From Ignis Ardens (English translation)
Excellencies, and Superiors,
As you know, our Superior General responded to the letter of the 16th March from Cardinal Levada who tried to impose the doctrinal Preamble of the 14th September 2011. By this document, dated 15th April, he wished to break free from the impasse created by this Preamble. According to several concurring sources, the new text seemed to satisfy the Sovereign Pontiff.
On the 13th June, 2012, Cardinal Levada returned to our Superior General his text of April, but it was amended in such a way that it still took up, in substance, the propositions of September, 2011. Msgr. Fellay also made known to him that he could not sign this new document, which was clearly unacceptable. The coming General Chapter will permit the analysis of the entire dossier.
Moreover, I inform all the members of the Chapter, that in virtue of Canon 2331, Paragraph 1 and 2 (New Code 1373) the Superior General has deprived Msgr. Williamson of his office as member of the Chapter for taking a position calling for a rebellion, and for his continually repeated disobedience. He has equally forbidden him to come to Econe for the ordinations.
Finally, Msgr. Fellay has deferred the ordinations of the Dominicans of Avrille and the Capuchins of Morgon, who were foreseen to have been ordained at Econe this coming 29th June. The putting off of orders was dictated simply by the wish of Bishop Fellay to be assured of the loyalty of these communities, before laying hands upon their candidates (cf. I Timothy 5:22).
Be assured Excellencies and Superiors of my respectful and faithful priestly wishes.
Fr. Christian Thouvenot.
——–
The French original can be found here.
Brother Burrito
Catholicism Pure & Simple
Gertrude
kathleen
mmvc
teresa
The Raven
Just what Jesus and the Apostles would have done!
Ignis Ardens has, over the years, become a refuge for Sedevacantists and Conspiracy Theorists.
Excellent action concerning Williamson !!!
I’m grateful too for the information that the *doctrinal* discussions are still ongoing.
Oh !!! I almost missed the elephant in the room — Monseigneur Fellay acted NOT according to the internal rules of the Society, but according to those of current Catholic Canon Law !!!
I like him more and more !!!!
LESS obviously — one has to remember that the six bishops were excommunicated for disciplinary reasons, NOT doctrinal !!
(despite the fact that the motivation for their disobedience was in their view “doctrinal”)
It is a VERY powerful message that Monseigneur Fellay as the “quasi-Ordinary” of the Society is demanding and imposing this particular form of obedience to the Authority of the Canon Law, even to the point of dictating a clear and public sanction against this man.
It’s another VERY powerful Sign that regularisation is IMMINENT.
JabbaPapa – please remember it is Bishop Williamson, not ‘Williamson’ – a little formal respect, please, even if you have none for him in reality – he is a Bishop and together with Bishop Tissier de Mallerais and Bishop Gallereta, remains consistently loyal to the orientations of Archbishop Lefebvre (RIP). Bishop Fellay appears to have departed from those principles and now seems to espouse others. I doubt that Bishop Fellay has any more (new) canonical right to do what he has done re Bishop Williamson than he has any (new) canonical right to ordain anyone – Bishop Fellay is suspended from all the functions of his office by continuing virtue of the suspension a divinis to which he is subject (if you are consistent in your position, of course). Let us see what else Bishop Fellay will attempt.If I were Bishop Fellay I would be working overtime to stymie all opposition to his diktats but, “thank the Lord I’m not, Sir”. History (provided he is not the historian or he destroys or perverts the evidence) will judge Bishop Fellay’s acts. God will have him first, of course. Kyrie eleison
Tell me the score when it’s over.
Canonical Penalty shoot out in Extra time.
he [Williamson] is a Bishop … (…) … Bishop Fellay is suspended from all the functions of his office by continuing virtue of the suspension a divinis to which he is subject
Make up your mind, please.
Whoops !! seems like I did it again …
.
Williamson: Red Card and banned for life for flagrant fouls.
Jabba: Yellow Card for persistent disrespect of bishops, and bad language. Must sit out next 300 fixtures involving the SSPX.
Lioness will come on as sub for Jab.
Jabba: According to Paul VI (letter to Abp Lefebvre), the SSPX ‘ceased to exist’ some years ago. For a non-existent Pious Union, the SSPX causes a considerable stir. I take leave to quote from one close to the maelstrom ‘The SSPX is in serious trouble, thanks to its misguided Superior and the team he has assembled around him. He is lost inside his mystico-liberal dreaming, in which everything, as you say, inflates his own importance and infallibility. Heaven help us.’ Mystico-liberal dreaming ne’er had much to do with sound decision making and can, as we must all agree if we are Catholics – have nothing at all to do with doctrinal debate. Bishop Fellay has no lawful right to behave as he has re Bishop Williamson. All this talk of ‘rebellion’ is utter tosh, the ravings of a man who shows signs of suffering from ‘follie de grandeur’. if the SSPX has no canonical status (Rome’s official position) and Bishop Fellay is suspended a divinis (Rome’sofficial position) then it ill behoves Bishop Fellay to pretend to rely on any Canon of ‘old’ or ‘new’ dispensation to seek to enforce obedience to a pretended authority which he does not possess. Bishop Fellay is inconsistent in this, as he is in many matters. Bishop Fellay cannot suspend Bishop Williamson’s capitular status for he has no power to do so. One cannot incite ‘rebellion’ against an authority that does not exist. If Bishop Fellay believes that in telling Bishop Williamson that he cannot come to his party he will encourage better and more conformable behaviour in the other two Bishops I fear he is misleading himself. Bishop Fellay is much more papal than the Pope – I do not believe Papa Ratzinger thinks himself possessed of such imperial powers – perhaps he should take a leaf from Bishop Fellay’s book and follow his example with the rest of his Bishops. All, here, should know Dietrich von Hildebrand’s ‘Trojan Horse in the City of God’ – I wonder now if Archbishop Lefebvre considers Bishop Fellay his own trojan horse. Nothing but anguish and tears will or can come from all this but we must pray that the Holy Ghost, the Consolator, will help us all and that the Father will hear us when we ask ‘da nobis in eodem Spiritu recta sapere’ – I emphasise the ‘recta’.
According to Paul VI (letter to Abp Lefebvre), the SSPX ‘ceased to exist’ some years ago.
Well it’s a jolly good thing that Popes aren’t infallible then isn’t it — because that statement is self-evidently false.
‘The SSPX is in serious trouble, thanks to its misguided Superior and the team he has assembled around him. He is lost inside his mystico-liberal dreaming, in which everything, as you say, inflates his own importance and infallibility. Heaven help us.’ Mystico-liberal dreaming ne’er had much to do with sound decision making and can, as we must all agree if we are Catholics – have nothing at all to do with doctrinal debate.
First, I completely disagree with the rather silly opinion that you have quoted — only an ultra-traditionalist could describe orthodox Catholicity as being “liberal”, and I would therefore assume your quotee to be someone of that ilk.
Also — I don’t even know what on Earth the phrase “mystico-liberal dreaming” is even supposed to MEAN !!!!
The role of Catholics during any difficult post-conciliar period, and the Church has been through several very similar to this one, including during the decades immediately following both Nicea and Trent (neither of which taught quite so extensively as Vatican II, but both of which taught very disruptively concerning various far more definitional and therefore highly divisive principles of the Faith — is not to “debate” doctrine, but rather to try and seek its proper interpretation and meaning, in the light of whichever new Conciliar teachings.
If the so-called “Spirit of the Council” is anything at all, it’s the continuing desire in this post-conciliar period to carry on debating and redefining doctrine — even though there is absolutely no Authority whatsoever to do so so, on any side !!!
It is JUST as erroneous to outright reject the entirety of the Council as it is to imagine that the Council represents some kind of evolution of Catholicism into some new and trendily revisionist social club based on majority rule.
Bishop Fellay has no lawful right to behave as he has re Bishop Williamson.
Monseigneur Fellay has, contrariwise, several legal rights conferred on him as the elected leader of the SSPX by civil law, by the internal rules of the Society itself, and by the Canon Law to which all Catholics, priests even moreso, are subjected to, including the various requirement of obedience to one’s religious Order in general, and to one’s superiors in particular, and so on and so forth.
All this talk of ‘rebellion’ is utter tosh, the ravings of a man who shows signs of suffering from ‘follie de grandeur’
What absolute rubbish !!!
Rebellion is a characterised state of deliberately organised willful and public resistance to one’s Canon Authorities. It can, arguably, be justified as an exceptional response to an exceptional circumstance — it CANNOT be justified as a way of Catholic life.
if the SSPX has no canonical status (Rome’s official position) and Bishop Fellay is suspended a divinis (Rome’sofficial position) then it ill behoves Bishop Fellay to pretend to rely on any Canon of ‘old’ or ‘new’ dispensation to seek to enforce obedience to a pretended authority which he does not possess.
Whilst I’m not myself a Canon Lawyer, the above shows some rather broad ignorance of the Law.
ALL Catholics are subject to the Canon Law, and regardless of the still non-canonical situation of the SSPX as an organisation, the SSPX priests remain fully subject to the provisions of Canon Law ; and whilst Monseigneur Fellay is NOT an “Ordinary”, he does nevertheless remain the leader of the religious Order, notwithstanding its current state of irregularity, and is required by the Canon Law to not only do everything in his power to restore the Order of the SSPX, but he is also required to provide discipline and Catholicity within the Society itself.
Monseigneur Fellay, in short, DOES possess the authority that you are denying him.
Bishop Fellay is much more papal than the Pope – I do not believe Papa Ratzinger thinks himself possessed of such imperial powers
This is RUBBISH — oh, and “Papa Ratzinger” is HARDLY a respectful manner of referring to the Holy Father, so that your earlier antics regarding my reference to Williamson are shown up to be the fruit of a double standard.
Pope Benedict XVI is in fact the leader of all Catholics in all spiritual matters. Still, perhaps you prefer a holocaust-denier whose gross anti-jewish opinions are a matter of public record.
One cannot incite ‘rebellion’ against an authority that does not exist.
This line of argument is radically incoherent, due to being based on several false premises, and presenting various false conclusions derived therefrom as if they were solid fact.
NOPE.
when we ask ‘da nobis in eodem Spiritu recta sapere’ – I emphasise the ‘recta’
You might emphasise it — but what you are preaching is its exact opposite.
.
You go, Jabba – off with their foreskins!
Dear Jabba – I hope you enjoyed your little rant. I used to enjoy a good release of hot air through my blow-hole, too, so I would not deny you one second of it and, indeed, thank you for it since inter alia it reminded me how I used to be.
You give your opinion most emphatically and I value that. I would value it even more if it did not have quite so much of a magisterial and self-important air about it.
I could calmly dissect your riposte if I chose to do so but I do not. I do not because I do not wish to be unkind and I fear that someone of your ilk might take criticism as an attack and that would be the opposite of what I would wish. That said, Romans – all Italians – most often refer to the Sovereign Pontiff as Papa Roncalli, Papa Montini etc. Perhaps you did not know that? Had you done your Philosophy and Theology in Rome, as did I, you would have understood that, dear Jabba.
I find myself cast as a bumbling ignoramus – woefully, it seems – when my thoughts are highlighted by the immense and trenchant intellectual processes of one such as you, Jabba. You have so very much to teach us all, would you not say?. I now see how poorly the Dominican and the Jesuit Fathers taught me, Jabba. My licenses from the Gregorian and the Angelicum are worthless when compared to your theological erudition. Teach us how to think, Jabba. Pax tibi.