SSPX Bp. Galaretta 2011 attack on the Holy See’s Doctrinal Preamble

I have just started to read SSPX Bp. Galaretta’s contradiction of the “Doctrinal Preamble” offered by the Holy See in advance of reconciliation.

It is in French right now.  HERE.

In the meantime, His Hermeneuticalness, Fr. Finigan posted a request to pray for the SSPXers who will meet in Chapter soon.

The Society of St Pius X’s annual General Chapter will take place at St Pius X Seminary in Econe, Switzerland from 9-14 July, following a retreat for the participants (the General Council and the SSPX’s major superiors).

The SSPX has invited the faithful, religious and clergy to join the members of the SSPX in a novena to the Holy Ghost from June 30 to July 8. The novena will consist of praying the Veni Creator Spiritus with the addition of 2 invocations:

Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us. (3 times)
St. Pius X, pray for us.

The text of the Veni Creator Spiritus with translation. HERE

I will be praying this novena and I encourage you to do so in solidarity with the SSPX and especially for the cause of full canonical recognition for the Society.

Check out Fr. Finigan all the time.

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in SESSIUNCULA and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.


  1. aragonjohn7 says:


  2. robkphd says:

    I pray that they reconcile. I fear they have been away too long and are now a new kind of protestant. I once thought it would be good for the Church if they returned. Now I am not certain that it is. You can fall out of both sides of the boat – not just the left side.

  3. Long-Skirts says:

    ” SSPX Bp. Galaretta attacks the Holy See’s Doctrinal Preamble”

    I think all should take note of the DATE of Bp. Galaretta’s critique…a lot has happened AND changed since this was written almost NINE MONTHS AGO.

    +de Galarreta Critique Doctrinal Preamble, Albano 7th-8th October 2011.pd

    [In that case I look forward to his retraction.]

  4. WesleyD says:

    Long-Skirts: Thanks for pointing out the date! I missed that (silly me) when going through it just now. My French is mediocre… but it’s hard to miss his reference to “la boîte de Pandore”. (Which would have been delightfully fun to read in any other context.)

    Still, I worry that if the other three bishops unite against reconciliation, it will make it harder for Fellay to agree to anything.

    I was also surprised that Bp. de Galaretta’s primary argument against the Preamble (the early draft) was based not on quotes from popes or councils, but on quotes from Abp. Lefebvre.

  5. Warmiaczka says:

    Father, his name is “Galarreta”, not “Galaretta”.

  6. Alan Aversa says:

    Galaretta speaks! ?

  7. Mercier says:

    2 questions

    1. Why is this post mistitled? The critique is of the preamble from last year that was unanimously rejected at the meeting in Albano.

    2. Why is confidential information, such as this critique being published on this blog? Do you have the permission of Bp. Galaretta to publish this information? It would be worth noting that this was first posted on the well known anti-agreement forums where other leaks were posted. I am frankly very surprised to see it here. I suggest that it be taken down immediately. [Gimme a break.]

  8. jhayes says:

    It’s interesimg that he quotes (approvingly) Msgr. Lefevbre’s criticism of the distinction between principles and contingent applications which Benedict later restated in his 2005 Christmas Speech to he Curia.

    Cardinal Ratzinger, when presenting a very long document on the relationship between the Magisterium and theologians, said, “for the first time with clarity” that “decisions of the Magisterium, as such, can’t be the last word on an issue” but are “a sort of provisional determination…The principles remain fixed but the details  that were influenced by the context of the time may need adjustment later. For example, the statements of the Popes of the last [19th] century. The decisions against modernism did a great service…but now they are out of date”.  

    So, just like that, the page of modernism is turned! These thoughts are absolutely insane. [But isn’t the claim that “the page is turned” itself a little nutty?]

    That distinction between principles and their contingent application is Benedict’s solution to how to reconcile the statements of Vatican II with prior teachings of the Magisterium. It’s hard to see how the SSPX can reach an agreement with Benedict wihout accepting it.

  9. jhayes says:

    So, just like that, the page of modernism is turned! These thoughts are absolutely insane. [But isn’t the claim that “the page is turned” itself a little nutty?]

    +Galarreta is quoting +Lefebvre who is quoting ++Ratzinger. If I’ve kept track correctly, that’s +Lefebvre inventing the “page is turned” language and saying ++Ratzinger’s thoughts are insane.

    I haven’t hunted down the date of that quote but it has to be before Lefebvre’s death in 1991. About 15 years later (Christmas 2005), Benedict said just about the same thing about the need to recognize the difference between principles and contingent matters in interpreting earlier teachings. Since then, he hasn’t given any indication I have seen that he has changed his mind.

    As i said in my original post. It’s hard to see how the SSPX can reach an agreement with Benedict wihout accepting his view on that.

  10. jesusthroughmary says:


Comments are closed.