It is currently Sat Dec 16, 2017 9:18 am




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 23 posts ] 
 General Chapter Statement 2012 
Author Message
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post General Chapter Statement 2012
http://www.dici.org/en/news/society-of- ... statement/

Quote:
Society of St. Pius X General Chapter Statement

19-07-2012
Filed under From Tradition, News

As announced in the press communiqué of the Society of St. Pius X’s General House on July 14, 2012, the members of the General Chapter sent a common statement to Rome. It has been published today.

During the interview published at DICI on July 16, Bishop Bernard Fellay stated that this document was “the occasion to specify the (SSPX’s) road map insisting upon the conservation of the Society’s identity, the only efficacious means to help the Church to restore Christendom”. “For,” he said, “doctrinal mutism is not the answer to this “silent apostasy”, which even John Paul II denounced already in 2003.”

At the conclusion of the General Chapter of the Society of St. Pius X, gathered together at the tomb of its venerated founder, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, and united with its Superior General, the participants, bishops, superiors, and most senior members of the Society elevate to Heaven our heartfelt thanksgiving, grateful for the 42 years of marvelous Divine protection over our work, amidst a Church in crisis and a world which distances itself farther from God and His law with each passing day.

We wish to express our gratitude to each and every member of our Society: priests, brothers, sisters, third order members; to the religious communities close to us and also to our dear faithful, for their constant dedication and for their fervent prayers on the occasion of this Chapter, marked by frank exchanges of views and by a very fruitful common work. Every sacrifice and pain accepted with generosity has contributed to overcome the difficulties which the Society has encountered in recent times. We have recovered our profound unity in its essential mission: to preserve and defend the Catholic Faith, to form good priests, and to strive towards the restoration of Christendom. We have determined and approved the necessary conditions for a possible future canonical normalization. We have decided that, in that case, an extraordinary Chapter with deliberative vote will be convened beforehand.

We must never forget that the sanctification of the souls always starts within ourselves. It is the fruit of a faith which becomes vivifying and operating by the work of charity, according to the words of St. Paul: “For we can do nothing against the truth: but for the truth” (cf. II Cor., XIII, 8), and “as Christ also loved the church and delivered himself up for it… that it should be holy and without blemish” (cf. Eph. V, 25 s.).

The Chapter believes that the paramount duty of the Society, in the service which it intends to offer to the Church, is to continue, with God’s help, to profess the Catholic Faith in all its purity and integrity, with a determination matching the intensity of the constant attacks to which this very Faith is subjected nowadays.

For this reason it seems opportune that we reaffirm our faith in the Roman Catholic Church, the unique Church founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ, outside of which there is no salvation nor possibility to find the means leading to salvation; our faith in its monarchical constitution, desired by Our Lord himself, by which the supreme power of government over the universal Church belongs only to the Pope, Vicar of Christ on earth; our faith in the universal Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ, Creator of both the natural and the supernatural orders, to Whom every man and every society must submit.

The Society continues to uphold the declarations and the teachings of the constant Magisterium of the Church in regard to all the novelties of the Second Vatican Council which remain tainted with errors, and also in regard to the reforms issued from it. We find our sure guide in this uninterrupted Magisterium which, by its teaching authority, transmits the revealed Deposit of Faith in perfect harmony with the truths that the entire Church has professed, always and everywhere.

The Society finds its guide as well in the constant Tradition of the Church, which transmits and will transmit until the end of times the teachings required to preserve the Faith and the salvation of souls, while waiting for the day when an open and serious debate will be possible which may allow the return to Tradition of the ecclesiastical authorities.

We wish to unite ourselves to the others Christians persecuted in different countries of the world who are now suffering for the Catholic Faith, some even to the extent of martyrdom. Their blood, shed in union with the Victim of our altars, is the pledge for a true renewal of the Church in capite et membris, according to the old saying sanguis martyrum semen christianorum.

“Finally, we turn our eyes to the Blessed Virgin Mary, who is also jealous of the privileges of her Divine Son, jealous of His glory, of His Kingdom on earth as in Heaven. How often has she intervened for the defense, even the armed defense, of Christendom against the enemies of the Kingdom of Our Lord! We entreat her to intervene today to chase the enemies out from inside the Church who are trying to destroy it more radically than its enemies from outside. May she deign to keep in the integrity of the Faith, in the love of the Church, in devotion to the Successor of Peter, all the members of the Society of St. Pius X and all the priests and faithful who labor alongside the Society, in order that she may both keep us from schism and preserve us from heresy.

“May St. Michael the Archangel inspire us with his zeal for the glory of God and with his strength to fight the devil.

“May St. Pius X share with us a part of his wisdom, of his learning, of his sanctity, to discern the true from the false and the good from the evil in these times of confusion and lies.” (Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre; Albano, October 19, 1983).

Given at Ecône, on the 14th of July of the Year of the Lord 2012.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Thu Jul 19, 2012 2:30 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: General Chapter Statement 2012
This is wonderful. More later.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Thu Jul 19, 2012 2:31 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: General Chapter Statement 2012
The response of "rome".

Quote:
COMMUNIQUE CONCERNING PRIESTLY SOCIETY OF ST. PIUS X
Vatican City, 19 July 2012 (VIS) - Early this afternoon, the Holy See Press Office released the following English-language communique concerning the declaration which emerged from the General Chapter of the Priestly Society of St. Pius X.

"The recently concluded General Chapter of the Priestly Society of St. Pius X has addressed a declaration regarding the possibility of a canonical normalisation in the relationship of the Society and the Holy See. While it has been made public, the declaration remains primarily an internal document for study and discussion among the members of the Society.

"The Holy See has taken note of this declaration, but awaits the forthcoming official communication of the Priestly Society as their dialogue with the Pontifical Commission 'Ecclesia Dei' continues".


In other words, "We don't like this document, and we don't believe that people believe what they say (because we don't), so this document is primarily an internal document of the SSPX (i.e. it doesn't pertain to us) and what we really want to know is what they'll do next and hopefully they'll keep dialoguing and we can draw them into compromise."

_________________
In Christ our King.


Thu Jul 19, 2012 2:40 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: General Chapter Statement 2012
The General Chapter Statement contains the following clause:

Quote:
We have decided that, in that case, an extraordinary Chapter with deliberative vote will be convened beforehand.


Now, recall what the last general Chapter (2006) agreed:

Quote:
Motions [and decisions] of the General Chapter.

I.1. Relations with Rome"

"If an agreement with the Holy See were seriously considered, an extraordinary general chapter would be convened to address the issue."


Bishop Fellay's interpretation of that was that he could sign an agreement with "rome" and then take the proposed canonical structure to the General Chapter for the details to be thrashed out. I know this for a fact.

Now re-read the latest clause. It differs from the 2006 version in two key respects.

1. In the event of a proposed deal, the General Chapter will have a "deliberative vote."
2. This extraordinary General Chapter meeting "will be convened beforehand."

So the possibility of a deal unilaterally agreed to by Bishop Fellay is now gone. Anybody who thinks this was an accident, or that this doesn't mean anything important, is crazy.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Thu Jul 19, 2012 2:49 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: General Chapter Statement 2012
OK, let's take a look at this statement and see what's good about it, and what's not so good.

First some general points.

Consider who wrote and presented this document. The General Chapter, which is all of the superiors of the SSPX, plus several of the most senior priests. Included were Bishops Tissier and de Galarreta, both of whom are on record stridently denouncing any kind of canonical arrangement prior to doctrinal correction on the part of the Vatican. If these men are happy with it, then surely it must be understood as meeting their requirements - that is, it closes off the possibility of a purely practical agreement.

Second, the SSPX was in absolute turmoil prior to the General Chapter. Twice now, in the initial press release and again in this document, the assertion is made that the SSPX has recovered its unity. Fr. Stehlin, who was present, described this as a miracle worked by the Mother of God. What was causing disunity? Fr. Chazal summarised it perfectly by saying that Bishop Fellay was tampering with the DNA of the Fraternity. So this refound unity can only mean one thing - no more tampering with the Fraternity's DNA, which is its absolute refusal of the errors and "reforms" of Vatican II. This absolute refusal was declared in Archbishop Lefebvre's 1974 Declaration, which was repeated by the Fraternity at key points, including after the '88 episcopal consecrations and in 2006.

Now let's look at the text.

Quote:
We have determined and approved the necessary conditions for a possible future canonical normalization. We have decided that, in that case, an extraordinary Chapter with deliberative vote will be convened beforehand.

This has been taken by some as a sign that "negotiations" will continue. This is an unwarranted inference. The General Chapter consists mostly of sedeplenists. These men could not declare that there will never be any regularisation by Rome. So they hold the possibility open, as a hypothetical, and then immediately put a procedural guarantee in place that what has happened in the recent past will not recur.


Quote:
The Chapter believes that the paramount duty of the Society, in the service which it intends to offer to the Church, is to continue, with God’s help, to profess the Catholic Faith in all its purity and integrity, with a determination matching the intensity of the constant attacks to which this very Faith is subjected nowadays.

Professing the Catholic faith in all its integrity requires the rejection of incompatible errors, and in case anybody is in any doubt what those are, read carefully what immediately follows.
Quote:
For this reason it seems opportune that we reaffirm our faith in the Roman Catholic Church, the unique Church founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ, outside of which there is no salvation nor possibility to find the means leading to salvation; our faith in its monarchical constitution, desired by Our Lord himself, by which the supreme power of government over the universal Church belongs only to the Pope, Vicar of Christ on earth; our faith in the universal Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ, Creator of both the natural and the supernatural orders, to Whom every man and every society must submit.

In this paragraph, the three signal errors of Vatican II are chosen for rejection. Ecumenism, Collegiality, and Religious Liberty. This will be clear to all, but especially to the heretics in Rome, for whom these three principles, Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity are sacrosanct.

Quote:
The Society continues to uphold the declarations and the teachings of the constant Magisterium of the Church in regard to all the novelties of the Second Vatican Council which remain tainted with errors, and also in regard to the reforms issued from it.

When the June 13 Preamble text was presented to Bishop Fellay, La Croix reported that the Vatican had told him that the Fraternity could not speak of "errors" in Vatican II. Archbishop DiNoia, who will be the key figure in all future Ecclesia Dei activities, declared the same principle immediately after his appointment was announced. The General Chapter is therefore here declaring open defiance to the heretics.

Quote:
The Society finds its guide as well in the constant Tradition of the Church, which transmits and will transmit until the end of times the teachings required to preserve the Faith and the salvation of souls, while waiting for the day when an open and serious debate will be possible which may allow the return to Tradition of the ecclesiastical authorities.

Here the General Chapter asserts that so far the Vatican has not engaged in a serious debate. This is also what Bishop de Galarreta said after the doctrinal discussions were completed. It was a dialogue of the deaf. The heretics in the Vatican were not open to the notion that they are in error, and now the Fraternity declares unambiguously that until they are, there can be no further discussions.

Quote:
We wish to unite ourselves to the others Christians persecuted in different countries of the world who are now suffering for the Catholic Faith, some even to the extent of martyrdom. Their blood, shed in union with the Victim of our altars, is the pledge for a true renewal of the Church in capite et membris, according to the old saying sanguis martyrum semen christianorum.

The General Chapter then introduces a traditional phrase used repeatedly during periods of crisis in the Church, and most especially during the Great Western Schism and the Protestant revolt - a true renewal of the Church in capite et membris. It signals that they hold that Benedict needs to reform himself. This is a very wise and very strong way of sheeting home to its true cause the chaos and evil in the Church, and especially the three central errors of Vatican II repudiated in the text above. These are Ratzinger's errors par excellence. He helped formulate them at Vatican II, he owns them, he loves them, he will never, humanly speaking, abandon them.

Finally, Archbishop Lefebvre is quoted.
Quote:
“Finally, we turn our eyes to the Blessed Virgin Mary, who is also jealous of the privileges of her Divine Son, jealous of His glory, of His Kingdom on earth as in Heaven. How often has she intervened for the defense, even the armed defense, of Christendom against the enemies of the Kingdom of Our Lord! We entreat her to intervene today to chase the enemies out from inside the Church who are trying to destroy it more radically than its enemies from outside.

The focus here on the internal enemies of the Church, contrasting them unfavourably with her external enemies, is another loud and unmistakeable report, as of a large calibre weapon, which will echo through the halls of the Vatican.

So what is not good in this document?

One key factor, I think, which is the determination, subtly but clearly expressed, to continue to recognise Benedict as visible head of the Church. The Fraternity would be immeasurably more secure and clear-minded if it returned to the position of Archbishop Lefebvre, which was that the Conciliar popes are doubtful claimants, recognised only provisionally, and consequently treated as non-essential to the work it was founded to do. This work, it cannot be repeated too frequently, is to bring the goods of the Church to the faithful who have been abandoned by their lawful pastors.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Fri Jul 20, 2012 1:19 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon May 28, 2012 12:07 am
Posts: 48
New post Re: General Chapter Statement 2012
When are we going to see the actual statement?

Didnt the SSPX say that they would make public the doctrinal preamble and their response once they had replied to 'rome'?


Fri Jul 20, 2012 1:21 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 8:21 am
Posts: 176
New post Re: General Chapter Statement 2012
A few brief remarks :

1. "...the novelties of the Second Vatican Council which remain tainted with errors..." will indeed be disagreeable to the ears of the forces occupying the Vatican, but much less so than if the text had simply said : "...the errors of the Second Vatican Council..." Here we surely see, as in numerous other places in the text, a compromise between the proposals of the left-wing and the right-wing.

2. The faithful have no assurance that Bishop Fellay will not carry on as he has been, including tinkering with the Society's DNA, provided he stays short of actually signing a deal with neo-Rome. Even granting that the 2 surviving right-wing bishops were sufficiently satisfied on this point, let's not forget that they thought they had given themselves enough safeguards in 2006, but they were disappointed.

3. While the expression "a true renewal of the Church in capite et membris" is orthodox, it will look to many as though it has a tang of Vatican II about it. I can't recall any previous occasion when the Archbishop or the Society used such terms to express their hopes. I imagine the right wing would have wanted an explicit statement that those they (mistakenly) recognize as Catholic authorities must return to the profession of Catholic doctrine which they have abandoned, but they didn't get their way on that point.

4. I find the whole idea of how the "declaration" is formulated curious and even disturbingly reminiscent of a Vatican II document :
Quote:
"We wish to express our gratitude… We must never forget… The Chapter believes that the paramount duty of the Society, in the service which it intends to offer to the Church… it seems opportune that we reaffirm our faith… we wish to unite ourselves to the others [sic] Christians..."

Once again, is there any parallel for the SSPX expressing itself in this way before ?


Fri Jul 20, 2012 9:47 am
Profile

Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:57 am
Posts: 391
Location: Indiana, USA
New post Re: General Chapter Statement 2012
Gandolfo 1958 wrote:
When are we going to see the actual statement?

Didnt the SSPX say that they would make public the doctrinal preamble and their response once they had replied to 'rome'?


This is what I was wondering. It seems that this is a "press release" about the document rather than the document itself.

I was also wondering if it might not now be time to release the "doctrinal preamble", though, I suppose, that is too much to hope for.

Mr. Lane, I think, made good points concerning what is positive about this announcement, but Mr. Daly also made good points concerning what is negative about this announcement. Clearly, it is hardly a document worthy of comparison with, say, Pascendi. Of course, I don't think anyone was expecting (or even hoping) for anything like that. On the other hand, if there's a different "document" out there, perhaps it is not couched in the diplomatic language of Conciliarism.

I repeat the query made: Will there be another document released? Is there another document?


Fri Jul 20, 2012 2:35 pm
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: General Chapter Statement 2012
I don't know.

Perhaps the best way to answer those question is to have a look back at whatever led you to that view, and quote it here.

As far as I recall, the statement was made at one point that the Preamble would be released when it was finally rejected and the process terminated, or when it was in its final form (i.e. it was accepted).

Here's what Fr. Stehlin said a few days ago:

Quote:
I also added that our Superior General was preparing a reply to the proposition submitted by Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on June, 13th; in his reply he would also inform Roman authorities about conclusion reached during General Chapter’s meeting. In a couple of days the General House of FSSPX will issue a communiqué on this matter.

Fr. Karl Stehlin FSSPX


So I guess this references two documents - the reply of the Superior General, and the Statement of the General Chapter.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Fri Jul 20, 2012 2:41 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:57 am
Posts: 391
Location: Indiana, USA
New post Re: General Chapter Statement 2012
John Lane wrote:
I don't know.

Perhaps the best way to answer those question is to have a look back at whatever led you to that view, and quote it here.


The reason I thought the actual document sent to rome would be published is from the SSPX Press Communiqué of July 14, 2012:

Quote:
The General Chapter will soon make a statement to Rome, which will then be made public.


The reason I don't think what has been published above is the "statement" is in the announcement above:

Quote:
As announced in the press communiqué of the Society of St. Pius X’s General House on July 14, 2012, the members of the General Chapter sent a common statement to Rome. It has been published today.


By saying, "It has been published today," this announcement does not seem to be referring to "itself" but rather to a different document. What follows, then, seems to be summary or a short statement about the "statement to Rome" that "has been published today."

Was Fr. Stehlin's statement intended to "clarify" the communiqué of July 14th or was he referring to the communiqué of July 14th?

I think my expectation that there is another document that has been ("as of today") published is reasonable. On the other hand, the English translation of the original statements from their native tongue may simply not convey the intended meaning of the original. Since I am monolingual (like any good American), I cannot judge this matter.


Fri Jul 20, 2012 3:04 pm
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: General Chapter Statement 2012
TKGS wrote:
The reason I don't think what has been published above is the "statement" is in the announcement above:

Quote:
As announced in the press communiqué of the Society of St. Pius X’s General House on July 14, 2012, the members of the General Chapter sent a common statement to Rome. It has been published today.


By saying, "It has been published today," this announcement does not seem to be referring to "itself" but rather to a different document. What follows, then, seems to be summary or a short statement about the "statement to Rome" that "has been published today."


TKGS,

I think this is just a clumsy way of referring to what follows, from the third paragraph on. The first two paragraphs appear to have been added to the beginning of the Statement to introduce it.

But "rome" is hoping for another text. It says (see above), "The Holy See has taken note of this declaration, but awaits the forthcoming official communication of the Priestly Society as their dialogue with the Pontifical Commission 'Ecclesia Dei' continues".

_________________
In Christ our King.


Fri Jul 20, 2012 10:59 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:57 am
Posts: 391
Location: Indiana, USA
New post Re: General Chapter Statement 2012
John Lane wrote:
I think this is just a clumsy way of referring to what follows, from the third paragraph on. The first two paragraphs appear to have been added to the beginning of the Statement to introduce it.


You may be correct. I've not really studied how modern Ecclesiastics talk amongst themselves. If this is all there is, then it is indeed very clumsy, non-specific, and quite unclear to all but those who have studied issues in very great depth.

I would just wish that the SSPX, at least, would be clear and explain in detail their objections to rome. Perhaps there is simply nothing to add to Bishop Galarreta's study that has already been published.


Sat Jul 21, 2012 12:58 am
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Fr.Ceriani: Declaration Versus Declaration
From Fr. Ceriani (ex-SSPX): http://radiocristiandad.wordpress.com/2 ... claracion/

Image

Declaration versus Declaration

We have read today the SSPX’s General Chapter Statement, of July 2012.

Let us remember Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre’s Declaration of November 21, 1974:
Quote:
We hold firmly with all our heart and with all our mind to Catholic Rome, Guardian of the Catholic Faith and of the traditions necessary to the maintenance of this faith, to the eternal Rome, mistress of wisdom and truth.

We refuse on the other hand, and have always refused, to follow the Rome of Neo-Modernist and Neo-Protestant tendencies, which became clearly manifest during the Second Vatican Council, and after the Council, in all the reforms which issued from it.

In effect, all these reforms have contributed and continue to contribute to the destruction of the Church, to the ruin of the priesthood, to the abolition of the Sacrifice of the Mass and the Sacraments, to the disappearance of the religious life, and to a naturalistic and Teilhardian education in the universities, in the seminaries, in catechetics: an education deriving from Liberalism and Protestantism which had been condemned many times by the solemn Magisterium of the Church.

No authority, not even the highest in the hierarchy, can compel us to abandon or to diminish our Catholic Faith, so clearly expressed and professed by the Church's Magisterium for nineteen centuries.

"Friends," said St. Paul, "though it were we ourselves, though it were an angel from heaven that should preach to you a gospel other than the gospel we have preached to you, a curse upon him" (Gal. 1:8).

Is it not this that the Holy Father is repeating to us today? And if there is a certain contradiction manifest in his words and deeds as well as in the acts of the dicasteries,* then we cleave to what has always been taught and we turn a deaf ear to the novelties which destroy the Church.

It is impossible to profoundly modify the Lex Orandi without modifying the Lex Credendi. To the New Mass there corresponds the new catechism, the new priesthood, the new seminaries, the new universities, the "Charismatic" Church, Pentecostalism: all of them opposed to orthodoxy and the never-changing Magisterium. This reformation, deriving as it does from Liberalism and Modernism, is entirely corrupted; it derives from heresy and results in heresy, even if all its acts are not formally heretical. It is therefore impossible for any conscientious and faithful Catholic to espouse this reformation and to submit to it in any way whatsoever. The only attitude of fidelity to the Church and to Catholic doctrine appropriate for our salvation is a categorical refusal to accept this reformation.

That is why, without any rebellion, bitterness, or resentment, we pursue our work of priestly formation under the guidance of the never-changing Magisterium, convinced as we are that we cannot possibly render a greater service to the Holy Catholic Church, to the Sovereign Pontiff, and to posterity.

That is why we hold firmly to everything that has been consistently taught and practiced by the Church (and codified in books published before the Modernist influence of the Council) concerning faith, morals, divine worship, catechetics, priestly formation, and the institution of the Church, until such time as the true light of tradition dissipates the gloom which obscures the sky of the eternal Rome.

Doing this, with the grace of God, the help of the Virgin Mary, St. Joseph, and St. Pius X, we are certain that we are being faithful to the Catholic and Roman Church, to all of Peter's successors, and of being the “Fideles dispensatores mysteriorum Domini Nostri Jesu Christi In Spiritu Sancto”. Amen.

Comparing both Declarations, it is found that the SSPX General Chapter of July 2012, not only differs from the Open Letter of July 6, 1988 signed by all the Major Superiors, but also denies its Founder’s Declaration, when it abandons the distinction between the Catholic Rome, Guardian of the Catholic Faith, the eternal Rome, and the Rome of Neo-Modernist and Neo-Protestant tendencies.

Archbishop Lefebvre’s Declaration
Quote:
We hold firmly with all our heart and with all our mind to Catholic Rome, Guardian of the Catholic Faith and of the traditions necessary to the maintenance of this faith, to the eternal Rome, mistress of wisdom and truth.

General Chapter’s Statement
Quote:
It seems opportune that we reaffirm our faith in the Roman Catholic Church, the unique Church founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ, outside of which there is no salvation nor possibility to find the means leading to salvation; our faith in its monarchical constitution, desired by Our Lord himself, by which the supreme power of government over the universal Church belongs only to the Pope, Vicar of Christ on earth

So far, there is not a significant difference… but the poison comes in the details…

Archbishop Lefebvre’s Declaration
Quote:
We refuse on the other hand, and have always refused, to follow the Rome of Neo-Modernist and Neo-Protestant tendencies, which became clearly manifest during the Second Vatican Council, and after the Council, in all the reforms which issued from it.

No authority, not even the highest in the hierarchy, can compel us to abandon or to diminish our Catholic Faith, so clearly expressed and professed by the Church's Magisterium for nineteen centuries.

"Friends," said St. Paul, "though it were we ourselves, though it were an angel from heaven that should preach to you a gospel other than the gospel we have preached to you, a curse upon him" (Gal. 1:8).

General Chapter’s Statement
Quote:
The Society continues to uphold the declarations and the teachings of the constant Magisterium of the Church in regard to all the novelties of the Second Vatican Council which remain tainted with errors, and also in regard to the reforms issued from it.

The difference is obvious: there is not condemnation nor rejection.

This coincides perfectly with the statements made on several occasions by the current Superior General, Bishop Bernard Fellay:

1) Conference of December 11, 2005, which recounts his meeting with Benedict XVI.
At this conference, with the itch to assert the perpetuity of the Church visible (which is true), Bishop Fellay even says that today's Rome is the guardian of the Faith. For that, he uses the Declaration of Archbishop Lefebvre of November 1974 , but giving the opposite sense:
Quote:
Archbishop Lefebvre expressed this first principle of attachment to the Catholic faith admirably on November 21, 1974, and we may say that it is still our charter today:

“We wholeheartedly adhere with all our soul to Catholic Rome, guardian of the Catholic faith and of the traditions necessary to keep this faith; to eternal Rome, mistress of wisdom and truth”.

We wholeheartedly adhere to this text.

“To Catholic Rome” means something. This Catholic Rome is not an abstraction, let us be very careful about this! It is not an abstraction. It is a reality.

When the Archbishop says:

We adhere to Catholic Rome, this means Catholic Rome today. It is not merely adhesion to Michelangelo’s Rome or Saint Peter’s Rome. It is the Rome that exists today, with the following characteristics: this eternal Rome is Catholic, guardian of the faith, preserving the faith.

What was Bishop Fellay thinking and what he wanted to convey when saying: "When the Archbishop says, "We adhere to the Catholic Rome", that means today’s Catholic Rome"?

2) Remember the Communique after the hearing of August 2005:
Quote:
The audience was an opportunity for the Society to manifest that it has always been attached —and always will be —to the Holy See, Eternal Rome.

Very good! But he omitted the second part, the distinction from "the Rome of Neo-Modernist and Neo-Protestant tendencies, which became clearly manifest during the Second Vatican Council..."

3) Press Release and Letter to the Faithful, January 24, 2009
Quote:
“We are ready to write the Creed with our own blood, to sign the anti-modernist oath, the profession of faith of Pius IV, we accept and make our own all the councils up to the Second Vatican Council about which we express some reservations.”


4) February 16, 2009. Conference at the seminary in Flavigny, before more than 60 SSPX priests:
Quote:
Some, to make things easier, identify the official Church with the Modernist Church. But that is wrong, because we talk about a concrete reality.


5)Letter to the other three bishops of the SSPX, April 14, 2012:
Quote:
Reading your letter one seriously wonders if you still believe that the visible Church with its seat in Rome is truly the Church of Our Lord Jesus Christ, a Church horribly disfigured for sure from head to foot, but a Church which nevertheless still has for its head Our Lord Jesus Christ. One has the impression that you are so scandalised that you no longer accept that that could still be true. It Benedict XVI still the legitimate pope for you? If he is, can Jesus Christ still speak through his mouth?

This failure to distinguish leads one or the other of you three to an "absolute hardening". This is serious because such a caricature no longer corresponds to reality and logically it will in the future finish up in a true schism. And it may well be that this fact is one of the arguments pushing me to delay no longer in responding to the pressure from Rome.

It is obvious that we are before a new Society of Saint Pius X…

Fr. Juan Carlos Ceriani

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon Jul 23, 2012 2:50 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: General Chapter Statement 2012
Dear John,

I share your concerns, although I think they are more clearly verified in the Conditions for regularisation document than in this one. The chief point, I think, is that these new texts will become doctrinal loci for SSPX people. Fr. Ceriani has done an excellent job of highlighting a real divergence between the 1974 Declaration, which was repeated in toto by the 2006 General Chapter, and the various more recent texts touching on the central question - the identity of "Rome".

Some comments on your comments below.

John Daly wrote:
1. "...the novelties of the Second Vatican Council which remain tainted with errors..." will indeed be disagreeable to the ears of the forces occupying the Vatican, but much less so than if the text had simply said : "...the errors of the Second Vatican Council..." Here we surely see, as in numerous other places in the text, a compromise between the proposals of the left-wing and the right-wing.


This is exactly right, I think. We are reading a text which is essentially a compromise, arrived at by negotiation, amongst men scarred by recent infighting and wanting above all to recover their necessary unity.

John Daly wrote:
I find the whole idea of how the "declaration" is formulated curious and even disturbingly reminiscent of a Vatican II document :
Quote:
"We wish to express our gratitude… We must never forget… The Chapter believes that the paramount duty of the Society, in the service which it intends to offer to the Church… it seems opportune that we reaffirm our faith… we wish to unite ourselves to the others [sic] Christians..."

Once again, is there any parallel for the SSPX expressing itself in this way before ?


Well perhaps not in every respect, but the "service it intends to offer to the Church" echoes Archbishop Lefebvre's own words from the 1970s, when his policy was really summed up by that phrase. He consistently asserted that in forming sound priests as the Church had always done, the Fraternity was convinced it was truly serving the Church and the Roman Pontiff, whereas if it adopted the novelties of Vatican II it would be abandoning that true service.

The real problem, I think you and I will agree, is found in the ridiculous "kife-edge" notion which summarises the SSPX position (from the recent DICI interview with Bishop Fellay):

Quote:
DICI : How do you see the future of the SSPX? In the midst of its fight for the Church’s Tradition, will the SSPX keep to the same knife’s edge?

Bishop Fellay : More than ever we must maintain the knife’s edge traced by our venerated founder. It is not easy to keep, yet absolutely vital for the Church and the treasure of its Tradition. We are Catholic, we recognise the pope and the bishops, but above all else we must keep intact the Faith, source of God’s grace. Therefore we must avoid all that may endanger the Faith, without trying to become a replacement for the Church, Catholic, Apostolic, and Roman. Far from us the idea of establishing a parallel Church, of exercising a parallel magisterium!


This was not the position of Archbishop Lefebvre, actually, and it cannot truly be maintained. What could be maintained is the Archbishop's position - we are certain about the faith, doubtful about the Conciliar popes. One day the Church will judge the latter, but she has already judged the former, and so our obligations are clear.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon Jul 23, 2012 4:07 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Service to the Church
Quote:
As I said to the Holy Father [Paul VI]: "In so far as you deviate from your predecessors, we can no longer follow you." That is plain. It is not we who deviate from his predecessors.

When I said to him: "But look again at the texts on religious liberty , two texts which formally contradict one another, word for word (important dogmatic texts, that of Gregory XVI and that of Pius IX, Quanta Cura, and then that on religious liberty, they contradict one another, word for word); which are we to choose?"

He answered: "Oh, leave those things. Let us not start discussions.”

Yes, but the whole problem is there. In so far as the new Church separates itself from the old Church we cannot follow it. That is the position, and that is why we maintain Tradition, we keep firmly to Tradition; and I am sure we are being of immense service to the Church. I should say that the Econe seminary is basic to the battle we are waging. It is the Church’s battle, and it is with that idea that we should position ourselves.


http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/Archb ... ter_14.htm


Quote:
Does one become schismatic by maintaining firmly the official and traditional Magisterium of the Church? Is it schismatic to denounce the Modernist and Liberal influences that were at work in the Council? Is not that, rather, to serve the Church? Does it not manifest our profound union with the Bishops and the Pope, who cannot and must not separate themselves from their predecessors, but who are not exempt from dangerous influences, the consequences of that spirit of openness to the world, of exaggerated ecumenism, which seeks union instead of unity in the Truth which the Church alone possesses?


http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/Archb ... ter_18.htm

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon Jul 23, 2012 8:30 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon May 28, 2012 12:07 am
Posts: 48
New post Re: General Chapter Statement 2012
The latest news is that Fellay has exiled the remaining two bishops.

Fellay has got it coming to him for what he did to Williamson.

Every trad Catholic who has ever been disrespected by the SSPX Fellay faction should set out to pay kind for kind.


Mon Jul 23, 2012 9:31 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: General Chapter Statement 2012
Gandolfo 1958 wrote:
The latest news is that Fellay has exiled the remaining two bishops.


Really? Any factual data to support this?

I have heard that Bishop Tissier has been assigned to the USA. Tell me, was Bishop Williamson "exiled" when he was sent to the USA for so many years?

Could it be that the USA can use a bishop located there? Could it be that not having Bishop Williamson there has been found to be not as convenient as having a bishop there permanently as before?

Further, if sending Bishop Tissier to the USA is meant to reduce his influence, that will backfire. There are scores of priests and religious there that he will now influence much more effectively than he did before, and this is the man who openly says Ratzinger is a heretic and is pope "by supplied jurisdiction" only.


Gandolfo 1958 wrote:
Fellay has got it coming to him for what he did to Williamson.


What does that mean? Is that a threat?

Gandolfo 1958 wrote:
Every trad Catholic who has ever been disrespected by the SSPX Fellay faction should set out to pay kind for kind.


How edifying.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Tue Jul 24, 2012 1:34 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 11:13 am
Posts: 41
New post Re: General Chapter Statement 2012
A comment from Stephen Heiner:

For those who continue to use this crisis within the SSPX as an opportunity to re-examine the theological principles of "resistance" to a man one recognizes as the Vicar of Jesus Christ on earth, I point directly to the SSPX's official statement from the Chapter:
Quote:
The Society continues to uphold the declarations and the teachings of the constant Magisterium of the Church in regard to all the novelties of the Second Vatican Council which remain tainted with errors, and also in regard to the reforms issued from it. We find our sure guide in this uninterrupted Magisterium which, by its teaching authority, transmits the revealed Deposit of Faith in perfect harmony with the truths that the entire Church has professed, always and everywhere.

Those who revel in repeating talking points always say the sedevacantists are fixated on the Pope. In the quote above we see that the contradiction in the SSPX position goes much deeper. The Society of St. Pius X maintains that an ecumenical council of the Catholic Church, the largest one in its history, is not actually part of the "uninterrupted Magisterium" (which we all know, contains zero error) but is actually "tainted with error." No, the SSPX doesn't just take issue with the actions of the men they say they recognize as Pope. They also decide which Councils of the Catholic Church have error. This is not a tenable, logical, or Catholic position.
Something to chew on, at least for the thinkers out there.


Sat Jul 28, 2012 8:52 am
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: General Chapter Statement 2012
Cam wrote:
The Society of St. Pius X maintains that an ecumenical council of the Catholic Church, the largest one in its history, is not actually part of the "uninterrupted Magisterium" (which we all know, contains zero error) but is actually "tainted with error." No, the SSPX doesn't just take issue with the actions of the men they say they recognize as Pope. They also decide which Councils of the Catholic Church have error. This is not a tenable, logical, or Catholic position.
Something to chew on, at least for the thinkers out there.


Well, before we think about it, let's ensure we state accurate facts. The text above does not assert that Vatican II was an ecumenical council of the Catholic Church.

The SSPX appears to leave the question open as to exactly what Vatican II was. For example, there was never a general council that was "pastoral" before.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon Jul 30, 2012 1:11 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: General Chapter Statement 2012
For the record, contrary to the interpretation by various others, Fr. Paul Morgan affirms that the General Council Declaration means "no agreement without doctrinal correction".

Quote:
...the Society is 'waiting for the day when an open and serious debate will be possible which may allow the return to Tradition of the ecclesiastical authorities.' This indeed has been the Society's policy to date.

It is to be hoped that the faithful who have been understandably troubled by the prospect of a practical settlement without sufficient doctrinal redress on the part of Rome, will be reassured by the reiteration of this policy...


viewtopic.php?f=13&t=1271

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon Jul 30, 2012 2:16 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: General Chapter Statement 2012
From the latest USA SSPX District circular email (this is at the top of the email):

When was the last time you read any of these articles?
• Roman Protestants > http://www.sspx.org/miscellaneous/roman_protestants.htm
• Abp. Lefebvre's 1974 Declaration > http://sspx.org/archbishop_lefebvre/197 ... febvre.htm
• The Problem of the Liturgical Reform: the book sent to the pope > http://www.sspx.org/superior_generals_n ... r_2000.htm
__________________________________________________________________

Whatever we think of what happened over the past few months in the SSPX, this is a clear signal counter to the thesis that the leadership is intent on taking a soft line towards Vatican II.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Wed Aug 22, 2012 5:42 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon May 28, 2012 12:07 am
Posts: 48
New post Re: General Chapter Statement 2012
John Lane wrote:
When was the last time you read any of these articles?


Quote:
It is impossible to modify profoundly the lex orandi without modifying the lex credendi. To the Novus Ordo Missae correspond a new catechism, a new priesthood, new seminaries, a charismatic Pentecostal Church - all things opposed to orthodoxy and the perennial teaching of the Church.


There is a charismatic Pentecostal church in north London. Can that church transmit jurisdiction? (only teasing)

I would be satisfied if Fellay personally published an open letter to Ratzinger to explicitly restate these things and in the exact same terms. Then I would be convinced that he had not run away from the teachings of ABL.

Btw.

Quote:
all things opposed to orthodoxy and the perennial teaching of the Church


Has the perennial doctrinal teaching of the Church not dogmatic status? Why are "all things opposed" to this not _heresy? How can SSPX talk only about error and not heresy?


Thu Aug 23, 2012 4:05 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:57 am
Posts: 391
Location: Indiana, USA
New post Re: General Chapter Statement 2012
It still seems to me that all of the problems, all of the uncertainty, all of the anxiety throughout the Society and, especially, the lay faithful that was experienced over the past several months was a direct result of Bishop Fellay sending signals and cryptic messages that were confusing and sounded eerily like the Conciliar way of expressing ideas.

Suddenly, Vatican II was not the problem, only the way it has been interpreted in some circles. Suddenly, the Jews became our "elder brothers" rather than a perfidious lot. Suddenly, the superiors began to talk in a way that suggested Bishop Fellay was the "pope of the SSPX" and that all who question him are somehow schismatic or unfaithful. Many who publicly disagreed with what they were hearing (whether it was correct or not--and who knew what was correct because what were condemned as rumors one day were the facts the next) were disciplined in some way and those disciplinary measures have not been (to my knowledge) rescinded.

While the SSPX seems safe at the moment, I fully expect all of this to play out again in one or two years, or, especially, upon the election of a new Conciliar pope.

I really do wonder what the SSPX will do when the Vatican (and I believe these events will occur in my lifetime) approves a nuptual rite for [those addicted to unnatural vice] or approves the ordination of women. More talk of errors? I really don't know.


Thu Aug 23, 2012 2:29 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 23 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forums/DivisionCore.