Archbishop Lefebvre's 1988 Protocol

Since there is much discussion these days about talks with Rome and those who use the Archbishop as their example of what must be accepted or rejected, it is always worthwhile to review what the Archbishop himself felt he could in good conscience sign in May of 1988. Remember that this document was signed after the suppression of Econe, after the Archbishop penned “I Accuse The Council”, and after the scandal of Assisi in 1986.

He subsequently withdrew his signature and gave one precise reason for changing his mind – He did not trust that the Vatican would follow through and allow him to consecrate a bishop from within the Society. This was his litmus test as to whether there was a viable opportunity to convert Rome. According to Bp Tissier’s book, even on the day of the episcopal consecrations, he was willing to postpone them if Rome agreed to this condition. This, in fact, was the “conversion of Rome” that the archbishop awaited.

Here are the conditions of the PROTOCOL that were acceptable to Archbishop Lefebvre.  The underlines are my own to emphasize what the Archbishop was willing to agree to without conferring with Bishops-elect Williamson, Fellay, DeGalaretta, or Tissier, and without getting the approval of a senior council of SSPX priests or independent priests, nuns, brothers or prominent laity.

THE PROTOCOL AGREEMENT OF THE VATICAN AND ARCHBISHOP LEFEBVRE

Signed by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre on May 5, 1988

I, Marcel Lefebvre, archbishop-bishop emeritus of Tulle, along with the members of the Priestly Society of St. Pius X, which I founded:
1. We promise always to be faithful to the Catholic Church and to the Roman Pontiff, its supreme pastor, the vicar of Christ, successor of blessed Peter in his primacy and head of the body of bishops.
2. We declare that we will accept the doctrine contained in No. 25 of the Second Vatican Council’s dogmatic constitution, “Lumen Gentium” on the ecclesiastical magisterium and the adherence owed it.
3. Regarding certain points taught by the Second Vatican Council or concerning subsequent reforms of the liturgy and law which appear difficult to reconcile with tradition, we commit ourselves to a positive attitude of study and of communication with the Apostolic See, avoiding all polemics.
4. We declare moreover that we will recognize the validity of the sacrifice of the Mass and of the sacraments celebrated with the intention of doing what the Church does and according to the rites in the typical editions of the missal and rituals of the sacraments promulgated by Popes Paul VI and John Paul II.
5. Last, we promise to respect the common discipline of the Church and the ecclesiastical laws, particularly those contained in the Code of Canon Law promulgated by Pope John Paul II, except for the special discipline conceded to the fraternity by particular law.

II. JURIDICAL QUESTIONS
Taking into consideration the fact that the Priestly Society of St. Pius X has been formed for 18 years as a society of common life – and based on a study of suggestions by Archbishop Lefebvre and the conclusions of the visit made by His Eminence Cardinal Gagnon – the most suitable canonical model is that of a society of apostolic life.
1. Society of Apostolic Life.
It is a canonically possible solution, with the advantage of the possibility of bringing laity into the clerical society of apostolic life (for example, coadjutor brothers).
According to the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1983, Canons 731-746, this society has full autonomy, can form its members, can incardinate priests and assures the common life of all its members.
In its own statutes, with flexibility and creative possibility in the light of the known models of these societies of apostolic life, one anticipates a certain exemption in regard to diocesan bishops (cf. Canon 591) in what concerns public worship, the ‘cura animarum’ and other apostolic activities, taking into consideration Canons 679-683. As for jurisdiction regarding the faithful who seek out the priests of the society, it will be conferred on them by the local ordinaries or by the Apostolic See.
2. Roman Commission.
A commission to coordinate relations among the diverse dicasteries and the diocesan bishops as well as to resolve eventual problems and contentions will be established by the Holy See and given the necessary faculties to treat the above-indicated questions (for example, the establishment at the request of the faithful of a place of worship in a place where there is no house of the society, ‘ad mentem,’ Canon 383.2).
3. Condition of People Linked to the Society.
3.1 The members of the clerical society of apostolic life (priests and coadjutor lay brothers): They are governed by the statutes of the society of pontifical right.
3.2 Men and women oblates, with or without private vows, and members of the Third Order linked to the society: They belong to an association of the faithful linked to the society in terms of Canon 303, and they collaborate with it.
3.3 The sisters (that is, the congregation founded by Archbishop Lefebvre) who make public vows: They will constitute a true institute of consecrated life, with its own structure and autonomy, even if one foresees a certain link for the unity of spirituality with the superior of the society. This congregation – at least at the beginning – will be responsible to the Roman Commission instead of the Congregation for Religious.
3.4 Members of communities living by the rule of diverse religious institutes (Carmelites, Benedictines, Dominicans, etc.) and morally linked with the society: It is fitting to accord them, case by case, a particular status regulating their relations with their respective order.
3.5 Priests who as individuals are morally linked with the fraternity will receive a personal status, taking into account their aspirations, and, at the same time, the obligations resulting from their incardination. Other particular cases of this kind will be examined and resolved by the Roman commission.
In what concerns lay people who seek the pastoral help of the society’s communities: They remain under the jurisdiction of the diocesan bishops but – notably for the liturgical rites of the society’s communities – can look to these communities for the administration of the sacraments (for the sacraments of baptism, confirmation and marriage, notification of their own parish remains necessary; canons 878, 896, 1122).
NOTE: There is reason to consider the particular complexity:
1. Of the question of the reception by the laity of the sacraments of baptism, confirmation, marriage, in the communities of the society.
2. Of the question of communities practicing – without being connected to them – the rule of this or that religious institute.
It is for the Roman commission to resolve these items.
4. Ordinations.
For ordinations, it is necessary to distinguish two phases:
4.1 Immediately: For the ordinations planned shortly, Archbishop Lefebvre would be authorized to confer them or, if he couldn’t, another bishop agreed to by him.
4.2 Once established, the society of apostolic life:
4.2.1 When possible, in the judgment of the Superior General, follows the normal procedure: remitting the dimissorial letters to a bishop who agrees to ordain members of the society.
4.2.2 Because of the particular situation of the fraternity (cf. infra): ordination by a bishop of the society who, among other tasks, would have that of proceeding with ordinations.
5. Problem of a Bishop.
5.1 At the doctrinal level (ecclesiological), the guarantee of stability and maintenance of the life and activity of the society is assured by its erection as a society of apostolic life of pontifical right and approval of its statutes by the Holy Father.
5.2 But, for practical and psychological reasons, the consecration of a bishop member of the society appears useful. This is why, in the context of the doctrinal and canonical solution of the reconciliation, we will suggest to the Holy Father that he name a bishop chosen in the society, proposed by Archbishop Lefebvre. As a consequence of the principle indicated above (5.1), this bishop is not normally superior general of the society. But it would be good that he be a member of the Roman commission.
6. Particular Problems to Resolve by Decree or Declaration.
— Lifting the ‘suspensio a divinis’ of Archbishop Lefebvre and dispensing the irregularities incurred through ordinations.
Anticipation of an “amnesty” and an agreement for the society’s houses and places of worship erected — or used — until now without authorization by bishops.

When challenged about his criticism of the FSSP and the Benedictines for accepting the same Protocol, his answer was emphatic: “No, they have NOT signed the same Protocol, for they have not been granted a Bishop.” This was and always remained his key point.

Lefebvre - Coward or Idiot?

Now that Bishop Williamson has been excluded from the SSPX, it appears as most had anticipated, that he will become the DE-facto Bishop of the independent priests who at least claim to not hold the sedevacantist viewpoint.  That is, of course, merely a matter of semantics since to say that one should not accept recognition by the Vicar of Christ until he repents, nullifies the Council and its documents, and perhaps is conditionally re-consecrated a Bishop using the Traditional books by at least two Bishops who have also been so consecrated is, in my view, a very convenient albeit stealth version of sedevacantism.  For if the Pope is only the Pope by virtue of the apartment he occupies in the Vatican then he is indeed not the Vicar of Christ.  The argument against a recognition, under any conditions, is that His Excellency is afraid that he will be forced to become a Protestant (again) as will be the same with all priests and traditional bishops.  Apparently, within months of a recognition by Rome, the SSPX will be fraught with liturgical dancing, a new hybrid Mass, luminous mysteries, and lay Eucharistic ministers. By some accounts, this has apparently already happened.

Certainly the small group of priests and the laity that are providing financial support need a Bishop for certain sacraments, Chrism, etc.  His Excellency will fill that role and will probably settle down in the Washington, DC area and will once again be on the road rallying against the Superior General and showing his Twin Towers Conspiracy video.  Hopefully, His Excellency will forget the latter and focus on the faith for he is so good and clear when he does that. Much to the dismay of His Excellency and his new followers, one would imagine, is the admonition by the other two SSPX Bishops who have now both publicly declared their support for the Superior General’s judgment while still declaring that the defunct or at least seriously delayed recognition of the SSPX by the Pope was not something that they favored, at least in the form that it took in the Spring of 2012.  From the perspective of Bishop Fellay, what began as a no-strings-attached agreement became an unpalatable compromise of the faith.

And so, in His Excellency’s latest Eleison Comments, he harkens once again back to how the good Archbishop felt about the Council which is apparent in most of his writings.  His Excellency’s followers have created a “Traditio”-styled website (even copying the Traditio moniker ‘from the fathers’) complete with articles and rantings in 26pt font and videos on who really blew up the twin towers.  Now, more important than preaching on the nature of sin and the disorder of the Pauline Mass, they preach on sinfulness of Bishop Fellay purportedly retaining a Jewish attorney.  You will not see articles on the fact that the Archbishop, in the company of then Father Williamson, expelled four of the top ranking priests in the United States for merely disobeying a request to celebrate the Mass according to the 1962 Book.  Nor will you find any discussion of the fact that after years of ministry and just two years before he died, the Archbishop signed an agreement with Rome.  Nor will you find mention of the fact that the Archbishop said, on the day of Bishop Williamson’s consecration, that were the Pope to send him a document that agreed to the Archbishop’s demand for the consecration of the four bishops, he would postpone the consecrations until August 15^th as originally discussed with Cardinal Ratzinger.  What you will find are articles on how the documents of the Second Vatican Council are heretical and how Bishop Fellay is the illegitimate leader of the SSPX.

So here is the dilemma that none of the members of ‘la resistance’ will touch with a ten foot pole.  Why did Archbishop Lefebvre, De Castro Mayer, Cdls Siri, and Ottaviani and the balance of the Coetus not, on the day following the close of the council in 1965 and then everyday for the rest of their lives proclaim that they had just taken part in the most sinful undertaking against the church in modern times? Why did they not from every pulpit and in every means at their disposal condemn what they had just participated in and urge the faithful to ignore it?  Why did they not rue the fact from day one that they signed the freshly inked documents? They clearly knew every last word of every document.  There are only a few possible answers. The first is that for all of their bluster, they were all cowards.  Perhaps they feared retribution?  The other possibility is that they were spiritual idiots compared to the modernist who penned the documents.  In other words, they would not know a heresy if it bit them on their red buttons.  It has to be one of these.  Either they did not recognize a heresy when they saw it or they recognized it and decided to let the church flounder under it.  Which was it, do you think?

The answer is clearly presented in the Tissier biography of the Archbishop.  His Excellency Bishop Williamson and all those opposed to the judgments of Bishop Fellay would do well to (re-)read  it.  In February of 1966, the Archbishop informed his colleagues in the Coetus that he proposed to publish a “combative, multilingual interepiscopal bulletin of information and analysis which will help the bishops to take practical measures against progressivism and in favor of a sound interpretation of the Council”.  He was encouraged in this effort by Cardinals Ottaviani and Siri and supported by the generous gift of a lay benefactor.  There was no talk or professed opinion by any of these that the conciliar documents contained heresy.  They reserved that charge against the newly published (Dutch) Catholic catechism.  In the Archbishop’s own words, the Council that he was a Father of and of whose documents he signed, was flawed in many ways and the Archbishop documents his objections concerning these flaws in his many recorded interventions during the various sessions.

If the Archbishop and the Coetus had a fault, it was that they were at least too naive to understand the ingrained nature of modernism in the Catholic hierarchy of 1965 and the destruction of the priestly formation which was well underway by that time.  The Archbishop felt that Pope Paul VI was surrounded by modernists and that he would eventually be rid of them and replace them with more orthodox priests.

The Archbishop and his conservative conspirators were neither heretics nor idiots.  They were Princes of the Church who knew a heresy when they saw it and would not be part of a promulgation of it.  They knew heresy and they did not see it in the documents but all condemned the heresy that has resulted in the New Mass, the new catechism, and in the faith as a result of the post-conciliar liberal mindset.

On The Separation Of Church and Faith

The word “church” is described in the Catholic Doctrinal Guide of the Catholic Action edition of the Holy Bible (Imprimatur, 1953, Abbot Vincent Taylor) as the “kingdom of God on earth governed by the apostolic authority.” It states further that “Our Lord … chose St. Peter to be the head of the Apostles and gave him the power to rule the whole church … with subjects and superiors, and visible to the eyes of all ..”, hence the “visible” church. And finally “The church is, therefore, the union of man with Christ in a social form.”

The Council of Florence (1438-1443) stated “We also define that the Holy Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff hold the primacy over the whole world, and that the Roman Pontiff himself is the successor of Blessed Peter, truly the Vicar of Christ, head of the entire church …”

Here we have a definition of the Visible Church, the Pope, and of the relationship of the Pope to the Church. So is it possible to separate the church from the faith? The fact that the Society of St. Pius X is estranged from the hierarchy of the Catholic Church via an illicit suppression is the result of an action initiated and accomplished through the local Ordinary in 1974, aided by or perhaps even at the behest of a Vatican Cardinal. It was not an action sought by Archbishop Lefebvre, nor did he welcome nor celebrate it. On the contrary, he fought to correct it, for to be estranged from the hierarchy did not appeal to him. I dare say it much too readily appeals to many of us.

In this discussion, I am assuming that the doctrinal preamble eventually reaches a point where it is acceptable. I admit that it is not the case today and that an acceptable prelature arrangement is of little value without an understanding of how the SSPX will practice the faith and proselytize the faithless, including the hierarchy. I also believe that the current Superior General is not capable of agreeing to a compromise of the Catholic faith. If a regularization was all he sought, he could have joined the Fraternity years ago and would probably be the Cardinal in charge of Ecclesia Dei by now.

Can we separate the church from the faith ~ in other words, can we profess to desire to belong to the Roman Catholic faith and refuse to be part of the Visible Church, due to its propensity to modernism and the accompanying ills and heresies it engenders? The opinion of this humble blogger is “no”. If one accepts the definitions of the church as previously presented, one cannot adhere to the faith and reject the visible church , rife as it may be with corruptions. Mind you, it will always be required that the Society, and all faithful Catholics, call out the hierarchy, even up to the Vicar of Christ himself in matters of the corruption of the faith.

Unfortunately, what is happening is what we have denied for the past 40 years. That is, that we have developed a schismatic attitude. Those who will leave the SSPX over this, clergy and layman alike, will continue to swear that Benedict is the Pope. But the reality is that it is now sinful to be affiliated with the Pope. Let’s face it, we have not had a “boss” for 40 years to answer to. Life is so much easier just living in our chapels and practicing our faith as best we can. But there is and will always be something missing, as virtuous as those intentions are, and that is that we are separated from the ‘visible’ church. When that separation was the only way to practice the faith, then maintaining the faith was paramount. If one can practice his Roman Catholic faith and be joined to the visible church, it is imperative that this course be pursued.

I listened to an internet sermon commenting on the conditions that would have to be met for the SSPX to accept a regularization. The homilist centered on the unacceptability of the SSPX asking for “permission” to speak out against the error of the Council. How can one ignore the fact the entire Code of Canon Law (1917 and 1983) is predicated on granting permission to preach and offer the sacraments. The control of such faculties has been the object of Canon Law since the time of Pope St. Pius X. To the heart of the “permission” issue, though, I wonder what would present a more profound witness to the aim and goal of the SSPX in refuting the Conciliar errors: that Rome would agree to ‘tolerate’ criticism of the errors, or that the Pope gave his permission for the SSPX to be critical of the errors?

He also spoke of Archbishop Lefebvre’s famous speech on neo-modernist Rome, which was cited in the summary of the 2006 General Chapter of the SSPX. So many appear to know what the Archbishop would do today. It is easy to take snippets of sermons and make them into what serves us. What can we discern from his actions in regards to a regularization? The Archbishop attended the council and was aligned with a group of 200 traditional bishops who attempted to sway the discussions in favor of the traditional faith. To the best of our knowledge, none refused to sign the council documents. In 1984, Archbishop Lefebvre wrote “I Accuse the Council”. On May 5, 1988, he signed a Protocol which would have regularized the SSPX. At the time, he wrote to Cardinal Ratzinger “Eminence, Yesterday it was with real satisfaction that I put my signature on the Protocol drafted during the preceding days.” He did not, according to his own published correspondences, lament that the Rome of the 1986 Assisi scandal had not converted. He did not cite the heresy of many Bishops and the kissing of the Koran. There was no “Roman Conversion” demanded by the Archbishop. He did not put it up for a committee vote. Indeed, there were few protections for the Society against modernist Bishops. In fact, that is the reason, in the Archbishop’s own words why he changed his mind on the Protocol.

Subsequently, Archbishop Lefebvre recalled to a reporter “During the night between May 5 (when he signed the Protocol) and May 6 (1988), I said to myself:’ All this is impossible. I cannot accept (Cardinal) Ratzinger’s answer, which avoids fixing the date of the (Episcopal) ordination.’ “

Weighing into the fray, the senior SSPX bishop who was recently excluded from the General Chapter echoed similar remarks of those who apparently oppose an agreement with the Pope at any cost. His Excellency remarks that the fact that the conditions were leaked was ‘not unreasonable’ given how many souls are presently entrusting their faith and their salvation to the guidance of the SSPX. His Excellency surely understands that one of the most prominent anti-agreement YouTube homilists used the same reasoning last month in a fiery sermon to leak the ‘conditions’ which he was told by some priest who “really knew” were the final conditions of the agreement, which turned out to be untrue. So the danger in leaking anything that is not published is that it still has the potential to change or be an important point of counter-negotiation which can certainly be undone to the detriment of those same souls mentioned above.

His Excellency then wonders what has happened to the Society as he compares the Declaration of 2012 to Archbishop Lefebvre’s Declaration of 1974. I continue to wonder why His Excellency and all those of the same mindset in this regard hasten to hark all the way back to 1974 when they can much more easily compare it to the signing of the 1988 Protocol? The Archbishop’s opinion on Roman relations had an extra decade to ‘cure’ since the illegal suppression, through the sedevacantist ouster, his publication of “I Accuse The Council” in 1984, and finally the Assisi fiasco of 1986. This very same Archbishop Lefebvre, after the tumultuous times from the early 70’s to the late 80’s had at last decided that a Roman accord was going to be beneficial. The Archbishop tells us in his own words why he changed his mind and it was not about Rome repenting of and burning the Council documents.

‘Does the SSPX now think that the Conciliar Popes represent no serious problem?’, His Excellency now asks. One wonders at his agility to leap from here to there!

He closes by observing, somehow, that the demand made by the SSPX’s 2006 General Chapter for a doctrinal agreement prior to any practical agreement seems to have gone completely by the board. Once again, a bit puzzling since this lack of a doctrinal agreement was the very thing that caused the latest round to fall apart.

The sedevacantists seem very gleeful at all this and are licking their chops at the prospect of some potential “new Episcopal blood” in their ranks. The sedevacantist site that a while ago distanced itself from all things SSPX seems to have kissed and made up with His Excellency and now, once again, happily promotes his books and recorded conferences. There are even hints of a meeting this week in the Washington, D.C. area between His Excellency, some disaffected priests, and sponsoring laity. However, I don’t believe that His Excellency aspires to become a modern-day Pierre Thuc.

It would finally appear that the only acceptable situation for an SSPX-Rome agreement would be subsequent to a papal repudiation of the documents of Vatican II, abrogation of the Novus Ordo Missae, signing of the Oath Against Modernism by the Pope, Cardinals, and Bishops, the Consecration of Russia, The revealing of the Third and Fourth Secret, and the re-formation of all priests. If my analysis is too far-fetched, I would wonder what, if any of these items, the anti-agreement camp would be willing to omit as a condition. I personally would love to see this entire list enacted tomorrow. His Excellency and those in his camp are certainly most practical men, and as such, certainly understand that these conditions will not be met by the current hierarchy. And assuming that the successors of the current church leaders will come from the same hierarchy, it is unlikely that any of these conditions will happen within a generation (unless of course there were SSPX bishops and priests in the mix). So the underlying position of the “anti-“ camp must be that the SSPX will ever in the lifetime of the current priests and Bishops, be separated from the “visible church” and be excluded, at least, from that avenue of evangelization of it.

Archbishop Lefebvre died less than three years after tentatively signing an agreement with Rome with significantly less favorable conditions and protections than those being currently considered. If he was as totally against a regularization as some would have us believe, why must we always be reminded of what the Archbishop did and said prior to 1988? Surely, his most adamant criticisms against an agreement with Rome should come after he signed the Protocol, not before, since he clearly was ready to accept an agreement long after 1974, 1975, and 1986. If one were to continue to use the Archbishop as the posthumous anti-agreement standard-bearer, one should certainly rely primarily on his reasons for rejecting the penultimate agreement negotiated by the Archbishop and Rome in May of 1988. Those reasons are plainly documented in his published works.

Quo Vadis SSPX?

The Vatican continues to expose its intentions concerning the SSPX in an unabashed and frank manner.  Archbishop Di Noia and Bishop Muller have made no bones about their monumental task of converting the SSPX to conciliarism.

  

Archbishop Di Noia states “Nobody can deny that Karol Wojtyla’s pontificate marked a major shift in the theological understanding of Judaism within the Catholic Church.”  

I would counter that there is nothing about the theology of Judaism that has escaped the Catholic Church for the past 2000 years.  What the Wojtyla pontificate exposed was how that particular pope (mis)understood Judaism and the Old Covenant in contrast to how the church, as early as the Florentine Council taught.  Somehow, that misunderstanding has become de fide in the oxymoronic “living tradition” which modernists have created to justify conciliar clashes with the Deposit of Faith.

The Archbishop goes to state “Our difficulty with the SSPX is that they isolate passages of Vatican II documents from the context and main message of the Council. In Jewish terms, the error is similar to trying to interpret a Biblical passage without referring to the centuries of oral and written rabbinical commentaries on its meaning. The message becomes distorted and problematic … This is a new concept which we know the Traditionalists will not be able to accept .. convincing them will take time”

Apparently Roman Catholic terms are inadequate to describe how Vatican II documents support the traditional faith or the unspoken main message of the Council to the extent that it has now become necessary to explain it in Jewish terms.  I guess the analogy is lost on me since I am not a Jew.  I would ask my attorney but I just don’t know if I can trust his answer.  Most important here is that arduous job of “convincing” the SSPX.

Bishop Muller easily raises the small hairs on the back of one’s neck. He states “The Congregation (CDF) has the task of supporting the pope in his Magisterium. We must guide ourselves based on the emphases he makes in his pronouncements.”The obvious intent is that this pope owns a different Magisterium from his predecessors.  We should all be grateful for his candor – it is a great gift to us, so to speak.  Apparently, according to CathCon, the SSPX German District today called on Bishop Muller to make a statement on his controversial (read heretical) statements and correct his positions.  Torpedoes away!

He goes on to say “[The] Second Vatican Council was a wonderful event, albeit from a somewhat different type than some previous councils. It was its legitimate intention to respond not only to certain errors and correct them, but to provide an overall view of the Catholic faith. It was not so much concerned with individual elements, but with the big picture..”This is from the man now in charge of the congregation protecting the faith and bringing the SSPX into regularity.

So day by day it appears that we get more discouraging news both internally from SSPX via sermons that equate ANY attempt at reconciliation as a doomsday deal with Satan or externally from those who will take new positions in the Vatican hierarchy and are challenged with bringing this obstinate problem child into compliance.

The prelature is apparently a done deal and even has an official title.  Aside from the requirement to get diocesan permission to open new missions, it apparently contains none of the other alleged bogeymen of closing three year old chapels or turning over deeds to properties.  The former requirement, if true, is not insignificant.  But it is also not insurmountable.  The SSPX, in my experience, has been the opposite of weak-kneed lukewarm prelates.  If they were to call me up (which they have never done to date) and ask my opinion on what to do about a non-cooperative bishop, I would say, do it anyway.  The bishop would have to take the Society to (Roman) court.  That might take a few years and expose some troublesome bishops.  I would bet they wouldn’t much like the publicity.  Can you conceive of a creditable response to “Excellency, why would you deny a chapel to a stable group of faithful “attached” to the E.F. when you do not have to pay for the chapel nor provide a priest to support it?”

So, if the prelature is not an insurmountable problem, that would leave the preamble which apparently has some old language reinserted, most likely concerning the SSPX ‘treatment’ of the Novus Ordo.  The SSPX has held that the Mass of Paul VI contains a valid Consecration assuming the matter, form, and intent are in tact.  Since it has been promulgated by a valid Pope, we usually do not argue whether it is licit as it does not conflict with canon law and the sole arbiter of canon law is the pope.  What about its legitimacy? There are those that will argue this point but this term does not enjoy the precise definition that ‘valid’ and ‘licit’ do.  Is the Novus Ordo intrinsically evil?  The confection of the Blessed Sacrament is not evil although it may certainly be abused for evil purposes.  The intent behind the construction of the Novus Ordo may be intrinsically evil if it was intended and designed to conform or deform the Catholic belief in the True Presence to the heretical views of Luther and Calvin.  If it is allowed to continue with the intent of achieving the same goals, then its toleration is intrinsically evil.

Then, Quo Vadis, SSPX?  What shall we do?  Do we shun the pope and the visible church in fear that we will not be able to withstand the conversion they are planning?

Will we likely draw more adherents to the True Faith as a regularized and militant defender of the faith both from within and from without the church?  Are we more effective challenging the likes of Bishop Muller as part of the Visible Church or as an outsider looking in?

Conversely, if we avoid regularity at any cost and are declared “schismatic” by the pope, will more non-traditional Catholics or converts be attracted to us?  In essence, what path benefits our missionary charism assuming we would never compromise on an article of the faith?

Bishop Fellay's Actions

by G. Gilbert

June 27, 2012

I see this matter [of the discussions with the Pope and the CDF] as Bishop Fellay simply trying to do the right thing by manifesting his loyalty to the Pope in practice and not merely in theory.

There is absolutely no incontrovertible evidence (and conspiracy theories by anonymous authors do not constitute evidence) to suggest: (1) Bp. Fellay's intentions are anything less than honorable and in accordance with what is and should be expected of a truly Catholic bishop; or (2) that he is looking at this problem set in a wilfully negligent manner.

Absolutely none.

Moreover, there is absolutely no evidence to support the theory that Bishop Fellay is acting out of self-interest or out of personal ambition. Bp. Fellay, like his brother bishops, has spent his entire adult life fighting for Catholic truth as a pariah, and who, in my opinion, deserves the benefit of the doubt and the respect of those of us who consider ourselves "friends and benefactors" of the SSPX.

However, there is evidence to suggest that Bp. Williamson and certain individuals close to him have willfully undermined Bp. Fellay's leadership.  (See: http://angelqueen.org/2012/06/26/what-we-know-about-the-sspx-leakers/)

Furthermore, as much as I admire and respect Bp. Williamson (and I do so sincerely, as I have had the honor to have been confirmed by him, as did my wife), using a military analogy (and I do so because the Church is a hierarchy just as is the military, therefore I think the analogy holds), Bp. Williamson's actions -- over time, and cumulatively -- are essentially insubordinate as they pertain to Bp. Fellay's position as Superior General of the SSPX, and especially now as he treats with Rome.

This would not be as big a deal as it is right now, if we were simply talking about two bishops, each with no expectation of loyalty and/or obedience to the other, voicing their opinions on matters not affecting anyone else but themselves.  (As many of you with military experience know, brother bishops, just as brother officers, can disagree on matters of policy up to the point where the commanding officer makes a decision.  At that point, it is time to close ranks, keep your opinions to yourself, get behind the boss, and carry out the plan of the day.)

But, that's not what we're talking about: Bp. Fellay is Bp. Williamson's superior general; his, "commanding general", so to speak.  Bp. Fellay has, in so many words, ordered Bp. Williamson to keep his opinions regarding this matter to himself... and Bp. Williamson has refused to do so.  And Bp. Williamson's "disobedience to lawful orders" is having obviously severe consequences not only on the Society's relationship with the Church as a whole, but internally to the Society itself.

And, for this to happen right now -- right at the very moment that the Society is on the verge of bringing the "fight" to "Rome" from "within the walls" -- is, in my opinion a shameful disgrace.  It makes the SSPX look like a laughing stock.  It is "conduct unbecoming" an "officer" of the Church.  It shows a lack of discipline, a lack of respect for authority, a lack of a practical understanding of hierarchy, a lack of unity.

In short, it is a repudiation of all of the values that the Society has claimed to defend these past 40 or so years.  For, Catholic tradition doesn't support the principle of rebellion against legitimate authority.  Yet, that is precisely what is occurring right now.  Although, I suspect that those who are against the Society's negotiations with Rome are now calling into question Bp. Fellay's legitimacy.

Without clear and incontrovertable evidence, I do not.  There is no reason to believe that Bp. Fellay's episcopate is illegitimate or that his intentions are evil... unless you want to call into question everything the SSPX has done since Abp. Lefebvre consecrated his successors against the will of the Holy Father.  Because that is where this line of thinking leads, inevitably.

I am also reasonably certain that those who support the scuttling of the current negotiations with Rome see themselves as defending Catholic tradition.

I do not.

As I peruse the anarchnet looking for more information concerning these talks, I cannot help but notice that those who are against these negotiations are inching further and further towards a de facto sedevacantist mentality or sedevacantist sympathies, regardless of their protestations to the contrary.

I think this is a negative development.

Perhaps this is much ado about nothing.  Perhaps, as is often the case, we are only seeing a part of the situation, being as we are merely laymen with no true inside knowledge of what is really going on.  Perhaps, and I hope that is the case.  I want to be wrong.

But, viewing this from the outside looking in, from the perspective of a career infantry officer who has experience actually leading men in, shall we say, "very difficult circumstances" (e.g., people trying to kill you), this whole episode -- to me -- is disgusting.

In Christo per Mariam,

Müller back in the running according to La Stampa.

Last month (May 2012), according to Cathcon's blog, Gerhard Müller, Bishop of Regensburg, was out of the running to replace Cardinal Levada at the CDF.  Among the speculated reasons is his past hostility to the SSPX.

Today, Andrea Tornielli reports in La Stampa that the Pope is likely to choose the 64 year old Bishop of Regensburg, Gerhard Ludwig Müller, for the post of Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith., unless there are any last minute surprises.

This is the same Bishop who scoffs at the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Virgin, believes that it is problematic to refer to the Blessed Sacrament as the "body and blood" of Christ, and believes that Adam's father was a monkey. 

Can you imagine the productive meetings the Society will have with him in his role as the new head of the CDF? How does one discuss ecumenism and religious liberty with a Cardinal who believes that Adam was begotten by an orangutan?  How is it that this Primate will be appointed to defend the doctrine of the faith?

Will A Rejection of the Regularization Initiate a Slip into Sedevacantism?

It appears possible that something changed with the response of the Pope to the SSPX and the long meeting that Bishop Fellay had with Cardinal Levada before leaving Rome a few weeks ago.  Cardinal Levada will soon be leaving his post. Perhaps he had some off-the-record advice for Bishop Fellay in the event that part of the communication from the Pope contained a new “poison pill”, so to speak.  What may be surprising would be the revelation that the new difficulty does not have as much to do with the preamble as it does with the prelature.  Indeed, as much as leaks are to be trusted, parts of the preamble have appeared on the internet in the last few days and, truth be told, they seem to favor the perspective of the Society, allowing for a wider berth of criticism of the council and its aftermath.

So, not knowing much more than almost nothing, I would speculate that an unacceptable “something” has been demanded by the Pope (the curia, more likely) and perhaps has found its way into either the prelature, or the “ground rules” for the lack of a better term.  What might this something be?  Here is my short list.

1)      Most, if not all SSPX priests and seminarians will tell you that the New Mass is ‘intrinsically evil’.  That is based on the fact that it was created specifically to refocus the Mass from the unbloody sacrifice with Christ as the oblation, to a re-enactment of the Pascal meal.  To Protestantize it, as we say. All of the changes, some small and some wholesale were introduced, not to give greater glory to God, but to mimic the Calvin, Lutheran, and Anglican services.  Even the smallest addition to the words of sacramental institution  “ .. which will be given up for you.” turn the formulaic “Hoc est enim Corpus Meum” into the biblical commemorational narrative favored by Luther.  So what if one of the conditions is to publically accept the Novus Ordo on a somewhat equal plane as the Tridentiine Mass?

2)      If the diocesan bishop has the power to order an SSPX chapel closed, for any reason, what recourse would the Society have to fight or prevent that from happening?

3)      How ironclad can any agreement be?  Pope Benedict is 85 years old.  Of the ten oldest Popes in history, he is as old as seven of them. Only one lived to be pope past 90 and that was Leo XIII who reigned a few months past his 93^rd birthday. It is very likely that there will be a different pope in 5 years and with a different pope, pretty much everything will be on the table once again.  While Traditional Catholicism appears to be growing, especially among the young, five years will not be nearly enough time to clean out the malevolence towards it in the curia and the episcopacy.  According to an article in La Stampa last week, the bishops who head the Congregation for Evangelization bemoan their own sluggish progress and believe that the church needs to listen to and more adapt to what people want from the church.  It is evident that the clueless pilots of that ship are headed straight for the iceberg.

4)      It should also be evident by now who the SSPX Superior General’s boss will be.  Maybe it will be the new head of the CDF?  That could make one nervous.

Bishop Fellay has decided, it would seem, to lay his fortunes before the District Superiors, Bishops, and elder priests who are invited to the July meeting.  He has indicated to Rome that the response will come after that.  Perhaps whatever has changed is not bad at all, but rather a concessional change that completely favors the SSPX and might even be begrudging palatable to Bishop Williamson.  In that case, Bishop Fellay might feel that he can bring back a goodly amount of support from the meeting.

More likely, the change is something that Bishop Fellay cannot in conscious agree to.  He is therefore bringing it to the meeting to demonstrate that most of the priests would not be able to abide by the new condition, whatever that may be.  Such an agreement would serve no one.

Another possibility is that the July meeting could ask for Bishop Fellay’s resignation as the Superior General in favor, perhaps, of Bishop Tissier de Mallerais.  If that were the case, I would expect that priests are privately communicating their support to him in advance of the meeting.  At that point, the deal would be dead – if it already isn’t. And I am thinking that it already is.  If it is, it should become evident that the blame will equally go to those within and without the Society.

And then finally, what will be left?  I truly believe that it will break the pope’s heart to declare the SSPX to be in formal schism.  If Bishop Tissier takes over, it will happen. The pope will not declare it personally. It will come with certain delight from some Congregation of Declaring Schisms.  If and when a formal schism is declared, the SSPX will be on its way to sedevacantism.  If perhaps the pope was succeeded by say Cardinal Ranjith, maybe the situation would change.  But the bitterness associated with praying for a pope not interested in restoring the faith would soon make the sede position more palatable. And the leisure of not having a hierarchy to report to will become more comfortable.  The SSPX will freely consecrate more bishops at that point.

Most of  the laity will go along – there is no other readily available choice.  The peaceful resolution of sedevacantism will slowly be accepted in at least a material sense.  

I pray that it does not happen this way because I have a hard time reconciling the fact that the visible church and the pope has transitioned to the false church and now the invisible church is the remnant. I’m sure I’ll have friends that will try and help me understand that.