REGULARIZATION OF THE FSSPX "IN CHANGE OF NOTHING" ?: IMPOSSIBLE!
Given the insistence of the authorities of the SSPX in this falsehood, Non Possumus, for its part, considers it convenient to insist, once again, on the truth.
Quotation from an article of a priest-priest published in the websites of the Fraternity: "this
article understands the recognition" as it is "in the same sense of the
General House, and especially as a phrase that includes freedom for the
SSPX to profess openly their doctrinal positions, maintain their
liturgical practices, and preserve their properties and places of
worship. "
Ménzingen, then, understands the recognition "as is" as one that would allow the SSPX these three things:
- freedom for the SSPX to openly profess their doctrinal positions;
- maintain their liturgical practices;
- preserve their properties and places of worship.
- freedom for the SSPX to openly profess their doctrinal positions;
- maintain their liturgical practices;
- preserve their properties and places of worship.
Well to this we respond, reiterating what we have said in this blog (more recently and synthetically here ), that such recognition is absolutely impossible, impracticable, inconceivable.
It is necessary to make clear that we are dealing with a mere slogan of the accordionists.
Let's see:
1 ° As for properties and places of worship : is it possible that the FSSPX to be regularized, retain the right of ownership over their real estate? This can be granted, although at this point certain non-easy canonical questions are implicated, which we can not discuss here. We
will limit ourselves to indicating that, in the official structure, the
titular entities of the ecclesiastical goods are the legal persons as
immediate subjects, the Ordinaries as mediates, and the Roman Pontiff as
supreme holder. The ownership of the patrimony is, then, complex, multiple and concurrent (see here ).
2 Regarding the liturgical : when it is recognized, could the SSPX maintain its liturgical practices? Yes, I could, as Ecclesia Dei congregations can.
3 ° And, finally, as to what doctrinal , which is the essential , could the SSPX openly profess its doctrinal positions? No. This is impossible:
a) Because the Fraternity would be governed by the liberal code of 1983, product of Vatican II, excluding the code of 1917 , the work of Saint Pius X for the most part. Currently,
the Fraternity uses the 1917 code as a basis and rejects all the canons
of the new 1983 code that it judges harmful or useless. Some quotations: "Why, in my opinion, is it impossible for us to accept en bloc canon law as it was edited? Because it is precisely in line with the reforms of Vatican II " (Bishop Lefebvre, conference in Ecône, 15-3-83). The 1983 code "is very serious because it goes much further [in the promotion of errors] than the council itself" (Bishop Lefebvre, conference of October 29, 1984 in Stuttgart, Germany). «The
Fraternity of Saint Pius X expresses its deep disagreement with the
letter and spirit of this new Code, which encompasses the conciliar
opinions on the Church and the world» ("Breviary on the SSPX", Seminar of the Holy Cross, Australia, in which P. Robinson is a professor, 1998). Bishop Fellay himself has acknowledged that the new code is "an expression of conciliar novelties" .
b) Because the
Fraternity would be subject to authorities that are liberal and
modernist, and no one in their right mind can claim that the priests of
the SSPX, being subject to a liberal and modernist pope, will dare to
combat the liberal sayings and facts and modernists of his superior, the
pope . Already in 2012, three of the four bishops of the SSPX alerted Ménzingen about a "decrease in the confession of faith" because of the negotiations with Rome. If that decline has only worsened since then, as is evident to everyone who has eyes to see; What is left for when the SSPX is submitted to the official hierarchy? More extensive quotation of the letter of Mons. Tissier, Mons. de Galarreta and Mons. Williamson to the General Council of 7-4-12: ...
"an even purely practical agreement would necessarily and progressively
silence, on the part of the Fraternity, any criticism of the council or
of the new Mass. Leaving these victories that are the most important of
the Revolution to be attacked, the poor Fraternity will necessarily
cease to oppose the universal apostasy of our lamentable epoch and will
bury itself, and ultimately, who will guarantee us to remain How are we
protecting ourselves from the Roman curia and from the bishops? Pope
Benedict XVI? No matter how much he refuses, this slippage is
inevitable.Does the symptoms of this decrease in the confession of the
Faith not already appear in the Fraternity? Today, unfortunately, it is
the opposite that would be "abnormal." Just before the Consecrations of
1988 when many brave people insisted before Monsignor Lefebvre to make a
practical agreement. With
Rome as it would open a large field of apostolate, he said his thought
to the four consecrated: A great field of apostolate can be, but in
ambiguity and following two opposite directions at the same time, what
would have ended rotting us "How obey and continue to preach the whole
truth? How to make an agreement without the Fraternity rotting in contradiction? "
c) Because the SSPX would be forced to make unacceptable concessions in the doctrinal statement that it would have to sign
when accepting the canonical recognition or as a requirement for the
granting of the latter, a statement whose preparation has been
recognized many times from Rome and from Ménzingen, and it has, as an
immediate precedent, the unacceptable doctrinal statement drafted and delivered to the Vatican by Bishop Fellay in the year 2012.
Consequently:
given that it is impossible for Rome to recognize the SSPX "as it is",
the essential premise of Fr. Robinson's argument is destroyed, and with
it, the conclusions of his article.
