El comunicado de Menzingen del 19 de marzo, aunque
breve, nos enseña un buen número de cosas. Entre otras, encontramos allí una
confesión: que Monseñor Williamson fue expulsado de la Fraternidad San Pio X a causa de su oposición a la política acuerdista de Mons. Fellay.
Hasta el presente, Menzingen hablaba de
desobediencia: Monseñor Williamson era un indisciplinado, un mal subordinado
que no obedece las órdenes recibidas. Ahora, Menzingen confiesa la verdadera razón: “las vivas críticas" de Mons. Williamson respecto a las relaciones de Menzingen con Roma.
Lo mismo Mons. Faure. He aquí su falla.
El affaire de la carta de los tres obispos a Mons. Fellay
y a sus asistentes no fue digerido. Relaciones con Roma, Mons. Lefebvre bien que las tuvo, pero con la esperanza que Roma se
recuperara, que diera marcha atrás. De hecho, Mons. Lefebvre era quien dirigía
las negociaciones y lo hacía con una certeza invencible, porque su criterio fue la fe de siempre. Incluso,
al hacerlo, casi cayó en la trampa de Roma. “Fui demasiado lejos”, dijo.
Por el contrario, con Mons. Fellay, las cosas suceden de manera completamente diferente. No
es él quien dirige las negociaciones. No es él quien tiene la fuerza de decir a
Roma: “Soy yo, el acusado, quien tendría
que juzgaros”. No, Monseñor Fellay no se presenta como juez de los errores
de Roma. Se presenta más bien como un culpable
“en situación irregular” que debe
reintegrarse al redil y que sufre porque “su”
Fraternidad no lo sigue.
Abramos un paréntesis. ¿Juzgar a Roma? ¿No es este
el papel de los superiores y no de los inferiores? Por supuesto. Pero los
superiores ya han juzgado. Es Quanta Cura, Pascendi, Quas Primas,
etc., que condenan a los papas liberales. Es Roma, la Roma eterna, quien ya ha
juzgado al neo-modernismo y neo-protestantismo. Monseñor Fellay parece haber
olvidado esto y lo hace olvidar con su “Iglesia
concreta de hoy en día”. Cerremos el paréntesis.
Monseñor
Williamson bloqueaba las negociaciones de Menzingen. Él constituía una traba. Lo sabíamos bien, pero la
casa general daba otra versión. Ahora, ella confiesa. Son “las vivas críticas” de Mons. Williamson contra su operación suicidio que han sido la causa
de su expulsión. Ya era tiempo que Menzingen lo dijera. Ya lo hizo ahora.
Sin
embargo, Menzingen falsea la cuestión al decir que estas vivas críticas eran sobre “toda relación con las autoridades romanas”.
No. Esto no es verdad. Ellas eran sobre la incorporación
a Roma, que pondría a la FSSPX bajo el yugo modernista y liberal, por la
cual el demonio trata de llegar a lo que Corção llamó “el pecado terminal”: hacer caer los últimos bastiones en una
última y monumental afrenta a Dios.
Y a esto no podríamos prestar nuestro concurso. El
demonio no logrará sus fines porque Nuestra Señora vela: Ipsa conteret. He ahí nuestra esperanza. Ella no será decepcionada,
si nosotros somos fieles por la gracia de Dios: : Fidelis inveniatur.
ENGLISH
Fr. Thomas
Aquinas, OSB.
A Menzingen
Confession
The
communication from Menzingen on the 19th of March, although brief, teaches us a
good number of things. Among these, we find a confession here: that Bishop
Williamson was expelled from the Society of St. Pius X because of his opposition
to the accordist policy of Bishop Fellay.
Up until the
present, Menzingen spoke about disobedience: Bishop Williamson was
undisciplined, a bad subordinate that does not obey the orders received.
Now, Menzingen confesses the true reason: "the violent
criticisms" of Bishop Williamson regarding the relations of Menzingen
with the Roman authorities. The same as Bishop Faure. This is where they
fail.
The affair of
the letter of the 3 bishops to Bishop Fellay and his assistants was not
digested well by them. Relations with Rome, Archbishop Lefebvre had them
as well, but with the hope that Rome recovered, that it would return. In
fact, Archbishop Lefebvre was who directed the negotiations and he did it with
invincible certitude, because his criteria was the Faith of all times.
Including, that while doing this, he nearly fell into Rome's trap.
"I went too far", he said.
On the
contrary, with Bishop Fellay, everything happens in a completely
different manner. It's not him that directs the negotiations. It is not
him that has the strength to say to Rome: "It is I, the accused, who will
have to judge you." No, Bishop Fellay does not present himself as a
judge of the errors of Rome. He presents himself more like a guilty
one "in an irregular situation" who must reintegrate
himself into the fold and suffers because "his" Society does
not follow suit.
Allow us to
add with emphasis: Judge Rome? Isn't this the role of the superiors and not of
inferiors? Of course. But the superiors have already cast their
judgement. It is Quanta Cura, Pascendi, Quas Primas, etc., that condemns
the liberal popes. It is Rome, Eternal Rome, who has already judged
neo-modernism and neo-Protestantism. Bishop Fellay seems to have
forgotten this and he makes it forgotten with his "visible Church of
today." End of emphasis.
Bishop
Williamson was in the way of the negotiations of Menzingen. He constituted an obstacle. We knew it well, but
the General House gave another version. Now, they confess it. It's the "violent
criticisms" of Bishop Williamson against their operation suicide that
have been the cause of his expulsion. It was about time that Menzingen
said it and now they finally have.
Nevertheless,
Menzingen misrepresents the question in saying that these violent criticisms were about "any
relations with the Roman authorities". No. This is not true. The
criticisms were regarding an incorporation into Rome, that would put the
Society under its modernist and liberal yoke, by which the devil tries to
arrive at what Gustavo Corção called "the terminal sin": to
bring down the last bastions in one last, monumental affront to God.
And to do
this we could not lend our support. The devil will not achieve his goals
because Our Lady is watching over: Ipsa conteret. Here is where our hope
is. She will not be let down if we are faithful by the grace of God: Fidelis
inveniatur.
