FR. BOUCHACOURT IS TREMBLING!!

FR.  BOUCHACOURT TREMBLES IN THE FACE OF A STRONG ADVANCE OF THE RESISTANCE IN FRANCE.

With 20 French priests in the resistance, with the prestigious Dominicans of Avrillé on the front line of combat, and with Bishop Faure, the new French bishop; the RAILLIÉS, the TRAITORS the ACCORDISTAS, are encountering serious difficulties in their advance on French soil.

DEO GRATIAS!

translated from NON POSSUMUS by Michael Fuller

About the Dominicans of Avrillé communiqué of Father Christian Bouchacourt July 1, 2015

Laportelatine

1. For more than a year, the Dominican Fathers of the Avrillé Convent have propagated and maintained distrust of the authorities of the SSPX, especially regarding Bishop Fellay and the General House.  Through conferences, in publications and on their website, they accuse the superiors of the SSPX of abandoning the good fight for the faith in order to lead the Society to an agreement, at all costs, with the Roman authorities.  We have tried, in vain, in various meetings, to prove otherwise and show them how their attitude threatens the unity of Tradition, sowing doubt and division. This communiqué seeks to restore the truth in order to defend the honor of our superiors and our priestly family.

2. The well-known facts of this increasingly open opposition are the following:

-On Sunday January 19th, 2014, the Dominican Fathers distributed to those who attended Mass in the Convent of Avrillé, 1 "Appeal to the Faithful",  a text that was made public on the previous January 7^th [Error: This document was published on January 19^th, 2014. Non Possumus], and accused the General House of Menzingen of taking "the opposite direction" of that which was carried out by Archbishop Lefebvre "by aligning themselves modernist Rome" and "pertinacity in this direction which leads to death"; the priests of Avrillé are among the signatories of this text;

-That same day, Father Pierre-Marie gave a conference to the faithful who had gone to Avrillé and his goal was to explain and justify this "Appeal to the Faithful" and how well founded it was;

-The text of the "Appeal to the Faithful", accompanied by a significant introduction, was published in Le Sel de la Terre n ° 88 (spring 2014) pp. 138-139;

-The confidential correspondence of Bishop Fellay, which was exchanged after the publication of the "Appeal to the Faithful," was published in Le Sel de la Terre n ° 89 (Summer 2014), pp. 215-220.

-The Dominican Fathers took position in favor of the consecration of Bishop Faure on March 19, 2015, and published a lengthy account justifying this act in Le Sel de la Terre No. 92 (Spring 2015), pp. 139-169.

3. Just like all the signatories of the "Letter to the Faithful," the Dominican Fathers of Avrillé decided that they must present “not a statement breaking with the SSPX but on the contrary, a public testimony of their firm and faithful commitment to the principles that always guided Archbishop Lefebvre in the combat for the faith”.  But in this way they are in a complete illusion and take with them all those who follow them.  For this fight for the faith, Archbishop Lefebvre always carried it out not only in the doctrinal fidelity to tradition, but also in order, in unity and peace, and in the spirit of obedience.  The Avrillé priests are not faithful to these principles, since they denigrate the authority of the successor of Archbishop Lefebvre and cast suspicion on the acts of his governing, in order to create dialectic between the members of the Society and their superiors, even by opposing the priests among them.  To be able to break away [Note from translator: the term used “desligarse” means to detach or separate oneself from something completely. The etymology is related to the word religion being its opposite according to Cicero religare. To Realign-reattach oneself with God.]  from an authority, it is necessary that this authority is actually moving one to sin against the faith or morals. The Dominicans of Avrillé are unable to demonstrate which acts carried out by the Superior General manifest that "Menzingen is betraying the combat for the Faith". It is not the General House which is betraying the combat for the Faith; it is those who call themselves "the resistance" that are the ones that weaken it by their subversive maneuvers.

4. The consecration of a bishop by Bishop Williamson is not justified in any way.  Whatever the bad pretexts may be by which they try to make it plausible, it does nothing more than aggravate this spirit of independence and division.  Archbishop Lefebvre always expressed himself clearly in order to warn against such a state of mind. "It is the Superior General", he said during a meeting in Ecône on July 4th, 1988, "who maintains ties with Rome and, in a word, takes responsibility for Tradition; it is the structure of the Society that exists in the eyes of the Church.  We never wanted an organization of Tradition or a presidency of this association; but it is a fact that the Society is the backbone of Tradition, its providential instrument, upon which all the initiatives of Tradition should support themselves".  In supporting the episcopal consecration of Bishop Faure, the Dominican Fathers of Avrillé make themselves accomplices of a disastrous work and cause serious harm to the common good of Tradition, even more so being that the only reason given to justify this act rests upon the accusation, without proof, that the SSPX has abandoned the combat for the faith.

5. Obviously, no Superior, responsible before God for the good of his district, can remain without reacting to these repeated positions and stances.  We cannot permit that mistrust, division, the political party spirit, and denigration are installed in our ranks.  It is about the common good of the flock; and the first duty of a pastor is to preserve its unity and cohesion, putting it out of the reach of these troublemakers.

6. Consequently, in the presence of so many lying accusations, the District of France cannot support the community of the Dominicans of Avrillé who, because of their subversive maneuvers, are sowing doubt and division in the ranks of Tradition and weakening its strength.

This situation is very unfortunate.  May the Holy Spirit enlighten the superior of the community of the Dominicans of Avrillé and that Our Lord and Our Lady keep us in the unity of truth and charity, faithful to the good fight of Archbishop Lefebvre, for the honor of Christ the King, of the Holy Church and the good of our souls.

Fr.  Christian BOUCHACOURT, French District Superior of the SSPX.

On July 1^st, 2015, the feast of the Most Precious Blood of Our Lord.

THIS BLOG WILL NOT COMMENT ON THIS TEXT, BUT IT WILL PUBLISH THE RESPONSE OF THE DOMINICANS.

***

ADDENDUM: Liberals support Fr.  Bouchacourt, of course...

“This statement of Fr. Bouchacourt is very good and very timely.  Be wary of the people who are hardened. I gladly say to the young people: "A bridge too hard breaks under the effect of vibrations".  Fr. Aulagnier

“The Dominicans of Avrillé constitute a "hardened" community in the traditional Catholic world, and it has been this way for several years.  For this reason, Father Bouchacourt, District Superior of SSPX France issued a communiqué.  In addition to the systematic and violent questioning of Rome, the Dominicans of Avrillé wage a merciless war on the SSPX, which they uncompromisingly denounce.  We know that the Dominicans of Avrillé did not hesitate to attack any approaching of Rome by the SSPX, even by reproducing confidential correspondence.  This reproach of freely publishing texts, without the consent of those concerned, is nothing new. A few years ago, they published letters in their magazine from Fr. Berto ...

“But it is above all that deep down the Dominicans of Avrillé have truly grown reluctance. The bitterness in recurrent publications of Avrillé ended up creating a malaise that has not stopped growing in the publications close to the SSPX.  Priests and faithful have been at a distance from a community that seems locked in a purely ideological struggle. The discomfort had been felt, but no one dared to talk about it in order to not undermine the unity around the SSPX... However, the violent crisis of 2012, the attacks on Bishop Fellay, the departure of certain priests to the "resistance", then the consecration of Bishop Faure created a new situation where the tongues were no longer restrained. The Dominicans of Avrillé broke ties with Menzingen since the beginning of 2014. These hardliners, being hereinafter out of the SSPX, allow us to expose the errors of these groups, of which one wonders if they will not end in schism or a sect ... On the contrary, we feel reassured by the cautious tone and rejection of vain polemics by those responsible for the SSPX. Deo Gratias!” Riposte Catholique.

Neo-SSPX Priest that Persecuted the Resistance Leaves to Join Modernists

Translated from Non Possumus

Original in French here

Fr. Renaud de la Motte, prior of Fabrègues, left the Neo-SSPX for the conciliar church and to be incardinated in the diocese. This announcement was made April 26th to the faithful of the priory.

A month earlier, Father de la Motte had excommunicated a layperson from Perpignan because of a subversive compromise with Bishop Williamson.

In recent news, we just heard that the new prior of Fabregues has gone further in the excommunications. Indeed, regarding the person of 83 years who had been excommunicated (literally) by Father de la Motte for having received Bishop Williamson in his home, Father Rousseau has gone further by specifying that this excommunication was also true in the case of "If you would like to receive ANY PERSONALITY OF THE RESISTANCE" in your home.

In addition to the odious blackmail of the sacraments to an aged person in need, is the legal absurdity of such a penalty. In effect, what does Fr. Rousseau mean "receive in your home"?  If Fr. Pinaud goes to your house to drink a small cup of tea on the terrace, will you be excommunicated? What is meant by personality of the resistance? Is there a blacklist of bishops, priests,brothers, and laity that are considered personalities of the resistance? Are they Elias and Enoch?

Beyond this aberration and inhumanity of a prior of the Neo-SSPX, we see that a dangerous spirit is shaping of a party that no longer supports the possibility of another way to eternal salvation other than Bishop Fellay, the Neo-SSPX and new spirit. This is what Father Garrigou-Lagrange called the "NOSISMO" (collective selfishness and pride).
A priest of the Neo-SSPX that currently has a very important position in the district of France acknowledges that such a punishment has been falling over the congregation.

Outside the Church there is no salvation: This is an absolutely true dogma. Outside of the Neo-SSPX and Bishop Fellay there is no salvation. This is a clear schism ...

See Non Possumus regarding the prohibition of sacraments by this priest:

http://nonpossumus-vcr.blogspot.mx/2014/01/sobre-la-prohibicion-de-los-sacramentos.html

http://nonpossumus-vcr.blogspot.mx/2014/01/sobre-la-prohibicion-de-los-sacramentos_30.html

Fr. Brendan King's Statement

Fr Brendan King’s Statement

3 May, 2015  SOURCErespice stellam

We are releasing this statement of Fr Brendan King (originally given as a sermon) with his permission –

INTRODUCTION AND STATUS QUESTIONS

I would like to speak to you today about a very important matter which concerns us all. This matter is the question of what direction the Society is to take in the future. Do we have to follow the same path that we have followed since the Society was founded by the Archbishop in 1970, or is Providence guiding us now in a different direction ?  Should the Society and Catholic Tradition maintain the same course given by its founder, or must we now change our position to make us more acceptable to the modern world and to the post conciliar and liberalized church?  May I remind you of the stance and position of the Society since its inception which always was to take the middle course between sedevacantism on the right and liberalism and modernism on the left. This was always the prudent and wise choice of our holy founder, to avoid these two erroneous extremes. I believe and so do many others, clergy and laity, that for several years the Society leadership has been moving away from this prudent and safe middle course, to take a new direction towards some kind of rapprochement or reconciliation with modernist Rome. When did this new direction begin and what were the circumstances that favoured it ? I would say its origin and cause was the very successful pilgrimage to Rome in the Holy Year of 2000.

BRIEF CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS

Let us now go back in time to the year of the consecrations, 1988. On June 30th of that year, Archbishop Lefebvre consecrated four Bishops for tradition and was punished for this heroic act by a most unjust excommunication. This act the Society has always considered to be invalid. The Archbishop replied in his defence, “ excommunicated by whom and from what.” The following twelve years were like a cold war between the Society and the modernist Roman authorities. The Archbishop was called to his eternal reward in 1991 and Rome was hoping and expecting the Society to fall apart in the years that followed. In fact, the opposite happened as the Society by the grace of God developed and expanded throughout the world and the fruits of Tradition were rich and abundant. The Roman authorities recognized this and the remarkable progress and expansion of tradition was in sharp contrast to the parlous state of the post conciliar church, victim of the poisoned fruits of Vatican II. The observation of Paul VI that the smoke of Satan had entered the church and that the church was destroying itself, was becoming more and more of a reality as the years progressed. The church was experiencing the greatest crisis in its history and the blind apostles of liberalism and modernism occupying Rome were calling it progress and renewal. This is surely what Sister Lucy described as the diabolical disorientation in the church and the most profound crisis of faith that was leading the church into apostacy.  Against this background of disintegration, the Society and Tradition was flourishing simply because it was being faithful to tradition and THAT MIDDLE COURSE which was safe and secure.

This was more or less the state of affairs when in the year 2000 the Society organized a very successful pilgrimage to Rome in the August of that year. It was so successful that the Roman authorities began to take a deeper interest in the work of Tradition and new contacts were established. The Romans could clearly see that the Society was a serious and flourishing organisition and they appeared to be well disposed towards us.

It is important to remember at this juncture that the Archbishop always looked to Rome as the centre of unity and took great pains to avoid the accusation of schism by maintaining contact with the Roman authorities. He was also very much aware that he was dealing with liberals and modernists who would use catholic terminology in a different sense. For this reason he would maintain a healthy detachment, keeping a safe distance from the modernist contagion, but always with respect for the office.

Following the success of this pilgrimage, friendly contacts continued through the final years of Pope John Paul’s pontificate who was succeeded by Joseph Ratzinger in 2005 as Pope Benedict XVI. This Pope began to take a great personal interest in the ‘problem’ of Tradition and the Society and began to work energetically towards granting the Society a proper canonical status in the church. Modernist Rome was becoming even more friendly and sympathetic towards the Society. Bishop Fellay petitioned Rome to grant full freedom for the Tridentine Rite of Mass and to lift or withdraw the excommunication of the four Bishops. For the Society this was necessary to establish genuine goodwill on the part of Rome towards Tradition and to foster an atmosphere of confidence and trust amongst the Priests and Laity. Rome acceded to this request as Pope Benedict published Summum Pontificorum and lifted the excommunications in January 2009. A major obstacle was now removed and the process of drawing closer to Rome was gaining momentum. Many in the Society remained unconvinced of Rome’s genuine goodwill given their obstinate attachment to the erroneous teachings and false principles of Vatican II. Still the momentum continued despite the high level theological discussions which took place during this time between Society and Roman theologians. These talks, which Rome has never published, only served to further demonstrate how far from the Catholic Truth modernist Rome has fallen.

The situation was now developing rapidly to the point that Rome was now offering a concrete practical agreement in early June 2012 and it seems clear that Bishop Fellay was ready to sign it. It appears that the Society would have been granted a Personal Prelature rather like the status of Opus Dei, but the local Bishops would have to give their approval/permission for our apostolate in their dioceses. This was clearly going to be a major problem. At the last minute, inexplicably, Cardinal Muller insisted that the Society accept Vatican II and the New Mass. Bishop Fellay refused the agreement and the talks collapsed. Or so we thought !

You will remember that Bishop Fellay visited us in June 2013 and gave a conference in Liverpool explaining his actions and strategy in dealing with modernist Rome. He told all the Priests of the District in Preston that he engaged in this long and drawn out process of negotiation with the Roman authorities because he wanted to find out what they really thought. He kept repeating that it was never a question of a purely practical agreement, but if that was the case then what kind of agreement was it that he was on the point of signing ? (We must bear in mind that the 2006 General Chapter had decided that there would be no practical agreement with Rome, without Rome’s clear and unequivocal return to Catholic Tradition).  He told me privately that he felt it was his duty to engage the Society in these talks and negotiations. That is quite reasonable of course, but didn’t we already have the overwhelming evidence of what the Roman authorities thought and believed and this was emphatically demonstrated anew through these recent talks and their inevitable collapse. The Romans always want us to accept the New Mass and Vatican II – it always was like that in the time of Archbishop Lefebvre and it is even more so today under this revolutionary Pontificate of Francis ! Why then we ask, are the negotiations ongoing and they clearly are? The impression we had after the agreement collapsed was that we would withdraw now from these close contacts as the intention of the Romans had become crystal clear. However, contacts were maintained and this was confirmed recently by Archbishop Pozzo, Secretary of the Ecclesia Dei Commission.

Just to go back to June 2012. I was at Econe for my Priestly Jubilee and the atmosphere was tense to say the least. I wanted to speak to Fr. Nely who as the second assistant is one of Bishop Fellays close advisors. He agreed to receive me and I expressed my concerns about a purely practical agreement with Rome without their genuine conversion to Tradition. I then put to him the question: was it no longer possible for the Society to hold to the position laid out by the Archbishop, which is this MIDDLE COURSE ?  He did not answer the question directly but said that a whole generation of Catholics are growing up not knowing what it is to be in a normal relationship with Rome. That is not normal he said and if we don’t do something about our Canonical situation then we will become schismatic or sedevacantist. It was a very interesting revelation of what thinking lay behind this new strategy of negotiation with Rome on the part of Menzingen. It said it all in fact. The problem was not with modernist Rome but with the Society which was in an abnormal situation. Who and what had caused the abnormal situation in the first place if not the Council and the modernist conciliar Popes ?  Did not the Archbishop often say (I heard it repeated with my own ears) “I have no personal views in matters of religion.” He used to say that in the years following the Council he found himself in an increasingly isolated position until he was finally alone. He hadn’t moved or changed at all but the church after the Council had abandoned him and rejected two thousand years of tradition to embrace modernist doctrines condemned by the Church. We all rallied to him because we all felt abandoned and betrayed too and we recognized in his voice and his actions the voice of Him Who is the Good Shepherd who lays down his life for the sheep.

Will there be a signed agreement ?  Many argue that nothing has been signed so there is nothing to worry about. This is to miss the whole point as the facts all reveal that there is a tacit agreement already in place. If the marriage has not yet been consummated, the spouses are engaged and betrothed. Many have observed the lack of critical language coming from Menzingen with regard to the scandals and abuses in the Conciliar Church in the last few years and particularly during the present Pontificate. Silence for the most part and when there is a response, at best it is weak and half hearted. Perhaps there will never be a signed agreement, deemed unnecessary because the Society is already well on the way to becoming another Society of St. Peter and is to a certain extent, already under the control of the modernist authorities.

Let me give you a perfect example, which brings us up to the present day and clearly demonstrates to what extent the Society has changed and has come under the influence of modernist Rome. On the 19th March, the feast of St. Joseph, Bishop Williamson consecrated Michel Faure a Bishop in a Benedictine monastery in Brazil. Father Faure was ordained in 1977 at Econe by Archbishop Lefebvre and was chosen by the Archbishop as his personal choice to be consecrated with the three other candidates at Econe on 30th June 1988. Father Faure informed the Archbishop that Alphonso de Galaretta would be a more worthy choice and so it was the latter who was consecrated and not Father Faure. Had Father Faure remained silent, he would have been a Bishop of the Society for the past 27 years. It was therefore a wise choice and surely a necessary act in order to ensure the continuation of the Priesthood, the Sacraments, the Apostolic Succession and for the salvation of souls. Menzingen issued a statement the following day saying that the Society denounced the consecration; “ The Society of St Pius X denounces this episcopal consecration of Father Faure, which despite the assertion of both clerics concerned, is not at all comparable to the consecrations of 1988. ”  The one thing that is necessary above all else for the life of the Church is the Priesthood and without Bishops there can be no Priests and the Faith will be destroyed. How can the Society denounce this action as the crisis in the Church is immeasurably worse than it was in 1988 !  I as a Priest of the Society do not denounce it but on the contrary, I applaud it as a most necessary and heroic act. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this denunciation is that the authors no longer think that the crisis is very serious and that they have now a new found confidence and trust in modernist Rome to provide Catholic Bishops for the future. Objectively considered, this consecration was a positive good for the church of the highest order and I personally cannot understand any reason for denouncing it. If one does, logically one denounces the consecrations of 1988 also. As long as the crisis of Faith continues, such consecrations must be necessary and performed to continue the life of the true Church of Christ. Bishop Fellay and Menzingen have denounced the very act necessary for the survival of the Church ! Such an act is a most necessary part of operation survival and close cooperation and entente with conciliar and modernist Rome is operation suicide.

 STATEMENT OF POSITION

We are not against a return to a normal juridical status in the Church for Catholic Tradition, but the circumstances and timing have to be right.

In our opinion we think close co-operation with the post conciliar authorities at the present time would be harmful and even destructive for the goal that we are working towards which is the full restoration in the Church of Catholic tradition and the establishment of the Social Reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ. This was the aim and objective of our founder Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and that of all the modern Popes up to the time of Vatican II.

Rome has always been the centre of Catholic unity and the Papacy the guardian of orthodoxy for two thousand years. Tragically, Catholic Rome and the successors of Peter have for the past forty years succumbed to the powerful influences of liberal protestantism and modernism leading to the weakening of the faith of millions of souls and drawing the Church of Christ towards apostacy. As a consequence of this, devout Catholics have been obliged to withdraw their obedience and allegiance from the post-conciliar authorities in order to preserve their faith and Catholic way of life. We must obey God and the authority of Catholic Tradition, rather than the false modernist shepherds of contemporary Rome. This situation and choice has been forced on traditional Catholics by modernist Rome because Vatican II is the cause of the crisis.

We do not accept that Rome is now more sympathetic towards Tradition and is more favourably disposed towards the Society. Rather and on the contrary, there are so many instances of a very aggressive attitude towards any group or individual turning to tradition coming under ecclesiastical censure. It is beyond dispute that Rome is now more modernist and liberal than during the Pontificate of John Paul II, so rather than seek a rapprochement with Rome, we need to maintain our position of prudent but respectful detachment.

Surely, our firm and constant adherence to the perennial magisterium of the Church is the best witness we can give to modernist Rome. We have no right to imperil the hard earned fruits of forty years of combat for the Faith simply because the Roman authorities are nice and approachable and tell us we can trust them. We have far too much to lose and in our opinion such a rapprochement would be an enormous gamble. We must not and cannot squander the glorious legacy and heritage of Archbishop Lefebvre.

Fr. Aulagnier on the Recognition of the SSPX by the Argentine State: “A solution is being drafted with Rome… A purely practical solution”.

translated by Michael Fuller

Non Possumus 

Fr Aulagnier with the defector Bishop Rifan.

It is interesting to know the opinion of Fr. Aulagnier, member of GREC, who for many years has been working towards an agreement together with Fr. Célier and the other priests pointed out as being subversives by Catholic counter-revolutionary thinkers like Max Barret (see here and here); who also helped the separation of Campos and the Institute of the Good Shepherd come about, separations that in reality were promoted even from within the Society by the subversives, in order to weaken it and open up the path towards an agreement.

Fr. Aulagnier says:

SSPX: A solution is being drafted with Rome… A purely practical solution.  From this first decision, it gives me great joy.  It was the theme of my book “A Request for Unity”. [i] (…) This is a new step in practical relations with the SSPX.  It is true that this recognition is principally based on legal reasons: in order to facilitate the activity of the Society of St. Pius X in Argentina.  But at the same time, it helps the recognition of the Society of St. Pius X providing a status in the Church, even if this case is based on functional reasons.  Moreover, the official Church discourse is changed regarding the Society of St. Pius X, not only are the authorities declaring that there is no schism, but also they avoid saying that the Society of St. Pius X doesn’t have any canonical status.

original site: http://www.revue-item.com/10026/fraternite-sacerdotale-saint-pie-x-une-solution-se-dessine-avec-rome-une-solution-purement-pratique/

______________________________________________________________

[i] a book which has a preface from Fr. Lelong, founder of GREC

THE CONTROVERSY OF THE FSSPX IN ARGENTINA: THE ATTORNEY RESPONDS

ÍTHE CONTROVERSY OF THE FSSPX IN ARGENTINA: THE ATTORNEY RESPONDS

 translated by Michael Fuller

Source: Adelante la Fe

(Note from blog: This Argentine lawyer has made an assessment of the situation, which has been confirmed by two other attorneys before posting.  Note that the source is not a resistance source but is a friend blog of Rorate Caeli and is often cited by them.  The attorney wishes to maintain his anonymity, which does not invalidate any of his claims.  The site that this was taken from is operated by a handful of priests, some of them diocesan and some with the FSSP. In the section of authors on the site (Adelante la Fe) you will see pictures and short bios about the contributors of the blog.  I do not agree with the author's ideas, that he may or may not have, regarding religious liberty or the SSPX being outside the Church.  I only publish this translation because of the controversy that has arisen and the attempt by others to attack this attorney's claims on the mere pretext of his anonymity.  If what he has stated is completely true regarding the legal analysis and details that show that Rome and Menzingen have collaborated in leaving the SSPX in Argentina in a checkmated position, then it must be published. His anonymity is a mute point.  Initials suffice.) 

Note from Adelante la Fe: The author of the legal analysis about the legal approval of the SSPX, who remains anonymous besides belonging to the Argentine judiciary system, brings us this text in response to many of the questions and issues that his article had raised, as much as from commentators as from numerous media where it has been reproduced.

Cardinal Poli: the SSPX “... is a juridical person within the Apostolic Roman Catholic Church, in conformity with the rules of the Code of Canon Law ..."

This was written and signed by Cardinal Mario Aurelio Poli in the presentation in File 9028/2015 of the Registry of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Religion of Argentina.

At the request of the director of the web page to make an analysis of the recognition -made by the Resolution 25/15 of the Ministry of Religious Affairs of Argentina- of the SSPX as a part of the Catholic Church, first I made a quick, brief comment which was placed with more detail, then a detailed analysis of a technical nature (if the term is suitable) and then another analysis, also quick, regarding the impact of the media- which the editor placed as a new update.

I confirm the content of what I wrote about in the legal analysis.  And also the speculations in the extensions, but they do not have anything to do with the technical analysis, rather they are derived from the interpretation of the facts.

It is worth clarifying that, beforehand, I did not harbor any dislike for the SSPX, which I believe will be in the great history of the Catholic Church for preserving the great treasure of Tradition.  The SSPX is not established in the place where I live, but I went to the church on calle Venezuela [street] in Buenos Aires, where I also acquired several books that cannot be found elsewhere.

Given the virulence of some comments I must clarify some points, knowing that the law, generally, is controversial and even the wording of clear and explicit legal rules are debated.

Is the Catholic religion the official religion of Argentina?

The National Constitution in art.2 speaks of the support of the religion. After the 1994 reform, the catholicity of the President is no longer a requirement, and neither is the requirement of the native Indians to convert to Catholicism – a completely anachronistic law-. There is no express provision to declare as such, except for a theocratic state (eg. Iran); I do not think we can find states with an official religion, if we use that requirement. The official site of the Argentine government would support whoever objects to the character of the official religion of Catholicism.

For decades, Dr. Germán Bidart Campos, the country's most prestigious constitutionalist, maintained the theory that Catholicism was the official religion and even considered it set in stone (i.e. unchangeable for a new Constitutional Convention). Today it is undoubtedly controversial. I repeat: the Catholic Church has a unique legal status in the Civil Code and remains in the new reformed code at any time to be enforced, which earned criticism from progressives.  But the laws of the civil code are not only a demonstration of this, but also the salaries of the Bishops, of the controversial tax exemptions -income tax, the existence of chaplaincies (with salaries of priests) in federal and provincial police, the Argentine Army, the Argentine Navy, the Air force, Prefecture, the Gendarmerie, the Federal Penitentiary Service, public hospitals, etc., with the construction of chapels on their land and religious images in their offices.  There are also religious images in judicial offices and other administrative entities. The President swears by a Christian formula and to the Holy Gospels.  All other religions have absolute freedom to preach, but none of them have been granted any official recognition of their activity [as has been the case with the Catholic religion].

On national holidays the official authorities of the Nation and the Provinces attend the Te Deum in the respective cathedrals, the most significant of these being the one held in the Metropolitan.

The issue is controversial, but it is official, "informal" or privileged, the Catholic religion has an absolutely different status from the rest of the thousands of religions recognized in the Nation. Simply enter the website of the Ministry of Religious Affairs to check.  Yes there is absolute freedom of religion, and this is a fact that will be of much use.

Is Resolution 25/15 a simple administrative procedure?

Legally it is an act of Public Administration, but not a mere formality, since it is declaratory of an existing reality and not constitutive of a new reality.  If I create a banking company and would like to start operating as a bank, I should establish the juridical person, it would be authorized by the General Inspectorate of Justice and the Central Bank, and then it would just begin to exist, at the opening of the doors of my financial institution.

Resolution 25/15 recognizes a preexisting reality, based on the Concordat between Argentina and the Holy See, approved by Law 17.032, plus the rules cited in the resolution (Law 24483 and its regulatory decree). The International Treaty between Argentina and the Vatican over its regulatory laws are clear: Argentina only allows itself to recognize an existing juridical person within the Catholic Church.

Consider art.3 paragraph f of Regulatory Decree 491/1995 (cited as the basis of Resolution 25/2015). They may enroll in the REGISTER OF INSTITUTE OF CONSECRATED LIFE: f) Other juridical persons recognized as such by the competent ecclesiastical authority and by its likeness and analogy with the above are admitted in the Register by reasoned decision of the authority of the application (emphasis mine).

Our country asks for input from a series of documents authenticated by official bodies of the Church itself and the endorsement of the local bishop, in this case Cardinal Mario Aurelio Poli, who flat out said in his presentation (transcribed in the fundamentals of Resolution 25/15) that said Society is accredited the character of a public, juristic person within the Apostolic Roman Catholic Church, in conformity with the rules of the Code of Canon Law.

I reiterate: Archbishop Poli, successor of the Apostles and member of the College of Cardinals, said in his presentation to the Ministry of Religious Affairs, that the SSPX is a public, juridical person within the Church and in conformity with the rules of the Code of Canon Law. Ergo, it has a regular canonical status as a public entity within the Church, and it is of a public character, -and not a mere association of faithful- which is consistent with the statement of the official website of the SSXP South America: “The Society of St. Pius X was founded in 1970 and its statutes were approved on November 1^st of that year by Bishop Charriere, Bishop of Fribourg (Switzerland). Like any other congregation, the Society of St. Pius X was erected as a congregation of diocesan right. Its foundation does not date from 1988 and it is not linked to any suspicion of illegality".

Consequently, the resolution of the Argentine State is not only important because of what it says, but because it proves indirectly that for Archbishop Poli the SSPX is a juridical person and in good standing in conformity with the rules of Canon Law, whose scope is universal.

Again I say that the resolution has canonical consequences, despite the communiqués that state the contrary, unless these things, against any Logic, can exist and not exist at the same time.

Was this recognition necessary for the operation of the SSPX, which it qualifies as a purely administrative procedure?

From the statements of the DICI agency linked to the SSPX, it is worth noting that in Argentina there is freedom of religion and that the operation of schools, hospitals, or any other work intended for the common good may well be conducted as a civil partnership.

At best in this regard, we have the example of the case of the Universidad Austral that is a civil association without a legal link with Opus Dei, nor the Catholic Church, despite several of its members expressly acknowledging that they belong to the Prelature. This civil association had no impediments to achieve important public and private grants, and sustains a premier University with a prestigious University Hospital.

A substantial difference -which the Resolution 25/15 expressly refers to- is the exemption from income tax, but ultimately a completely material and worldly type of question order which did not justify such a turnabout in the relationship between Church and SSPX. Can we assume that this administrative act had a merely material purpose? No way is this possible knowing the difficulties endured for years by the SSPX for being outside the Catholic Church. (note from translator: the SSPX was never outside the Church, remember that this article is translated from an Ecclesia Dei source)

Was it a routine administrative procedure?

Definitely not, but this is supposing that it was illegal. Yes it was an extremely rapid process, where in less than a month the case was initiated and approved, despite requiring extensive documentation, having to be certified and translated into the national language, besides the normal time evaluation of the administrative body to resolve accordingly.

If you enter the website of the Ministry of Religions it will be noted, by way of example, that the "Dominican Sisters of the Immaculate Conception" began the record in 2000 (no. 22277/00) and obtained a favorable resolution in 2005 (No. 1475/00, dated 06/27/05).  On the same date, the Redemptorist Missionary Sisters were enabled, whose record dated from the previous year (no. 25213/04).  In this regard, you can consult the Official Gazette where bothresolutions were published.

If you are interested in knowing the list of all the Institutes of Consecrated Life and administrative procedures, you can enter this website.  This list is also proof of the dissimilar treatment that is given to the Catholic Church.

By way of conclusion

The importance of this resolution is shown in that, officially, the Archbishop of Buenos Aires recognizes the SSXP as a juridical person under public law within the Catholic Church, with a regular canonical condition.

Furthermore, as happened many times in questions dealing with common law (mainly in sensitive and controversial issues), it is a matter of an important precedent (leading case) of great value, that in some way may go unnoticed in the Universal Church.

I know nothing of the scenes of the case.  Whoever wants to know more can enter Panorama International Catholic, a site that I highly regard.  Sure, I can speculate on serious grounds, from the analysis of the legal act, about the documentary records that are invoked, about the formalities of other Institutes of Consecrated Life and tight deadlines, that it is a matter of something previously agreed and arranged in its presentation, impossible without the consent of Rome and Ecône.

H. T. (Argentine Attorney)

SEE first responses here

From Argentina With Love (13 Apr 2015)

                

SACRIFICIUM                                                  NON POSSUMUS

Dear readers,

Here is a link to a DICI article about the administrative recognition of the Neo-SSPX by the 

government of Argentina. The Neo-SSPX explains, quite correctly, that although this is not 

a religious or canonical recognition but a secular one, it nevertheless could not have 

happened without the direct intervention of the Cardinal of Buenos Aires in favor of the 

Neo-SSPX. DICI goes even so far as speculating that the Cardinal may have acted with the 

approval of Pope Francis.

(DICI report here)

(For the Spanish original documents and their English translation see:

http://nonpossumus-vcr.blogspot.com.br/2015/04/resolucion-con-la-cual-la-neo-fsspx.html )

Let me add my own speculation to that of the DICI article: This help received from the 
Cardinal of Buenos Aires has not been obtained from one day to the next. It has probably 
been the fruit of the efforts of Rev. Father Christian Bouchacourt, who was the District 
Superior of South America until August 2014. This priest is the one who has declared publicly
 that the Jews were not deicide (meaning: they didn't crucify Our Lord). As a reward for his 
loyal services in Argentina, Bishop Fellay has appointed Fr. Bouchacourt District Superior of 
France, a post he occupies since September 2014.

This DICI article shows us that, far from being offended at receiving the “loving” help of a 
Modernist Cardinal, Menzingen cannot keep itself from "salivating" at the prospect of more 
such future "quasi-recognitions". DICI also wants to give us a concrete example of how much
 an official recognition by Rome could help the Neo-SSPX in its apostolate around the world. 
Thus Menzingen remains consistent with the direction traced in 2012: In our relations with 
Rome, let us separate the practical aspect (what is concrete) from the doctrinal aspect 
(what is abstract). Let us get a canonical solution first and, once back “home” in Rome, we 
will work on solving those doctrinal questions “that are still problematic”.

Thus, we can see that Menzingen is still very actively working, and this on multiple levels, 
towards a "canonical solution" with Rome. The Neo-SSPX never tires in preparing the minds 
of its priests and faithful to accept such a recognition.

She doesn’t need to fear, after more and more such examples of “collaboration”, it will come! 
The Neo-SSPX will then go from the stage of more or less hidden “kisses” to that of a 
glittering marriage ceremony! Unfortunately, it would then be, in fact, an adulterous “marriage”
 between Truth and Error, which may scare some delicate souls and bring some losses to the 
Society!

But Menzingen need not fear: This kind of problem will cease to be an issue next fall, since 
the upcoming Synod on the Family will surely allow divorced “re-married” couples to receive 
the sacraments!

Fr. Patrick Girouard

Did the SSPX just accept Vatican 2?

Did the Society of St. Pius X just accept the Second Vatican Council?

Fr. Bouchacourt publicly claimed in an interview with Clarín that "the Jewish people did not commit deicide".  

Catholics everywhere are now talking about the news that the SSPX was accepted and recognized  with the aide of the conciliar cardinal Mario Aurelio Poli.  It seems that all of those who have wanted a deal with the Vatican are jumping for joy.  The usual Ecclesia Dei fans have all jumped in to sing kumbaya!  The SSPX extends its gratitude to them by praising the conciliar blog Rorate Caeli, for breaking the news, even though the news was already reported in several "resistance" sites in English, such as Non Possumus.  One should be reminded of the fact that the blog which is now being praised on a SSPX official site, also praises long-time betrayer Bishop Rifan, who traditionalists of all flavors had long considered a modernist.  It is coming as a huge surprise to many that such a reaction of praise is being met with about this event.

Long time defenders of tradition such as John Vennari are even somewhat content.  He had this to say in a comment on facebook today..."I in no way believe that this latest Argentine news means that the SSPX is poised to accept Vatican II, nor do I think it means that Bergoglio's Rome is poised to now give 'canonical status' to the SSPX. Fundamental doctrinal conflicts still remain.".  Yes, according to Mr. Vennari, it is no big deal.  Christopher Ferrara over at the Remnant had some even more shocking things to say about it: "It is inconceivable that this action was taken without the prior approval of Pope Francis. For this he deserves the praise of every Catholic concerned about justice in the Church."  Incredible!  No more Bergoglio boogey men under the bed! And suddenly, the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate have been forgotten. It would've never been achieved if not for the public apostasy of it's district superior and the expulsion of the anti-Semites...BRAVO Pope Francis...we all will now rejoice and sing praises to you.  

The most worrisome of all, of course, for Catholic thinkers, as opposed to those who do not think but rather dismiss everything that the "resistance" says as being "paranoid", "nasty", "sedevacantists", and a long list of etceteras... is that the SSPX has been reported as having accepted the Second Vatican Council by the secular press.  By the secular press, I am referring to the most read newspaper of Argentina the Clarín.  Readers may remember hearing about the Clarín almost two years ago, when they printed a personal interview with the then district superior Fr. Bouchacourt.  Since then Fr. Bouchacourt has been moved to France where he is the district superior of one of the Society's most important districts.  In this interview, he condemned a Rosary led by faithful of the SSPX in the Buenos Aires cathedral as an act of reparation for the ecumenical meeting of the Jewish B'nai B'rith.  (see video here)  Most notable of the interview was what seems to be an act of public apostasy where Fr. Bouchacourt SSPX denies the Gospel account of the Passion and claims that "the Jewish people did not commit deicide".  This public scandal was never retracted or even explained to the faithful.

Nevertheless, it seems that what has happened in Argentina is not a result of a unilateral recognition, I am hard-pressed to admit.  This is nothing more than the result of the SSPX being recognized by the Argentinian state due to efforts of a particular cardinal in order to alleviate the immigration process.  Allow me to repeat that I do not believe that this is the result of a unilateral recognition or a deal with modernist Rome. I could be wrong, however.  

However, what is of concern is the reaction from the the SSPX site of the US district. Regarding the article from Clarín they had this to say: "On April 12, 2015, the Argentinian newspaper Clarin announced the decision of the Secretary of Religion, Guillermo R. Oliveri, published in the official bulletin of the Argentine Republic on April 9, 2015; according to this decision the Society of St. Pius X is recognized in Argentina as a juridical person and has been added to the Register of the Institutes of Consecrated Life in which are listed the Catholic orders and religious congregations present in Argentina."

The SSPX US district would have done well to not have mentioned the Clarín article, especially regarding the past issue.

But what did the Clarín article have to say?  Why should I say this?  "The return of the Lefebvrists to the Church in Argentina, which is deducted as having been the approval of Pope Francis- is seen from those near the pontiff as an achievement because it implies that at least one sector of the followers of Lefebvre have accepted the Second Vatican Council. But it certainly will not be met well by progressive sectors. After all, it was the desire of the immediate predecessors of Francis." (english translation here)

Will the SSPX at least deny having their Argentinian sector accept the Second Vatican Council?  Let's be clear; I don't believe they have officially accepted the Council.  Again, I could be wrong, but I hope that I am not.  But for the sake of the common good, if a highly read newspaper claims that you have accepted the Council, and you cite this newspaper  on your official site, you should be informed about the history of the matter and what this newspaper is saying.  So did they just accept the Council?  Will they clarify?  They were quick to "denounce" the consecration of Bishop Faure, even before Rome did.  Will they remain silent about this public accusation of having accepted the Second Vatican Council made by a secular newspaper whom they are "joyful" in citing? (read what the US district said here)

Perhaps someone should seek a clarification from the US district website.

The text of the resolution that admits the Society as an institution of consecrated life in the conciliar church

MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND WORSHIP

SECRETARIAT OF WORSHIP

Translation by Michael Fuller

En español aquí Non Possumus

Resloution 25/2015

Bs.As., 17/03/2005

SEEN File No. 9028/2015 of the Registry of the MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND WORSHIP, Law No. 24,483 and its Regulatory Decree No. 491 dated September 21, 1995, and

WHEREAS:

That under Protocol No. 084/15 dated February 23, 2015, the Archbishop of Buenos Aires, Cardinal Mario Aurelio POLI requests that the "FRATERNITY OF THE APOSTLES OF JESUS ​​AND MARY" (SOCIETY OF ST. PIUS X) is taken, until the definitive legal framework in the Universal Church is found, as an Association of the Rights of the Diocese, as regulated by canon 298 of the Code of Canon Law, in fieri to be a Society of Apostolic Life, with all the benefits that correspond to this and in compliance with all the obligations referred to it, also assuming to it the responsibilities of the diocesan bishop.

That said fraternity is accredited as a juristic body publicly within the ROMAN CATHOLIC APOSTOLIC CHURCH, according to the rules of the Code of Canon Law.

Which according to its statutes, approved by the competent ecclesiastical authority, the fraternity is a priestly society of common life without vows, in imitation of the societies for Foreign Missions (conf. Chapter I, Article 1, Statutes of the Society of the Apostles Jesus and Mary).

That Article 3, subsection f) of Decree No. 491/95 authorizes registration in the registry created by Law No. 24,483, to juridical bodies recognized by ecclesiastical authority which are similar or analogous to the Institutes of Consecrated Life and societies of apostolic life.

That the applicant institution has complied with all the requirements of current legislation, accompanying its statutes, the decree of erection and memory, in accordance with the provisions of Law No. 24,483.

This corresponds to accede to this entry whenever the petitioner falls within the terms provided by Rule 3, subsection f) of Decree No. 491/95.

This measure is issued in exercise of the powers conferred by Article 17 of Decree No. 491/95.

Therefore,

THE SECRETARY OF
WORSHIP

RESOLVED:

ARTICLE 1 - To recognize as a legal body "THE FRATERNITY OF THE APOSTLES OF JESUS AND MARY" (Society of St. Pius X), Association of Diocesan Right, with a registered seat and special address on the street Venezuela N ° 1318, AUTONOMOUS CITY BUENOS AIRES, which is registered under the number ONE HUNDRED EIGHTY (381) Registry Institutes of Consecrated Life.

ARTICLE 2 - To grant this entity the character of an entity for the public good for all purposes as deemed appropriate.

ARTICLE 3 - Let it be known that the referenced legal body is benefited by the treatment provided by Article 20, subsection e) of the Law on Income Tax (text ordered in 1997).

ARTICLE 4 - That it shall be communicated, published, and submitted to the Official National Registry and filed. - Emb. WILLIAM R. OLIVERI, Secretary of Worship.

SEE ALSO THE ARTICLE FROM CLARIN, Newspaper from Argentina

The Lefebvrists return to be accepted by the Church in Argentina

The Lefebvrists return to being accepted by the Church in Argentina

Translated by Michael Fuller

English- Spanish

______________________________________________________

A recent article in the most read newspaper in Argentina, Clarin, had some interesting things to say about Lefebvrists.  Keep in mind that the Clarin is the same newspaper where the SSPX district superior (now district superior of France) denied that the Jews were responsible for deicide (the Gospel account).  Also, it is interesting that in Argentina, a great number of the SSPX members have visa issues for none other than not being able to acquire documentation from the conciliar authorities.  What follows is a translation of the article. A unilateral recognition? - M.F

____________________________________________________

In Argentina, members of the ultraconservative community founded by the French bishop Marcel Lefebvre -excommunicated by Pope John Paul II in 1988 along with four other bishops formally returned to the Catholic Church.  This follows a decision by the Secretariat of Worship of the Nation -published in the Official Gazette at the end of this week- in which it recognizes that the Fraternity of the Apostles of Jesus and Mary or the SSPX (the Lefebvrists) as a juridical body -the key- and incorporates it into the Registry of the Institute of Consecrated Life, which makes up the congregations and Catholic orders.

For this incorporation a mediation was needed by an order of ecclesiastical authority, in this case, made by the Archbishop of Buenos Aires, Cardinal Mario Poli.

The incorporation into the country by the Lefebrists into the Catholic Church occurs while the Vatican maintains difficult negotiations with that community worldwide for its return to Rome. The discussions began in 2000 as was the will of John Paul II.  In 2009, Benedict XVI decided to lift the excommunication of the four bishops -Lefebvre died in 1991, which was one of the demands of the ultraconservative community.

Joseph Ratzinger's decision -not lacking in controversy- gave a big headache to the German Pope because declarations almost immediately became known from one of the bishops benefiting [from the lifting of the excommunications], residing in Argentina, Richard Williamson, who denied the Holocaust. Then, the government led by Cristina Kirchner decided to deport him.

As Williamson insisted, at least partially, with his opinions, he was put in the forefront of the most radicalized group of the Lefebvrists. He was expelled from the Society of St. Pius X in 2012.

In turn, Benedict XVI suspended him "ad divinis" and in a letter to all bishops admitted being mistaken, by not being informed about the previous denial [of the Holocaust] of Williamson.

The return of the Lefebvrists to the Church in Argentina, which is deducted as having been the approval of Pope Francis- is seen from those near the pontiff as an achievement because it implies that at least one sector of the followers of Lefebvre have accepted the Second Vatican Council. But it certainly will not be met well by progressive sectors. After all, it was the desire of the immediate predecessors of Francis.

In Brazil, it was already some time ago that some of the Lefebvrists returned to communion with Rome, by becoming an Apostolic Prefecture, reporting directly to the Pope.

\------

SEE ALSO the translation of THE OFFICIAL TEXT of the Resolution
___________________________________________________________________________

Los lefebvristas vuelven a ser admitidos por la Iglesia argentina

Lo siguiente fue publicado en el periódico mas leído de Argentina, Clarín, y dice cosas interesantes sobre los Lefebvristas.  Acuérdense que el Clarín es el mismísimo periódico del incidente cuando el superior del distrito en ese momento, ahora el superior del distrito de Francia, dijo que los judíos no cometieron deicidio (negación del relato de los Evangelios).  También es interesante que en Argentina, un grande número de los miembros de la Fraternidad no consigan las visas argentinas porque no pueden obtener documentación de las autoridades conciliares.  Pues, desde ahora, eso ya se ha cambiado.  Una recognición unilateral? M.F.

En la Argentina, los miembros de la comunidad ultraconservadora fundada por el obispo francés Marcel Lefebvre –excomulgado por el Papa Juan Pablo II en el año 1988 junto a otros cuatro obispos– volvieron formalmente a la Iglesia católica. Así se desprende de una resolución de la secretaría de Culto de la Nación –publicada en el Boletín Oficial al terminar esta semana– en la que reconoce a la Fraternidad de los Apóstoles de Jesús y María o Fraternidad San Pío X (los lefebvristas) como persona jurídica y –la clave– la incorpora al Registro de Instituto de Vida Consagrada, que componen las congregaciones y órdenes católicas.

Para esa incorporación debió mediar un pedido de la autoridad eclesiástica que, en este caso, fue hecho por el arzobispo de la Ciudad de Buenos Aires, cardenal Mario Poli.

La incorporación en el país de los lefebvristas a la Iglesia católica se produce mientras el Vaticano mantiene dificultosas tratativas con esa comunidad a nivel mundial para su vuelta a Roma. Las conversaciones se iniciaron en 2000 por voluntad de Juan Pablo II. En 2009 Benedicto XVI dispuso levantar la excomunión de los cuatro obispos –Lefebvre murió en 1991–, que era una de las demandas de la comunidad ultraconservadora.

La decisión de Joseph Ratzinger –no exenta de polémica– le trajo un gran dolor de cabeza al Papa alemán porque casi inmediatamente se conocieron declaraciones de uno de los obispos beneficiados, residente en la Argentina, Richard Williamson, que negaba el Holocausto. Entonces, el gobierno encabezado por Cristina Kirchner decidió expulsarlo del país.

Como Williamson insistió, al menos parcialmente, con sus opiniones y se puso al frente del grupo más radicalizado de los lefebvristas, fue expulsado de la Fraternidad San Pío X en 2012.

A su vez, Benedicto XVI lo suspendió “ad divinis” y en una carta a todos los obispos admitió haberse equivocado, al no informarse sobre los antecedentes negacionistas de Williamson.

La vuelta de los lefebvristas a la Iglesia en la Argentina –que se descuenta que contó con el visto bueno del Papa Francisco– es vista en las cercanías del pontífice como un logro porque implica que al menos un sector de los seguidores de Lefebvre aceptan el Concilio Vaticano II. Pero seguramente no les caerá bien a sectores progresistas. Al fin de cuentas, ése era el deseo de los inmediatos antecesores de Francisco.

En el Brasil, hace ya un tiempo que una parte de los lefebvristas volvió a la comunión con Roma, al pasar a ser una Prefectura Apostólica, que depende directamente del Papa.