RELATIONS ROME-FSSPX: THE TENDENOUS INTERPRETATIONS OF P. THOUVENOT, SECRETARY GENERAL OF THE FSSPX
After
outlining his role as Secretary General and giving some technical
details about the General Chapter to be held next July, he said:
"Our statutes provide for the Fraternity to carry out" the necessary procedures to become a pontifical right ". This
was, moreover, Bishop Lefebvre's concern against the unjust and illegal
suppression of the Fraternity in 1975 and at the time of the canonical
recognition proposals he formulated in 1987. But this question of our
legal status is a consequence of the abnormal situation of the Church
and the bad process that was done to us. We are Roman Catholics, deeply united to the Pope and the hierarchy of the Church, but in the Catholic faith. We follow the pope, vicar of Christ and successor of St. Peter, not Luther or Lamennais. We
recognize the magisterium, the authority of the Roman Pontiff and the
councils, but in continuity with the Tradition, not in the news that
corrupts the faith, the liturgy and the doctrine of the Church.
To answer your question, it is likely that during the Chapter the question of the status of the personal Prelature will arise. But
it is only the Superior General who directs the Fraternity and is
responsible for the relations of the Tradition with the Holy See. Archbishop Lefebvre, in 1988, saw fit to specify this aspect ".
It is necessary to correct two points that are seriously inaccurate, but sadly significant.
1 - Do the statutes of the FSSPX provide for the FSSPX to take the necessary steps to become pontifical right?
Indeed, it is true that Archbishop Lefebvre planned, when the FSSPX was created in 1970, that it would "take the necessary steps to become a pontifical right". This mention is perfectly natural and has nothing to do with the current situation of the Church. Initially established as a diocesan right , which is the right thing to do, every congregation that has a presence in several dioceses usually becomes pontifical right. This
mention of the statutes of the FSSPX is, therefore, timeless, and use
it as an argument to seek an agreement with Rome today without taking
into account the fact that it is occupied by the enemies of the Church,
considered canonically as suspects of heresy ; It is a trickery. On
the contrary, Bishop Lefebvre always preferred unity in the integral
profession of Catholic Truth and the public struggle that such unity imposes ,
to a canonical recognition that would impose on the Society that he
founded, only silence about misdeeds and dangers. of conciliar Rome.
"There are those who are willing to sacrifice the fight of faith by saying:" let us enter the Church first! " (...) We look at our dogmatic problem. (...) Let's not talk about the badness of the mass. (...) Let's not say anything about religious freedom, human rights or ecumenism. Let us street, street , and then we can enter into the framework of the Church, and once we are inside the Church, you will see: we will be able to fight, we will be able to do this, we will be able to do the other ... It is absolutely false! You do not enter into a superior framework and under, saying that we are going to change everything when we are inside, while they have everything in their hands to stop us, they have all the authority. " Mons. Lefebvre, EcĂ´ne, January 21, 1984).
"There are those who are willing to sacrifice the fight of faith by saying:" let us enter the Church first! " (...) We look at our dogmatic problem. (...) Let's not talk about the badness of the mass. (...) Let's not say anything about religious freedom, human rights or ecumenism. Let us street, street , and then we can enter into the framework of the Church, and once we are inside the Church, you will see: we will be able to fight, we will be able to do this, we will be able to do the other ... It is absolutely false! You do not enter into a superior framework and under, saying that we are going to change everything when we are inside, while they have everything in their hands to stop us, they have all the authority. " Mons. Lefebvre, EcĂ´ne, January 21, 1984).
"Therefore, it is a strict duty for every priest who wants to remain a Catholic, to separate from this conciliar church, as long as it does not return to the tradition of the Magisterium of the Church and the Catholic faith " (Bishop Lefebvre, Spiritual itinerary 1990, page 31)
2 - Is the Superior General solely responsible for the relations of the Tradition with the Holy See?
To avoid any debate, Father Thouvenot stated the following:
"It is probable that during the Chapter the question of the status of the personal Prelature will arise. But
it is only the Superior General who directs the Fraternity and is
responsible for the relations of Tradition with the Holy See. "
In view of this opinion, we must first recall that the Superior General of the SSPX is superior to the SSPX, and not the "pope" of the Tradition .
There also Monsignor Lefebvre abstained, explicitly and on numerous occasions, from falling into this pitfall. Even if his moral authority was there, it never gave rise to a charge. Therefore,
it is very unfortunate to see how much this wisdom of Bishop Lefebvre,
so respectful of the Orders that requested his sacraments, has been
abandoned. These
friendly communities are marginalized in the evolution of relations
with Rome, being often less informed than the simple priests of the
FSSPX. Emitting their own opinion about these Roman relationships, sometimes even caused them to be denied the sacraments.
As
for the SSPX, it is one thing for the Superior General, as Bishop
Lefebvre pointed out with common sense, to be in charge of relations
with Rome; but is he therefore all-powerful and the only one who decides in this domain? The
General Chapter, which is the supreme authority in a religious society
not in matters of government, but in the matter of guidelines and
sometimes even in the legislative [1], does not have any place in these
relations with Rome in times of crisis? The
question was raised cruelly in the SSPX when, in 2011, its Superior
General ignored the guidelines given by the 2006 chapter, which
stipulated that no practical agreement was possible without a prior
doctrinal agreement. In
fact, in 2011, despite the sad observation of the doctrinal discussions
that revealed the total disagreement in dogmatic matters, the Superior
General followed the example of Rome, seeking to "leave aside the
theologians" to reach an agreement. practical.
The
2012 Chapter also decided that if Rome ever came to offer a canonical
status to the Superior General under acceptable conditions (conditions
listed in that Chapter), there would be a deliberative Chapter,
which means that the decision to accept this agreement did not
correspond to right to the Superior General, but to the General Chapter. Unfortunately, these prescriptions of the 2012 chapter were ignored, in turn, largely ignored by the Superior General of the SSPX. It
is alleged that, since the erection of a personal prelature requires a
motu proprio of the pope, which does not correspond to being accepted or
not (!), Such an erection would be carried out without a prior decision of the General Chapter.
And
what is even more serious, they are releasing themselves from the six
necessary conditions established in the 2012 chapter. Therefore, we
understand the serious crisis of authority that the SSPX is currently
going through: its origin is not in the priests who are in disagreement
with the decisions of the Superior General. The
crisis of authority that the FSSPX is going through today stems from
the contradiction between the guidelines of the General Chapter and the
practical decisions taken by its Superior General.
conclusion
On
the eve of a new General Chapter of the SSPX (July 2018), we can only
pray that the Fraternity will resume the torch of the anti-liberal
struggle and end the crisis of authority that has undermined it for some
years. This would inevitably happen through the change of man at the head of the Society founded by Bishop Lefebvre.
Christian Lassale
_____________________
_____________________
[1] - Cf. Emile Lombart, (Dean of the Faculty of Canon Law of the Catholic Institute of Toulouse), Manuel de droit canon , 1958, p. 168: "Almost
always the supreme authority is held by the General Chapter, which
chooses the Superior General and has more power than he. The
chapter meets at fixed times (every 6 years in most of the recent
institutes) and in extraordinary circumstances, such as the death or
resignation of the Superior General. In institutes of exempt clergy, you have legislative power; in other places it can take certain valid measures until the next Chapter, which can maintain them. "
