Avrillé Dominican's Letters n° 87 (May 13, 2014)
Towards a “canonical recognition of tolerance” ad tempus
In the April-May issue (no. 88) of Le Rocher, the bulletin of the SSPX Swiss District, on the question of an eventual agreement with Rome, Bishop Fellay responded: “Right now [that is, under Pope Francis], that would be foolish.” We fully agree. We also think that that would have been just as foolish under Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI. We only need to consider all those who have made an agreement with the conciliar Church and who have all betrayed the fight for the faith, without exception.
Nevertheless, despite these remarks, Bishop Fellay announced at the same time to the seminarians at Zaitzkoffen, Germany, that if Rome itself agreed to a recognition of the Society, he could not see why he should refuse it. One of the assistants reported a little after the news with enthusiasm to the superiors of religious communities, explaining that this recognition would be ad tempus (temporary). An authority of the Society confirmed that Bishop Fellay hoped to obtain a recognition of tolerance.
The April 2014 issue of the Angelus magazine is already preparing the terrain for the faithful:
"For the SSPX to wait until the Romans’ full doctrinal conversion to put itself into their hands is unrealistic. . . . The SSPX has for so long kept its distance from Rome that it risks losing all Catholic sense of hierarchy, obedience and authority."
While failing to understand how a “canonical recognition” would not be insane, whereas an “agreement” with Rome would be, these affirmations and this new perspective bring us to a number of considerations:
—when the faith is in question, gradual conversion is not possible, contrary to what happens when it is only morals at stake. One has the faith or one does not have it. The negation of a single truth suffices to lose all the Catholic faith. The only solution for moving closer to Rome is to wait for its complete conversion.
—to maintain our distance from modernist and apostate Rome is the only way to keep our faith intact. This includes faith in the primacy of Peter. Therefore, there is no need to worry: we have not lost the sense of hierarchy and authority.
—a canonical recognition of tolerance ad tempus would only be a granting of parole, where one is “free”, as long as he behaves himself... Rome will not tolerate attacking the actions of the pope, publicly saying that people must not attend the new “Mass”, that John-Paul II is not a saint, etc. When Fr. de Cacqueray wrote an excellent text against Assisi IV, Cardinal Levada told Bishop Fellay that it was unacceptable, and the result was that the General House then remained silent and did not put out a single communiqué to protest against this scandalous meeting. A canonical recognition would be inevitably a condemnation to silence, as the history of the Ecclesia Dei communities has proven beyond the shadow of a doubt. As soon as a priest dares to break the silence, and attacks the scandals of modernist Rome, he will be sanctioned unmercifully by the General House, which will do all in its power to maintain the “official recognition” that it so much desired and at last obtained.
Let’s not forget the accord granted to Le Barroux monastery. Here is what they stated at the time:
“We have signed this agreement under two conditions:
* that this event not be a discredit to the person of Archbishop Lefebvre;
*that no doctrinal or liturgical counterpart be required of us, and that no silence be imposed on our anti-modernist preaching.1”
Le Barroux now defends religious liberty and ecumenism, and the monks regularly concelebrate the new Mass when they are outside of the monastery. Those who tried to resist have been thrown out. Is this not clear?
Some object that “as long as nothing has been signed, there’s nothing to worry”. No, because the desire to attain recognition from Rome has already started to paralyze the battle of the Faith for the salvation of souls! So as not to offend the authorities, criticism of the current scandals have become more and more rare2. The faithful will already have the “Ecclesia Dei” spirit even before anything is signed.
1. Dom Gérard, in the 18 August 1988 issue of the journal Présent.
2. At best, we still see some criticism of Vatican II, but the current authorities are rarely called into question. For example, the letter of protest against the recent “canonizations” was actually a critique of Vatican II. The question of Pope Francis’ personal responsibility is not addressed.
Read more: cor-mariae./thread/1970?ixzz355kc7MF0=undefined#ixzz356PYWab5