Author Topic: A POST DEAL SSPX (Read 4379 times)

Telesphorus · « **Reply #30 on:** May 06, 2012, 10:20:07 PM »

correction:

Which shows your principle: that the SSPX does what it does with the authority of the Church.

bernadette · « **Reply #31 on:** May 06, 2012, 10:26:24 PM »

Quote from: Seraphim

Quote from: bernadette
Quote from: Seraphim
Apparently you have not heard of the Index?

Are you talking to me? Apparently, you are making assumptions if you are. I'll answer regardless of who you are talking to...I've heard of the Index...so what? The Catholic church can have an Index of Forbidden Books, because they ARE the church...the sspx is NOT the church and their priests don't have any business acting as though they are...

In that case, you should not seek them out for any juridical acts.

Elaborate please.

bernadette · « **Reply #32 on:** May 06, 2012, 10:36:04 PM »

The sspx not so very long ago, removed the sermons of ABL from the hands of the faithful. They censored their own founder for heaven's sake...

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #33 on:** May 06, 2012, 10:40:30 PM »

Ok, I understand now. Her priest told her to stop reading anything negative about the Society.

That is indeed wrong. Now, if he had told her to stop reading something that was harmful to her Faith, ok, sure. But for the Society to tell their faithful not to read anything negative about them when the "reconciliation" attempt with Rome gives sufficient reasons for negativity is certainly a cause for concern.

Quote from: bernadette

The sspx not so very long ago, removed the sermons of ABL from the hands of the faithful. They censored their own founder for heaven's sake...

Good point.

Francisco · « **Reply #34 on:** May 07, 2012, 12:20:28 AM »

Quote from: s2srea

Quote from: Francisco
Quote from: Stubborn

I dunno, I was speaking with three young SSPX priests a few months back and while they are devout and all, the impression I got was what I wrote above. Made me wonder what the SSPX priests will be like 2 or 3 generations from now when this is all ancient history.

Complete and utter negligence on the part of the Society in not instructing their seminarians on the very reasons for their existence.

This is actually inaccurate Francisco. They instruct their seminarians on these issues as well as anyone.

OK, I'm glad to hear that as their training will come in most handy during these days! But here are some blasts from the past:

FR NOEL BARBARA'S 'OPEN LETTER TO THE FSSPX:

...Those for whom religion is only a collection of practices demand only mass, sacraments, and doctrinal instruction. Those who live their faith intelligently demand also doctrinal justifications of our stand, consistent behavior, and above all a confession of faith on disputed points. Despite your seminaries, convents, Parisian university, five bishops and several hundred priests, your organization has never published a single doctrinal work to confound protagonists of the new Church and their formal heresies and to justify resistance ...(p.72)

FR (now BISHOP) CLARENCE KELLY, MARCH 1983:

....The fundamental reason for the Fraternity's existence is to promote loyalty to the Church and her teachings ...Priests, seminarians, and the faithful associate themselves with the Fraternity to the extent that the Fraternity is loyal to Tradition; they associate with it because they want the Traditional Mass, the traditional sacraments and the traditional teachings of the Church...We priests cannot propose loyalty to the Fraternity as equal in value to the traditional rites and doctrines. Therefore, the primary motive of everything we do is loyalty to the Church. To the extent that any organization, including the Fraternity, would do things which conflict with the traditions and immemorial practices of the Church, to that extent we reject these things without hesitation or reservation .....

Wessex · « **Reply #35 on:** May 07, 2012, 04:16:00 AM »

Incredibly, the issue for Society priests may not be their attitude towards the Council but the opportunity to have more control over their congregations within an Opus Dei-type structure with all its cult-like tendencies. Opus Dei is another organisation which changed over decades. The era of troublesome trads in the pew may be over for them!

Francisco · « **Reply #36 on:** May 09, 2012, 06:51:42 AM »

Quote from: Wessex

I wonder, will the Society now put the French Revolution to bed?

It will have to. It called Vatican II the "French Revolution in the Church", but now the influential and controlling section want to bed with Joseph Ratzinger, one of the great revolutionaries of Vatican II.

John Grace · « **Reply #37 on:** May 09, 2012, 06:59:09 AM »

Quote from: bernadette

The sspx not so very long ago, removed the sermons of ABL from the hands of the faithful. They censored their own founder for heaven's sake...

Correct. This should never be forgotten. 'Faith Imperiled by Reason Benedict XVI's Hermeneutics' written by Bishop Tissier was also suppressed.

VinnyF · « **Reply #38 on:** May 09, 2012, 12:35:40 PM »

Quote from: Seraphim

It is amazing and depressing to see how many have not understood that ABL was fighting for the greater Church, not the rights of the SSPX.

ABL signed the 1988 Protocol without a pre-condition of Rome returning to the faith. When he reneged the following day, it was not because he thought of imprecise V2 docuмents all night.

He was fighting for the greater church and saw that an agreement would allow his priests to operate more freely and spread the faith within the church and countermand the heresy, apostasy, and ignorance. ABL was forming his priests for that battle without requiring Rome to first wave a white flag.

We had three SSPX seminarians over for dinner during Easter. One of them was my son. When I asked them what was currently being taught about the N.O., without a blush, they said that it was "intrinsically evil".

You have completely missed the point that Bp Fellay is doing EXACTLY what ABL would have done in 1988 and what he would be doing now under these terms. Without even knowing the particulars, you anticipate that he is a weak-kneed Bp Rifan and has no strength to continue to spread the faith within the church.

If you accuse him of being a sell-out, you could at least have the courtesy of waiting until you see where he has accepted the new faith. You will be shamed if you find out that he and the other bishops may be intent on reforming the church from the inside out .. it has been done before.

If I am wrong, I'll be on the same bus as you headed for wherever and whomever has the faith. If you believe that Benedict is the Pope, then you cannot refuse a request that does not compromise faith or morals. If that invitation only consists of an invitation to canonical communion, it would be cowardly to refuse it out of fear that one might be expected to betray the faith in the future.

LordPhan · « **Reply #39 on:** May 09, 2012, 12:43:05 PM »

Where is this proof that ABL signed a deal in 1988?

LordPhan · « **Reply #40 on:** May 09, 2012, 12:44:24 PM »

Quote

"Rome has lost the faith, my dear friends. Rome is in apostasy.
These are not words, words in the air I tell you. This is the truth.
Rome is in apostasy.
We can no longer have confidence in that world. It left the church, they left the church, they leave the church. That's sure, sure, sure, sure.
I summarized that to Cardinal Ratzinger in a few words. I told him:
"Eminence, even if you grant us a bishop,
even if you give us some independence from the bishops,
even if you grant us the entire liturgy of 1962,
if you allow us to continue the seminaries and the Society as we do now,
we can not work together, it is impossible;
because we work in diametrically opposite directions:
you, you work to de-Christianize society, the human person, the Church,
we, we are working to christianize them.
We cannot agree. " [...]
You just say that the society cannot be Christian. "

Archbishop Lefebvre, the Conference for priests to Econe retreat for priests.
01. 09. In 1987

John Grace · « **Reply #41 on:** May 09, 2012, 12:44:46 PM »

Quote

You have completely missed the point that Bp Fellay is doing EXACTLY

What point has he missed, Vinny F?.

Quote

In light of all the recent evidence of the society heading towards a “marriage” with Concilliar Rome, I thought that it might be a worthwhile exercise to revisit some of the companies specific to Switzerland and Germany, that the hierarchy of the Society “own” or are directors/presidents thereof. Swiss company records give a lot more “free” information than other countries, so it is more transparent to find relevant information, without having to pay for that information as in other countries. Swiss company records are still limited insofar as they require a fee to check on shareholder information, company returns and such. Therefore in order to do detailed research of these companies one needs to outlay significant fees, and so for the moment we have to rely on the free information.

What would be the purpose of revisiting this? Hopefully we can build up more of this puzzle. The society is possibly embarking on massive changes, and perhaps a second glance at these companies by the intelligent IA community may help with the puzzle, and maybe we can understand if motives are good or otherwise. Not implying that there is anything wrong per se, but rather let’s examine the [factual] evidence.

There has been an obvious flurry of corporate activity especially since late 2008 by the SSPX. The most controversial one is Dello Sarto AG, a fully paid commercial company with a working capital of CHF100,000.
See: http://www.moneyhouse.ch/en/u/p/g/dello_sa...3.033.031-9.htm

Controversial in that a lay person has been appointed with single signature authority and is a member of the Administrative board, and sole member of the Management board. Furthermore, that lay person has very close business ties to another person who represents a company that is auditor to Dello Sarto. Yes, he is the same person who appears to have gone out of his way to destroy Bishop Williamson’s reputation. The other person with single signature authority is +BF, and the other two Priests – Frs. Pfluger and Baudot require each of their respective signatures. Conjecture: The lawyer layman, it appears, is more trustworthy than the two Priests to be have been given single signatory authority.

The stated purpose of Dello Sarto is (google translated): “Advice on asset management issues and the care and management of assets of domestic and foreign individuals, corporations, foundations and other bodies, particularly of natural and legal persons who are of Catholic morals, religion and morality in their traditional sense of obligation and see, and the execution of projects of all kinds, especially construction projects for the persons named, as well as advising on the implementation of these projects; whole purpose paraphrase statutes in accordance with”

Then there is the German trust “Jaidhofer Private Foundation” a SSPX entity that the same lawyer as above uses/lists as his sponsor for the EMBA Global (Business School). As with many private foundations or trusts, the internal structure, beneficiaries, trustees can be made opaque to external eyes. For lack of a better word, that information is secret.

Both Dello Sarto and Jaidhofer were set up in 2008 to begin operation in 2009.

Another SSPX company that was curious was STPI Société Tradition Patrimoine Immobilier Sàrl. It has a fully paid up capital of CHF160,000 requiring the signatures of two of the following: +BF, and Frs. Baudot and Schmidberger. The current shareholders are: “The share capital of CHF 160'000 now consists of 160 shares of CHF 1,000, held by Bernard Fellay, Schmidberger Franz, now in Stuttgart (Germany), Alfonso Genua Galarreta and Niklaus Pfluger, Menzingen now, all four each with 40 shares of CHF 1,000 (previously every four each with a share of CHF 40,000). Emeric Baudot was elected chairman of the managers.”

See: http://www.moneyhouse.ch/en/u/p/stpi_socie...1.031.472-9.htm

It was originally set up in 2002 with the following aim: [translated]“buying, selling, brokerage, management, promotion and enhancement of buildings, including that it can make available to the Priestly Society of St. Pius X for its activities, and any real estate, management and administration of securities of all kinds.”

There has been a subtle change in the company’s statutes: [translated] “Statutes updated on 9 November 2010. Obligation to provide ancillary benefits, preferential rights, preemptive or emption: for details, see the articles.”

Obviously one needs to sight the articles for explanation of these changes, but the wording appears to be consistent with providing the shareholders (or other parties) with distributions and/or other benefits. Curious that this clause was added – and again – it was after 2008/2009.

There is also a USA connection, yet this too is limited on the information that can be found out.

See: http://www.corporationwiki.com/Texas/El-Pa...c/32030676.aspx

You can go through other US States besides Texas, and you will also see +BF, Frs. Schmidberger and Baudot as part of the organizations.

What does this all mean? Perhaps nothing. But as I stated in the beginning, in the light of current activities, maybe this is now telling us something new?

VinnyF · « **Reply #42 on:** May 09, 2012, 01:07:56 PM »

Quote from: John Grace

You have completely missed the point that Bp Fellay is doing EXACTLY

What point has he missed, Vinny F?.

The point is that if you believe that Benedict is NOT the Pope, then you have no horse in this race.

If you believe he is Pope, and you believe that Rome has lost the faith, then it is your obligation to storm Rome and convert her AND the Pope as needs be. If canonical communion increases your access to that end, then your obligation is to use it. We are the church militant, not the church sniveling.

What is there to fear in this holy war? Excommunication? Please!

If the SSPX becomes anything other that a path to your salvation, you need to go elsewhere.

John Grace · « **Reply #43 on:** May 09, 2012, 01:11:11 PM »

You are obviously upset at seeing criticism of Bishop Fellay but can you ignore this, Vinny F? It was posted in another thread.

Quote

Re: General Discussion » Open Invitation - Post about SSPX, Bp Fellay, SSPX priests

I read the joint letter of Mgr. Alfonso de Galarreta, Mgr. Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Mgr. Richard Williamson :
Lettre au Conseil Général de la Fraternité St Pie X, le 7 avril 2012

Yes it is real. It is a stiff letter. It predicts a profound division of the fraternity when Bp Fellay continues his fatal course. The 3 bishops are in battle mode now. They have to because Bp Fellay will pull off the Betrayal.

Stand by to repel boarders !

VinnyF · « **Reply #44 on:** May 09, 2012, 01:38:43 PM »

Quote from: John Grace

You are obviously upset at seeing criticism of Bishop Fellay but can you ignore this, Vinny F? It was posted in another thread.

Quote
Re: General Discussion » Open Invitation - Post about SSPX, Bp Fellay, SSPX priests

I read the joint letter of Mgr. Alfonso de Galarreta, Mgr. Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Mgr. Richard Williamson :
Lettre au Conseil Général de la Fraternité St Pie X, le 7 avril 2012

Yes it is real. It is a stiff letter. It predicts a profound division of the fraternity when Bp Fellay continues his fatal course. The 3 bishops are in battle mode now. They have to because Bp Fellay will pull off the Betrayal.

Stand by to repel boarders !

I am not upset at criticism of Bp Fellay.

I am amazed at how some are acting like frightened little schoolgirls at what the Pope might do to an SSPX bishop if he gets mad at him. The prospect that because the Pope may give the keys to the front door of St. Peter's to Bishop Fellay, that he would immediately become a modernist and N.O. apologist is laughable.

If he is compromising the faith ... show me where. You can't, because you don't know. Regularization does not equal a compromise in the faith.

I found your reference to the letter of the three bishops but no letter. Do you have a link?