Soon after the 1988 consecrations, Archbishop Lefebvre gave an important interview to Fideliter – in which he definitively set out the conditions for any future negotiations with the Vatican.
“One day, very gently, they will oblige those who have been granted the use of the Tridentine Mass, the Mass of All Time, also to accept the New Mass.”
He also famously predicted the FSSP would last 10 years before Rome would move to crush it.
In 1999 (less than 11 years after the foundation of the FSSP), Rome issued Protocol 1411/99, which declared that superiors of ecclesia dei communities could not forbid members from celebrating the Novus Ordo (effectively reversing their promise to allow these groups to exclusive use of the 1962 rites). Shortly thereafter, they would intervene to have the US seminary rector removed, and replaced by one more to their liking.
Pardon me for this take on your publication, but I find very revealing the second area of reflection that Cardinal Ratzinger suggested needed consideration to the Chilean bishops cited above..."Whether it was an error to present Vatican II as a super-dogma, blotting out the whole of the Tradition of the Church".
This is why I have such difficulty with the future Benedict XVI. Was he saying that it was an error to present Vatican II as super-dogma WHEN IT NEVER WAS (and by whom was it thus presented), or WAS IT INDEED INTENDED AS A SUPER-DOGMA or indeed any type of dogma and the presenting of it in a certain manner, i.e. blotting out the whole of Tradition, the error? How could he even consider it an "error". For he knew for a fact that it was a non-dogmatic council so how could he even raise this question without condemning those who did so, unless he knew its intention of blotting out of at least some Tradition including doctrine as his post-conciliar actions seem in accord with.
It seems this was an admission that a non-dogmatic council, of which the presiding pope declared was only pastoral and defined no new doctrine and that nothing was done at the council that was not in accord with prior doctrinal teaching, had the unstated but real intention of redefining doctrine (blotting out Tradition) and this was confirmed by a future pope. Either way, the "error" he was confirming was the use of the cover of an ecumenical council to change Catholic doctrine, by the hierarchy, which he was sworn to oppose by his Oath against Modernism.
Right after the editor's note, I believe there is a small mistake, for it reads "A few months years after the Consecrations" instead of "A few months after the Consecrations."
Lefebvre definitely nailed this prophecy:
“One day, very gently, they will oblige those who have been granted the use of the Tridentine Mass, the Mass of All Time, also to accept the New Mass.”
He also famously predicted the FSSP would last 10 years before Rome would move to crush it.
In 1999 (less than 11 years after the foundation of the FSSP), Rome issued Protocol 1411/99, which declared that superiors of ecclesia dei communities could not forbid members from celebrating the Novus Ordo (effectively reversing their promise to allow these groups to exclusive use of the 1962 rites). Shortly thereafter, they would intervene to have the US seminary rector removed, and replaced by one more to their liking.
Indeed. Prophetic indeed
Pardon me for this take on your publication, but I find very revealing the second area of reflection that Cardinal Ratzinger suggested needed consideration to the Chilean bishops cited above..."Whether it was an error to present Vatican II as a super-dogma, blotting out the whole of the Tradition of the Church".
This is why I have such difficulty with the future Benedict XVI. Was he saying that it was an error to present Vatican II as super-dogma WHEN IT NEVER WAS (and by whom was it thus presented), or WAS IT INDEED INTENDED AS A SUPER-DOGMA or indeed any type of dogma and the presenting of it in a certain manner, i.e. blotting out the whole of Tradition, the error? How could he even consider it an "error". For he knew for a fact that it was a non-dogmatic council so how could he even raise this question without condemning those who did so, unless he knew its intention of blotting out of at least some Tradition including doctrine as his post-conciliar actions seem in accord with.
It seems this was an admission that a non-dogmatic council, of which the presiding pope declared was only pastoral and defined no new doctrine and that nothing was done at the council that was not in accord with prior doctrinal teaching, had the unstated but real intention of redefining doctrine (blotting out Tradition) and this was confirmed by a future pope. Either way, the "error" he was confirming was the use of the cover of an ecumenical council to change Catholic doctrine, by the hierarchy, which he was sworn to oppose by his Oath against Modernism.
You will probably find the following series helpful. Vatican II most certainly required the religious assent of the faithful:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=hLJwQyuma6Q
Right after the editor's note, I believe there is a small mistake, for it reads "A few months years after the Consecrations" instead of "A few months after the Consecrations."