.jpg)
After a couple of weeks of asking people from the parish about this, I finally obtained a copy of the second flyer, which was one of the two handed out the night of Wednesday, January 20 by at the protest against the supposed "ecumenical Mass" of the FSSP apostolate here in Guadalajara, Jalisco (Mexico). A translation follows the scanned image. The flyer was the size of about half a 8.5 x 11'' page, and it had printed text on both sides.
The Ecumenical Fraternity of St. Peter
Since the introduction of the new sacramental rites, Rome did not allow to any Fraternity or Congregation the exclusive use of the ancient [rites]. Then, on June 30, 1988, Msgr. Lefebvre consecrated four bishops to ensure the survival of the traditional priesthood and of the sacraments, and especially of the old Mass. Suddenly, in two days, John Paul II recognized "legitimate aspirations" to these things (of those who do not support the position of the archbishop) and allowed them to have what had always been denied to Msgr. Lefebvre. A dozen of priests from the Society of St. Pius X accepted this "good will" and left to found the Fraternity of St. Peter, giving it a juridical status according to the offers that Msgr. Lefebvre rejected.
This document required them to: "...accept the doctrine of Lumen gentium; to avoid polemics regarding the magisterium of the Second Vatican Council and the authority of the Pope, to recognize the validity of the Mass according to the new liturgical dispositions of Paul VI and John Paul II.
This means that the Fraternity of St. Peter must accept the following text of the Council: "This Church, constituted and ordered in this world as a society, remains in the Catholic Church, governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him, even though outside of her can be found many elements of sanctification and truth that, as gifts proper to the Church of Christ, impel toward Catholic unity"; taken from Lumen gentium, no. 8, second paragraph.
And according to these conditions, the Fraternity of St. Peter will not be able to criticize the documents of the council.
Therefore, our protest is not against a priest of this Congregation, it is more general, against the entire institution called THE FRATERNITY OF ST. PETER, which was born [as] ECUMENICAL and SILENCED even before coming into being [lit., seing the light].
Currently, neither has this group reacted to the most recent ecumenical gathering between the Pope and the Jews, in which were said phrases such as: “The Second Vatican Council committed the Catholic Church in an irrevocable way to follow the path of ecumenical action, making itself hear the Spirit of the Lord, who teaches us to read attentively the ‘signs of the times’.” Here we see that this society continues to be faithful to its destructive mission among traditional Catholics of “good faith.”
The protest and reparation are [done], also, because this Fraternity presents its name in these gatherings, thus collaborating with them and not having the courage to come out of its conciliar schemes by opposing the archbishop and the highest Roman authorities, in order to remain faithful to Our Lord Jesus Christ.
Crusade for Christ the King, Inc.
Mr. Félix Águila Rubio,
[Personal address]
[Personal phone number]
[Email]
4 comments:
In addition to this flyer, I also received from Fr. Romanoski, FSSP his own reaction to the flyer (in writing), which I will post either tonight or tomorrow (but I still have to translate it and reformat it to fit the blog).
Wow. Although this is a very aggressive flyer, I must say that it is mostly mainstream SSPX, i.e., it has very little that the SSPX would consider extremist. That really is what they think about the FSSP.
However, harping on the old "subsistit in" canard is, in my experience, not exactly mainstream SSPX. In my experience with the SSPX, it wasn't their usual object of theological censure. And even despite the latest clarifications from the CDF, it seems that certain traditionalists still attack this passage from Lumen Gentium.
Thank you Don Paco for bringing this to our attention.
I still think that passage contradicts previous Church teaching and therefore cannot be correct. It is based on the wrong VII assertion that the conciliar church is still receiving fresh new revelations from the Holy Spirit, which would then mean that the Holy Spirit is adapting to the times which of course cannot be. I pray for the current doctrinal discussions to result in a rectification of this and other misleading documents produced by VII.
Post a Comment