Lefebvrians: “Rome criticises us for wanting to safeguard the Catholic faith”

01/31/2013

Lefebvrians: “Rome criticises us for wanting to safeguard the Catholic faith”

The Lefebvrian Superior Bernard Fellay celebrates a priestly ordination in Paris and returns to the question of SSPX-Holy See relations in light of Di Noia’s letter

ANDREA TORNIELLI
VATICAN CITY

“We are prepared to die to safeguard the Catholic faith, lose everything to safeguard the faith and Rome condemns us for this…,” said the Superior of the Society of St. Pius X, Bishop Bernard Fellay, at the end of his homily last Sunday, when he celebrated the priestly ordination Fr. Bertrand Lundi in the Church of Saint-Nicolas du Chardonnet, in Paris.

In his homily, the Lefebvrian bishop also referred to the state of relations between the SSXP and the Holy See, stating: “This is our story, the story of the Fraternity, the story of our founder. And this story, my dear brothers, continues. I would go as far as to say that given this sublime reality, it is nonsense (“est une bagatelle”) to talk about an agreement, or lack there of, with Rome.”

Fellay said this after recalling the actions of Mgr. Lefebvre, whose “charisma” was mentioned in a letter which the Vice President of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, Augustin Di Noia, sent to Fellay and priests of the Fraternity before Christmas. The letter attempted to break the deadlock in the dialogue between the Holy See and the traditionalist group.

The letter triggered disputes, particularly with regard to one of the forums which has the closest ties with the Fraternity’s more hard-line wing. What was frowned upon, was the fact that the newly ordained priest, who comes from a family that has century-old ties with the traditionalist group, wore a chasuble embroidered with a papal coat of arms that was very similar to Benedict XVI’s (though it featured a tiara instead of a mitre).

 

Other disputes to do with traditionalist forums involve a priest from the Institute of the Good Shepherd, in Rome, who was apparently invited to the ceremony but was not allowed to enter the presbytery to attend the ordination ceremony.

One should not place too much emphasis on Fellay’s words, as it would be a mistake to draw conclusions from them regarding the SSXP’s pending answer to the Vatican’s proposal delivered last 14 June. His comments do, nevertheless, offer some hints.

Facebook
Twitter
Google+
http://angelqueen.org/2013/01/31/lefebvrians-rome-criticises-us-for-wanting-to-safeguard-the-catholic-faith/
Get AQ Email Updates
AQ RSS Feed

12 comments on “Lefebvrians: “Rome criticises us for wanting to safeguard the Catholic faith”

  1. It is imperative that the Holy See recognize that we will never give up the fight to retain Tradition in Liturgy, Practice and Belief – whether we are associated with the SSPX or not. It is our heritage and we will retain it, pure and simple. The modernists will seek to convince everyone that this represents rebellion and they will continue their effort to make us look like the “bad guys” where, in actual fact, we represent only what is good. It is so tiring to see their press releases about a so-called “answer” (read capitulation) to their document being necessary. The answer has already been given many times over. I wonder what the saints in heaven would say about the state of the Church here on earth given the opportunity to comment. Methinks they would take up our cause as their own.

  2. Vinny, I’m with you on the sedes. They breathe and excrete nothing but methane.

    And, yes, some “resisters” are over the top, as well.

    But not all.

    Some are a whole lot closer to what is taking place than I am and I respect their astute, reserved and careful commentary. Like Fr. Hewko, f’rinstance.

    • I have the utmost respect for all of the resistance priests, most of whom I have a personal relationship with, including Fr. Hewko. They are some of, if not the most, charismatic Society priests in North America and when they preach on the faith and the church, they are rock solid. That said, If my soul and those of my children merit heaven, it will be in no small way a result of the SSPX, under the spiritual guidance +Fellay. He would have to manifest much more than what he is even being accused of to warrant any disobedience or loss of trust from yours truly.

      My problem with the resistance is that since they “came out”, it appears that must now grasp at any straw to demonstrate that the SSPX is becoming the Novus Ordo. This new controversy with the ordination chasuble is a good example. My respect goes to Bps Tissier and de Galleretta who made their private opinions known to the Superior (which was nefariously leaked without their permission) and have since publicly reaffirmed their solidarity with their Superior as well as the suggestion that other priests do the same. Of course, we must all have vigilance. We have the advantage of the lesson of the slow move from 1962 to the cataclysm of 1969. We cannot let happen to us what most of our parents allowed to happen in 1969. So far, I have seen no change or innovation in the Society and the sermons of the newest ordinands are equally as courageous against the new faith and the new Mass as the +Williamson-era priests.

      • Re sermons: If anything the sermons we have been getting better with each passing year. Spiritual nourishment in this desolation of smaug.

      • vinnyf,

        I agree completely.

        I can add a few additional problems I have with the resistance. They claim to be care about saving souls and bringing the Mass to the faithful, however they are truly only targeting places where the SSPX ALREADY has the Mass. The people they are visiting ALREADY have access to the Mass regularly. With the Rebellion Movement, they actually have access to Mass less often. These people and their children are NOT better off, they are worse off. If they were truly wanting to save souls and bring Mass to the faithful, they would target the areas where people do not have access to Mass without driving 1.5 hrs (or more) one way. Or, in the areas where Mass is only available a few Sundays out of the month, they would go on the off weeks. But that is not what they are doing – they are specifically targeting SSPX Mass locations which makes this look personal and political! Funny too, coming from some of the same priests who always claimed that was what the FSSP was doing.

        My next issue is the sermons, week after week of anti-SSPX sermons will not save one soul. Yet that is all they have to give. Again, this looks more personal and political than anything else. If the faithful are to go to heaven, they need to be taught how. These priests are hearing confessions and they know what ails the people – the sermons need to be geared toward helping the people with those things. The children need to be taken into consideration too, the anti-SSPX sermons do nothing for the children. The children cannot and are not learning the Faith from such sermons. Where will that leave them in the end? If these priests really cared about souls, instead of preaching about their anti-SSPX agenda, they would be preaching about what the people need to save their souls.

        Lastly, for my part, had Fr. Pfeiffer come out and said I am tired of being in India, the Phillipines, or where ever; and that he feels he is going a different way than the SSPX, and that he is no longer a fit with the SSPX; and that he intends to leave and start a new order whose mission will be … He could have even expressed that he had some fears or concerns about the direction the SSPX was taking (keeping in mind that it was just fears or concerns, since neither he, nor Fr. Chazal, nor Bishop Williamson, nor any of the anonymous internet posters, were in on any of the discussions, etc.) As long as it was not just organized to be anti-SSPX, I and many others would have supported him in an endeavor to begin a new traditional order. But that is not what he did.

    • gpmtrad said: Some are a whole lot closer to what is taking place than I am and I respect their astute, reserved and careful commentary. Like Fr. Hewko, f’rinstance.

      I beg to disagree with you to disagree with you there. Me thinks Fr. Hewko was influenced by Fr. Pfeiffer. It is well known that they were friends before this started. Everyone saw Fr. Pfeiffer latch himself to Fr. Hewko at Ordinations last year. It was just after that that Fr. Hewko did his quasi-Speak out. Later he turned out at the meeting in VA. Whether or not he meant for that to go public, I cannot tell. It would seem not as I believe he had indicated he was prepared to report to his new assignment afterwards. He then took a small little sabatical where he was told to report to a monastery – which would have been the best place for him to think things through on his own without OUTSIDE influenece. HOWEVER, he did not do that. He stayed at his mother’s and Fr. Pfeiffer had full access to continue working on him. If he wanted to make an objective and well thought out decision on his own, he should have gone to the monastery. Most of everything I hear him say is a re-iteration of Fr. Pfeiffer’s words.

  3. Vinny, my HOPE is you are 100% right about the certain integrity of what lies ahead.

    We will all know, in time.

Leave a Reply