SSPX: UK District Superior says there will be no regularisation

  • Thread starter Thread starter Te_Deum
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

Te_Deum

Guest
District Superior’s Letter - November 2011
Click to expand...
My dear brethren
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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!
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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…
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
The second day of the meeting was dedicated to its original theme, that of communications and the media.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
The Assisi III meeting is taking place on the very day I write these few lines, at which occasion we are holding a day of reparation here at St George’s House, with all-day exposition of the Blessed Sacrament.
Click to expand...
The scandal of this inter-religious gathering can be resumed into three points:
Click to expand...
i/ It commemorates and celebrates the scandal of Assisi I;
Click to expand...
ii/ It replaces the Faith with religious liberty as the means to obtain world peace;
Click to expand...
iii/ It promotes on a practical level relativism and religious indifference.
Click to expand...
This is no longer on the SSPX’s UK website, seems it was pulled.
 
Te_Deum said:
This is no longer on the SSPX’s UK website, seems it was pulled.
Click to expand...
That is very odd seeing as its the first of november today, i.e the day it would have been released. I shall see if there are any paper versions of the newsletter tommorow at the chapel, if not it would appear that this is yet another unofficial statement.
 
The Rorate-Caeli blog had posted Fr. Morgan’s newsletter yesterday but then quickly pulled it. They would not have pulled it without good reason.

Afterwards, it was found that the SSPX Great Britain website pulled the article from the news section. At first, it could still be found in the newsletter but that must have been an oversight because the complete newsletter has since been pulled.

Angelqueen forums appears to have pulled their thread on this topic too and they do not normally pull threads at all. They may lock a thread if it becomes absolutely necessary but they almost never pull threads.

With all this in mind, I would refrain from putting too much behind what Fr. Morgan has written.
 
jmj1984 said:
If theres no paper version of it, I’m not going to ascribe any value to it whatsoever.
Click to expand...
It is wise to hold reservations but you need to realise this is the 21st century. Websites, emails etc., are the new paper trail ;).
 
Te_Deum said:
It is wise to hold reservations but you need to realise this is the 21st century. Websites, emails etc., are the new paper trail ;).
Click to expand...
I am afraid you are missing the point I am making. The fact it was pulled shows that it is unlikely to be the societys official position, however it is not so easy to ‘pull’ printed paper versions, therefore if they exist it gives the claims in this ‘pulled’ newsletter more authenticity and weight.
 
Following the meeting of the Superiors of the Seminaries and Districts of the Society of Saint Pius X in Albano (Italy), on October 7, 2011, several comments have appeared in the press on the response Bishop Bernard Fellay [Superior General of the Society] would give to the Roman proposals of September 14, 2011. It is recalled that only the General House of the Society of Saint Pius X is entitled to make public public an official communiqué or authorized commentary on this matter. Until further notice, reference should be made to the communiqué of October 7, 2011
Click to expand...
This has just appeared on rorate-caeli
 
jmj1984 said:
This has just appeared on rorate-caeli
Click to expand...
Rorate took that Communiqué of the General House of the Society of St. Pius X directly from the DICI website so it is the ‘official’ stance on this matter at this time.

Being that Fr. Morgan’s letter was removed from the SSPX Great Britain website and this new Communique from the SSPX, it seems that it is not best to circulate Fr. Morgan’s newsletter. Which is probably why Rorate-Caeli, Angelqueen, and now Ignis Ardens removed the info from their sites.
 
NeelyAnn said:
Rorate took that Communiqué of the General House of the Society of St. Pius X directly from the DICI website so it is the ‘official’ stance on this matter at this time.

Being that Fr. Morgan’s letter was removed from the SSPX Great Britain website and this new Communique from the SSPX, it seems that it is not best to circulate Fr. Morgan’s newsletter. Which is probably why Rorate-Caeli, Angelqueen, and now Ignis Ardens removed the info from their sites.
Click to expand...
It hasn’t been removed from fisheaters. There’s quite a lively discussion going on there about Fr. Morgan’s communication.
 
NeelyAnn said:
Rorate took that Communiqué of the General House of the Society of St. Pius X directly from the DICI website so it is the ‘official’ stance on this matter at this time.

Being that Fr. Morgan’s letter was removed from the SSPX Great Britain website and this new Communique from the SSPX, it seems that it is not best to circulate Fr. Morgan’s newsletter. Which is probably why Rorate-Caeli, Angelqueen, and now Ignis Ardens removed the info from their sites.
Click to expand...
I agree.
 
Although I do not speak for the Society, I would caution everyone to be patient until the Superior General makes his own announcement. My understanding is that the documents handed to the SSPX were modifiable by both parties while keeping within the sprirt/intent of the original.

There are folks, both well-meaning and otherwise inside and outside the church that are determined to see this effort fail. Best thing to do is keep everyone in your prayers.
 
giuseppeTO said:
Although I do not speak for the Society, I would caution everyone to be patient until the Superior General makes his own announcement. My understanding is that the documents handed to the SSPX were modifiable by both parties while keeping within the sprirt/intent of the original.

There are folks, both well-meaning and otherwise inside and outside the church that are determined to see this effort fail. Best thing to do is keep everyone in your prayers.
Click to expand...
I have heard this claim made before, that the documents are modifiable but I have not seen anything from the Catholic Church stating such, only the speculation of others and now a like to a “Traditional” website. It seems that many “traditionalists” what this to be so but, as I said, I do not see where the Church has said this.

If I am mistaken, and there is an actual Church statement as to such I would appreciate seeing it.
 
ByzCath said:
I have heard this claim made before, that the documents are modifiable but I have not seen anything from the Catholic Church stating such, only the speculation of others and now a like to a “Traditional” website. It seems that many “traditionalists” what this to be so but, as I said, I do not see where the Church has said this.

If I am mistaken, and there is an actual Church statement as to such I would appreciate seeing it.
Click to expand...
There has been no statements and we should therefore not assume from the statements of any surrogates of the Vatican or the SSPX that the process is completed or a failure. In the absence of official confirmation, all we can do is speculate. My speculation is that there will be a slow progress by degrees.
 
giuseppeTO said:
There has been no statements and we should therefore not assume from the statements of any surrogates of the Vatican or the SSPX that the process is completed or a failure. In the absence of official confirmation, all we can do is speculate. My speculation is that there will be a slow progress by degrees.
Click to expand...
Thanks, so it is purely speculation that the documents the Vatican gave to the SSPX are modifiable.

I speculate that this is not so. The SSPX and the Vatican have been meeting (off and on) for decades, It is time to move on. To move on the SSPX must agree to certain things, hence the current document that the SSPX has. I doubt that it is modifiable as if it is then it is not an end of or a beginning of anything, it is just another thing to disagree over for years.

Having said that, I agree that we must wait for the superior of the SSPX to respond but from what we have been hearing (it seems that most around here do not mind rumors when they are from the Vatican and in support of their view point, they only seem to point out caution when those rumors do not match that view point) is that there will be a split within the SSPX if the superior does accept and sign the document from the Vatican.
 
giuseppeTO said:
There are folks, both well-meaning and otherwise inside and outside the church that are determined to see this effort fail. Best thing to do is keep everyone in your prayers.
Click to expand...
And some not so well-meaning.

I agree that there are factions with their own agenda both within and without who don’t want to see any reconciliation. Otherwise, you wouldn’t have someone posting something then retracting. I’m sure the top people know who is allowed to make announcements, and who is not.

More intrigue…
 
ByzCath said:
Thanks, so it is purely speculation that the documents the Vatican gave to the SSPX are modifiable.

I speculate that this is not so. The SSPX and the Vatican have been meeting (off and on) for decades, It is time to move on. To move on the SSPX must agree to certain things, hence the current document that the SSPX has. I doubt that it is modifiable as if it is then it is not an end of or a beginning of anything, it is just another thing to disagree over for years.

Having said that, I agree that we must wait for the superior of the SSPX to respond but from what we have been hearing (it seems that most around here do not mind rumors when they are from the Vatican and in support of their view point, they only seem to point out caution when those rumors do not match that view point) is that there will be a split within the SSPX if the superior does accept and sign the document from the Vatican.
Click to expand...
Yes, all this is pure speculation.

My thoughts are that since there is no word, one way or the other after 2 months, there are likely some modifications being discussed. A take-it-or-leave-it yes/no would have come quicker, methinks.

If there is an agreement, there will be those within the SSPX that will criticize Bshp Fellay. The same agreement will cause a split among the American and European Bishops, a.number of whom will show (public) hostility towards the Holy Father for the regularization.

The sad part about is that even if both side are in agreement on the doctrinal part, the acrimony will still be there based on issues that do not touch the dogmas of our faith.
 
Once again, we have the repetition of the same situation, people speculating and people trying to decide for a superior what he should do. I keep repeating the same reminder.

This is not about the laity. The laity is not suspended. This is about a clerical society of apostolic life and its related religious communities. At the end of the day, every superior has to look at the one question that God will ask him on his judgment day, “Did you serve your brothers and sisters as I served my apostles?”

What the rest of the world likes or does not like is totally irrelevant at this point. By giving the Superior General a document that only he can accept and reject, the Church places a grave moral responsibility on his shoulders for the salvation of the clerics, brothers and sisters in the Society. Being a major superior is an awesome responsibility. When you are in those situations, where you’re the only one authorized to speak for the whole and the welfare of your community rests on your choice, what everyone else thinks or wants becomes irrelevant to you.

I’m in awe at the lack of understanding on these threads. People seem to feel that this is about them, their preferences, and their opinions. Unless you’re an ordained member of the Society or a professed religious in the Society, this does not affect you. At the end of the day, the place that these men and women have in the Church depends on the decision of their General Superior. Everyone else’s place in the Church is secured, but not that of these clerics and religious.

We need to take a more sympathetic position toward the role of the Superior General and keep him in prayer. He is responsible for these men and women, not us. In situations like this, when Rome corners you, it’s not easy to be a superior. Rome is not asking the Society to choose. It’s asking Bishop Fellay to choose for the Society. Like any other General Superior, he can consult with his confreres, but what his confreres and the lay faithful have to say does not decide the future. What the Superior General says will define the future of the Society.

He may be a priest and a bishop, but he’s also a superior general. At the end of the day, his greatest responsibility is for the souls of that society, just as other superiors are responsible for the souls of their brothers or sisters. I’m glad that I’m not in his shoes and I will continue to keep Bishop Fellay in prayer and suggest that everyone do the same. His salvation depends on what he does for his brothers and sisters.

If you want to understand the moral responsibility of a superior think of yourself as the parent of several hundred children whose present and future is in your hands.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
I have to disagree with you a little Brother. First, the SSPX is more headed by a council with Bishop Fellay as its representative. So it’s not all on his shoulders.

Secondly, I think you are being a little too dismissive about the laity. The Society is a very important part in many people’s lives. To many it’s the only Catholic culture they’ve ever known and to many more the Society is their local parish. It’s all tied up with them. So it’s perfectly understandable as to why many will have opinions and desires regarding these issues.
 
Nope, no paper versions of the newsletter around, ergo the UK District superior shouldnt have said anything and most probably knew what he was going to say would get pulled as the paper versions are normally available as soon as the electronic
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top