Rome’s Recent Treatment of the Good Shepherd Institute

I’m posting the following clips from an article, titled as above, in the Remnant Newspaper, published June 30, 2012. It’s an excellent article and a warning. It was authored by John Pfeiffer, Guest Columnist for the Remnant. I’m transcribing excerpts, so please excuse any typos.

(snip)Previously, in 2009, Fr. Philippe Laguerie, the Superior General of the Good Shepherd Institute, felt secure that Rome would not demand the Institute priests to offer the new mass. He said then, “Nothing and nobody can force our priests to celebrate the ordinary form of the Mass, not only since the Motu Propio, but also before. Our priests are bound by the law of obedience to celebrate the traditional Mass.”

In 2012, regarding the Mass, the Ecclesia Dei Commission told the Institute:

“The question of the practice of the extraordinary form [of the Mass], such as it is formulated by the [Institute’s] Bylaws, must be delineated in the spirit of [the 2007 motu propio] Summorum Pontificum. It would be suitable to simply define this form as the “rite proper” to the Institute without speaking of ‘exclusivity'”.

So the Ecclesia Dei Commission now says that the Institute can no longer say that it exclusively offers the traditional Mass. This seems to be in accord with what Pope Benedict XVI said in 2007:

“[I]n order to experience full communion, also the priests of the communities adhering to the former usage cannot, as a matter of principle, exclude celebrating according to the new books. The total exclusion of the new rite would not in fact be consistent with the recognition of its value and holiness.”

(snip)Their (ICK) Superior General stated that, “the Institute is also characterized by a true doctrinal freedom, with respect to the doctrines and authority of the Church”.

(snip)However, in 2012, the Ecclesia Dei Commission told the Institute that:

[T]he doctrinal formation should include a careful study of the [1992] Catechism of the Catholic Church…Rather than maintaining a critique of Vatican Council II, even a “serious and constructive” one, the efforts of your teachers must point out the transmission of the integrity of the patrimony of the Church, insisting on the hermeneutics of renewal in its continuity and using as support the integrity of Catholic doctrine expounded by the [1992] Catechism of the Catholic Church.

These developments regarding the Good Shepherd Institute are especially timely, in light of Bishop Fellay’s negotiations for the SSPX with Rome. In Fr. Laguerie’s 2009 interview with the Remnant, he made this comment regarding the SSPX making a (future) agreement with Rome:

The Institute of the Good Shepherd could be spoken of rather a “test”. The Society of Saint Pius X must know instinctively that it will be treated tomorrow as we are treated today.

www.remnantnewspaper.com/subscribe.htm

Facebook
Twitter
Google+
http://angelqueen.org/2012/07/13/romes-recent-treatment-of-the-good-shepherd-institute/
Get AQ Email Updates
AQ RSS Feed

4 comments on “Rome’s Recent Treatment of the Good Shepherd Institute

  1. Can anyone parse this sentence? Can anyone explain it?

    [T]he efforts of your teachers must point out the transmission of the integrity of the patrimony of the Church, insisting on the hermeneutics of renewal in its continuity and using as support the integrity of Catholic doctrine expounded by the [1992] Catechism of the Catholic Church.

    • It basically is saying teachers must point out that V2 is in continuity with traditional Catholic doctrine and must be understood in light of Catholic Tradition. The new Catechism should be used as a supporting document when teaching this.

  2. My 1992 CCC:

    2358 Homos are born that way.

    591 The Sanhedrin’s murder of Our Lord was a “tragic misunderstanding.”
    You see, God incarnate failed to provide sufficient proof of His Identity to the leaders of His Nation. By the hermeneutics of renewal in its continuity, this passage is meant to say that Our Lord has left His current representatives blind as well. Hence, Vatican II is likewise merely a “tragic misunderstanding.”

  3. When asked by the PCED to lighten up a little concerning the N.O. (et. al) the response is rather simple:

    “No, thank you.”

    If further pressed:

    “Our bylaws were approved the way they were, we offer the TLM exclusively and maintain the old catechism. No Thank you.”

    After that – you become a broken record.

Leave a Reply