Fr. Libietis: A Bishop Speaks from Beyond the Grave

[Stone]

THE SEEDS GROW TALL

[Fr. Helmuts Libietis - Resistance Brochure #6 of 7]

In July of 2007, the Pope removed the shackles from the Tridentine Mass and then, in 2009, he removed the shackles of the false excommunications from the SSPX bishops. This leads to the start of 18 months of doctrinal talks between the SSPX and Rome. Remember that, after the 1988 Consecrations, Archbishop Lefebvre established the principle that there should only be an agreement with Rome if they accepted the doctrine of traditional papal encyclicals and returned to Tradition. This stance was also initially taken by Bishop Fellay and the 2006 General Chapter. Between these two unshacklings, Bishop Fellay said:

“The Fraternity of Saint Pius X cannot “sign an agreement.”... the time for an agreement has not yet come. This does not prevent us from continuing to wait, from continuing on the path defined in the year 2000. We continue to ask the Holy Father for the repeal of the decree of excommunication of 1988...But it would be very imprudent and hasty to thrust ourselves unwisely in pursuit of a practical agreement which would not be founded upon the fundamental principles of the Church, particularly on the faith.” (Bishop Fellay, Menzingen, April 14, 2008)

When asked, “What do you think of a possible re-opening of the dialogue with Rome?” Archbishop Lefebvre replied:

“We do not have the same outlook on a reconciliation. Cardinal Ratzinger sees it as bringing us back to Vatican II. We see it as a return of Rome to Tradition. We don’t agree; it is a dialogue of death ... supposing that Rome calls for a renewed dialogue, then, I will put conditions. I shall not accept being in the position where I was put during the dialogue. No more! I will place the discussion at the doctrinal level: ‘Do you agree with the great encyclicals of all the popes who preceded you? Do you agree with Quanta Cura of Pius IX, Immortale Dei and Libertas of Leo XIII, Pascendi Gregis of Pius X, Quas Primas of Pius XI, Humani Generis of Pius XII? Are you in full communion with these Popes?... If you do not accept the doctrine of your predecessors, it is useless to talk! As long as you do not accept the correction of the Council ... no dialogue is possible. It is useless!’”  (Archbishop Lefebvre, Fideliter interview, Nov-Dec, 1988)

“I received a few weeks ago, another telephone call from Cardinal Oddi:

‘Well, Excellency, is there no way to arrange things, no way?’ I replied, ‘You must change, come back to Tradition. It is not a question of the Liturgy, it is a question of the Faith’. ” (Archbishop Lefebvre, Address to Priests, September 6, 1990)

Up to this point, this still was the policy of Bishop Fellay and his General Chapter, as can be seen by these quotes:

“This division cannot be healed by a merely practical agreement...a practical agreement will not change this basic situation ... For Rome’s part, to settle the question, of the seeming separation, is of primary importance, and takes priority over all else; doctrinal questions will be talked about later ....we request that we enter into real, true discussion on doctrinal matters. But they don’t want to ... The problem remains, as always, on the level of doctrine ... doctrine is fundamental....The purpose of the doctrinal discussion is to obtain that Rome acknowledge [that Vatican II is responsible for the crisis in the Church]...Those who want to mind only the practical or canonical aspect, will see our doctrinal demands as a loss of time...To desire an immediate canonical agreement at any cost would expose us to see an immediate resurgence of the problems opposing us to Rome, and the agreement would become null and void. The regularization of our canonical status must come last. ” [that is AFTER doctrinal problems are resolved, not merely discussed] (Bishop Fellay, various quotes from previous 3 flyers, Parts 1-3)

“The Society looks to a possible debate on doctrine ... The purpose is not just to...arrive at some merely practical impossible agreement. ”
(SSPX 2006 General Chapter Declaration on the occasion of the re-election of Bishop Fellay as Superior General)


One cannot get a clearer message than that. So now, from October 2009 to April 2011, the ‘litmus test’ of doctrinal talks begins. Bishop Alfonso de Galarreta is appointed head of the SSPX commission for the doctrinal talks. At the start of the talks, he says in 2009 what Bishop Fellay had said in 2007:

2007
“The Church authorities had been ...telling us: ‘Let us sign an agreement, a practical agreement which is not concerned with the doctrinal aspect.’ To do so would be tantamount to setting sail in a boat riddled with holes. We would sink—and we want to keep afloat.” (Bishop Fellay, 2007. The Angelus, October 2007)

2009
“We know that while there is no return to Tradition on the part of Rome, any practical or canonical agreement is incompatible with the public confession and defense of the Faith, and would mean our death.” (Bishop Alfonso de Galarreta, South America District magazine Jesus Christus, no. 121, May 2009)



In April of 2011, after 18 months of discussions, the only result was that the doctrinal discussions had FAILED. No agreement was reached in the doctrinal differences between Tradition and the Conciliar Modernist Church. Despite failing to overcome their doctrinal differences, Rome, nevertheless, in September of 2011, presented Bishop Fellay with a “DOCTRINAL PREAMBLE” which it wanted the SSPX to accept prior to any canonical recognition. At a specially convened General Chapter Meeting to discuss the preamble, Bishop de Galarreta, head of SSPX Theological Commission during the discussions, says the following of the “Preliminary Note” and “Doctrinal Preamble”:

2011
“They are confusing, misleading, false and bad in essence. Even the apparent openness to criticism of the Council is an obscure and cunning, well-disguised trap. This document is substantially unacceptable. It is worse than the 1988 Protocol ... Following on the Roman proposition, the crucial question is the following—must we enter on a way of a possible agreement which is primarily practical? Is it prudent and suitable to maintain contacts with Rome in view of a primary practical agreement? For me the answer to this question is clear. We must refuse to enter on this path because we cannot do an evil in order to bring about a good, even more so an uncertain good, because that will necessarily cause certain evils for...the Society of Pius X and for the family of Tradition. ” (Bishop de Galarreta, July, 2011, General Chapter Meeting)

Clearly, a “practical agreement” is rapidly evolving without there being any real “doctrinal agreement.” At best, they would agree to disagree. This is contrary to what the Archbishop wanted and what Bishop Fellay had earlier said that he also wanted. Bishop Fellay is on record as saying that what he was proposing to accept, was potentially so volatile that it would have to be very carefully presented and explained to SSPX priests and faithful in order for it to be acceptable to them!! Bishop Fellay and his two assistants, Fr. Niklaus Pfluger and Fr. Alain Nely, as well as certain highly placed SSPX priests, pushed hard for this practical agreement, while the other three bishops and many priests resisted strongly.

If Bishop Fellay had followed his own previously stated principles (see previous 3 flyers) and the principles of Archbishop Lefebvre (quoted here and in the “Union with Rome” flyers), then this failure of the doctrinal talks should have been the end of the story until Rome returned to sanity and Tradition. But NO! Bishop Fellay disregarded this sane advice from his fellow SSPX bishops and priests and chose to reject the earlier principle of no agreement without the doctrinal differences being solved and pushed on for a what amounted to a practical agreement—a canonical recognition from Modernist Rome with a doctrinal stalemate. What he had previously condemned, he now wanted! By now his language has changed. Scripture demands, “Let your speech be yea, yea: no, no: and that which is over and above these is of evil.” (Mt. 5:37).
Bishop Fellay increasingly speaks a double language—both for and against the agreement.


2012
“At the end of the discussion, comes this invitation from Rome. In this invitation there is a proposition of a canonical situation that is to regularize our situation. And I may say, what is presented today, which is already different from what was presented on the 14th of September, we can consider it as all right, good. They fulfilled all our requirements, I may say, on the practical level. So there is not much problem there. The problem remains at the other level—at the level of the doctrine. But even there it goes very far— very far, my dear brethren.” (Bishop Fellay, February 2, 2012, Sermon at the seminary in Winona, USA)

2012
“The evils are already dramatic enough so that one not need to exaggerate them any further...No more distinctions are being made... This failure to distinguish leads, one or the other of you three, to an “absolute hardening.” This is serious, because such a caricature no longer corresponds to reality and, logically, it will in the future finish up in a true schism. And it may well be that this fact is one of the arguments pushing me to delay no longer in responding to the pressure from Rome. ” (Bishop Fellay, April 14, 2012, Letter to the other 3 SSPX bishops)

2012
“Personally, I would have wished to wait for some more time to see things clearer, but once again it really appears that the Holy Father wants it to happen now. The move of the Holy Father—because it really comes from him—is genuine. If this recognition happens, it is thanks to him. Definitely and to him alone.” (Bishop Fellay, Catholic News Service interview, May 15, 2012)

2012
“We will be officially recognized as being Catholic. That does...not mean that we will all of a sudden accept that which has caused the Church so much damage. One has to understand this correctly. That is not what this is all about. ” (Bishop Fellay, May 17, 2012, Salzburg, Austria)

2012
“This structure that is being offered to the Society is in fact entirely appropriate...you will feel absolutely no difference between now and afterwards. We will remain as we are, so to speak. ” (Bishop Fellay, May 21, 2012, Vienna, Austria)

2012
“When we say that Rome would like to give us a canonical recognition, we are filled with mistrust....But do we have the right of feeling this way? Aren’t they...too human?” (Bishop Fellay, May 27, 2012, St. Joan of Arc Pilgrimage)

2012
“What has changed is the fact that Rome no longer makes total acceptance of Vatican II a prerequisite for the canonical solution....the attitude of the official Church is what changed; we did not. We were not the ones who asked for an agreement; the pope is the one who wants to recognize us. We are still not in agreement doctrinally, and yet the pope wants to recognize us!...One of the great dangers is to end up inventing an idea of the Church that appears ideal, but is in fact not found in the real history of the Church. Some claim that in order to work “safely” in the Church, she must first be cleansed of all error. This is what they say when they declare that Rome must convert before any agreement. [+Lefebvre thought so!!] But that is not the reality...It is true that our enemies may plan to use this offer as a trap, but the pope, who really wants this canonical recognition, is not proposing it to us as a trap...the pope is the one who wants it. ” (Bishop Fellay, June 8, 2012, DICI interview)


So the pope wants it! But even in Archbishop Lefebvre’s time, both Paul VI and John-Paul II wanted a solution. Despite that, the Archbishop held firm and finally laid down the principle, shortly before his death, that there will be no union with Rome until Rome converts to Tradition. Now this has changed. “Little by little one travels far!” TOO FAR!