He detests all electronic media. Yikes. What about electricity, motor automobiles, jets and bell bottoms? I hope he isn't going to make the FXSSP Amish. Of course not, silly thought, they are opposed to ecumenism too!
The Second Vatican Council “we refuse to accept this as just
another council like the others”, “we question its authority”,
unfortunately “it has never been rectified or corrected by the competent
authority” yet “It conveys a spirit, a teaching, a way of thinking
about the Church which are an obstacle to the sanctification of souls,
and its tragic results are right before the eyes of all intellectually
honest men, of all people of good will”.
This was stated in the first interview after his election last July by the new superior of the Lefebvrians, the Italian Davide Pagliarani. Who says of his predecessor: “I irreparably detest all electronic media without exception and with no chance of changing my opinion, while Bishop Fellay is an expert on that subject...” (Is this a hint a Pope Francis' sort of personality here, a rupture with his predecessor?)
“Ever since the doctrinal discussions with the Roman theologians,” the Superior General of the Fraternity of St. Pius X explains in the interview published by the official website of the Lefebvrians on the eve of the canonization of Paul VI, “ you can say that we are confronted with two sources of communication, two types of relations that are established on levels that must be carefully distinguished: one public, official, clear source, which still imposes on us statements with essentially the same doctrinal contents; the other one that emanates from one or another member of the Curia, with interesting private exchanges containing new elements about the relative value of the Council, about this or that point of doctrine...
These are new and interesting discussions, which certainly should be pursued, yet nevertheless remain informal, unofficial, private discussions, whereas on the official level—despite a certain evolution of language—the same demands are always repeated. Certainly, we carefully note what is said positively in private, but - Don Pagliarani points out - here it is not really Rome speaking; these are well-meaning, timid Nicodemuses, and they are not the official hierarchy. Therefore, it is necessary to stick strictly to the official documents, and to explain why we cannot accept them.
The latest official documents - for example, the letter from Cardinal Müller dated June 2017—always express the same demand: the Council must be accepted as a precondition, and after that it will be possible to keep discussing what is not clear to the Society; in doing so, they reduce our objections to a subjective difficulty in reading and comprehension, and they promise to help us to understand correctly what the Council really meant. The Roman authorities turn this prior acceptance into a question of faith and of principle; they say this explicitly. Their demands today are the same as they were thirty years ago. The Second Vatican Council must be accepted in the continuity of ecclesial Tradition, as a part to be integrated into that Tradition.
They concede our point that there may be reservations on the part of the Society that deserve explanations, but in no case a rejection of the teachings of the Council as such: [for them] this is purely and simply Magisterial teaching! Now the problem is right here, always at the same place, and we cannot shift it to somewhere else: what is the dogmatic authority of a Council that intended to be pastoral? What is the value of these new principles taught by the Council, which have been applied systematically, consistently and in perfect continuity with what had been taught by the hierarchy that was responsible both for the Council and for the post-conciliar period?
This real Council is the Council of religious liberty, or collegiality, of ecumenism, of the “living tradition”..., and unfortunately - he stresses - it is not the result of a wrong interpretation. The proof of this is that this real Council has never been rectified or corrected by the competent authority. It conveys a spirit, a teaching, a way of thinking about the Church which are an obstacle to the sanctification of souls, and its tragic results are right before the eyes of all intellectually honest men, of all people of good will. This real Council corresponds at the same time to a doctrinal teaching and a lived-out practice that have been imposed on the “People of God”; we - Don Pagliarani affirms - refuse to accept this as just another council like the others. This is why we discuss its authority, but always in a spirit of charity, for we want nothing but the good of the Church and the salvation of souls. Our discussion is not a mere theological joust and, in fact, it has bearing on subjects that are not “debatable”: the life of the Church is at stake here, indubitably. And that is what God will judge us on. This, then, is the perspective in which we stick to the official documents from Rome, with respect but also with realism; it is not about being on the right or the left, hard-line or lax: it is simply about being realistic”.
The priest who will lead the Lefebvrians for the next twelve years points out that his predecessor, Bishop Bernard Fellay, “ is an important personage in the history of the Society, since he supervised it for half of the time in which it has existed”, 24 years out of 48, and the “fidelity of the Society to its mission is in a certain way the reflection of my predecessor’s fidelity to his”. As for the differences in personalities, “I must admit—cum grano salis [with a grain of salt]—that I irreparably detest all electronic media without exception and with no chance of changing my opinion, while Bishop Fellay is an expert on that subject...”
(Actually this is a very sober and commonsensical thought!): A theme that also returns in our relations with Rome: “ More particularly today, we must avoid haste in our judgments, which is often fostered by the modern means of communication; we must not launch into the “definitive” commentary on a Roman document or on a sensitive topic: seven minutes to improvise it and one minute to put it online... To have a “scoop” and to create a “buzz” are the new demands of the social media, but the information that they present in this way is very superficial and—what is worse—in the long run they make all serious, deep reflection impossible. The readers, the listeners, the spectators fret and worry.... This anxiety affects the way in which they receive information. The Society has suffered too much from this unhealthy and—in the final analysis—worldly tendency, which we all must urgently try to correct. The less connected we are to the Internet, the more we will rediscover peace of mind and serenity of judgment. The fewer screens we have, the better we will be able to make an objective evaluation of the real facts and of their exact import.
(He is absoluely right here!!!!): In our relations with Rome, it is not about being on the right or the left, hard-line or lax: it is simply about being realistic. The current situation of the Church, according to the Lefebvrian priest, “is a state of tragic decline: a sharp decrease in vocations, in the number of priests, in the practice of the faith, the disappearance of Christian customs, of the most elementary sense of God, which are manifested today—alas!— in the destruction of natural morality...”.
(Maybe in God's Divine Providence they are that mustard seed, that leaven needed today!): The Society of St. Pius X “ has all the necessary means to lead the movement of the return to Tradition”, both by “preserving our identity, by recalling the truth and denouncing error”, and by attract to Tradition those who are walking in that direction, encourage them, introduce them little by little to the battle and to an increasingly courageous attitude. There still are authentically Catholic souls who thirst for the truth, and we have no right to refuse them the cup of cold water that is the Gospel by an indifferent or haughty attitude”. To live by Tradition, Fr Pagliarani then explains, “means to defend it, to struggle for it, to fight so that it triumphs first in ourselves and in our families, so that then it can triumph throughout the whole Church. Our fondest wish is that the official Church will stop considering Tradition as a burden or a set of outmoded old things, but rather as the only possible way to regenerate herself. However, major doctrinal discussions will not be enough to bring this work to completion: first we have to have souls ready for all sorts of sacrifices. This is true both for consecrated persons and for the lay faithful”.
Among the most immediate projects, the superior of the Lefebrians recalls that “in 1979, on the occasion of his jubilee, Abp. Lefebvre had invited us to a Mass crusade, for God wants to renew the priesthood and, through it, the family, which is attacked today from every side. His vision then was prophetic; nowadays it has become an observation that anyone can make. What he foresaw, we now have before our eyes” and “Forty years later we cannot shirk the responsibility of this crusade: it requires an even more demanding ardor and an even more enthusiastic service to the Church and to souls. As I said at the beginning of this interview, Tradition is ours, completely, but this honor creates a serious responsibility: we will be judged by our fidelity in transmitting what we have received”.
The new superior of the Lefebvrians: we refuse to accept the Council
Don Davide Pagliarani in his first interview: “I irreparably detest all electronic media without exception and with no chance of changing my opinion”
Don Davide Pagliarani (center)
elected superior of Saint Pius X, with his assistants: on his right
Bishop Alfonso De Gallareta and, on the left, Don Chistian Bouchacourt
Pubblicato il
12/10/2018
rome
This was stated in the first interview after his election last July by the new superior of the Lefebvrians, the Italian Davide Pagliarani. Who says of his predecessor: “I irreparably detest all electronic media without exception and with no chance of changing my opinion, while Bishop Fellay is an expert on that subject...” (Is this a hint a Pope Francis' sort of personality here, a rupture with his predecessor?)
“Ever since the doctrinal discussions with the Roman theologians,” the Superior General of the Fraternity of St. Pius X explains in the interview published by the official website of the Lefebvrians on the eve of the canonization of Paul VI, “ you can say that we are confronted with two sources of communication, two types of relations that are established on levels that must be carefully distinguished: one public, official, clear source, which still imposes on us statements with essentially the same doctrinal contents; the other one that emanates from one or another member of the Curia, with interesting private exchanges containing new elements about the relative value of the Council, about this or that point of doctrine...
These are new and interesting discussions, which certainly should be pursued, yet nevertheless remain informal, unofficial, private discussions, whereas on the official level—despite a certain evolution of language—the same demands are always repeated. Certainly, we carefully note what is said positively in private, but - Don Pagliarani points out - here it is not really Rome speaking; these are well-meaning, timid Nicodemuses, and they are not the official hierarchy. Therefore, it is necessary to stick strictly to the official documents, and to explain why we cannot accept them.
The latest official documents - for example, the letter from Cardinal Müller dated June 2017—always express the same demand: the Council must be accepted as a precondition, and after that it will be possible to keep discussing what is not clear to the Society; in doing so, they reduce our objections to a subjective difficulty in reading and comprehension, and they promise to help us to understand correctly what the Council really meant. The Roman authorities turn this prior acceptance into a question of faith and of principle; they say this explicitly. Their demands today are the same as they were thirty years ago. The Second Vatican Council must be accepted in the continuity of ecclesial Tradition, as a part to be integrated into that Tradition.
They concede our point that there may be reservations on the part of the Society that deserve explanations, but in no case a rejection of the teachings of the Council as such: [for them] this is purely and simply Magisterial teaching! Now the problem is right here, always at the same place, and we cannot shift it to somewhere else: what is the dogmatic authority of a Council that intended to be pastoral? What is the value of these new principles taught by the Council, which have been applied systematically, consistently and in perfect continuity with what had been taught by the hierarchy that was responsible both for the Council and for the post-conciliar period?
This real Council is the Council of religious liberty, or collegiality, of ecumenism, of the “living tradition”..., and unfortunately - he stresses - it is not the result of a wrong interpretation. The proof of this is that this real Council has never been rectified or corrected by the competent authority. It conveys a spirit, a teaching, a way of thinking about the Church which are an obstacle to the sanctification of souls, and its tragic results are right before the eyes of all intellectually honest men, of all people of good will. This real Council corresponds at the same time to a doctrinal teaching and a lived-out practice that have been imposed on the “People of God”; we - Don Pagliarani affirms - refuse to accept this as just another council like the others. This is why we discuss its authority, but always in a spirit of charity, for we want nothing but the good of the Church and the salvation of souls. Our discussion is not a mere theological joust and, in fact, it has bearing on subjects that are not “debatable”: the life of the Church is at stake here, indubitably. And that is what God will judge us on. This, then, is the perspective in which we stick to the official documents from Rome, with respect but also with realism; it is not about being on the right or the left, hard-line or lax: it is simply about being realistic”.
The priest who will lead the Lefebvrians for the next twelve years points out that his predecessor, Bishop Bernard Fellay, “ is an important personage in the history of the Society, since he supervised it for half of the time in which it has existed”, 24 years out of 48, and the “fidelity of the Society to its mission is in a certain way the reflection of my predecessor’s fidelity to his”. As for the differences in personalities, “I must admit—cum grano salis [with a grain of salt]—that I irreparably detest all electronic media without exception and with no chance of changing my opinion, while Bishop Fellay is an expert on that subject...”
(Actually this is a very sober and commonsensical thought!): A theme that also returns in our relations with Rome: “ More particularly today, we must avoid haste in our judgments, which is often fostered by the modern means of communication; we must not launch into the “definitive” commentary on a Roman document or on a sensitive topic: seven minutes to improvise it and one minute to put it online... To have a “scoop” and to create a “buzz” are the new demands of the social media, but the information that they present in this way is very superficial and—what is worse—in the long run they make all serious, deep reflection impossible. The readers, the listeners, the spectators fret and worry.... This anxiety affects the way in which they receive information. The Society has suffered too much from this unhealthy and—in the final analysis—worldly tendency, which we all must urgently try to correct. The less connected we are to the Internet, the more we will rediscover peace of mind and serenity of judgment. The fewer screens we have, the better we will be able to make an objective evaluation of the real facts and of their exact import.
(He is absoluely right here!!!!): In our relations with Rome, it is not about being on the right or the left, hard-line or lax: it is simply about being realistic. The current situation of the Church, according to the Lefebvrian priest, “is a state of tragic decline: a sharp decrease in vocations, in the number of priests, in the practice of the faith, the disappearance of Christian customs, of the most elementary sense of God, which are manifested today—alas!— in the destruction of natural morality...”.
(Maybe in God's Divine Providence they are that mustard seed, that leaven needed today!): The Society of St. Pius X “ has all the necessary means to lead the movement of the return to Tradition”, both by “preserving our identity, by recalling the truth and denouncing error”, and by attract to Tradition those who are walking in that direction, encourage them, introduce them little by little to the battle and to an increasingly courageous attitude. There still are authentically Catholic souls who thirst for the truth, and we have no right to refuse them the cup of cold water that is the Gospel by an indifferent or haughty attitude”. To live by Tradition, Fr Pagliarani then explains, “means to defend it, to struggle for it, to fight so that it triumphs first in ourselves and in our families, so that then it can triumph throughout the whole Church. Our fondest wish is that the official Church will stop considering Tradition as a burden or a set of outmoded old things, but rather as the only possible way to regenerate herself. However, major doctrinal discussions will not be enough to bring this work to completion: first we have to have souls ready for all sorts of sacrifices. This is true both for consecrated persons and for the lay faithful”.
Among the most immediate projects, the superior of the Lefebrians recalls that “in 1979, on the occasion of his jubilee, Abp. Lefebvre had invited us to a Mass crusade, for God wants to renew the priesthood and, through it, the family, which is attacked today from every side. His vision then was prophetic; nowadays it has become an observation that anyone can make. What he foresaw, we now have before our eyes” and “Forty years later we cannot shirk the responsibility of this crusade: it requires an even more demanding ardor and an even more enthusiastic service to the Church and to souls. As I said at the beginning of this interview, Tradition is ours, completely, but this honor creates a serious responsibility: we will be judged by our fidelity in transmitting what we have received”.
13 comments:
Aside: Bp. Fellay will be in town here for a Pontifical Mass tomorrow.
I’ve noticed no differences in the Society since the election of the new Superior General. I think they’re in bunker mentality for the foreseeable future with a focus on establishing more schools.
I would note a caveat to what I wrote before: the Society continues with the relatively new strategy of not overtly addressing the situation in the Catholic Church. The canonizations tomorrow, for example, have drawn no public statement by the SSPX that I’ve noticed. When JPII was canonized, the Society produced a book refuting the canonization and presented their study to Rome in an attempt to prevent it. While the Society continues to reject the modern canonizations, they rarely espouse that position in a public, overt fashion anymore.
I guess the Society heard me. Communiqué of the General House of the SSPX on the Canonisation of Pope Paul VI
Marc the link doesn’t work
Here is the SSPX's English translation of the interview:
https://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/sspx-holds-treasure-its-hands-fr-pagliarani-interview-41010
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Communiqué of the General House of the SSPX on the Canonisation of Pope Paul VI
https://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/communiqu%C3%A9-general-house-sspx-canonisation-pope-paul-vi-41188
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Apologies!
https://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/communiqué-general-house-sspx-canonisation-pope-paul-vi-41188
A balanced and accurate assessment of Paul VI and a valid critique of the policy of popes canonizing their predecessors within living memory. Ironically the precedent was set by Pius XII, who in 1954 canonized the pope whose name the Society has adopted.
And Fr Pagliarani's comments showed a clarity and consistency which the Sovereign Pontiff would do well to emulate.
The SSPX's Communiqué on the Canonization of Pope Paul VI repeats the error that "traditional" Catholics made when they trashed Pope Saint John Paul II's Beatification/Canonization.
That is, rather than have focused upon Karol Józef Wojtyła, the man, (and now, Giovanni Battista Montini, the man, "traditional" Catholics judge the worthiness of the above men based upon their ("traditional" Catholics) judgments of Pope John Paul II, and Pope Paul VI Pontificates.
"Traditional" Catholics have determined that Pope Saint John Paul II was an horrific Pope. The same applies to Pope Blessed Paul VI.
However, as Rome made clear when Pope Saint John Paul II was beatified:
“Pope John Paul II is being beatified not because of his impact on history or on the Catholic Church, but because of the way he lived the Christian virtues of faith, hope and love... ”
Beatification, as well as canonization, "is not a judgment on a pontificate, but on the personal holiness of the candidate."
======================================================================================
Unfotunately, the SSPX's Communiqué in question includes the following horrific declaration:
"Paul VI is the Pope who, for ecumenical reasons, imposed a liturgical reform of the rites of Mass and all the sacraments.
"...Archbishop Lefebvre declared that the New Mass was “impregnated with the spirit of Protestantism” which is “a poison harmful to the Faith”.
Preposterous, anti-Catholic comments such as that empowers such Churchmen as Cardinal Burke to declares that the SSPX “is in schism since the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre ordained four bishops without the mandate of the Roman Pontiff.
"And so it is not legitimate to attend Mass or to receive the sacraments in a church that’s under the direction of the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X.”
The SSPX needs to join the Holy People of God as they rejoice in Pope Blessed Paul XVI's Canonization.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
"In our relations with Rome, it is not about being on the right or the left, hard-line or lax: it is simply about being realistic. The current situation of the Church, according to the Lefebvrian priest, “is a state of tragic decline: a sharp decrease in vocations, in the number of priests, in the practice of the faith, the disappearance of Christian customs, of the most elementary sense of God, which are manifested today—alas!— in the destruction of natural morality...”."
If Vatican II and the Novus Ordo are "poisonous" and "evil" as the SSPX claims, then how do they explain the following:
In Africa and Asia, the Church is booming. Novus Ordo Masses are packed...vocations booming.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
MT, maybe the SSPX would explain the "booming Novus Ordo Masses" in Africa and Asia, were the result of the 'protestantation' of the mass. That is things like drums, and puja like practices being a part of the mass.
Personally, I think the "rap-mass" is coming soon!
Dan, at the five parishes in my area, we have several priests from Africa. I have met the priests. I have worshiped at Masses that they've offered.
They have given every reason to believe that they are holy men. They offer Mass in reverential fashion.
I also know several Africans who've told me that Masses in their countries are offered in line with Church directives. In fact, they have reported that they've encountered more Latin and Gregorian Chant at Mass in their countries than they've encountered at Mass in America and Europe.
Anyway, the Church permits liturgical inculturation. The Church is booming throughout Africa and Asia. The Church in those areas produce holy Cardinals, bishops, priests, religious, and laymen.
The Novus Ordo/Vatican II has succeeded in holy fashion throughout Africa and Asia.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Dan said..."Personally, I think the "rap-mass" is coming soon!"
Personally, I think that it's time that the SSPX cease its "the Novus Ordo is evil and poisonous to the Faith...Vatican II is poisonous to the Faith" nonsense.
It is time for the SSPX to enter into full-communion with Holy Mother Church. Upon its regularization, such Churchmen as Cardinal Burke will cease to declare the SSPX "schismatic."
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Post a Comment