Author Topic: Rome needs to change its demands if it wants to reach (Read 1593 times)

Maria Auxiliadora · « **on:** October 02, 2012, 01:34:33 PM »

http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/homepage/the-vatican/detail/articolo/lefebvriani-lefebvrians-lefebvrianos-vatican-vaticano-18576/

10/ 2/2012
Rome needs to change its demands if it wants to reach an agreement with SSPX

Germany’s Lefebvrian Superior Franz Schmidberger says “We cannot recognise the continuity of the Second Vatican Council and the lawfulness of the new mass.” New revelations have been made about the Pope’s letter to Fellay
Andrea Tornielli
vatican city

Franz Schmidberger, Society of St. Pius X Germany district Superior and Mgr. Lefebvre’s first successor, gave an update on the Fraternity’s relations with the Holy See, revealing new details regarding the letter which Benedict XVI sent to Bishop Bernard Fellay last June. A transcript and the original video of the interview, held last 18 September, can be viewed here.

Schmidberger highlighted the Fraternity’s 3 requests for the “normalisation” of relations with Rome: “Firstly that we can continue to point out certain errors of the II. Vatican Council, which means that we can speak openly about it. Secondly, that we may only use the liturgical books from 1962, especially the Missal, and thirdly that there will always be a bishop in the ranks of the society that is chosen from the ranks of the society.”

In the interview, the German district superior, who is close to Fellay and represents the section of the Fraternity that is more open to dialogue, referred to a change which took place on 13 June, when the last meeting between Fellay and Cardinal William Levada, the then Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, was held. “Levada presented Fellay a new doctrinal docuмent, which on the one hand accepted the text offered by Bishop Fellay, but on the other hand contained significant change where it poses a real problem from our perspective – and an entirely new situation.”

Franz Schmidberger confirmed that Benedict XVI’s letter to Fellay is a response to a question the Society of St. Pius X asked the Pope. Schmidberger revealed the content of this letter for the first time: “we asked the pope if these new demands were truly added with his approval, if this really was from him or rather from some of his assistants.” The Lefebvrians requested an audience with the Pope and asked whether the Pope really asked for the new preamble. “He assured us that it was his own wish that these demands were met.”

The German district superior summarised the preamble content as such: “Especially, this is about us recognizing the permissibility of the new liturgy. I think what is meant is the legitimacy of the new liturgy. Also, that it may be possible to continue discussions about a few nuances of the Second Vatican Council, but that we had to be ready to basically accept its continuity, meaning to see the Second Vatican Council as a part of the unbroken chain of other councils and teachings of the church. And this simply will not do. There are inconsistencies in the Second Vatican Council that cannot be denied. We cannot accept this hermeneutic of continuity like that.”

“I think we will tell the roman institutions that we have our difficulties with them and that they will have to abandon these demands if they truly wish normalization. It has become evident in the talks that took place since October 2009 until April 2011 that there are significant differences of perspective concerning the second Vatican Council, certain texts of the council and the post-conciliar magisterium.”

During the interview, Schmidberger criticised the new Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Archbishop Gerhard Ludwig Müller, describing him as “hostile” towards the Fraternity. He expressed his appreciation for the vice-President of the “Ecclesia Dei” commission, Archbishop Augustine Di Noia, whom the Fraternity is in contact with. He then attacked the new secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship, Mgr. Arthur Roche, referring to him as “a known adversary of the Motu proprio supporting the old mass.

He added that he did not believe another excommunication was possible should the Society of St. Pius X reject two of the preamble’s demands: the permissibility of the new mass and the continuity of doctrine: Since the pope himself took back the excommunication of the society’s four bishops in 2009, it would imply inconsistency in his thinking and in his actions.” “Since the Society of St. Pius X “is, in a way, the backbone, the point of reference, of all those supporting tradition in the church. If this reference point were discredited in such a way, it meant a tremendous demoralization of all restorative and conservative forces in the church. This would be a catastrophe. Not so much for the society, but for the church.”

Maria Auxiliadora · « **Reply #1 on:** October 02, 2012, 02:50:12 PM »

Quote:
"He then attacked the new secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship, Mgr. Arthur Roche, referring to him as “a known adversary of the Motu proprio supporting the old mass."

I find it unbelievable!, that bright and knowledgeable priests such as Fr. Schmidberger still think the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificuм has anything to do with the "old mass" other than being used as its funeral car to its proper burial.

How can they be so blind? There have been several books written on the subject of SP being the vehicle to the reform of the reform (the hybrid missal) about to hit them in the face. They even have a book written by one of their own priests, Fr. Celier, which makes me wonder if they are being plain deceitful.

Of all the indults, S.P. is the most restrictive. For the first time, S.P. puts the condition of acceptance of the new missal at least in principle and the 1962 missal becomes the "extraordinary form". That restriction has been made more and more clear through "Universae Ecclesiae" http://www.zenit.org/article-32564?l=english

What do they think is going to happen to the 1962 missal when the hybrid missal is out? Do they really believe the pope is going to let them keep that missal? The pope has said in his book "The spirit of the Liturgy" that two rites are not practical and that eventually they would have to be merged into one. Why did Rome tell the IBP in Brazil that "now they have to be regulated by Summorum Pontificuм' and changed their agreement with them? But the "reintegrated" SSPX will be allowed to keep it?

Summorum Pontificuм has been nothing but a trap to bring the SSPX into the reform of the reform http://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2006/10/possible-future-of-tridentine-liturgy.html

What has happened to all these priests who want to go to Rome? Either they don't belong in the traditional movement or they have given up the fight.

TKGS · « **Reply #2 on:** October 02, 2012, 03:37:02 PM »

Quote

Rome needs to change its demands if it wants to reach an agreement with SSPX

Anyone remember when the SSPX used to say that Rome had to convert if they wanted to reach an agreement with the SSPX?

The problem really is that Rome isn't all that interested in agreement if the SSPX won't captitulate.

Capt McQuigg · « **Reply #3 on:** October 02, 2012, 05:13:25 PM »

Rome would like nothing better than to devour the SSPX.

That way they can thwart the legacy of Archbishop LeFebvre while cannonizing Paul VI.

stgobnait · « **Reply #4 on:** October 02, 2012, 05:23:13 PM »

it seems a shame, the warlus said, to play them such a trick.. we'v brought them out so far, and made them trot so quick... the carpenter said nothing.... but...

Sunbeam · « **Reply #5 on:** October 02, 2012, 06:16:06 PM »

“Will you walk a little faster ?” said a whiting to a snail,
There’s a porpoise close behind us, and its treading on my tail.
See how eagerly the lobsters and the turtles all advance !
They are waiting on the shingle—will you come and joine the dance ?
Will you, won’t you, will you, won’t you, will you join the dance ?
Will you, won’t you, will you, won’t you, won’t you join the dance ?

“You can really have no notion how delightful it will be
When they take us up and throw us, with the lobsters, out to sea !”
But the snail replied “Too far, too far !” and gave a look askance—
Said he thanked the whiting kindly, but he would not join the dance.
Would not, could not, would not, could not, would not join the dance,
Would not, could not, would not, could not, could not join the dance.

...

poche · « **Reply #6 on:** October 03, 2012, 05:48:41 AM »

i don't know the all the details but I'm hoping and praying that they can come to an agreement.

Maria Auxiliadora · « **Reply #7 on:** October 03, 2012, 07:12:40 AM »

Quote from: poche

i don't know the all the details but I'm hoping and praying that they can come to an agreement.

The truth at last from someone, "I don't know all the detais..." that is true of all conservatives who just want unity for the sake of unity and are "hoping and praying" that the SSPX compromises and join in the big celebration of the 50th anniversary of the opening of Vatican II and the "New Evangelization" because they are not the ones that have "conserved" anything or been fighting for the crumbs (for some of us, stones) that have come from Rome for the last 50 years, so that conservatives can be happy with a "reform of the reform" that, as phony as it is, they wouldn't have even that if it wasn't for Traditionalist. And now Bishop Fellay and one half or so of his priests want also to be part of that with some "conditions" as if we can trust the Romans any more than we can trust the communists, for whom agreements are only the means to an end and made to be broken at the proper time. They have not learned from the IBP's latest fiasco.

Dear Poche, have you read Quo Primum? http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius05/p5quopri.htm Please read it if you haven't and learn something about Traditions. Unless you do, you will never "know". Also, read the Council of Trent and there is an excellent book by Fr. Paul Kramer "The ѕυιcιdє of Altering the Faith in the Liturgy". You may be able to read it online. It's not too late to inform yourself and join in the fight for the Faith and Traditions of the Catholic Church to which we all have a right to as baptized Catholics

stevusmagnus · « **Reply #8 on:** October 03, 2012, 11:58:14 AM »

Everyone thinks the deal is dead. I'm not so sure. I think Rome threw out a lopsided offer to test how far the Society would bend. Pressure them into thinking their only option is to take the deal or face possible formal declaration of schism, etc. But I think Rome is bluffing. I believe Rome will surprise the Society if they reject it, and issue another offer. They may offer the Society the three "essential conditions" leaked at the Society's recent gathering. This will put the Society in the uncomfortable position of denying what they previously, just months ago, considered acceptable. It will also make Rome look like the good guys "bending over backward" for the Society. Rome will back off the language re: VCII and the NO, making it just ambiguous enough to be interpreted in a way the Society can accept, while Rome will interpret it in an entirely different way, but not hold the Society to it until they are already firmly absorbed into the Conciliar Matrix and can no longer refuse.

This is not over....

Telesphorus · « **Reply #9 on:** October 03, 2012, 12:24:40 PM »

Quote from: stevusmagnus

They may offer the Society the three "essential conditions" leaked at the Society's recent gathering. This will put the Society in the uncomfortable position of denying what they previously, just months ago, considered acceptable.

What's depressing is that the Society leadership can change its story from one month to the next and it seems they are not sufficiently held accountable by their own priests and laity for it.

There's a huge problem when the Novus Ordo leaders show more backbone and consistency than the SSPX leadership.

John Grace · « **Reply #10 on:** October 03, 2012, 12:42:05 PM »

Quote from: stevusmagnus

Everyone thinks the deal is dead. I'm not so sure. I think Rome threw out a lopsided offer to test how far the Society would bend. Pressure them into thinking their only option is to take the deal or face possible formal declaration of schism, etc. But I think Rome is bluffing. I believe Rome will surprise the Society if they reject it, and issue another offer. They may offer the Society the three "essential conditions" leaked at the Society's recent gathering. This will put the Society in the uncomfortable position of denying what they previously, just months ago, considered acceptable. It will also make Rome look like the good guys "bending over backward" for the Society. Rome will back off the language re: VCII and the NO, making it just ambiguous enough to be interpreted in a way the Society can accept, while Rome will interpret it in an entirely different way, but not hold the Society to it until they are already firmly absorbed into the Conciliar Matrix and can no longer refuse.

This is not over....

It's far from being over and far from the deal being dead. It must be remembered three Bishops sent Bishop Fellay and Menzingen a letter. So be it if the Society are declared in schism. Benedict XVI is no friend of Traditionalists. Ah, the Rome showing goodwill approach. Their plan is to change the thinking of Traditionalists.They realise it will take time.

However,

Quote

July 6, 1988

Open Letter to Cardinal Gantin - Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops

Ecône, July 6, 1988

Eminence,

Gathered around our Superior General, the Superiors of the Districts, Seminaries and autonomous houses of the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X think it good to respectfully express to you the following reflections.

You thought it good, by your letter of July 1st, to inform Their Excellencies Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer, and the four Bishops whom they consecrated on June 30, at Ecône, of the excommunication latæ sententiæ.We let you judge for yourself the value of such a declaration, coming from an authority who, in its exercise, breaks with all its predecessors down to Pope Pius XII, in worship, teaching and government of the Church.

As for us, we are in full communion with all the Popes and Bishops before the Second Vatican Council, celebrating precisely the Mass which they codified and celebrated, teaching the Catechism which they drew up, standing up against the errors which they have many times condemned in their encyclicals and pastoral letters. We let you judge on which side the rupture is to be found. We are extremely saddened by the blindness of spirit and the hardening of heart of the Roman authorities.

On the other hand, we have never wished to belong to this system which calls itself the Conciliar Church, and defines itself with the Novus Ordo Missæ, an ecuмenism which leads to indifferentism and the laicization of all society. Yes, we have no part, nullam partem habemus, with the pantheon of the religions of Assisi; our own excommunication by a decree of Your Eminence or of another Roman Congregation would only be the irrefutable proof of this. We ask for nothing better than to be declared out of communion with this adulterous spirit which has been blowing in the Church for the last 25 years; we ask for nothing better than to be declared outside of this impious communion of the ungodly. We believe in the One God, Our Lord Jesus Christ, with the Father and the Holy Ghost, and we will always remain faithful to His unique Spouse, the One Holy Catholic Apostolic and Roman Church.

To be publicly associated with this sanction which is inflicted upon the six Catholic Bishops, Defenders of the Faith in its integrity and wholeness, would be for us a mark of honor and a sign of orthodoxy before the faithful. They have indeed a strict right to know that the priests who serve them are not in communion with a counterfeit church, promoting evolution, pentecostalism and syncretism. In union with these faithful, we make ours the words of the Prophet: “Præparate corda vestra Domino et servite Illi soli: et liberabit vos de manibus inimicorum vestrorum. Convertimini ad Eum in toto corde vestro, et auferte deos alienos de medio vestri—Open your hearts to the Lord and serve Him only: and He will free you from the hands of your enemies. With all your heart return to Him, and take away from your midst any strange gods” (I Kings 7:3).

Confident in the protection of Her who has crushed all the heresies in the world, we assure Your Eminence of our dedication to Him Who is the only Way of salvation.

Fr. Franz Schmidberger, Superior General
Fr. Paul Aulagnier, District Superior, France
Fr. Franz-Josef Maessen, District Superior, Germany
Fr. Edward Black, District Superior, Great Britain
Fr. Anthony Esposito, District Superior of Italy
Fr. François Laisney, District Superior, United States
Fr. Jacques Emily, District Superior of Canada
Fr. Jean Michel Faure, District Superior of Mexico
Fr. Gerard Hogan, District Superior of Australasia
Fr. Alain Lorans, Superior, Seminary of Ecône
Fr. Jean Paul André, Superior, Seminary of France
Fr. Paul Natterer, Superior, Seminary of Germany
Fr. Andrès Morello, Superior, Seminary of Argentina
Fr. William Welsh, Superior, Seminary of Australia
Fr. Michel Simoulin, Rector, St. Pius X University
Fr. Patrice Laroche, Vice-Rector, Seminary of Ecône
Fr. Philippe François, Superior, Belgium
Fr. Roland de Mérode, Superior, Netherlands
Fr. Georg Pflüger, Superior, Austria
Fr. Guillaume Devillers, Superior, Spain
Fr. Philippe Pazat, Superior, Portugal
Fr. Daniel Couture, Superior, Ireland
Fr. Patrick Groche, Superior, Gabon
Fr. Frank Peek, Superior, Southern Africa

John Grace · « **Reply #11 on:** October 03, 2012, 02:03:01 PM »

Of course supporters of the "approved" Latin Mass keep a keen interest in happenings. Some posts from a very anti-SSPX source.

http://irishcatholics.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=tlm&action=display&thread=142&page=20

Quote

Bishop Tissier de Mallerais has declared that it is unacceptable that Pope Benedict should ask the SSPX to accept the Second Vatican Council and the post-Vatican II magisterium. If he doesn't accept the post-Vatican II magisterium, how can he not be in schism? That amounts to saying that the Council was not a council and the Popes since then were not really Popes.
Matters do not look promising for reconciliation with the SSPX. Note the wide variety of opinions in the combox, including some SSPX who say they are not Williamsonite but endorse Tissier.
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2012/09/important-with-popes-own-signature.html

Quote

Though this development is worrying, it should not be surprising. The hardened SSPX goes well beyond Richard Williamson. Tissier de Mallerais has represented a somewhat less extreme hardline again and again over the past couple of years - this is not a first. It is clear that Fellay has a considerable following, but there is a possibility that this is not near enough to deliver a deal.

Simply put, what Tissier is looking for just can't be granted. So he either moderates or keeps quiet. If he does neither, he can't go along with the deal. I think the Vatican, though it prefers a solution where all the bishops come in, might allow a situation where Williamson is cut loose. But it certainly won't want two bishops at large - which I suspect means three as de Galleretta is a difficult character too.

In this case, if Fellay is sincere, he might have to lead his own faction out of the SSPX and leave the others to their own devices. In which case, the polemics will read something like 'Bernard Fellay - the most dangerous neo-modernist in the Church today'.