Tuesday, 4 July 2017

Letter from Müller to Bishop Fellay and the Society of St. Pius X - Just say "No!"

To those bishops and priests of the Society of St. Pius X,

Just say no.

That is all.


From www.medias-presse.info comes the following excerpt of a letter from Cardinal Müller to Bishop Bernard Fellay. According to www.medias-presse.info, Cardinal Müller's letter was communicated to all SSPX members by the SSPX General House.

Excerpt from Cardinal Müller's letter:

“As you know, Pope Francis has many a time manifested his benevolence towards your Priestly Society, granting, in particular, to all priest members the faculty of confessing the faithful validly and by authorizing local Ordinaries to grant licences for the celebration of the marriages of the faithful who follow the pastoral activity in your Society. Furthermore, discussions are continuing concerning questions relative to the full re-establishment of the communion of your Society with the Catholic Church.

In relation to this, with the approbation of the Sovereign Pontiff, I judged it necessary to submit to the Ordinary Session of our Congregation (which met on May 10 last) the text of the doctrinal Declaration which was transmitted to you during the meeting of June 13 2016, as the necessary condition in view of the full re-establishment of communion. Here are the unanimous decisions of all the members of our Dicastery in this regard:

1) It is necessary to require the adhesion of the members of the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X to the new formula of the Professio Fidei dating from 1988 (c.f. annexe). Consequently, it is not sufficient to ask them to express the Professio Fidei of 1962.

2) The new text of the doctrinal Declaration must contain a paragraph in which the signatories declare in an explicit manner their acceptance of the teachings of the Second Vatican Council and those of the post-conciliar period, by granting to said doctrinal affirmations the degree of adhesion which is due to them.

3) The members of the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X must recognize not only the validity, but also the legitimacy of the Rite of the Holy Mass and of the Sacraments, according to the liturgical books promulgated after the Second Vatican Council.”

www.medias-presse.info adds that Cardinal Müller concluded the letter saying that “during the Audience granted to the Cardinal Prefect on May 20 2017, the Sovereign Pontiff approved these decisions”. The French website also adds that in his accompanying letter to SSPX priests, Father Christian Thouvenot, Secretary General of the SSPX, recalled the words of Bishop Fellay after the meeting of the major superiors in Anzère, Switzerland, on June 28 2016:

“The Society of Saint Pius X does not seek primarily a canonical recognition, to which it has a right because it is Catholic. The solution is not simply juridical. It pertains to a doctrinal position which it is imperative to manifest [...] Divine Providence will not abandon Its Church whose head is the Pope, Vicar of Jesus Christ. That is why an incontestable sign of this restoration will reside in the signified will of the Sovereign Pontiff to grant the means for re-establishing the order of the Priesthood, the Faith and Tradition – a sign which will be, furthermore, the guarantor of the necessary unity of the family of Tradition”.

Published in Fetzen Fliegen


Barona said...

Even worse than the previous offer under Pope Benedict (I include here the last minute insertion of demands forced on Pope Benedict by various episcopal conferences). Bishop Williamson concerns have been exonerated.

For all that, Cardinal Muller was then "beheaded".

Ana Milan said...

Will the Vatican please stipulate what doctrinal differences exist between themselves & the SSPX? VII was cited as a pastoral council & Archbishop Pozzo is quoted as saying : Disputed Vatican II Documents Are Non-Doctrinal - by Maike Hickson@onepeterfive.com.

philipjohnson said...

Just say no!The true Church of Jesus Christ resides in True Tradition ,not in a new pathetic New Church founded in 1965.Lord save us from this Diabolical Vatican.

Michael Dowd said...

Yes, the answer must be NO. To say YES is to lose their reason for being which is to be the light of truth in the darkness of Vatican II.

MaryP said...

Very odd that the professio fidei of 1962 and that of 1988 are so different that the first does not satisfy. This appears to be an admission by the Vatican that they consider the faith they propose to be discontinuous, a new "faith."

Also, "the degree of adhesion which is due to them" is a giant escape clause, rendering any declaration ok. However, "said doctrinal affirmations" is vague, but it could apply to the teachings of Veritatis Splendor, Donum Vitae, and other such, not to the non-doctrinal teachings of Vat II. Still, were it important, one would think the Vatican would list the teachings that must be accepted. Can it be that they prefer the ambiguity?

Irenaeus said...

'Just say no' sounds like a cliche from the failed drug prohibition programs from when I was in high school. I have a better idea: avoid the tempting aromas and sights of the food and drink offered to you by the Vatican, SSPX. Seriously. All your faithful want to do is attend Mass without the trappings of liturgical innovations - it is grossly unfair for them to be subject to all of this dispute. Let them do that. In the meantime, don't be giving them drugs and telling them it will be alright, because it won't. Your Mass is valid, as well as your other sacraments. Don't give in.

Justina said...

God save us all from the quote -unquote "benevolence" of Bergoglio!

Amateur Brain Surgeon said...

The schism has lasted for nearly thirty years, during which time the Church has gotten progressively worse. If this is how a schism is helpful in any way....

Of course, it will be argued that the SSSPX is not a schism but it certainly is judged by Tradition.

Vatican i trailed inits wake a schism, Old Catholics and now Vatican II has trailed in its wake another schism- SSPX.

Both are permanent schisms and those who succor each one claim the One True Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church has erred, is teaching heresy, and that only it can save the Church.

Jesus established His Church; He is its Head and He has always been and will always be its head.

Thus, there can be no justification for a Schism and for those who think a schism is salvific, they can not point to Tradition for any support for schism has always been roundly condemned.

Repent SSPX and come home (unlikely) or you are well on your way to becoming the Neo-Orthodox who will not accept unity with Peter.

TLM said...

For the life of me,at the beginning of their 'negotiations', I couldn't imagine why Bergoglio was so hell bent on bringing them 'into the fold' so to speak. After reading about the depleted finances in the Vatican and all the trouble with the Vatican Bank, I finally saw the light. It's all about the money. And after they are in and that objective is accomplished, the AX WILL FALL.

You are correct Vox.............just say NO!!!!

John said...

Is the Roman pontiff the guardian of Catholic tradition or is it the superior of the SSPX?

Anonymous said...

Vox: This is a VERY long post.


Excuse me, but the SSPX IS in the Church. Google "Hawaii Six". It's the story of six Hawaiians who were excommunicated by their bishop for attending a SSPX Mass. They appealed to Rome. Then-Cardinal Ratzinger said that they were NOT excommunicated because the matter of the SSPX is "an internal affair of the Church" (his exact words). They are in an irregular canonical situation, but they're just as Catholic as you or me.

Also, the supposed "claims" of the SSPX are patently false. I know some SSPX priests, occasionally have attended their Masses and made retreats at a SSPX retreat house. Never have I heard the claims you made re the SSPX.

Third, you have to distinguish between the Church (which cannot err) and Churchmen, who can err. The Pope is infallible ONLY under the exact conditions laid down by Vatican I in Pastor Aeternus (1869-70). Otherwise, he's just like you and me.

If you asked the SSPX bishops and priests - and especially the laity who support the SSPX - I'd bet they would all say that they wish the crisis in the Church was over. They'd also tell you that you can't have unity without the truth.

Example: Amoris Laetitia (AL). The four Cardinals (now 3 since Cardinal Meisner died yesterday - eternal memory) who wrote the dubia, Bishop Athanasius Schneider, Archbishop Chaput and the Archdiocese of Philadelphia, the Polish bishops conference (AND the SSPX) are upholding the traditional teaching of the Church in re to divorced and "remarried" Catholics who are living in an adulterous relationship I.e. they cannot receive Communion.

In contrast, the bishops of Argentina, Germany, Malta et al are allowing these persons who live in adultery (sorry, but that's what it is - 6th commandment!) to receive the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ!

Please read 1 Corinthians 11: 23-32. It is a sacrilege to receive Our Lord unworthily. A divorced person living in an adulterous relationship is objectively in mortal sin. For them to receive Holy Communion would compound their sin. Thus, prohibiting them from receiving Holy Communion unworthily is an act of charity.

As the Cardinals pointed out in their letter, what is prohibited in one place is allowed in another. A divorced person in this adulterous relationship living in Germany can go to communion is prohibited from doing so in Poland.

The Holy Father was respectfully asked these dubia by the Cardinals and he hasn't answered them. The more he puts it off, the more good Catholics will suffer. He has to answer them at some point - not only for the good of the Church but for the good of souls.


Anonymous said...

The answer to that question is obvious today. It certainly isn't Francis.

Amateur Brain Surgeon said...

The "Hawaii Six" was not about The SSPX nor did it substantiate their claims.

However, the facts are instructive as it illustrates the mendacious polemics the SSPX promulgate in support of their schism:

EWTN Catholic Q&A
SSPV Masses
Question from Alphonsus Liguori on 02-20-2001:
St. Joseph's:

A recent post asked if it was permissable to attend SSPV Masses.

You stated that attending such Masses would likely compromise the duty of Catholics to remain in communion with the Roman Pontiff. You thereby imply that one who attends an SSPV (or SSPX?) Mass has broken communion with the Roman Pontiff, and is therefore schismatic.

The recent SSPX "Honolulu Six" case (of which I am aware you had some role in drafting the briefs?) decided that attendance at SSPX Masses was not a schismatic action.

Could you therefore elaborate and clarify your response to this person?

In Jesu et Maria

Answer by Michael Dunnigan on 02-20-2001:

Actually, what I said was that a person who attends SSPV Masses likely would "compromise" his obligation of maintaining communion. This language avoids declaring such persons necessarily to be schismatics. However, my opinion is that it is very difficult to consider the SSPV as maintaining any type of communion with the universal Church. As far as I know, they do not acknowledge John Paul II as Pope (and do not believe that we have had a true pope since 1958) and they do not believe that the Masses celebrated throughout most of the Catholic world are valid. The words of the canon are instructive.

Canon 209 says the following:

"1. The Christian faithful, even in their own manner of acting, are always obliged to maintain communion with the Church." "2. With great diligence they are to fulfill the duties which they owe to the universal Church and the particular church to which they belong according to the prescripts of the law."

In the case of the Hawaii Six, the St. Joseph Foundation and its consulting canonists obtained the reversal of Bishop Joseph Ferrario's excommunication of several traditionalist Catholics in the diocese of Honolulu.

The status of the SSPX was not at issue in the case. The chapel in Hawaii was not staffed by the SSPX. Moreover, the bishop did not excommunicate all persons who attended Mass at the chapel, but only those who had been particularly critical of the bishop himself. The only thing that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith decided was that the actions of the six persons in question did not constitute schism. However, the Congregation did find fault with the six persons and said that a different penalty could be inflicted upon them (though none ever was).

Canon 209 covers those situations where the faithful stop short of committing schism, but where their actions evidence a serious neglect of their duty to maintain communion with the Church.