A Complete Absorption of the SSPX by Conciliar Rome Coming Soon....Interview Bp. de Galarreta
Bishop de Galarreta: “I think the pope will lean towards a one-sided recognition.”
26-02-2016
Filed under Documents
Bishop de Galarreta gave a conference in Bailly, near Versailles, on January 17, 2016. He exposed the present situation in the Church and informed his audience of the present state of the relations between Rome and the Society of St. Pius X. He directed the Society of St. Pius X’s commission of theologians during the doctrinal discussions with Rome from 2009 to 2011. Here are the most important extracts from his conference, transcribed by DICI.
5_galarreta-econe
Bishop Alfonso de Galarreta.
The crisis of the Faith worsens and arouses public reactions
In the first part of his conference, Bishop de Galarreta explained that “a will to draw all of the consequences contained in the principles of Vatican Council II” is developing in Rome. Now that the conciliar ideas of ecumenism, religious liberty and collegiality are established, according to the Roman authorities, it is morality’s turn to be infected with a form of evolutionism: “It is already the case with dogma and with the truth (according to the progressivists); it is already the case with ecumenism, religious liberty, collegiality, the whole liberal revolutionary spirit… so why not morality, too? In the end, it was incoherent not to apply evolution to morality, too;” it, too, is called to adapt to “man’s life, habits, laws, and the evolution of things…”
Nonetheless, the Argentinian prelate recognized that in the face of this disaster, there is a reaction: “Now we are starting to see reactions in the actual, official Church. And deep reactions, for some do realize that there is a doctrinal problem, a problem of faith. They realize that there is also a problem in the conciliar and post-conciliar magisterium. They are starting to ask questions and, this is very important, they understand that to oppose this complete rupture with Tradition, they have to react and necessarily oppose the authorities who diffuse these errors. So we see cardinals, bishops, priests and laymen beginning to react, and in the right way, even in an excellent way, sometimes very firmly.”
A double proposal from Rome: Doctrinal and canonical
Bishop de Galarreta then related that in the summer of 2015 the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith proposed a personal prelature along with a doctrinal declaration. And he explained that the “Superior General sent both Roman texts to all the major superiors and to some theologians of the Society, as well as to the bishops, so they could analyze them and give him our opinion.”
About the doctrinal declaration, the Argentinian bishop admitted: “What we see in the doctrinal declaration is that there is no longer Cardinal Ratzinger’s profession of faith. The Roman authorities ask us to make Pius IV’s profession of faith, that is, the profession of faith of the Council of Trent. Also, in the previous profession, there was a paragraph on religious liberty. They have suppressed this requirement. Ecumenism has been removed. On the Mass they had asked us to recognize the validity and the legitimacy. Now they ask us to recognize the validity of the new sacraments and the new Mass according to the typical edition, the original Latin edition. The Society has always recognized this. You see, they are taking away their conditions in an effort to succeed.”
Then Bishop de Galarreta explained that the Superior General thought it important to answer the Roman offer to recognize the Society “as it is” with a preliminary answer that was anything but vague: “Bishop Fellay told us, ‘before answering this proposal from the Congregation of the Faith, I am going to write them an exhaustive explanation to make it very clear how we are and how we act, what we preach, what we do, what we do not do, and what we are not ready to do’,” – in order to find out if the Society really is accepted “as it is”.
The Argentinian prelate then voiced his reservations for a profound doctrinal reason: “They still wish above all to make us accept, if only vaguely, if only in principle, Vatican Council II and its errors.” And he added that this Roman desire can be seen on the practical level in the canonical proposal: “There is always, in one way or another, a submission to the Roman dicasteries or to the bishops.” Which leads him to declare that personally, he would refuse the Roman proposals: “For me, an agreement with today’s Rome is out of the question.” He added that this is a prudential refusal, dictated by the circumstances – in the absence of the necessary warrantees for the life of the Society – and he was careful to distinguish himself from those who make this refusal an absolute.
“We do not refuse, you see, in an absolute and theoretical way the possibility of an agreement with Rome. That is what distinguishes us from the ‘Resistance’. For them it is a principle. It is a doctrinal question: ‘You cannot admit the possibility of an agreement with Rome without being liberal.’ Such is not our position. It is important to repeat it: it was not Archbishop Lefebvre’s position. He signed a protocol for an agreement with Rome. And at that time, even when he broke it off after the protocol, the Archbishop said: ‘it is because the necessary conditions for our protection, for our survival, are not there.’ Because they wish to deceive us, because they do not wish to give us Tradition, because they wish to bring us over to Vatican II. It is because the conditions are not there. He said, ‘If they had granted me the conditions, the conditions I had requested, I would have signed.’ Archbishop Lefebvre said that after the consecration of the bishops. And he explained, ‘If I signed a protocol for an agreement, it was because there was nothing against the faith.’ Neither in the contents, nor in the act of signing. This is obvious. So we continue along these lines.”
Le palais de la Congrégation pour la doctrine de la foi.
The building of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
Towards a unilateral recognition of the Society?
In the second part of his conference, and beyond the proposals of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Bishop de Galarreta publicly confided that he thinks the pope may soon confer a status on the Society of St. Pius X:
“I think, and this is the other aspect of things, that this pope who tells anyone who will listen that we are Catholic, who says and repeats that the Society is Catholic, that we are Catholic, will never condemn us, and that he wants our ‘case’ taken care of. I think– and he has already started down this path – that when he sees that we cannot agree with the Congregation of the Faith, I think that he will overreach any doctrinal, theoretical, practical condition, or any condition whatsoever… He is going to take his own steps towards recognizing the Society. He has already begun; he is simply going to continue. And I am not saying what I desire but what I foresee. I foresee, I think that the pope will lean towards a one-sided recognition of the Society, and that by acts rather than by a legal or canonical approach.”
Bishop de Galarreta admitted that “this de facto recognition would have a good, a beneficial effect: it is a rather extraordinary apostolic opening, and it would have an extraordinary effect.” But he adds that there would then be two risks: that of creating an internal division and that of conditioning our preaching in certain circumstances. And he wondered: “It would take an extraordinary wisdom and prudence, a very great firmness and clarity. Are we capable of this?”
The Argentinian prelate answered by asking his audience to keep a supernatural confidence in the face of these eventualities: “If that is what Providence sends us, then we will have the necessary graces to overcome the difficulties and deal with them as we should, but of course, only to the extent that it is not produced by our will but imposed upon us. If our ideas are clear, we can always take advantage of it and draw the good from it. But in this hypothetical case, – I am giving you my opinion based on conjectures, right? – in this case I think we will have the necessary graces to persevere and do the good we must do in our Holy Mother the Church. God will never deny us or stop giving us the means to persevere in the faith and in the good fight, if we always remain in the faith, in hope, in charity, in the strong confession of the faith, in our daily sanctification.”
Fear of risks and trust in Divine Providence
And he concluded after raising an objection: “So you are going to tell me: ‘In these cases there is a risk!’ – Yes, of course. In life there are many risks; in war there are even more. We are at war. So it will be as God wishes. But I have trust in Providence; I have complete trust in the love of Our Lord Jesus Christ for His Holy Church. So as long as we do not seek it, even if it happens, I think we must not panic. Nothing changes. It is the same fight that goes on, the same lines. We must simply take advantage of these areas of freedom that are left to us. In a war, if the enemy abandons the trenches, we have to take them over; if the enemy falls back, we must go forward. You don’t stay home because there are risks. We must act prudently, and we must take courage. And above all, we must have trust in God. It is the fight for God. Our trust is in Him and in the Blessed Virgin Mary.
“Personally I am not at all worried about the future of the Society or Tradition; however, for the future of society, of our nations that were once Catholic and even of the official Church, yes, I am worried and pessimistic. We can foresee that things are evolving for the worst. And it is when we are coming to a much more desperate, extreme situation that Divine Providence intervenes; God, who always uses divine means, intervenes. Our Lord is always the master of events and of history. And not only in general, but also in particular. So if the Gospel tells us that not one hair of our head falls, that all the hairs on our head are counted, that not a sparrow falls without the permission of God, I think we must remain peaceful. That is how we maintain an equitable judgment on objective realities and preserve an attitude that is not only balanced, but also Catholic, Christian and holy. That is the wisdom Archbishop Lefebvre passed on to us, this Catholic attitude. We can certainly continue along these lines in the present situation of the Hoy Church today, and in the face of all the eventualities that will soon present themselves.”
(source: FSSPX/MG – DICI no.331 dated Feb. 26, 2016)
Views: 241
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Dawn Marie on
-
Some interesting commentary I read posted below.....
"He misrepresented the 'resistance' position by stating that the resistance is absolute in that there can be no dealing with Rome.The first thing I see about this is that he does not distinguish between modernist Rome and Eternal Rome. Maybe he should read the famous Archbishop Lefebvre declaration of 1974. The Archbishop certainly made these distinctions.
If he were to make this distinction, his accusation would read very differently.
-You cannot admit the possibility of an agreement with modernist Rome without being liberal.
-You cannot admit the possibility of an agreement with Eternal Rome without being liberal.
The difference is monumental, and anyone can see that.
Let's not forget all the criticism that Bishop Williamson received when he stated that if Francis called him to Rome, he would be on the next plane. Bishop Faure later reconfirmed this in his consecration interview when stating that he would consult with the other leaders of the 'resistance' with total transparency if offered a deal by the current pope.
So, Bishop de Galarreta is either ignorant to the true position of his brother bishops or he is publicly distorting the facts. The facts are out there for those who seek the Truth, especially when misrepresented by Menzingen."
-
-
The link below is Michael Matt's comment on the DICI article posted on this thread.
Quote:
REMNANT COMMENT: A wise question, indeed! "Are we capable of this?" Here the good bishop displays a sensus catholicus and fundamental prudence that leaves us absolutely confident that indeed the SSPX is in good hands and understands clearly what is at stake, and that partly what is at stake is something intangible.
Obviously, Francis is going to regularize the SSPX. Why? Well, the old adage should sum things up quite nicely: Keep your friends close but your enemies closer.
The question we all must ask ourselves is this: When it comes to regularization of the SSPX, what's in it for today's Vatican? Let me repeat that: What’s.in.it.for.them?
Do we really believe that Francis the Great — the man who refuses to judge homosexual priests, who will travel to Sweden next October to celebrate the Protestant Revolt, who thinks atheists go to heaven and Jews need not convert — do we really believe that that man is deeply concerned about the souls of the adherents to the SSPX and their...ahem..."schism"? Really?!
And if that's not it, what is it?
In my opinion (and that’s all this is), the Vatican knows full well that opposition against their diabolical revolution against the old Faith comes principally from one source, and that so long as that source remains out from under their control -- well, they can't control their opposition.
This time around, the Vatican will not make demands of the SSPX regarding Vatican II (for one thing, Vatican II is too traditional for them now. They don't accept Vatican II anymore!). They will make no demands regarding the New Mass. In fact, as Bishop de Galarreta here admits, the Vatican will make no demands on the SSPX whatsoever. They will simply regularize the SSPX by decree, and then sit back and watch the SSPX be torn in half. It's called divide and conquer, and it is a strategy as old as the Garden of Eden.
Even the neo-Catholic world is finally waking up to the fact that Peter’s chair is occupied by a man who despises the old Catholic Faith. A principled counterrevolution against the regime of Pope Francis, led by 650 SSPX priests around the world, would be unstoppable right now….and a deeply divided Vatican knows it. Thus, no condition will be imposed, and the Vatican will make the SSPX a deal they literally can't refuse.
There is no conspiracy in the SSPX. The Vatican is doing this on its own, in my opinion, with Francis calling all the shots. Can the SSPX handle this "beneficence" of Pope Francis? 'It would take an extraordinary wisdom and prudence, a very great firmness and clarity. Are they capable of this?’ -- that is the question.
When it comes to the regularization of the SSPX, be careful what you wish for.
Pray for the SSPX, one of the last best hopes of the Church. I’m confident that Bishop Fellay and his team are on the side of the angels. Now let us wait and see what the devils will bring.
-
-
Another interesting commentary I saw......
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Bishop Fellay's problem is that he thinks the SSPX can come to an agreement with the Conciliar Church as long as the CC offers the right conditions. And it's just a matter of waiting for the right conditions to be offered. He doesn't see that the SSPX must never reach an agreement with the CC (whatever their promises) because it means putting the traditionalist remnant under the control of the Conciliar Church.
So the Resistance would say rightly that traditionalists can NEVER come to an agreement with the Conciliar Church.
The German traditionalist priest, Fr Hans Milch, who used to help the SSPX and who died in 1987, wrote extensively in his newsletters in the early 1980s about the mission of the SSPX and its relationship with Rome. A summary of his ideas would be:
When the Pope and the upper hierarchy CONVERT to the traditional Faith and have the WILL and the ABILITY to bring the whole Church back to tradition, that will be the moment when the SSPX will join them, to help bring about the conversion of the rest of the Church. There will then be no threat to them from Rome as they will be on the same side as the Pope. He expected there to be a large falling away at that time, of those who would not accept the true Faith.
He totally condemned the idea that the SSPX could reach any agreement with the Conciliar Church with the aim of converting it step-by-step from inside. He called this "Additivism" - the idea that the CC could be brought by degrees closer to tradition if pushed from within, and said it simply wouldn't work. No conversion happens like that. (Cf. Archbishop Lefebvre: "It's not the subjects who make the superiors, but the superiors who make the subjects.")
The SSPX must wait until the conversion at the top is clear, absolute and irreversible, and exists together with the will and authority to convert the rest of the Church. Bishop Fellay (and the FSSP and the Indult groups) are clearly trapped in the illusion of Additivism, and Pope Francis, or any other Conciliar Pope, will clearly have no 'Mercy' on any of them, once he has them all under his control."
-
-
Another commentary posted below (again not mine)
"They just had a meeting with the Priors at the end of January. At this meeting, they were informed about what is in the works. The meeting was one direction, INFORMING the priors of what's coming, as opposed to asking for any input.
A deal with Rome IS still in the works. The official story -- the deception -- will be that Rome is just accepting us "as we are" unilaterally. Of course this is false, because it's a fact of history that the SSPX has already transformed (past tense) into something unrecognizable. Priests have been ejected or at least convinced to leave, a bishop has been kicked out, bookstores have been purged, the whole organization has been "re-branded", the Archbishop's works have been censored (even to the point of SUING close friends of the Archbishop who wanted to publish his works!)
Unilateral is from the Latin unus, a, um ("one") and latus, lateris ("side"). One-sided.
Long story short, it's TOO LATE for anything "unilateral" because the SSPX side has already been feverishly working over the past few years to make itself more palatable to Modernist Rome. And we're talking about actions that are past tense -- no speculation is involved.
Remember those chapel(s) -- I believe there was one in Michigan -- which have signs that don't say anything about SSPX, Traditional, or Latin Mass? That ties into this. The Personal Prelature will have to lose the "SSPX" identity, which will conveniently cut loose any remaining "baggage" of Archbishop Lefebvre (whatever they haven't managed to purge yet).
It's all over.[...]
They seem to be moving at a good clip. But that having been said, it is most likely a deal will be announced sometime during the "Year of Mercy" which ends Dec 8, 2016.
Each priest -- SSPX as well as independent "Friends of the Society" -- will be able to participate in the "deal", by signing a certain Profession of Faith. "
-
-
Archbishop Pozzo about the SSPX in Zenit on February 26, 2016.We here present some extracts of Archbishop Pozzo's interview, given to Luca Marcolivio and published today in the Italian online version of Zenit. Archbishop Pozzo has been working on the reconciliation of the SSPX in the Pontifical Comission Ecclesia Dei for some years, especially after having been appointed Secretary, for a second time, in 2013.It is not always easy to know exactly what Archbishop Pozzo really means to convey to the press when he speaks about the SSPX.These comments are to be taken in light of the following elements given by Bishop Alfonso de Galarreta in his January conference published today.On July 2015, Rome made another offer to the SSPX.The SSPX Superior General’s intention before answering this proposal from the Congregation of the Faith wasto write an exhaustive explanation to make it very clear how we are and how we act, what we preach, what we do, what we do not do, and what we are not ready to do, in order to find out if the Society really is accepted 'as it is'."
About the status of the Society of St. Pius X
The SSPX is still in an irregular position, because it has not received canonical recognition by the Holy See. As long as the Society has no canonical status in the Church, its ministers do not exercise in a legitimate way the ministry and the celebration of the sacraments. According to the formula endeavored by the then Cardinal Bergoglio in Buenos Aires and confirmed by Pope Francis to the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, the members of the SSPX are Catholics on the path toward full communion with the Holy See. This full communion will come when there is a canonical recognition of the Society.What steps has the Holy See taken?
Following the lifting of the excommunications in 2009, a series of meetings were initiated between doctrinal experts appointed by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which oversees the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, after the motu proprio of Benedict XVI, Unitatem Ecclesiae (2009), and experts of the SSPX to discuss and exchange views on major doctrinal issues underlying the dispute with the Holy See: the relationship between Tradition and the Magisterium, the questions of ecumenism, interreligious dialogue, religious freedom, and of the liturgical reform, in the context of the teaching of the Second Vatican Council.We are now at a stage that I believe constructive and oriented to achieve the desired reconciliation. The gesture of Pope Francis to grant to faithful Catholics the opportunity of receiving validly and lawfully the sacraments of reconciliation and anointing of the sick by the bishops and priests of the SSPX during the Holy Year of Mercy is clearly a sign of the will of the Holy Father to favor the path towards a full and stable canonical recognition.What obstacles remain?
I would distinguish two levels. The proper doctrinal level concerns some differences about individual topics proposed by the Second Vatican Council and the post-conciliar Magisterium relating to ecumenism, the relationship between Christianity and the world religions, religious freedom, especially in the relationship between Church and State, and some aspects of liturgical reform. There is also the level of mental and psychological attitudes, which is to move from a position of polemical and antagonistic confrontation, to a position of listening and mutual respect, esteem and confidence, as it should be between members of the same Body of Christ, which is the Church. We need to work on both of these levels. I think the rapprochement undertaken has borne some fruit, especially for this change in attitude by both parties and it is worth pursuing that.Even on the issue of the Second Vatican Council, I think that the SSPX must reflect on the distinction ...between the authentic mens of Vatican II, its intentio docendi, as shown by the official Acts of the Council, and that I would call the "para-council", i.e., the set of theological guidelines and practical attitudes which accompanied the course of the Council itself, then pretending to cover themselves with its name, and that the public, thanks to the influence of the media, overlapped often as the true thought of the Council.Also as regards the Lefebvrian criticism on religious freedom, at the bottom of the discussion it seems to me that the SSPX position is characterized by the defense of traditional Catholic doctrine against the agnostic secularism of the State and against secularism and ideological relativism but not against the right of the person not to be constricted or obstructed by the State in the exercise of the profession of religious faith. However, these are issues that will be a topic for discussion and clarification even after the full reconciliation.What appears crucial is to find a full convergence on what is required to be in full communion with the Apostolic See, namely the integrity of the Catholic Creed, the bond of the sacraments and the acceptance of the Supreme Magisterium of the Church. The Magisterium, which is not above the Word of God written and transmitted, but serves it, is the authentic interpreter also of previous texts of the Magisterium, including those of the Second Vatican Council, in the light of the perennial Tradition, which develops in the Church with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, not with a novelty contrary (which would deny Catholic dogma), but with a better understanding of the Deposit of Faith, in the same doctrine, the same sense, and in the same judgment (in eodem scilicet dogmate, eodem sensu et eademque sententia, cf. Vatican Council I, Const. Dogm. Dei Filius, 4). I believe that on these points the agreement with the SSPX is not only possible, but necessary.I do not think that the SSPX has denied a doctrine of faith or the truth of the Catholic doctrine taught by the Magisterium. The criticisms concern instead statements or claims regarding the renewed pastoral care and ecumenical relations with other religions, and some issues of prudential order in the relationship between Church and society, Church and State. On liturgical reform, I will only mention a statement that Archbishop Lefebvre wrote to Pope John Paul II in a letter dated March 8, 1980:About the Mass of the Novus Ordo, despite all the reservations that one has to do about it, I never claimed that it is invalid or heretical."Therefore the reservations about the rite of the Novus Ordo, which are obviously not to be underestimated, do not refer either to the validity of the celebration of the sacrament nor the line of the Catholic Faith. It would therefore be appropriate to continue the discussion and clarification of these reservations.About the gesture of Pope Francis
The Holy Father encouraged the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei from the start of his pontificate to pursue a less official and less formal [dialogue] with the SSPX. In this context, the soothing and magnanimous gesture of Pope Francis on the occasion of the Year of Mercy has undoubtedly helped to calm further the state of relations with the Society, showing that the Holy See has at heart the rapprochement and reconciliation which will also need a canonical form. I hope and wish that the SSPX shares the same feeling and the same will.
© 2025 Created by Dawn Marie.
Powered by
