October 3, 2014 16:02 |
Cardinal and Bishop Fellay Müller
(Menzingen) Bishop Bernard Fellay, Superior General of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X (SSPX) has today addressed the press service of the SSPX about the meeting on 23 September 2014, the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Gerhard Ludwig Cardinal Müller. In some ways there is nothing new to report, "the doctrinal differences" would continue, says Fellay. This had already emerged in the context of formal talks between the SSPX theologians and a delegation of the CDF in the years 2009-2011, which led to the rejection on the part of the SSPX of the signing of the doctrinal preamble.
At the same time the situation had also changed. So there is a new pope and a new Prefect of the Congregation. The conclusion of the talk two and a half weeks ago makes it clear "that neither they nor we want a break in relations". Both sides also insisted "on the fact that the doctrinal issues must be resolved before a canonical recognition". Because of the ambiguities in the doctrinal preamble it is impossible for the SSPX, however, to sign.
Fellay also pointed to the "intensification of the Church Crisis"t, which was initiated by Walter Cardinal Kasper. To the concerns expressed by a number of cardinals in criticism of Kasper Fellay said: "Since the criticism of the two Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci in the Short Critical Examination of the New Ordo Missæ in 1969, Rome has never seen the like. But what has not changed is that the Roman authorities take no account of our criticisms of the Council, because they seem to them secondary or even to be illusory in view of the acute problems that arise in the Church today. These leaders recognize the crisis, which has rocked the Church up to the highest level - even among the cardinals. But they do not see that the Council could be the disproportionate or even the main cause of this crisis. "
Cardinal Kasper had proposed in his speech on the occasion of the consistory in February, "to do again what has already been done at the Council, namely to reaffirm Catholic doctrine, but at the same time, offer an opening for the care of souls." This idea confirmed by the Cardinal is more widespread, such as in interviews: "He recalled that the doctrine could not change in the theory, but he also introduces the idea that there would be situations in concrete reality, where the doctrine can not be applied." For the SSPX Kasper is not the cause of this evil: "For our part we accuse the council of making this artificial distinction between doctrine and pastoral care before, because the care of souls must necessarily flow from doctrine. Due to various openings in the pastoral area, major changes were introduced in the Church and her teaching was affected thereby. This took place during and after the Council, and we denounce the same strategy, which today is applied to marriage morality. "Nevertheless, it was in the Conciliar texts," where there were major changes" in terms of doctrine, such as religious freedom, ecumenism and collegiality .
As to the question whether the recent discussions were good, the dialogue from 2009 to 2011 have brought nothing, Fellay said, but that they wanted to follow the example of the founder of the Society, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, "who has never refused the invitations the Roman authorities. We always reply to those who question us about the reasons of our faith. We can not escape this obligation, and we do it in the spirit and with the commitments that have been defined by the last General Chapter. "Tradition is the answer to the current crisis," said the Superior General.
Text: Benedict M. Buerger
Image: forum Lefebvristes.fr
Image: forum Lefebvristes.fr
24 comments:
"religious freedom" - primacy of conscience must decide which religion you belong to because all religions are good and lead to Heaven
"ecumenism" - join the global club of sects led by the NO neo-church
"collegiality" - nobody is ultimately responsible or accountable
The SSPX can answer most effectively by doing what it has done best - defending Sacred Tradition in the Sacraments.
What is pathetic is that the SSPX makes the same mistake :Muller-Fellay Meeting
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/10/what-is-pathetic-is-that-sspx-makes.html
Seems to me that it's the baddies who want most for this discussion to stop.
“Consequently, if our purpose is to find a way of setting the Church straight again, it is by turning to Rome that maybe, with the grace of God, we may perhaps manage to set the situation straight. It is not one single bishop like myself who can set the whole situation straight in the Catholic Church. That is why I strive to keep on going to Rome and to plead the cause of Tradition” ~ Archbishop Lefebvre
His Excellency is following the example of the great Archbishop Lefebvre.
Long live Bishop Bernard Fellay!
Bp. Fellay is the hope of the Church along with other like minded individuals. He speaks with authority. He wants a more inclusive Church where all Catholic truth is embraced without hesitation. Clearly, a leader for these troubled times.
Your quote is completely out of context "remnantofthefaith" - Archbishop Lefebvre left adequate admonitions for his successors to follow with regard to what extent they should permit themselves to associate with "Modernist" Rome which he refused to accept as having anything to do with "Eternal Rome", the Rome of Tradition.
In an Interview with the magazine "Fideliter: in 1989 he stated categorically....
“We would have to re-enter this
Conciliar Church in order, supposedly, to make it
Catholic. That is a complete illusion It is not the
subjects that make the superiors, but the superiors who
make the subjects...Amongst the whole Roman
Curia, amongst all the world’s bishops who are
progressives, I would have been completely
swamped. I would have been able to do nothing...
[As for the Pope appointing conservative bishops]
I don’t think it is a true return to Tradition. Just
as in a fight when the troops are going a little
too far ahead one holds them back, so they
are slightly putting the brakes on the impulse of
Vatican II because the supporters of the Council
are going too far... the supposedly conservative
bishops are wholly supportive of the Council and
of the post-Conciliar reforms... No, all of that is
tactics, which you have to use in any fight. You
have to avoid excesses... [Asked about signs of
benevolence to Tradition] There are plenty
of signs showing us that what you are talking
about is simply exceptional and temporary...So
I do not think it is opportune to try contacting Rome.
I think we must still wait. Wait, unfortunately, for the
situation to get still worse on their side. But up till now,
they do not want to recognize the fact....That is why
what can look like a concession is in reality merely a
maneuver to separate us from the largest number of
faithful possible. This is the perspective in which they
seem to be always giving a little more and even going
very far. We must absolutely convince our faithful that
it 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 twenty years to
avoid the Conciliar errors, it was not in order, now, to
put ourselves in the hands of those professing these
errors. ”
Since he passed on, nothing has changed at all in favour of any rapprochement. On the contrary, the conditions have worsened considerably; enough to deter a fool rushing in where angels would fear to tread. the loss of over 100 priests is a shocking testimonial to the correct reasoning of The Archbishop in 1990. Even more so now with an openly antipathetic papacy and his radical liberal modernist allies in the neo-Catholic episcopate.
There is a virulent but not contagious minority that wants to undermine any efforts to set the rudder straight within, and an even larger bunch, just as malign and deceitful without who feels the same way.
The words of the Archbishop are never out of context, sir. Perhaps you have taken him out of context by using his quote to further your agenda; and just what is that, anyway? You don’t speak for the Archbishop, anymore than the ‘Resistance’ does. Archbishop Lefebvre was refusing to "re-enter" the conciliar church, in an attempt to “make it Catholic”, and saying that it was not opportune to contact Rome at that time.
This quote of his is not any kind of admonition for his successors to follow concerning whether or not they should go to Rome when called upon to do so. Two totally different scenarios altogether.
This is the problem with people who want to misrepresent Archbishop Lefebvre to try and justify a complete break with Rome, and any legitimate authority whatsoever. Such is the Resistance Movement. There is no similarity between the two, the SSPX and the Resistance. The Society is carrying on his work, while others are just carrying-on…
This is the work of the devil through the free-masons that had infiltrated the Society of Pope Pius X, and were subsequently shown the door by a very astute and Godly Bishop – His Excellency, Bishop Bernard Fellay.
remnantofthefaith,
You don't have to worry about The Resistance for much longer. Most of the Resistance priests in South America don't pray for Pope Francis in the Canon. Bishop Williamson wants to have ecumenical dialog with sedevacantists. Resistance priests keep making fools of themselves (e.g. Fr. Pfeiffer accusing Benedict XVI of satanically sacrificing babies) and many lay folk barely receive the sacraments or are turning over to sedevacantist chapels. This is nothing more than a purging of the toxic, cancerous, schismatic, and crypto-sedevacantist elements in the SSPX. The "angry trads" are going bye-bye to Thuc town.
It's pure rebellion and anger, they need to head over to Chastity in San Francisco and get some help from Dr. Richmond.
Are you talking about the modernists and freemasons in the Church that are sabotaging the SSPX-Rome discussions? Or are you talking about the Resistance movement that is trying to sabotage the SSPX-Rome discussions? Oh wait, you're talking about both. My bad. It's hard to distinguish between two entities when they both behave the same way, they must be guided by the same spiritual entity.
Is there any infallible magisterial teaching stating that the Chair of Peter can never be vacant while an elected pope sits in it?
Traditionalists don't want SSPX to join w/an unrepentant Rome -- i.e. the bird to be eaten by the boa constrictor. It is odd to me that you, Tancred, want SSPX to join w/Rome. To me if SSPX could join w/Rome it would be because Rome had the faith back. If that were true SSPX could just dissolve. I don't see what you don't understand about this statement: Out of the same mouth (fountain/tree) cannot come good and evil. For SSPX to join Rome to me would be good and evil coming out of the same mouth.
Going beyond that when are you going to post re: Socci's book. I just read an excerpt and he is saying that Francis can't be Pope because they had 5 votes in one day. He is nullifying the election on a technicality. I wonder if they reheld it today if Bergoglio would be re-elected.
I wish I knew Lynda, but maybe someone can shed some light on that question. As for the upcoming Synod that begins in earnest on Monday, Bp. Fellay has it nailed. They will leave the Doctrine in place, but they want to bypass it altogether, for the sake of MERCY. This is exactly what's going to happen. Pope Francis would never declare a 'new doctrine', or tweak the Doctrine on marriage and divorce we already have. He's just going to tell Bishops to use their 'Pastoral judgement' for individual couples and for the 'sake of mercy' admit them to communion. In other words......just ignore the Doctrine when they feel the need.
Oh, and for the traditional Cardinals that they will be hearing from, as I once read him say to (I believe) it was Kasper about a traditional prelate........'I just let it go in one ear and out the other'. I 'think' that's how it went. Someone correct me if I don't have my facts exactly right.
I can just see Pope Francis now, with fingers in his ears saying:
'blah, blah, blah.
Entirely on the contrary, the Archbishop knew well he could not trust Ratzinger or JP II. He took Christ's side in calling the liberal modernists what they are without fear and he kept a sure and steadfast distance. Contrary to this convenient revisionist notion, he did not go running off to Rome hoping vainly for a change or for an agreement because he used his simple but effective benchmark, viz-a-viz, "Eternal Rome", the Rome of Tradition. His words express this well enough. Evidently not to those whose ambition is to hand The SSPX over to an antipathetic neo-catholic episcopate.
Lefebvre built up The Society on obedience to the rule of Traditional Roman Catholic doctrinal practice, the Traditional Sacraments and therein a firm unity of purpose. Bishops Fellay has fragmented this by creating suspicion and distrust among The Society's priests and lay. You cannot deny this because it is insidious at the moment; you obviously have not noticed but he is slowly dismantling The Society having already shed over 100 priests who will not obey his rules. This loss was due to the very act he is once again repeating - another cap in hand visit on a fool's errand - no one in The Vatican is going to rewrite anything to suit The Society: not a doctrinal preamble for what it's worth; not the conciliar creed of ecumenism, interconfessionalism, primacy of conscience, collegiality and religious freedom; not the liberal modernist orientation of neo-catholic church which is set protestantwards. Archbishop Lefebvre was justifiably skeptical about "liberal modernist Rome" and anything it might attempt with The SSPX by the late 1980s.
His words in 1989 reflect his position clearly. He could see the situation deteriorating before he passed away. Nothing has improved at all since then. Benedict XVI used sleight of hand to make-believe that intended hybridisation was tradition which Bishop Fellay miscalculated. His naivete in the face of a shrewd player whom Archbishop Lefbevre was far too discerning for, was well-revealed as his policy of "reconciliation" ended in a major disaster for The SSPX from which he escaped with burnt fingers. Some of us saw this coming - we know Cardinal Ratzinger - he hasn't changed - he says so himself frequently - Archbishop Lefebvre discerned this and was wise with him.
It is no use pretending that Bishop Fellay knows what he is doing or that it is all the fault of Bishop Williamson. The enemy is an astute one without many fixed principles but certainly one which is addiction to perpetual change. It is capable of turning the screw whenever it pleases. How deeply Archbishop Lefebvre understood that. Now they can see what the consequences are for all traditionalists who trust "liberal modernist Rome". They are soon pressurised, as Fr Laguérie has discovered, to accept the NO; give way on matters of principle and to play the game of "inclusiveness". How the NO loves such postmodernist terminology. It has constructed a tapestry of sect-like groups within its liberal structure and would like nothing more to asphyxiate The Society as though it were little more than the FSSP or one of its other hybrid indult groups.
It is time Bishop Fellay understood this too. Bergoglio, Muller, Kasper et al. are not for turning but they estimate that they can turn everyone else, while they talk out of both sides of their mouths. In fact, Kasper doesn't he is so radically liberal.
Bishop Fellay would be better advised learning from his master before he winds up doing the very job of deconstruction his enemies in Rome would like to do themselves. They came close last time as events have revealed. No damage limitation gloss-over can hide that fact.
"modernists and freemasons' - it is only liberal modernists who are negotiating with Fellay et al. You cannot possibly imagine that there is any other wing of the church than that involved in such pointless talks? there's nothing to sabotage - it is either the NO way or nothing at all - nothing that is..unless The SSPX want to become like all the other "inclusive" groups within the NO club of sects and groups.
The doctrine of the Faith has been ignored, subverted for decades. What children learn in Cathechesis, what seminarians learn in seminaries, what parishioners hear from the pulpit is not in accordance with the true Faith, but in opposition. The average baptised and confirmed person has never been taught the true doctrine of the Faith and the unchanging moral law.
AMEN, Linda! Since Vatican ll there has been either; lacking cathechesis, bad cathechesis, or NO CATHECHESIS. Simple as that. Unless people have been given the grace to self teach the faith, how in the world can they have correctly formed consciences? The poor parents of yesteryear were pretty much in the fight of their lives for their children's souls, because the Church was actually undermining everything that they were being taught at home. And then sadly, some (like me for instance) are STILL in the fight for correct forming as best they can, because now these kids are adults, and confused about the faith. What the Church did to us after Vat ll is blatantly diabolical. One of the Deacons at my Parish calls them 'The Lost Generation.'
And with this Synod, we are looking at 1962 ALL OVER AGAIN!
Please open your eyes! This apparent approach to the SSPX is a diabolical plot by Pope Bergoglio who appears to be sympathetic to the SSPX while persecuting traditional orders like the Friars of the Immaculate, the ratzingerian Cardinals like Piacenza et al. This is a strategy to confuse the faithful by appeareing to be of open mind which he is not. As proof ot this, please refer to the article published today in Rorate-Caeli about this subject.
CH DUPUY
A soldier doesn't shrink from the fight because he might be shot.
Sometimes the only way to uncover an ambush is to send someone forward.
How are they pointless? Because you say they are?
Post a Comment