Author Topic: The 2012 Declaration of Bishop Fellay compared to the 1988 Declaration of +ABL. (Read 841 times)

Nishant Xavier · « **on:** February 13, 2020, 01:56:11 AM »

So let's compare the May 5th, 1988 A.D. Declaration of His Grace Archbishop Lefebvre with the April 15th, 2012 A.D. Preamble of His Excellency Bishop Fellay. If we read both docuмents carefully, we see Bishop Fellay, while recognizing what is due to the Magisterium of the Church, wants the important work of the critiques of the Council in its non-infallible areas to go ahead by theological studies. Why then does the Resistance claim that this 2012 docuмent - which is not even necessarily the final word in SSPX-Rome relations - supposedly makes a refusal to obey one's lawful Superiors justified or necessary? Is it theological error or misunderstanding on the nature of the respect due even to the non-infallible Ordinary Magisterium of the Popes or the Church?

In that case, Msgr. Fenton has written on that, "It is, of course, possible that the Church might come to modify its stand on some detail of teaching presented as non-infallible matter in a papal encyclical. The nature of the auctoritas providentiae doctrinalis within the Church is such, however, that this fallibility extends to questions of relatively minute detail or of particular application. The body of doctrine on the rights and duties of labor, on the Church and State, or on any other subject treated extensively in a series of papal letters directed to and normative for the entire Church militant could not be radically or completely erroneous. The infallible security Christ wills that His disciples should enjoy within His Church is utterly incompatible with such a possibility." http://www.catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/encyclicals/docauthority.htm

From: https://fsspx.org/en/protocol-agreement-may-5-1988

"Protocol of Agreement, May 5, 1988
I. TEXT OF THE DOCTRINAL DECLARATION

I, Marcel Lefebvre, Archbishop-Bishop Emeritus of Tulle, as well as the members of the Society of St. Pius X founded by me:

I. Promise always to be faithful to the Catholic Church and the Roman Pontiff, its Supreme Pastor, Vicar of Christ, Successor of Blessed Peter in his primacy as head of the body of bishops.

II. We declare our acceptance of the doctrine contained in §25 of the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium of Vatican Council II on the ecclesiastical Magisterium and the adherence which is due to it.

III. Regarding certain points taught by Vatican Council II or concerning later reforms of the liturgy and law, and which do not appear to us easily reconcilable with Tradition, we pledge that we will have a positive attitude of study and communication with the Apostolic See, avoiding all polemics.

IV. Moreover, we declare that we recognize the validity of the Sacrifice of the Mass and the Sacraments celebrated with the intention of doing what the Church does, and according to the rites indicated in the typical editions of the Roman Missal and the Rituals of the Sacraments promulgated by Popes Paul VI and John Paul II.

V. Finally, we promise to respect the common discipline of the Church and the ecclesiastical laws, especially those contained in the Code of Canon Law promulgated by Pope John Paul II, without prejudice to the special discipline granted to the Society by particular law."

Bishop Fellay's Doctrinal Preamble

Presented to Rome

15th April, 2012

I
We promise to be always faithful to the Catholic Church and to the Roman Pontiff, the Supreme Pastor, Vicar of Christ, Successor of Peter, and head of the body of bishops.

II
We declare that we accept the teachings of the Magisterium of the Church in the substance of Faith and Morals, adhering to each doctrinal affirmation in the required degree, according to the doctrine contained in No.25 of the dogmatic constitution Lumen Gentium of the Second Vatican Council.(1)

III

1. We declare that we accept the doctrine regarding the Roman Pontiff and regarding the college of bishops, with the Pope as its head, which is taught by the dogmatic constitution Pastor Aeternus of Vatican I and by the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium of Vatican II, chapter 3 (de constitutione hierarchica Ecclesiae et in specie de episcopatu), explained and interpreted by the nota explicativa praevia in this same chapter.

2. We recognise the authority of the Magisterium to which alone is given the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, in written form or handed down (2) in fidelity to Tradition, recalling that "the Holy Ghost was not promised to the successors of Peter in order for them to make known, through revelation, a new doctrine, but so that with His assistance they may keep in a holy and expressly faithful manner the revelation transmitted by the Apostles, that is to say, the Faith."(3)

3. Tradition is the living transmission of revelation "usque as nos"(4) and the Church in its doctrine, in its life and in its liturgy perpetuates and transmits to all generations what this is and what She believes. Tradition progresses in the Church with the assistance of the Holy Ghost(5), not as a contrary novelty(6), but through a better understanding of the Deposit of the Faith(7).

4. The entire tradition of Catholic Faith must be the criterion and guide in understanding the teaching of the Second Vatican Council, which, in turn, enlightens - in other words deepens and subsequently makes explicit - certain aspects of the life and doctrine of the Church implicitly present within itself or not yet conceptually formulated( 8 )

5. The affirmations of the Second Vatican Council and of the later Pontifical Magisterium relating to the relationship between the Church and the non-Catholic Christian confessions, as well as the social duty of religion and the right to religious liberty, whose formulation is with difficulty reconcilable with prior doctrinal affirmations from the Magisterium, must be understood in the light of the whole, uninterrupted Tradition, in a manner coherent with the truths previously taught by the Magisterium of the Church, without accepting any interpretation of these affirmations whatsoever that would expose Catholic doctrine to opposition or rupture with Tradition and with this Magisterium.

6. That is why it is legitimate to promote through legitimate discussion the study and theological explanations of the expressions and formulations of Vatican II and of the Magisterium which followed it, in the case where they don't appear reconcilable with the previous Magisterium of the Church(9).

7. We declare that we recognise the validity of the sacrifice of the Mass and the Sacraments celebrated with the intention to do what the Church does according to the rites indicated in the typical editions of the Roman Missal and the Sacramentary Rituals legitimately promulgated by Popes Paul VI and John-Paul II.

8. In following the guidelines laid out above (III,5), as well as Canon 21 of the Code of Canon Law, we promise to respect the common discipline of the Church and the ecclesiastical laws, especially those which are contained in the Code of Canon Law promulgated by John-Paul II (1983) and in the Code of Canon Law of the Oriental Churches promulgated by the same pontiff (1990), without prejudice to the discipline of the Society of Saint Pius X, by a special law."

S1Jude · « **Reply #1 on:** February 13, 2020, 02:35:46 PM »

Why don't we make a few more comparisons, like the respective motivations: ABL working as he had for many years to bring Rome back to Tradition while remaining in the Church of the ages Bishop Fellay convinced that the SSPX were not proper Catholics and working to remedy this situation.

In the aftermath ABL withdrew his signature and humbly admitted he went too far. He then categorically stated he would not engage the Romans until the showed fidelity to the Church of all time.

Bishop Fellay never admits he went too far or was wrong but instead indicates that non one was clever enough to understand what he was doing and allows the subject to be railroaded in another direction during the General Chapter. His Excellency also precedes to expel anyone who disagrees with rapprochement and continues to pursue piecemeal recognition by Rome.

Plenus Venter · « **Reply #2 on:** February 13, 2020, 07:03:50 PM »

Criticism of Bp Fellay’s Doctrinal Declaration of 15 April, 2012

The following docuмent was read out loud by its author, Father de Jorna, to all members of the General Chapter of the SSPX in July 2012. No objection to it was raised from any member.

Its author is Father Benoît de Jorna (Rector of the St Pius X Seminary, at Econe, Switzerland), ordained by Abp. Lefebvre in 1984. He is one of the best theologians in the Society of St. Pius X. He was a member of the Theological Commission set up by the SSPX for the Doctrinal discussions with Rome between 2009 and 2011. (Now Superior of the French District of the SSPX)

Fr. de Jorna proves in his docuмent that Bishop Fellay’s “Doctrinal Declaration“ of April 15, 2012 amounts to the “hermeneutic of continuity”' of Benedict XVI.

Fr. de Jorna's Text:

II. Absolutely necessary distinctions must be made concerning the magisterium. We accept all the magisterium [official teaching] of the Church until Vatican II. But since then, there is a new magisterium, for the most part opposed to the previous magisterium. We cannot, therefore, declare that we accept this new magisterium as magisterium of the Church.

"Either we are with his [John Paul II’s] predecessors who proclaimed the truth of all time, who are consistent with the Church from the Apostles until Pope Pius XII. Or we are with the Council and then we are against the predecessors of the current Pope. You have to choose, there is a choice to be made. It is clear that Tradition is with the 250 popes who preceded Pope John XXIII and the Second Vatican Council. That is clear. Or the Church has always been wrong. This is the situation in which we find ourselves. We must be firm, clear and determined not to hesitate. "(Abp. Marcel Lefebvre, 14 May 1989, in the French review “Vue de Haut,” no. 13 p. 70).

This distinction is all the more important now that Benedict XVI has declared his intention:

"The issues to be addressed now are essentially doctrinal in nature, particularly those concerning the acceptance of the Second Vatican Council and the post -conciliar magisterium of the Popes ... the magisterial authority of the Church cannot be frozen in 1962 and this must be very clear for the Society [of St Pius X]" (Benedict XVI, Letter to the Bishops of the world concerning the remission of the excommunication of the four SSPX bishops, March 10, 2009).

On the other hand, the 1989 Profession of Faith was consistently rejected by our founder because it required adherence to Vatican II.

On III, 1 of the Doctrinal Declaration [On Lumen Gentium No. 25]

We cannot accept the doctrine of “Lumen Gentium” chapter III. Even understood in the light of the Nota previa, no. 22 to “Lumen Gentium,” it retains all its ambiguity because it still implies that there is in the Church a double subject of the Primacy [the Pope alone, AND the Pope with all the bishops] and opens the door to the denial of the teaching of Vatican I (DS 3054 ).

Archbishop Lefebvre insisted on this error on the occasion of the publication of the new 1983 Code of [Canon Law].

This § III, 1 does not avoid a serious ambiguity in that it declares acceptance of both the teaching of Vatican I on the primacy of the Pope and of Vatican II on collegiality. It is at least seriously questionable whether this is possible. And the Holy See will not fail to see the possibility and even the duty to interpret the first Vatican Council according to Vatican II. Archbishop Lefebvre would never have signed these statements and there is no reference to ch. III of “Lumen Gentium” in the1988 Protocol of agreement.

On III, 2 and 3 of the Doctrinal Declaration. [Vatican II’s notion of Tradition]

“Tradition” can be understood in three ways:

1) The subject [who does the transmitting],
2) The act [of transmitting]
3) The object [that which is transmitted])

The Modernists play on the ambiguity of this plurality of meanings. Only Tradition in the sense of “subject” and “act” may be called “living”, not Tradition in the sense of “object.” The latter is unchangeable in its meaning. It would have been better to have taken the words from our doctrinal discussions [with Rome] and to have spoken only of “constant” Tradition. The Anti-Modernist Oath (DS 3548-3549) clearly rejects the false notion of the new living tradition when it evokes "the absolute and immutable truth" of Divine Tradition. These clarifications are all the more essential since Benedict XVI develops a false meaning of Tradition along evolutionary lines .

On the other hand, to say [in the Doctrinal Declaration] that "the Church perpetuates and transmits all that she is and all that she believes” is not unambiguous.

Firstly because, for Benedict XVI and Vatican II, the fundamental subject that transmits Tradition is the Church, meaning the whole People of God, a living subject making its way through history, and secondly because the magisterium of the Church does not pass on what the Church “is and believes"; it preserves, transmits and defends the objective deposit of faith received from Christ and the Apostles ? all the truths revealed by God, keeping always the same meaning.

For Benedict XVI, the Church, “People of God,” transmits its belief by which is meant an “experience” of immanentist connotation. It would be better to say that the Magisterium of the Church teaches with authority, in the name of God, the definitive and immutable meaning of the revealed Truth, having recourse to the normative expressions which are the dogmas.

On III, 4 and 5 of the Doctrinal Declaration [Vatican II’s doctrine on religious freedom, collegiality and ecuмenism]

We cannot say [in the Doctrinal Declaration], without being more precise, that Vatican II, “enlightens, deepens and clarifies certain aspects of the life and doctrine of the Church.” For, in the mind of Benedict XVI, Vatican II wanted to redefine the relationship between the faith of the Church and certain essential elements of modern thought.

This led to a contradiction or serious putting into question of the constant teaching of the Catholic Tradition on several key points. Religious freedom is in contradiction with Tradition. Ecuмenism and Collegiality also break with Tradition.

Let us remember that in 1978 Archbishop Lefebvre said:

“We profess the Catholic faith fully and completely ... We reject and anathematize all that was rejected and anathematized by the Church ... Insofar as the texts of Vatican II and the post- conciliar reforms oppose the doctrine expounded by those popes from before Vatican II, and give free rein to the errors they condemned, that we feel in conscience bound to make serious reservations about these texts and these reforms. " (French review Itinéraires, n. 233, May 1978, p. 108-109).

It is necessary to repeat that our founder always said:

"…saying that we see, we judge the docuмents of the Council ‘in the light of Tradition,’ obviously means that we reject those that are contrary to Tradition; that we interpret according to Tradition those which are ambiguous; and that we accept those that are conform to Tradition.” (Vue de Haut, n. 13, p. 57).

These precisions are all the more necessary in that the Roman authorities play on the word Tradition:

"In the mind of the Holy Father [John Paul II] and that of Cardinal Ratzinger, if I understand correctly, it would be necessary to integrate the decrees of the Council into Tradition; make it so they fit in at any cost. This is an impossible undertaking." (Vue de Haut, n. 13, p. 57).

We cannot let it be understood that it is possible and necessary to reconcile Vatican II and Tradition, we would lose the freedom to denounce errors and we would be in a golden cage amid the "spaces of theological freedom” of which Bishop Ocariz speaks of.

On III, 7 of the Doctrinal Declaration [New mass and new sacraments]

We cannot simply assert that the Novus Ordo Missae is valid. The New Mass is bad in itself. It presents an occasion of the sin of infidelity. This is why it cannot oblige under pain of sin in one’s duty to sanctify the Sunday. At a time when Rome recognizes the two rites it is necessary to remember that,

"Concerning the New Mass, let us immediately destroy this absurd idea that if the New Mass is valid, you can participate. The Church has always forbidden attending the Masses of schismatics and heretics, even if they are valid. It is obvious that we cannot participate in sacrilegious Masses, or Masses that put our faith in danger." (Abp. Lefebvre, La messe de toujours, Clovis, 2005, p . 391)

III 8 of the Doctrinal Declaration [New canon law]

We have always refused the new Code of 1983. It is:

"Imbued with ecuмenism and personalism, it sins gravely against the very purpose of the law." (Abp. Lefebvre, Ordinances of the SSPX, p. 4).

In addition, this new Code conveys the spirit of the new ecclesiology; democratic and collegialist.

Conclusion.

This statement [Doctrinal Declaration] is profoundly ambiguous and sins by omission against the clear and distinct denunciation of the principal errors that are still rampant within the Church and destroy the faith of Catholics. This statement [Doctrinal Declaration], as it stands, suggests that we accept the premise of the "hermeneutic of continuity." Such a docuмent[Doctrinal Declaration], if it were the principle of an agreement, would make such an agreement equivocal from the start and would favour any subsequent drifting away [from our original positions]. [here ends Fr de Jorna's text]

After Fr de Jorna’s presentation, no one contradicted his statement.

*************************

Then Father Pagliarani (Right -Rector of the Argentinian seminary) rose and broke the silence in favour of Bishop Fellay in these terms:

"Dear colleagues! We are surely not going to give a slap in the face to our superior by demanding a retraction from him! This will be done implicitly in the final Declaration of the Chapter."
Then they went on to another topic ... The case was closed.

The “resistant” members were out-manoeuvred. They could not move on to the next phase which would have been the call for Bishop Fellay’s resignation. The Chapter participants were led to believe that the Declaration was “withdrawn” with an “implicit disapproval” of its author.

Bishop Tissier was deceived like the others. In a letter, dated 29 March 2013, he said it was "tacitly concluded that there was no need to dwell on this subject, as it was obvious that the Superior General regretted his ‘faux pas’ and was resolved not to do it again." (Official Bulletin of the French District [destined for priests] No. 251, Annex to the Circular Letter No. 2013-04)

The General Chapter erroneously concluded that Bishop Fellay had understood the intrinsic evil of the Declaration and that he tacitly disapproved of his thoughts. However, since the Chapter, Bishop Fellay has continued to defend the contents of his Doctrinal Declaration.

To do this, he has abused the oath of the Chapter [concerning silence about its deliberations]. Bishop Fellay thought that, since the members had promised to remain silent, no one would dare to contradict the official version of the General House.

The SSPX’s “official version” presents the Doctrinal Declaration as a "minimalist text which could lead to confusion among us" (Bishop Fellay , Cor Unum 102); or, a " sufficiently clear text " ( Bishop Fellay, Écône , 7 September 2012). A Doctrinal Declaration in which "any ambiguity was avoided on our judgment of the Council, including the famous hermeneutic of continuity.” A Declaration which "was not understood by many prominent members of the Society, who saw ambiguity or a rallying to the thesis of the hermeneutic of continuity." (Bishop Fellay , Cor unum 104, Note on the doctrinal statement of 15 April 2012).

If Bishop Fellay considered his text to be ‘unambiguous,’

- Why didn’t he help, during the Chapter, the "prominent members of the Society” to understand his statement?

- Why allow Fr Pagliarani to spring to his defence in order to prevent “a slap in the face" and to focus on "an implicit withdrawal," and afterwards to claim that his statement was “too subtle,” no longer useful but basically sound?

Source: cor-mariae.com/index.php?threads/criticism-of-doctrinal-declaration-15th-april-2012.167/

For complete commentary and text in French: www.lasapiniere.info/archives/1474

Plenus Venter · « **Reply #3 on:** February 13, 2020, 08:22:16 PM »

Quote from: XavierSem on February 13, 2020, 01:56:11 AM

Why then does the Resistance claim that this 2012 docuмent - which is not even necessarily the final word in SSPX-Rome relations - supposedly makes a refusal to obey one's lawful Superiors justified or necessary? Is it theological error or misunderstanding on the nature of the respect due even to the non-infallible Ordinary Magisterium of the Popes or the Church?

Why, indeed, do the Resistance bishops and priests refuse obedience to their lawful superiors (meaning the Pope and the Superior General of the SSPX for those of the Fraternity)? Why, we may ask, did Archbishop Lefebvre, Bishop Fellay and the entire SSPX refuse obedience to the Church authorities for so many decades?
Does the Resistance simply claim that Bishop Fellay's Doctrinal Declaration justifies such an attitude? This scandalous declaration which was rejected by the entire traditional wing of the SSPX?
We might first ask the ralliers like XavierSem: what justifies the Menzingen Dominicans refusing obedience to their legitimate superior in Avrille, into whose hands they had professed perpetual obedience? What justifies the Society superiors encouraging this violation of religious law?
Let us leave aside the hypocrisy and address our question.
Bishop Fellay's doctrinal declaration was only a symptom, we could say, of his desire to place the SSPX under the direct practical authority of the Modernist Romans who are destroying the Faith, the Conciliar Church - this personal desire which he pursued, along with his Assistants, in disobedience to his mandate from the 2006 General Chapter, contrary to the advice from the Society theologians, contrary to the advice of his confreres in the Episcopate. His doctrinal declaration was just one aspect of this reversal of direction that he was pursuing in relation to the enemies of the Faith occupying Rome, a new direction he infamously justified by such diabolical propaganda as "Rome has changed" and "you cannot think it is a trap", "it can only be because he (Pope Francis) wishes us well. He wants the good of Tradition and for Tradition to spread in the Church. It is impossible to think that such a thing could be invented by our enemies".
Archbishop Lefebvre had hoped that the Pope would give him a Mandate for the Consecrations and that he would allow the "experiment of Tradition" so that seeing the fruits of Tradition, and the poisoned fruits of the Council, they would then admit the error of their ways, abandon their modernism and return to the Church of the Ages. This experiment took place, providentially, outside the confines of the Conciliar Church. The Romans have seen the good fruits, yet remain more determined than ever to continue on their destructive course. It was (and remains) to this Rome that Bishop Fellay and the superiors of the SSPX, and XavierSem want to submit.
So, for over two decades, since the Consecrations of 1988, Archbishop Lefebvre, Bishop Fellay, all the Society bishops and superiors, with one voice admonished us that we could not place ourselves under the authority of the modernist Romans without ourselves losing the Faith. Now they tell us, we have no choice, we must place ourselves in the care of the antichrists, or we will become schismatic! But nothing has changed!
Let us just recall the constant teaching of the SSPX with a few examples:
"We first must deal with the real problem. If we don’t, it’s a waste of time. The same problem will be there tomorrow. Rome is ready to retract the excommunication of the bishops today? ...And have us receive it again tomorrow? It’s nonsense! That’s what I tried to say to Rome. It does not mean we are against any kind of agreement. We are of course in favour of a real agreement, of the truth, of the triumph of Tradition, ….We want the Catholic Church to be the Catholic Church, period; nothing else. The path that Campos is taking is bringing them very gently, little by little, into that modern river, into that modern flow and flux… Superficially, it may appear that nothing has changed in Campos. In fact, a lot has changed. Campos is now on a slippery slope.” (Bishop Fellay, Conference, The Angelus, Feb. 2003)

“…We cannot sign some practical agreement with neo-modernist Rome, because we would be drawn into a slippery slope of compromise and will slowly but surely lose the Faith” (Fr Yves le Roux, Auriesville Pilgrimage, Summer 2005).

“The project of ‘regularization’ of the SSPX leaves me cold. We do not need it and the Church does not need it… we would have to put our light under a bushel by our integration into the Conciliar orb. This status being proposed is a personal prelature, similar to Opus Dei, a statute for a state of peace. But currently we are in a state of war in the Church! This would be a contradiction to want to regularize the war! ... The irregularity is not ours. It is Rome’s. A modernist Rome… neo-modernist Rome which is no longer Eternal Rome… the SSPX is a stumbling block for those who resist the truth and this is good for the Church. If we were reintegrated we would, by that act, cease being a thorn in the side of the Conciliar Church, cease being a living reproach to the loss of faith… Archbishop Lefebvre said in 1984: ‘we do not place ourselves under an authority when that authority has full power to destroy us’ and I think that is wisdom. They made a new religion that is not the Catholic religion. We want no compromise with this religion, no risk of corruption, not even any appearance of reconciliation, and it is this appearance that we would give with our so called ‘regularization’” (Bishop Tissier de Mallerais, interview in Rivarol, June 13, 2012).
“…we had received an ultimatum from Rome, from Cardinal Castrillon… pressuring us in the direction of a purely practical agreement, which has always been His Eminence’s proposal. Of course, you already know our way of thinking. This way is a dead end; and for us it is the way to death. To go this way is out of the question. We cannot undertake to betray the public profession of the Faith. It is out of the question and simply impossible.” (Bishop de Galarreta, Ordination Sermon, June 27, 2008).
"Is it prudent and appropriate to maintain contacts with Rome leading to such an agreement? As far as I am concerned, the answer is clear: we must refuse this path because we cannot do something evil so that a good (a good which is, moreover, uncertain) can come from it, and also because this would necessarily bring about evils (very certain) for the common good that we possess, namely that of the Society and of the family of Tradition…How then does this not go against the defence and public confession of the Faith, against the public need to protect the faithful and the Church?" (Bishop de Galarreta, Superiors' Meeting, Albano, 2011)
"In the Church there is no law or jurisdiction which can impose on a Christian a diminution of his faith. All the faithful can and should resist whatever interferes with their faith…if they are faced with an order putting their faith in danger of corruption, there is an overriding duty to disobey.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, Open Letter to Confused Catholics Ch8, para9)
So, XavierSem, it is neither "theological error", nor "misunderstanding on the nature of respect due to the Magisterium" that causes the Resistance priests and faithful to refuse to change, no matter whether it be a Pope, a Superior General, or even an Angel from Heaven that command it. No one can command us to place our Faith in danger as the Archbishop makes clear. No one can command a good shepherd to desist from warning his sheep of the danger to the Faith that a purely practical agreement with modernist Rome would represent. The good shepherds of the Resistance who continue to do their duty in this regard are no longer welcome in the Society of Bishop Fellay or Fr Pagliarani, unless they agree to remain silent, refuse to bark. But all are welcome if they smile sweetly, be nice, spiritual of course, and agree to pose with 'Bishop' Huonder. Lovely, isn't it?
"Theological error" and "misunderstanding" are all on the side of those who think they can submit to such evil on the part of their superiors.

leonn · « **Reply #4 on:** February 14, 2020, 07:23:18 PM »

XavierSem's post got me interested in looking at the 1988 Declaration of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, and other docuмents around the same timeline.

SSPX's website states that Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre signed the protocol of accord on May 5, 1988. https://fsspx.org/en/protocol-agreement-may-5-1988

However the SSPX website also says that Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre retracted his signature the next day. https://fsspx.news/en/news-events/news/30-years-ago-operation-survival-story-episcopal-consecrations-3-39154

I have been looking for a copy of this retraction but have not been able to find it. Does anyone on CathInfo know where to obtain a copy? Was it delivered in writing or posted online? Thank you.

Plenus Venter · « **Reply #5 on:** February 15, 2020, 07:42:45 PM »

Archbishop LEFEBVRE and the VATICAN

May 6, 1988

Letter of Archbishop Lefebvre
to Cardinal Ratzinger

Quote

On the very evening the Protocol was signed, May 5, 1988, after mature reflection and, he says, by a grace of the Most Holy Virgin Mary, Archbishop Lefebvre clearly perceived that, in spite of the principle recognized by Rome that the episcopate was to be conferred on a member of the Society, this Accord was not satisfactory; thus the very next day, May 6, he wrote to Cardinal Ratzinger to express his misgivings, on the grounds that Rome was not willing to fix a date for the episcopal consecration.

Eminence,

Yesterday it was with real satisfaction that I put my signature on the Protocol drafted during the preceding days. However, you yourself have witnessed my deep disappointment upon the reading of the letter which you gave me,⁵⁵^] bringing the Holy Father’s answer concerning the episcopal consecrations.

Practically, to postpone the episcopal consecrations to a later undetermined date would be the fourth time that it would have been postponed.⁵⁶

The date of June 30 was clearly indicated in my previous letters as the latest possible.

I have already given you a file concerning the candidates. There are still two months to make the mandate.

Given the particular circuмstances of this proposal, the Holy Father can very well shorten the procedure so that the mandate be communicated to us around mid-June.

In case the answer will be negative, I would find myself in conscience obliged to proceed with the consecrations, relying upon the agreement given by the Holy See in the Protocol for the consecration of one bishop member of the Society.

The reticence expressed on the subject of the episcopal consecration of a member of the Society, either by writing or by word of mouth, gives me reason to fear delays. Everything is now prepared for the ceremony of June 30: hotel reservations, transportation, rental of a huge tent to house the ceremony.

The disappointment of our priests and faithful would be extreme. All of them hope that this consecration will be realized with the agreement of the Holy See; but being already disappointed by previous delays they will not understand that I would accept a further delay. They are aware and desirous above all of having truly Catholic bishops, transmitting the true Faith to them, and communicating to them in a way that is certain the graces of salvation to which they aspire for themselves and for their children.

In the hope that this request shall not be an insurmountable obstacle to the reconciliation in process, please, Eminence, accept my respectful and fraternal sentiments in Christo et Maria.

† Marcel Lefebvre

Former Archbishop-Bishop of Tulle

Recalling the evening of May 5 to a reporter for 30 Days magazine,⁵⁷the Archbishop himself described how he came to write the preceding letter:

Yes, I signed the accord, but with extreme distrust. The same distrust I had when I came to Rome. I had made an effort in order to see whether something had changed in Rome, if they had decided to return to Tradition.

But all the disillusionments of these years kept coming back into my mind. The climate of distrust that characterized the meetings first with Cardinal Seper, then with Cardinal Ratzinger. The immense, laborious exchange of correspondence, and then all the things that happened against Tradition, in France and elsewhere. And the tricks that were played on us: Fr. Augustine at Flavigny forced to celebrate the Mass of Paul VI after he had returned to communion with Rome, the two seminaries set up in Rome for the deserters from Ecône over the years. Both were closed, and the seminarians sent back to those bishops from whom they had fled. And the last attempt, the Mater Ecclesiæ, will close down next year. The letter that I received from the Abbé Carlo⁵⁸ is proof to me of the ill-will of Rome. And the apostolic visit of Cardinal Gagnon about which they obstinately refused to tell me anything. “These meetings are the result of that visit,” Ratzinger’s secretary said to me. But not a word about the report presented to the Pope. Just as it happened in 1974 after the visit of the two Belgian visitors. Still today I know nothing about the report they made.

And Assisi, the visit to the ѕуηαgσgυє,⁵⁹ the Cardinals who a few days before had gone to genuflect in front of Gorbachev. And now they were deceiving us again.

During the night between May 5 and May 6, I said to myself: “All this is impossible. I cannot accept Ratzinger’s answer, which avoids fixing the date of the ordination.” Then I thought that I should write a letter to the Pope and to Ratzinger: if they would not grant me the ordination on June 30, I would do it anyway. On the morning of May 6, I wrote the letter and I sent it to them.

Quote

Was this letter the cause of the cessation of the negotiations?
This May 5 Protocol had several flaws. In the present letter His Grace highlights one, the most urgent one, i.e., the vagueness of the Protocol concerning the consecrations of bishops: No date was fixed, no candidate agreed upon.
Many accused Archbishop Lefebvre of having reneged on the Protocol by this letter. However, a careful reading of both cannot show any opposition between them. No date was mentioned in the Protocol, therefore he asked for a date. This was not to oppose the protocol, but rather to take steps to put it in practice. Archbishop Lefebvre did threaten in this letter, because, as he said, every step forward in the negotiation had only been obtained upon the pressure of such threats.
Such a threat did achieve its purpose, as Cardinal Ratzinger did give a date in his letter of May 30, 1988.
In that letter of May 30, 1988, by asking for “a greater number of dossiers on possible candidates,” Cardinal Ratzinger practically rejected all the candidates proposed by Archbishop Lefebvre. That was the real cause of the break of negotiations. Indeed what guarantee that the new names His Grace would have proposed, would be accepted by August 15? By rejecting the candidates proposed by Archbishop Lefebvre, Cardinal Ratzinger made clear that the Vatican was not sincere in fulfilling its promises for a Bishop.

55. This sentence would seem to indicate that there was a letter from the Pope to Archbishop Lefebvre given on May 5. There was no such letter. It rather refers to the “Draft of a Letter Given to Archbishop Lefebvre for the Holy Father” (See previous docuмent, p.81); it refers in particular to the two sentences: “Of course, I leave to Your Holiness the decision concerning the person to be chosen and the opportune moment. May I just express the wish that this be not in the too distant future.” The vagueness of such expression naturally aroused the fears of Archbishop Lefebvre.

56. The first date had been set for the 40th anniversary of his episcopal consecration (Oct. 3, 1987). Late September, upon the report of some improvement of attitude in Rome with the hope of a proper visit of the Society, it was postponed to the Feast of St. John the Evangelist (Dec. 27, 1987); at the time of the visit, with the new hope of a true solution, it was postponed to Good Shepherd Sunday (Apr. 17, 1988), and later, due to the slowness of the negotiations to St. Paul’s Commemoration (June 30, 1988).

57. 30 Days, July 1988, pp.12-13.

58. One of the seminarians at Ecône staying at Mater Ecclesiæ.See his letter of June 2, 1988, in Part II, p.167.

59. i.e., the ecuмenical day of prayer held in Assisi on October 27, 1986 and the Pope’s visit to the ѕуηαgσgυє of Rome on April 13, 1986.

Archbishop LEFEBVRE and the VATICAN

June 2, 1988

Letter of Archbishop Lefebvre
to Pope John Paul II

Most Holy Father,

The conversations and meetings with Cardinal Ratzinger and his collaborators, although they took place in an atmosphere of courtesy and charity, persuaded us that the moment for a frank and efficacious collaboration between us has not yet arrived.

For indeed, if the ordinary Christian is authorized to ask the competent Church authorities to preserve for him the Faith of his Baptism, how much more true is that for priests, religious and nuns?

It is to keep the Faith of our Baptism intact that we have had to resist the spirit of Vatican II and the reforms inspired by it.

The false ecuмenism which is at the origin of all the Council’s innovations in the liturgy, in the new relationship between the Church and the world, in the conception of the Church itself, is leading the Church to its ruin and Catholics to apostasy.

Being radically opposed to this destruction of our Faith and determined to remain with the traditional doctrine and discipline of the Church, especially as far as the formation of priests and the religious life is concerned, we find ourselves in the absolute necessity of having ecclesiastical authorities who embrace our concerns and will help us to protect ourselves against the spirit of Vatican II and the spirit of Assisi.

That is why we are asking for several bishops chosen from within Catholic Tradition, and for a majority of the members on the projected Roman Commission for Tradition, in order to protect ourselves against all compromise.

Given the refusal to consider our requests, and it being evident that the purpose of this reconciliation is not at all the same in the eyes of the Holy See as it is in our eyes, we believe it preferable to wait for times more propitious for the return of Rome to Tradition.⁷²

That is why we shall give ourselves the means to carry on the work which Providence has entrusted to us, being assured by His Eminence Cardinal Ratzinger’s letter of May 30, that the episcopal consecration is not contrary to the will of the Holy See, since it was granted for August 15.⁷³

We shall continue to pray for modern Rome, infested with Modernism, to become once more Catholic Rome and to rediscover its 2,000 year-old tradition. Then the problem of our reconciliation will have no further reason to exist and the Church will experience a new youth.

Be so good, Most Holy Father, as to accept the expression of my most respectful and filially devoted sentiments in Jesus and Mary.

† Marcel Lefebvre

72. Note the expression. The Society of Saint Pius X never departed from the Church. It remains united with 20 centuries of popes and saints. Those who need to “return” are those who have engaged themselves in new paths of doctrines and practices.

73. L’Osservatore Romano and others have objected to this sentence. Archbishop Lefebvre does not say here that the Holy See agrees with all the particular circuмstances of the consecrations, merely to its principle.

Nishant Xavier · « **Reply #6 on:** February 15, 2020, 09:10:35 PM »

The May 6th Letter confirms that what disrupted the talks was not the Protocol, but the requirement of at least one Bishop to perpetuate Catholic Tradition. Notice the words, "Yesterday it was with real satisfaction that I put my signature on the Protocol drafted during the preceding days. However, you yourself have witnessed my deep disappointment upon the reading of the letter which you gave me,55 ] bringing the Holy Father’s answer concerning the episcopal consecrations." "with real satisfaction" and the portion "concerning the episcopal consecrations" is obvious.

From 1980 to 1990, Archbishop Lefebvre's thought is clear when all His Grace's statements over that time period are read - +ABL would much prefer "the Traditionalist Citadel" continues in the Church with full canonical normalization, such as has now been obtained. But if Tradition is unjustly deprived of it, then we have to bear that Cross and move on, while waiting for it to be restored.

Here's a letter from 1980, and a speech from 1990:

"I would be grateful to God and to Your Holiness if these clear declarations could hasten the free use of the traditional liturgy, and the recognition of the Society of St. Pius X by the Church, and likewise of all those who, subscribing to these declarations, have striven to save the Church by perpetuating its Tradition.

I beg Your Holiness to accept my profound and filial respect in Christo et Maria.

+ Marcel Lefebvre" https://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Case_for_Defence.htm

So, Archbishop Lefebvre would be (1) grateful for full canonical recognition, (2) the hastening of the free use of the traditional liturgy, and (3) the similar recognition of all other traditional groups who subscribed to what His Grace declared in this 1980 letter.

V. "Someone was saying to me yesterday, "But what if Rome accepted your bishops and then you were completely exempted from the other bishops' jurisdiction?" But firstly, they are a long way right now from accepting any such thing, and then, let them first make us such an offer! But I do not think they are anywhere near doing so. For what has been up till now the difficulty has been precisely their giving to us a Traditionalist bishop. They did not want to. It had to be a bishop according to the profile laid down by the Holy See." https://sspx.org/en/two-years-after-consecrations

That difficulty has been overcome. Rome has granted all 3 Bishops with the Society faculties and jurisdiction and in principle would have been willing to grant it to additional Bishops with the Society. So, there is no more difficulty to Tradition continuing with canonical status. If +ABL had required the Crisis in the Church should end before Canonical normalization, even in 1970, the Society would not have been founded in a canonically regular way, because the Crisis in the Church had not ended in 1970...

Your own quote above says, "Many accused Archbishop Lefebvre of having reneged on the Protocol by this letter. However, a careful reading of both cannot show any opposition between them. No date was mentioned in the Protocol, therefore he asked for a date. This was not to oppose the protocol, but rather to take steps to put it in practice." Right. So the date for the Episcopal Consecration was paramount. Well, the Episcopal Consecration problem has been solved now, with Rome recognizing all 3 Society Bishops, ergo ...

Author Topic: The 2012 Declaration of Bishop Fellay compared to the 1988 Declaration of +ABL. (Read 841 times)

Nishant Xavier

The 2012 Declaration of Bishop Fellay compared to the 1988 Declaration of +ABL.

S1Jude

Re: The 2012 Declaration of Bishop Fellay compared to the 1988 Declaration of +ABL.

Plenus Venter

Re: The 2012 Declaration of Bishop Fellay compared to the 1988 Declaration of +ABL.

Plenus Venter

Re: The 2012 Declaration of Bishop Fellay compared to the 1988 Declaration of +ABL.

leonn

Re: The 2012 Declaration of Bishop Fellay compared to the 1988 Declaration of +ABL.

Plenus Venter

Re: The 2012 Declaration of Bishop Fellay compared to the 1988 Declaration of +ABL.

Nishant Xavier

Re: The 2012 Declaration of Bishop Fellay compared to the 1988 Declaration of +ABL.