 |
| Bishop Marcel Lefebvre, Vicar Apostolic of Dakar, on the day of his Consecration (1947) |
On October 3, 1987, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, founder of the Society of Saint Pius X (FSSPX / SSPX) celebrated the fortieth anniversary of his consecration with a special Mass in Écône, Switzerland, where the International Seminary of Saint Pius X is located. In his long sermon, given one year after the first Assisi meeting took place (Oct. 1986), Abp. Lefebvre summarized the problem and expounded with greater detail the July 14, 1987, meeting with the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Ratzinger, that he had already presented partially in other occasions, including a conference for a priestly retreat held on September 4. In this sermon, he expands and completes the general thoughts regarding negotiations and the relationship of Traditional Catholics and the Supreme Pontiff in the post-conciliar reality.
The complete sermon was translated and published in The Angelus (November 1987 issue), to which we added one very small excerpt which is absent in the translation but that was part of the original French text. No passage was highlighted below, so that our readers may be able to reach their own conclusions.
_________________________
[T]hey have tried, right up to the present, to make us understand that we have to follow the new current. And I repeated without ceasing, "If I follow the current that you yourselves are following, well, I will have the same results; that is to say, your seminaries are closing, your seminaries are being sold, and the priests whom you are forming do not have any longer the priestly spirit. The best proof is that a good number of them, three or four years after ordination, get married and abandon the priesthood. I do not want to arrive at that situation with my seminarians! I want authentic priests, priests of Our Lord Jesus Christ, who believe, who have the Faith, and who are ready to suffer for their Faith, who are ready to renounce all those worldly habits that have been introduced into the interior of the Church and that have invaded even the sacristies and the priesthood!" That is where I find myself now at the time of my fortieth year as a bishop.
Now it happens that, in the face of these two orientations which in practice are incompatible, it is what I was saying to Cardinal Ratzinger last July 14th: "Eminence, you see, it is very hard for us to agree, because you are for the lessening of the Reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ, for the idea that no one speak of it, that silence be kept on it, that in civil society no one speak of the reign of Our Lord so that all the religions can be at ease in our societies, and so that there will not be only Our Lord Jesus Christ and therefore the Catholic religion. We must not insist on this social reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ so that the Jews, the Moslems, the Buddhists will not be offended by the Cross and by the Faith in Our Lord Jesus Christ, that is your attitude! Well, for us, it is exactly the opposite! We want Our Lord Jesus Christ to reign, because He is the only God, because there is no other God, because when we die and find ourselves in eternity, there will be no other God who will present Himself to us than Our Lord Jesus Christ, who will be our Judge." Tu solus Dominus! Tu solus altissimus! We sang it again, a moment ago, in the Gloria. "There is no other God! It is not Buddha who will receive us in heaven, it is not Mohammed, it is not Luther; it is Our Lord Jesus Christ, He who created us, He who has lived on earth, He who redeemed us, and He who waits for us in eternity. Therefore we desire that He reign. Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven, on earth as in heaven; and God knows whether the will of the Good Lord is done in heaven! If it is done in heaven, it must be done on the earth also: Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven; Thy kingdom come! That is what I teach," I said to the Cardinal; "That is what I teach my seminarians and that is what they have in their hearts. They have only one care, only one desire, which is to make an apostolate for the reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ in the families, in souls, in society; that Jesus reign everywhere; that is it! And that is why it is indeed difficult for us to agree. Your ecumenism is ruining the social Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ; and this is why the book that I have written recently has as its title They Have Uncrowned Him, they have uncrowned Our Lord Jesus Christ, and gives the explanation of this situation that we are living in today."
But on this occasion, it seems that by a particular circumstance, I think perhaps by the entreaties that have been made by certain Cardinals, by certain bishops to the Holy Father, to say, "But now we have to finish with this business of Tradition, with this affair of Écône, we have to finish. They are not, just the same, enemies of the Church! We have to profit from these living forces which are found in this Priestly Society of St. Pius X for the good of the Church. You cannot let that go indefinitely because everything is collapsing everywhere! When we see and hear the echoes of the Holy Father's trip to the United States, and the situation of the immorality in the United States, which is bewildering, even in Catholic spheres, even in the seminaries, it is unimaginable! Absolutely unimaginable! So where are we going to find the renaissance of the Church? Not in those seminaries where homosexuality is advocated, in the seminaries! So then? We have to know where we are going to regain the true essence of the Faith and the true virtue of Our Lord Jesus Christ!" [Now, I believe that strong entreaties were made in Rome. And that is how, never before as on July 14, we were presented with solutions that are extraordinary.] Now I think that there is a new dialogue that is being set up. And pray, my very dear brethren, pray that this dialogue will lead to a solution that will be for the good of the Church. We are not seeking anything else; we are not looking for the good of the society; it is not a question of the Society, it concerns the good of the Church. It is a question of the salvation of souls, of the salvation of Christian families, of the salvation of Christian societies. So we hope that in this new climate which has been established for some weeks, well, some new solutions will be able to spring up. It is a small hope. Oh, I do not have an exaggerated optimism, because, concisely, those two currents that are opposed are indeed difficult to reconcile. But if Rome really wants to give us true autonomy, the one that we have now, but with submission, we would want this, we have always desired to be subject to the Holy Father. It is not a question of despising the authority of the Holy Father; on the contrary. But we have been as if thrown outside because we were traditionalists. Well, if, as I have often asked, Rome agrees to have us make the experiment of Tradition, well then, there will be no more problems. We will be free to continue the work that we are doing, as we are doing it now, under the authority of the Sovereign Pontiff. Obviously that calls for solutions that must be looked at, that must be discussed, which are not easy to settle in their details. But with the grace of the Good Lord, it is possible that we will find a solution that will permit us to continue our work without abandoning our Faith, without abandoning that light of which I was speaking to you, which has been that of my forty years as a bishop, which is the reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ.
We want, I would say, to live heaven a little already; since we are made to go to heaven, it is indeed necessary for us to prepare ourselves here below. Thus it is necessary to create this climate of the Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ, for we are going to find Him when we die, hoping that we will be among the members of that realm of Jesus Christ. That is the whole situation such as it presents itself.
50 comments:
"Well, if, as I have often asked, Rome agrees to have us make the experiment of Tradition, well then, there will be no more problems. We will be free to continue the work that we are doing, as we are doing it now, under the authority of the Sovereign Pontiff. Obviously that calls for solutions that must be looked at, that must be discussed, which are not easy to settle in their details. But with the grace of the Good Lord, it is possible that we will find a solution that will permit us to continue our work without abandoning our Faith, without abandoning that light of which I was speaking to you, which has been that of my forty years as a bishop, which is the reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ." abp Lefebvre, 1987 does it not seem similar to bishop Fellay words? I think now is a time for do that- the experiment of Tradition!
Pray for a good canonical status! http://www.facebook.com/events/320259584714238/ pray for the strenght and light for Pope Benedict XVI and bishop Fellay! Pray many rosaries!
"Obviously that calls for solutions that must be looked at, that must be discussed, which are not easy to settle in their details. But with the grace of the Good Lord, it is possible that we will find a solution that will permit us to continue our work without abandoning our Faith, without abandoning that light of which I was speaking to you, which has been that of my forty years as a bishop, which is the reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ."
Thank you so much for giving us these words of the Archbishop. I quoted the part above because while they relate so closely to the matter at hand, they link a reunion neither to moral teachings nor to liturgy but to the twin topics of ecumenism and religious liberty, the positive statement of which was the restoration of the reign of Christ not only in our hearts but in society. It was the center of the Archbishop's concern, and he understood it not only in some theological dimension, but elsewhere enumerated the social ills, the chaos that would develop, in our societies, in our economies, in our neighborhoods, in our families, when we lost this center of civic and emotional gravity. And so we have suffered it as he said we would. And so it is still the central issue. And I would like to say that there are very many traditionalists of all types, on all sides, who do not accept this truth and do not accept the political implications, and continue to support movements that make ecumenism and religious liberty and indeed liberty in every possible degree but especially in the 'free market' the platform of their work, and their lives, and their profits. In fact, this is tradition's malady, not anti-semitism.
I would not be the first to point out that at SSPX's Kansas City conference last October, there were boos among the crowd for one speaker, and in general, less than enthusiastic reception of the point. Nor have we, at our chapel, nor is it being reported in internal communiques at other chapels, carried out Father Rostrand's closing exhortations, to go out and build some structures like guilds to help in our present economic crisis, and to run for public office as Catholics seeking the restoration of the reign of Christ in society.
This concept is simply the most difficult for all, not just the 'other side,' to accept and implement. It is much more extreme than the rejection of gay marriage, or abortion. It is as close to sedition as you can get. It challenges the assumptions of democracy itself. It makes me personally dizzy. It is of course the only solution to our death spiral, both in the temporal and eternal realms. Archbishop Lefebvre's understanding of it is his most precious legacy, and I thank you so much, Rorate, for presenting it to us here, now. This is the heart of it, and so very many of us give it no thought, but focus on all other issues, simply because this one is the one that will demand our blood.
Is there some location on the Internet where the SSPX's position on Abp. Lefebvre's own signatures on the Vatican II documents is explained? I would imagine this position has been worked out in some detail by the group and I would like to understand how this act by Abp. Lefebvre fits that into the Society's own views on Vatican II.
Could someone please point me to where such an explanation might be found?
Thank you Janet Baker for your insightful commentary (at 12.35)You are so right and I whole heartedly concur with all that you wrote.
The world is on a slippery slope because it has rejected the Reign of our Lord Jesus Christ. Our country the USA is racing to her perdition because we have enshrined evil into laws as good. Satanic forces are running free and wild in our land proclaiming that perversions of any kind are "rights" and one can go on and on with this sad tale. We are putting our trust in "princes" who, like the Pied Piper, lead us into a black hellish hole.
Our loyalty, our fealty, belong to our Creator THE ETERNAL WORD. It is HE Our Lord Jesus Christ who is King and reigns forever and it is HIS Laws we are to follow. This is the message the Church ought to proclaim from the housetops. Archbishop Marcel LeFebvre knew this and preached it loud and clear. We do well to listen and imitate him because there is no other way. Pax et bonum to all!
In the game of "quote against quote" the aim is not to score cheap points but, by comparing the texts, to explain people's real motivations and the complexity of situations. So how about another quote from the Archbishop, in 1988 (June 12th, an address to the four bishops elect):
"It's over. The talks between Rome and ourselves are over..." (oh well! your 1987 text is still interesting but hardly the last word!)... "The more one thinks about it, the more one realizes their intentions are not good. Look at what happened to the Traditional leaders, Dom Augustin, Fr. de Blignieres, who went over to Rome and have been swallowed up. Rome wants everything to go Vatican II, while they leave us a little bit of Tradition....They are not changing their position. We cannot put ourselves in the hands of those people. We would be fooling ourselves. We do not mean to let ourselves be eaten up..."
Something has changed since 1987 : the reality of contacts with Rome has made the Archbishop lose confidence in the Vatican authorities.
Here is a quote from Bishop Bernard Fellay (addressing John Paul II, the 27th October 1999, on the occasion of the meeting of religions, Assisi-style, in Rome):
"By these 'interreligious' meetings, you do not confirm your brethren in the faith; on the contrary, you encourage a great indifferentism and provoke divisions inside the Church. Moreover the humanistic, earthly and naturalistic themes of such meetings debase the Church from its wholly Divine, eternal and supernatural mission to the level of the Masonic ideals of a world peace without the only Prince of Peace, Our Lord Jesus Christ.
"The deplorable event of Assisi was for Archbishop Lefebvre one of the "signs of the times" permitting him to proceed legitimately to the episcopal consecrations without your consent, and to write to you that 'the moment of a frank collaboration has not yet come.'"
Something has changed, here also. Comparing this quote with the positive attitude he now shows towards the Pope of Assisi 2011, is it fair to say that the reality of contacts with Rome has made Bishop Fellay lose confidence in Archbishop Lefebvre?
It seems that the very words of the beloved Archbishop seem to contradict the will of the 3 other bishops who are against the canonical solution.
Sedes Sapientiae, ora pro nobis!
I would love to know what Cardinal Ratzinger said to the archbishop in reply.
Thank you, Rorate, for this very timely post of the Archbishop's speech.
I would say it is required reading for all, especially for dissenters, doubters and waverers who are unsure about following Bishop Fellay at this moment.
I am reminded of the Leonine prayers said after Mass which include the prayer for the "liberty and exaltation of Holy Mother Church". The Church ! The Church founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ, sick, wounded, staggering like a drunken man from one crisis to another, under the baleful influence of liberalism and modernism. How can we not run to its aid ! How can we refuse the Pope's call, when we see him beset by the enemies of Tradition !
If we are Catholics we cannot. We know we can trust in God not to abandon us when we fight only for the Church and for the Pope who is guardian of the deposit of Faith.
Oh, it will not be easy. I don't think anyone is under that delusion.
Let us therefore pray most earnestly to that doughty warrior, St.Michael, seeking unceasingly the intercession of Mary, the Mother of God, and let God's will be done.
This is not a game, "Unrepentant 88er", but you have no idea how respectful I am of your condition.
But the other comment in that other post will remain.
NC
Something has changed, here also. Comparing this quote with the positive attitude he now shows towards the Pope of Assisi 2011, is it fair to say that the reality of contacts with Rome has made Bishop Fellay lose confidence in Archbishop Lefebvre?
Or perhaps something has changed in Rome from 2005 to 2012 (or even 2011 to 2012), just as something changed between 1987 (after the 1986 Assisi meeting!) and 1988.
Bishop Fellay is taking the same approach as Archbishop Lefebvre.
Given the climate at that time Archbishop Lefebvre could not agree to a vague offer by Rome that gave no protection to the Society.
The point is that Archbishop Lefebvre was open to an agreement. He had to take it one step at a time.
Neither Archbishop Lefebvre or Bishop Fellay are mind readers. They could only go on the information they were given.
At this point in time the Pope is offering what Archbishop Lefebvre hoped for in 1987.
Does Bishop Fellay have any valid reason to refuse?
If he thinks like Lefebvre, he can have no reason to refuse.
Archbishop Lefebvre's motto: I do not precede providence, I follow it!
Bishop Fellay is following providence. Right now he's being offered autonomy for the Society and he says 'yes'.
Down the road, if he's asked to make concessions, he will say 'we cannot'.
Keep praying!!!
Something has changed, here also. Comparing this quote with the positive attitude he now shows towards the Pope of Assisi 2011, is it fair to say that the reality of contacts with Rome has made Bishop Fellay lose confidence in Archbishop Lefebvre?
Fr. Abraham, everything is different. Regrettably BXVI did sanction another Assisi event (though I doubt he called for it), he also gave in to every demand that +Felley imposed before a regularization; namely, the freeing of the TLM, the lifting of the 'excommunications', and the doctrinal discussions (as unfruitful as they may have been.)
Would JPII have countenanced such impositions from a group that represents .1% of the Church?
Benedict, I'm convinced, has a deep love for the FSSPX that JPII simply did not. Michael Davies said the former was a friend of Tradition, as he's proven to be. He is moving the bark towards Tradition, as +Fellay says, and the FSSPX will be insulin in a sick body, regularized.
I do see your point, "dcr", but I suggest that the time did not so much bring about a change in Rome from 1987 to 1988 as simply enable people to get to know each other.
As the Archbishop spent more time in the Vatican he realised that he was not at home there and had to leave, whereas Bishop Fellay, with time, has taken the Vatican position and "left" the SSPX.
Unrepentant 88er,
The quote you provided is just strengthens the position that Lefebvre would have excepted the situation today. He feared the Societies survival but today they are offered a far greater amount of freedom; in fact, just about the most freedom that can be given. Tradition is CLEARLY not going to be squelched, as is evidenced by the ever increasing presence of the TLM in dioceses across the world and the number of traditional seminarians. Things are much different outside the bunker than you may think. What do you fear? If it is God's work it cannot fail.
The 2011 Assisi meeting was no where near the debacle of 86. To say it was is a lie.
unrepentant88er,
As you pointed out, the venerable Archbishop states, "The more one thinks about it, the more one realizes their intentions are not good." and again, "They are not changing their position. We cannot put ourselves in the hands of those people. We would be fooling ourselves. We do not mean to let ourselves be eaten up..."
It seems to me there is no contradiction in these statements. Again, it was a question of trust and good will. Thus, Bishop Fellay asked Rome for 3 things:
1. Free the old Mass
2. Lift the excommunications
3. Doctrinal discussions
Those three things were granted (though sadly, Rome doesn't seem to have come around on some of the controverted issues), and now it appears that the necessary protections have been offered to Bishop Fellay.
It certainly seems clear that such circumstances would have met the Archbishop's approval.
unrepentant, a softening of rhetoric does not the praxis remove.
Fr. Abraham,
We will simply have to continue to disagree. My reading of the situation is different than yours.
You and others do not trust the Roman authorities. Given the injustices that the Society has suffered over the years, this is completely understandable. Your Superior recognizes that there are risks, but appears to have concluded that they are manageable. He is not asking you to do anything contrary to Faith. Since he is your Superior, you should trust in his judgement. I, and others, I'm sure, will continue to pray fervently that you do so.
As I mentioned in another post, the Enemy is playing "divide and conquer," and would like nothing more than for us to self-destruct. Let's not give him that satisfaction.
unrepentant 88er,
+Fellay has to make decisions based on the current information about the current situation. While taking the principles that he has learned from ++Lefebvre, this is his cross to bear, his decisions to make, his graces to accept or refuse.
One cannot always say:
"What would Archbishop Lefebvre do?"
It is impossible to know what ++Lefebvre would do today, because he didn't see the future in a palantir and write down instructions for his successor.
++Lefebvre faced the same decisions in a different context. In that context he decided that it was necessary to consecrate bishops. At this point some members of the SSPX left the Society.
Should +Fellay decide that the conditions are right for the regularization of the SSPX by accepting the offer of the Pontiff, some members of the SSPX will leave.
It is important to note: They will have to leave the SSPX because the 'SSPX' follows the Superior General.
The SSPX is not a 'political party' where the Superior General is representing his constituents. The SSPX is a religious congregation.
As I have read the discussions about +Fellay and the undercurrents demonstrated by the leaked correspondence, I have blessed the wisdom of ++Lefebvre. The Society will not be redirected by a democratic vote as was the Holy Ghost Fathers.
I conclude that it would be wise to cease quoting Archbishop Lefebvre in contradiction to Bishop Fellay's decisions, because it is Archbishop Lefebvre who structured the SSPX with the Superior General in complete authority.
Prayer
Penance
Perseverance
"So where are we going to find the renaissance of the Church? Not in those seminaries where homosexuality is advocated, in the seminaries!" Wise words from Archbisop Lefebvre.
Wehre ecumenism is concerned the situation has changed since then - it has become even more radicalised in the church. We have all type of pluralistic and eclectic liturgical occurrences while even cardinals make spurious public claims for the validity of false religions. It has gone as far as bishops frequenting masonic ceremonial. Cardinal legates ignore the immoral public statements of world leaders and nobody appears to upbraid them for it. Where is the leadership in all of this?
Likewise, Athelstane, especially since, with all due respect to Mgr Lefebvre, I wonder whether his take on the 'ecumenism' of Holy Church is entirely accurate, especially with regard to someone like Cardinal Ratzinger (cf. his 'Truth and Tolerance', a very fine work on world religions, etc.).
mwk3
This is not merely "his take" as you glibly put it. One would have to be totally blind to discount ecumenism as a corrosive ecclesiastical preoccupation today. It is omnipresent from laypeople to the highest rank - one ecumenical scandal follows another. I have given but a few examples above and they are very easy to find.
Not only was Archbishop Lefebvre accurate but he knew worse was to come. In fact, he died before he could see the worst of it.
The posting of this excerpt could not be more to the point.
The Archbishop saw an opportunity, and that seizing upon it would not be easy; and indeed, regularization was not accomplished then.
In Bishop Fellay's judgment, we are in exactly the same situation now.
It seems to me that whatever else can be said about their arguments, those who oppose regularization simply cannot appeal to the Archbishop's words and actions.
The three bishops learned their view of Vatican II and the conciliar church from the Archbishop -- as did Bishop Fellay.
But the Archbishop always accepted in principle and worked for regularization. After 1988, too much dust had been raised for another try in his lifetime.
So let us pray that, although it won't be any easier this time around, regularization without compromise can be achieved.
Hugh,
First, please accept my apologies for a comment I made yesterday. I didn't intend it, but it may have sounded harsh or uncharitable. I'm sorry if I gave any offense.
In regard to everything you've said about the state of the Church, I think many of us agree. Things have definitely gotten worse in some respects. But the Lord does not abandon His Church! Evil has its day, but even as things seem to deteriorate, He raises up faithful souls to help set things right. We are seeing this now. Many, like Gherardini, are openly questioning aspects of the Council itself. This is good. They are our allies, and we should be theirs.
There is still much to be fixed, much work to be done, and, no doubt, more suffering lies ahead. But Our Lord does not abandon us.
unrepentant 88er
The liberal modernist contemporary church has changed since the 1980s It has become considerably more entrenched in its ecumenical and interreligious policies. It is subtly more radical than it was then.
Let's listen to the Archbishop one year after the Consecrations:
"That is why what can look like a concession is in reality merely a manoeuvre to separate us from the largest number of faithful possible. This is the perspective in which they seem to be always giving a little more and even going very far. We must absolutely convince our faithful that it is no more than a manoeuvre, that it is dangerous to put oneself into the hands of Conciliar bishops and Modernist Rome. It is the greatest danger threatening our people. If we have struggled for twenty years to avoid the Conciliar errors, it was not in order, now, to put ourselves in the hands of those professing these errors."
And two years after the Consecrations:
"We must not be under any illusions. Consequently we are in the thick of a great fight, a great fight. We are fighting a fight guaranteed by a whole line of Popes. Hence, we should have no hesitation or fear, hesitation such as, "Why should we be going on our own? After all, why not join Rome, why not join the Pope?" Yes, if Rome and the Pope were in line with Tradition, if they were carrying on the work of all the Popes of the 19th and the first half of the 20th century, of course. But they themselves admit that they have set out on a new path. They themselves admit that a new era began with Vatican II. They admit that it is a new stage in the Church's life, wholly new, based on new principles."
The saintly Archbishop never looked back.
@ Hugh, I do agree that ecumenism as a philosophy has become even more radicalized, as you say, but at the same time (due to oversight at the Council I have no doubt) almost all the protestant denominations have tken the down low road on issues the modernists in the Church forgot to excuse--homosexual marriage and abortion. We bent over backwards to legitimize homosexuality, and those documents are to this day still up at the vatican website, but gay marriage never came up among the gay 'rights' Cardinal Ratzinger urged us to sponsor and vote fot in our various countries.(Google "Holy Smoking Gun" to get the links.) Likewise had we forgotten contraception and divorce, but not abortion. So homosexual marriage and abortion have widened the divide between the Church and protestants, not narrowed it, in spite of a true radicalization of some people in some areas, as you said. It's too late in the game for the modernists in the Church to backtrack (I suppose that's why now in their best territories, they are preparing to split the Church, to follow the protestants in policy on all issues), but we're probably "stuck" defending these two last bastions, thank the good God. And now we've been forced to defend our stance against contraception, too, and perhaps I will live to see the day when we at last denounce divorce from our pulpits again. All counter ecumenism.
"If we have struggled for twenty years to avoid the Conciliar errors, it was not in order, now, to put ourselves in the hands of those professing these errors."
Precisely. And I think Fellay knows that, much better than most if not all of us...as well also that circumstances also involve obedience to the Vicar of Christ.
Uncle Claiborn
Your apology is not necessary as there was no offense given. We are discussing issues that is all.
Christ may not abandon His church but it has gone over to scattering His flock. The Society do best from where they stand at present. Once they are enmeshed in this patchwork of eclectic liberal texture then they are more likely to be suffocated out of sight. The Blessed Lord will do with His Church what He wills. Certainly, it is in a coplete and utter mess in which it was placed by liberals in the 1960s. St John Bosco even told us himself that the church would be in chaos after an Ecumenical Council in the twentieth century. And so it is. Ecumenism has put it there - Archbishop Lefebvre saw it for what it is. When all is said and done he did not trust Cardinal Ratzinger because he represented this inimical trend.
@ Hugh, I have argued, in the recent past, as you have here, that if SSPX settles, it will be muzzled. However, our SSPX pastor gave a sermon three weeks ago in which he said that the modernist bishops and chair-holders were passing away, and that SSPX simply planned to ordain holy traditional priests to take their place--lots and lots and lots of them. Hugh, that would work. It would take grace and men and money, but not a miracle.
Br. Anthony,
Then why did he not become a sedevacantist? Why did he not turn the Society into a literal parallel Church? Why did he try so hard to avoid even the appearance of claiming jurisdiction for himself or the bishops he consecrated? Why, finally, did he not claim to be Pope, or look for one somewhere else?
Simply because he knew and believed that in spite of everything, the Church is still the Church, and the Pope is the Pope. He knew that someday, the circumstances would be more favorable, and as he told his new bishops in 1988, one day they would place their episcopacy into the Holy Father's hands.
The Archbishop is no longer with us. It's futile to argue about what he would or would not do in the current, concrete circumstances. We cannot ask him, we cannot appeal to him, and he cannot tell us.
Bishop Fellay is the legitimately elected Superior of the Society. It is now his role to consider the circumstances, and with the help of the graces associated with his state, and reliance upon Divine Providence, make a decision. Like any good leader, in addition to prayer, he takes seriously the concerns and inputs of others. But he, and he alone, decides.
Hugh,
This is your opinion. Bishop Fellay's is different. He has access to graces due to his state that neither you nor I have. He has knowledge of events and circumstances, due to his position, that neither you nor I have. For those reasons, I will trust and rely on his judgement.
I'm not going to keep beating a dead horse. :) As I said to unrepentant 88er, for now, we will simply have to agree to disagree. May the Lord bless and guide our leaders. Let us continue to pray for them, and for each other.
I think Fellay is even more of a diplomat that Lefebvre.
Otherwise I don't think either party would be where they are now.
But don't be surprised if he says "see you later" to this whole thing if the pope makes the wrong move.
And if he ever asks them to ingest poison, you can be sure he will.
--Zak
I am not connected with SSPX (apart from receiving newsletters etc.). I greatly admire and see the work of Divine Providence in what Bishop Fellay is doing. In this man lives is a true Catholic spirit. The time has come for SSPX to work for Tradition in a stable canonical structure and to help with finding the true interpretation of those difficulties they and other have with certain documents of Vatican II. I pray that all in SSPX will heed Bishop Fellay's voice if the Holy Father concurs with SSPX's response. Despite what errors there may or may not have been, and when all is said and done, we must not forget the following : 'Tu es Petrus et super hanc petram, aedificabo Ecclesiam meam' ; 'Ubi Petrus ibi Ecclesia'. Our salvation depends on it.I offered my Rosary today for the intentions of the 'Holy Spirit Novena'. Oremus.
There was more to Msgr meeting with Cardinal Ratzinger than is reported here. I recall and I have it recorded that Archbishop Lefebvre rejected Cardinal Ratzinger's offer of whatever he deemed sufficient to continue SSPX's apostolate because, as he said, 'You and I are working towards absolutely diametrically goals—You for the de-Christianization of Europe and I for the Christianization of Europe.' Then he said clearly, 'My Dear Xtians! Rome has abandoned the Faith, Rome is in apostasy.' So as for me, 'Quidquid id est timeo Danaos et dona ferentes!'
Yes, Pierre, that was said in the September 4, 1987, conference, one month before this sermon, which we mentioned in our introduction. As we explained, this expands and complements what was said then, though many, especially Sedevacantists, for some reason limit themselves to those words, not remembering this sermon.
@Zak
"But don't be surprised if he says "see you later" to this whole thing if the pope makes the wrong move."
It seems to have been lost in the chatter but that is exactly how we've arrived at this state. Remember how Cardinal Levada 'avoided a rupture'.
Cardinal Levada presented the letter, (apparently fairly harsh) Bishop Fellay was unable to accept, Cardinal Levada intervened with verbal information - I believe the assumption is that it is an expression of what the Pope wants from the SSPX - Bishop Fellay has made the small changes and presented the preamble.
Prayer
Penance
Perseverance
Anonymous 13:40,
There has been much discussion about which Vatican II documents Archbishop Lefebvre did or did not sign. If I remember correctly, he himself claimed at one point that he signed all but two. I don't have the reference handy, but I believe Bishop Tissier, in his biography of Lefevbre, established conclusively that he signed them all. His later statements that he did not were attributed to faulty memory.
Some people say that it is impossible to be in a kind of "union" with Rome up to the time when Rome will say "no" to conciliar errors, because to be in union with them will be an agreement to relativism to placing truth and false at the same level.
I think it isn't true.
Look at the traditional doctrine of the religious liberty- in non-catholic country, the Church wants equal treatment of Her and false religions, because it is better to judge equaly truth and false religion than to discriminate truth.
Now in the Church it is impossible to condemn much of bishops, priests and layfull. It will be inreasonable. So it is the time of crisis. And in that time it is a good point to give equal rights to Tradition and modernisim. It is better than discriminate modernism. It is worse than placing Tradition as an only one truth, but doing that is now impossible. Let now Tradition and modernism to be at the same level is a good solution in order to prepare a ground for the triumph of Tradition in the future. Tradition will be free to sour the whole cake as is written in the Gospel.
Yes, canonical status now and letting to be treated equal with modernism instead of being discrimated isn't a kind of relativisim. If it was, the traditional doctrine of religious liberty would be also.
"unrepentant 88er
The liberal modernist contemporary church has changed since the 1980s It has become considerably more entrenched in its ecumenical and interreligious policies. It is subtly more radical than it was then."
I've been around the Conciliar Church since it's beginning through the felt banner 70's to the kids mass 80's through the life teen mass 90's and right up to this day and I CANNOT disagree with the above statement by unrepentent 88'er.
The solution is to have the traditionalists come back into the Church en force.
IMO, the SSPX has reached the limit for what they can achieve outside the Church. The good Pope will give full freedom (it appears) so lets get it going.
Thank You, New Catholic, It still does not seem to abrogate the judgment of apostasy with the consequences that you and Bishop Fellay have rightly drawn. If he and the bishops in union with him believe that Benedict XVI is a true pope, along with his Conciliar and post-Conciliar predecessors, then they have no choice but to obey him. It makes no sense for those who loudly proclaim Benedict XVI to be a true pope and then to complain about the novus ordo or his teachings on religious liberty, ecumenism, the real presence, the resurrection, etc. and remain outside his canonical jurisdiction. Such is simply not Roman Catholic, at least not since the First Vatican council in the 19th century. Rather, Bishop Fellay and the SSPX must embrace with love all the Pope's teachings and actions out of filial piety, if nothing else, as well as extend every effort to fulfill the Pope and his bishop's expectations of them. I think all conservative Catholic organizations realize this and the majority of the SSPX will come to see it too. It is, in fact, the only position that is logically valid. Otherwise, they will have to conclude that the the Cardinals in successive conclaves after Vatican Council II did not succeed in electing an orthodox Catholic Pope.
The scenes of 24-25 years ago are held before us. Words of the faithful Archbishop are shared to enoble, instruct, guide and yet. . .these words can NOT be directly applied. The years between have brought us to a different Providential scene.
The Church Militant is a battle field currently strewn with souls that are dead, dieing, wounded, diseased, starved and dehydrated. Every soul is scarred. The Vicar of Christ beholds from his command post this heart wrenching scene. With supplication to his only superior, the "Supreme Sovereign Ruler of the Church" - Our Lord Jesus Christ, he implores the means to aid the souls entrusted to his care for whom he will render an accounting to the Same - The Divine Judge.
The "King of kings and Lord of lords" points with His "rod of iron" to the faithful servant from whom the Holy Father must seek help, H.E. Bishop Fellay. "It is My Father's Will that you lead these souls forward to the battle field. They kneel in their entrenchments imploring My help for My Church which they love. Behold, they have been preserved and are ready to render their assistance. Do the Will of My Father. Seek His priestly son to help."
The Vicar of Christ, eyes nearly blinded by the scenes of increasing distruction, almost stumblingly takes step by step to reach this faithful son of the Eternal Father, a true living image of the Eternal High Priest. How can he seek this sheep's soul entrenched behind bunkers of protection? He sends word with his weakened voice. "Please, son, help me."
H.E. Bishop Fellay hears the voice of the "Good Shepherd" speaking to his soul through His Divine Providence. With actions that echo the Divine Master's "I lay down my life for my sheep", he steps out of his entrenchment with prudent yet strong strides toward the Vicar of Christ.
Who will join H.E. Bishop Fellay with elevated eyes and souls to pray: "Domine non sum dignus" yet "Fiat voluntas tua" and step forward with the humble valor of charity to walk through the battle field to render their service to Christ, the "Alpha and Omega", doing the Signified Will of the Eternal Father by answering the call of the Holy Father - their superior?
The courage of one to lean over and care for the diseased bringing healing to one soul. . .will evoke the courage of the next to do the same. OR - will some remain in their bunkers afraid of contracting the diseases of the sickened souls or dirtying their honor by the filth that brushes up against their preserved beauty? There are shadows and whispers of danger everywhere yet severing ties from the Sovereign Pontiff means severing supplies of the Divine Grace that flows through Christ's Church.
May Pope Benedict XVI and H.E. Bishop Fellay do the Will of the Holy Trinity. . .one moment at a time, one grace at a time, one breath at a time in union with Our Crucified King joining Him through the pain strengthened by the illumined perspective that their steps lead to the promised Triumph at the Eternal Celebration of the Lamb. Then may they shepherd the souls of all the sheep and lambs toward Eternal Beatitude where there is "one fold and one Shepherd"(John 10:16)
"Veni Sancte Spiritus" through the intercession of the Immaculate Heart, St. Joseph: "Patron of the Universal Church", and St. Michael, the Archangel: "Vanquisher of rebel spirits"
Peterman said...
"The solution is to have the traditionalists come back into the Church en force.
IMO, the SSPX has reached the limit for what they can achieve outside the Church. The good Pope will give full freedom (it appears) so lets get it going."
I can only agree with this. As a teenager in the 80's I saw first hand liturgical abuses at the hands of priests, nuns and laity. I had no hesitation in leaving the local parish to follow the SSPX, including attendance at the Consecrations at Econe.
For me, the Archbishop explained clearly the reasons [supplied jurisdiction etc] and the events that led to him having little option but to save the Mass and the priesthood in this way. There was talk at the time that Bishop Elect Williamson convinced the Archbishop to go ahead, with or without Pontifical mandate, at the 'eleventh hour'.
Whilst I sympathise with Unrepentant 88er's feelings, I feel the Archbishop would have accepted Benedict's olive branch, if the conditions were appropriate. It would seemingly be a better situation than in '75 [if that's the correct year] when the suspension was announced.
What does the Society have to lose? Any Sede Vacantist elements [not met any, btw!] will go their way; those faithful to the Superior General and to the Holy Father [including the laity] march into Rome. If there is a whiff of a trap that can't be resolved, back to the '88 position. I feel it needs to be tried. The world and the Church is in a 'different place' 24 years on.
@all those who claim things are so much worse now than in the 70's. I don't know where that assessment comes from but I too have been around since then and things are a whole lot more orthodox now than then. Even the life teen mass I attend at times is more dignified and orthodox than the hippie love-in masses I endured back then. And the bishops for the most part Re young serious men who take the church and liturgy seriously And treat it accordingly.
Let's base our assesme t on the reality not on some imagined worst case scenario. There are a lot of good bishops and priest who are out in the trenches every day slowly dragging their flocks back to the right ways. To forget all of them and point out a few ultra-liberal modernist kooks would be a grave - and unfair - mistake.
Tom said: "To forget all of them and point out a few ultra-liberal modernist kooks would be a grave - and unfair - mistake."
Perhaps re-wording "kooks" before all of us should be advised based on Incarnate Wisdom's words:
"And whoseoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire." (Matt.5:22)
Tom correctly cautioned: "There are a lot of good bishops and priests". The Divine Judge does know the innermost portions of every soul. May all His clerical servants respond generously and continuously to the two Great Commandments that contain the whole law: "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with thy whole mind, and with thy whole strength." and "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." Only the Divine Creator and Judge knows the capacity of each soul. Eternal Wisdom chose the word: "whole" precisely. There is no room for individual interpretational error in following these commands of greatest clarity but He alone knows who's giving their all.
Our Lady of Fatima,"ora pro nobis"!
I have to correct my words, a little mistake but completly changing the sense of my words.
This is proper version: "And in that time it is a good point to give equal rights to Tradition and modernisim. It is better than discriminate TRADITIONALISM. It is worse than placing Tradition as an only one truth, but doing that is now impossible. Let now Tradition and modernism to be at the same level is a good solution in order to prepare a ground for the triumph of Tradition in the future. Tradition will be free to sour the whole cake as is written in the Gospel.
Uncle Claiborne
And...this is your opinion too.
Dear Hugh, Captivated by the comments of the contributers at Rorate Caeli, a certain element of responsibility enters into the reader's domain to uphold Truth - even defend it where possible.
Uncle Claibourne said: "Bishop Fellay. . . has access to graces due to his state that neither you nor I have. He has knowledge of events and circumstances, due to his position, that neither you nor I have."
This is TRUTH - not opinion.
Therefore, as Divine Grace flows from the Holy Trinity through the heart and hands of the Mediatrix of All Graces, Our Blessed Mother, it is reasonable to assert that Uncle Claibourne's conclusion is worthy of great confidence: "For those reasons, I will trust and rely on his [Bishop Fellay's] judgement."
Our Lady of Fatima, please intercede for Mercy for the Holy Father, H.E. Bishop Fellay and all of us.
Thank you, concerned conscience. :)
Hugh, as concerned conscience said, it's not my opinion. Belief in God's gift of particular graces that pertain to our own particular state, or office, is nothing but good old-fashioned, centuries old, Catholic teaching.
For example, the father of a family has access to graces a single man does not. A genuinely Catholic physician has access to graces as he does his job that are not the same ones the good Lord may provide to me.
The same is true of the Superior General of the SSPX. He has access to graces that none of the other Society bishops or priests has. And especially much more so than we laymen.
If you were not aware of this fundamental truth, I would fraternally suggest that you might want to be a little more circumspect in regard to other topics as well.
Br. Francis M.I.C.M. had a little chat with Cardinal Ratzinger in 1985, and was asked to "put it in writing', which Br. did. "The Official Reply to the Holy Office Letter of 1949" can be found here. http://www.scribd.com/doc/92408107/Mancipia-May-June-2012 pgs 6&7. Though assured of a reply, Br. died without ever hearing back from the Cardinal. Hopefully, as Pope, Benedict XVI has not forgotten the meeting.
Post a Comment