Author Topic: SSPX US District Superior Slams Letter Leakers (Read 6647 times)

Matthew · « **on:** May 15, 2012, 07:40:29 PM »

In an rare move, the Superior of the United States District of the Society
of Saint Pius X issued a special second monthly letter to the faithful today
dealing with the current status of things within the Society following the
publication of the leaked internal letters last week.

5-15-2012
Dear Friends and Benefactors,

Recently, private letters between the three bishops of the Society and the
General Council were leaked. As these docuмents are now public, I wish to
make a few comments.

First of all, I want to denounce the immorality, as well as the
revolutionary nature, of publishing such private docuмents. If it can be
grave matter to read private letters, as moral theology teaches, it is even
more serious to publish or distribute them without the permission of the
authors. Furthermore, it is subversive to publish private discussions
between superiors because it puts undue pressure on them. A superior must be
able to make a decision in view of the common good and not because of any
pressures.

Usually the defense of the Faith is invoked to justify such actions. It is,
indeed, clear that the theological virtue of Faith is above the moral
virtues but it cannot justify acting against them.

MaterDominici · « **Reply #1 on:** May 15, 2012, 07:52:00 PM »

Special Letter of District Superior

5-15-2012

Dear Friends and Benefactors,

Recently, private letters between the three bishops of the Society and the General Council were leaked. As these docuмents are now public, I wish to make a few comments.

First of all, I want to denounce the immorality, as well as the revolutionary nature, of publishing such private docuмents. If it can be grave matter to read private letters, as moral theology teaches, it is even more serious to publish or distribute them without the permission of the authors. Furthermore, it is subversive to publish private discussions between superiors because it puts undue pressure on them. A superior must be able to make a decision in view of the common good and not because of any pressures.

Usually the defense of the Faith is invoked to justify such actions. It is, indeed, clear that the theological virtue of Faith is above the moral virtues but it cannot justify acting against them.

It is essential to remember that letters of this kind are normal ways of communicating between members of the Society on a very important matter. It is normal and good that bishops or even priests of the Society should be able to express their personal opinions in a respectful way and in a spirit of charity. Once again it is their publication without the consent of both parties, which is unacceptable.

What are the principles that must guide us today? First of all, we must ask ourselves who has the authority to make such a decision. It is clear that the Superior General has the responsibility of the Society of St. Pius X and will render an account to Almighty God. It is notable for us to recall that Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre himself wanted the matter of our relations with Rome to be handled and decided by the Superior General:

Thus in principle, the one who will be responsible for relations with Rome after I pass away is the Superior General of the Society, Fr. Schmidberger, who still has six years left in his term as Superior General. It is he who, eventually, will henceforth be in charge of contacts with Rome in order to continue the conversations, if indeed they continue or if contact is maintained, which will be unlikely for a while since L’Osservatore Romano is going to print a big headline: “Archbishop Lefebvre, Schismatic, Excommunicated.” For X number of years, perhaps two or three, I have no idea, it will be separation. (Press Conference, Econe, June 15, 1988)

As a matter of fact, the acknowledgment of the authority of Bishop Fellay in such a matter is expressed in both letters; on the one hand, in the letter of the three bishops, the respectful pleading not to make a purely practical agreement implies the recognition of the Superior General's authority to make such a decision. On the other hand, in the General Council’s letter, this principle is reaffirmed. If there is a disagreement on what to do, there is nevertheless respect and recognition of the principle of authority.

The second notion that we must keep in mind is our attachment to Eternal Rome. We have always professed this attachment while refusing to follow the neo-Modernist tendencies of our times. As the Catholic Church is at the same time both human and divine, it is necessary to have a supernatural approach to the actual problems within the Catholic Church. This is why we reaffirm our Faith in Eternal Rome, with Pope Benedict XVI as the Vicar of Jesus Christ and visible head of His Church, while recognizing the dramatic situation of the Church today and the difficult but necessary task of keeping these two in balance.

The last point, and not the least, is the indispensable defense of the Faith in times of crisis. There must be no doubt that the fight for the Faith, the denouncing of errors, and the spread of Tradition would continue even within a “new canonical structure,” as His Excellency Bishop Fellay has repeatedly affirmed. Our Superior General; and his assistants have expressed their conviction that the possibility of a personal prelature is not a trap. This is a prudential question and different opinions are possible, but the final decision belongs only to the Superior General.

I have been regularly and recently in contact with His Excellency Bishop Fellay and other superiors of the Society. Further, I can assure you of the unity which exists in our District, following the line of Archbishop Lefebvre, which continues to be manifested today. Do not be disturbed by media reports, which may prematurely, and without sufficient information, prophesy many things.

At this hour, we do not know what will be the outcome of this situation. Will the Society of St. Pius X be “recognized” or will we have to stay in the same situation for some more time? We trust and hope that whatever circuмstances Providence determines will lead to a restoration of Tradition. Let us therefore keep in our prayers both the Holy Father and Bishop Fellay, that the Holy Ghost may guide them under such difficult circuмstances, in addition to the whole Society and her priests. Be assured of my prayers and may the Immaculate Heart of Mary protect the Society of St. Pius X.

Fr. Arnaud Rostand

MaterDominici · « **Reply #2 on:** May 15, 2012, 08:15:40 PM »

If you think you need to thumb me down for what Fr Rostand has to say, rest assured I don't agree with his sentiments. I didn't think it likely that he'd come and post his letter himself, though.

Diego · « **Reply #3 on:** May 15, 2012, 08:40:59 PM »

There is so much wrong in this letter.

Letters also belong to the recipients and, barring a demand for confidentiality, are not confidential. Unless the letters were stolen, they were distributed by an owner, whether sender or recipient. There is no evidence that confidentiality was requested or due until after the letters had already entered the public domain. The bell cannot be un-rung. These are now public letters.

"...express their personal opinions in a respectful way ..." As if informing three holy bishops that they "lack supernatural spirit" is a respectful personal opinion?

"[T]he theological virtue of Faith is above the moral virtues but it cannot justify acting against them." As if Krahgate, "uranium," "hand grenades," "Elder Brothers," and Jєωιѕн fables are consistent with the virtue of Faith? What hypocrisy!

"What are the principles that must guide us today? First of all, we must ask ourselves who has the authority to make such a decision. " No, first of all, we must ask ourselves, "What is the right thing to do?" If we can question and correct Popes (as we should!), we can and should certainly question and correct a Superior General. Lest we forget, the Superior General is not the Vicar of Jesus Christ; neither does he have the charisms of papal office.

"If there is a disagreement on what to do, there is nevertheless respect and recognition of the principle of authority...." And Justice.

"[W]hile refusing to follow the neo-Modernist tendencies of our times." "There must be no doubt that the fight for the Faith, the denouncing of errors, and the spread of Tradition would continue even within a 'new canonical structure,' as His Excellency Bishop Fellay has repeatedly affirmed." Like "fighting for the Faith" and "refusing to follow the neo-Modernist tendencies" of Zionism, "six million" Jєωιѕн fables, X-rated films, usury, Judaic economics, and lawyers who sabotage a bishop's legal defense while liking Louise 'Madonna' Ciccione?

"I can assure you of the unity which exists in our District...." Assumes facts not in evidence.

"At this hour, we do not know what will be the outcome of this situation." However, we certainly know that the Superior General's prudence and overbearing deserves question in view of what has already transpired (see above) under his authority.

May the Seven Gifts of the Holy Ghost replace officiousness, disdain, fratricide, affinity with ʝʊdɛօ-Zionism, and the dark works of secrecy.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #4 on:** May 15, 2012, 08:52:26 PM »

Quote from: MaterDominici

Special Letter of District Superior

5-15-2012

Dear Friends and Benefactors,

Recently, private letters between the three bishops of the Society and the General Council were leaked. As these docuмents are now public, I wish to make a few comments.

First of all, I want to denounce the immorality, as well as the revolutionary nature, of publishing such private docuмents. If it can be grave matter to read private letters, as moral theology teaches, it is even more serious to publish or distribute them without the permission of the authors. Furthermore, it is subversive to publish private discussions between superiors because it puts undue pressure on them. A superior must be able to make a decision in view of the common good and not because of any pressures.

Usually the defense of the Faith is invoked to justify such actions. It is, indeed, clear that the theological virtue of Faith is above the moral virtues but it cannot justify acting against them.

It is essential to remember that letters of this kind are normal ways of communicating between members of the Society on a very important matter. It is normal and good that bishops or even priests of the Society should be able to express their personal opinions in a respectful way and in a spirit of charity. Once again it is their publication without the consent of both parties, which is unacceptable.

What are the principles that must guide us today? First of all, we must ask ourselves who has the authority to make such a decision. It is clear that the Superior General has the responsibility of the Society of St. Pius X and will render an account to Almighty God. It is notable for us to recall that Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre himself wanted the matter of our relations with Rome to be handled and decided by the Superior General:

Thus in principle, the one who will be responsible for relations with Rome after I pass away is the Superior General of the Society, Fr. Schmidberger, who still has six years left in his term as Superior General. It is he who, eventually, will henceforth be in charge of contacts with Rome in order to continue the conversations, if indeed they continue or if contact is maintained, which will be unlikely for a while since L’Osservatore Romano is going to print a big headline: “Archbishop Lefebvre, Schismatic, Excommunicated.” For X number of years, perhaps two or three, I have no idea, it will be separation. (Press Conference, Econe, June 15, 1988)

As a matter of fact, the acknowledgment of the authority of Bishop Fellay in such a matter is expressed in both letters; on the one hand, in the letter of the three bishops, the respectful pleading not to make a purely practical agreement implies the recognition of the Superior General's authority to make such a decision. On the other hand, in the General Council’s letter, this principle is reaffirmed. If there is a disagreement on what to do, there is nevertheless respect and recognition of the principle of authority.

The second notion that we must keep in mind is our attachment to Eternal Rome. We have always professed this attachment while refusing to follow the neo-Modernist tendencies of our times. As the Catholic Church is at the same time both human and divine, it is necessary to have a supernatural approach to the actual problems within the Catholic Church. This is why we reaffirm our Faith in Eternal Rome, with Pope Benedict XVI as the Vicar of Jesus Christ and visible head of His Church, while recognizing the dramatic situation of the Church today and the difficult but necessary task of keeping these two in balance.

The last point, and not the least, is the indispensable defense of the Faith in times of crisis. There must be no doubt that the fight for the Faith, the denouncing of errors, and the spread of Tradition would continue even within a “new canonical structure,” as His Excellency Bishop Fellay has repeatedly affirmed. Our Superior General; and his assistants have expressed their conviction that the possibility of a personal prelature is not a trap. This is a prudential question and different opinions are possible, but the final decision belongs only to the Superior General.

I have been regularly and recently in contact with His Excellency Bishop Fellay and other superiors of the Society. Further, I can assure you of the unity which exists in our District, following the line of Archbishop Lefebvre, which continues to be manifested today. Do not be disturbed by media reports, which may prematurely, and without sufficient information, prophesy many things.

At this hour, we do not know what will be the outcome of this situation. Will the Society of St. Pius X be “recognized” or will we have to stay in the same situation for some more time? We trust and hope that whatever circuмstances Providence determines will lead to a restoration of Tradition. Let us therefore keep in our prayers both the Holy Father and Bishop Fellay, that the Holy Ghost may guide them under such difficult circuмstances, in addition to the whole Society and her priests. Be assured of my prayers and may the Immaculate Heart of Mary protect the Society of St. Pius X.

Fr. Arnaud Rostand

My observations:

1) Fr. Rostand spends a good deal of this letter defending the authority of Bishop Fellay to decide on this matter. Not sure why. Te bulwark of the resistence formed against him does not question his authority to decide the matter, but the prudence of his obvious orientation, as well as its consequences for the Faith (i.e., Does it represent an implicit acceptance of doctrinal pluralism that is against the Faith);

2) He then mentions attachment to Eternal Rome. Again, one must wonder why, since attachment to eternal Rome is not in question, but rather the attachment to Modernist Rome that Bishop Fellay wants to cement by accepting a practical agreement while all the doctrinal issues still divide us into camps of true and false Catholicism.

3) Finally, he comes to the heart of the matter at the end of the letter: The defense of the Faith in this time of crisis. He says this can be waged within the context of a personal prelature, and that such is not a trap. Can he cite a single example of a formerly traditional group regularized that was not neutered? And even more to the point, can he explain why the leadership of the SSPX lied, in the form of a sustained campaign, to the faithful, repeatedly assuring us that there would be no agreement until the doctrinal issues had been resolved.

Apparently you are not supposed to remember that part.

Apparently, without explanation sufficient to overcome the 3 bishops protests, the post-1988 strategy of Archbishop Lefebvre has mysteriously (and almost overnight) become irrelevent.

I think the 3 bishops have stated the case against Bishop Fellay's strategy so well as to leave scarcely anything to be said on the matter.

Yet, apparently all the District Superior can muster is an argument from authority (like his new Vatican friends, who themselves have sidestepped the doctrinal arguments of traditionalists against the modernist doctrines now proliferating and rending the vinyard with heresies by the handful).

No, Fr. Rostand.

We do not agree with you, or anyone else who supports taking a seat alongside the apostates while they remain enemies of Christ.

In the words of your illustrious founder to Cardinal Ratzinger:

"Eminence, even if you gave us the Mass and sacraments, independence from the bishops, the churches and seminaries. Still we could not collaborate with you. Because we are working to restore the social kingshop of Christ, and you are working to destroy it."

Most certainly, the Pope is the Pope until a future Pope says otherwise.

But we will not help him to destroy the faint flame of truth still found in the human element of the universal Church by placing ourselves into the hands of the devil's minions.

We will wait them out, confident that the Lord and Church provide sufficient for our needs until we again get a Pope willing to take hold of the rudder and right the ship.

If this Pope wanted us to help eradicate the modernism so dear to him, our answer would be different.

We would rally to his defense, and shed out blood that Christ could reign again!

But it is not modernism's eradication he desires, but rather our silence on the matter!

Does Christ want us to be silent in the face of those betraying their vocations (be they priest or Pope)?

To affirm this is nearly blasphemy!

We will fight for Christ, and the restoration of normalcy to the universal Church.

TKGS · « **Reply #5 on:** May 15, 2012, 09:10:06 PM »

My observation from the letter is that the U.S. District will happily take whatever course of action Bishop Fellay takes. My observation from the priest that serves my parish confirms this.

Question: If the SSPX is "regularized", why should anyone travel a long distance for an SSPX Mass if an FSSP or other TLM Mass is available closer to home? If the SSPX is "regularized", doesn't that mean that the main purpose of the SSPX is now to preserve the "smells and bells" of tradition?

MaterDominici · « **Reply #6 on:** May 15, 2012, 09:18:56 PM »

Quote from: TKGS

Question: If the SSPX is "regularized", why should anyone travel a long distance for an SSPX Mass if an FSSP or other TLM Mass is available closer to home? If the SSPX is "regularized", doesn't that mean that the main purpose of the SSPX is now to preserve the "smells and bells" of tradition?

I'll go you one further... why is there anyone sitting in an SSPX pew who favors a TLM and priest which are compromised for the sake of unity with modernist Rome? I can see such happening a decade ago when diocesan TLMs were rare, but today?

Diego · « **Reply #7 on:** May 15, 2012, 09:24:08 PM »

While there is the proverbial ice cube's chance in hell of it passing Rorate's moderation, I submitted this:

http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2012/05/sspx-us-district-superior-final.html

Quote

Though I understand his duty of obedience, it must be respectfully said that there is much wrong with Fr. Rostand's letter.

Letters also belong to the recipients and, barring a demand for confidentiality, are not properly presumed to be confidential. Unless the letters were stolen, they were distributed by an owner, whether sender or recipient. There is no evidence that confidentiality was requested or due until after the letters had already entered the public domain. The bell cannot be un-rung. These are now public letters.

"...express their personal opinions in a respectful way ..." As if informing three holy bishops that they "lack supernatural spirit" is a respectful personal opinion?

"[T]he theological virtue of Faith is above the moral virtues but it cannot justify acting against them." As if Krahgate, "uranium," "hand grenades," "Elder Brothers," and Jєωιѕн fables are consistent with the virtue of Faith? These facts, too, are in the public domain. Humility and kindness, not derisive fratricidal epithets and analogies, would be evidence of "supernatural spirit" that would worthily be respected and emulated.

"What are the principles that must guide us today? First of all, we must ask ourselves who has the authority to make such a decision. " No, first of all, we must ask ourselves, "What is the right thing to do?" If we can—and should—question and correct Popes, we can and should certainly question and correct a Superior General. Lest we forget, the Superior General is not the Vicar of Jesus Christ; neither does he have the charisms of papal office.

"If there is a disagreement on what to do, there is nevertheless respect and recognition of the principle of authority...." And Truth and Justice.

"[W]hile refusing to follow the neo-Modernist tendencies of our times." "There must be no doubt that the fight for the Faith, the denouncing of errors, and the spread of Tradition would continue even within a 'new canonical structure,' as His Excellency Bishop Fellay has repeatedly affirmed." Like "fighting for the Faith" and "refusing to follow the neo-Modernist tendencies" of Zionism, "six million" Jєωιѕн fables, X-rated films, usury, Judaic economics, and lawyers who sabotage a bishop's legal defense while liking Louise 'Madonna' Ciccione?

"I can assure you of the unity which exists in our District...." Assumes facts not in evidence.

"At this hour, we do not know what will be the outcome of this situation." Whether any of us like it or not and in view of what has already transpired under his authority, we certainly know that the Superior General's secrecy, prudence, and overbearing has raised questions, not excluding the US District.

I pray that the Seven Gifts of the Holy Ghost replace officiousness, disdain, fratricide, affinity with ʝʊdɛօ-Zionism, power politics, false obedience, and the dark works of secrecy.

I encourage Seraphim and others—ahem, Lord Phan—to attempt to post their observations at Rorate. Perhaps one of us will survive the enemy's "moderation."

finegan · « **Reply #8 on:** May 15, 2012, 09:31:19 PM »

Quote from: TKGS

My observation from the letter is that the U.S. District will happily take whatever course of action Bishop Fellay takes. My observation from the priest that serves my parish confirms this.

Question: If the SSPX is "regularized", why should anyone travel a long distance for an SSPX Mass if an FSSP or other TLM Mass is available closer to home? If the SSPX is "regularized", doesn't that mean that the main purpose of the SSPX is now to preserve the "smells and bells" of tradition?

My sentiments exactly. Our family has attended an SSPX chapel for 26 years now. We always supported the Society for its opposition to Modernism. Now, we may have to consider other options for the Mass and Sacraments that are closer to home. Is "NewSSPX" going to offer anything more beneficial to the salvation of our souls than the diocesan TLM or FSSP? Time will tell, but the waters are about to get a lot muddier for many of us. :confused1:

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #9 on:** May 15, 2012, 09:34:37 PM »

Quote from: finegan

Quote from: TKGS
My observation from the letter is that the U.S. District will happily take whatever course of action Bishop Fellay takes. My observation from the priest that serves my parish confirms this.

Question: If the SSPX is "regularized", why should anyone travel a long distance for an SSPX Mass if an FSSP or other TLM Mass is available closer to home? If the SSPX is "regularized", doesn't that mean that the main purpose of the SSPX is now to preserve the "smells and bells" of tradition?

My sentiments exactly. Our family has attended an SSPX chapel for 26 years now. We always supported the Society for its opposition to Modernism. Now, we may have to consider other options for the Mass and Sacraments that are closer to home. Is "NewSSPX" going to offer anything more beneficial to the salvation of our souls than the diocesan TLM or FSSP? Time will tell, but the waters are about to get a lot muddier for many of us. :confused1:

Yep.

finegan · « **Reply #10 on:** May 15, 2012, 09:52:49 PM »

Quote from: Haurietis Aquas

I guess everyone posting here pretty much ASSumes that Fellay has struck a deal that will silence the SSPX on matters they have always been critical of. That is odd since everything Fellay or those appointed to represent him have said the contrary. They will not be quiet on the issues of ecuмenism, religious liberty, collegiality or the NOM. If Rome requires their silence, there will be no deal. How many times does he have to say it? I have heard/read this right up to the last letter to Friends and Benefactors ...

First of all, it's "Bishop Fellay" -- not just "Fellay." And two, how do you know the reconciliation won't have a chilling effect on discussions of ecuмenism, religious liberty, etc.? An agreement of any kind is only as good as the level of enforcement. You accuse members of this forum of groundless speculation, but it seems you're doing a pretty good job of it yourself!

Diego · « **Reply #11 on:** May 15, 2012, 09:54:52 PM »

Let's not lose sight of Seraphim's salient observation: Millions of Rosaries were prayed on the promise that there would be no agreement without settling doctrinal matters. To break that promise is an offense against the Blessed Mother.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #12 on:** May 15, 2012, 09:56:53 PM »

Quote from: Haurietis Aquas

Quote from: TKGS
My observation from the letter is that the U.S. District will happily take whatever course of action Bishop Fellay takes. My observation from the priest that serves my parish confirms this.

Question: If the SSPX is "regularized", why should anyone travel a long distance for an SSPX Mass if an FSSP or other TLM Mass is available closer to home? If the SSPX is "regularized", doesn't that mean that the main purpose of the SSPX is now to preserve the "smells and bells" of tradition?

First off, your question is premature. It is a good question, but it is way too soon to be thinking about that.

I guess everyone posting here pretty much ASSumes that Fellay has struck a deal that will silence the SSPX on matters they have always been critical of. That is odd since everything Fellay or those appointed to represent him have said the contrary. They will not be quiet on the issues of ecuмenism, religious liberty, collegiality or the NOM. If Rome requires their silence, there will be no deal. How many times does he have to say it? I have heard/read this right up to the last letter to Friends and Benefactors ...

The FSSP has to tread very lightly on these topics, if they dare at all. They do not have the protection of a Personal Prelature - IF THAT IS WHAT HAPPENS.

We just don't really know yet, do we? Relax. Pray the novena.

Yes, Bishop Fellay and his assistants have said quite a bit of contrarian things, such as:

1) Campos should serve as a warning to us.....and then he announces his desire to follow their path;

2) There will be no practical agreement until the doctrinal issues are resolved.....until he announces on Feb 2 he would take a deal despite all the doctrinal issues remaining;

3) He says a deal must be accepted or we will all become sedevacantists......despite the fact that he ably defeated that sophism when levied against him by Campos

4) He says a personal prelature is not a trap.....despite oberving none have ever gone the route of traditionalism and remained traditional

But again, just like in 1984, you are supposed to follow Big Brother, and train yourself not to notice these contradictions.

It is easier that way.

As Matthew said of Anthony M: Sorry to remove your pacifier.

Don't shoot the messenger.

If you feel the urge to respond, let it address issues #1-4, and show me where I am wrong.

This sellout has been 12 years in the making.

Diego · « **Reply #13 on:** May 15, 2012, 09:57:50 PM »

Quote from: finegan

...how do you know the reconciliation won't have a chilling effect on discussions of ecuмenism, religious liberty, etc.?

Ha, ha, ha, ...... ha, ha, ha,...

That was hilarious. Tell us another joke. A chilling effect on Judaizing modernists...

Ha, ha, ha, ...... ha, ha, ha!

finegan · « **Reply #14 on:** May 15, 2012, 10:00:33 PM »

Quote from: Diego

Quote from: finegan
...how do you know the reconciliation won't have a chilling effect on discussions of ecuмenism, religious liberty, etc.?

Ha, ha, ha, ...... ha, ha, ha,...

That was hilarious. Tell us another joke. A chilling effect on Judaizing modernists...

Ha, ha, ha, ...... ha, ha, ha!

Surely you realize I meant a chilling effect on the Society's discussion of these issue -- not Rome's?