Archive for the ‘discussions with Rome’ Category

Church Council Up for Discussion, Not "The Holocaust"

November 30, 2011
Traducción parcial al Español aquí: Radio Cristiandad

En Italiano: Andrea Carancini

SSPX Superior, Bishop Fellay has given an ‘interview’ in his familiar style intended to dispel suspicions raised by his secretive negotiations with the suspicious characters in Rome where “there is no lack of indiscretions!” The ‘interview’ doesn’t accomplish its goal.

The ‘interview’ is largely unremarkable: reassuring words, summary deflection of justified suspicion and criticism, summary dismissal of internet channels not under Fellay control, redirection of focus back onto an apparition claimed by 3 children in Portugal 100 years ago, reemploying the busywork of tens of millions of rosaries–all very familiar and predictable. The ‘interview’ can be read here:

http://www.dici.org/en/news/interview-with-bishop-bernard-fellay-superior-general-of-the-society-of-st-pius-x-the-society-of-st-pius-x-and-the-doctrinal-preamble/

One item mentioned in the ‘interview’ is very relevant to us here. I quote:

“… leeway has been allowed for a ‘legitimate discussion’ about certain points of the [Second Vatican] Council.”

Note that the Novus Ordo Church allows ‘discussion’ of its own teaching. In this context, ‘discussion’ concerns doubts and outright denials. The SSPX denies that certain points contained within the authoritative documents of the Novus Ordo Church’s Second Vatican Council can be reconciled with the perennial teaching of the Catholic Church. The Novus Ordo has allowed the SSPX to present its case to this effect in doctrinal ‘dialogues’ over the past two years. The Novus Ordo is now negotiating an arrangement to bring the SSPX into ‘full communion’ while allowing discussion of doubts of its own authoritative teachings. This was also stated in a February 2009 statement from the Pope’s Secretary of State:

“… the Holy See will not fail, in ways judged opportune, to engage with the interested parties in examining outstanding questions, so as to attain a full and satisfactory resolution of the problems that caused this painful rupture.”

Note, however, that this typically lenient allowance pertaining to the Novus Ordo’s own teachings is immediately followed by a mandate in absolute terms virtually unseen in Rome in the past 100 years:

“The positions of Bishop Williamson with regard to the Shoah are absolutely unacceptable and firmly rejected by the Holy Father …

In order to be admitted to function as a Bishop within the Church, Bishop Williamson must also distance himself in an absolutely unequivocal and public way from his positions regarding the Shoah …”

Nota bene, it is not demanded that Bishop Williamson absolutely and unequivocally publicly distance himself from his doubts regarding relativistic Novus Ordo teaching on religious liberty, collegiality, ecumenism. No, these “outstanding questions” are open to “examination.” No such questions or examination can be countenanced in the absolutist realm of “The Holocaust,” however. Here we see the resurrection of the old ipse dixit and anathema that are otherwise entirely unheard of from Catholic prelates for nearly 100 years.

This is remarkable, is it not? In light of this, perhaps readers may understand where Rabbi Michael Berenbaum is coming from when he says, “As I observe young people in relativistic societies seeking an absolute for morals and values, they now can view the Holocaust as the transcendental move away from the relativistic, and up into the absolute …” How opportune for Rabbi Berenbaum and “The Holocaust” that the authorities of the Catholic Church hold “The Holocaust” to be absolute while Church teachings are ever increasingly relativised away.

Bishop Fellay certainly knows how to go with the relativist/absolutist flow of the Noahide Novus Ordo. Soon after the February 2009 statement from the Pope’s Secretary of State was issued, Bp. Fellay was interviewed in Der Speigel saying that he would cast Bp. Williamson out of the SSPX if he “denied” “The Holocaust” again:

SPIEGEL: So why don’t you exclude Williamson from the society?

Fellay: That will happen if he denies the Holocaust again.

Bp. Fellay was just blending in with Pope Benedict who a month earlier had admonished Catholics to not “forget or deny” “The Holocaust,” and Archbishop Reinhard Marx who proclaimed, “Every denial of the Holocaust must be punished harshly,” Cardinal Vingt-Trois who exclaimed, “Being a Catholic is radically incompatible with denying the Holocaust,” Cardinal Kasper announcing, “No Holocaust denial can be allowed or permitted, It’s absolutely clear that a Holocaust denier can’t have a room, a space in the Catholic Church.”

There may be space between the SSPX Superior and the Novus Ordo on religious liberty and a number of other matters, but where “The Holocaust” is concerned, which Rabbi Ignaz Maybaum said “replaced Golgotha” and Pope John Paul II said was “The Golgotha of the modern world,” Bp. Fellay and the Novus Ordo sing in perfect unison.

It seems to me a case of swallowing a very large camel while straining out gnats.

Advertisements

Suppressed SSPX Great Britain District Newsletter

November 4, 2011
District Superior’s Letter November 2011

My dear brethren

The meeting of the Society’s superiors took place at Albano on 7-8th October as announced in last month’s newsletter, and Bishop Fellay did indeed use this opportunity to discuss the ‘Doctrinal Preamble’ text as received from Cardinal Levada on 14th September.

The first day of the meeting covered three issues: an overview of the contacts with Rome since 1987; a summary of the doctrinal discussions; and an oral exposition of the Doctrinal Preamble document itself.

With regard to the doctrinal talks it was disappointing to note that the Roman commission failed to acknowledge the break between traditional and conciliar teachings. Instead it insisted upon the ‘hermeneutic (interpretation) of continuity,’ stating that the new teachings included and improved the old!

It was interesting to learn that the 14th September meeting had not touched upon the doctrinal talks at all, but rather was dedicated to expounding possible practical solutions for the Society.

So it was perhaps not surprising to learn that the proposed doctrinal basis for any canonical agreement in fact contained all those elements which the Society has consistently rejected, including acceptance of the New Mass and of Vatican II as expressed in the New Catechism. Indeed, the document itself conveys the impression that there is no crisis in the Church…

Hence the stated consensus of those in attendance was that the Doctrinal Preamble was clearly unacceptable and that the time has certainly not come to pursue any practical agreement as long as the doctrinal issues remain outstanding. It also agreed that the Society should continue its work of insisting upon the doctrinal questions in any contacts with the Roman authorities.

In many ways we can see the hand of Providence in this meeting, falling as it did on the Feast of the Holy Rosary, given the clarification of Rome’s persistence in the modern errors, and the consequent necessity of continuing with the fight against modernism through fidelity to Catholic Tradition.

The second day of the meeting was dedicated to its original theme, that of communications and the media.

* * *

The Assisi III meeting is taking place on the very day I write these few lines, at which occasion we are holding a day of reparation here at St George’s House, with all-day exposition of the Blessed Sacrament.

The scandal of this inter-religious gathering can be resumed into three points:

i/ It commemorates and celebrates the scandal of Assisi I;

ii/ It replaces the Faith with religious liberty as the means to obtain world peace;

iii/ It promotes on a practical level relativism and religious indifference.

Original cached at:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:UpPzFRVt7TYJ:www.sspx.co.uk/index.php%3Foption%3Dcom_content%26view%3Darticle%26id%3D390:district-superiors-letter-november-2011%26catid%3D114:district-superiors-letter%26Itemid%3D86

A Lesson in Modern "Dialogue"

January 26, 2011

It has been revealed that the Palestinian Authority agreed to suppress the Goldstone Report on the 2008/2009 Gaza massacre to:

“help promote a positive atmosphere conducive to negotiations … [to] refrain from pursuing or supporting any initiative directly or indirectly in international legal forums that would undermine that atmosphere.”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/26/gaza-report-palestinian-authority-stalled

Meanwhile, the Israelis are free to bomb, demolish, assassinate and steal land with impunity, none of which promotes a positive atmosphere. I think that the ostensibly noble end of “creating a positive atmosphere conducive to discussion” is not the real objective here.

Now, a few words from SSPX Superior General, Bishop Fellay regarding his discussions with Rome:

For our part, we wanted to try—willfully and deliberately—to create a serene climate around the discussions. Evidently, an indirect consequence of this can be that, concerning certain themes, unrelated or related to these discussions, for the moment one might have the impression that the Society will not have spoken with as much vehemence as on other occasions.

http://sspx.org/news/is_sspx_being_muzzled.htm

While these words suggest a lofty ideal, Bp. Fellay’s actions–taking on a Zionist lawyer/business partner and jointly, vehemently smearing Bp. Williamson in the international media–are evidence that creating a serene climate is not the real objective.

What is evident in both cases is that a certain agenda plods steadily along wreaking havoc while the alleged opposition is neutralized by the alleged need for “creating a serene atmosphere” “conducive to dialogue.”

This “dialogue” is no dialogue. It’s a time-buying fraud. I pray that people figure this out before they’ve been robbed entirely of their history, property and their very souls.