Author Topic: Society of St. Pius X General Chapter Statement (Read 4876 times)

John Grace · « **Reply #15 on:** July 19, 2012, 08:41:57 AM »

Quote from: Lucca Back

Bishop Fellay avoid the issue of Doctrinal Differences(Accepting Vatican II or not),

Instead, He open the Season II of Rome-SSPX Deal.

Canonical Normalisation

To be fair, faithful can never say they were not warned. Criticism of Vatican II will be a thing of the past when the SSPX is 'normalised'. Bishop Williamson did warn when in Asia that the devil will attack the chapels.

Guga · « **Reply #16 on:** July 19, 2012, 08:48:36 AM »

Quote from: John Grace

I suppose the General Chapter can be summarised as being a meeting to discuss "eventual canonical normalization". Perhaps Wessex was not far off the mark when he suggested it would be a claps on the back, well done old chap type of meeting.

The 'trouble makers' were excluded and it was business as usual for Bishop Fellay. The 9 haven't seem to have made any impact as the statement states clearly there will be an "eventual canonical normalization".

Did anybody Bishop Tissier etc etc raise a hand and make any objections? Was anybody at the meeting vocal in expressing disgust at the exclusion of Bishop Williamson?

It was certainly the non event as stated previously and I think we can conclude the door to Rome is still open and a canonical normalization is certain.

Being honest I don't see even Bishop Tissier consecrating new Bishops. It was very much a it was to be expected time meeting.

What I heard from a trustful source is that Bishop Tissier had a hot discussion with Bishop Fellay before the GC inside a sacristy. It was so intense that people from outside could hear Bishop Tissier saying that if he, Bishop Fellay, make a deal with Rome, he would be obligate to consacrate new Bishops.

Columba · « **Reply #17 on:** July 19, 2012, 08:58:51 AM »

Quote from: stevusmagnus

I can understand the frustration with his cordial/ patient approach to Rome, but I fear some have completely written him off. In that case, why stay with the Society? Why not split off now? How can one remain a Society adherent and also believe the Superior General is Satan incarnate?

It was more than just rumors. Bishop Fellay indicated that he would make the decision alone since his "grace of state" made approval by the General Chapter unnecessary, despite its 2006 resolution to the contrary.

This God-sent reprieve preserves unity of Archbishop Lefebvre's legacy but Bishop Fellay has certainly lost the trust of many. Perhaps he can be blocked or will voluntarily stop this nonsense for the remainder of his term.

1917 · « **Reply #18 on:** July 19, 2012, 09:00:13 AM »

Quote from: stevusmagnus

Excellent statement!

The following are the money lines. Reasserting Tradition. There is no possible way that Abp. Muller or Di Noia will be agreeing to this.

To me this statement is a line in the sand. Accept us "as is" or don't accept us. Either way, we'll stick to Tradition.

Quote

The Society continues to uphold the declarations and the teachings of the constant Magisterium of the Church in regard to all the novelties of the Second Vatican Council which remain tainted with errors, and also in regard to the reforms issued from it. We find our sure guide in this uninterrupted Magisterium which, by its teaching authority, transmits the revealed Deposit of Faith in perfect harmony with the truths that the entire Church has professed, always and everywhere.

I don't think a very good translation and perhaps should read:
Regarding all the innovations of the Second Vatican Council that remain tainted with errors and the reforms that have come from it, the Society can only continue to adhere (uphold) to the declarations and teaching of the Magisterium of the Church. etc...

Stevusmagnus, I don't believe in calling anyone injurious names ... let he who is without sin... He is a priest, chosen by God and will answer to Him.

However, much as I would like to believe Bishop Fellay I'm afraid that his secrecy has sewn much distrust and discord. We choose to go to the Society Mass and to support it. If there is to be a major change, then we should have some knowledge and not be kept in the dark.

This last public statement says nothing really, my interpretation doesn't say there is no deal, just that it will take more time and that a 'deliberative chapter' will be involved - and who will they be? An assurance that it will be on SSPX terms ... really? The last time it seemed to be on Rome's terms.

It's apparent cessation due to opposition, with the comment 'obnoxious' being used (although I believe harmful is a better translation). Whichever way, are those who opposed and spoke out to be expelled? I signed the 'impertinent' letter ... not brilliantly written but in essence it was right to oppose. Will I become persona non grata?

I am not reassured by this latest release - confirmation of our commitment to tradition, ongoing negotiations and a lot of waffle around it.

John Grace · « **Reply #19 on:** July 19, 2012, 09:16:39 AM »

Quote

"The Holy See has taken note of this declaration, but awaits the forthcoming official communication of the Priestly Society as their dialogue with the Pontifical Commission 'Ecclesia Dei' continues".

Whilst this is to be expected from the Holy See, the SSPX have never stated the discussions are at an end.

What is this "forthcoming official communication" and when is it expected?

John Grace · « **Reply #20 on:** July 19, 2012, 09:20:20 AM »

Negotiations is probably a more suitable word

Maria Auxiliadora · « **Reply #21 on:** July 19, 2012, 09:52:39 AM »

It all makes sense to me now.

The posted You Tube from Militant Church TV news roundup on 7/16 was correct. It reported that the SSPX was demanding a retraction from Jose Manuel Vidal for his No-Deal announcement. We now know for certain that the SSPX district superior for Spain and Portugal did such thing, we also know for certain that the deal is not completely dead nor does +Fellay want to give that impression. It also said that the reply from the SSPX to Rome could reunite them completely.

Before the 6/13 fiasco, (yes, call it a broken record) +Fellay was ready to sign (according to Fr. Nely) and had made it clear the the General Chapter was not going to discuss the deal with Rome, only to lay down the new statutes from Rome. Then, on June 13, he changed his mind and he said to Rome that he had to consult with the General Chapter confident of the votes to exclude +Williamson and to send another proposal to Rome. Very clever! Now, he can officially bring the SSPX to Rome with all its assets and there is nothing the other bishops can do (hope I'm wrong about this) except pick up the pieces and start again. I pray they do, they will have God on their side and the Faithful.

Yes, it is true that he has to call the General Chapter again to approve, but he already has the votes.

John Grace said it well:
Quote:
We have determined and approved the necessary conditions for an eventual canonical normalization (General Chapter Statement)
Quote:
“This is a new concept which we know the Traditionalists will not be able to accept immediately. Convincing them will take time, and in this respect we will have to be patient.”(Archbishop Di Noia)

John Grace · « **Reply #22 on:** July 19, 2012, 03:46:02 PM »

I realise the Apostles hid for fear of the Jєωs but the manner the SSPX appeased Jєωs in recent times makes it difficult for them to engage in a frontal attack on these enemies of Christ.Not only did they bow down to the enemies of Our Lord but have allowed this Krah right in to the centre of the Society

http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=10236&st=25

Quote

The SSPX communiqué today is just a covering letter from Bp Fellay and Rome itself has said that it ‘awaits the forthcoming official Communication of the Priestly Fraternity as their dialogue with the Pontifical Commission "Ecclesia Dei" continues.’ So where is the statement of the General Chapter which we have been promised. This communiqué is pure flim flam and not the statement we were promised. I kept reading through it awaiting the punch line, but it was not there.

From a priestly source, I have learnt that the actual docuмent, which we are still awaiting, does not specify a doctrinal agreement before any regularisation. Clearly a practical agreement is still on the cards and is just a matter of time. The majority of the General Chapter are just cardboard now rather like the majority of bishops at Vatican II and act under this false idea of obedience.

I agree with Bertha in the analysis above that it is just a matter of time.The SSPX is finished to be honest. They have no intention of ending these "discussions"

John Grace · « **Reply #23 on:** July 19, 2012, 03:59:38 PM »

So what will happen these honourable clerics who were reprimanded in varying ways for opposing a deal? Cast out for wishing to remain faithful to the apostolate of the Archbishop.To write of unity and yet Bishop Williamson was not praying with them at the tomb of the Archbishop. Bishop Fellay has some cheek to speak of unity.

TraditionalistThomas · « **Reply #24 on:** July 19, 2012, 06:02:37 PM »

Quote from: stevusmagnus

Quote from: Lucca Back
Bishop Fellay avoid the issue of Doctrinal Differences(Accepting Vatican II or not),

Instead, He open the Season II of Rome-SSPX Deal.

Canonical Normalisation

Did you not see the following:

Quote
The Society continues to uphold the declarations and the teachings of the constant Magisterium of the Church in regard to all the novelties of the Second Vatican Council which remain tainted with errors, and also in regard to the reforms issued from it.

The Society has ALWAYS been "open" to canonical normilization. ABL was. That is nothing new. The "conditions of normalization" are that Rome takes the Society "as is", able to criticize VCII (as in the quote above) and the NO openly and hold to its Traditional positions.

It seems that ever since rumors of an imminent deal came about, Bishop Fellay has now transformed, in the minds of some, into a demonic double agent who is worse than Paul VI or JPII and cannot be trusted at all. After how many years of faithful adherence to ABL and Tradition is he now completely rejected and demonized?

I can understand the frustration with his cordial/ patient approach to Rome, but I fear some have completely written him off. In that case, why stay with the Society? Why not split off now? How can one remain a Society adherent and also believe the Superior General is Satan incarnate?

:applause:

stevusmagnus · « **Reply #25 on:** July 19, 2012, 06:41:52 PM »

I agree with John Vennari's take:

http://www.cfnews.org/page10/page52/comment_by_vennari.html

Quote

Brief Commentary on the SSPX General Chapter Statement

July 19, 2012

As a number of people have asked for an opinion about today's SSPX General Chapter Statement, I'll give my initial thoughts.

The Statement is pretty much what I thought it would be: it appears to be a diplomatic 'no' to the Doctrinal Preamble, but does not shut out future discussions. I am glad the SSPX reiterated its rejection of the 'errors of Vatican II', which in the present climate, is more of an explosive statement than I think many realize. This is precisely what Pope Benedict, and bishops Müller and Di Noia cannot abide, the claim that Vatican II contains errors. Both Di Noia and Müller have insisted that the SSPX may not claim there are errors in Vatican II. Müller has stated that full recognition of the Council is an indespensible condition for any sort of 'regularization'. We’ll see what unfolds in the future.

The SSPX's public adherence to what they rightly call the "constant Magisterium" and "uniterrupted Magisterium" is a well-deserved slap-down to the modernist notion of "Living Tradition" on which the entire post-Conciliar Church runs. This will not be lost on today's Vatican.

The fact that the SSPX said they await the day for a serious debate, to me, is their way of saying that the discussions so far have not really been serious. From all appearances, it seems the Vatican gave the SSPX in June 2012 basically the same statement the SSPX refused to sign in September 2011. That’s quite an insult, especially after nearly three years of doctrinal discussion by which the Vatican should know the SSPX's position.

Also, Bishop Fellay’s statement in the earlier interview that “doctrinal mutism is not the answer” (and here I speculate) may be a response to the Vatican perhaps insisting the SSPX draw in its horns regarding criticism of Vatican II, the New Mass, and the new post-Conciliar orientation. This is precisely what I was told when I visited the Vatican's Ecclesia Dei office in 1994.

John Vennari
Catholic Family News

finegan · « **Reply #26 on:** July 19, 2012, 08:11:38 PM »

Vennari seems to believe the SSPX leadership will now wait for a "serious debate" of the doctrinal issues before engaging in additional discussions on a reconciliation. Let's hope he's right. Any further flirtation with a practical agreement would discount his theory. Based on Menzingen's recent track record, I'm not holding my breath. :furtive:

Ferdinand · « **Reply #27 on:** July 19, 2012, 09:02:40 PM »

Quote from: finegan

Vennari seems to believe the SSPX leadership will now wait for a "serious debate" of the doctrinal issues before engaging in additional discussions on a reconciliation. Let's hope he's right. Any further flirtation with a practical agreement would discount his theory. Based on Menzingen's recent track record, I'm not holding my breath. :furtive:

The truth is I like John, but at the end of the day he knows that (if he doesn't regulate his statements) CFN will no longer circulate through the rank and file of the Neo-SSPX. +Fellay has the power to crush CFN.

+Fellay and his ilk must go (with or without the buildings). He has bastardized Traditional Catholicism and the Archbishop's work!

Ferdinand · « **Reply #28 on:** July 19, 2012, 09:04:32 PM »

Quote from: finegan

Vennari seems to believe the SSPX leadership will now wait for a "serious debate" of the doctrinal issues before engaging in additional discussions on a reconciliation. Let's hope he's right. Any further flirtation with a practical agreement would discount his theory. Based on Menzingen's recent track record, I'm not holding my breath. :furtive:

The truth is I like John, but at the end of the day he knows that (if he doesn't regulate his statements) CFN will no longer circulate through the rank and file of the Neo-SSPX. In his eyes he might win the battle but lose the war. Remember, +Fellay has the power to crush CFN.

+Fellay and his ilk must go (with or without the buildings). He has bastardized Traditional Catholicism and the Archbishop's work!

John Grace · « **Reply #29 on:** July 20, 2012, 03:41:39 PM »

A post here from Josef.

http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=10236&st=50

Quote

Some results of the General Chapter:

1. A practical agreement with the Conciliar Church has not been ruled out. Far from it!
(“We have determined and approved the necessary conditions for an eventual canonical normalization.”)

2. As a result of the General Chapter in 2006 theological clarifications were a precondition for any practical agreement. After the last Chapter that’s no longer mentioned.

3. The Superior General has managed to neutralise Bishop Williamson, who accepted his exclusion from the Chapter for some inexplicable reason. (From the Bishops Tissier and Galarreta no protest against this unlawful sanction was heard.)

So has or will the two Bishops be more vocal regarding this unlawful sanction of the Bishop? There was mention of a heated conversation in a sacristy but they both need to show a bit more teeth. They are to be commended though for the earlier letter opposing an agreement. I realise they will act in their own way.