Dear faithful,I do hope that there is a satisfactory solution and I am encouraged by the far-sighted attitude of Fr Schmidberger that a solution would strengthen all the orthodox forces in the Church.
On 16 March in Rome Cardinal Levada, Prefect of the Congregation, gave the Superior General of our Fraternity, Bishop Fellay a letter with statements in which we are asked ultimately to react more positively to the doctrinal preamble of September the 14th then we had done so far.
As a final deadline for a response is given the 15th of April 2012. Surely you have heard this already wholly or partially from the media. We have thus arrived at a crucial point.
Even if the letter strikes an unpleasant sound, there are legitimate hopes for a satisfactory solution. If this solution would be reached it would considerably strengthen all the orthodox forces in the church. If not it would weaken and discourage these forces. So it is not primarily about our brotherhood, but for the good of the Church.
Therefore we ask for the eager, insistent and imploring prayer of all our faithful and all Catholics, that God through the redemptive suffering of His only begotten Son, will lead His Church through this crisis and give her in the Holy Resurrection of Jesus life new strength and new prosperity.
Stuttgart, 22 March 2012
Father Franz Schmidberger, District Superior
Tonight in my parish we have a Missa Cantata for the feast of the Annunciation. The intentions of the Society, and of a successful resolution, we be included in the memento for the living.
5 comments:
Thank you, Father.
I might also point out that Fr Schmidberger is no ordinary district superior; he was also Archbishop Lefebvre's successor as superior general of the Fraternity of St Pius X for 12 years from 1982 to 1994. He is a mild and modest man but widely respected inside and outside the Fraternity. His statement here is absolutely unambiguous - it's clear he believes this reconciliation has to go ahead now. While I would love to see all modernist errors condemned solemnly by the Pope and the restoration of the Catholic Faith in its integrity, I know this may take a long time, and in the meantime I think a regularization of the Fraternity would be a real source of renewal in the Church.
And don't forget the Society's Rosary Crusade that is finishing at Penetcost:
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.co.uk/2011/04/for-record-new-sspx-rosary-crusade.html
The General House of the Society has asked for people to redouble their prayers and offer a Communion for this intention:
http://www.dici.org/en/news/communique-from-the-general-house-of-the-society-of-saint-pius-x/
The SSPX of Archbishop Lefebvre has been 'sanitized'; looking back five years on statements made then and the silence on those same subjects now, including the 'House arrest'of the one vocal Bishop attest to the fact Bishop Fellay and his Office Help are willing to stand in the Smoke of Satan.
Anything to be the Hero.
Here are the current remarks of Bishop Williamson:
The desire of certain priests within the Society of St Pius X to seek a practical agreement with the Church authorities without a doctrinal agreement seems to be a recurring temptation. For years Bishop Fellay as the Society’s Superior General has refused the idea, but when he said in Winona on February 2 that Rome is willing to accept the Society as is, and that it is ready to satisfy “all the Society’s requirements...on the practical level”, it does look as though Rome is holding out the same temptation once more.
However, the latest news from Rome will be known to many of you: unless the Vatican is playing games with the SSPX, it announced last Friday, March 16, that it found Bishop Fellay’s January reply to its Doctrinal Preamble of September 14 of last year “not sufficient to overcome the doctrinal problems which lie at the foundation of the rift between the Holy See and the SSPX.” And the Vatican gave the SSPX one month in which to “clarify its position” and avoid “a rupture of painful and incalculable consequences.”
But what if Rome were suddenly to cease requiring acceptance of the Council and the New Mass ? What if Rome were suddenly to say, “Alright. We have thought about it. Come back into the Church as you ask. We will give you freedom to criticize the Council as much as you like, and freedom to celebrate the Tridentine Mass exclusively. But do come in !” It might be a very cunning move on the part of Rome, because how could the Society refuse such an offer without seeming inconsistent and downright ungrateful ? Yet on pain of survival it would have to refuse. On pain of survival ? Strong words. But here is a commentary of Archbishop Lefebvre on the matter.
On May 5, 1988, he signed with then Cardinal Ratzinger the protocol (provisional draft) of a practical Rome-Society agreement. On May 6 he took back his (provisional) signature. On June 13 he said, “With the May 5 Protocol we would soon have been dead. We would not have lasted a year. As of now the Society is united, but with that Protocol we would have had to make contacts with them, there would have been division within the Society, everything would have been a cause of division” (emphasis added). “New vocations might have flowed our way because we were united with Rome, but such vocations would have tolerated no disagreement with Rome which means division. As it is, vocations sift themselves before they reach us” (which is still true in Society seminaries).
And why such division ? (Warring vocations would be merely one example amongst countless others). Clearly, because the May 5 Protocol would have meant a practical agreement resting upon a radical doctrinal disagreement between the religion of God and the religion of man. The Archbishop went on to say, “They are pulling us over to the Council...whereas on our side we are saving the Society and Tradition by carefully keeping our distance from them” (emphasis added). Then why did the Archbishop seek such an agreement in the first place ? He continued, “We made an honest effort to keep Tradition going within the official Church. It turned out to be impossible. They have not changed, except for the worse.”
And have they changed since 1988 ? Many would think, only for yet worse.
*
Tuesday, April 3, 2012
Fr.James Martin S.J does not say the popes, the Bible and Jesus were anti-Semitic
Fr. James Martin, SJ in The Anti-Semitism of the Society of St.Pius X (Jan 31, 2009 America ) asks why would the pope move to lift the ban on a group that has as its raison d’etre the rejection of the Second Vatican Council which is an ecclesial-theological issue. He says this is a rejection of the documents of the Second Vatican Council, which includes a rejection of Nostra Aetate.
I think the SSPX in reality does not reject Vatican Council II according to the texts of the Council.Nostra Aetate 4 says the Church is' the new people of God'. While Ad Gentes 7 states all need Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation. This includes Jews.
Is Vatican Council II now anti Semitic for this Jesuit priest ?
SSPX is affirming Nostra Aetate 4 and Ad Gentes 7 even though they say they reject Vatican Council II. They reject Vatican Council II as interpreted by the Jewish Left.
Fr.Martin is really saying the SSPX rejects the documents of the Council, which includes Nostra Aetate, as interpreted by the Jewish Left.
There is no text in Nostra Aetate which says Jews do not have to convert or that Jews are saved in general in their religion.That Catholics should have good relations with the Jews and others was taught to us by Jesus and it is explained in the Bible long before Vatican Council II.
So from the ecclesial-theological view the SSPX are in accord with Vatican Council II
Regarding other points against the SSPX, as being anti Semitic,some of the quotations are those of the popes. Other information comes from the Bible.
Fr.Martin does not say that the popes, the Bible and Jesus were anti-Semitic.
-Lionel Andrades
http://www.americamagazine.org/blog/entry.cfm?blog_id=2&id=2D6AFB07-1438-5036-4F1C9D841C32199D
Post a Comment