Tuesday, October 2, 2012

SSPX - Holy See discussions turning sour?

Well, Andrea Tornielli thinks it is coming to a halt!


Last 30 June, just days after the start of the Society of St. Pius X’s General Chapter, Benedict XVI wrote a letter to the Lefebvrian Superior, Bishop Bernard Fellay. The letter was revealed during a conference held on 16 September at the Priory of St. Louis-Marie Grignon de Monfort in France, by Mgr. Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, one of the Fraternity’s four bishops, who is renowned for his disapproval of an agreement with Rome.  [de Mallerais is what you may call the saner version of Bishop Williamson, who is the traditionalist version of Miriam Defensor Santiago, if you get the drift.]

During the conference, the prelate said: “On 30 June 2012 – this is a secret but will be revealed to the public – the Pope himself wrote a letter to our Superior General, Mgr. Fellay: “I confirm to you that in order to be fully reintegrated into the Catholic Church, you must really accept the Second Vatican Council and the post-conciliar teachings.”  [The Council did happen.  The SSPX must accept that and whatever came out of it.  To deny it or to smorgasbord it, the SSPX will be committing the same crime they are accusing the modernists, well, which quite frankly the modernists are guilty of.  They must accept it.  To not accept it and to claim that the Council committed an error is almost the same as accusing the Church as being fallible!  Unthinkable!]

“This really is a sticking point – Tissier de Mallerais said – because we cannot accept or sign something like this. Clarifications can be made as the Council is so vast and it does have its positive points but this is not the essential element of the Council.”  [Hmmm...interesting.]

The Lefebvrian bishop was very tough in some of the points he made during the conference: “Weapons cannot be surrendered right in the middle of a battle; we will not look for a truce while the war rages on, with the beatification of a fake beatification, that of Pope John Paul II. This was fake, it was a fake beatification. And with the requirement, continuously stressed by Benedict XVI, that we accept the Council and the reforms to the post-conciliar teachings.”  [And now they are questioning the action of Pope Benedict XVI.  Remember that when the pope beatifies or canonizes a dead Catholic, it is a solemn declaration that that person is enjoying the Beatific Vision and thus we Catholics here on earth (Church Militant) can invoke their intercession and imitate their example.  It is an infallible declaration that the person is in HEAVEN!  Will de Mallerais also question the lifting of the excommunication because, remember, they do not believe on Day 1 that they are excommunicated!]

Tissier de Mallerais also said that “the collegiality that destroys the power of the Pope who no longer dares to show resistance to the bishops’ conferences.” [Actually, there is nothing wrong with collegiality.  What is wrong is too much diplomacy when dealing with the bishops' conferences.  Much of what came out from Rome quite frankly is a pat on the hand.]  He added that ecumenism “allows respect for the values of salvation of false religions and Protestantism, of false things,” while religious freedom “allows the free construction of mosques in our countries.”  [Uhm....ecumenisms real end is to bring people into the one fold of Christ, Christians and no-Christians, including the SSPX who insist on staying away from Peter.  Religious freedom gives ALL people to practice their religions freely.  Where in the hell did it say that it only concerns Muslims?  Ugh.]

“Evidently – the Lefebvrian bishop said – we cannot sign such an agreement. There isn’t and never will be agreement over this point.” Despite “modernist Rome’s” insistence, [He called Pope Benedict XVI a heretic.]  Tissier stressed: “Personally I will never sign anything like this that is for sure. I will never accept that the new Mass is legitimate or licit; I believe it lacks validity, as Mgr. Lefebvre used to say. I will never accept the idea that “the Council, if interpreted correctly, could be made to correspond with the Tradition [and that] an acceptable meaning could be found.”  [So, he just said that the Church is in error and thus the promise of Christ is fallible.  Unless, they think they are the last remaining Catholics on earth, which they actually think they are....and so does other radical traditionalist groups once allied with the SSPX.  Weird eh!]

After calling the doctrinal preamble which Cardinal William Levada delivered to Fellay, “false”, the Lefebvrian bishop said some “very mild and soft” decisions were taken at the General Chapter of the Society of St. Pius X, convened last July, so as to “present Rome with such great obstacles that it would be prevented from making any new proposals to us. But the Devil is evil and I think they will strike again, so I am discreetly preparing to defend us and the Fraternity will defend itself.”  [Who the "they" is, I was hoping de Mallerais spelled it out.]


As it turns out, there is a long way to go with the SSPX.

Vatican II is one issue that must be addressed DECISIVELY not by any Council, but by Peter himself!

I hope that THAT document will address it.



  1. It is absolutely a long way to go for the SSPX. And I believe the best way to help solve this problem is by praying for the best solution. (As of now, I believe that a FULL COMMUNION is the best solution). There are people inside the Society who LOVES the Church (believe it or not) so we really need to pray for a reconciliation, as oppose to the battle cry of a "Famous Father Up there in Rank 1" who wishes nothing but the re-excommunication of the Society.

  2. Sorry just some points:

    "Remember that when the pope beatifies or canonizes a dead Catholic, it is a solemn declaration that that person is enjoying the Beatific Vision and thus we Catholics here on earth (Church Militant) can invoke their intercession and imitate their example."

    -It has been the general understanding of many theologians that infallibility only covers canonizations and not beatifications. Also, in my understanding, infallibility has a negative effect on the pronouncement that the person canonized is indeed in heaven (and as to whether that person truly lived a holy life would be a different matter.) Kindly see

    "...To not accept it (Vatican II) and to claim that the Council committed an error is almost the same as accusing the Church as being fallible!"

    -Not to give Bishop De Mallerais a blanket defense, but I think it would be helpful for us to distinguish what kind of assent is required concerning Vatican II? I heared even a Novus Ordo priest tell his listeners that one does not give the same weight of Divine and Catholic faith with the recent council, in comparison with previous councils, since violation of the latter would be "anathema sit." Of course, those reaffirmed by Vatican II - being previously defined, remain infallible. It is my belief that to say that Vatican II and Lateran I committed errors, which are not part of faith and morals, or were not part of those defined (or covered by the definition) won't necessarily equate in saying that the Church is dogmatically fallible. It is therefore the task of the Church to authoritatively 'clarify' which are those (e.g. in Vatican II, except of course the previously declared dogmas) that are demanded of us to give our Divine and Catholic Faith, or at least the degree of assent we ought to render. I think this is the position of Bishop Fellay.