ELEISON COMMENTS MARCH 31th 2012 GRAVE DANGER

[Dawn Marie]

GRAVE DANGER

Number CCXLVI (246)

31 March 2012

 

The desire of certain priests within the Society of St Pius X to seek a practical agreement with the Church authorities without a doctrinal agreement seems to be a recurring temptation. For years Bishop Fellay as the Society’s Superior General has refused the idea, but when he said in Winona on February 2 that Rome is willing to accept the Society as is, and that it is ready to satisfy “all the Society’s requirements...on the practical level”, it does look as though Rome is holding out the same temptation once more.

However, the latest news from Rome will be known to many of you: unless the Vatican is playing games with the SSPX, it announced last Friday, March 16, that it found Bishop Fellay’s January reply to its Doctrinal Preamble of September 14 of last year “not sufficient to overcome the doctrinal problems which lie at the foundation of the rift between the Holy See and the SSPX.” And the Vatican gave the SSPX one month in which to “clarify its position” and avoid “a rupture of painful and incalculable consequences.”

But what if Rome were suddenly to cease requiring acceptance of the Council and the New Mass ? What if Rome were suddenly to say, “Alright. We have thought about it. Come back into the Church as you ask. We will give you freedom to criticize the Council as much as you like, and freedom to celebrate the Tridentine Mass exclusively. But do come in !” It might be a very cunning move on the part of Rome, because how could the Society refuse such an offer without seeming inconsistent and downright ungrateful ? Yet on pain of survival it would have to refuse. On pain of survival ? Strong words. But here is a commentary of Archbishop Lefebvre on the matter.

On May 5, 1988, he signed with then Cardinal Ratzinger the protocol (provisional draft) of a practical Rome-Society agreement. On May 6 he took back his (provisional) signature. On June 13 he said, “With the May 5 Protocol we would soon have been dead. We would not have lasted a year. As of now the Society is united, but with that Protocol we would have had to make contacts with them, there would have been division within the Society, everything would have been a cause of division” (emphasis added). “New vocations might have flowed our way because we were united with Rome, but such vocations would have tolerated no disagreement with Rome which means division. As it is, vocations sift themselves before they reach us” (which is still true in Society seminaries).

And why such division ? (Warring vocations would be merely one example amongst countless others). Clearly, because the May 5 Protocol would have meant a practical agreement resting upon a radical doctrinal disagreement between the religion of God and the religion of man. The Archbishop went on to say, “They are pulling us over to the Council...whereas on our side we are saving the Society and Tradition by carefully keeping our distance from them” (emphasis added). Then why did the Archbishop seek such an agreement in the first place ? He continued, “We made an honest effort to keep Tradition going within the official Church. It turned out to be impossible. They have not changed, except for the worse.”

And have they changed since 1988 ? Many would think, only for yet worse.

Kyrie eleison.

© 2011 Richard N. Williamson. All Rights Reserved.

No portion of this article may be reproduced in any form or by any electronic or mechanical means, including by information storage and retrieval systems, without permission in writing from the publisher, except by a reviewer who may quote brief passages in a review, or except in cases where rights to content reproduced herein are retained by its original author(s) or other rights holder(s), and further reproduction is subject to permission otherwise granted thereby. Permissions inquiries should be directed to [e-mail].

www.dinoscopus.org

[Dawn Marie]

QUOTE BISHOP RICHARD WILLIAMSON: "The desire of certain priests within the Society of St Pius X to seek a practical agreement with the Church authorities without a doctrinal agreement seems to be a recurring temptation. For years Bishop Fellay as the Society’s Superior General has refused the idea, but when he said in Winona on February 2 that Rome is willing to accept the Society as is, and that it is ready to satisfy “all the Society’s requirements...on the practical level”, it does look as though Rome is holding out the same temptation once more."

 

That to me sums up the worry amongst so many, including myself.  It isn't so much a fear that Bishop Fellay would deny the Faith and take up with Rome, ( because I don't believe he would do such a thing) but to be willing to take up with Rome before she has come back to her senses, before she returns to the Faith has red flags all over it.  It isn't that those who oppose such an idea are ultimately opposed to reconciliation with Rome and are happy with the status quo, it is simply a risk to great to take and puts the Faith in unnecessary peril. 

I've spoken to some who say" well we are stronger than those who tried before us, we won't get sucked in the way they did, we know where to step".  But to me such thinking may tend to border on pride and presumption or at the very least perhaps an overzealous nature that thinks they can do what others tried to do and failed to do. 

 

The only result which came about for institutions such as the Transalpine Redemptorists, Campos etc in their quest to come under Rome's umbrella, was not Rome's return to the Faith but a watering down of the Faith which was held in those places before they signed up under Rome.

 

I don't believe that is what +Fellay wants.  But if he is unsuccessful in his attempts to achieve an entry into Rome "no strings attached" maybe, just maybe, this is a blessing of God.  Like any good parent He knows what is in our best interest, even when the way seems so clear to us that we can't understand why God is not answering.   To my feeble eyes He has been answering for a long time now and His answer has been....no.

 

[Copacabana]

I desire fervently that His Excellency Bp. Fellay as the Society’s Superior General would request formally to the Holy Father, the Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. From my humble point of view, it has been given to His Excellency, in these weeks ahead the opportunity to do that. Don’t you think?

[Dawn Marie]

I could not possibly agree with you more Maria.

[Alan]

Perhaps formally and publicly.  From what I understand the Pope has ignored what letters Bp. Fellay has sent him in the past with regard to the consecration.  If that is the case it might be in everyone's best interest for the SG to ask publicly.   It might be harder for the Pope to ignore.

[Cathleen]

IMHO, ....correct me if anyone thinks I am off base with this, but....

I am confident that Our Dear Heavenly Mother sees the good will and love shown by +HE Fellay in calling for this rosary crusade, and in the many, many rosaries already prayed for this intention.  I think we may get some answer to our prayers, even if it is not quite what we expect.  But Our Dear Mother always hears the prayers of her children.  She has shown this at Guadalupe, Lourdes and esp Fatima.