Bishop Fellay of the Society of St. Pius X to Meet Pope August 29

In this year’s May-June issue of the French bi-monthly magazine “Sous la Bannière”, on page 7, there is a most interesting quotation attributed to Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI. It reads as follows:

“A source in Austria, preferring to remain anonymous, assures us that Cardinal Ratzinger recently made the following admission to an Austrian bishop who is a friend of his: ‘I have two problems on my conscience: Archbishop Lefebvre and Fatima. As to the latter, my hand was forced. As to the former, I failed’.”

Of course if the “source in Austria” prefers to remain anonymous, we have no means of verifying whether the Cardinal truly said these things about Archbishop Lefebvre and Fatima, but the quotation is at least true to life, so it is worth dwelling on for a few moments.

As for what the Cardinal says about Fatima, we suspected back in June of 2000, when the Vatican – with the Cardinal in the forefront – supposedly released the third Secret, that there was some trickery going on. Either Rome was still hiding the true Secret, the one kept in his room by Pius XII but never looked at, or Rome was revealing the true Secret but twisting its interpretation. Either way, we said to ourselves at that time, Rome was wanting to have done with Fatima, and we saw Cardinal Ratzinger playing a leading part in the manoeuvre. Now comes the quotation from Austria confirming that the Cardinal was indeed taking part in a manoeuvre. Who “forced his hand”? Was it John-Paul II? Some hidden power behind both Pope and Cardinal? God knows.

As for what the quotation says about Archbishop Lefebvre, there too, if the quotation is not true it is certainly true to life. In May of 1988 when Archbishop Lefebvre was threatening to consecrate with or without Rome’s permission bishops for the Society of St. Pius X, it was Cardinal Ratzinger who represented the Holy See in the negotiations meant to head off the “break” that such consecrations would involve. We recall that the Cardinal almost “succeeded” on May 6 when Archbishop Lefebvre signed a draft agreement, but the Cardinal “failed” when the Archbishop after a sleepless night took his signature back on the following day. And now comes the quotation from Austria confirming that the Cardinal still sees the termination of those negotiations as a “failure”.

This confirmation is important as suggesting that the Cardinal will remain, now he is Pope, in the same frame of mind to deal with the Society of St. Pius X in the audience which this August 29 he is due to grant to Archbishop Lefebvre’s successor at the head of the Society, Bishop Bernard Fellay. In other words, it is highly likely both that the present Pope is sincerely convinced that the “break” between the Society and Rome must be brought to an end, and that he will give all the appearances of being of good will when he employs all possible means, including his long experience of Roman diplomacy and all the prestige of his now exalted rank, to bring the “break” to an end.

In fact, a Rome-SSPX agreement seems impossible. And of course if the Society rejoined Rome, the resistance of Catholic Tradition would carry on without it, and if the Pope “converted”, then instead of the gentle war now being waged on his right by Tradition, he would be faced with a savage war being waged on his left by the cabal of neo-modernists. Either way, the war goes on between the friends and the enemies of the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ.

But what is important here and now for Catholics who will be following with interest the up-coming meeting between Rome and the Society, is not to fall into any of the traps that the Devil will be setting for them.

Firstly, the fact that the Society is asking to be received in audience by the Holy Father does not mean that it is on the point of betraying. If there is no contact between Tradition and Rome, now will the truth of Tradition ever make itself heard in Rome?

Secondly, there being a contact does not mean that an agreement is possible. Let all the Catholics who dream of fitting together Catholic Tradition and the present neo-modernist authorities of the Church come back down to earth. Catholic Authority and Catholic Truth will one day re-unite, but nothing for the moment indicates that that day is tomorrow – or the day after!

Lastly – and this is the subtlest trap of them all – let nobody think that because the Pope is of good will, therefore he cannot be a neo-modernist, or that because he is a neo-modernist, therefore he cannot be of good will. The present crisis of the Church would be much less grave and would deceive far fewer people if the neo-modernists were obviously of ill will. It is characteristic of these last times that bad principles are so widespread that few people are aware of the fact, and many people do evil convinced that they are doing good. That is why the Cardinal’s quotation is true to life in which he says that his “failure” of 1988 weighs “on his conscience”.

Let us pray to the Mother of God for Benedict XVI to see, above all the need to consecrate Russia to her Immaculate Heart, and if we ourselves can see, let us pray to her that we too not go blind – “He who thinks he stands, let him take care not to fall”, says St. Paul (I Cor X, 12). The times are bad!

From Vatican I:

"And so We, adhering faithfully to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God, our Savior, the elevation of the Catholic religion and the salvation of Christian peoples, with the approbation of the sacred Council, teach and explain that the dogma has been divinely revealed, that the Roman Pontiff,
1. when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when carrying out the duty of the pastor and teacher of all Christians in accord with his supreme apostolic authority
2. he explains a doctrine of faith or morals
3. to be held by the universal Church,
through the divine assistance promised him in blessed Peter, operates with that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer wished that His church be instructed in defining doctrine on faith and morals; and so such definitions of the Roman Pontiff from himself, but not from the consensus of the Church, are unalterable.
But if anyone presumes to contradict this definition of Ours, which may God forbid: let him be anathema."

The counter-condition to Infallibility is:

"For the Holy Ghost was not promised to the successors of Peter that by His revelation they might disclose new doctrine, but that by His help they might guard sacredly the revelation transmitted through the apostles and the deposit of faith, and might faithfully set it forth."

Therefore:
If the Pope teaches something new, or something never before taught in the Church, like Ecumenism, he is not Infallible.

Infalliblity, Vatican II and the Church since 1960
The Infallible definition of Infallibility has important consequences for Vatican II and everything that has happened in the Church since 1960.

Liturgy is not Infallible for two reasons:

It is not a doctrine of Faith or Morals.
It does not apply to the Universal Church. The Universal Church is divided into Rites, each with their own Liturgy. The Eastern Rites of Ukrainian, Armenian and Maronite are the best known of these other rites.
Because the Liturgy is not Infallible, therefore the New Mass is not Infallible.

Therefore, whe says that the Pope is correct or is to be followed if he is trying to reteach something that has already been defined and taught already as it pertains to faith and morals as the Vatican II Popes have done

The counter-condition to Infallibility is:

That's not a "counter-condition". Try quoting the whole paragraph.

For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles. Indeed, their apostolic teaching was embraced by all the venerable fathers and reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors, for they knew very well that this See of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Savior to the prince of his disciples: "I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren."

Liturgy is not Infallible for two reasons:

The rite for the celebration of the Roman Liturgy is a precept of general importance, and therefore laws promulgated for the regulation of the rites are infallible. Cardinal Journet says (footnotes omitted, excepting 814):

The great precepts of the canonical power are not only guaranteed by an absolute infallibility in their principle, their foundation, their root; they are also (and this is a result) guaranteed by a prudential infallibility in themselves, directly and formally. It is not enough to say that they can never prescribe anything contrary to the natural law and the law of the Gospel, it must further be held that all are wise, prudent and beneficial. There are "grave and just reasons", said the Council of Trent, that have led the Church to ratify the custom of communicating the faithful under one kind; the same Council declares it "opportune, praiseworthy, pious and religious" to carry the Eucharist in procession; it teaches not only that the Canon of the Mass is free from all error, but also that "it contains nothing but what breathes holiness and piety and lifts up the heart to God"; it affirms that the liturgical ceremonies accompanying the celebration of Mass are well adapted to bring out the majesty of the sacrifice and to facilitate contemplation of the sublime realities it contains. Precepts so universally and constantly proposed cannot lack wisdom, prudence and expediency. John of St. Thomas spoke his true mind on the subject when he wrote that "as for the laws proposed to the whole Church, such as those drawn up by a General Council or incorporated in the Corpus Juris, granting the general approbation they enjoy, it is difficult to admit that they contain even prudential error, so that they are not to be waived without some special permission."[814] Thus, between the absolute assistance of the revealed precepts, and the fallible prudential assistance of particular precepts, one admits a prudential and infallible assistance for each of the precepts of general interest. These can never be imprudent nor even useless.
However, it does not necessarily follow that precepts of general application will always be the most prudent possible. ...
I have mentioned several of these measures of general interest. It must be insisted that they always arise as consequences or determinations of the great ordinances of Scripture. The laws of fasting and abstinence for example are bound up with the Gospel precept to do penance (Matt. xi. 21). The laws prescribing Sunday attendance at Mass, or again, the mode of celebrating Mass, the use of unleavened bread in the Western Church, are bound up with the commandment to commemorate the sacrifice of Holy Thursday (1 Cor. xi. 24).
814 II-II, qq. 1-7; disp. 3, a. 3, no. 5; vol. VII, p. 311: As I have said, most theologians after Melchior Cano content themselves with expressly distinguishing on the one hand all that concerns the substance, the morality and the rectitude of laws proposed to the whole Church, which cannot, without heresy, be said to contain anything contrary to the evangelical or natural law; and, on the other hand, all that concerns the concrete application of these laws, their adaptation to the circumstances, their strictness, their sanctions, and so forth, in which error is always possible. cf. Suarez, De Fide, disp. 5, sect. 8, no. 7; John of St. Thomas, loc. cit., etc. Between these two extreme groups, the first of which contains the revealed and absolutely infallible precepts which cannot be denied without heresy, and the second the particular and fallible precepts, we must, I believe, find a place for canonical precepts of general applicability which are prudentially infallible. For we have seen St. Thomas (in Quodlibet IX, art. 16) recognize three kinds of decisions of the Church: those concerning faith, in which the Church is certainly infallible; those concerning particular facts in which she is fallible; and those that are intermediary, in which piety inclines to take the Church for infallible. There are other theologians who speak, at least in actu exercito, of intermediate decisions. St. Antoninus for example, following John of Naples, distinguishes decisions of the Pope on the particular concerns of private persons—just distribution of offices and benefices, judicial sentences etc.—in which the Pope can err through ignorance or passion; and decisions concerning the good of the whole Church, bearing either on matters of faith or of morals: constitutions, decrees, decretals, in which, if left to her own resources the Church might err, but in which she is in fact protected by the power of Christ (Summa Sacrae Theologiae, Juris Pontificii et Caesarii, III pars., tit. xii, cap. v III, 2). It looks as though there were only two groups here. Really there are three. For the decrees and decretals which St. Antoninus has separated from particular decisions, cannot, for all that, be included along with decisions concerning the faith. The text of John of St. Thomas, cited above, is very clear. Billuart, who does not seem to have seen it, is nevertheless of the same opinion: "After Suarez and Banez, John of St. Thomas adds that the Church can err as regards the circumstances, application and execution of the law, for example by issuing too many precepts and censures, and applying them too strictly. For, he says, all that seems rather to pertain to the prudence and surrounding modalities of the law than to its substance and morality. Cano thinks likewise.... However, when we are concerned with laws laid down for all Christians, it is only out of regard for these very learned men that their reservations are to be entertained: I should not dare to make them mine" (De Regulis Fidei, dissert. 3, a. 5).

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.