TWO LETTERS, TWO ORIENTATIONS
By His Excellency Thomas Aquinas, O.S.B.
Three bishops wrote to their Superior about the danger of a purely practical agreement with Rome, and appealed to their founder, Bishop Lefebvre. “He was right 25 years ago; he is still right today,” they said.
To this warning, the Superior replied that the three bishops were devoid of supernatural spirit and sense of reality—
a serious accusation that could fall on Bishop Lefebvre himself.
But is it true? Would it not be the other way around: Bishop Fellay who would be devoid of these two qualities?
That is the whole question. Who lacks realism and supernatural spirit?
It is not Bishop Lefebvre.
Nor the three bishops who followed his example.
They affirmed that the situation at the time (2012) was not substantially different from that of 2006, when it had been decided not to make a practical agreement without a doctrinal agreement. They warned of the danger of placing themselves in the hands of the conciliar bishops and modernist Rome.
Unrealism?
Lack of supernatural spirit?
They wished to preserve the Society from the deep divisions that could arise.
Lack of sense of reality? Lack of supernatural spirit?
They drew the attention of the Superior General to the modernist thought of Benedict XVI.
They noticed the symptoms of a decline in the confession of the Faith.
Unrealism?
Lack of supernatural spirit?
Bishop Lefebvre spoke of the spiritual AIDS of modernist Rome.
Bishop Fellay does not seem to think in the same way or to take the same precautions. He minimizes the seriousness of the Council’s errors. For him, religious liberty has become a “very, very small freedom.”
The Council—something about which many think he said what he did not say.
Who are these “many”?
The three bishops?
He accuses them of treating the Council’s errors as if they were “super-heresies.”
If we compare Bishop Fellay to Bishop Lefebvre, the difference is evident.
Bishop Lefebvre spoke of apostasy in Rome.
Bishop Fellay minimizes the situation and seeks a dangerous rapprochement with modernist Rome, with or without an agreement.
What were the fruits of Bishop Fellay’s alleged superiority—that is, of being more realistic and more supernatural than Bishop Williamson, Bishop Tissier, and Bishop de Galarreta?
Were the fruits sweet or bitter?
Let each judge for himself.
Great commotion in the Society;
change in the principle governing relations with Rome (from no practical agreement without doctrinal agreement to practical agreement without doctrinal agreement);
departure of priests who left the Society, including Abbé Faure;
expulsion of the most combative bishop of the Society (Bishop Williamson);
expulsion of several priests;
perplexity among others who, though remaining in the Society, did not approve of the new policy initiated by Bishop Fellay;
disorientation of the faithful;
distancing from certain friendly communities;
reservations from others;
acceptance of compromise measures regarding the Society, even to the point of accepting the new provisions on marriages—
causing the reaction and resignation of seven French deans and the reaction of three friendly communities;
etc.
Good fruit?
No.
What should be concluded?
There are two orientations in Tradition: that of Bishop Lefebvre and that of Bishop Fellay—at least that of Bishop Fellay as Superior General. Since Bishop Fellay has never retracted, we may consider that he still thinks this way.
We follow Bishop Lefebvre, and we are grateful to Bishop Williamson for resisting Bishop Fellay.
The Resistance can continue the fight with the holy freedom of the children of God, to defend Tradition and transmit it according to the example given us by Bishop Lefebvre:
“Tradidi quod et accepi.”
I transmitted what I received.
Topic: TWO LETTERS, TWO ORIENTATIONS By His Excellency Thomas Aquinas, O.S.B. (Read 736 times)