, the man who appointed the above to act on his behalf and will be the bottom line in settling any "difficulty" for new chapels or works between the "local ordinary" and the SSPX?  Is his compass of Catholicism, ultimately to be grounded in the foundation of sacred doctrine via Scripture and Tradition, able to be safely trusted in competently and sufficiently serving the Faith at this time?  Well...

http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1344019?eng=y
http://www.sspx.org/news/assisi_iii/assisi_iii.htm

*****

http://www.sspx.org/archbishop_lefebvre/1974_declaration_of_archbishop_lefebvre.htm

The 1974 Declaration of Archbishop Lefebvre
November 21, 1974

On November 11, 1974, two apostolic visitors from Rome arrived at the
International Seminary of St. Pius X in Econe. During their brief stay,
they spoke to the seminarians and professors, maintaining scandalous
opinions such as, the ordination of married men will soon be a normal
thing, truth changes with the times, and the traditional conception of
the Resurrection of our Lord is open to discussion. These remarks
prompted Archbishop Lefebvre to write this famous Declaration as a
rebuttal to Modernism.

We hold fast, with all our heart and with all our soul, to Catholic Rome, Guardian of the Catholic faith and of the traditions necessary to preserve this faith, to Eternal Rome, Mistress of wisdom and truth.

We refuse, on the other hand, and have always refused to follow the Rome of neo-Modernist and neo-Protestant tendencies which were clearly evident IN the Second Vatican Council and, after the Council, in all the reforms which issued from it.

All these reforms, indeed, have contributed and are still contributing to the destruction of the Church, to the ruin of the priesthood, to the abolition of the Sacrifice of the Mass and of the sacraments, to the disappearance of religious life, to a naturalist and Teilhardian teaching in universities, seminaries and catechectics; a teaching derived from Liberalism and Protestantism, many times condemned by the solemn Magisterium of the Church.

No authority, not even the highest in the hierarchy, can force us to abandon or diminish our Catholic faith, so clearly expressed and professed by the Church’s Magisterium for nineteen centuries.

“But though we,” says St. Paul, “or an angel from heaven preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema” (Gal. 1:8).

Is it not this that the Holy Father is repeating to us today? And if we can discern a certain contradiction in his words and deeds, as well as in those of the dicasteries, well we choose what was always taught and we turn a deaf ear to the novelties destroying the Church.

It is impossible to modify profoundly the lex orandi without modifying the lex credendi. To the Novus Ordo Missae correspond a new catechism, a new priesthood, new seminaries, a charismatic Pentecostal Church - all things opposed to orthodoxy and the perennial teaching of the Church.

This Reformation, born of Liberalism and Modernism, is poisoned through and through; it derives from heresy and ends in heresy, even if all its acts are not formally heretical. It is therefore impossible for any conscientious and faithful Catholic to espouse this Reformation or to submit to it in any way whatsoever.

The only attitude of faithfulness to the Church and Catholic doctrine, in view of our salvation, is a categorical refusal to accept this Reformation.

That is why, without any spirit of rebellion, bitterness or resentment, we pursue our work of forming priests, with the timeless Magisterium as our guide. We are persuaded that we can render no greater service to the Holy Catholic Church, to the Sovereign Pontiff and to posterity.

That is why we hold fast to all that has been believed and practiced in the faith, morals, liturgy, teaching of the catechism, formation of the priest and institution of the Church, by the Church of all time; to all these things as codified in those books which saw day before the Modernist influence of the Council. This we shall do until such time that the true light of Tradition dissipates the darkness obscuring the sky of Eternal Rome.

By doing this, with the grace of God and the help of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and that of St. Joseph and St. Pius X, we are assured of remaining faithful to the Roman Catholic Church and to all the successors of Peter, and of being the fideles dispensatores mysteriorum Domini Nostri Jesu Christi in Spiritu Sancto.  Amen.

*****

Who has changed?  Christe eleison.

I was just about to private message you this email, guess I don't have to :)

Who has changed?

Cerainly not Rome. I foresee new radical conciliar initiatives to keep the modern church in the dioceses from falling apart. There will be a call to revive the spirit of Vatican 2 and to consolidate the achievements of the revolution. Those dabbling in any kind of tradition will suffer a severe backlash.

The SSPX has changed. More importantly, official positions on the Council and how the world should be viewed. The price of Roman entry will be to become conciliar. The Society with its partial communion will make itself more acceptable each time until it achieves full communion. It does this by dumping old ideology and its promoters.