Updated 2: SSPX Press Communiqué of July 14, 2012 – Spanish Journalist: Wrong!

 

Participants of the 2012 General Chapter of the SSPX

SSPX Press Communiqué of July 14, 2012
14-07-2012

The General Chapter of the Society of Saint Pius X ended this Saturday, July 14, 2012, in Econe (Switzerland). Gathered near Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre’s tomb, the capitularies have given thanks to God for the profound unity that prevailed among them during all these workdays.

The General Chapter will soon make a statement to Rome, which will then be made public.

The General Superior, Bishop Fellay, thanks deeply all the priests and faithfuls for their fervent prayers during this chapter.
Ecône, July 14, 2012

[Update:] SSPX Spokesman Fr. Alain Lorans, speaking to Swiss religious news agency APIC/KIPA, says that the Superior General, Bp. Fellay, will grant an interview to the Society news agency, DICI, in the upcoming week.

Source: www.dici.org/en/news/sspx-press-communique-of-july-14-2012/

UPDATE:

For the record: Spanish journalist says, “Lefebvrians will say ‘no’ to Rome.”

Spanish ultra-“Progressive” religious news correspondent José Manuel Vidal reports the following tonight from Madrid:

Lefebvrians will announce tomorrow [Sunday] that they say “no” to Rome
They thank the Vatican for the rapprochement and for the possibility of dialogue that was offered to them

José Manuel Vidal, July 14, 2012, at 2102 [9:02 PM, CEST, 7:02 GMT]

(José Manuel Vidal).- There will be no return to Rome. The Superior of the Lefebvrians for Spain and Portugal, [Fr.] Juan María Montagut, will inform the faithful, after the 11 AM Mass, that the hierarchy of the SSPX, assembled in Écône, has decided to say “no” to the Vatican.

The followers of [Abp.] Marcel Lefebvre do not return to the Roman fold. Mainly because they are not willing to accept the Second Vatican Council in all its farthermost points.

The Vatican, by way of the [then] Prefect for the Doctrinal of the Faith, Cardinal Levada, had asked from them “the full acceptance of the Council”. And the Lefebvrians are not willing to return under this condition. They believe that accepting the Council would imply accepting its errors that, according to them, are particularly centered in the chapters on “religious liberty, ecumenism, and conciliarism” [? – Collegiality?…]

The decision of their hierarchy has been well received among the followers of the Lefebvrians, who did not look kindly upon a return to Rome conditional on the acceptance of the Council, to which they impute a good part of the problems of the current Church. Yet, they do thank Rome for the rapprochement and for the possibility afforded to them of being able to present their doctrinal viewpoints.

Tomorrow, the territorial superiors of the SSPX will read the communiqué in which they will put forward the reasons and the circumstances of their refusal to return to Rome and reintegrate the Catholic Church.

We are posting this for the record of events. Since this has not been confirmed or presented by official sources, and considering its source (a journalist in the most extreme Liberal edge of the Church in Spain), we ask you to consider it with a grain of salt while we await for actual documents, and to be reserved in your comments.

[Source, in Spanish: Religión Digital; tip: Chris Gillibrand]

Secondary Source: rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/

July 15, 2012

Rorate Caeli reports …

The poor liberal reporter (Jesús Bastante, a.k.a. Enough Jesus) had to endure a Mass in Latin, with the priest with “his back turned to the people”, and filled with “women with heads covered by small mantillas”; “no offertory [that he was able to notice], no participation of any faithful in the readings or distribution of communion, no petitions [prayers of the faithful], nor was there exchange of peace” – all this aggravation to no avail. No announcement after all…

Source: rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2012/07/poor-liberal-reporter.html

Facebook
Twitter
Google+
http://angelqueen.org/2012/07/14/sspx-press-communique-of-july-14-2012/
Get AQ Email Updates
AQ RSS Feed

8 comments on “Updated 2: SSPX Press Communiqué of July 14, 2012 – Spanish Journalist: Wrong!

  1. tradical on said:

    Definitely time for more prayer.

    • I “opine” that the reason why there was “profound unity” amongst the capitulars, is that the agreed upon “statement to Rome” will be a re-stating of the “pre-fiasco” SSPX position, which was that there would be no practical accord, without first arriving at a doctrinal agreement (ei. rejection of the errors of Vatican II).

  2. If this “Preamble” never gets made public I propose that it henceforth be referred to as the “Preamble of the Elders of Zion.”

  3. What I would like to know is, what should be our attitude towards Bishop Williamson? Does he still maintain his faculties for conferring confirmations and ordinations? Has he only been cast out from voting in general chapters? Anyone know whats up?

    • Zuzu, I get what you mean but be careful of being precise in wording anything involving sacraments. Bishop Williamson does not use “faculties” for either sacrament. Part of the battle today is convincing an entire generation that words mean things. Instead, I believe you meant, “Has the society leadership made a decision as to whether his services will be…needed…as it were?” Given that it is likely the leadership knows and can prove he 1.) betrayed confidence; 2.) engaged in detraction 3.) spoke against superiors while under obedience and 4.) used Society property to do it – and those are the publicly known ones – it’s hard to say, though I would lay down money he will not ordain at minimum.

  4. What I would like to know is, what should be our attitude towards Bishop Williamson? Does he still maintain his faculties for conferring confirmations and ordinations? Has he only been cast out from voting in general chapters? Anyone know whats up?

    The issues with Bishop Williamson are more personal and professional than ecclesiastical.

    He’s a good priest, he’s just very unwise at times and often doesn’t play and get along well with others.

    • Comments like this – “If all the Four are united against Roman apostasy….” -serve no purpose, McDee. It’s a sin against hope, not to mention a canoncial crime under both the 1917 Code and the 1983 Code to impute this against a cleric without juridical process, and it constitutes material heresy in that is made against the Holy Father himself. Words mean things. “Apostate” is a term not to be lightly used – any more than the nearly casual way the F-bomb and “fool” keep being dropped in Traditional circles as if we were in the enemy’s camp.

Leave a Reply