Menzingen: Marriage Document "Progress and Advantage" to Tradition

Discussion in 'Resistance Movement' started by Machabees, Jun 16, 2017.

  1. Machabees

    Machabees Well-Known Member

    Change comes fast when one's treasure is on a new horizon.

    The SSPX General House put out a Document today looking to both find favor to the conciliar structure and to [appease] their small conservative group inside the new-sspx since the latest outburst; however, no matter how much cookies and cream one wants to put in the cup for Christ to sip, it is always gall.

    Here is the introduction to The Letter on Marriages: Objections and Clarifications. Notice the operative clause "under certain circumstances". What can that be, really? Have we forgotten the influence of the Vatican II elephant?

    A letter from Cardinal Gerhard Ludwig Müller, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, published on March 27, 2017, gives the priests of the Society of St. Pius X (under certain circumstances) the power to celebrate the marriages of their faithful in the traditional rite and according to the law of the Church.

    Progress for some, a trap for others: between hope and fear, what objective judgment should be made on these provisions of the Holy See with regard to the Society founded by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre?

    The General House of the Society of St. Pius X offers some reflections on this Roman document.

    In the first part, the present study deals with:

    • The Origin of the “Ordinary Form” of Marriage
    • Delegation to Celebrate a Wedding
    • The “Extraordinary Form” and its Legitimacy
    • Marriages in the Society of St. Pius X
    • The Provisions of the Letter
    • Practical Details

    In a second part, the study responds to the main objections raised by the Roman provisions, before wondering: can Cardinal Müller’s letter objectively make it possible to make progress, advantageously for Tradition, in a situation which some consider legitimately as unjust?

    It is not difficult to understand those questions are rhetorical. Menzingen did slant their "study" to conclude they accept the modernist outline, in spite of the Church's abhorrence to dwell with infidelity, finding "four advantages" in the novus ordo fish pool.
    • The first and chief advantage would be to “secure” at least some of the marriages celebrated within the framework of the Society of St. Pius X, as far as the form of celebration is concerned... ["Some" and partial is not "secure" in a wrong and unstable formula. Todo Nada (All or Nothing) is what Christ called for in faith; nothing less.]
    • The second advantage would be to help to act with special charity toward the spouse or toward the families who were not (entirely) the faithful of the Society of St. Pius X... [How is the Sacrament of Marriage now lowered to the mood of the social state than to raise them up to Christ with instruction and sanctification?]
    • The third advantage would be to subject the marriages celebrated by the priests of the Society of Saint Pius X, whenever possible, to the letter of the Church’s law, as it has been expressed in turn by the Council of Trent, St. Pius X, and the 1917 Code of Canon Law... [The known here, and purposely omitted, is it is under the spring time of the Vatican II religion...and conciliar 1983 Code of Canon Law.]
    • The fourth advantage, finally, would be the ability to celebrate marriages more widely in the traditional rite, thus removing an obstacle for more timid Catholics... [The known here again, the reference is under the Ecclesia Dei "extraordinary from" of compromise.]
    These new-sspx maligned documents pushing for "progress" into the modernist camp charading words to conform and align to the conciliar religion can only be met as an ungrateful and unfaithful steward our Lord had expressed His anger towards many times.

    It is only in honesty and good will to offset the pantheon crowds, not join them with bands and cymbals.
     
    Last edited: Jun 16, 2017
  2. Rose

    Rose Well-Known Member

    In reading the SSPX document, The Letter on Marriages: Clarifications and Developments, it was painful to read in their own words, how far they have fallen and worse, how willfully they insist Rome is giving them a fair deal:

    "It is necessary to note, however, that in all cases the intervention of an “official” priest is limited by the Letter itself to the exchange of vows, which must be done, obviously (?), in the traditional rite, unless we are to think that the Letter is totally incoherent."
    Is that really such a stretch, to question whether the Roman authorities under Pope Francis will offer statements on marriage that are 'totally incoherent'? :

    http://www.tfp.org/new-confusing-explanation-amoris-laetitia/
    https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/b...sion-in-pope-francis-exhortation-amoris-laeti
    https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/rome-meeting-discusses-great-confusion-surrounding-amoris-laetitia
    http://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/bp-schneider-amoris-laetitia-creates-confusion-15431
    https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2016/04/amoris-laetitia-in-conflict-with.html

    These are just a precious few of the many many sites that note the confusion of language in that Roman document on marriage.

    But this is the reward when you disavow the path Archbishop Lefebvre laid out and try to blaze your own trail. You lose prudence and you lose wisdom when you seek recognition from those who spit upon Our Lord Jesus Christ.
     
  3. Machabees

    Machabees Well-Known Member

    This next article is both encouraging and discouraging. It is from a conforming new-sspx priest Fr. Philippe Nansenett illustrating, on one hand, a very good understanding of the risks, stakes, and “blow-back” for the sspx/rome accord without doctrine. Just repeating in fact what Archbishop Lefebvre had always said; ironic. And on the other hand, Fr. Nansenet allows a spectatorship to such an unsettling reality to continue on its present course.

    [Emphasis mine]


    -------------------------------------------------------------------------


    http://translate.googleusercontent....t.html&usg=ALkJrhhJhNFHLBTl12ttDjRIVGPvYXXGkQ


    14 June 2017

    [Abbé Philippe Nansenet, fsspx - The Little Eudist] With Rome, what agreement?

    SOURCE - Abbot Raphael of Abbadie, fsspx - The Little Eudist - June 2017

    "No practical agreement without prior doctrinal agreement", it was stated in the Fraternity of St. Pius X in 2006, before abandoning this requirement a few years later in favor of a recognition of the Tradition as it is on the part of the authorities conciliar. But Rome, in its own way, imposes a return to the fundamental question since Monsignor Guido Pozzo has just declared that reconciliation will occur when Bishop Bernard Fellay formally adheres to the "doctrinal statement" presented to him by the Holy See. Rome therefore wanted a doctrinal understanding before proceeding with a canonical regularization. But the expression "doctrinal understanding" contains ambiguity.

    It can be understood in two ways.

    In the first sense, the aim is that Tradition regains all its rights in Rome, and that the Holy See corrects the fundamental errors which are at the root of the crisis in the Church. This goal is none other than the common good of the whole Church. Therefore Rome must come to an understanding not with the Society of St. Pius X, but with the doctrine of always. This is what we heard in 2006 by a doctrinal agreement prior to a practical agreement.

    In a second sense, the aim pursued would be the recognition of the Fraternity, quite simply, its apparent private good, by prior agreement on a common doctrinal formulation acceptable to both parties, free from errors - But leaving behind those who have ravaged the Church for fifty years. Rome understands the doctrinal agreement in this sense of pure means, and envisages a communion based on the lowest common denominator. The Protestant sects have treated each other in this way for nearly five centuries. The Vatican has been dealing with Protestant sects since the Council, witnessing the Lutheran-Catholic Agreement on Justification in 1999. "So far," says Abbé Gleize, "the heirs of Bishop Lefebvre, On the contrary, a duty to consider things from the first point of view. " [Ed: Here he continues the back and forth narrative of Bishop Fellay – two mouths/two agendas.]

    Among the serious errors which vitiate all the partial truths which can be found in the conciliar and post-conciliar magisterium, the most well-known have been placed from the outset in relation to the revolutionary triad of liberty, equality and fraternity. You will have recognized here the quarrel over religious freedom, collegiality and ecumenism.

    What does the conciliar declaration Dignitatis Humanae mean by religious freedom? Not the liberty of the Catholic Church, but the fact that no one is prevented by any power from professing error. It would be a natural right that the civil lawmaker should recognize. This contradicts the teaching of the Church until Pius XII understood, and now favors the submergence of our countries by Islam. It is not a question of exercising physical constraint to force adult persons to embrace Christianity against their will, but the Christian state must exercise its authority in favor of the true religion on the one hand by preventing or By dissuading the profession of error, on the other hand, by facilitating the profession of truth. Note that today Pope Francis unfolds the consequences of this new doctrine in the family domain with the apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia. It would indeed be illogical to confine the immunity of compulsion to the profession of a religious faith and not gradually to extend it to the whole moral order.

    Collegiality, on the other hand, attacks the primacy of Peter's successor on the siege of Rome. This debate is not a Byzantine quarrel since it is the Church as our Lord Jesus Christ instituted it, in other words its divine constitution which is at stake. Lumen Gentium affirms (1) that the episcopal college is an ordinary and permanent subject of power over the whole Church; (2) that this same college, including the Pope, constitutes, in addition to the pope considered alone, a second permanent subject of power over 3) that the episcopal college holds its power directly not from the pope but from Christ, and that the consent of the pope is only required for his exercise. The Church must therefore be a synod, says Pope Francis! Conversely, what does Tradition say? The episcopal body assembled at an ecumenical council is the temporary and extraordinary subject of this power; The episcopal body is not a second subject of this power, but, assembled in Council, it is a second mode of exercise for the pope to exercise his power, and it is the very authority of the pope which is communicated At the council. We must therefore defend the papacy against the pope himself! The Church is a monarchy and not a dyarchy.

    Ecumenism as presented by the Council's texts, Unitatis Redintegratio and Lumen Gentium, attacks the unity of salvation in the Catholic Church. What do they say?

    1. The reality of a real communion, though imperfect and partial, between the visible structure of the Catholic Church and the visible structure of the separate non-Catholic communities.

    2. The reality of the presence and action of the Church of Christ, which is distinguished from the Catholic Church in these same communities.

    3. The presence of elements of sanctification in these communities so that they are means of salvation.

    Conversely, what does Tradition say?

    1. It is not these heretical or schismatic communities as such, but only certain of their members which may not be exactly in communion with the Church but ordained to the Church.

    2. The action of the Holy Spirit outside the Catholic Church takes place in certain souls, but not in the communities caught up in the error to which they belong.

    (3) What remains of elements of the Church in separate communities-the dogma of the Holy Trinity or the sacrament of baptism, for example-has no self-value of salvation because the salutary value of dogmas And the sacraments come to them from being dispensed according to the order desired by Christ, that is to say, in the dependence of the head of the Church.

    Over the years, on the occasion of the implementation of the Council, a new conception of the Magisterium emerged. It is falsified in practice since its holders use it in contradiction by imposing errors contrary to the truths which must be the object of them. It is skewed in theory since it claims that the supreme Magisterium of the Church is the authentic interpreter of the previous texts of the Magisterium. This is the radical error of neo-modernism whose followers are imbued with the evolutionary mentality. We find it in the speech of Pope Benedict XVI of 22 December 2005, with the hermeneutics of "reform in continuity". This error is at the root of the so-called "Living Tradition". It was on the basis of a so-called Living Tradition that Monsignor Lefebvre was condemned in 1988 by the motu proprio "Ecclesia Dei adflicta". And note that it is the so-called Ecclesia Dei commission that is responsible for dealing with the Brotherhood! In reality, the Magisterium is the organ and interpreter of Revelation. The present Magisterium must interpret not the past Magisterium but the Revelation contained in its sources: Scripture and Tradition. He must submit to the past magisterium and interpret the points of Revelation not yet interpreted by the acts of the previous magisterium. He must submit to it and assume it. All that the popes of the past taught in necessary matter remains current. If it were the word of today that made the truth by interpreting the words of yesterday, it is the pope of today who would make the truth as he pleases, and the very notion of Catholic Tradition Would no longer exist. Let us recall that the holy Catholic Church is the Mystical Body of Christ and not of the reigning Pope!

    The New Code of Canon Law conveys the errors which we have just denounced, and many others, on marriage, for example, of which it will be treated later. This code, according to John Paul II's own admission, presents a new face of the Church. He puts in the form of canons or articles the new ecclesiology, among other things. He therefore sins against the very purpose of the law. On the whole, he moves away as in the details of the protection due to faith and morals. Its promulgation remains doubtful. It has no value in itself. That is why its reception poses a real problem of conscience to the Catholics. In this unprecedented situation, the new legislation must be brought back to the previous one, that of 1917, and if possible reconciled with it. This is the position adopted by the Fraternity since 1983.

    Our aim is therefore that Tradition should regain its rights in Rome. But for this to happen, must we accept an agreement? How can a moralist here reason? The acceptance of canonical recognition is a morally indifferent act with a double effect. The good effect is to regain legal normality, 'papers in order', and perhaps open new fields of apostolate. It would have been so in Lebanon twenty years ago. Perhaps it would still be so in some countries in Africa or Asia.

    The bad effect is itself double:

    - It consists in the risk of relativizing the Tradition, which is likely to appear as an option among others. We would accept a coexistence of right and even a de facto cohabitation with the modernists.

    - It also involves the risk of betraying Tradition and rallying the conciliar vision. I find the number 67 of the Bell of Econe. We are in 1994; The Catechism of the Catholic Church had just been published two years earlier. Ours defended it while the monks of Barroux took up its defense: "Five years ago we could not even imagine that we would be able to do it. Now that we are reconciled, we experience the re-birth in the sense of catholicity and therefore of the understanding of the teaching of the Church today. And the seminar director commented: "Is that clear enough? And this time it was not I who said it! They themselves are astonished to be able to defend the New Catechism! In clear terms, what does this mean except that after the canonical rallying, the doctrinal rally is consummated? Long live the Council, its canon law and its catechism. "M. Abbé Schaeffer, who had written so much before his death, had written in the Chardonnet an article entitled "From Memoricide to Genocide", taking the title of a book of Mr. Reynald Secher. He compared the fate that could be made with the epic of our defense and illustration of the Tradition by lot made in the Vendean epic. Those who abandon Tradition have forgotten or forgotten what they have been. They even turn against her. It is only to look at the long-valued disciples of Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer in the Brazilian diocese of Campos! At the time of their rallying in 2001, some progressives uttered loud cries. Cardinal Cottier had reassured them: "Do not worry, they are engaged in a dynamic!" And indeed, it was hardly necessary to wait to see amazing denials in doctrine and liturgy.​

    The solution depends, on the one hand, on the proportion to be established between the good effect and the bad effect, and on the other hand, on the evaluation of the circumstances. It is clear that it is more important to avoid the double bad effect (the relativisation and betrayal of Tradition) than to obtain the double good effect (the return to strict law and the new fields of apostolate ). But are the circumstances such that one can hope to avoid the double bad effect, the double risk? Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre wrote: "We do not fit into a framework, and under superiors, by saying that we will jostle everything when we are inside, when they have everything in their hands to curb us! They have all the authority." And we know how those who were in the frame were still treated very recently, and who were endeavoring to return to Tradition. The misadventure of the Franciscans of the Immaculate could teach us!
     
    Last edited: Jun 17, 2017
  4. Machabees

    Machabees Well-Known Member

    Modernist rome response to the SSPX General House's (above) The Letter on Marriages: Objections and Clarifications -

    Lefebvrians welcome the Pope’s opening on weddings

    [​IMG]
    Monsignor Bernard Fellay, superior of the traditionalist Society of St. Pius X


    Pubblicato il 17/06/2017
    Ultima modifica il 17/06/2017 alle ore 01:18

    Jiacopo scaramuzzi
    Vatican Insider / The Vatican / La Stampa

    The traditionalist priestly Society of St. Pius X welcomes the opening of the Pope on marriage. On 27 March Cardinal Gerhard Ludwig Müller, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and president of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, and Archbishop Guido Pozzo, Secretary of Ecclesia Dei, signed on behalf of Francis a letter addressed to bishops around the world concerning “faculties for the celebration of marriages of faithful who follow the pastoral activity of the Society” of St. Pius X. In a long note, the General House replies to eight objections that had emerged in these weeks within the fraternity and exemplifies four benefits stemming from the new situation.

    (...)

    Source