http://www.mediafire.com/view/?0corzrcddbdxo17
That's a 7-page docuмent that begins with page 1:
February 2013 Page 1 of 7
The Society of St. Pius X and the Diocesan Bishops
Introduction
One of the essential requirements prior to being canonically regularized by Rome that the leadership of the Society of
St. Pius X (SSPX) had proclaimed for many years is that the work of the Society must be free from the control of the
Diocesan Bishops; otherwise, its very survival would be at stake. A Catholic who is faithful to Tradition and
understands the gravity of the Church crisis of the last 50 years clearly sees the wisdom of taking this position.
However, during the year 2012 the SSPX leadership made a dramatic change regarding such an important matter. It
is the purpose of this paper to demonstrate that this is indeed the case as well as to show some of the absurdities,
discrepancies, and ambiguities in the speech of the SSPX leaders. The author of this paper believes the reader will
find the evidence compelling that the current SSPX leadership cannot be trusted, regardless of good intentions, and
instead must be opposed for the sake of saving the largest organized bastion of Catholic Tradition and many souls
who will otherwise be like sheep led to the slaughter of Modernist Rome.
The Record of Events
1) “We must absolutely convince our faithful that is no more than a maneuver, that it is dangerous to put oneself into
the hands of Conciliar bishops and Modernist Rome. It is the greatest danger threatening our people. If we have
struggled for 20 years to avoid the Conciliar errors, it was not in order, now, to put ourselves in the hands of those
professing these errors.”
(One Year after the Consecrations: an Interview with Archbishop Lefebvre, Fideliter, July-August 1989 Issue)
2) In the August 2001 issue of Communicantes (former Canadian SSPX Magazine), there was published an interview
conducted by Fr. de Tanouarn with His Excellency Bishop Bernard Fellay in which His Excellency spoke of a
canonical structure proposed by Rome:
“You have no doubt heard talk of this idea of an apostolic administration. The Society of St. Pius X would have
become incorporated into an apostolic administration.
What does this signify?
The apostolic administration ordinarily
is a diocesan structure, or quasi diocesan, in a time of crisis, over a given territory.
Well! For us this territory would be the entire world.
In other words, they offered us a structure that covered the entire world, a kind of personal diocese…”
Fr. de Tanouarn intervened:
“Excuse me for interrupting, Your Excellency, you mean a personal prelacy…”
Bishop Fellay responded (this author’s emphasis in bold):
“Not at all.
The apostolic administration is better than a personal prelacy.
In the first place, a personal prelacy is not necessarily governed by a bishop.
An apostolic administration, which is quasi diocesan, normally would be.
Furthermore, and above all, the action of an apostolic administration is not limited to its members.
The Opus Dei, which is the personal prelacy that exists today, is not subject to the local bishop in all that concerns its
members, but it could not consider any external action without the consent of the bishop. With the apostolic
administration, we avoid this restriction.
We would be able to take an autonomous apostolic action without
having to ask authorisation from the diocesan bishop, since we would have a veritable diocese, whose
distinctive characteristic is that it extends to the entire world.
It is very important that such a proposition has
been made, because after all, this juridical solution has never happened before, it is ‘sui generis’.
Now that it has been established, it can represent for us, from a juridical point of view, a reference, a position of comparison.
Especially since it is to the Society of St. Pius X that this possibility has been proposed, which shows just how
seriously Rome sees our resistance.
It’s not by vainglory that I say that, believe me: symbolically (first of all, it's
not a question of numbers) we represent something very important for Rome, and
this also is new."
When Bishop Fellay says "It's not by vainglory that I say that," what he means to
say is that it is by vainglory that he's saying that. For the "resistance" is not his
anymore. He has given up his resistance and has capitulated. The resistance
belongs to those who are now facing him up, which he hates. But he is not averse
to rob them not only of their real estate and patrimony but also of their virtue.
He does this by denying that it is by vainglory that he says that, which see.
Then he promptly rubs salt into the wound by asking us
to believe him!You have to understand his frame of mind: to openly deny that which is in fact
happening, for its reality itself is what prompts him to deny the reality, in an effort
to remove it from the mind of the listener. This is a Modernist tactic which +Fellay
has learned from someone, but from whom is not precisely clear. You might have
to go checking to see whose writings he has been studying in his spare time, holed
up in Menzingen, when he's not wasting is time having intercourse with Modernists
in Rome, by email or text message or whatever. Perhaps he learned it from
Yves Congar, or Karl Rahner, Henri de Lubac, Joseph Stalin, Idi Amin, Edward
Schillebeeckx, Teihard de Chardin, or possibly erstwhile Joseph Cardinal
Ratzinger, the pre-eminent Modernist of all time, the king of kings, so to
speak.................
3) In an interview conducted by Brian Mershon of The Remnant and published on February 18, 2009, His Excellency
Bishop Bernard Fellay was posed the following question (my emphasis in bold):
“Do you foresee any oversight by territorial diocesan bishops once the Society is regularized?”
His Excellency answered (this author’s emphasis in bold):
February 2013 Page 2 of 7
“That would be our death. The situation of the Church is such that once the doctrinal issues have been clarified, we
will need our own autonomy in order to survive. This means that we will have to be directly under the authority
of the Pope with an exemption. If we look at the history of the Church, we see that every time the Popes wanted to
restore the Church, they leaned upon new strength like the Benedictine Cistercians whom the pope allowed to act as
best as possible during the crisis, in a status of exemption, in order to overcome the crisis.”
4) On June 1, 2012 an interview was conducted by Rivarol with His Excellency Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais.
The question was asked by Rivarol:
“Some believe that the statute of a personal prelature proposed to you will provide sufficient guarantee to you
concerning all danger of abandoning the combat for the faith.”
Bishop Tissier de Mallerais responded (this author’s emphasis in bold):
“That is incorrect. According to the project of prelature, we would not be free to create new priories without the
permission of the local bishops and, additionally, all our recent foundations would have to be confirmed by
these same bishops. It would thus mean subjugating us quite unnecessarily to an overall Modernist
episcopate.”
5) On June 8, 2012, the official international news organ of the Society of St. Pius X published an interview with His
Excellency Bishop Bernard Fellay in which the following question was asked:
“A personal prelature is the canonical structure that you mentioned in recent statements. Now, in the Code of Canon
Law, canon 297 requires not only informing diocesan bishops but obtaining their permission in order to found a work
on their territory. Although it is clear that any canonical recognition will preserve our apostolate in its present state,
are you inclined to accept the eventuality that future works may be possible only with the permission of the bishop in
dioceses where the Society of Saint Pius X is not present today?”
His Excellency answered (this author’s emphasis in bold):
“There is a lot of confusion about this question, and it is caused mainly by a misunderstanding of the nature of a
personal prelature, as well as by a misreading of the normal relation between the local ordinary and the prelature.
Add to that the fact that the only example available today of a personal prelature is Opus Dei. However, and let us
say this clearly, if a personal prelature were granted to us, our situation would not be the same. In order to
understand better what would happen, we must reflect that our status would be much more similar to that of a military
ordinariate, because we would have ordinary jurisdiction over the faithful. Thus we would be like a sort of
diocese, the jurisdiction of which extends to all its faithful regardless of their territorial situation.
“All the chapels, churches, priories, schools, and works of the Society and of the affiliated religious Congregations
would be recognized with a real autonomy for their ministry.
“It is still true—since it is Church law—that in order to open a new chapel or to found a work, it would be
necessary to have the permission of the local ordinary. We have quite obviously reported to Rome how
difficult our present situation was in the dioceses, and Rome is still working on it. Here or there, this difficulty
will be real, but since when is life without difficulties? Very probably we will also have the contrary problem, in other
words, we will not be able to respond to the requests that will come from the bishops who are friendly to us. I am
thinking of one bishop who could ask us to take charge of the formation of future priests in his diocese.
“In no way would our relations be like those of a religious congregation with a bishop; rather they would be those of
one bishop with another bishop, just like with the Ukrainians and the Armenians in the diaspora. And therefore if a
difficulty is not resolved, it would go to Rome, and there would then be a Roman intervention to settle the problem.
“Let it be said in passing that what was reported on the Internet concerning my remarks on this subject in Austria last
month is entirely false.”
6) In a statement dated July 14, 2012, the 2012 SSPX General Chapter declared,
“We have determined and approved the necessary conditions for an eventual canonical normalization.”
-Which Fr. Hewko describes, and rightly so, as "this deadly sentence."
When does a woman commit the mortal sin of abortion: when the operation is
performed, or when she determines and approves to schedule the appointment
to have the child-killing operation performed? Just as the mortal sin of abortion
is committed at the time when the woman gives her evil fiat by making the
appointment, so too, the sin of making a 'deal' with these Modernists who hate
God is committed when the conditions are determined and approved for making
a canonical normalization. ...and ends thusly:
Conclusion
Many priests and faithful alike were upset to see the dramatic change in the
Society of St. Pius X leadership’s position in regards to its relation with the
Diocesan Bishops, as officially declared at the 2012 SSPX General Chapter. In
order to alleviate their concerns, the Society leadership has been working
hard over the last several months in trying to justify its newly found position.
Unfortunately, many of the same priests and faithful have been lulled back to
sleep by the comforting words offered by Bishop Fellay and other Society
superiors appointed by his own hand. Regardless, it does not change the fact
that at the time of this writing (first week of February 2013), there has been
no retraction on the part of the Society’s leadership of a severe slackening on
a principle that, if it was to be executed by means of a canonical
regularization, would gravely endanger the Faith of hundreds of thousands of
Catholics and prevent the same Faith from reaching millions more.
It is the hope of this author that this paper has sufficiently demonstrated to
the reader that there has indeed been a dramatic change in the wrong
direction. Consequently, we cannot continue to blindly trust the current SSPX
leadership to guide the large majority of Traditional Catholics into 2013 and
beyond; rather, with charity and without judging the interior of those who have
defended this perilous stance, it is time for more priests and faithful to help
build up again the fortress of Catholic Tradition before the enemy takes up
permanent residence.
For the Reign of the Sacred and Immaculate Hearts!
Topic: The Society of St. Pius X and the Diocesan Bishops (Read 4500 times)