Is This Operation Suicide?
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Is this Operation Suicide? An Analysis of the evidence relating to an agreement between the Society of Saint Pius X and the Conciliar Church of Rome With material compiled by Stephen J. Fox 1 In this book I seek to analyse the evidence relating to a possible agreement between the Society of Saint Pius X and the Conciliar Church. I conclude that many of the Superiors of the Society are prepared to enter into an agreement with the Conciliar Church, where that agreement is a practical agreement (only), without a doctrinal resolution and the terms of which would mean that the Society would be subject to the Conciliar Church. I conclude that the conduct of many of the Superiors of the Society in relation to a possible agreement with the Conciliar Church represents a staggering change from the Society's principles and direction. I conclude that the position adopted by many of the Superiors of the Society in relation to such an agreement is contrary to the position of the Society's founder, Archbishop Lefebvre. Archbishop Lefebvre said the following words on 6 September 19901: "Some people are always admiring the grass in the neighbour's field...they look to our enemies on the other side. "After all, we must be charitable, we must be kind, we must not be divisive, after all, they are celebrating the Tridentine Mass, they are not as bad as everyone says" —but THEY ARE BETRAYING US —betraying us! They are shaking hands with the Church's destroyers. They are shaking hands with people holding modernist and liberal ideas condemned by the Church. So they are doing the devil's work. They are now saying: "So long as they grant us the old Mass, we can shake hands with Rome, no problem." But we are seeing how it works out. They are in an impossible situation. Impossible. One cannot both shake hands with modernists and keep following Tradition. Not possible. Not possible. Archbishop Lefebvre said the following words in July or August 19892: Question: Some people say, "Yes, but Archbishop Lefebvre should have accepted an agreement with Rome because once the Society of St. Pius X had been recognized and the suspensions lifted, he would have been able to act in a more effective manner inside the Church, whereas now he has put himself outside." Archbishop Lefebvre: Such things are easy to say. To stay inside the Church, or to put oneself inside the Church - what does that mean? Firstly, what Church are we talking about? If you mean the Conciliar Church, then we who have struggled against the Council for twenty years because we want the Catholic Church, we would have to re- enter this Conciliar Church in order, supposedly, to make it Catholic. That is a complete illusion. It is not the subjects that make the superiors, but the superiors who make the subjects. 1 Archbishop Lefebvre's address to his priests given in Econe, Switzerland on 6 September 1990, refer http://www.sspx.org/archbishop_lefebvre/two_years_after_the_consecrations.htm 2 http://www.sspx.org/archbishop_lefebvre/one_year_after_the_consecrations.htm 2 Archbishop Lefebvre said the following words on 30 June 1988 3: It is not for me to know when Tradition will regain its rights at Rome, but I think it is my duty to provide the means of doing that which I shall call "Operation Survival," operation survival for Tradition. Today, this day, is Operation Survival. If I had made this deal with Rome, by continuing with the agreements we had signed, and by putting them into practice, I would have performed "Operation Suicide". There was no choice, we must live! That is why today, by consecrating these bishops, I am convinced that I am continuing to keep Tradition alive, that is to say, the Catholic Church. 3 In his sermon at the time of the Episcopal Consecrations of the four bishops in 1988, in reference to the agreement he signed and then withdrew in May 1988 http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Episcopal- Consecration.htm 3 Table of Contents Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 5 Conclusion One – Truth and Obedience ..................................................................................................... 17 Conclusion Two – I must be objective........................................................................................................ 23 Conclusion Three – The Society cannot trust Rome ................................................................................... 24 Conclusion Four – Rome has not changed .................................................................................................. 29 Conclusion Five – Rome stays loyal to its principles ................................................................................. 45 Conclusion Six – there may be no benefit of an agreement ........................................................................ 45 Conclusion Seven – there is something to worry about .............................................................................. 50 Conclusion Eight – many in the Society appear to be prepared to desert its principles ............................. 57 Conclusion Nine – a position of contradiction for Priests of the Society ................................................... 75 Conclusion Ten – agree to disagree ............................................................................................................ 85 Conclusion Eleven – is there true unity in the Society? .............................................................................. 92 Conclusion Twelve – the six conditions evidence a departure from the principles of the SSPX ............. 104 Conclusion Thirteen – no protection is given by Condition One .............................................................. 105 Conclusion Fourteen – one bishop – what about the other three? ............................................................ 107 Conclusion Fifteen – desirable tribunals ................................................................................................... 109 Conclusion Sixteen – the diocesan bishops are not the friends of Tradition ............................................ 111 Conclusion Seventeen – could the Society survive? ................................................................................. 113 Conclusion Eighteen – the promises didn't save Le Barroux .................................................................... 115 Conclusion Nineteen – the promises didn't save Campos ......................................................................... 118 Conclusion Twenty – the promises didn't save the Institute of the Good Shepherd ................................. 132 Conclusion Twenty-One – treatment of the allies of the Society ............................................................. 159 Conclusion Twenty-Two – those who speak out ...................................................................................... 162 Conclusion Twenty-Three – the evidence suggests that Archbishop Lefebvre would not agree ............. 163 OTHER MATERIAL ................................................................................................................................ 189 4 Introduction Archbishop Lefebvre and the Society 1. One who reads the book "The Biography of Marcel Lefebvre" written by Bishop Tissier de Mallerais happily discovers how true the Archbishop was when he said that he had passed on to us only what he himself had been taught, had received, "Tradidi quod et accepi – I delivered unto you that which I myself have received"– I Cor. 15, 3). 2. I am grateful to Archbishop Lefebvre and the Society. For many years the Society has been the spiritual and moral lifeline for my family. A compilation 3. I beg you to consider the material and my conclusions in a spirit of charity. I have prepared the material as a compiler – not as an author. My words are basic and of little importance. What is important is the evidence and I ask you to consider the evidence objectively. I have not sought to interpret the words written or spoken by reference to the internal or subjective disposition of the relevant author – but rather by reference to the meaning of the words the author has said (or written). 4. There are some who would say that I am not qualified to have an opinion. I can only say that I am sufficiently qualified to see, to read and by the grace of God, to think. 5. I prepared this document by way of a compilation of what I believe to be relevant material. I suggest that the evidence is so clear that it speaks for itself and makes the conclusions inescapable. 6. I have attempted to provide details of the sources of the relevant material that I refer to but I apologise for any mistakes and I assure my readers that any mistakes are unintended and due only to the constraints of time and skill. 7. I do not set out to cause any person disrespect or offence and if any is suffered I pray that the relevant person will forgive me and accept my charitable intentions in this matter. Something wrong 8. I initially put pen to paper because it became abundantly clear that something was wrong, wrong in the sense that the Society had lost its unity4, wrong in the sense that the Society's 4 I note that the General Chapter issued a statement in July 2012 in which the General Chapter stated "We have recovered our profound unity in its essential mission: to preserve and defend the Catholic Faith …". There can be no "recovery" or alleged recovery