Latest topics
» Polish traditionalists handicapped : Archbishop Lefebvre made a mistake
Wed Nov 15, 2017 8:20 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Communities of Fr.Leonard Feeney in the USA when they interpret Vatican Council II with the irrational premise deny the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus
Wed Nov 15, 2017 5:18 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Bishop Robert J.McManus and Brother Thomas Augustine MICM,Superior,St.Benedict Center,Still River,MA, interpret Vatican Council II with the 'possibilites are exceptions' error
Mon Nov 06, 2017 8:47 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» SSPX must be aware of the deception of Abp.Guido Pozzo and confront it
Tue Oct 31, 2017 11:57 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Two popes must ask all Catholics to affirm Vatican Council II (premise-free) as they do
Mon Oct 30, 2017 5:16 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary Still River Ma., could lose canomical status because of Feeneyism
Sat Oct 28, 2017 5:54 am by Lionel L. Andrades

»  Traditionalists oppose Pope Francis on morals but give him a pass on salvation
Fri Oct 27, 2017 10:06 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Someone needs to help Cardinal Luiz Ladaria, Archbishop Pozzo and Archbishop Di Noia see how they use a false premise to interpret Vatican Council II
Tue Oct 24, 2017 2:53 pm by Lionel L. Andrades

» Robert Siscoe and John of St. Thomas Respond to Fr. Cekada
Mon Oct 23, 2017 9:25 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Still no denial from Abp.Guido Pozzo : SSPX must accept Vatican Council II with a false doctrine and the new theology based on an irrational premise Image result for Photo of Archbishop Guido Pozzo
Mon Oct 23, 2017 7:03 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Five Catholic academics accept the development of doctrine on salvation and Vatican Council II but reject it on morals and the death penalty
Sun Oct 22, 2017 5:32 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Dr.Robert Fastiggi wants Bishop Donald Sanborn and Chris Ferrara to affirm a magisterium in heresy and schism like him
Sun Oct 22, 2017 5:30 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» ]Christine Niles uses the false premise to interpret magisterial documents
Sat Oct 21, 2017 5:30 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» SSPX has a right to canonical status when they correct their doctrinal error in the 'chart'
Fri Oct 20, 2017 6:25 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» No one shows Massimo Faggioli his precise theological and philosophical mistake
Fri Oct 20, 2017 6:07 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Rethink "Feeneyism"?
Fri Aug 11, 2017 6:02 pm by tornpage

» Brother Andre Marie MICM, the Prior at the St. Benedict Center does not correct Frs.Brian Harrison and Cekada,Bishops Sanborn,Pirvanus,Kelly and Fellay
Wed Jun 28, 2017 4:24 pm by MRyan

» Revisiting Diocese/Parish Screening Policy
Wed Jun 28, 2017 4:03 pm by MRyan

» When sedes and trads can accept that Pius XII made a mistake then popes since John XXIII are no more in heresy
Wed Jun 28, 2017 3:08 pm by MRyan

» Doctrinal talks were conducted with Fr.Gleize on 'the other side'
Mon Jun 26, 2017 9:08 am by Lionel L. Andrades

Lefebvrians await “yes” answer from Pope

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Lefebvrians await “yes” answer from Pope

Post  MRyan on Tue May 08, 2012 7:52 pm

Lefebvrians await “yes” answer from Pope

The process for the Society of St. Pius X’s return to full communion with Rome is expected to be concluded by the end of May

andrea tornielli
vatican city


Even more important, is the editorial of another historical member of the Fraternity, Fr. Michele Simoulin, which was published in the May issue of the Seignadou bulletin published by the Saint-Joseph-des-Carmes priory. Fr. Simoulin also talks about the agreement reached between Lefebvre and Ratzinger in 1988, explaining that the version of the doctrinal preamble presented at the time was not the reason for the split; the real reason was a more practical one. Indeed, Lefebvre did not trust the Vatican’s reassurance regarding the possibility of consecrating a bishop as his successor: “The reason has nothing to do with doctrine or the statute presented to the Fraternity,” Fr. Simoulin wrote. “The reason why the process came to a halt was to do with the date of consecration of the conceded bishop.”

About the objections among Lefebvrians who do not want an agreement with Rome, Fr. Simoulin recalled that when Ratzinger “became Pope he told us that the Tridentine mass has never been abrogated (7 July 2007: “Hence it is licit to celebrate the Sacrifice of the Mass in accordance with the typical edition of the Roman Missal promulgated by Blessed John XXIII in 1962 and never abrogated”); he reinstated our four bishops (21January 2009); he allowed us to hold doctrinal discussions for two years, things which Mgr. Lefebvre did not demand back in 1988.

It would not be an exaggeration to say that Mgr. Fellay obtained more than what Mgr. Lefebvre had asked for, despite not having the status or moral authority to do so. So should we demand more of Mgr. Lefebvre and Mgr. Fellay?” Simoulin concluded stressing that today’s situation is different from what it was in 1975 and 1988 and those who claim the opposite do so because they reject “any form of reconciliation with Rome” perhaps showing “alack of faith in the sanctity of the Church.” “The Society of St. Pius X is not the Church and cannot respect the legacy of its founder who by conserving its spirit shows his love for the Church and his wish to serve it as a loving son.”

Reading over the doctrinal part of the “protocol of accord” signed by Lefebvre on 5 May 1988, is useful in understanding part of the content of the doctrinal preamble frequently discussed in recent months. The content of this preamble has remained confidential because of the potential need for modifications or alterations to the expressions used within it – changes which were foreseen from the start. The founder of the Fraternity promised loyalty to the Pope, stating that he “accepted the doctrine on the ecclesiastical magisterium contained in point no. 25 of the dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium of the Second Vatican Council and adherence to it.” In relation to the dissent on certain conciliar passages, he stated:

“In relation to certain points that are taught by the Second Vatican Council or that relate to later reforms of the liturgy and the law which do not appear to us easily reconcilable with tradition, we are making efforts to adopt a positive attitude and to communicate with the Apostolic See, a voiding any controversy.”

Lefebvre also stated that he “recognise[d] the validity of the sacrifice of the mass and the sacraments celebrated with the aim of following what the Church does, according to the rites described in the typical editions of the Roman missal and the rituals for the sacraments promulgated by Popes Paul VI and John Paul II.” Finally, he promised “to respect the Church’s common discipline and ecclesiastical laws.”

As was also the case in 1988, the agreement reached with then cardinal Joseph Ratzinger set down in black and white that there were “certain points” which Lefebvrians considered as not “easily reconcilable with tradition”. But this dissent should not have prevented full communion. Forty four years ago, events took a different path: a schism formed and there were some excommunications. Now, almost a quarter of a century later, this wound could finally be healed.

Posts : 2276
Reputation : 2448
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum