Skip to main content

Petition to the Holy Father - SSPX DICI

+
JMJ

The interesting thing about the canonical (or lack thereof) structure of the SSPX is that, while being within the Church, they have the ability to be the conscience of the Pope.

Case in point, one person asked Pope Benedict XVI what he was thinking of when he gave communion to Brother Roger Schutz (a protestant). That answer " what would the SSPX say". (More on Taize here....)

In this case, Bishop Fellay has asked for the Pope to do what every good Catholic should be doing (yes you too Mr. Voris et al).  

Namely, uphold the Catholic Faith!

P^3

Courtesy of DICI


Petition to the Holy Father

29-09-2015  
Filed under From TraditionNews
mgr fellay supplique dici.org 2
Most Holy Father,
It is with great anxiety that we observe all around us a persistent degradation of marriage and the family, the origin and foundation of all human society. This decay is rapidly accelerating, particularly because of the legalization of the most immoral and depraved sorts of behavior. Today the law of God, even the simply natural law, is being publicly trampled underfoot; the gravest sins are multiplying in a troubling way and cry out to Heaven for vengeance.
Most Holy Father,
We cannot conceal from you the fact that the first part of the Synod dedicated to “Pastoral Challenges of the Family in the Context of Evangelization” greatly alarmed us. From ecclesiastical dignitaries we heard and read statements so contrary to the clear and constant doctrine of the Church concerning the sanctity of marriage, that our souls were deeply disturbed. These men claimed to have your support, and their claims met with no public denial. What worries us even more is that certain of your words give the impression that it might be possible for doctrine to evolve in response to new needs of the Christian people. Our disquiet comes from the fact that in his encyclical Pascendi, Saint Pius X condemned an alteration of dogma that would make it conform to so-called requirements of the present time. Both Pius X and you, Most Holy Father, received the fullness of the authority to teach, sanctify, and govern in obedience to Christ, Who is the head and pastor of the flock at all times and in all places, and whose faithful vicar the Pope must be on this earth. That which has been subject to a solemn condemnation cannot, over time, become an approved pastoral practice.
God, the author of nature, established the stable union of a man and a woman for the purpose of perpetuating the human species. Old Testament revelation teaches us, in the most obvious way, that indissoluble marriage between one man and one woman was established directly by God, and that its essential characteristics were not left by Him to the free choice of men, such that marriage remains under a very special divine protection: “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife.” (Exodus 20:17)
The gospels teach us that Jesus Himself, by virtue of his supreme authority, definitively reestablished marriage in its original purity, which the corruption of men had altered: “What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder.” (Matthew 19:6)
Throughout time it has been the glory of the Catholic Church to defend the human and divine reality of marriage against turmoil, despite entreaties, disregarding threats and temptations. Even though corrupt men abandoned her for this reason alone, the Church has always held high the standard of fidelity, purity, and fruitfulness, in short, the standard of genuine conjugal and familial love.
As the second part of this Synod dedicated to the family approaches, in conscience we feel it our duty to express to the Apostolic See the profound anxieties which seize us at the thought of “conclusions” that could be proposed on that occasion, if by some great misfortune there were to be a new attack against the sanctity of marriage and the family, a new weakening of couples and home life. We hope with all our heart that the Synod will on the contrary perform a work of genuine mercy by recalling in its entirety, for the good of souls, the Church’s salutary teaching on the subject of marriage.
We are fully aware, especially in the present context, that people entangled in abnormal marital situations must be welcomed pastorally with compassion, so as to show them the very merciful face of the God of love proclaimed by the Church.
Nevertheless, the law of God, expression of his eternal love for mankind, is in itself the supreme mercy for all periods of history, all persons, and all situations. Therefore we pray that the gospel truth concerning marriage, which the Synod ought to proclaim, may not be skirted in practice by numerous “pastoral exceptions” that would distort its true meaning, or by legislation that would almost unfailingly abolish its real import. On this point we feel obliged to say that, despite reminders concerning the indissolubility of marriage, the canonical changes required by the Moto Proprio Mitis Iudex Dominus Iesus facilitating declarations of nullity will de facto open the door to legal proceedings authorizing “Catholic divorce,” even if goes by another name. These modifications acknowledge contemporary morals without attempting to put them in accord with the divine law. Are we then not to be heart stricken by the fate of children born to these marriages annulled in haste and who cannot but be victims of the “culture of waste”.
In the sixteenth century Pope Clement VII refused to accord Henry VIII of England the divorce he was demanding. Despite much pressure and at the risk of an Anglican schism, the Pope upheld the sublime teaching of Christ and his Church concerning the indissolubility of marriage. Will his decision now be repudiated by a “canonical repentance”?
Throughout the world in recent times, many families have courageously rallied against civil laws that undermine the natural and Christian family and publicly encourage scandalous behavior contrary to the most basic morality. Can the Church abandon those who, sometimes to their own detriment, and always subject to mockery and taunts, wage this necessary but very difficult battle? Such a stance would constitute a disastrous counter-witness, and for these persons it would be a source of disgust and discouragement. Churchmen, on the contrary, by virtue of their very mission, should offer them clear support backed up by solid arguments.
Most Holy Father,
For the honor of Our Lord Jesus Christ, for the consolation of the Church and of all faithful Catholics, for the good of society and of all humanity, in this crucial hour we petition you therefore to let your voice resound throughout the world with a word of truth, clarity, and firmness, in defense of Christian and even merely human marriage, in support of its foundation, namely, the difference and complementarity of the sexes, upholding its exclusivity and indissolubility. With filial piety we beg you to let your voice be heard by all, and that it be accompanied by actions too in support of the Catholic family.
We entrust this humble petition to the patronage of Saint John the Baptist, who underwent martyrdom for having publicly defended the sanctity and exclusivity of marriage, even against a scandalous civil authority in a case of “divorced-and-remarried persons.” And we pray the Precursor give Your Holiness the courage to recall before the whole world the true doctrine concerning natural and Christian marriage.
On the Feast of the Seven Sorrows of Our Lady, September 15, 2015
+Bernard Fellay
Superior General of the Society of Saint Pius X

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Count Capponi - RIP

+ JMJ I had heard of Count Capponi over the years and was happy to hear a voice crying in the wilderness. I suspect that his conscience was clearer than many. This part of the article caught my attention: Capponi defended the right of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre to continue his work without the label “schismatic,” which term Capponi rejected, saying: “You cannot apply the standards of the new code of canon law and the mentality of the old code. According to the new code, Lefebvre could do what he did with a Catholic intention, and he did what he did in ‘sincerity’ and invoked the ‘state of emergency’ argument, which the new code permits. You might not like the new code, but it’s what governs the Church.” I know a few people who tried to stir up a fuss when the SSPX cited the New Code in one of the documents with Rome.  Yet, the truth is what it is --- the New Code was promulgated by a reigning Pope and flawed as it is ... there are some benefits to its liberality. ...

Is it sinful to attend the Novus Ordo (New Mass) - Is it Sinful to Not Attend the Novus Ordo on Sunday?

+ JMJ A non-SSPX Catholic is upset over the SSPX statements on not attending the Novus Ordo Missae. Ladies and gentlemen, what the SSPX, or at least its website editor, is advocating is a mortal sin against the Third Commandment.  Unless the priest deviates from the language of the Sacramentary, the consecration, and thus the rest of Mass is to be considered valid.  No one may elect not to attend Mass simply because abuses are occurring therein.  Might I suggest that such absenteeism is its own abuse?  The Third Commandment binds under mortal sin.  Father So-And-So from the SSPX has no authority whatsoever to excuse attendance at Mass, be that Mass ever so unpalatable. Source:Restore DC Catholicism Well, this is interesting. First why does the SSPX issue this statement? Because it is sinful to put your faith in danger by attending a protestant service.  It is likewise dangerous to put your faith in danger by attending a protestantized ma...

Those who return to the past are not outside the Church - Rorate Caeli

+ JMJ I had been thinking about putting together a post explaining some of the history of how the SSPX has arrived at its current position. Now I see that Rorate has posted a translated editorial that shows the roots of the SSPX principles. In reading these words, I see patterns and themes that were put forward by Archbishop Lefebvre decades ago. Perhaps his sight was clearer than most. P^3

Fr. Burfitt on Fr. Pfeiffer's Attempted Consecration

 + JMJ   Amidst the shadows cast by the publication of Traditionis Custodes, I am working on a map of the 'resistance' splinters to put their reaction in contrast with that of the SSPX.  In the midst of this, I just came across Fr. Burfitt letter on the attempted consecration. Breaking it down (see below)  items 2 and 3 are key.  Just as the consecrating bishop is 'doubtful', even if he hadn't muffed the first attempt, Fr. Pfeiffer remain doubtful and therefore this impacts those men is attempts to 'ordain'. There were rumours that Fr. Pfeiffer was seeking episcopal consecration for years as he cast about for various bishops (also doubtful) to help him achieve this goal. I wonder how he convinced the 'doubtful' bishop to provide (twice) the doubtful consecration. What a mess!  This creates a danger to the souls of his followers and wonder where it will end. Will he go full sede and have himself 'elected' pontiff as others have done before him...

SSPX Transfers

+ JMJ Eponymous flow posted the following list of transfers etc. Source: http://eponymousflower.blogspot.com/2020/04/castling-of-leadership-at-sspx.html The departures Bishop Bernard Fellay, the third Superior General until 2018, leaves the General House in Menzingen and moves to the Seminary of St. Thomas Aquinas in the USA. Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, suffering from ill health, is being referred to the Seminary of St. Pius X in Ecene as a retreat. Fr. Christian Thouvenot, until now Secretary General of the General House, becomes a professor at the seminary in Ecene. Fr. Franz Schmidberger, until now Rector at the Seminary of the Heart of Jesus in Zaitzkofen, moves to the district of Germany. Fr. Jürgen Wegner, until now district superior of the DISTRICT USA, moves to the district of Austria. Fr. Philippe Brunet, until now Superior of the Autonomous House of Spain-Portugal, becomes professor at the Seminary U.L.F. and co-saviour of La Reja in...