Author Topic: SSPX: Regarding the Open Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church  (Read 968 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Mr G

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 625
  • Reputation: +423/-43
  • Gender: Male
NOTE: Is it just me, or does the SSPX seem overly protective of Pope Francis? After all if they side with those who accuse Francis of heresies, then they risk all their jurisdictional handouts and the possibility of a new bishop or the prelature. Although they are correct in that the problem stared before Francis, it seems the strategy is to keep the debate on the academic level only.

https://fsspx.news/en/news-events/news/regarding-open-letter-bishops-catholic-church-47886

On Tuesday, April 30, 2019, twenty or so Catholic theologians and university professors published an Open Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church, inviting them to intervene with Pope Francis, to ask him to renounce the heresies of which he is accused. In case he persists, the canonical crime of heresy would be established, and the pope would then be “subject to the canonical consequences.” The summary published by the authors explains this last point: if Francis obstinately refuses to renounce his heresies, the bishop will then be asked to declare “that he is freely divested of the papacy.”

This summary also explains that this Letter is the third step of a process that began in the summer of 2016. The first consisted of a private letter with 45 signatories, addressed to all the cardinals and eastern patriarchs and denouncing the heresies or grave errors held or supported by the Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia. The second step presented a text titled Correctio filialis (Filial Correction), signed by 250 participants, made public in September 2017 and supported by a petition signed by 14,000 persons. It asked the pope to take a position on the grave deviations produced by his writings and his declarations. Finally, the present Open Letter, claims that Pope Francis is guilty of the crime of heresy and endeavors to prove it, because Pope Francis’ words and actions constitute a profound rejection of Catholic teaching on marriage, moral law, grace, and the forgiveness of sins. Already more than 5,000 people have signed the petition put online by the authors.
This initiative reveals the growing irritation and exasperation of many Catholics in the face of the writings and acts of the current Sovereign Pontiff. And certainly, there is good reason to worry when faced with Pope Francis’ teaching in moral matters. Moreover, there is a greater disturbance in Catholic opinion today over an error in this domain, than duplicity against the Faith. But the pope’s teaching is also deviant—if not more so—in matters of Faith.

Faced with an apparently unprecedented situation—although Church history, unfortunately, offers examples of time periods that were singularly troubled and close enough to ours—the temptation to resort to extreme measures can be easily understood. The situation of Catholicism is today so tragic, that only with difficulty could one condemn Catholics who try the impossible by reacting to and calling out the pastors to whom the flock is entrusted.

The Fruits of the Council

Nevertheless, it must first be noted that the trouble did not start yesterday. It began with the “third world war” that was, according to Archbishop Lefebvre, the Second Vatican Council. That Council, through its reforms, provoked “the auto-destruction of the Church” (Paul VI), by sowing ruin and desolation in the areas of faith, morals, discipline, priestly and religious life, the liturgy, catechism, and the entirety of Catholic life. But few observers really realize that. Even more rare still are those who will confront this universal destruction in a determined and effective way.

In fact, what we are witnessing with Pope Francis is only the ripening of the fruit. The poisoned fruit of a plant whose seed was developed in the progressive and modernist theological laboratories of the 1950s, like a GMO (genetically modified organism), a type of impossible interbreeding between Catholic doctrine and the liberal spirit. What is appearing today is no worse than Vatican II's novelties, but it is now a more visible and more complete manifestation. Just as the Assisi meeting under John Paul II in 1986 was only the fruit of the seeds of ecumenical and interfaith dialogue deposited at the Council, likewise the present pontificate illustrates the inevitable outcomes of the Second Vatican Council.

A Radical Approach Doomed to Failure

The second observation focuses on the modus operandi. Given the radical way in which the successors of the apostles are called out, we have to question what results are expected from such an action. Is this way of doing things prudent? Does it have a chance to succeed?

Let's ask about the recipients. Who are they? What formation have they received? What theology has been taught to them? How were they chosen? Given the way in which the incriminating texts have been received by the various episcopates in the world, it is highly probable, even certain, that the vast majority of bishops will not react. With a few exceptions, all of them seem to be prisoners of their corrupt formation and of a paralyzing collegiality if, by chance, one or the other wanted to be different.

And if they remain silent? What will happen then? What must be done? If this is not to note the failure of such an initiative that might ridicule the authors and their cause. This Open Letter is a waste of time—an action producing little effect, the fruit of a legitimate indignation but which falls into excess, at the risk of lessening its good influence.

Moreover, the danger of this approach may be in inducing its authors to deviate from the ongoing fight. We risk being captivated by the present evil, forgetting that it has roots, that it is a logical result of a tainted process at its origin. Like a pendulum, some believe they can magnify the recent past to better denounce the present, including counting on the magisterium of the popes of the Council—from Paul VI to Benedict XVI—to oppose Francis. This is the position of many conservatives, who forget that Pope Francis is only drawing out the consequences of the teachings of the Council and his predecessors. We cannot uproot an evil tree by only cutting off the last branch …

The Example of Archbishop Lefebvre

“What to do?”, some ask. Without parochialism or misplaced pride, we can say there is an example to follow, that of the Athanasius of modern times—Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. Indeed, he spoke firmly against the direction taken by the modern popes. But in his fight for the Faith, he avoided falling into excess and never claimed to want to resolve all the problems inflicted on Catholic conscience by the crisis the Church that has been going on for more than half a century. He never lost the respect due to legitimate authority, but he knew how to correct firmly without allowing himself to judge it as if he were superior to it, while leaving to the Church of the future the task of resolving a presently insoluble question.
Archbishop Lefebvre fought on the doctrinal front, first at the Council, then with his many writings and conferences to combat the liberal and modernist hydra.

He fought on the front of tradition, both liturgical and disciplinary, to preserve the Church's ancient and august Sacrifice, by assuring the formation of priests chosen to perpetuate this essential action for the continuity of the Church.
He fought on the Roman front, calling out the ecclesiastical authorities on the excesses of Peter's barque, without ever getting tired or hardening, always in the light of a wonderful prudence drawn from prayer and strengthened by the examples and the teachings of 20 centuries of the papacy.

The results have proven that this was the right manner, the right way, as St. Paul said: “Preach the word: be instant in season, out of season: reprove, entreat, rebuke in all patience and doctrine” (II Tim 4:2). May the Virgin, our Queen, terrible as an army arrayed in battle, help us to “labor until our last breath for the restoration of all things in Christ, for the spreading of His Kingdom, and for the preparation of the glorious triumph of [her] Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart” (Consecration of the Society of Saint Pius X).

Offline Meg

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3006
  • Reputation: +1489/-2308
  • Gender: Female
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • This letter gives the impression of taking a strong stance against error, when it actually doesn't. There are generalities described, but few concrete examples of error. This is what the Neo-SSPX has come to. 


    Offline X

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 613
    • Reputation: +607/-52
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • The SSPX perceives in this initiative a swing of the pendulum towards sedevacantism:

    To so much as speak of papal depositions is to invite the conversation, and create an inertia among its own people.

    This article is designed to pre-empt that conversation.

    And it probably will.

    The SSPX loves Big Brother.

    Offline ByzCat3000

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 457
    • Reputation: +94/-30
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I am not going to pretend to know how to solve the issues in the Church, but I think a "Sedevacantism" that involved substantial numbers of diocesan bishops and even cardinals declaring the see vacant would be of a very different character than what currently calls itself "Sedevacantism" (ie. the notion that Pius XII was the last true pope and we have had a sixty-one years and counting line of antipopes.) 

    Not to say there are no arguments at all for the latter form of sedevacantism, but I think we can say of it that its at least a lot closer to being a form of spiritual vigilantism, even if one wants to argue that it isn't.

    Whereas if the open letter winds up actually leading substantial members of the current jurisdictional hierarchy to openly consider Sedevacantism, all the sudden we're dealing with a "three popes" type situation, where any and all claimants are *clearly* doubtful.  

    Offline Meg

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3006
    • Reputation: +1489/-2308
    • Gender: Female
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • He never lost the respect due to legitimate authority, but he knew how to correct firmly without allowing himself to judge it as if he were superior to it, while leaving to the Church of the future the task of resolving a presently insoluble question.

    It's true that +ABL did not judge the conciliar authority as if he were superior to it. But he spoke out far more firmly and forthrightly than the current SSPX do, regarding Rome.


    Offline Plenus Venter

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 12
    • Reputation: +18/-3
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0

  • Can you believe it?
    The New Society doesn't criticize the Conciliar Church, Pope Francis "he is our friend, he likes us", the Conciliar bishops, Bishop Huonder "what an honour"...
    No, they criticize those who dare to criticize the New Church and the New Religion. "Tell me who your friends are, and I will tell you who you are"...
    Archbishop Lefebvre never ceased denouncing the errors of the Conciliar Church. In his sermons, letters, conferences. He did it with passion, with justified indignation, with an air of disbelief. And never with a smile. Who can forget the cartoon he sent to Pope JPII after Assisi? For him the love of truth went hand in hand with the hatred of error.

    It was only too clear to the liberals in the Society, so that Bishop Fellay had to take out a court injunction to suppress a massive collection of the Archbishop's little-known sermons produced by a French publishing house with the permission of his family.

    Archbishop Lefebvre's faithful disciples continued in this same Catholic spirit for two decades, but now we are faced with a New Society. A Prudent Society. Every dereliction of duty is justified in the name of Prudence. The word just never ceases to appear in their letters and conferences condemning justified and praiseworthy resistance. It is now prudent not to warn the flock of the marauding wolf. Their so-called prudence is nothing less than cowardice or sheer calculated wickedness to deceive Traditionalists and condition them until they swallow the Conciliar pill.

    The SSPX boast that they continue in the same vein as their founder. Let them re-publish and promote his sermons, instead of Big Bang theories, and we might believe them.

    Offline Meg

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3006
    • Reputation: +1489/-2308
    • Gender: Female
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • Can you believe it?
    The New Society doesn't criticize the Conciliar Church, Pope Francis "he is our friend, he likes us", the Conciliar bishops, Bishop Huonder "what an honour"...
    No, they criticize those who dare to criticize the New Church and the New Religion. "Tell me who your friends are, and I will tell you who you are"...
    Archbishop Lefebvre never ceased denouncing the errors of the Conciliar Church. In his sermons, letters, conferences. He did it with passion, with justified indignation, with an air of disbelief. And never with a smile. Who can forget the cartoon he sent to Pope JPII after Assisi? For him the love of truth went hand in hand with the hatred of error.

    It was only too clear to the liberals in the Society, so that Bishop Fellay had to take out a court injunction to suppress a massive collection of the Archbishop's little-known sermons produced by a French publishing house with the permission of his family.

    Archbishop Lefebvre's faithful disciples continued in this same Catholic spirit for two decades, but now we are faced with a New Society. A Prudent Society. Every dereliction of duty is justified in the name of Prudence. The word just never ceases to appear in their letters and conferences condemning justified and praiseworthy resistance. It is now prudent not to warn the flock of the marauding wolf. Their so-called prudence is nothing less than cowardice or sheer calculated wickedness to deceive Traditionalists and condition them until they swallow the Conciliar pill.

    The SSPX boast that they continue in the same vein as their founder. Let them re-publish and promote his sermons, instead of Big Bang theories, and we might believe them.

    Are you able to say more about the Archbishop's little-known sermons produced by a French publishing house with the permission of his family, to which Bp. Fellay took out a court injunction? I've not heard of that before.

    Offline Plenus Venter

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 12
    • Reputation: +18/-3
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Meg, it was around 2013/2014.
    Fr Jean Luc Lafitte who left the SSPX a little before then took up an apostolate in a large sedevacantist parish in Nantes in Brittany run by another former SSPX priest whose name escapes me.
    A parishioner there who had a printing business obtained permission from the Archbishop's surviving family members to publish this very large collection of his lesser known sermons.
    I saw the handsome books, two large volumes if my memory serves me correctly, only in French malheureusement!
    It enjoyed quite a circulation before it was halted by Bishop Fellay who spared no expense in obtaining a court injunction to stop its publication and circulation on the grounds that it was the intellectual property of the SSPX.
    The publisher did not object, apparently, he was not jealous of the royalties, he only wanted that the Archbishop be better known. He was happy for Bishop Fellay to publish the work. Alas, that was not Bishop Fellay's intention...
    I know this directly from Fr Lafitte. I'm sure the story was online at the time.
    Perhaps SJ, X, Matthew, or someone else can contribute more information?


    Offline Meg

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3006
    • Reputation: +1489/-2308
    • Gender: Female
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • Meg, it was around 2013/2014.
    Fr Jean Luc Lafitte who left the SSPX a little before then took up an apostolate in a large sedevacantist parish in Nantes in Brittany run by another former SSPX priest whose name escapes me.
    A parishioner there who had a printing business obtained permission from the Archbishop's surviving family members to publish this very large collection of his lesser known sermons.
    I saw the handsome books, two large volumes if my memory serves me correctly, only in French malheureusement!
    It enjoyed quite a circulation before it was halted by Bishop Fellay who spared no expense in obtaining a court injunction to stop its publication and circulation on the grounds that it was the intellectual property of the SSPX.
    The publisher did not object, apparently, he was not jealous of the royalties, he only wanted that the Archbishop be better known. He was happy for Bishop Fellay to publish the work. Alas, that was not Bishop Fellay's intention...
    I know this directly from Fr Lafitte. I'm sure the story was online at the time.
    Perhaps SJ, X, Matthew, or someone else can contribute more information?

    Thank you for the additional information. So, the publisher of the sermons (in book form) thought that Bp. Fellay wanted to publish the work, but of course that's not what happened. I have to wonder what those sermons contained. Probably something about Rome being in apostasy, or maybe a clear intention which stated that the SSPX should not reconcile with Modernist Rome, or something like that. Two volumes of work is a LOT of sermons, and only in French, too! I wonder if copies of the original sermons still exist, but that's probably what was handed over to Bp. Fellay.

     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16