No State of Emergency?

Christ or Chaos ^ | MARCH 6, 2005 | Thomas A. Droleskey

[Land of the Irish]

MARCH 6, 2005
No State of Emergency? by Thomas A. Droleskey There has been a great deal of "discussion" lately concerning whether a State of Emergency exists within the Church that justified the episcopal consecrations done by the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre in 1988 and the existence of chapels administered by priests who have separated themselves from diocesan structures that are in the hands of unbelievers and apostates. Some very important points in defense of the State of Emergency can be found in Defending Catholic Tradition Without Fear of the Consequences, which was posted on this site on March 4, 2005. I stand by the points made by Fathers Zigrang, Smith, and Perez, thanking Our Lady for the manly courage in defense of the fullness of the Catholic Faith that they have exhibited in these truly unparalleled times. A few developments in the past record provide further evidence that the Church is indeed in a real state of emergency in her human elements. Consider the fact that Father Edward Schillebeeckx, a product of Dutch Modernism who was a peritus at the Second Vatican Council, declared that "God has no son," contending that Saint Joseph was the "natural father" of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. This is abject heresy that consists in a denial of basic elements in of the Faith found in the Apostles' Creed and reaffirmed by various dogmatic councils throughout the Church's history. Has Schillebeeckx come to this "conclusion" in recent years? Or did he hold this heresy when he was serving as an "expert" adviser at the Second Vatican Council? Will he be denounced for this heresy by any bishop in the world? Will his books be banned from Catholic universities and colleges and seminaries and theological "update" programs for religious educators? Or will Father Schillebeeckx simply be allowed to die a Catholic priest in "good standing" after having spent his life's work trying to destroy belief in the truths contained in the Deposit of Faith? Among the doctrines denied by the statement that "God has no son" and that "Saint Joseph is the natural father" of Our Lord are the following: 1) The Blessed Trinity. 2) The Incarnation. 3) The perpetual virginity of Our Lady. Father Schillebeeckx, 85, has loads of disciples and advocates in Catholic universities and colleges and seminaries and chancery offices. How ironic it is that Father Schillebeeckx's work will be hailed when he dies by many of these disciples while the courage of Archbishop Lefebvre and the likes of the late Father Frederick Schell and Father Gommar DePauw and the priests who have left the Novus Ordo structure recently is held in contempt as exemplary of a "schismatic" mentality. Oh, no, there is no State of Emergency when a Vatican II "expert" can deny the Word became Flesh and dwelt among us, is there? Father Schillebeeckx is far from alone in the pantheon of Vatican II periti who had a Modernist agenda. The late Monsignor Joseph Clifford Fenton, who was a professor of Dogmatic Theology at Saint Bernard's Seminary in Rochester, New York, before teaching at The Catholic University of America, resigned from the faculty of Catholic University rather than teach the "gospel" of "religious freedom" that had been promoted by another Vatican II peritus, the late Father John Courtney Murray, whose behind-the-scenes machinations, especially with the American bishops, helped Dignitatis Humanae to approved by the fathers of the Council in 1965. The late Father Karl Rahner, whose theology on the Eucharist was so problematic that the late Father John A. Hardon, S.J., refused to endorse a book about Eucharistic adoration that relied heavily upon Rahner, had many disciples among the Vatican II periti. Rahner himself continues to exercise his Modernist influence upon Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (who has written that Vatican II was a counter-syllabus of errors). And while Father Hans Kung was removed from his Chair of Theology at Tubingen University in 1979 and declared no longer to be able to teach as a Catholic theologian at Catholic institutions, he was a Vatican II peritus who remains in good standing as a priest. The list can go on and on and on. The influence of those steeped in error and heresy continued after the Council concluded its work in 1965. Six liberal Protestants advised the Consilium that devised the synthetic concoction that is the Novus Ordo Missae. Defenders of the late Annibable Bugnini, the Secretary of the Consilium, assert that the Protestants could only "observe" the proceedings and not make any actual contributions as the Consilium did its official work. As Father Romano Tommassi has demonstrated in his groundbreaking research of the minutes of the Consilium and in the notes of the some of the Protestant "observers," the Protestants made their contributions during coffee breaks, observing as the very observations they made "unofficially" got themselves incorporated into the actual minutes of the proceedings by bishops all too willing to do their bidding. The devastation of the Catholic Faith that has resulted from the influence of "advisers" who subscribe to various tenets of Modernism is plain for all who have the grace to see it. Any number of solid, scholarly works (The Rhine Flows into the Tiber, Iota Unum, In the Murky Waters of Vatican II, The Great Facade, the late Michael Davies' pamphlet on Dignitatis Humanae, among many others) discusses the influence exercised by the leading Modernists of the mid-Twentieth Century on the Second Vatican and its aftermath. It should come as no surprise, therefore, when a Vatican II peritus can deny the Sacred Divinity of Our Lord and deny the perpetual virginity of His Most Blessed Mother that diocesan ordinaries can deny doctrines themselves and/or attempt to silence their priests from speaking out when innocent human beings are being threatened with an unjust and immoral execution by means of starvation and dehydration. As noted before, the situation we face in the Church today is simply without precedent. When has it ever been the case that a prominent theologian can deny the Sacred Divinity of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and remain in good standing as a Catholic priest? When has it ever been the case that a the cardinal prefect of a curial congregation, in this case one-time Vatican II peritus Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (a disciple of Karl Rahner and Hans von Balthaszar, who believed in the heresy of universal salvation and the non-eternity of Hell, stating that Our Lord and Satan would be "reconciled" in the end), has consecrated a man, in this case Father Bruno Forte, to the episcopate after he had written that Our Lord's Resurrection was a myth? (See the most recent issue of The Latin Mass: A Journal of Catholic Culture and an article in the February 15 issue The Remnant written by Christopher A. Ferrara.) These things are without precedent, and they lead directly to the appointment of men as diocesan ordinaries who are Modernists and thus enemies of the Faith (see Enemies of Christ in Shepherds' Clothing). To wit, Bishop Robert N. Lynch, who has been the subject of numerous commentaries on this site in the past two weeks ( see particularly Defiantly Unrepentant), has issued an edict forbidding any of his diocesan priests from participating in a Rally and Prayer Vigil that will be held on Saturday, March 12, 2005, in front of the Woodspice Hospice in Pinellas Park, Florida, where Terri Schindler-Schiavo is held hostage as she awaits the death sentence that hangs over her innocent head. One angry woman from Florida wrote that I had mischaracterized Bishop Lynch's position, that there are no contradictions between what he has said and what the Pope has stated in reiterating the consistent teaching of the Catholic Church that the provision of food and water is always considered to be ordinary, not extraordinary are, and cannot be withdrawn, noting that one can never take into consideration probabilities of recovery or financial and psychological factors to justify what is an act of "euthanasia by omission." The inability of this woman to see that Bishop Lynch is at odds with the patrimony of the Catholic Church is the exact product of the murkiness and ambiguity that are the trademarks of the ethos of conciliarism. Once again, here is what Bishop Robert N. Lynch wrote on August 12, 2003: Proper care of our lives requires that we seek necessary medical care from others but we are not required to use every possible remedy in every circumstance. We are obliged to preserve our own lives, and help others preserve theirs, by use of means that have a reasonable hope of sustaining life without imposing unreasonable burdens on those we seek to help, that is, on the patient and his or her family and community. In general, we are only required to use ordinary means that do not involve an excessive burden, for others or for our ourselves. What may be too difficult for some may not be for others. Our Catholic Church has traditionally viewed medical treatment as excessively burdensome if it is “too painful, too damaging to the patient's bodily self and functioning, too psychologically repugnant to the patient, too suppressive of the patient's mental life, or too expensive.” [cf. “Life, Death and Treatment of Dying Patients: Pastoral Statement of the Catholic Bishops of Florida, 1989] Bishop Lynch is plainly stating that the administration of food and water can be viewed as "medical care" that is beyond the ordinary and that psychological and financial factors may be taken into consideration when deciding whether to start or maintain such "medical" care. Here is what Pope John Paul II said on these points on March 20, 2004: The obligation to provide the "normal care due to the sick in such cases" (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Iura et Bona, p. IV) includes, in fact, the use of nutrition and hydration (cf. Pontifical Council "Cor Unum", Dans le Cadre, 2, 4, 4; Pontifical Council for Pastoral Assistance to Health Care Workers, Charter of Health Care Workers, n. 120). The evaluation of probabilities, founded on waning hopes for recovery when the vegetative state is prolonged beyond a year, cannot ethically justify the cessation or interruption of minimal care for the patient, including nutrition and hydration. Death by starvation or dehydration is, in fact, the only possible outcome as a result of their withdrawal. In this sense it ends up becoming, if done knowingly and willingly, true and proper euthanasia by omission. In this regard, I recall what I wrote in the Encyclical Evangelium Vitae, making it clear that "by euthanasia in the true and proper sense must be understood an action or omission which by its very nature and intention brings about death, with the purpose of eliminating all pain"; such an act is always "a serious violation of the law of God, since it is the deliberate and morally unacceptable killing of a human person" (n. 65). Besides, the moral principle is well known, according to which even the simple doubt of being in the presence of a living person already imposes the obligation of full respect and of abstaining from any act that aims at anticipating the person's death. Social pressures cannot prevail over general principles 5. Considerations about the "quality of life", often actually dictated by psychological, social and economic pressures, cannot take precedence over general principles. First of all, no evaluation of costs can outweigh the value of the fundamental good which we are trying to protect, that of human life. Moreover, to admit that decisions regarding man's life can be based on the external acknowledgment of its quality, is the same as acknowledging that increasing and decreasing levels of quality of life, and therefore of human dignity, can be attributed from an external perspective to any subject, thus introducing into social relations a discriminatory and eugenic principle. Bishop Lynch's August 12, 2003, statement is irreconcilable with Pope John Paul II's reiteration of fundamental Catholic moral principles on March 20, 2004. Bishop Lynch's statement of March 1, 2004, that Michael Schiavo alone will determine what happens to the wife to whom he has been wantonly and publicly unfaithful cannot be reconciled with the February 24, 2005, statement of Renato Cardinal Martino, President of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, that Mrs. Schiavo's feeding and hydration tubes must remain in place and that her death as a result of their unjust and immoral removal would be a step forward for legalized euthanasia in the United States of America. I would venture to guess that Father Edward Schillebeeckx would be more welcomed to speak in the Diocese of Saint Petersburg, Florida, than would Cardinal Martino. Indeed, as Bishop Robert N. Lynch has banned his own priests from even preaching about the subject of Terri Schindler-Schiavo it is more than likely that he would attempt to prevent Cardinal Martino from doing so if he had the opportunity to appeal for Mrs. Schiavo's life next Saturday in front of her hospice in Pinellas Park. The inability to see how Bishop Lynch's positions are incompatible and irreconcilable with the reiteration of Catholic teaching by the Holy Father and Cardinal Martino is really part and parcel of the triumph of the conciliarist ethos. Ambiguity and murkiness in doctrine produced muddle-headedness and emotionalism, making people prone to overlook the simple fact that two mutually contradictory statements cannot both be true simultaneously. The Novus Ordo Missae itself enshrines this ambiguity and murkiness, as I point out in G.I.R.M. Warfare. Many Catholics will fall victim to a steady dose of this, finding it difficulty to use the faculty of reason in a logical manner to come to the simple conclusion that there has been and continues to be a revolution going on against the perennial teachings of the Catholic Church for the past four and one-half decades. An inability to see the revolution that the devil has launched against the true so as to confuse the lion's share of Catholics and to try to dispirit those who understand the revolution for what it is spills over into the civil realm. If the plain contradictions between Bishop Robert N. Lynch's words and the consistent teachings of the Catholic Church that have been reiterated generally by Pope John Paul II and in a particular way with direct reference to the case of Mrs. Terri Schindler-Schiavo by Cardinal Manner cannot be seen by practicing, pious Catholics, then it is easy for these same people to overlook the contradictions in the words of those who they they are "pro-life" but who in fact support baby-killing in some instances and who fund the chemical murders of millions of babies here and around the world. A reader wrote to me yesterday, March 5, 2005, to ask for my "sources" for the information provided in A Matter of God's Sovereignty that the Bush administration funds the chemical abortions of millions of babies in this country and around the world. The reader was not taking issue with my contention, only noting that she had never seen this before. My initial reaction was one of exasperation as I, among others, have been pointing out these incontrovertible facts for a long, long time. However, the reader had a point. After all, why should people see through the wiles of career politicians when they accept quite blithely the contradictions that exist between the ethos of conciliarism and the authentic, immutable Tradition of the Catholic Church? Thus, I present a brief excerpt from a recent article of mine in The Remnant, which comes from a list of facts from the American Life League, posted at www.all.org on December 17, 2004 (facts that have been cited endlessly by yours truly and a few others but appear to make no impression on those who want to be in the political equivalent of the tooth fairy): BUSH'S PRO-LIFE RECORD: Some people argue that President George W. Bush is enthusiastically pro-life. President Bush's record speaks for itself: · Bush appointed an almost wholly pro-abortion cabinet. His "pro-life" cabinet members during his first term include former Wisconsin governor Tommy Thompson at HHS, who supports human embryo research, and Attorney General John Ashcroft. · Bush broke his campaign promise and authorized funding for human embryonic stem cell research. The supposedly "narrow" policy is managed by Thompson and has expanded, just as he supported it in Wisconsin. · Bush's appointed National Institute of Health director, Dr. Elias Zerhouni, is a pioneer in embryonic stem cell research. · As a consequence of Thompson's appointment, HHS has done nothing about the highly irregular approval of RU-486 during the Clinton administration. · President Bush appointed pro-aborts to his bioethics council, which produced a split opinion on human cloning stating the commission could not come to a consensus on the "moral status of the human embryo." His handpicked bioethicists confirmed the ludicrous claim of Roe v. Wade that scientific and ethical experts cannot come to consensus on when life begins. Though this is absurd in any authentic representation of science or ethics, it has allowed the administration political cover behind their so-called "experts." · Despite his well-publicized statement that he was completely opposed to all human cloning, Bush blocked a vote on the Brownback/Landreiu amendment in the Senate to ban the patenting of human embryos. · The Bush administration's attorney was on the wrong side of the NOW v. Scheidler case, intervening on behalf of the plaintiffs in the racketeering suit against Joseph Scheidler and other pro-life activists. The U.S. Solicitor General agreed that there were grounds for considering clinic blockades a form of extortion. · Despite his statements regarding the sanctity of human life, Bush positively requires a legal freedom of killing preborns when the children are conceived in rape, incest, or when their mothers' lives are allegedly in danger due to their pregnancy (which is medically never the case). · On the subject of contraceptives and abortifacients, Bush has maintained millions in funding for Planned Parenthood, and has signed hundreds of millions of dollars of funding for abortifacient chemicals worldwide. His Mexico City policy permits such funding to go to government family planning programs that promote abortion as long as they "segregate" the funds. In both 2002 and 2003, the Bush administration approved USAID population control funding of $446.5 million, higher than the $425.0 million Clinton approved for 2001. · Bush approved an expanded Medicaid coverage of abortifacients in New York. · His AIDS package provides $15 billion for potential payments to overseas organizations that promote abortion including the International Planned Parenthood Federation. · Bush's White House counsel (and attorney general nominee), Alberto Gonzales, is being whispered to be "on the short list" as a possible nominee for the Supreme Court should there be a vacancy. As a Texas Supreme Court justice, Gonzales voted to authorize abortion for teenagers without parental involvement, and other rulings during his tenure on the court raise doubts about how he would rule on life-related matters if he were confirmed as a U.S. Supreme Court justice. · Bush's 2004 budget request for Title X of the Public Health Service Act, is $264 million, or $11 million more than the program was appropriated during Bill Clinton's last year in office. Planned Parenthood alone expended nearly $59 million from this program in fiscal year 2001. · Bush's 2004 budget request for international population control programs/USAID is $425 million, plus an additional $25 million set aside for the U.N. Population Fund if it becomes eligible for U.S. funding. During the last year Clinton was in office, USAID population control programs were appropriated $425 million. (Source: American Life League Communique, December 17, 2004.) I have written numerous commentaries on some of these matters. Two of them, "Of Slaves and Babies" and "True Justice for a Pro-Life Hero," appeared on the Seattle Catholic website in December of 2002 and February of 2003, respectively. Facts are facts. Others gather facts and report them. I try to disseminate them and to help readers understand them clearly from the perspective of the Catholic Faith, which is the point of our forthcoming book, "Restoring Christ as the King of All Nations," which is now in the editing process. It has been the lack of a clear witness to the Catholic Faith as a result of the ambiguities and novelties of the conciliarist ethos from popes on down to parish priests that has confused the faithful so much that they seek refuge in the delusion that career politicians are our friends when this is not the case at all. Indeed, all of the fuss made this past week about the efforts of United States Ambassador to the United Nations Ellen Sauerbrey to reaffirm that the 1995 Beijing Conference on Women did not create an "international right" to abortion borders on the absolute absurd when you consider the fact that the government of the United States, starting with the administration of President Richard M. Nixon in 1970, has funded chemical abortions all around the world. Anyone who believes that the government of the United States is squarely on the side of stopping abortion is not familiar with the facts. In the midst of all of this confusion and disarray, both ecclesiastically and civilly, we never grow discouraged. The Catholic Church is the true Church founded by the God-Man upon the Rock of Peter, the Pope. The jaws of Hell will never prevail against her. She will last until the end of time. True, the devil is having a field day right now with the Church in her human elements. The final victory, though, belongs to the Immaculate Heart of Mary once Russia is consecrated by some pope with all of the world's bishops. The Social Reign of Christ the King will be ushered in anew. The errors of Russia, which are the errors of Modernity (starting with the Protestant Revolt) in the world and Modernism in the Church, will cease. There will be an period of peace. Steadfast in the faith, ever desirous to make reparation for our own many sins, especially in this season of Lent, by offering all of our sacrifices and prayers and sufferings as the consecrated slaves of Our Lady's Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart, we keep Our Lord company in His Real Presence as we walk the Via Dolorosa that the Church in her human elements is journeying on at present. We seek out the sure refuge of Tradition and we continue to maintain the supernatural virtues of Faith, Hope and Charity in all of our efforts to plant a few seeds here and there for the restoration of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition as normative in the life of the Church and for the restoration of the Social Reign of Christ the King and of Mary our Immaculate Queen in the world. Our Lady, Help of Christians, pray for us. Saints Pereptua and Felitas, pray for us. Blessed Laetere Sunday to you all. P.S. In your charity, I would ask you to pray for the repose of the soul of my late mother, Norma Florence Red Fox Droleskey, who would have turned eighty-four today had she not died on March 18, 1982, twelve days after her sixty-first birthday. My mother was born out of wedlock to a woman who put her up for adoption. Her chances of making it out of the womb today would have been pretty negligible. A whole host of social workers would have tried to convince my grandmother, Ruth Coomer, whom my mother never met in this mortal life, to kill her twins. (My mother's twin brother died in infancy after they had been adopted in Kansas City, Missouri, by the vaudevillian performer, Chief William Red Fox and his wife.) We gave our own daughter a third name, Norma, after honoring Saint Lucy and Our Lady in order to remember all children who are at risk in what should be the safest place on earth: their mothers' wombs. Thank you for your prayers for my mother's soul. Please pray also for her mother, Ruth Coomer, with whom I hope and pray daily that she has had a happy reunion in eternity.

---

© Copyright 2004, Christ or Chaos, Inc. All rights reserved.

[ultima ratio]

"Most men feel that the Church's supreme head and shepherd should decide who are Catholics and who are not" (Quartus Supra 8-9, 15)."

Jesus had a better yardstick. He knew some Church leaders would wear sheep's clothing but be ravening wolves underneath. So he warned us to look to their fruits. By this we would be able to discern the real shepherds from the false ones. A good tree bears good fruit. A bad tree bears rotten fruit. Nor can we look to these bad shepherds for guidance in the faith.

[gbcdoj]

And how far do you suppose a suggestion goes? Is it a promise?

Originally it was a suggestion, but that was because the Pope hadn't confirmed it. Cardinal Ratzinger later wrote (May 30, 1988):

Regarding the second point, the Holy Father confirms what I had already indicated to you on his behalf, namely that he is disposed to appoint a member of the [SSPX] as a bishop (in the sense of point II/5.2 of the Protocol), and to accelerate the usual process of nomination, so that the consecration could take place on the closing of the Marian Year, this coming August 15.

The fact is, Msgr. Lefebvre explains clearly in his letter (which he wrote on June 2) to JP II, that he had decided that although he was "assured" that he would have gotten a bishop on August 15, he wanted more and so was going to go ahead and consecrate several bishops on June 30. There was simply no justification for the "state of necessity"; one bishop could have ordained SSPX priests just as well as four could.

On a side note, did you ever get Bishop de Mallerais' biography of Msgr. Lefebvre? What does it say about the consecrations?

the entire future of the Catholic Church hung in the balance

Msgr. Lefebvre couldn't wait 45 days to see? He lived until 1991.

But at least you don't repeat the myth that the Pope promised Lefebvre a bishop of his own choosing.

Right. Msgr. Lefebvre was asked to submit several names from which the Pope would pick one, but he refused.

On the 20th of May, I wrote to the Holy Father, telling him that I had signed the protocol but that I was insistent upon having bishops, and bishops on the 30th of June.

But in fact there was no way of coming to an agreement. While I was facing Cardinal Ratzinger with that alternative, and while he was saying that he would give us a bishop on the 15th of August, he was asking me for still more dossiers in order that the Holy See might choose a bishop who would meet the requirements laid down by the Vatican. Now, where was that going to lead us? (Fideliter, July-August 1989)

[ultima ratio]

"even the alleged 'necessity' was deliberately created by Archbishop Lefebvre in order to preserve a posture of separation from the Catholic Church"

What hogwash. Aren't you embarrassed to post such nonsense? Canon 1323 says its up to the individual to decide whether a necessity exists or not. If he decides it does--then there can be no automatic excommunication. That's the law. No amount of second-guessing can erase it. If the Pope had a problem with that, he had every right to convene a tribunal and make formal accusations. He did not. So the canon stands.

In fact, the charge is a blatant smear. The Archbishop not only believed there was a necessity, he wrote about it, he complained loudly to Rome about it, he was interviewed by the press for years about it. There can be no doubt whatsoevr of his honesty in this matter.

What is shocking is the extent to which the Pope's defenders will lie to themselves to twist reality and pretend somehow that the Archbishop was insincere when clearly he was not. He had argued over and over he must preserve the ancient Mass since it was the primary vehicle for transmitting the ancient faith. That this should be so airily dismissed says a lot about Rome's lack of faith these days--and a lot about this Pope.

[ultima ratio]

"Can. 1325 Ignorance which is crass or supine or affected can never be taken into account when applying the provisions of cann. 1323 and 1324. Likewise, drunkenness or other mental disturbances cannot be taken into account if these have been deliberately sought so as to commit the offence or to excuse it; nor can passion which has been deliberately stimulated or nourished."

No such canon could have applied. Is there no nonsense you will not dredge up to support a papal injustice? It is ridiculous to think the Archbishop believed there was a state of emergency because of ignorance, crass or otherwise. On the contrary, the evidence was everywhere. Even Paul VI admitted the Church was in a process of auto-demolition. Mass attendance had collapsed everywhere after the institution of the Novus Ordo. Major dogmas were being ignored and rejected by masses of Catholics. The folly of Assisi I had just occurred. Missions were collapsing. The ancient Mass was almost entirely eliminated and corruption was spreading everywhere. And all this was occuring within the span of a few years since the close of the Council. The crass ignorance was not on the Archbishop's part, believe me--it was on the part of those in full denial of the facts.

[gbcdoj]

Canon 1323 says its up to the individual to decide whether a necessity exists or not. If he decides it does--then there can be no automatic excommunication. That's the law.

Can. 1325 Ignorance which is crass or supine or affected can never be taken into account when applying the provisions of cann. 1323 and 1324.

When ignorance is deliberately aimed at and fostered, it is said to be affected, not because it is pretended, but rather because it is sought for by the agent so that he may not have to relinquish his purpose. Ignorance which practically no effort is made to dispel is termed crass or supine. (Catholic Encyclopedia, "Ignorance")

[gbcdoj]

It is ridiculous to think the Archbishop believed there was a state of emergency because of ignorance

There was, objectively, no state of necessity. Even granting the premise that there was a necessity for the SSPX to have a bishop, this had been granted and Msgr. Lefebvre himself stated that he was "assured" he would have received this bishop:

That is why we are asking for several bishops chosen from within Catholic Tradition, and for a majority of the members on the projected Roman Commission for Tradition, in order to protect ourselves against all compromise.

Given the refusal to consider our requests, and it being evident that the purpose of this reconciliation is not at all the same in the eyes of the Holy See as it is in our eyes, we believe it preferable to wait for times more propitious for the return of Rome to Tradition. That is why we shall give ourselves the means to carry on the work which Providence has entrusted to us, being assured by His Eminence Cardinal Ratzinger's letter of May 30th that the episcopal consecration is not contrary to the will of the Holy See, since it was granted for August 15th.

[ultima ratio]

"Originally it was a suggestion, but that was because the Pope hadn't confirmed it. Cardinal Ratzinger later wrote (May 30, 1988): "Regarding the second point, the Holy Father confirms what I had already indicated to you on his behalf, namely that he is disposed to, etc..."

But Ratzinger's own secretary, in the phony letter drawn up for Lefebvre to sign, repeated the word "suggestion"--which was the final straw for the Archbishop. Besides, how is Ratzinger's comment that the Pope "is disposed" to grant a bishop supposed to be reassuring? How is this any better than entertaining a suggestion? It is a slight movement in the right direction, but still not a promise. It is far less than a commitment. After all, they weren't talking about church architecture. The survival of the ancient Mass was at stake. Why couldn't the Pontiff have simply said yes? He said yes to all of Bernadin's boys. He said yes to Mahoney and worse. The guess was that the Pope was looking for a weak link to be consecrated, somebody easily manipulated. If he couldn't have such an individual, he would mandate no bishops at all. This was why he had already turned down so many names presented by the Archbishop--men of iron commitment to the ancient Mass.

[ultima ratio]

You post so much absurdity it's hard to keep up. You say, "Msgr. Lefebvre was asked to submit several names from which the Pope would pick one, but he refused."

You make it sound rude and obdurate. But he had been playing Rome's game long enough. He had already sent countless dossiers of good honest orthodox priests--none were ever approved. So he understood at this point the fix was in. Yes, he lived four more years--but he was old and ailing. He couldn't have known this. He might have indeed been dead within days for all he knew. He also knew no name would please the Pontiff unless it were of someone easily manipulated--one of the moles who within days after the consecrations went over to the Pope's side and became the Priestly Fraternity.

[St.Chuck]

Mr. Drolesky, as usual, gets it wrong concerning Fr. Schillebeeckx. In 1979 Fr. S. was brought to the Vatican to explain some of his views. The Vatican ruled that some of his views were " at variance with the teaching of the Church." Mr. Drolesky makes it out to seem as though Fr. S. has spent his career unmolested and ignored by the Church. Not so.

[Lilllabettt]

Is no one else annoyed by the presence of quotes around the words "Holy Father," as if John Paul II were not actually the Holy Father? Honestly, the level of infantile bad attitude implied by this is really quite remarkable. Perhaps there is a legitimate reason, I am not seeing, which would permit mature adults to behave so?

[ultima ratio]

"There was, objectively, no state of necessity. Even granting the premise that there was a necessity for the SSPX to have a bishop, this had been granted and Msgr. Lefebvre himself stated that he was 'assured' he would have received this bishop."

Look, you're hopelessly obdurate and illogical. Why should it matter whether there was an objective state of necessity? What mattered was that the Archbishop believed there was a necessity. Nor should a temporary hopeful belief in a Vatican "assurance" obscure the fact that there was insufficient trust in Rome's sincerity in the long run. In fact the language of the Protocol Agreement itself only speaks of a "suggestion". We can play this game all night till the wee hours--it's futile. You are committed a priori to see only the Pope's point of view--which ignores Lefebvre's appropriate evocation of canon law. You try to ascribe culpable ignorance to the Archbishop--without any proof whatsoever. From my perspective you are part of the vicious smear that is ongoing, the lies that are continually spread against this fraternity of good priests.

[gbcdoj]

He had already sent countless dossiers of good honest orthodox priests

He had sent three (see the Fideliter interview).

someone easily manipulated--one of the moles who within days after the consecrations went over to the Pope's side and became the Priestly Fraternity.

"Moles," ultima? You're assuming that the SSPX was right. If Msgr. Lefebvre was in the wrong, then it was Dom Gerard and the FSSP priests who were the true Catholics.

He might have indeed been dead within days for all he knew.

Then Bishop de Mayer could have done the consecration.

[ultima ratio]

If what you say was true--what was he doing as an "expert" at the Council?

[gbcdoj]

The quote was from a sedevacantist priest formerly of the SSPX. He believes (ridiculously) that the Pope is a heretic and hence deposed and no true Pope.

[ultima ratio]

I did not place the quotation marks around the title Holy Father. I was citing a passage originally posted by gbcdoj. You will have to ask him why the piece he quoted carried quotation marks.

[PRSOrlando]

Weren't the FSSP supposed to get a bishop as well? Like that has happened...

[gbcdoj]

But Ratzinger's own secretary, in the phony letter drawn up for Lefebvre to sign, repeated the word "suggestion"--which was the final straw for the Archbishop.

This letter was given to Msgr. Lefebvre to send in response to the Pope's letter:

Lastly, I wish to express my gratitude for the intention that you manifested to take into account the particular situation of the Society, proposing to nominate a bishop chosen from its members, and especially in charge of providing for its special needs. Of course, I leave to Your Holiness the decision concerning the person to be chosen and the opportune moment. May I just express the wish that this be in the not too distant future?

Of the letter you refer, Msgr. Lefebvre says:

Indeed, in that letter - I do not have it here - which he brought me from the Holy Father, there is an astonishing sentence. It goes, "It is possible that we consider one day granting you a consecration," as if it was something very vague, a mere possibility, an eventuality. I cannot accept that.

It would seem that he misremembered, as the response prepared for him does not fit with this "possibility".

[ultima ratio]

We've had these quarrels before. They lead nowhere but to an endless labyrinth of citations of documents till everybody's eyes glaze over. Stick to Drolesky's point. Why was Schillebeeck so prominent during the Council. The man was a heretic. He has had a huge influence. Deal with the big picture--the calamity that has befallen the Church--not with tiny bits and pieces of who said what when and why.

[ultima ratio]

"Of course, I leave to Your Holiness the decision, etc."

Sounds like a suggestion to me. Shows where some of Ratzinger's people were coming from. The letter was outrageous and demeaning.

[gbcdoj]

Fr. Schillebeeckx became radicalized after the Council. To give one example, in 1963 he stated of the teaching against contraception: "It is unthinkable that in such an important question of daily life the Church could err in its solemn teaching". But in 1968 he rejected Humanae Vitae.