FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Eleison Comments (Open reply to Mgr. Bux)
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2

OPEN REPLY TO OPEN LETTER OF MGR. NICOLA BUX (Emphasis in original)


Monseigneur,

In an Open Letter of March 19, addressed to Bishop Fellay and to all priests of the SSPX, you appealed to us to accept the sincere and warm-hearted offer of reconciliation that Pope Benedict XVI is making to the SSPX for the healing of the long-standing rift between Rome and the SSPX. Let one of the SSPX bishops take upon himself to give you what he thinks might have been the answer of that “great churchman”, Archbishop Lefebvre.

Your letter begins with an appeal for “every sacrifice in the name of unity”. But there can be no true Catholic unity that is not grounded in the true Catholic Faith. The great Archbishop made every sacrifice for unity in the true doctrine of the Faith. Alas, the Doctrinal Discussions of 2009-2011 proved that the doctrinal rift between the Rome of Vatican II and the SSPX is as wide as ever. But Faith sacrificed for unity would be a faithless unity.

Of course the Church is an institution both divine and human. Of course the divine element cannot fail, so of course the Church cannot ultimately fail, and the sun will rise again. But one may beg to differ when you say that the dawn is close at hand, because that true Faith which the SSPX upheld in the Discussions is not shining out from the Rome of Vatican II, where accordingly the SSPX could not be in safety. Nor could it bring light if itself it adopted the Conciliar darkness.

The sincerity of the Pope’s wish to welcome back the SSPX into “full ecclesial communion”, as shown in a series of gestures of real good will, is not in doubt, but “ a common profession of faith”  between the SSPX and believers in Vatican II is not possible, unless the SSPX were to desert that Faith which it defended in the Discussions. And when the SSPX cries “God forbid !” to such a desertion, far from its voice being stifled, it is heard all over the world.

Certainly, “this is the appropriate moment”, certainly “the favourable time is come” for that solution to the agonizing problems of Church and world which the heavenly Mother has long been calling for, and which depends upon the Holy Father alone. This clear solution has long been known.

How could Heaven possibly have left the world in such distress as that of the last 100 years without providing a solution like that provided by the prophet Elias for the leprosy of the Syrian General Namaan ? Humanly speaking, the solution seemed ridiculous, but nobody could say that it was not possible. It required merely some faith and humility. The pagan General gathered together enough faith and trust in the man of God to do what Heaven asked for, and of course he was cured instantaneously.

Let the Holy Father but gather together enough faith and trust in the promise of the Heavenly Mother! Let him but seize this “appropriate moment” before utter madmen succeed in launching the Third World War in the Middle East! Let him, we beg of him, we entreat him, save Church and world by merely doing what the Heavenly Mother asked for. It is not impossible. She would overcome all obstacles in his way. Certainly he alone can now save us from unimaginable and unnecessary suffering.

And if he wishes for any support in prayer or action with which the humble SSPX could help him to consecrate Russia to her Immaculate Heart in union with all the bishops of the world, whom the Heavenly Mother would rally, he knows that he could count first and foremost on the support of Bishop Fellay and the other three bishops of the SSPX, least among whom is

Your devoted servant in Christ,

+Richard Williamson.
What need be added?  Clarity from the bishop as always.  Thank God for bishop Williamson. 

I wonder if all of the people who went gooey from reading Msgr. Bux's letter will respond favorably to Bishop Williamson's reply that is based on thinking and not emotion. 
(03-22-2012, 07:30 PM)Gerard Wrote: [ -> ]What need be added?  Clarity from the bishop as always.  Thank God for bishop Williamson. 

I wonder if all of the people who went gooey from reading Msgr. Bux's letter will respond favorably to Bishop Williamson's reply that is based on thinking and not emotion. 


I completely agree with you.
(03-22-2012, 07:30 PM)Gerard Wrote: [ -> ]What need be added?  Clarity from the bishop as always.  Thank God for bishop Williamson. 

I wonder if all of the people who went gooey from reading Msgr. Bux's letter will respond favorably to Bishop Williamson's reply that is based on thinking and not emotion. 

I'm not even an "sspxer" and I agree with this. What use is any unity other than a true unity based on the Catholic Faith? Not to mention this whole "accept the Council and then you can criticize it" idea that the Vatican plays makes no sense to me. Once you've accepted it then what's left to criticize? Isn't the whole point that certain aspects of the Concilliar reforms (ecumenism, religious liberty, the New Mass) are unacceptable?
There might not be genuine theological unity between the Roman curia and the SSPX now. Nonetheless, if the SSPX genuinely trust in Christ's promise to the Church, then they must trust that God will take care of this crisis and that it will eventually be resolved. In the meantime they should go about the work of saving souls, preserving the faith, and promoting tradition.
In my opinion, at least nowadays (although not thirty years ago), they can do that far better within the canonical structures of the Church than outside of it. I also really don't see how the SSPX can even remotely expect to be able to be regularised without at least accepting VII as a legitimate Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church. The Church isn't going to roll-back VII and say 'oops, sorry, that legitimately convened council didn't actually happen.' It needs to be dealt with, and restrospectively corrected and fixed, but nonetheless the SSPX will have to at least accept 'yes, it's a legitimate council even if it was terrible and ambiguous and useless; and therefore it now needs to be interpreted in the light of tradition.' It seems to me that they just want the council gone and forgotten about it, and for the Vatican to make a big public statement saying "we were wrong, you guys were right, we're sorry", which simply wont happen. Will VII be forgotten about? Yes, eventually, just like all the other useless councils that no Catholic remembers nowadays. But the Church wont scrap it, at least not for a very long time until there is major ideological and theological shift amongst the Curia and the entire Catholic world, which could be generations away.

As far as I'm concerned 'interpreting VII in the light of tradition' means ignoring it. It adds nothing of positive value in its documents, so we can ignore them in the light of traditional teachings which are accurate, clear, and truthful. But the act of ignoring the teachings and documents of VII still involves acknowledging its validity as a real ecumenical council of the Church. There's no way anyone can deny that without ending up as a sedevacantist.
(03-22-2012, 08:44 PM)Raskolnikov Wrote: [ -> ]There might not be genuine theological unity between the Roman curia and the SSPX now. Nonetheless, if the SSPX genuinely trust in Christ's promise to the Church, then they must trust that God will take care of this crisis and that it will eventually be resolved.

In that case no amount of negotiating and human politics is going to save the Church. The SSPX should just continue doing what they've done since their founding; pray for Rome, preserve the Faith, and raise the voice of Tradition condemning errors wherever they are.

Quote:In my opinion, at least nowadays (although not thirty years ago), they can do that far better within the canonical structures of the Church than outside of it.

Their canonical regularity is being made conditional on their acceptance of religious liberty, ecumenism, and the New Mass. These things are not part of the deposit of Faith and as such the Holy Father has no business in promoting them let alone making them a prerequisite for normal standing within the Church.

Quote:I also really don't see how the SSPX can even remotely expect to be able to be regularised without at least accepting VII as a legitimate Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church. The Church isn't going to roll-back VII and say 'oops, sorry, that legitimately convened council didn't actually happen.' It needs to be dealt with, and restrospectively corrected and fixed, but nonetheless the SSPX will have to at least accept 'yes, it's a legitimate council even if it was terrible and ambiguous and useless; and therefore it now needs to be interpreted in the light of tradition.' It seems to me that they just want the council gone and forgotten about it, and for the Vatican to make a big public statement saying "we were wrong, you guys were right, we're sorry", which simply wont happen. Will VII be forgotten about? Yes, eventually, just like all the other useless councils that no Catholic remembers nowadays. But the Church wont scrap it, at least not for a very long time until there is major ideological and theological shift amongst the Curia and the entire Catholic world, which could be generations away.

As far as I'm aware they don't deny that it was a validly convened council. It was, however, fallible and pastoral in nature. It employs the typical modernist methodology of re-presenting, re-wording, and re-interpreting Catholic doctrines in order to change them or make them redundant. The Vatican has already defined what "in the light of Tradition" means, and it means as presented in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. There's nothing "traditional" about this. One cannot accept the Council and then go on to criticize it constructively. Once you've accepted it then how can you criticize it as unacceptable? But these novelties are unacceptable? At best we have a watered down presentation of the Faith (EENS, "subsists in", the New Mass) and practices always condemned by the Church (inter-religious prayer, giving communion to schismatics). How can they agree to accept this? At the end of the day the SSPX's position has already produced great fruits for the Church. The SSPX's insistence and rosary crusade acquired the Motu Proprio, the SSPX's insistence acquired the "lifting" of the excommunications, and it's the SSPX (not the FSSP or any other indult group) that are spearheading a discussion on the problems of Vatican II in the Church today - a discussion that extends far beyond the 500 priests and 1 million laity attached to the Society.

To accept Vatican II and the reforms as Catholic would essentially neutralise any meaningful resistance to and criticism of the massive apostasy from the Faith instigated by the Council.

The Archbishop already laid down the way out of this crisis in 1966 when he wrote to Cardinal Ottaviani

Quote:"The destruction of the Church is advancing at a rapid pace. By giving an exaggerated authority to the episcopal conferences, the Sovereign Pontiff has rendered himself powerless. What painful lessons in one single year! Yet the Successor of Peter and he alone can save the Church.

Let the Holy Father surround himself with strong defenders of the faith: let him appoint them to the important dioceses. Let him by documents of outstanding importance proclaim the truth, search out error without fear of contradictions, without fear of schisms, without fear of calling in question the pastoral dispositions of the Council.

Let the Holy Father deign: to encourage the bishops to correct faith and morals, each individually in his respective diocese as it behoves every good pastor to uphold the courageous bishops, to urge them to reform their seminaries and to restore them to the study of St. Thomas; to encourage Superiors General to maintain in novitiates and communities the fundamental principles of all Christian asceticism, and above all, obedience; to encourage the development of Catholic schools, a press informed by sound doctrine, associations of Christian families; and finally, to rebuke the instigators of errors and reduce them to silence. The Wednesday allocutions cannot replace encyclicals, decrees and letters to the bishops.

Doubtless I am reckless in expressing myself in this manner! But it is with ardent love that I compose these lines, love of God's glory, love of Jesus, love of Mary, of the Church, of the Successor of Peter, Bishop of Rome, Vicar of Jesus Christ.

May the Holy Ghost, to Whom our Congregation is dedicated, deign to come to the assistance of the Pastor of the Universal Church. May Your Eminence deign to accept the assurance of my most respectful devotion in Our Lord.

Marcel Lefebvre,"

Fidelity to Tradition and criticism of the Council is what is required here. Not a neutered SSPX where Tradition becomes a side chapel in the grand ecumenical cathedral of the post-Vatican II Church.

Great post, Aragon.
Thanks, Mith.
Interestingly enough the superior of the South American district of the Institute of the Good Shepherd made this comment on the original letter:

Quote:Mon. Nicola Bux calls Bishop Fellay:

"To the full ecclesial communion with the great family that is the Catholic Church, your voice will no longer be stifled, your contribution will be neither ignorable nor ignored, but will be able to bring forth, with that of so many others, abundant fruits which would otherwise go to waste".

I wish it were true all this beauty.
I’m aware of the good will of Bishop Bux, but the reality has been different, the reality is the opposite with the treatment given to the IBP by the bishops of Chile, especially in Santiago and its surroundings. They don’t tolerate the IBP, they even have denied his canonical existence.

The contempt and scorn, neglect and dispersion are used as modern forms of ecclesiastical persecution by that part of "the great Catholic family”, so, ”actions speak louder than words”. Is the "great sin" to celebrate the old rite exclusively and the commitment to collaborate with the Pope, as far as possible, in a vision of the Vatican Council II in the light of tradition.

source: http://z10.invisionfree.com/Ignis_Ardens...topic=9002
Bishop Williamson ammended his reply to make it even more clear and correct the reference from Elias to Elisha. 

But I've been stunned by the deliberate silence on the part of "Fr. Z" and some other sites that are supposedly interested in the SSPX "returning to full communion."

It seems they don't like to be in a situation where they will have to concede a point. 
Pages: 1 2