SSPX continues to examine itself through a Conciliar Lens

SSPX continues to examine itself through a Conciliar Lens Sept 5, 2018 12:22:27 GMT

Post by Admin on Sept 5, 2018 12:22:27 GMT

[It is both sad and telling that the SSPX continues to abandon Archbishop Lefebvre's clear stand on the State of Necessity for the Episcopal Consecrations which earned him and the four bishops an illegal excommunication from the Conciliar Church in 1988. Here we see once again, they accept the illegal excommunication, depend heavily on the lifting of that same illegal excommunication to validate themselves but then double back to the State of Necessity based on Doctrine when it suits them to explain their existence and situation.]

Recall Archbishop Lefebvre:

“Hence, we should have no hesitation or fear, hesitation such as, "Why should we be going on our own? After all, why not join Rome, why not join the pope?" Yes, if Rome and the pope were in line with Tradition, if they were carrying on the work of all the popes of the 19th and the first half of the 20th century, of course. But they themselves admit that they have set out on a new path.” (Two Years After the Consecrations, September 6, 1990)

“I think that many of those that left us to rejoin Rome, -isn’t that right - did not rightly understand what liberalism is and how the Roman authorities at the moment, since the Council in particular, are infested with these errors. They did not understand. If they had understood, they would have fled, they would have avoided, they would have stayed with us. But they do not want to believe these errors. This is serious because by moving closer to these authorities, one is necessarily contaminated. These authorities are imbued with these principles, live with these principles – these principles of liberalism. Inevitably, they act in conformity with their ideas. And therefore, they can only have relations with us. They begin to have relations with us – relations which little by little impose these ideas on us, since they are the authorities. They are the authorities and we are the subordinates, so they impose these ideas on us. It is impossible otherwise. As long as they do not rid themselves of these errors – these errors of liberalism and modernism – there is no way we can come to an agreement with them. It is not possible. We cannot approach them because immediately we have to submit to their orientations.” (Conference, September 22, 1988)

"This is what has brought down upon our heads persecution by the Rome of the anti-Christs. Since this Rome, Modernist and Liberal, is carrying on its work of destruction of the Kingdom of Our Lord, as Assisi and the confirmation of the Liberal theses of Vatican II on Religious Liberty prove, I find myself constrained by Divine Providence to pass on the grace of the Catholic episcopacy which I received, in order that the Church and the Catholic priesthood continue to subsist for the glory of God and for the salvation of souls. ... That is why, convinced that I am only carrying out the holy will of Our Lord, I am writing this letter to ask you to agree to receive the grace of the Catholic episcopacy, just as I have already conferred it on other priests in other circumstances. I will bestow this grace upon you, confident that without too long a delay the See of Peter will be occupied by a successor of Peter who is perfectly Catholic, and into whose hands you will be able to put back the grace of your episcopacy so that he may confirm it." (Letter to the Future Bishops, August 29, 1987) See also: Bishops to Save the Church

+++

Neither Schismatic nor Excommunicated: Abp. Pozzo - Fr. Jean-Michel Gleize

September 05, 2018

By District of the USA

At the end of a conference that he gave in Poland in July, Archbishop Pozzo answered a few questions from the audience. Fr. Gleize of the SSPX gives the following analysis:

The current situation of the Society of St. Pius X in the Church was one of the themes that was brought up in the context of his remarks on the liturgy, in the seventh question put to him:

Can Pope Francis’ decision to grant the SSPX priests the ability to give sacramental absolution be seen as a way to encourage the faithful to go to SSPX priests for other sacraments?

Archbishop Pozzo’s answer was anything but ambiguous.

No, I do not think it can be interpreted in that way; it is not an encouragement to go see the Society priests. The pope gave his motives in the decree. He is concerned for the spiritual salvation of the SSPX faithful. That is the reason he made sacramental absolution for sins and Extreme Unction for sick persons valid and licit even after the Holy Year, for the good of souls. Suprema lex salus animarum. This was also the reason for the Letter on Marriages, to grant the possibility of a valid marriage with due canonical form, for the good of souls, and certainly in view of a reconciliation. The priests and bishops of the Society of St. Pius X nonetheless exercise their ministry illicitly and illegitimately. They are not excommunicated, of course, not anymore; the excommunication was lifted, so they are not formally schismatic – it is absolutely false to claim that the SSPX is schismatic from a formal, canonical point of view – because there is no longer a schism since they are no longer excommunicated; that is very clear. But they are in an irregular situation, and insofar as they do not have a canonical recognition, they do not exercise their ministry legitimately, except for confessions and marriages, as granted by the pope. We must be very clear about this. The necessity of a canonical recognition is not just a notarial, formal act. The Church is a visible structure and it is essential for the clergy to have a canonical recognition from the Holy See. And this is another truth of the reality of the Church and they should admit it.

The SSPX is Not Schismatic

This answer calls for two remarks. The first remark: “It is absolutely false to claim that the SSPX is schismatic from a formal, canonical point of view.”

Should we see this as a denial of Cardinal Burke’s remarks last year, in his conference on July 15, 2017, in Merdford? In any case, Archbishop Pozzo is determined to clear the Society of the accusation of schism.

The reason for this is that the excommunication of the SSPX bishops and priests was lifted. Which raises the question of the exact impact of this excommunication. Based on the answers the Holy See sent to Bishop Brunner of Sion in 1997, the bishops consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre in 1988 were subject to the excommunication by reason of the crime of a consecration without a papal mandate. The excommunication also applied to all those who formally adhered to the schismatic movement inaugurated by this episcopal consecration.

In his Letter to the Bishops on March 10, 2009, Benedict XVI declared that he lifted the excommunication incurred by the four bishops consecrated in 1988 by Archbishop Lefebvre, nothing more, nothing less. It is not unreasonable to think that he also and by the same acted lifted the excommunication resulting from a formal adherence to a state of schism, judging that the four bishops had sufficiently expressed “their recognition in principle of the Pope and his authority as Pastor, albeit with some reservations in the area of obedience to his doctrinal authority and to the authority of the Council.” Archbishop Pozzo’s answer that we have just quoted confirms this interpretation.

Archbishop Pozzo celebrating [the New] Mass in 2011

An Unsatisfactory Situation

The second remark: the situation of the SSPX priests remains unsatisfactory in the eyes of the Holy See. For these priests do not have the canonical recognition that is indispensable for anyone who wishes to exercise a legitimate ministry in the Church. The favors granted to them by Pope Francis therefore remain exceptions, conceded for the spiritual good (salvation) of the faithful who go to these priests.

In Rome’s eyes, they do not make the ministry of the SSPX priests legitimate outside of the conditions provided by the Pope (for the sacraments of Penance and Extreme Unction and the delegation granted for the celebration of marriages).

Archbishop Pozzo is thus showing that Rome still does not recognize the state of necessity that authorizes the priests of Tradition to work for the salvation of souls, despite the absence of an official recognition from the conciliar authorities.

But if the Society is not schismatic, then why does Rome continue to consider its situation irregular? The explanation was given by Archbishop Pozzo in his answer to a preceding question (the sixth):

“The problem will remain so long as the Society of St. Pius X does not adhere to the doctrinal declaration approved by Pope Francis and presented by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.”

The problem, therefore, is indeed, first and foremost, a doctrinal problem. In Rome’s own eyes, the canonical recognition depends on the resolution of this problem.

We have to be clear on this, too. Indeed.

-- Fr. Jean-Michel Gleize, priest of the Priestly Society of St. Pius X
Originally Posted in French on La Porte Latine

Sources: Courrier de Rome #612, July-August 2018 / La Porte Latine – 8/31/2018

[all emphasis in the original]

SSPX continues to examine itself through a Conciliar Lens Sept 20, 2018 11:18:18 GMT

Post by Admin on Sept 20, 2018 11:18:18 GMT

While we have heard little of the new Superior General of the SSPX, Fr. Davide Pagliarani, we continue to hear publicly from Bishop Fellay. Some of you may recall that Bishop Fellay's position in the SSPX has morphed into an 'Advisor' to the new Superior General and his Assistants.

On September 3, 2018, Bishop Fellay have a conference in which the SSPX once again demonstrates that the only important lens through which to examine itself is through the Conciliar lens.

Archbishop Lefebvre: “We have never wished to belong to this system which calls itself the Conciliar Church, and defines itself with the Novus Ordo Missæ, an ecumenism which leads to indifferentism and the laicization of all society. Yes, we have no part, nullam partem habemus, with the pantheon of the religions of Assisi; our own excommunication by a decree of Your Eminence or of another Roman Congregation would only be the irrefutable proof of this. We ask for nothing better than to be declared out of communion with this adulterous spirit which has been blowing in the Church for the last 25 years; we ask for nothing better than to be declared outside of this impious communion of the ungodly.” (Open Letter to Cardinal Gantin, July 6, 1988)

MONS. FELLAY: "THE MODERN CHURCH RECOGNIZES US AS CATHOLIC"

Video of the conference of Bishop Fellay in Davao, Philippines, on September 3, 2018

"Our situation is now as follows: first, and I can give you statements from Rome that say very clearly that the Fraternity is not schismatic.

So we are Catholics and the modern church recognizes us as Catholics. [What a relief! The "modern church" recognizes us as Catholics!]

But they say there is something irregular because you do not have canonical status. And they do not want to give us this canonical status before we say that the new Mass is good and the council is good. And we're not going to say it, so we're stuck here. [For how long? Nobody forgets that the one who says this, was also able to say, in his doctrinal declaration of April 15, 2012, enormities like these: Vatican II "illuminates certain aspects of the life and doctrine of the Church"; the new Mass and other Novus Ordo sacraments were "legitimately promulgated" ]

At the same time, you have heard that the Pope gave us the power to confess everyone. Everyone can come with us, everyone, and the priest has the power to give confession.

This is true also in regard to Extreme Unction, and recently we all saw, in a curious way, the power for marriages.

It is even more than that. I am going to show you that although there are things that are not yet complete, on the other hand there are many things that are already written, given, where Rome is accepting us as Catholics.

I'm going to give you an example. For example, if a priest is doing very, very bad things, he needs to be punished. Then the superior who was me, contacted Rome and told them that we have a problem, and several times Rome appointed me as judge of the case. Then I let them know the decision, in the name of Rome, to one or more priests. They even once named me as the second instance court. What happened is that Rome made the trial, the priest appealed against this decision of Rome, and Rome did not recognize that he made a mistake, and they asked me to be the second judge for that case. [This last fact was hidden until now] How can this be if we are not Catholics?

Come? We have examples of real life in which we are really considered as Catholics.

And I can give you something more. I do not give them the name, because it would be too hot, it's a cardinal. " [The video is cut at this point]

[All emphasis and comments in red in the original transcription, here.]