06-03-2021, 11:17 AM
As a reminder that the Summorum Pontificum is not the 'gift' to Tradition that the Vatican and many traditional communities have portrayed it to be, here is an excerpt from A Catechism of the Crisis in the SSPX:
9. Why would Menzingen (SSPX headquarters) be going down the wrong road?
Because the authorities of the SSPX refuse to get rid of the ambiguity which they have created.
10. What is this ambiguity?
It is twofold and concerns the two acts performed by Benedict XVI which are favourable to Tradition in a material way and which Bp. Fellay presents as formally favouring Tradition.
11. What do these strange words mean?
When you have cement, sand and gravel, you have a house materially speaking, but not formally. There is a huge difference.
12. What is the first act of Benedict XVI which is a problem?
This is the Motu Proprio of Pope Benedict XVI on the use of the Roman liturgy prior to the reform of 1970. Bishop Fellay claims that "By the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, Pope Benedict XVI has restored to its rightful place the Tridentine Mass, stating clearly that the Roman Missal promulgated by St. Pius V has never been abrogated." (Menzingen, 07/07-2007)
13. Where is the ambiguity?
In reality, the Motu Proprio says that the Traditional Mass has never been abrogated as the extraordinary form but that it was repealed as the ordinary form. By this act, Benedict XVI made the Roman rite of Mass lose, de jure, its status as the only ordinary and official form, and relegated it to the status of “extraordinary form”, after having humiliated it by comparing its sanctity to that of the “bastard rite.” Despite these facts, no official document from Menzingen exists condemning this liturgical cohabitation.
14. But that’s just the way you see things.
No, it’s also the view of Fr. de Cacqueray in his Letter to Friends and Benefactors of 2009. The Motu Proprio, he said,
What’s more, Archbishop Lefebvre, after realising that it had been a mistake to sign an agreement with Rome in May 1988, put us on our guard after the Consecrations:
15. So how should Bp. Fellay have responded?
The same way the Society once upon a time responded to a similar action by Rome (the Indult of 1984). The Superior General of the SSPX said that this indult was “ruinous for the metaphysics of law”. It could only be an “argumentum ad hominem,” because “its conditions are unacceptable.” A Catholic, “who thinks with the Church, can only consider the indult as being the foundation of a request.” (Cor Unum, June 1985)
16. So, strictly speaking, the first requirement of the SSPX wasn't attained?
In effect, the General Chapter of 2006 spoke of “the necessity of having two requirements” in the “discussions with Rome.” A note recalled the first one: “Complete liberty without any conditions for the Tridentine Mass.” However, the liberating of the Mass, in addition to the deception already noted, was not unconditional. Article 2 of the Motu Proprio gives this freedom to say Mass without need for “authorisation from the Apostolic See or the Ordinary” only to “Masses which are celebrated without the people.”
17. Should we therefore not have pursued discussions with the Roman authorities any further?
If we had respected what the General Chapter of 2006 had decided: that’s right, yes. And yet, Bishop Fellay did the opposite, because after recalling “the Hegelian approach of Benedict XVI, according to which the change, which was necessary, nonetheless cannot be a rupture with the past”, he wrote:
9. Why would Menzingen (SSPX headquarters) be going down the wrong road?
Because the authorities of the SSPX refuse to get rid of the ambiguity which they have created.
10. What is this ambiguity?
It is twofold and concerns the two acts performed by Benedict XVI which are favourable to Tradition in a material way and which Bp. Fellay presents as formally favouring Tradition.
11. What do these strange words mean?
When you have cement, sand and gravel, you have a house materially speaking, but not formally. There is a huge difference.
12. What is the first act of Benedict XVI which is a problem?
This is the Motu Proprio of Pope Benedict XVI on the use of the Roman liturgy prior to the reform of 1970. Bishop Fellay claims that "By the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, Pope Benedict XVI has restored to its rightful place the Tridentine Mass, stating clearly that the Roman Missal promulgated by St. Pius V has never been abrogated." (Menzingen, 07/07-2007)
13. Where is the ambiguity?
In reality, the Motu Proprio says that the Traditional Mass has never been abrogated as the extraordinary form but that it was repealed as the ordinary form. By this act, Benedict XVI made the Roman rite of Mass lose, de jure, its status as the only ordinary and official form, and relegated it to the status of “extraordinary form”, after having humiliated it by comparing its sanctity to that of the “bastard rite.” Despite these facts, no official document from Menzingen exists condemning this liturgical cohabitation.
14. But that’s just the way you see things.
No, it’s also the view of Fr. de Cacqueray in his Letter to Friends and Benefactors of 2009. The Motu Proprio, he said,
Quote:“does not correspond, and is not a response, to the first requirement of the SSPX except materially speaking.” (Suresnes, 31/12/2008)
What’s more, Archbishop Lefebvre, after realising that it had been a mistake to sign an agreement with Rome in May 1988, put us on our guard after the Consecrations:
Quote:“You can see clearly that they wanted to bring us back into the Conciliar Church... they want to impose these novelties on us in order to have done with Tradition. They don’t allow anything through esteem for the traditional liturgy but simply in order to trick those who they give it to and to diminish our resistance, to drive a wedge into the Traditionalist camp, in order to destroy it. That’s their policy, their tactics...” (Econe, 09/09/1988)
15. So how should Bp. Fellay have responded?
The same way the Society once upon a time responded to a similar action by Rome (the Indult of 1984). The Superior General of the SSPX said that this indult was “ruinous for the metaphysics of law”. It could only be an “argumentum ad hominem,” because “its conditions are unacceptable.” A Catholic, “who thinks with the Church, can only consider the indult as being the foundation of a request.” (Cor Unum, June 1985)
16. So, strictly speaking, the first requirement of the SSPX wasn't attained?
In effect, the General Chapter of 2006 spoke of “the necessity of having two requirements” in the “discussions with Rome.” A note recalled the first one: “Complete liberty without any conditions for the Tridentine Mass.” However, the liberating of the Mass, in addition to the deception already noted, was not unconditional. Article 2 of the Motu Proprio gives this freedom to say Mass without need for “authorisation from the Apostolic See or the Ordinary” only to “Masses which are celebrated without the people.”
17. Should we therefore not have pursued discussions with the Roman authorities any further?
If we had respected what the General Chapter of 2006 had decided: that’s right, yes. And yet, Bishop Fellay did the opposite, because after recalling “the Hegelian approach of Benedict XVI, according to which the change, which was necessary, nonetheless cannot be a rupture with the past”, he wrote:
Quote:“Regarding Rome, not knowing how and when the situation can change, we prefer to prepare the ground for discussions by an ad hoc group and not let ourselves be taken by surprise, if there are any surprises.” (Cor Unum, 16/07/2007)
"So let us be confident, let us not be unprepared, let us not be outflanked, let us be wise, vigilant, fighting against those who are trying to tear the faith out of our souls and morality out of our hearts, so that we may remain Catholics, remain united to the Blessed Virgin Mary, remain united to the Roman Catholic Church, remain faithful children of the Church."- Abp. Lefebvre