Removed*November 1, 2011 UK District Superior Newsletter
NEWSLETTER REMOVED
SSPX PRESS RELEASE
MENZINGEN (11-2-2011) Since the meeting of the seminary Rectors and District Superiors of the Society of St. Pius X in Albano (Italy) on October 7, 2011, several comments have been published in the press about the answer that Bishop Bernard Fellay should give to the Roman propositions of September 14th.
It has to be recalled that only the SSPX's General House has the competency to publish an official communique or authorized comment on the subject.
Until further notice, one should reference the communique of October 7, 2011. (DICI of 11/02/11) click to read at DICI >
copy of the newsletter which was removed (for the purpose of reference)
My dear brethren
The meeting of the Society’s superiors took place at Albano on 7-8th October as announced in last month’s newsletter, and Bishop Fellay did indeed use this opportunity to discuss the ‘Doctrinal Preamble’ text as received from Cardinal Levada on 14th September.
The first day of the meeting covered three issues: an overview of the contacts with Rome since 1987; a summary of the doctrinal discussions; and an oral exposition of the Doctrinal Preamble document itself.
With regard to the doctrinal talks it was disappointing to note that the Roman commission failed to acknowledge the break between traditional and conciliar teachings. Instead it insisted upon the ‘hermeneutic (interpretation) of continuity,’ stating that the new teachings included and improved the old!
It was interesting to learn that the 14th September meeting had not touched upon the doctrinal talks at all, but rather was dedicated to expounding possible practical solutions for the Society.
So it was perhaps not surprising to learn that the proposed doctrinal basis for any canonical agreement in fact contained all those elements which the Society has consistently rejected, including acceptance of the New Mass and of Vatican II as expressed in the New Catechism. Indeed, the document itself conveys the impression that there is no crisis in the Church...
Hence the stated consensus of those in attendance was that the Doctrinal Preamble was clearly unacceptable and that the time has certainly not come to pursue any practical agreement as long as the doctrinal issues remain outstanding. It also agreed that the Society should continue its work of insisting upon the doctrinal questions in any contacts with the Roman authorities.
In many ways we can see the hand of Providence in this meeting, falling as it did on the Feast of the Holy Rosary, given the clarification of Rome’s persistence in the modern errors, and the consequent necessity of continuing with the fight against modernism through fidelity to Catholic Tradition.
The second day of the meeting was dedicated to its original theme, that of communications and the media.
* * *
The Assisi III meeting is taking place on the very day I write these few lines, at which occasion we are holding a day of reparation here at St George’s House, with all-day exposition of the Blessed Sacrament.
The scandal of this inter-religious gathering can be resumed into three points:
i/ It commemorates and celebrates the scandal of Assisi I;
ii/ It replaces the Faith with religious liberty as the means to obtain world peace;
iii/ It promotes on a practical level relativism and religious indifference.
Views: 170
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by John-mary chijioke mbah on
-
I am with you Mrs. Adrienne.
-
Permalink Reply by Dawn Marie on
-
round and round we go, where she stops nobody knows {sigh....}
-
-
ghebreyesus wrote: Did it ever occur to anyone here that this "Preamble" is not "THE document", but only a first proposal? In many places still with an "old country" mentality, free from the fixed market regulations of present-day, people still haggle over prices. The first time around the proposals always take the "most extreme" position to afford room for better open bargain manuvering.
Dawn Marie wrote
So Rome is bargaining with the Truth and no one sees anything alarming about that?
That's ok by all?
You may be right Gheb, but that only further proves Rome hasn't changed one iota from their positions before the Doctrinal talks. Might I point out that their position before the talks were diabilical disorientation.
If that has not changed, and clearly it has not, why in the name of all that is good and holy on this earth do "certain" people want to be under Rome's proper authority.
I can't believe how many are living in la la land.
No wonder muslims are taking over.From the now "mysteriously" deleted thread on AQ.
-
-
The English version from the Vatican Insider
N.B. Bishop Fellay sent a "note" to Vatican Insider "today" (4th November), to supplement the Press Release issued by DICI on 2nd November, a press release that had previously been reported by Andrea Tornielli for Vatican Insider on 2nd November.
The article written by Giacomo Galeazzi on 4th November refers to "the note released today" and "today's communication".
In that note, the communication, sent by Bishop Fellay he claims that the text of the doctrinal preamble was not rejected
Towards a reconciliation between Lefebvrists and the Vatican?
Giacomo Galeazzi
Vatican City
The Lefebvrists haven't rejected the Vatican's offer, says Bernard Fellay. The superior of the Fraternity of St. Pius X intervened to stop the news leak concerning a break with the Vatican over negotiations for the reentry of the ultra-traditionalist schismatic group into the Church. “We haven't rejected the text that was presented to us by the Holy See”, assures Fellay.
If the reconciliation were to take place, the superior of the Fraternity of St. Piux X would lead home a group of 200 seminarians and 450 priests. And in a period of vocational shortage, that's no small thing. After the meeting of Lefebvrist superiors that took place in Albano at the beginning of October, “several comments appeared in the newspapers about the response Msgr. Bernard Fellay must give the Roman proposal of September 14, 2011”, when the Archbishop Lefebvre's successor met in the Vatican with the heads of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. For now, nothing leads one to believe that the Catholic ultra-traditionalists won't return to the fold.
Also because, according to the worst estimates, it is only a small part of the Lefebvrists who wouldn't accept Rome's proposal, a minority that would thus not participate in the reentry. The initial step was the Motu Proprio “Summorum Pontificum”, the calling card with which Benedict XVI put on paper his desire not to betray tradition, especially in the field of the liturgy. Because the liturgy is the Church, and how it prays reveals what it believes. Bernard Fellay has been, since 1994 (and will be so until 2018) the superior general of the Fraternity of St. Pius X. Consecrated bishop by Lefebvre in 1988, he ascended in just a few years to heights of the fraternity. He saw Lefebvre die after the latter had lain in a coma for a week. Fellay is the leader of the most moderate spirit of the Lefebvrists. The opposite of Msgr. Richard Williamson, who instead represents the most intransigent wing of the Fraternity, which feels that it would “never, ever” come to an agreement with Rome. “Remember”, the note released today continues, “that only the general house of the Fraternity of St. Pius X is qualified to publish an official communication or an authorized comment on this issue”.
After the meeting in Albano, the Lefebvrists had communicated that their leadership would study the “doctrinal preamble” presented by the Holy See to “present, within a reasonable amount of time, an answer to the Roman proposals”. The preamble's contents remain classified. The German Fr. Niklaus Pfluger, Fellay's first assistant, specified in a recent interview that “the proposed text has been corrected by our side”.
In recent days, moreover, the superior of the British district of the Lefebvrists, Paul Morgan, revealed in a letter to his flock some details of the meeting with the Roman Curia. He accused Rome of “not recognizing the rupture between the teachings of the past and those of Vatican II” and the Vatican proposals of containing “all the elements the Society has always rejected”. For what concerns the meeting in Albano, “those present agreed that the doctrinal preamble was unacceptable and that the time has certainly not come for reaching a practical agreement, since the doctrinal issues remain unresolved”. A news leak to which the superior Fellay has wished to put a stop with today's communication.
If the liturgy is the heart of the Lefebvrist's dissent with regard to Rome, the differences of opinion seem to be greater that what the Motu Proprio “Summorum Pontificum” is able to resolve. The Lefebvrists are requesting a direct revision of the conciliar texts – and not only to denounce their incorrect hermeneutics – beginning with the declaration “Dignitatis Humanae”, dedicated to religious freedom. In it, according to the Fraternity of St. Pius X, the Church places herself in a state of submission to a civil authority, which must grant it the right to freely express herself. According to the Lefebvrists, it should be the other way around: it is the state that must subject itself to the Catholic faith and recognize it as the state religion.
-
-
Fr. Schmidberger said on 1st November in a public lecture in Munich:
QUOTE We shall let Rome know that further clarifications are needed here. And that we cannot accept this Preamble as it stands.
(Wir werden Rom das wissen lassen, dass hier weiteren Erklärungsbedarf besteht. Dass wir dieses Präambel nicht ohne weiteres annehmen können.)QUOTE The decisive point is that the Romans understand that we have never accepted and never will accept certain things in the Council.
He mentions in particular that they see the Council and the Novus Ordo as a clear break with tradition and reject the idea of a 'hermanutic of continuity', and that they reject in particular the Council documents 'Gaudium et Spes' and 'Dignitatis Humanae' (Religious Liberty).
post from GABRIEL at I.A.
-
-
Fr. Schmidberger's talk on 1st November.
------------ QUOTE ----------
-The situation in the Church-
I’ll emphasise once more that we’re now caught up in a struggle and a long-drawn-out argument. First of all, we must be absolutely clear that the decline in the Church is still continuing. And to a huge extent. I’ll give you some examples. The beatification of John Paul II. That is a scandal for the whole Church. The man who smuggled relativism into the Church, who organised the Asissi meeting in 1986, who kissed the Koran, and who said that John the Baptist would have blessed Islam, not Muslims, but Islam itself. How can such a man be beatified?
And then the new Assissi Meeting, which took place last week, on Thursday the 27th. The present Pope said it was to celebrate the 25th Jubilee of the first Assisi Meeting. And he arranged it on exactly the same day, the 27th October. But Jubilees commemorate joyful occasions. And was the 1986 Assisi Meeting, of all things, a joyful occasion for the Church? I think not. I think it was a day of pain and mourning.
Holy Scripture, the Fathers of the Church, the Popes and the Councils all bear witness, in total agreement, without any doubt, that there is one God, only one Redeemer, and only one true religion. Everything else is error. So why should we meet together with Hindus, who have millions of gods, or with Buddhists, who don’t even have a personal god? Why should we meet together with the nature religions of Africa, who have totally confused ideas of God? Why should we meet together with Muslims, who believe in one God but not in one Redeemer, Jesus Christ, God made man? Or with Jews, who don’t believe Him to be the Son of God and reject Him?
And why meet together with the different Christian denominations, who don’t accept that Christ founded only one Church, His Immaculate Bride, and that He is the aim and goal of the whole human race? And that the aim and goal of the whole history of mankind is nothing other than the Marriage of the Lamb Who was slain and His Bride. We can read it in the second-to-last chapter of the Apocalypse. There it’s shown that the aim and goal of mankind, of the human race, is the Marriage of the Lamb. The New Jerusalem, descending from Heaven, is Holy Church, the Saints, the Community of Saints, which we are celebrating today, the Feast of All Saints. The souls who are members of Christ. The Marriage of the Lamb. Did Christ have many different brides? He had only one. As St. Paul says in the Epistle to the Ephesians: one heart, one faith, one baptism, one Lord and Father of all. So we can’t meet together with them, we can’t do it.
And then, praying for peace. What sort of peace are they praying for? We’re faced here with a great ambiguity. Christ said to His apostles, I give you my peace, not as the world gives do I give it to you. So there is a difference between the peace of the world and the peace of Jesus Christ. And we have chosen the peace of Jesus Christ. And this is what we pray for. And the peace of Christ is above all things the restoration of order, the order that was destroyed, between the individual soul and God. That is the vertical element, and when that has been restored, the horizontal can be added to it. Peace in society can grow only from the peace of souls. Why do you want to pray together with other religions for peace? How can we pray with them for peace? We can’t.
And here, the present Pope tried to moderate things a bit. It’s true that in 1986 Cardinal Ratzinger deliberately stayed away from Assisi. Then he went to the second Assisi meeting in 2002 with his face turned away. He travelled by train with his back towards Assisi, meaning it to be symbolic. So how can he organise such a meeting himself. What does it mean?
from GABRIEL at I.A
© 2025 Created by Dawn Marie.
Powered by
