It is currently Thu Jul 19, 2018 11:11 pm




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 7 posts ] 
 SSPX British District Superior: Preamble "unacceptable" 
Author Message

Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 3:40 am
Posts: 438
Location: Tucson, Arizona
New post SSPX British District Superior: Preamble "unacceptable"
My RSS blog feed picked up a deleted Rorate Cœli post dated Tue, 01 Nov 2011 15:22:26 GMT. Here is the snippet of it my feed recorded:
Quote:
from: New Catholic
subject: SSPX British District Superior: Doctrinal Preamble "unacceptable" to those present at October meeting
website: http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2011/1 ... erior.html

From the November newsletter of the District Superior of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X (FSSPX / SSPX), Fr. Paul Morgan. We emphasize that we have not heard any news (or even any comment) of any kind on this matter from credible sources of the Society in Switzerland or from its largest Districts - in France and in America.
The meeting of the Society’s superiors took place at Albano on 7-
UPDATE: Here is an image of the letter before it was deleted from the SSPX site, courtesy of the Spanish blog Radio Cristiandad:
Image

UPDATE #2: It has been cached on Google, so the above image was clearly not forged. Here is the text copy-and-pasted from the Google cache:
Quote:
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.
Quote:
Whilst remembering the Holy souls in our prayers, Masses and visits to the cemetery, let us invoke their powerful intercession also for all our intentions,

Father Paul Morgan

Superior

_________________
«The Essence & Topicality of Thomism»: http://ar.gy/5AaP
by Fr. Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P.
e-Book: bit.ly/1iDkMAw

Modernism: modernism. us.to
blog: sententiaedeo.blogspot. com
Aristotelian Thomism: scholastic. us.to


Wed Nov 02, 2011 5:49 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: SSPX British District Superior: Doctrinal Preamble "unac
Good work!

Fr. Morgan's absolute opposition to Vatican II and the resulting changes is well known.

One wonders whether the publication of this newsletter was an administrative slip, but it's difficult to imagine how it even came to be written. If there is an official announcement pending, and this was to be released afterwards, wouldn't you want to see what the announcement says to ensure your words are consistent with the official line? It's all very strange.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Wed Nov 02, 2011 6:58 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: SSPX British District Superior: Preamble "unacceptable"
And this now from DICI: http://www.dici.org/en/news/press-relea ... er-2-2011/

Press Release from the General House of the Priestly Society of St Pius X (November 2 2011)

2-11-2011
Filed under From Tradition, News

Since the meeting of the seminary Rectors and District Superiors of the Society of St. Pius X in Albano (Italy) on October 7, 2011, several comments have been published in the press about the answer that Bishop Bernard Fellay should give to the Roman propositions of September 14th.

It has to be recalled that only the SSPX’s General House has the competency to publish an official communique or authorized comment on the subject.
Until further notice, one should reference the communique http://www.dici.org/en/news/press-release-from-the-general-house-of-the-priestly-society-of-st-pius-x/ of October 7, 2011. (DICI of 11/02/11).

_________________
In Christ our King.


Wed Nov 02, 2011 10:45 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: SSPX British District Superior: Preamble "unacceptable"
Apparently the November newsletter of Fr. Morgan was printed and distributed as well as published to the Web site of the SSPX Great Britain.

So it wasn't an administrative slip.

And the German District of the SSPX has entered the fray.

http://www.piusbruderschaft.de/archiv-n ... m-internet

Translation:

Rumors on the Internet

Currently, there are rumors on the Internet, that the Fraternity of St. Pius X will "reject an agreement with Rome."

The reason is a circular letter of the English District Superior, Father Paul Morgan, which was published yesterday for a short time on the Internet, in which he allegedly made this claim.

Because this message has now been picked up by newspapers and agencies, the General House of the Society of St. Pius X in Menzingen (Switzerland) responded and released the following brief note:

[Press release of November 2 inserted.]

_________________
In Christ our King.


Thu Nov 03, 2011 7:00 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: SSPX British District Superior: Preamble "unacceptable"
And now we have a letter to the priests of his district by the District Superior of South America. (Translation courtesy of Ignis Ardens - http://z10.invisionfree.com/Ignis_Arden ... topic=8145 )

Quote:
Wednesday 12th October, 2011

Dear Fathers,

I just arrived from Rome a few hours ago and I want to share with you some news concerning the meeting that we were summoned to by our General Superior Bishop Fellay. It was an informative meeting.

As related in the published statement, the General Council members, all the District Superiors and three of the four bishops attended the meeting.

Indeed Bishop Williamson did not go to Albano. He had been summoned for the meeting, but Bishop Fellay had added two conditions: to close his blog and to keep secret the content of the preamble that Rome delivered to the SSPX. He didn’t agree to at least one of the two conditions, and because of this, he could not take part in the Albano meeting.

The session unfolded in three stages. First of all, Bishop Fellay presented an historical assessment of the relations with Rome. Secondly, Bishop de Galarreta and Father Jorna spoke about the doctrinal discussions in Rome. Finally, the doctrinal preamble provided by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, signed by Cardinal Levada, was presented.

It is not necessary to relate the historical facts concerning our relations with Rome. You already know the essentials. Regarding the doctrinal discussions, four cardinal topics were studied: the Novus Ordo Missae, Religious Liberty, Ecclesiology - Lumen Gentium, the "subsistit in" and Collegiality - the Magisterium and Tradition.

Our opponents did not seek to answer our arguments but constantly tried to show that there is no break with Tradition. They recognized that Religious Liberty, Collegiality, etc. are new notions, but - as they said – they are implicitly contained in Tradition and are made explicit by the Second Vatican Council.

The climate of the discussions was cordial, but it did not prevent each party openly manifesting their positions. Our opponents remained closed to our arguments, at least outwardly.

The text of the document given to Bishop Fellay and his Assistants remains confidential. But I can tell you some elements of its content. It has two parts: a doctrinal preamble and a brief project of canonical solution for the SSPX.

The preamble is based on the Protocol of Agreement that was once proposed to Archbishop Lefebvre, but in more restrictive form.

It is asked of us to recognize Vatican II in the light of Catholic Tradition and of papal teaching to the present day. In addition we should accept, on the one hand, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which constitutes a Compendium of the Council Doctrine, and on the other hand, the Code of Canon Law published in 1983, with an application adapted to the particular discipline granted to the SSPX.

Likewise we have to recognize the legitimacy of the Novus Ordo. According to the explanations of the canonists of the Vatican, by the word "legitimate" they want to mean "legal" … This is not the commonly received meaning.

Then would follow a Profession of Faith and an Oath of Loyalty.

Finally, if we would sign the preamble, there would be granted to us a Personal Prelature, similar to the canonical structure of Opus Dei.

Clearly, this preamble with its content cannot be signed although modifications can be made to it. The situation of the Conciliar Church, the pope's remarks in Germany, the next Assisi meeting show that the situation is not appropriate to sign such a document. We would be crushed by the system, as were the "motu propio" congregations.

Bishop Fellay will send his response in a few weeks, and perhaps he will respond with a doctrinal statement that has nothing to do with the one presented to us, one which will not be accepted by Rome.

Though a canonical opening exists on the part of Rome, the doctrinal situation in the Church has not changed.

Rome needs us, it needs us to meet with them in order to prove that Vatican II is not breaking with Tradition, and to neutralize the progressive wing which yearns to rupture with Tradition. Clearly we cannot continue this way. We must stand and wait for Rome to make new steps. Rome recedes more and more, but still not enough.

So the battle continues! I ask you to maintain the confidentiality of the contents of this circular. You can tell the faithful that nothing was signed and that the situation remains identical to what we had before September 14th. When I visit your priories I will provide more details about the situation.

Finally I want to tell you that last Monday I went to Rome to pray before the Chair of Saint Peter. Also I managed to climb the Holy Steps, asking Our Lord to give to each of us, the priests of the District, unwavering loyalty to the combat undertaken by Archbishop Lefebvre for the good of souls, for the Church and for Tradition. To think about the tragedy through which the Church of today lives must stimulate our zeal for the sanctification of all the souls that are dedicated to our care.

I assure you of my fraternal prayers in the Hearts of Jesus and Mary.
Father Christian BOUCHACOURT

_________________
In Christ our King.


Wed Nov 09, 2011 6:26 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: SSPX British District Superior: Preamble "unacceptable"
Quote:
Indeed Bishop Williamson did not go to Albano. He had been summoned for the meeting, but Bishop Fellay had added two conditions: to close his blog and to keep secret the content of the preamble that Rome delivered to the SSPX. He didn’t agree to at least one of the two conditions, and because of this, he could not take part in the Albano meeting.


Does anybody else see the humour in this?

Bishop Fellay delivered a secret "preamble" to Bishop Williamson upon which his reintegration into the official activities of the SSPX was conditional. He declined to agree to it, and the preamble (i.e. email) leaked. :D

_________________
In Christ our King.


Thu Nov 10, 2011 2:07 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 3:40 am
Posts: 438
Location: Tucson, Arizona
New post Re: SSPX British District Superior: Preamble "unacceptable"
John Lane wrote:
Does anybody else see the humour in this?
it reminds me of a play within a Shakespeare play. haha

_________________
«The Essence & Topicality of Thomism»: http://ar.gy/5AaP
by Fr. Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P.
e-Book: bit.ly/1iDkMAw

Modernism: modernism. us.to
blog: sententiaedeo.blogspot. com
Aristotelian Thomism: scholastic. us.to


Thu Nov 10, 2011 10:18 pm
Profile E-mail
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 7 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forums/DivisionCore.