Author Topic: SSPX Bishop Alfonso de Galarreta Warns of Agreement with Rome (Read 4498 times)

Lover of Truth · « **on:** February 01, 2016, 02:00:52 PM »

http://www.novusordowatch.org/wire/galarreta-against-sspx-rome.htm

Not everyone is as gung-ho as Bp. Fellay...

SSPX Bishop Alfonso de Galarreta
Warns of Agreement with Rome
alfonso-de-galarreta.jpg

On Sunday, January 17, 2016, Bp. Alfonso de Galarreta of the Society of St. Pius X gave a conference at the St. Vincent de Paul priory in Bailly, France. A short summary of the talk has been posted at the French news portal Médias-Presse-Info. We are happy to provide an exclusive English translation:

For Bishop de Galarreta, it is not to be desired that an agreement between Rome and the SSPX should happen

By Christian Lassale

Summary of the Conference of Bishop de Galarreta in Bailly (78) on January 17, 2016

I—The Atmosphere in Rome

We are witnessing an upsurge of modernism in Rome with Pope Francis. This can have a positive effect in that more and more cardinals and bishops are strongly and publicly reacting against this waywardness.

II—The State of Our Relations with Rome

Concerning our relations with Rome, there exist two distinct paths since the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith sent Bishop Fellay two new docuмents in July 2015, one doctrinal, and the other canonical.

The doctrinal docuмent is less demanding than the one of 2012, but the required conditions are still unacceptable. They will always be undoubtedly so, given their purpose is to make us accept Vatican II. Even if it were acceptable, it would be necessary to go through the second stage, the canonical one.

The canonical docuмent is also unacceptable, as it puts us in practical dependence upon authorities who want the Church’s harm. They will never be able to accept our necessary conditions for our security. Even if, by some remote chance, they were to accept them, there would remain the third stage: impossible to circuмvent, that of the SSPX general chapter.

III—Conclusion: Nothing Will Happen Via This Path

It seems undeniable that the pope wants an agreement (editor’s note: just as Bishop Bernard Fellay has since 2009). He could very well pass over the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Fath as he did regarding jurisdiction for confessions. Is this to be desired?

The Advantages: It would allow us to have, according to Bishop Fellay, a broader apostolate.

The Drawbacks: We will often be in inextricable concrete situations with a real risk of losing the unity of the SSPX, because the authorities of the SSPX will inevitably make mistakes, which will cause yet further division.

In conclusion, in the Church’s current state, and for Bishop de Galarreta, it is not to be desired that an agreement should happen.

And what if it would happen anyway (say by a “unilateral” recognition)? That would create real trouble in the Fraternity. Numerous priests would refuse and would be tempted to leave. To the extent we will not have sought it (this recognition), we will be unable to do anything. Providence will [would] once again watch over the work of Archbishop Lefebvre.

Contrary to what certain faithful, present at the conference, understood, Bishop Galarreta did not say, with regard to the foreseeable departure of numerous priests, that “if it must happen, it will happen”, but that everything is in the hands of Providence. The nuance is important.

Christian LASSALE

(Christian Lassalle, “Pour Mgr de Galarreta, il n’est pas à souhaiter qu’un accord entre Rome et la FSSPX intervienne”, medias-presse.info; Jan. 29, 2016; bold print in original.)

Maria Auxiliadora · « **Reply #1 on:** February 01, 2016, 02:57:13 PM »

Interesting. Bishop Athanasius Schneider said last week:

Quote

In some sectors of the SSPX there are, however, as it is the case in every human society some eccentric personalities. They have a method and a mindset which lack justice and charity and consequently the true “sentire cuм ecclesia,” and there is the danger of an ecclesial autocephaly and to be the last judicial instance in the Church. However, to my knowledge, the healthier part corresponds to the major part of the SSPX and I consider their General Superior, His Excellency Monsignor Bernard Fellay, as an exemplarily and true Catholic bishop. There is some hope for a canonical recognition of the SPPX.

Source:
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2016/02/exclusive-bishop-athanasius-schneider.html

Maria Auxiliadora · « **Reply #2 on:** February 01, 2016, 03:20:17 PM »

http://eponymousflower.blogspot.com/2016/01/bishop-fellay-of-sspx-leads-way-at-dc.html

In the March For Life conference (above, min 1:40) +Fellay quite complacently says that his first visit to the MFL this year was "accidental" but he was also "invited" but doesn't say who "invited" him. The Rorate Caeli conservative crowd perhaps? Was it recommended as a good move for recruiting conservatives for the seminary? Any guesses? It's seemingly another little secret.

Colombiere · « **Reply #3 on:** February 04, 2016, 03:56:21 PM »

Last year in the Bishop Tissier de Mallerais sermon of January 1, 2015 he says:

"Fifth point, let us reject the false reasonings of some Catholics among our friends, false friends. Who say, I quote some of our friends, hear well, “with the time going on, because we are separated from the visible church,” they say, “we are little by little becoming a sect.” They say. “From which one never comes back to the church.” This is horrible reasoning..."

What false friend is he quoting here? Is it a N.O. or someone in the SSPX?

trento · « **Reply #4 on:** February 04, 2016, 11:06:42 PM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

And what if it would happen anyway (say by a “unilateral” recognition)? That would create real trouble in the Fraternity. Numerous priests would refuse and would be tempted to leave. To the extent we will not have sought it (this recognition), we will be unable to do anything. Providence will [would] once again watch over the work of Archbishop Lefebvre.

Why should a unilateral recognition be refused? The Society has always insisted it is part of the Church, andd cardinals have mentioned before that the Society is not outside the Church, at most in some sort of "irregular" situation.

Even the granting of ordinary jurisdiction for confessions during the Year of Mercy was used by the Society as an indication that they have some sort of recognition from those in authority. This was a unilateral decision and I don't hear any Society leaving over this matter.

AJNC · « **Reply #5 on:** February 04, 2016, 11:41:45 PM »

When he visited India a couple of years or so ago, Bishop Gallareta told us that there would be no agreement with Rome as long as the reforms of Vatican II were in place. I was a meter away from him when he said this.

Wessex · « **Reply #6 on:** February 05, 2016, 04:38:46 AM »

The Society will not refuse absorption if Rome forces it on them. Its misgivings will melt away if offered some juicy rewards. The warnings of sidelined SSPX bishops may have their uses in the negotiating process but they will go along with whatever is decided. People should let go of any notion that these bishops are beacons of resistance!

JPaul · « **Reply #7 on:** February 05, 2016, 07:38:17 AM »

Quote from: Wessex

The Society will not refuse absorption if Rome forces it on them. Its misgivings will melt away if offered some juicy rewards. The warnings of sidelined SSPX bishops may have their uses in the negotiating process but they will go along with whatever is decided. People should let go of any notion that these bishops are beacons of resistance!

Indeed, a backdrop of resistance to gin up the price. But, where the mind has already gone, the bodies will eventually follow. Perhaps when the funding sources can be secured from jumping ship, and when passing the battlements of the Novus Ordo citadel can be made to simulate a return to "Eternal Rome".

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #8 on:** February 13, 2016, 01:00:33 AM »

Wessex is rubbing off on you, J.Paul!

JPaul · « **Reply #9 on:** February 13, 2016, 10:59:15 AM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat

Wessex is rubbing off on you, J.Paul!

Perhaps, but one should have a clear sense of the subtexts of these statements of "protest", which bring to mind sheep, wolves, and crying out, or knees, hammers and involuntary responses..................

Wessex · « **Reply #10 on:** February 14, 2016, 04:56:05 AM »

Gosh, does one now rely on what a prelate said two years ago? Especially one wedded to a slippery organisation like the SSPX. He may cite collective responsibility and go along with an agreement. Thus, the warning is negated.

JPaul · « **Reply #11 on:** February 14, 2016, 09:57:10 AM »

Quote from: Wessex

Gosh, does one now rely on what a prelate said two years ago? Especially one wedded to a slippery organisation like the SSPX. He may cite collective responsibility and go along with an agreement. Thus, the warning is negated.

And they usually are negated by time passing, and by the lack of any further action based upon the said warnings, which have become occasional clerical El Nino's.

Franciscan Solitary · « **Reply #12 on:** February 14, 2016, 12:47:41 PM »

Quote from: J.Paul

Quote from: Wessex
Gosh, does one now rely on what a prelate said two years ago? Especially one wedded to a slippery organisation like the SSPX. He may cite collective responsibility and go along with an agreement. Thus, the warning is negated.

And they usually are negated by time passing, and by the lack of any further action based upon the said warnings, which have become occasional clerical El Nino's.

This lowly blogger recalls a most marvellous and incisive sermon given by Bishop Fellay back in 2007 or 2008 on the singular evils of political religion and the crucial importance of never subordinating the Catholic religion to merely political agendas. This not long before the massive subjection of Catholic religion to the Neo-Liberal Marxist political agenda of Pope Benedict by the same Bishop Bernard Fellay in January 2009. The several Society (or ex-Society) bishops have been speaking from various sides of their mouths ever since.

And practically every Neo-Liberal Marxist leader does this all the time. Just ask them. They are always the most kind and compassionate of men who would never harm a fly, as they maniacally do everything in their power to promote unlimited nihilism, murder and mayhem everywhere and at every moment.

The name for this is shameless hypocrisy. Meanwhile, the bloodbath of their Red Revolution marches on...

JPaul · « **Reply #13 on:** February 14, 2016, 01:11:26 PM »

When the sheep become restless, begin to chafe against the fence, and gather near the gate, it is time to soothe the masses to prevent a breakout.

These pronouncements and letters can be likened to a recess for the faithful to get out and work off their frustrations, but at the end of the day they will tell you to go home and into the corral lest you wake in the morning and the Church will have disappeared from view.

It has worked this way for many decades.

AJNC · « **Reply #14 on:** February 15, 2016, 02:22:52 AM »

Quote from: Wessex

Gosh, does one now rely on what a prelate said two years ago? Especially one wedded to a slippery organisation like the SSPX. He may cite collective responsibility and go along with an agreement. Thus, the warning is negated.

You are right. He may deny even having said such a thing.