Eleison Comments Number CCLXII
#1
Number CCLXII (262)

21 July 2012
RESISTANCE UNDERMINED
The good news from the General Chapter of the Society of St Pius X which closed on Saturday is that the SSPX, led to the brink of suicide, has been given a reprieve by the Chapter. However, if the following words, spoken in an interview broadcast worldwide, are any indication of the mind of the leaders still in place for another six years, prayers must still go up for the reprieve to last. Here are the words (which may or may not still be accessible on the Internet -- see Catholic News Service):--

“Many people have an understanding of the Council (Vatican II) which is a wrong understanding, and now we have people in Rome who say it. We may say, in the Discussions (between Rome and the Society of St Pius X, from 2009 to 2011), I think, we see that many things which we (in the SSPX) would have condemned as coming from the Council are in fact not from the Council, but from the common understanding of it.”

To comment, we must go back to Vatican II. Containing both truth and error, its 16 documents are profoundly ambiguous and contradictory. Following Archbishop Lefebvre, the SSPX has never said that the documents contain no truth, but it has always accused them of containing serious errors, for instance the doctrine that the State has no right to repress non-Catholic religions. Conciliar Rome has always defended the documents, for instance by referring to the opposite truths contained in them, such as that every man must in matters religious find out and profess the truth. But the truths have never been the problem. The problem is the error and the contradiction. For instance, if a mass of individuals, such as the State, may be neutral in religion, why should the single individual not be ? The contradiction opens the door wide to the liberation of man from God - liberalism.

The Doctrinal Discussions of 2009 to 2011 were set up to examine the doctrinal clash between the Romans’ Conciliar subjectivism and the SSPX’s Catholic objectivism. They showed, of course, that the clash is profound and irreconcilable, not between Conciliar truth and Catholic truth, but between Conciliar error and Catholic truth, in effect between the religion of man and the religion of God.

Now comes the speaker to state that the “people in Rome” are right, and that “we” are wrong, i.e. the SSPX, because “many things” the SSPX has constantly condemned as coming from the Council come only from a “common understanding” of the Council. In other words, the Archbishop and his Society were wrong from the beginning to accuse the Council, and accordingly to resist Conciliar Rome. It follows that the episcopal consecrations of 1988 must have been an unnecessary decision, because Conciliar bishops could have been trusted to look after Catholic Tradition. Yet the Archbishop called those consecrations “Operation Survival”, and he called trusting Conciliar Rome “Operation Suicide”.

Today the speaker - consistently with his words quoted above - is certainly favouring a Rome-SSPX agreement. Moreover he is quoted as suggesting in Austria two months ago that this agreement would entrust Conciliar Rome with choosing the SSPX’s future bishops. Then unless Rome has stopped being Conciliar since the Archbishop’s day, and all the evidence cries out against such an illusion, the Archbishop would have said that the speaker was promoting “Operation Suicide” of the SSPX - unless the speaker has since disowned these words.

Kyrie eleison.
Reply
#2
(07-21-2012, 03:37 PM)+Williamson Wrote: “Many people have an understanding of the Council (Vatican II) which is a wrong understanding, and now we have people in Rome who say it. We may say, in the Discussions (between Rome and the Society of St Pius X, from 2009 to 2011), I think, we see that many things which we (in the SSPX) would have condemned as coming from the Council are in fact not from the Council, but from the common understanding of it.”

This is a pretty ridiculous thing for the SSPX to say.

Another good  Eleison Comments.
Reply
#3
I found this very interesting:
Bishop Williamson Wrote:To comment, we must go back to Vatican II. Containing both truth and error, its 16 documents are profoundly ambiguous and contradictory. Following Archbishop Lefebvre, the SSPX has never said that the documents contain no truth, but it has always accused them of containing serious errors, for instance the doctrine that the State has no right to repress non-Catholic religions. Conciliar Rome has always defended the documents, for instance by referring to the opposite truths contained in them, such as that every man must in matters religious find out and profess the truth. But the truths have never been the problem. The problem is the error and the contradiction. For instance, if a mass of individuals, such as the State, may be neutral in religion, why should the single individual not be ? The contradiction opens the door wide to the liberation of man from God - liberalism.

Bishop Fellay also said this about Dignitatis Humanae:
Quote:[Religious liberty] is used in so many ways. And looking closer, I really have the impression that not many know what really the Council says about it. The Council is presenting a religious liberty which, in fact, is a very, very limited one: very limited!

Just eight years ago, Bishop Fellay said this:
Mons. Fellay, Kansas City, MO. November 10, 2004 Wrote:So, things are absolutely not ripe for an agreement. We must first help correct Rome's thinking to show them that what they do is wrong. On the Society's part regarding ecumenism, it seems Cardinal Ratzinger has said to somebody, "But how do you want us to attack Bishop Fellay? He only quotes the Councils!" For all our defense we rely on what the Church has always taught, so we are unbeatable on that level, because it is not we, it is the Church. What we say and what we present in Rome is only what the Church has always taught! It is reminiscent of what Archbishop Lefebvre said to Pope Paul VI: "We have a big problem. All the popes before you, all the popes of the last century-in Quas Primas, Quanta Cura-have said there is no religious liberty or have taught it only in a very specific way, which is the liberty of the only true religion. Now you are saying the contrary. So whom are we to obey?
Reply
#4
Archbishop Lefebvre to Paul VI Wrote:We have a big problem. All the popes before you, all the popes of the last century-in Quas Primas, Quanta Cura-have said there is no religious liberty or have taught it only in a very specific way, which is the liberty of the only true religion. Now you are saying the contrary. So whom are we to obey?

Why didn't anyone in the Vatican refer the SSPX to any of the attempts to reconcile D.H. (e.g. Harrison)?
Reply
#5
:pray:


C.
Reply
#6
It's remarkable that Bishop Williamson has not been kicked out of the SSPX yet.  I don't know if Bishop Fellay is being patient or imprudent.

Bishop Williamson does not want to allow conciliarists to come to a Traditional understanding of Catholic doctrine.  He has interpreted an ambiguous Council for himself in the most modernist way possible, just like the modernists.  He insists that that must be the correct interpretation. 
Reply
#7
(07-21-2012, 04:43 PM)Crusader_Philly Wrote:
Archbishop Lefebvre to Paul VI Wrote:We have a big problem. All the popes before you, all the popes of the last century-in Quas Primas, Quanta Cura-have said there is no religious liberty or have taught it only in a very specific way, which is the liberty of the only true religion. Now you are saying the contrary. So whom are we to obey?

Why didn't anyone in the Vatican refer the SSPX to any of the attempts to reconcile D.H. (e.g. Harrison)?

For those of us who are less informed, can you tell us to whom you are referring when you say D.H., or mention Harrison?
Reply
#8
D.H. refers to Dignitatis Humanae. Harrison refers to the Rev. Dr. Brian Harrison's assertion that Dignitatis Humanae is not a break with Tradition (Quanta Cura, Mirari Vos, Syllabus),  against what the SSPX and other traditionalists say.
Reply
#9
(07-21-2012, 06:22 PM)Crusader_Philly Wrote: D.H. refers to Dignitatis Humanae. Harrison refers to the Rev. Dr. Brian Harrison's assertion that Dignitatis Humanae is not a break with Tradition (Quanta Cura, Mirari Vos, Syllabus),  against what the SSPX and other traditionalists say.

Oh, okay.  I assumed you meant Fr. Harrison (he's a friend of mine), but I wanted to be sure. :)
Reply
#10
Bishop Williamson Wrote:The problem is the error and the contradiction. For instance, if a mass of individuals, such as the State, may be neutral in religion, why should the single individual not be ? The contradiction opens the door wide to the liberation of man from God - liberalism.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with the overall point here, but this seems like a problematic argument. The state is not just a mass of individuals. If one were to take that route, it would seem that one would logically have to end up in anarchism. After all, if it would be immoral for an individual to force others to pay him for no reason, how can it be moral for a mass of individuals, the state, to do the same thing? When thinking about the state, I'm not sure that taking this sort of view is especially helpful.

Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)