New SSPX Legal footing: real or illusion?

  • Thread starter Deleted member 149
  • Start date
D

Deleted member 149

Guest
New SSPX Legal footing: real or illusion?

There have been many statements said in these last 2½ years over the SSPX dealings with conciliar Rome; some true, some not true, and some convenient to say.

Here are some: “There is no deal. We have not signed anything. Nothing has changed. We are still the same. We are following Archbishop Lefebvre. Archbishop Lefebvre also talked to Rome. There are no compromises. We follow Tradition. We preach the same doctrine we always have. We do not have a Canonical position in the Church. If we do not accept a practical agreement, we will be schismatic. We need to convert them from the inside. A practical deal is necessary. We are Catholics; we need to follow the Pope, or we are outside the church. The meetings are only cordial. We are only talking with them. Nothing is going on. You are not in my head. That is not what I meant. You took what I wrote differently than what I intended. The priests who left are disobedient (…). We are not pursuing a deal with Rome. We are just clarifying our position… and the list goes on.”

This topic however, is to bring to light what is actually not being said in regards to the sspx’s new legal footing with conciliar Rome since the “lifting” of the excommunications of 2009. Yes, a completely different legal footing. How come we do not hear much about this? Or is it inconvenient if it is talked about too much?

1. Old-sspx versus the new-sspx.
2. The key to this new legal footing.
3. Is it real or illusional?


1. Old-sspx versus the new-sspx.

To begin to understand why all of this is happening and at a time that seems to be getting worse with Rome as each year passes; as with the continued erosion of the visible Church from the Papacy of Pope Francis. Even though we do not know all what is going on behind the scenes with Bishop Fellay and conciliar Rome, we yet have a strong sense that something is very different from the old-sspx and today’s sspx. That difference stems from the one who is at the helm; fundamentally, it is a difference of mindset and an ideological understanding of the Faith.

That is, in the old-sspx, Archbishop Lefebvre had a Doctrinal mindset. In the new-sspx, Bishop Fellay has an Institutional mindset. There is an obvious difference between them in thought and approach.

In both of their lives, we can see these two differences play out.

In Archbishop Lefebvre’s life and leadership, the Doctrinal expression of the Faith was his standup antidote against Vatican II’s deliberate attacks and onslaught which tried to undercut the very foundation of Catholic Doctrine; while the liberals injected the principles of the French Revolution: Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity under the disguise of Religious Liberty, Ecumenism, and Collegiality.

The mindset of the Old-sspx under ABL:
• The old-sspx sought the integrity of Doctrine; no compromise. Hence, the battles.
• The old-sspx sought the Faith over the Mass. “Lex orandi, lex credendi”. The Law of Prayer is the Law of belief. The other traditional groups that fell had reversed the order and put the Mass over the Faith.
• The old-sspx sought conciliar/modernist Rome to convert back to Tradition first; before a practical deal.
• The old-sspx placed conditions with conciliar/modernist Rome so as not to be a part of their ecumenical structure; rather, for conciliar Rome to adhere and obey to the perennial Church that binds them to their office and Baptism. “I will place the discussion at the DOCTRINAL LEVEL: ‘Do you agree with the great encyclicals of all the popes who preceded you? Do you agree with Quanta Cura of Pius IX, Immortale Dei and Libertas of Leo XIII, Pascendi Gregis of Pius X, Quas Primas of Pius XI, Humani Generis of Pius XII? Are you in full communion with these Popes and their teachings? Do you still accept the entire Anti-Modernist Oath? Are you in favor of the social reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ? IF YOU DO NOT ACCEPT THE DOCTRINE OF YOUR PREDECESSORS, IT IS USELESS TO TALK!” (Abp. Lefebvre, Fideliter, Nov-Dec 1988).” www.therecusant.com/dont-play-with-the-faith
• Etc…

In Bishop Fellay’s life and leadership, the institutional expression of the Faith is his present standup antidote “against” Vatican II. Though time had evolved after ABL’s death into Bishop Fellay’s new adaptation of turning the sspx into this new path, through change of superiors, GREC, and within the teachings at the seminaries, Bishop Fellay’s relations with conciliar Rome over these recent years however do show his interests of the institution as an answer to his “problems”.

The mindset of the New-sspx under Bishop Fellay:
• In the n-sspx we hear more and more of late that they now find itself to be irregular with the conciliar Church and with an impediment in Canon Law; whereby the new-sspx has lost its orientation and its identity in this crisis than what Archbishop Lefebvre maintained that they are not “irregular”, the conciliar church is. ABL thus stayed in a position to work for the Supreme Law of the Church under Her protections “prae oculis habita salute animarum, quae in Ecclesia suprema semper lex esse debet.” “The salvation of souls is the supreme law of the Church”.
• The new-sspx seeks therefore the need to have “integrity” of their institution to be regularized with a canonical status so as the people in the novus ordo structure can see that they are a good guy; a lowering of the standard to please men.
• The new-sspx seeks the Mass over the Faith by adopting practical concerns over the Doctrinal concerns.
• The new-sspx, in Bishop Fellay’s words to Cardinal Antonio Canizares, the prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship, “If Archbishop Lefebvre had seen how they celebrated there [the Novus Ordo mass in the abbey that is near Florence], he would not have taken the step that he did” www.truetrad.com/index.php/the-truth/problems-in-the-sspx/slow-subtle-poison-from-the-sspx/all-poison-newest-first/233-bishop-fellay-s-scandalous-comment-in-favor-of-the-new-mass
• The new-sspx under Bishop Fellay allowed the defamation of the True Mass to be second to the clown mass of Vatican II, with singing a TeDeum, in order to draw closer to conciliar Rome.
• The new-sspx under Bishop Fellay allowed the defamation of Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop de Castro Mayer to be excluded in the “excommunication package” Bishop Fellay received from conciliar Rome; also singing another TeDeum.
• The new-sspx seeks to integrate themselves in order to convert the Romans from the inside. However, ABL says, “The inferiors are not above the superiors”; it is a failed attempt before it begins.
• The new-sspx seeks 6- new conditions from their 2012 General Chapter in order to be a part of the conciliar structure; thereby transferring the treasures of “Tradition” to be under the Diocesan Bishops. www.therecusant.com/sspx-diocesan-bishops
• The new-sspx seeks, as Bishop Fellay declared at Lille, France, on 7 May 2013, “That one could not ask Roman authorities to condemn the Council and the New Mass, because one cannot ask authorities to lose face.”
• The new-sspx, as Fr. Pfluger says, needs to be reconciled sooner rather than later because it will take a long time; possibly decades if the sspx does not do something with Rome at this time.
• The new-sspx further seeks this attachment with conciliar Rome because, as Fr. Pfluger also said in a public conference in Hattersheim, Germany, that under the current circumstances, the Fraternity’s superior does not “believe it is possible to turn down the Pope’s proposal.” He said that straying from the Pope’s wishes would lead to Sedevacantism. rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2012/05/rome-sspx-important-fr-pfluger-speaks.html
• The new-sspx now says through Fr. Jean-Michel Gleize, professor of theology in Ecône, that “the institution of the conciliar church IS the Catholic Church.” The consequences follow with conciliarism over Catholicism.
• The new-sspx now seeks unity and obedience before the Faith.
• The new-sspx proclaims through Bishop Fellay’s new Doctrinal Declaration of April 15, 2012 that there is an agreement with the beliefs of the conciliarists; and unity is above Doctrine. [Here is a breakdown of that SSPX Doctrinal Declaration by TrueTrad: www.truetrad.com/index.php/the-truth/problems-in-the-sspx/slow-subtle-poison-from-the-sspx/poison-by-topic/poison-regarding-vatican-ii-itself ]
• The new-sspx now seeks obedience around its Superior General as a first cause of unity; not the Faith per Fr. Rostand in his Post falls conference; and, he says also:
• The new-sspx’s direction, “is a matter of prudence; not a matter of doctrine.” http : // www .youtube.com/watch?v=0pnYYTzTQrc
• The new-sspx is now intolerant of any of its priests who still speak of the old-sspx.
• The new-sspx metes punishment and banishment for those who get in its way to be institutionally reconciled with conciliar Rome.
• The new-sspx seeks to be understood in confusion and ambiguities, like conciliar Rome, rather than to speak straight forward and upright like its founder.
• Etc…

With some of these above facts brought to light, along with its inconvenient truths, it is easier now to see Bishop Fellay’s institutional understanding of the Faith and the approach he is taking with conciliar Rome, led through GREC, and pre-planned to mark the new “institutional” legal footing for the SSPX.


2. The key to this new legal footing.

The key to this new legal footing is in the “lifting” of the excommunications of 2009. Regardless of the “interpretation” one may listen to, this decree by its acceptance had set a new legal precedent in the relations with conciliar Rome.

How this all fits, is to go back to the three conditions Bishop Fellay gave to the conciliar Romans in 2005 as he was looking for “trust and good will” from them. We are told that Bishop Fellay wanted: 1.) Granting full liberty to the Tridentine Mass, 2.) The withdrawal of the decree of excommunication, and 3.) Doctrinal discussions.

And, what Bishop Fellay wanted us in Tradition to believe, was: 1.) (Since we had the true Mass already, he wanted a) Granting full liberty to the Tridentine Mass (within the conciliar structure), 2.) The withdrawal of the decree of excommunication (for all six of the Bishops), and 3.) Doctrinal discussions (to end with Rome converting back to Her Traditions).

Indeed those terms would be good if they were fulfilled to the way he told us; but they weren’t! What Bishop Fellay got from the conciliar Romans was a compromised version, being: 1.) In 2007, The True Mass is bound even more by the subjective restrictions of the True Tridentine Mass, by decree, is under the thumbs of each Diocesan Bishop; which is a worse situation in the world to believe that the True Mass is in “second place” to the clown mass of Vatican II.[#1] 2.) In 2009, a “lifting” of the decree of excommunication for only four of the six Bishops; and it validated in writing by both parties in agreement to the world that the act of “Operation Survival” of Archbishop Lefebvre in 1988 was then a “true” excommunication, while leaving out to dry the other two Bishops who are still “excommunicated”, and 3.) In 2011, a Doctrinal discussion that ended without merit; only to have the vanity of a “practical” agreement with each other in smiles and vigor while the Church still suffers in disfigurement within the world without Her Doctrine. The results were an institutional prevue without the Truth.

Now, with the OFFICIAL acceptance of Bishop Fellay to those three compromised conditions by conciliar Rome, which he could have said NO, it is not right, it is compromised, and ambiguous, Bishop Fellay had then lost the “birth right” of Archbishop Lefebvre’s position of the SSPX and its reason to fight on the stand of Doctrine that they once had; while Providence protected ABL, and us, from the environment of the conciliar and ecumenical structure all of these years.

That protection is now gone by the stroke of Bishop Fellay’s acceptance of those compromised agreements –Checkmate for the Romans! The sspx is now a pawn in their hands to do their bidding.

Therefore, Bishops Fellay, Tissier, and deGallaretta have lost the ability to fight unmolested; they are now OFFICIALLY within the conciliar structure under Ecclesia Dei. Though Bishop Williamson had also agreed to the “lifting” of the Excommunications as they were written, that by default in the turn of events from standing up to Bishop Fellay and being unjustly expelled, and his consequent humility that he discovered after that it was a deception, God therefore continued to provide that he is outside the conciliar structure maintaining Archbishop Lefebvre’s position of the old-sspx.

With the new sspx Doctrinal Declaration of April 15, 2012, which agrees with the French Revolution within the Church, it takes away the differences and the fight that made it a State of Necessity; neither does the sspx have any legal basis anymore to be under the protection of Supplied Jurisdiction: “prae oculis habita salute animarum, quae in Ecclesia suprema semper lex esse debet.” “The salvation of souls is the supreme law of the Church”, to do what they once did. Instead, they officially placed themselves within the illusional bubble of the conciliar church by accepting the fake excommunications for all the world to see. The only “barriers” that remain with conciliar Rome, is the same “barriers” that the other 9-traditional groups have within Ecclesia Dei: a canonical mandate, and some movement to beg for “freedom” to be unmolested. [On a side, notice also the many meetings and interactions the n-sspx has with the Ecclesia Dei crowd].

To follow, as the n-sspx is now conveyed under the direction and auspices of conciliar Rome, Ecclesia Dei, they now only wait for a canonical mandate from the Pope to exercise the Ministry, Mass, and Sacraments, which is what is understood in Rome from the many interviews of the Vatican. Here is a recent one from Mgr Guido Pozzo. SSPX Goes for a Full Reconciliation: Pastoral not Doctrinal

Remember also in March 2009 with the sspx ordinations scheduled to take place in Germany. The Bishops of Germany were declaring to the Pope after the “lifting” of the SSPX decree of excommunication, that the sspx and its seminary had to be under their jurisdiction and approval to ordain priests. Bishop Fellay contacted Rome to see what it wanted to do and the Holy See requested that the ordinations be moved to another location in order to ease tensions between the Holy See and the German bishops. Whereby, the Vatican asked Bishop Fellay to move the ordinations out of the jurisdiction of the German bishops. Bishop Fellay did comply with the Vatican’s request to move the ordinations, demonstrating once again his willingness and acceptance to be within the conciliar structure, he moved the ordinations to Econe for that year.

Along with many other events and the recent proclamation of Bishop Marcello Semeraro in Italy, Faithful Catholics threatened with Excommunication though unduly with the “de facto” statement of excommunications of those who do receive the sacraments from the sspx, yet the rest is true in content that since the lifting of the excommunications by Pope Benedict XVI “…the Society has no canonical status in the Church and its ministers cannot legitimately exercise any ministry." Excommunication of Faithful who attend SSPX Masses

It is imperative to notice the difference of Bishop Semeraro statement on how it applies today with the agreement of Bishop Fellay in acceptance of those terms of the “lifting” of the excommunications and to be now inside the conciliar structure, from when it applied before the agreement in the old-sspx when we were protected outside of the structure of conciliar church. It is a Day and night difference!

Meanwhile, another Bishop "excommunicates" faithful who go to SSPX Masses for the same reasons - now in Argentina! rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/11/another-bishop-excommunicates-faithful.html


3. Is it real or illusional?

So, is this whole thing of Bishop Fellay now finding himself with an “impediment” and desiring a need to be reconciled into the conciliar apparatus real or illusional?

For anyone studying and following Tradition for many years, knows that the conciliar church is a counterfeit church. Archbishop Lefebvre spoke of this many times in his sermons and conferences. It is from this that he had to take up “Operational Survival”.

To stand back, you find that the cause of Tradition and the Salvation of souls is objective and without impediment, the fight for the Faith is REAL; for sure. However, it is well documented and with fact of expression that the conciliar church high-jacked the positions of power within the Church herself; there will always be wayward Pharisees and cockle within the vineyard. So the conciliar church is by itself illusional; it is not real. Therefore, what Bishop Fellay did, like a butterfly attracted by the sweetness of men, he placed himself and the official organs of the n-sspx into an illusional structure. It does not exist by right and recognition of Truth.

It does not exist in the tradition of the Church; it is a liberal dream-bubble.

This is not a debate, or a charades of “that is not what I meant”, actions speak louder than words. This is very real; souls are being lost, and possibly forever.

Any lawyer is required to be precise in their language; not ambiguous. That is why there is on the bottom of legal documents a glossary of terms. If there is something ambiguous, then it falls on the author to mean the intent and direction of the statement and its subject. For Bishop Fellay to tell us otherwise is not reasonable for any person to have believed it could be otherwise supported with the enormous amount of evidence that spells “aggiornamento” (updating into the organs of modernist Rome). [#2]


In conclusion,

The sspx proves in agreement and certitude that it is on a new legal footing with conciliar Rome; therefore, they are set out and pursuing that end; even if it is in stealth not to disrupt the coffers. All of the documents, interviews, activities, and events prove the n-sspx is compromised.

What would our Lord say to this betrayal while hanging on the blood soaked Cross, scourged and mock for His Doctrine, and of all of the heroic efforts of the Martyrs not to put incense on false gods, and the exhaustion of the Saints who bore trials and tribulations while working in our Lord’s vineyard to convert the non-Catholics and their false beliefs?

Could the Mother of that crucified Lord be happy to see her Son disfigured again by the insults of men?

The only way for the new-sspx to get out of the illusions of the conciliarists and change back to its former position of the real, the old-sspx, is for Bishop Fellay to have the proportional humility to his betrayal and treason, to declare to the whole world that he was wrong, reinstate the fighters of Archbishop Lefebvre who he unjustly humiliated and kicked out, and state clearly and unequivocally to the world the True Doctrine and rights of our Lord and His Kingship over all men and creation.

Simple, yes. Though probable, no. That is why we must keep going in the wisdom of Archbishop Lefebvre in the defense of the Traditional Catholic Faith to be believed, nurtured, and held from our baptism until our last breath.

[To be continued…in The Identity of the Catholic Resistance.]


Viva Cristo Rey…


=========================================

NOTES:

[#1] There is no doubt that wanting to have the true Mass understood to be never appropriated; however, the process that the n-sspx accepted was illusional in terms to accept the clown mass first; and then to give ambiguous words after to mean that the Mass is “free”.

[#2] Sometimes, courts decide the meaning of ambiguous language on the basis of who was responsible or at fault for the ambiguity. When only one party knew or should have known of the ambiguity, the unsuspecting party's subjective knowledge of the meaning will control. If both parties knew or should have known of the uncertainty, the court will look to the subjective understanding of both. The ambiguity no longer exists if the parties agree upon its meaning. If the parties disagree and the ambiguous provisions are material, no contract is formed because of lack of mutual assent.

Courts frequently interpret an ambiguous contract term against the interests of the party who prepared the contract and created the ambiguity. This is common in cases of adhesion contracts and insurance contracts. A drafter of a document should not benefit at the expense of an innocent party because the drafter was careless in drafting the agreement.

Therefore, it is in the high duty and responsibility of Bishop Fellay to be honest and speak clearly as a representative of God and in the defense of the Kingship of Christ.

 
Top