Rorate Caeli

Williamson: "Our answer will be negative"

From an interview granted by Bishop Richard Williamson, of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X (FSSPX / SSPX) to Bruno Volpe, of the Italian religious website Petrus:

Bishop Williamson, how do you see Rome's proposals? Do you see a reunion of the schism as practicable?

"I appreciated the tone of the letter of Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos, but I frankly believe that nothing will be done and that our answer will be negative."

RORATE note: Bishop Fellay's official response will come in due time. It is better to wait for it.

67 comments:

Anonymous said...

It's over. Done. Finished.

Anonymous said...

Absurd, and frightening. All the letter asks for is the rendering of Catholic allegiance and honour to the papacy, which we know at times means being critical.

Guadalupe Guard

Anonymous said...

If, as so many claim, the SSPX already holds to these provisions, then Fellay ought to sign. If, as Williamson claims, nothing would come of it, he _still_ ought to sign as a gesture of good faith. The provisions do _not_, as some claim, prohibit him from objecting to certain statements or what-have-you; they only prohibit him from doing so in a bellicose fashion. Please God, let him sign it!

Anonymous said...

Pride alone keeps them from signing.

Anonymous said...

Schismatic pride... :-(

Poor fsspx people, and priests in formatioin in "La Reja"...

Lucius

Anonymous said...

Please continue to pray for Bp Fellay, the lawful SUPERIOR of Bp Williamson, to whom Bp Williamson owes loyalty and submission in their Society of Apostolic Life. I personally find it considerably outside the norms for a religious community that a subordinate and auxiliary speaks for the Superior General, and I presume this was done without the permission of Bp Fellay. JBrown

tradcath89 said...

I do not understand why Bishop Fellay won't sign this. He always seemed reasonable to me and I thought these conditions were exactly the ones he wanted. There is no requirement to agree to Vatican II teaching on religious liberty or anything. Just a requirement to accept the Pope as the final authority and to respect him. That's basically it. The SSPX, contrary to the claims of some people, are not required to "shut up" in this proposal. As much as some people see it in there, it simply isn't part of the proposal. The SSPX leadership has no excuse for refusing to accept this proposal. If Bishop Fellay indeed responds negatively, I think it will be the end of the SSPX. Perhaps he and Bishop Williamson do not see reality, but I think a lot of SSPX priests and lay people will decide that enough is enough. A negative response will only indicate that the SSPX leadership have no true intention to accept the authority of the Roman pontiff, and therefore they are not really much different than sedevacantists.

Anonymous said...

I agree that grave assertions such as those of anti-semitism should be backed up with either evidence or citation of sources. In this case, I presume the source to be http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/articles/a0000226.shtml and the documents and video referred to in that news article.

schoolman said...

Let's pray that Fellay has more sense than Williamson. The SSPX has never formally claimed anything contrary to the 5 points. If the SSPX is not capable of showing honor and due respect to the Pope and the Papal office -- then how are we not seeing a confirmation true schism? If he fails to sign there will be consequences -- there must be consequences for the good of all touched by it.

Anonymous said...

very bad mistake if they don't sign. There is nothing negative at all in these conditions. A simple request of respect for the Vicar of Chirst.

Anonymous said...

I have always had a special place in my heart for H.E. Williamson. How can't you love a guy who shoots so straight? But I'm affraid some of his protestant streak is still there -- his full Catholic conversion didn't wash it all away. He's too comfortable outside of full communion.

Angelo said...

Dan Hunter,

Take it easy, please! Your level of
CO2 emmissions is dangerously high.

Thank you.

Anonymous said...

There is still time and hope...We have to continue to pray harder and storm heaven with our prayers. Let's get to our rosaries and beg our Blessed Mother to intercede....Please stop with all of the negative and in one response,the use of foul language that is the work of the evil one, trying to divide us. Pray, Pray, Pray....

Dan Hunter said...

Angelo,

What I said is true.
That was mild.
God bless

matt said...

Talk about crypto-Protestantism...

Some Random Benedictine Oblate said...

I really don’t see what everyone is getting so bent out of shape for. May I remind all concerned that this is *BISHOP WILLIAMSON* who is making these comments? The man already has a richly deserved reputation as an over-opinionated, bigoted nut, so I don’t see why anyone should be giving any credit to any of his statements. He’s only one step removed from the SSPV anyways. As far as I’m concerned, if he doesn’t like the proposal, that’s a good sign.

New Catholic said...

All other off-topic comments will be deleted.

Anonymous said...

I never expected anything different from Bp. Williamson -- honestly, did anyone? -- but continue to pray that Bp. Fellay will make the right choice.

Romulus

Anonymous said...

It will be very ironic if after all of this the conclusion will be that JPII was right all the time and that the SSPX were a waste of time.

Anonymous said...

And I don't see why we should take this man's opinion with a grain of salt. Does Fellay criticize Williamson the way he criticizes the pope? No. Thus, we should be more inclined to assume that Williamson is right. Fellay's recent remarks about the pope are worse than this sad waste of a clergyman. I hope, but I will not waste my emotions on it. I hope I am wrong.

Anonymous said...

My goodness what hysteria I am seeing. Let's read his comment again:
-----------------------
but I frankly believe that nothing will be done and that our answer will be negative
------------------------

This is simply his opinion but it is still Bishop Fellay's decision. It's not yet over, nor done, nor finished.

florina

Anonymous said...

If Bishop Fellay doesn't sign I can't wait to hear his reasons for it.

schoolman said...

It is no coincidence that Cardinal Castrillon recently mentioned the term "heresy" in connection with circles belonging to the SSPX. Nobody can claim a superior magisterium to the Pope or "teachers of the Pope" as the Cardinal put it. This is a critical moment for Bishop Fellay -- the moment of Truth.

Anonymous said...

I guess I have always given the SSPX followers the benefit of the doubt. Now I am beginning to think they are "farther out there" . . . they will really been outcasts if they turn into sede-vacantist through this refusal.

It will be extremely sad to have to part ways with them.

Guadalupe Guard said...

Bishop Williamson is not a nut, but a brilliant, courageous, and often prophetic man. However, he was brought into the Church in is some of her darkest and most confusing days. The times are such that he hasn't had the chance to completely "go over to Rome." Yes, good thing he didn't then but he should now. This is a very delicate situation, please pray for him as well.

Dan Hunter said...

"I appreciated the tone of the letter of Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos, but I frankly believe that nothing will be done and that our answer will be negative

Are we to believe that there is some kind of communication between Bishop Williamson and Bishop Fellay?
Do they have an "episcopal" agreement to discuss important steps for the Society?

In other wrds is it possible that they have been in touch with each other and Bishop Fellay told Bishop Williamson, "this aint gonna happen"?

Anonymous said...

Pope Benedict is very clever. He is asking for no more than basic civility and respect for the Papacy. If Bishop Fellay does not sign, he will have put himself and the Society in a very bad position.

With all that is happening with the Motu Proprio, not signing will show every Catholic, especially SSPX members, that they are no longer the lonely defenders of tradition and the old Mass, but have become hardened rebellious curmudgeons, similar to Call to Action! If that is the case, SSPX will be left behind just as CTA has been left.

Cerimoniere said...

This is sad to hear, but hardly surprising. But Bishop Fellay is not Bishop Williamson, and all is not lost.

There is a serious problem that has arisen over many years, that affects even relatively balanced thinkers such as Bishop Fellay. Hostile politicized treatment over several decades leads to an attitude of suspicion which tends to persist after it's objectively justified. One can only hope and pray with Bishop Fellay will see past this now.

Anonymous said...

The Cardinal's request is only for a commitment for a positive attitude. Positive attitude is to adhere to the Faith in Christ and to have charity for Christ and for His Church. Within this frame of mind one can and must demand the fidelity for the faith, meaning condemnation of Modernism and all errors Vatican failed to condemn, also condemnation of the practice of silence over heretical voices to prevail at Vatican II. No tolerance for not using the power of the clear and sure voice of the Magisterium. The rightful expectation of the Petrine charity for Christ above all others. This is a commitment His Excellency can offer, nothing specific at this time is being asked. It is charity to expect the pope to excercise the Patrine office over the rebellious episcopate we are now experiencing in the resistance to apply the Motu Proprio. It is charity to condemn Modernism and it is lack of Charity in refusing to consecrate Russia the chief exporter of evil and false dontrine. Bishop Fellay needs your prayer to be of courage and use this opportunity to speak for the Church that was allowed to be darkened by letting the Truth kept under bushet basket. Pray for the Church and Bishop Fellay.

Guadalupe Guard said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Woody said...

Bishop Williamson is unfortunately sounding like he expects to be "there" for the next 100 years, if you catch my allusion.

Anonymous said...

Bishop Williamson on the "conditions"; I found this via Angelqueen:

http://dinoscopus.blogspot.com/2008/06/stick-again.html

"However, when in the next few days the Society makes no gesture towards Rome sufficient for Rome's purpose of dissolving the resistance of Catholic Tradition, I am for my part not at all sure that Rome will really go ahead with any declaration of formal schism. Maybe after eight, or 20, or 38 years of the Society's resistance they really are losing patience, but does not all past experience tell them that each time they use the stick, it stiffens rather than dissolves that resistance?"

- florina

schoolman said...

These "conditions" are nothing more that the SSPX has claimed to hold all along -- charity and due respect for the person and office of Peter. If that is denied now what is to remain of the SSPX? It goes beyond formal schism and into heresy regarding the petrine office. Indeed, Cardinal Castrillon recently warned that those going along with "the heresy" will also be excommunicated. This is a grave matter and the moment of Truth for Bishop Fellay and the SSPX.

Carlos Antonio Palad said...

Perhaps the SSPX will be more willing to sign if the Holy Father maks clear, in no uncertain terms, what awaits any refusal to sign.

The fact is that the June 28 deadline is not backed up by any sanctions or consequences. Why, then, will the SSPX bishops pay any attention to it?

schoolman said...

Carlos, Williamson mentions the consequences of declaration of formal schism. He would not say that unless this was communicated to him by Bishop Fellay. In any case, read the recent interviews of Cardinal Castrillon. Those who can't even recognize the reality of the petrine office go beyond schism -- and by pretending to be superior to the papal magisterium ("teachers of the Pope") are involved in "the heresy". According to the Cardinal, these will also be excommunicated. This is real stuff here. Evidently the Church has decided it is time for Bishop Fellay to show his true quality.

Jeff Culbreath said...

"The fact is that the June 28 deadline is not backed up by any sanctions or consequences. Why, then, will the SSPX bishops pay any attention to it?"

Because Benedict XVI is the Pope?

Anonymous said...

THERE HE GOES AGAIN H.E. WILLIAMSON
A LOSE CANNON / LET H.E. FELLAY ANSWER. IS THERE A SPLIT IN THE MAKING.. ?????

Paul Haley said...

Once again the issue of trust rears its ugly head. It's obvious from comments they have made that neither Bishop Williamson nor Bishop Fellay trusts Cardinal Hoyos and Pope BenedictXVI.

The door has been opened but lack of trust may slam it shut. What they are in fact implying is that there is no way that Rome will address their concerns or what lies under the iceberg to use Bishop Fellay's analogy in his recent sermon at Winona.

If they can't trust each other, what hope do we have that there will ever be a reconciliation?

Anonymous said...

It's not over, it's not done, it's not finished. Note the words. He says "I believe . . . nothing will be done". Once again, in the past, it was asserted that all the Society bishops would have to agree to any arrangements with Rome.

Williamson is merely expressing his opinion here. Were it more, he'd say that it was discussed and it was decided not to proceed. This letter is given to Bishop Fellay alone and it was recently clarified that it will express the intention of Bishop Fellay alone. Bishop Fellay will decide for himself, after prayer and consultation, what to do. Bishop Williamson is not Bishop Fellay. They are two different individuals.

Peter Karl T. Perkins
Victoria, Canada

Anonymous said...

Catholic News Agency is already reporting that Fellay rejected the five proposals based on his homily on June 20th in Minnesota.

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=13067

I think that this article jumps the gun and we must wait, see what is said and pray in the meantime.

Guadalupe Guard said...

The SSPX should again take the moral high ground, agree to these mere Catholic expectations, be regularized and increase their militancy, not backing down one bit. They may then be calumniated, censured, even once again excommunicated, but they will be in the right and thus only grow stronger.

John McFarland said...

May I suggest that we take a look at the particulars of the Castrillon ultimatum?

1. What would be a "response proportionate to the generosity of the Pope?" What has the Pope done for the SSPX? They already knew that the Traditional Mass had not been abolished.

2. As regards respecting the person of the Pope, there has been no lack of respect. In his most recent letter to friends and benefactors of the SSPX, Bishop Fellay called the Pope a liberal. He did not call the Pope a liberal to be unpleasant; he called him a liberal because he IS a liberal, and because this terrible fact must be confronted in order to deal sanely with the crisis in the Church.

3. The SSPX does claim a magisterium superior to the Pope --not for itself, but for the perennial doctrine of the Church. The Pope is the servant of the Faith, not its master.

4. The SSPX does not propose itself in contraposition to the Church. It defends the perennial doctrine of the Church against those who water it down or equivocate about it or who teach what is contrary to it -- popes included.

5. The SSPX had been quite respectful of the authority of the Pope, subject to the prior obligation to speak the truth about the Faith, and about the Pope's failures as a steward of the faith.

This is not an issue of manners; it's an issue of the truth, of the Faith.

Paul Haley said...

To the Bishops and priests of the FSSPX I pose this question:
if you cannot trust the Bishop of Rome, Vicar of Christ, Head of the Universal Church and Supreme Legislator, who can you trust?

There is still time left to answer this question in a positive manner.

Anonymous said...

The conditions do not imply the SSPX have broken them. They are simply basic rules required of every christian not to mention a bishop. Some remarks by Bishop Fellay are unacceptable in my opinion such as calling Pope Benedict XVI a "perfectly liberal pope". Regardless of the problems in the Church Benedict XVI is the Vicar of Chirst. If Bishop Fellay sees nothing wrong casting these negative remarks, well then the liberals in the church should also be allowed to say what they like. There must be a correct manner in addressing situations. Church regulations have always demanded that. Archbishop Lefebrve was always very strict on doctrine and had no hesitation in attacking the erreurs but never attacked the Pope in person.

Somerset '76 said...

The subculture the Society has gathered unto itself since the mid-1970s is a greater determinant factor in tactical issues such as this than many seem to realize.

Its resident neo-Jansenism does much to discourage even a strategic rapproachement with an institutional Church that is, in fact, still largely under the control of neo-Modernists. Indeed, let's suppose for the sake of argument the Society were to be immediately regularized as-is. Can you imagine how some of the attitudes that get a lot of emphasis within its subculture will go over with the contemporary institutional Church as a whole?

In its very essence, what we today identify as "Catholic traditionalism" is indeed a "reaction-ary" movement: it's a reaction to the wholesale changes of style and, arguably, substance, that have been ushered in with the last Council. Needless to say, the thing about movements created in reaction is this: too often, the temptation is to overreact, to make major issues out of slighter ones, to create issues of dogmatic certitude more than the Church actually has done.

Then, place that milieu in a state of siege for over thirty years, and then do not be surprised that they are rather inclined to hold out for some kind of miraculous intervention that forces the Church's leadership to return to the ways of Pius XII and predecessors ... considering nothing less than that to be the sign they need to recognize the time being right at last. Society leaders have spoken in this vein forever, and some of Bishop Fellay's remarks in Winona last week are exactly along this line.

Robert Collorafi said...

Personally, if I were Pope, I would have made the five conditions even more lax. The reason for this is that we have to make it as easy as possible for the SSPX to re-enter.

That being said, union with the sovereign Pontiff is not optional.
So, if they do indeed turn down this proposal (and I am not enamored of it), any priest of the Society should be allowed to accept the agreement as the Fraternity of St. Peter were able to do in 1988.

Let me be clear, I want and pray that all our SSPX brothers will accept the invitation of the Pope, as we so desperately need them. Nevertheless, the wily and charming Card. Castrillon Hoyos needs to be willing to grant an approved ecclesial set-up to whatever Society priests willing to make a deal.

Lastly, whoever decides to come back must enjoy the freedom necessary to speak out without penalty of any kind, and quite frankly, should be granted a bishop to protect them from the modernists.

Robert Collorafi said...

You know, if only some of the SSPX priests decide to take the offer, perhaps the new order could be called the Society of St. Pius XI (SSPXI) with one of their own consecrated a bishop personally by the Holy Father.

All you need is a group of 10 or 12of them to appoint a spokesman to give Card. Castrillon a call to set this up.

I could just see the photos in the blogosphere now: a beaming Card. Castrillon embracing these priests with open arms as their preliminary constitutions receive instant approval ad experimentum.

Perhaps August 15 could be set as the consecration date for one of their own to the episcopacy.

At least those of us suffering in the modernist Gulag can be allowed to dream . . .

Anonymous said...

A modest proposal

Anonymous said...

do not be surprised that they are rather inclined to hold out for some kind of miraculous intervention

That's a strategic decision that only they can make.

But are they entitled to reject the conditions in Christian conscience? Or must the SSPX accept them simply because they are good and demanded by their superior, even though it might lead to an uncomfortable result like the unilateral lifting of the excommunications?

John McFarland said...

I'm afraid that most of the comments of those critical of the SSPX have things exactly backwards. It is not the SSPX that is a defiant and/or deluded and/or overreacting subculture that needs to get right with duly constituted authority. It is the Church's current powers that be who are a subculture that needs to get right with the Faith. As Bishop Tissier de Mallerais said in his June 2002 ordination sermon, this new religion of Vatican II is a gnostic sect. I know that this is a very bitter pill indeed, but we have no choice; it's the truth. Do you really think that ecumenism can be squared with ex ecclesia nulla salus? Can you show me how Deus et Caritas squares with what is said in the gospels about love? Can you show me the kingship of Christ in the Pope's speeach to the UN?

The real danger was classically formulated by Archbishop Lefebvre: from obedience to apostasy. If you are going to follow the current Pope, unless and until he abandons the new religion of Vatican II, you are going to follow him, sooner or later, into a more or less deficient and adulterated caricature of the Faith.

You can't trust the Pope. He's in principle a doubleminded man, seeking a synthesis of the Faith and the World whose possibily the gospels deny on almost every page.

Who then can you trust? Spera in Deo, quoniam adhuc confitebor illi, salutare vultus mei, et Deus meus.

Anonymous said...

if you cannot trust the Bishop of Rome, Vicar of Christ, Head of the Universal Church and Supreme Legislator, who can you trust?

God does not command mankind to trust the Pope.

He rather commands us to obey his lawful requests.

Are these requested conditions lawful or not?

New Catholic said...

OK, let us suspend comments during the evening.

Let us pray.

"Stay with us, because it is towards evening, and the day is now far spent."

Anonymous said...

What does an excommunication from Rome mean anymore?

Let's get this straight.

The Jews don’t need Christ, and they go to heaven, but SSPX has to accept The new Mass, modernism and play nicey, nicey or else?

The Orthodox who accept divorce, contraception, are not excommunicated anymore, even though they don't accept Papal primacy, but SSPX has to play ball or else.

Protestants who reject the Immaculate Conception, The Eucharist, many approve of sex outside of marriage are ok to pray with but SSPX has to shut-up and stop pointing out these errors or else?

The Pope who addressed the UN and endorsed the Masonic vision in his speech, never even mentioned the Gospel or Converting to Christ during his trip to the USA. Kisses the Jews feet every chance he gets( we all know about the Good Friday Prayer fiasco, which shows that modernists just can’t leave anything alone, always have to “improve” the Liturgy, Stations of The Cross The Rosary etc.)

What a joke, does anybody take what these people do and say seriously??

Homo Bishops, and Priests and seminarians not only don’t face any disciplinary measures from Rome, but actually get promoted.

Excommunication from the cancer-fest which is modern Rome for being a Traditional Catholic is hardly something to worry about. If God is just then there is no way that an excommunication can be.

Anonymous said...

I believe that any Catholic of good will could refuse to sign such a document as these 5 points contain, precisely because the demand to sign them as a prerequsite to dialogue is itself an insult contrary to charity and implying things of which the propositioned signed is not guilty of.

It is as if the Pope does not want to talk unless the SSPX admits it has been behaving uncharitably, which is to offer a novel idea of charity, as if charity required agreement in error and silence when rebuke and criticism is necessary.

The first duty of fraternal charity is to correct one's brother: if the Pope want's fraternal charity to reign he must be willing to accept criticism when it is due.

Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Paul Goings said...

It is the Church's current powers that be who are a subculture that needs to get right with the Faith.

What is a heretic but someone who "needs to get right with the Faith?" And thus, if this is so, then Pope Benedict is a heretic, and thus not Pope at all.

Or do you posit some degree of error that doesn't rise to heresy? And, if so, why should it justify separation?

And so, logically,

If you are going to follow the current Pope, unless and until he abandons the new religion of Vatican II, you are going to follow him, sooner or later, into a more or less deficient and adulterated caricature of the Faith.

So if the Pope professes "the new religion of Vatican II" and not the Catholic religion, then how can he be Pope? I submit that this is impossible.

The Pope can make mistakes in terms of prudential judgments, or act unwisely, or even give himself over to evil, and he still would have the prerogatives of the papacy in all things lawful, but if he is not a Catholic, as you say, then he is certainly not the Pope. And thus there is no Pope.

Which is what all of this is really about, even if no one wants to admit it.

Anonymous said...

The uncharitability and contumeliousness of the conditions does not invalidate them or make them unsignable. To refuse to do something because you fear you will be joining in an insult against others or against your office could be a valid reason, but to refuse to do something because you feel personally insulted is pure pride.

Here is an excellent way to respond while maintaining the dignity and honor of all the members of the Society and the faithful they have served. It was written by an SSPX supporter and moderator of the AngelQueen.org forum and I reproduce it below:

et cum spirit 220 wrote:

The Cardinal wants a "positive response" by the end of this month. What if it went something like this:

Response to Condition 1: We have always pledged our fealty to his Holiness, and are grateful for his generosity. We commit to a full, frank, and proportionate response to any specific proposal the Holy Father makes to us.

Response to Condition 2: We have always respected the person and office of his Holiness, and express this publicly every day at every Mass offered by every priest in the Society. The Society has always been and remains dedicated to acting in the interests of ecclesial charity in every instance.

Response to Condition 3: We have always pledged our fealty to his Holiness, and fully recognize that every priest and bishop, including those of the society, are (like the Holy Father himself) subject to the Magisterium of the Church. We have never viewed the Fraternity as being opposed to the Church, and pledge not to do so in the future.

Response to Condition 4: The Society has in every instance since its conception acted honestly in full ecclesial charity and respect of the Vicar of Christ, and will continue to do so.

Response to Condition 5: As can be seen from the foregoing responses, the Society has responded positively to each condition, and within the designated time limit. We thank the Holy Father for his generosity in expressly recognizing the full communion of the Society with the Church, and we look forward to discussions regarding the details of determining the canonical structure for the society that will best serve the needs of the Church.

Anonymous said...

""Some Random Benedictine Oblate said...

I really don’t see what everyone is getting so bent out of shape for. May I remind all concerned that this is *BISHOP WILLIAMSON* who is making these comments? The man already has a richly deserved reputation as an over-opinionated, bigoted nut, so I don’t see why anyone should be giving any credit to any of his statements""

Slanderous!!

I Pray for You and many of and your kind hatefilled minds and dare i say ignorant (?) nature in this terrible times of the Church and all of the World!! HE Bishop Williamson is spot on th New World Order and its lies, may i dare you to consider to act in mildness or even investigate for your own, without the blindess of PC, what HE Bishop Williamson REALLY says and talks about??

St Pius X Pray for us all, the Church is in eclipse..

Paul Haley said...

Trust is the basis for any negotiations. Without it, there is really no basis for discussion. That is my only point.

If the FSSPX is to serve as the vanguard for the restoration, the focal point around which all traditional Catholics can coalesce, can it do so without being in partnership with the Successor to Peter? In my opinion it must be seen as in full communion with him.

Is there anyone out there that does not think our Holy Father is hanging by his fingertips ready to be devoured by the "wolves" as he called them? Is there anyone out there that does not think he is trying to correct the "deformations" as he himself called them? Is there anyone out there who thinks that he is an impostor, out to ruin the church and send all its faithful to hell?

No, we have a holy father who extends his hand to the Fraternity and asks only respect in return? Will that hand be rejected and the door slammed in his face? I pray that this will not happen.

Accepting the conditions will not solve all the problems or correct all the errors in the post conciliar landscape but it will be a beginning. It will serve to indicate the willingness of the FSSPX to meet His Holiness halfway and to begin discussions to resolve the conflicts.

My own approach would be to say; we accept the conditions in the light of Tradition (this says all that needs to be said about the interpretation) and with full respect and filial loyalty to the Successor of Peter. But, if I don't trust the man, why even talk to him?

Cerimoniere said...

Dr Haley's comments are highly reasonable. The conditions are not self-interpreting. Bishop Fellay can sign them if they will bear any reasonable interpretation. His comments and those of Bishop de Galaretta appear to suggest that he could sign them only if they could bear no unreasonable interpretation. This is a very regrettable attitude; much better to sign with some annotation than not to sign at all.

Anonymous said...

The decision not to answer is very resonable.

It is not pure pride to refuse to sign something that is insulting.

It is pure pride to insist on insulting someone before reconciling him.

It is pure pride to insist that others accept insults.

it is pure pride to insist that Christ's Church be governed by insults or require insults, when Our Blessed Lord, meek and humble of heart commanded Bishops and Popes with these words: "Do not lord it over them as the pagans do..." "Feed My sheep..."

The anti SSPX comments here are hateful, unchristian, and ignorant of the Gospel of Christ Jesus.

Annd whoever said that these conditions can be removed, reformulated, or done away with?

Those who hold that the Pope cannot intervene or have a change of heart are insulting him, asserting as they do implicity that he is an unrepentant, rude boor of a man, who does not know the first thing about fraternal or paternal charity.

Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Ione said...

That's it the SSPX is done. This Sunday may be my last Mass in an SSPX chapel. This is ridiculous. PRIDE is a sin too!

The SSPX has decided to become their own Church. A Unitarian could have signed that vague document.

I guess the Jansenists, Old Catholics, and SSPV have some new competetion on the schismatic scene.

I never thought I would refer to the SSPX as schismatic, but if they don't sign this document then that's what they are.

I have been an SSPX supporter for the majority of my Catholic life, but this refusal is beyond even my excuse making abilities.

Gerard said...

Speculation:

Say Bishop Fellay does sign the five points.

It will be very little time before some demand is made on the SSPX to "demonstrate a proportionate response to the generosity of the Holy Father."

Sooner or later, it's going to be in the form of some accomodation to the liberal reforms of Vatican II.

Bishop Fellay rails against it, he's accused of "backing out" of the "agreement." and then we are back to square one.

For the love of God people, turn your heads to the Pope and ask the question: "What does unity mean if it doesn't mean doctrinal unity and why do you want it Holy Father?"

It's supposed to be "one faith, one fold, one shepherd" why would a Pope want false unity with people who do not believe what he believes?

I'm becoming more and more convinced that this is an attack against the SSPX that is going to backfire on Rome once again.

Holy Father: Mahony's Catholicism or Fellay's you can't have both all twisted together. Truth has no room for error.

This is a war. Pick your side and lead it.

Gerard said...

The SSPX has decided to become their own Church.


Never heard that before today.


A Unitarian could have signed that vague document.


Then what good is it if it's so vague? It does and doesn't mean anything depending how you read it. Why does Rome make such meaningless vague demands? Is that how Rome guards the orthodoxy of the Church? Will they let anyone in no matter what they believe if they accept those five doctrinal points concerned only with "manners"? Is that Catholicism?


I never thought I would refer to the SSPX as schismatic, but if they don't sign this document then that's what they are.


Not signing a "vague" document suitable for a Unitarian makes them schismatic? The definition of Schismatic just keeps changing. I seem to remember it being a denial of the existence of the Pope's authority.

Anonymous said...

The great theologian Fr. Cornelius a Lapide SJ * and others teach that the Great Apostasy must occur before the end of the world. Fr. Phil Wolf FSSP (not SSPX!) has elaborated on this.
2 Thessalonians 3-12 Let no man deceive you by any means, for unless there come a revolt first, and the man of sin be revealed , the son of perdition, Who opposeth, and is lifted up above all that is called God,or that is worshipped, so that he sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself as if he were God. Remember you not, that when I was yet with you, I told you these things? And now you know what withholdeth, that he may be revealed in his time. For the mystery of iniquity already worketh; only that he who now holdeth, do hold, until he be taken out of the way. And then that wicked one shall be revealed whom the Lord Jesus shall kill with the spirit of his mouth; and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming, him, Whose coming is according to the working of Satan, in all power, and signs, and lying wonders, And in all seduction of iniquity to them that perish; because they receive not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. Therefore God shall send them the operation of error, to believe lying: That all may be judged who have not believed the truth, but have consented to iniquity. But we ought to give thanks to God always for you, brethren, beloved of God, for that God hath chosen you first fruits unto salvation, in sanctification of the spirit, and faith of the truth: Whereunto also he hath called you by our gospel, unto the purchasing of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.
Daniel 9 :27 27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many, in one week: and in the half of the week the victim and the sacrifice shall fall: and there shall be in the temple the abomination of desolation: and the desolation shall continue even to the consummation, and to the end.

Consider also the prophesy of St. Francis of Assisi:

A short time before the holy Father’s death [St. Francis’ death], he called together his children and warn them of the coming troubles, saying: “Act bravely, my Brethren; take courage, and trust in the Lord. The time is fast approaching in which there will be great trials and afflictions; perplexities and dissension, both spiritual and and temporal, will abound; the charity of many will grow cold, and the malice of the week it will increase. The Devils will have unusual power, the immaculate purity of our Order, and of others, will be so much obscured that there will be very few Christians who will obey the true Sovereign Pontiff and the Roman Church with loyal hearts and perfect charity. At the time of this tribulation a man, not canonically elected, will be raised to the Pontificate, who, by his cunning, will endeavor to draw many into error and death. Then the scandals will be multiplied, our Order will be divided, and many others will be entirely destroyed, because they will consent to error instead of opposing it. There will be such diversity of opinions and schisms among the people, the religious and the clergy, that, except those days were shortened, according to the words of the Gospel, even the elect would be led into error, were they not specially guided, amid such great confusion, by the immense mercy of God. Then our rule and manner of life will be violently opposed by some, and terrible trials will come upon us. Those who are found faithful will receive the crown of life; but woe to those who, trusting solely in their Order, shall fall into tepidity, for they will not be able to support the temptations permitted for the proving of the elect. Those who preserve their fervour and adhere to virtue with love and zeal for the truth, will suffer injuries and persecutions as rebels and schismatics; for their persecutors, urged on by the evil spirits, will say that they are rendering a great service to God by destroying such pestilent men from the face of the earth. But the Lord will be the refuge of the afflicted, and will save all who trust in him. In order to be like their Head, these, the elect, will act with confidence, and by their death will purchase for themselves eternal life; choosing to obey God rather than men, they will fear nothing, and they will prefer to perish rather than consent to falsehood and perfidy. Some preachers will keep silence about the truth, and others will trample it underfoot and deny it. Sanctity of life will be held in derision even by those who outwardly profess it, for in those days our Lord Jesus Christ will send them not a true pastor, but a destroyer.” --- Works of The Seraphic Father St. Francis of Assisi, translated by a religious of the order, London: R. Washbourne, 1882. pp. 248-250.

Consider, my “charitable” Novus Ordinarians, that the Great Apostasy may be here and that you may be defending the indefensible — operation of error, abomination of desolation, and defection from Tradition.

Signed,
Anonymous (because this is NOT about me; it’s about the Truth)

* Heretofore the works of Fr. Cornelius a Lapide SJ were available only in Latin. His commentaries of Scripture are, for the first time, being translated into English:
http://www.angeluspress.org/oscatalog/
item/8284/commentary-on-the-four-gospels

SassyDefiance89 said...

To: those poor souls who up to now are ignorant of what the true fight is all about... here is it in a gist: SSPX does NOT crave for any recognition or prestige or any form or material reward be it in any form or shape of "prelature" or BRIBERY!!! The main reason they were established was for the "PRESERVATION IN PERPETUITY of DOCTRINAL PURITY - a surrogate custodian so to speak till the ROMAN MODERNISTS aka as ROMAN ROGUES have (by God's grace) fully recovered their MORALLY CORRECT right use of their reason!!! COMPRENDE?????????

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre did NOT offer himself or volunteer for this mission... he was forced (so to speak) and thrown into the ROMAN COLLOSEUM -- now if you ask why? -- my reply is - you need to ask God that question yourself when you meet him face to face on judgment day...

What is so hard to understand about what this "VILLAINOUSLY DEFIANT SCHISMATIC EX-COMMUNICATE TEENAGE PAPIST" had just posted above???

And if you have "issues" with what I have posted? TOUGH! THEY are your personal issues alone!!! Take it up with the Triune God on your personal judgment and or on general judgment!!! END of Discussion!!!

Ain't gonna reply to any more whinny protestations!!!

But this uncalled for provocation and "threat/ insult" on the part of the Roman Rogues sure makes for interesting and "intriguing" fodder for all of us who loves to argue, voice out our opinion, release our frustration and be heard!!!

God Bless... and giving you all a virtual " friendly fist bump"... take care and have a great and safe summer...

28 June, 2008 15:28

Ione said...

Gerard: The reason the document is so vague is because Rome is bending over backwards to get US back into canonical regularity, and the leadership is equivacating.

Priestly congregations are not the forum to decide on doctrinal errors.

To put it in market economy terms the SSPX could reconcile and if they don't like it they could always leave again! Why not try being in regularity before they decide what will happen.

Gerard I don't know if you attend SSPX chapels, but they have become increasingly sectarian. When the Archbishop was alive there was civility and integration, but now the chapels border on insularity. They are NOT their own Church, they are becoming their own Church.

Believe it or not I love the SSPX, and Lefebvre was the main channel of God's grace that brought me into the Church. What I say about the SSPX is not bashing or ignorance; I say what I say out of affection and compassion.

I say Bishop Fellay last weekend, and he is a truly faithful Christian, and does indeed love the Church. There comes a time in the life of any believer a decision must be made: how central is Peter to my religiosity? Not just the Peters tradition approves of, but all the Peters of the millenia.

Anonymous said...

It should be quite evident to all the truly faithful that the obvious problem with SSPX is their disobedience to the Poniff and arrogance with which they conduct themselves. There is a sorely lack of humility it seems that the Bishops think they have the right to leave the Church Jesus Christ established and founded to follow their own path.It is wrong and by slapping down the offer to return to the Roman Catholic Church, it appears the pride of these men has triumphed over their better judgement. They have made up their minds to leave Christ and follow their own minds. Disobedience should have been the first sign of a problem, and if they think its because they 'love' God more, and they know better than God Himself how to run the affairs of the Church, well, don't be surprised at the results.All the pious practices in the world won't make up for the error they are stubbornly clinging to. May the Holy Spirit win you back to the Truth of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Stop the arrogance and be part of the Body again. Boy, the devil sure knows how to work his cunning ways doesn't he?