Holy See

GREC – II

GREC – II posted in Eleison Comments on March 9, 2013

Before we continue with the story of GREC, namely the Parisian group of laity and clergy meeting from the late 1990’s onwards in pursuit of reconciliation between Vatican II and Catholic Tradition, we must consider the basic attitude of GREC participants. The Church’s future depends on those Catholics who will understand GREC’s error, i.e. how modern minds lose their grip on truth. To illustrate that attitude let us take at random four quotes, typical of dozens and dozens in the book For the Necessary Reconciliationby the Newchurch priest, Fr Michel Lelong, one of the founders of GREC. In a letter he wrote to the Pope in July of 2008 are to be found the first two quotes:—

“We also wish that the excommunications(of the four SSPX bishops in 1988) be lifted and that the SSPX recover its place within the Church to which it has so much to give. That is why we ask the authorities of the SSPX to put an end to the polemical statements and articles criticizing the Holy See.”Comment: (Has that not happened over the last 10 years?) But if polemics are so bad, why were a number of Church Fathers – and Archbishop Lefebvre – so polemical? Polemics are only that bad if unity is that good. But unity is only as good as that around which it unites.

“In our society so tempted by materialism, indifferentism and sectarisms, we think that in response to your request, Holy Father, all Catholics must strive together to be faithful to Christ’s recommendation, ‘Be united so that the whole world may believe’.”Comment: “United” around what? Around Catholic truth, or around the lie that Catholic truth is reconcilable with Vatican II? Then the primary and crucial question for Catholic unity is where Catholic truth is to be found. But GREC leaves questions of truth to the “theologians.” So non-theologians can be saved by lies!?

This letter of Fr Lelong was so well received by Benedict XVI that GREC leaders and sympathisers wrote again a few months later. Here are two more quotes from the second letter to the Pope:—

“For sure we were saddened that the Holy See’s recent proposals were not accepted by the SSPX authorities, but we know that to heal wounds amongst Catholics always requires generosity and patience to restore confidence on both sides and to make reconciliation possible.”Comment: Are wounds only ever to be healed, and never inflicted? Did Our Lord not twice use a lash across the backs of the money-lenders in the Temple? There is a God, his honour is to be defended above all things, and men can be wicked enough to understand nothing but the lash, be it physical or verbal.

“We think that lifting the excommunications would set in motion an irresistible process of drawing closer, with a view to an agreement between the Holy See and the SSPX, or at least an agreement with a large part of the SSPX priests and faithful.”Comment: indeed the friendly contacts between Rome and the SSPX were setting such a motion in process in January of 2009, and only an outburst from within the SSPX of the most horrible heresy of modern times – “anti-semitism” – stopped that process. But either Catholic reconciliation with Vatican II is no problem, or one has to say that that outburst was providential, because it also stopped, at least for a while, the false reconciliation.

In conclusion, GREC, like millions of modern Catholics, above all else seeks unity, non-polemics, reconciliation, agreement, etc. But where does the God of truth figure amongst all these sweet sentiments? Is he a sugar-daddy who blesses all men’s lies, just so long as they lie in unison?

Kyrie eleison.

Di Noia, Annoyer

Di Noia, Annoyer posted in Eleison Comments on February 16, 2013

Two months ago the Vice-president of Rome’s Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei addressed to the Superior General of the Society of St Pius X and to all its priests a letter of several pages, accessible on the Internet, which Fr. Lombardi as spokesman for the Holy See called a “personal appeal.” The letter has been raising comments ever since. It is clearly the latest move in Rome’s campaign to bring the SSPX to heel, and put an end to its 40-year resistance to the Conciliar Revolution. As Bishop de Galarreta said in October of 2011, even if the SSPX turns down Rome’s offers, still Rome will keep coming back. Sure enough. But let us see briefly what Archbishop Di Noia has to say to “Your Excellency and dear Priestly Brothers of the Society of St Pius X”:—

He begins by admonishing Society leaders, notably Fr Schmidberger, Fr Pfluger and Bishop Fellay (in that order) for giving interviews so critical of Rome as to call in question whether the SSPX really wants reconciliation with Rome. Moreover, doctrinal differences are as intractable as ever between the SSPX and Rome. So he calls for a new approach, focusing on unity instead.

Church unity is hindered by four vices and promoted by the four opposing virtues of humility, mildness, patience and charity. Dividers of the Church are enemies of God. All we need is love. Away then with “harsh and unproductive rhetoric.” Let the SSPX fulfil its charism of forming priests, but priests who will be docile to the official Magisterium, who will preach the Faith and not polemics, and who will treat theological problems not in front of untrained layfolk but with the competent authorities in Rome. The Pope is the supreme judge of such difficult questions. In conclusion, Benedict XVI does want reconciliation. Bitterness must be healed. In Our Lord’s words, “Let them be one.” (End of the Archbishop’s letter.)

Notice in passing how, typically for modern man and for modernists, the Archbishop brackets out the essential question of doctrine, but this letter’s main interest lies elsewhere: how could the Archbishop have dared to address it to all SSPX priests without prior collusion with SSPX HQ? It served him by forwarding the letter to all SSPX priests! Here is one indication amongst many others that there are contacts between Rome and SSPX HQ that are kept from public view. But the question then arises, what motive can SSPX HQ have had to give to the modernist Archbishop such privileged and dangerous access to all SSPX priests? Does it want them to become modernists also? Surely not! But it may well want to help Rome towards “reconciliation.”

By transmitting the Archbishop’s loving appeal, SSPX HQ gets the sweet message through to all SSPX priests without anybody being able to accuse HQ itself of going soft. On the contrary, the Roman letter makes them all see how nice the Romans are. True, there is a gentle rebuke to the SSPX leaders for not being nice, but that will serve to show how these are standing firm in defence of the Faith! Above all, the letter will have served as a trial balloon, to test the priests’ reactions. What are they thinking? Both Rome and Menzingen need to calculate at what point to go ahead with a “reconciliation” such as will carry with it a large majority of the priests, and not alienate so many that organized resistance to the New World Order religion will continue.

Dear SSPX priests, if you do not want to be swallowed alive by New Order Rome, I gently advise you to react. Let your Superiors know, as discretely as you like but in no uncertainterms, that you want nothing, but nothing, to do with Conciliar Rome, until it clearly abandons the Council.

Kyrie eleison.

“Greek Gifts” – III

“Greek Gifts” – III posted in Eleison Comments on September 3, 2011

Speculation is only speculation. Journalists are only journalists. But an Italian journalist claimed last month that he had the authority of a”Vatican insider” for writing that the Sept 14 meeting between Roman officials and the Superior General of the Society of St Pius X with his two Assistants may discuss a possible canonical regularization of the SSPX. Here is a summary of Andrea Tornielli’s main points (see http://​vaticaninsider.​lastampa.​it/​en/​homepage/​inquiries-and-interviews/​detail/​articolo/​lefebvriani-vaticano-tradizione-fellay-7423/​):—

The Vatican officials will submit to the SSPX (1) a clarification of Benedict XVI’s “hermeneutic of continuity” to show how it is the more authentic interpretation of the texts of Vatican II. “Only if,” says Tornielli, this clarification overcomes the doctrinal difficulties will there then be presented (2) a solution to the canonical irregularity in which the SSPX bishops and priests still find themselves: an Ordinariat such as was given to the Anglicans in May, whereby the SSPX would depend directly on the Holy See through the Ecclesia Dei Commission. This arrangement would enable the SSPX to “retain its characteristics without having to answer to the diocesan bishops.” But (3) any such agreement is not certain because “within the SSPX co-exist different sensitivities.”

From everything we know in public about Vatican-SSPX relations, Tornielli’s forecast for the Sept 14 meeting seems highly probable. But each of his three main points deserves comment:—

Firstly, as to the doctrinal gulf between today’s Vatican and Archbishop Lefebvre’s SSPX, it cannot be said that Benedict XVI’s “hermeneutic of continuity” is a solution (see EC 208–211). If Tornielli is right, it will be interesting (not edifying) to see how Rome tries once more to prove that 2+2 can be 4 or 5, 5 or 4. Catholic doctrine is as rigid, if not always as clear to us human beings, as 2+2=4.

Secondly, as to the canonical arrangement evoked by Tornielli, if – unimaginably – the SSPX were to accept any kind of doctrinal compromise, then in no way could the SSPX both come under the present Holy See (2+2=4 or 5), and still “retain its characteristics” (based on 2+2= exclusively 4). The practical agreement would exercise a constant and finally irresistible pressure to make Catholic doctrine no longer exclusive but inclusive of error, which would be to adopt the Freemasons’ ideology and to abandon the very reason for existing of Archbishop Lefebvre’s SSPX.

And thirdly, Tornielli may well be right that an agreement is not certain, but he and his “Vatican insider” are absolutely wrong if either of them thinks that the problem is one of “different sensitivities.” Sensitivities are subjective. The central problem between the Vatican and Archbishop Lefebvre’s SSPX is as objective as 2+2=4. At no point in time, reaching backwards or forwards into eternity, on no planet or star created or creatable, can 2+2 ever be anything other than, exclusively, four.

When all Archbishop Lefebvre’s efforts had failed in the negotiations of May 1988 to obtain from then Cardinal Ratzinger a secure place for the Faith within the mainstream Church, he said some famous words: “Your Eminence, even were you to give us everything we wanted, still we would have to refuse, because we are working to christianize society, whereas you are working to de-christianize it. Collaboration between us is not possible.”

Kyrie eleison.