Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Francisco on May 04, 2012, 10:00:51 PM
-
If the SSPX signs a deal with Rome then it doesn't seem likely that they will criticize the N.O.M. anymore, this being the O.F. of the Conciliar Church. There will be people who will question the need of continuing to make long journeys every Sunday to get to an SSPX TLM when a N.O.M. is available nearby.
I also notice that Fr Rostand has asked for a Novena to the Holy Ghost. Perhaps in the future the Society will switch to the more universal "Holy Spirit"
Also, those full blown genuflections people make before Bishop Fellay may be a thing of the past. In the Novus Ordo many don't even kiss the ring of a bishop, let alone genuflecting to him.
-
Bishop Fellay in 2002 (i.e., Before he had his yes men in the right places to support a sellout):
"Campos should serve as a warning to us."
He then went on to talk about the psychology of reconcilliation, and the onset of self-censure.
You have only to notice the change in content and tenor of the SSPX media outlets (e.g., sspx.org; dici; angelus; letters of the superior general; letters of the district superiors; publishing of the new Michael Davies trilogy with lengthy defenses of the heretical dominus iesus; etc) to see that Bishop Fellay should have heeded his own warnings.
-
If the SSPX signs a deal with Rome then it doesn't seem likely that they will criticize the N.O.M. anymore, this being the O.F. of the Conciliar Church. There will be people who will question the need of continuing to make long journeys every Sunday to get to an SSPX TLM when a N.O.M. is available nearby.
I agree it is quite possible that the SSPX criticizing the NO will become a thing of the past shortly - with or without a bogus reconciliation. Consider that many (most?) of this past generation or so of new SSPX priests were never really exposed to the NO per se. Many were raised away from the NO and perhaps even schooled K through 12 at SSPX schools. Other than hearsay and unlike SSPX priests ordained during the PPVI and JPII era, what real life experiences will they have had with the NO to speak about let alone criticize?
It just seems like those who actually fought in or at least witnessed the early battle are the most vocal, while those who have been at least somewhat sheltered are far enough out of touch with the tragedy of the situation that they simply avoid speaking about things they know very little about over all.
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.
-
Here is my response to Bishop Fellay (Citing.......Bishop Fellay)
Please notice that everything he observes between Rome/Campos now applies to the SSPX:
Superior General’s Letter # 63
- January 2003 -
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Friends and Benefactors,
Our relations with Rome
Once again our letter to Friends and Benefactors is reaching you a little late. Once again we hesitated to write to you sooner for fear of leaving out an important development in our relations with Rome, especially after the Campos-Rome agreement. In the eyes of Rome, obviously, what happened in Campos was merely meant to be the prelude to our own “regularization” in the Society of Saint Pius X, but in our eyes what is happening to our former friends should rather serve as a lesson to us.
Generally speaking, Rome means, all things being equal, to come to an agreement with the SSPX. On all sides we hear that the Pope would like to settle this matter before he dies. Alas, our fears roused by the Campos agreement have proved to be well-founded, and the evolution we observe of the Campos Apostolic Administration, contrary to Roman expectations, leaves us distrustful.
Of course we are dealing with a volatile situation capable of sudden and surprising changes, like in times of political instability. And in such a situation, nobody can be certain of what turn it will take. Also we do behold in the Vatican offices a certain questioning of the way things have gone for the last few decades, and a desire on the part of some officials to put an end to the downhill slide.
However, it is clear that the principle governing today’s Rome is still to put the Council into practice as has been done for the last 40 years. Neither official docuмents nor general policy show any fundamental re-thinking of this principle. On the contrary, we are always being told that what the Council set in motion is irreversible, which leads us to ask why there has been a change of attitude with regard to ourselves. Various explanations are possible, but it is primarily because of the pluralist and ecuмenical vision of things now prevailing in the Catholic world. According to this vision, everybody is to mix together without anybody needing any longer to convert, as Cardinal Kasper said in connection with the Orthodox and even the Jєωs. From such a standpoint there will even be a little room for Catholic Tradition, but for our part we cannot accept this vision of variable truth any more than a mathematics teacher can accept a variable multiplication table.
The day will come, we are sure and certain, when Rome will come back to Rome’s own Tradition and restore it to its rightful place, and we long with all our hearts for that blessed day. For the time being, however, things are not yet at that point, and to foster illusions would be deadly for the SSPX, as we can see, when we follow the turn of events in Campos. For this purpose, let us emphasize two points in the evolution of the Campos situation: firstly, how their attitude to Rome has changed since the agreement and secondly, how Campos is moving further and further away from ourselves, with all the upset that that implies.
Changes in Campos
Campos, through its leader, Bishop Rifan, is crying out for all to hear that nothing has changed, that the priests of the Apostolic Administration are just as Traditional as before, which is the essence of what they have been granted, and why they accepted Rome’s offer: because Rome approved of the Traditional position.
For our part, let us begin by noting that we are well aware that in any disagreement one tends to discredit one’s adversary. For instance in the case of our former friends in Campos, there are certainly false rumors circulating to the effect that “Bishop Rifan has concelebrated the New Mass”, [not false; my addition] or, “Campos has completely given up Tradition”. However, that being said, here is what we observe:
1. The Campos website lays out the Campos position on the burning question of ecuмenism: they claim to follow the Magisterium of the Church, past and present. There are quotes from Pius XI’s encyclical letter Mortalium Animos, next to quotes from John Paul II’s Redemptoris Missio. We cannot help observing that there has been a careful selection process: Campos quotes John Paul II’s traditional passages while other passages introducing a quite new way of looking at the question are passed over. We read, “Being Catholics, we have no particular teaching of our own on the question. Our teaching is none other than that of the Church’s Magisterium. The extracts which we publish here from certain docuмents old and new, bear especially on points of Catholic doctrine which are in greater danger today”.
2. The ambiguity implicit here has become more or less normal in the new situation in which they find themselves: they emphasize those points in the present pontificate which seem favourable to Tradition, and tip-toe past the rest. Say what we will: there took place in Campos on January 18, 2002, not only a one-sided recognition of Campos by Rome, as some claim, but also, in exchange, an undertaking by Campos to keep quiet. And how could it be otherwise? It is clear by now that Campos has something to lose which they are afraid or losing, and so in order not to lose it they have chosen the path of compromise: “We Brazilians are men of peace, you Frenchmen are always fighting”. Which means that, in order to keep the peace with Rome, one must stop fighting. They no longer see the situation of the Church as a whole, they content themselves with Rome’s gesture in favour of a little group of two dozen priests and say that there is no longer any emergency in the Church because the granting of a Traditional bishop has created a new juridical situation…They are forgetting the wood for a single tree.
3. Bishop Rifan, in the course of a brief visit to Europe, went to see Dom Gerard at Le Barroux Abbey in France to present his apologies for having so criticized him back in 1988 when Dom Gerard condemned Archbishop Lefebvre’s consecrating or four bishops. In a lecture he gave to the monks, Bishop Rifan pretended there were two phases in the life or Bishop de Castro Mayer: up till 1981 he was supposedly a docile bishop respecting the rest of the hierarchy, from 1981 onwards he was a much harder churchman… “We choose to follow the pre-1981 de Castro Mayer” [and now we see similar SSPX statements regarding ABL! -my addition], said Bishop Rifan to the monks, some of whom were surprised at such words, and one of them was scandalized to the point of coming over to the SSPX.
4. Within this way of thinking even the Novus Ordo Mass can be accommodated. Campos forgets the 62 reasons for having nothing to do with it, Campos now finds that if it is properly celebrated, it is valid (which we have never denied, but that is not the point). Campos no longer says that Catholics must stay away because the New Mass is bad, and dangerous. Bishop Rifan says, by way of justifying his position on the Mass: “So we reject all use of the Traditional Mass as a battle-flag to insult and fight the lawfully constituted hierarchical authority of the Church. We stay with the Traditional Mass, not out of any spirit of contradiction, but as a clear and lawful expression of our Catholic Faith!”. We are reminded of the words of a Cardinal a little while back: “Whereas the SSPX is FOR the old Mass, the Fraternity of Saint Peter Is AGAINST the New Mass. It’s not the same thing”. That was Rome’s argument to justify taking action against Fr. Bisig of the Fraternity of Saint Peter at about the same time that Rome was cozying up to the SSPX. The Cardinal’s curious distinction is now being put into practice by Campos, as they pretend to be for the old Mass but not against the new. Likewise for Tradition, but not against today’s Rome. “We maintain that Vatican II cannot contradict Catholic Tradition”, said Bishop Rifan quite recently to a French magazine, Famille Chr
étienne. Yet a well-known Cardinal said that Vatican II was the French Revolution inside the Church. Bishop de Castro Mayer said the same thing….
So little by little the will to fight grows weaker and finally one gets used to the situation. In Campos itself, everything positively traditional is being maintained, for sure, so the people see nothing different, except that the more perceptive amongst them notice the priests’ tendency to speak respectfully and more often of recent statements and events coming out of Rome, while yesterday’s warnings and today’s deviations are left out. The great danger here is that in the end one gets used to the situation as it is, and no longer tries to remedy it. For our part we have no intention of launching out until we are certain that Rome means to maintain Tradition. We need signs that they have converted [incidentally, this is like a V2 time-bomb; the justification he would later use to sign a practical agreement while all the doctrinal issues remained unresolved].
Leaving the SSPX behind
Besides this wholly foreseeable evolution of minds by which the Campos priests have, whatever they say, given up the fight, we must note another occurrence, the increasing hostility between us. Bishop Rifan still says that he wants to be our friend, but some Campos priests are already accusing us of being schismatic because we refuse their agreement with Rome [and will Bishop Fellay say that about his own people that avoid the snare he is leading them into? -my addition].
A little like one sees a boat pushing into mid-river, drifting down-stream and leaving the bank behind, so we see, little by little, several indications of the distance growing between ourselves and Campos. We had warned them of the great danger, they chose not to listen. Since they have no wish to row up-stream, then even while inside the boat things carry on as before, which gives them the impression that nothing has changed, nevertheless they are leaving us behind, as they show themselves more and more attached to the magisterium of today, as opposed to the position they held until recently and which we still hold, namely a sane criticism of the present in the light of the past.
To sum up, we are bound to say that the Campos priests, despite their claims to the contrary, are slowly being re-molded, following the lead of their new bishop, in the spirit of the Council. That is all Rome wants – for the moment.
One may object that our arguments are weak and too subtle, and of no weight as against Rome’s offer to regularize our situation. We reply that if one considers Rome’s offer of an Apostolic Administration just by itself, it is as splendid as the architect’s plan of a beautiful mansion. But the real problem is the practical problem of what foundations the mansion will rest on. On the shifting sands of Vatican II, or on the rock of Tradition going back to the first Apostle?
To guarantee our future, we must obtain from today’s Rome clear proof of its attachment to the Rome of yesterday [which would have been doctrinal conversion, not the 3 gestures Bishop Fellay asked of Rome -my addition]. When the Roman authorities have restated with actions speaking louder than words that “There must be no innovations outside of Tradition”, then “we” shall no longer be a problem. And we beg God to hasten that day when the whole Church will flourish again, having re-discovered the secret of her past strength, freed from the modern unthought of which Paul VI said that “It is anti-Catholic in nature, Maybe it will prevail. It will never be the Church. There will have to be a faithful remnant, however tiny”.
Life inside the SSPX
Let us also tell you of life inside the Society, to give you a little share in our apostolic joys and labours. And let us make use of this letter to tell you a little of our activity in missionary countries. It is true that today almost all countries, especially in our old Europe, are again becoming missionary countries. Priests, in their apostolic travels, visit over 65 countries, some of them still today suffering direct persecution of the Faith. But as this letter is already long, let us confine ourselves to two new areas of our apostolate. We had been visiting them off and on for a number of years, but just recently we think they are opening up in an astonishing way: Lithuania and Kenya.
In order the better to organize our apostolate in Russia and White Russia, we have established a bridgehead in Lithuania, a country which suffered much under Russian Communist persecution and where it took heroism to keep Catholicism going. Once the Iron Curtain fell, the Eastern countries put their trust in the novelties from the Vatican, being persuaded that anything coming from the West had to be good! These countries swiftly caught up on the state of disaster inflicted by the reforms. Any reaction is rather passive than visible, so we do not see them taking action. But once our priests got over the language difficulty, they are discovering ground that promises to be fertile for Tradition, more so than our first fruitless attempts had given us to expect. Welcomed with a severe warning from the local bishops to Catholics to stay away from us, our priests nevertheless discovered numerous priests wishing to join us. These explained their bishops’ severity: it was out of fear that Catholics would come to us in large numbers. For instance we have been approached by a little congregation of Sisters, founded by Cardinal Vincentas Sladkevicius, Archbishop Emeritus of Kaunas. Before he died on May 28, 2000, he left orders with the Sisters: “When the Society of Saint Pius X comes, you must join them. They will restore the Church in Lithuania”. May God with His grace enable us to live up to the Archbishop’s expectation! The main cities now have their little Mass center where interest is slight for the moment, but becomes more pressing each day.
Kenya has been receiving sporadic visits from Society priests for the last 25 years, but we have only just discovered the existence of a group of 1,500 faithful organizing their struggle for the Faith with their refusal of communion in the hand and standing. Our first contacts with them show very clearly that they are battling not only for the right way to receive communion but also for a whole Traditional attitude. We are discovering also a number of nuns who have left their different Congregations or been chased out of them because they refused the Vatican II reforms. Living in the world they remained faithful to their vows. Now 16 of them are coming over to us in the hope of being able once more to live in community.
A young priest said to us, “If you set up a chapel here, it will empty out the cathedral. When I visit the faithful they say to me: ‘Why have you changed our Church? Say Mass like it used to be!’ But I don’t know the old Mass, I don’t know how the Church was before. When I ask older priests, they send me packing. Can you teach me to say the old Mass? Can I visit you to learn?” Another priest, also young, said in a tone of voice that spoke volumes. “I will note down in my diary for this evening: my first Tridentine Mass”.
How can the Church authorities not heed the cry of these souls thirsting for grace and the Catholic life? Beneath the ashes and ruins left by Vatican II, there are still traditional Catholic embers glowing, needing only to blaze up again. The Church does not die. God watches over it. May He grant us to be His docile instruments to spread the fire that His Heart burns to spread throughout the world!
But you in particular, dear faithful, are well aware that we cannot manage to do all we would like to do; how we need priests! Pray, pray the master of the harvest to send numerous workers into his apostolic field.
At the beginning of this new year, full of gratitude and warm thanks for all your unfailing generosity, we entrust you with praying for priests, for the sacrifice of the Mass. God bless you and all your families with an abundance of all His graces.
+Bishop Fellay
January 6, 2003
-
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. Surely, they should have been given a complete and thorough instruction on Vatican II and it's reforms and the New Mass?
-
If the SSPX signs a deal with Rome then it doesn't seem likely that they will criticize the N.O.M. anymore, this being the O.F. of the Conciliar Church. There will be people who will question the need of continuing to make long journeys every Sunday to get to an SSPX TLM when a N.O.M. is available nearby.
I agree it is quite possible that the SSPX criticizing the NO will become a thing of the past shortly - with or without a bogus reconciliation. Consider that many (most?) of this past generation or so of new SSPX priests were never really exposed to the NO per se. Many were raised away from the NO and perhaps even schooled K through 12 at SSPX schools. Other than hearsay and unlike SSPX priests ordained during the PPVI and JPII era, what real life experiences will they have had with the NO to speak about let alone criticize?
It just seems like those who actually fought in or at least witnessed the early battle are the most vocal, while those who have been at least somewhat sheltered are far enough out of touch with the tragedy of the situation that they simply avoid speaking about things they know very little about over all.
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.
All the more reason for such young priests to heed Bishop Williamson. An Irish seminarian is due for ordination and quite devoted to the writings of Fr Denis Fahey. Hopefully these clerics are solid on the Jєωs. Things fall in to place naturally when one is aware of the Jєωs.
I'm aware of a strange encounter where a boy aged 12 had to educate a Swiss SSPX seminarian on the Jєωs. Being solid on the Jєωs is essential for any priest.
-
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.
-
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.
Don't worry. There are well informed laity in the pews. I don't doubt for a moment there are devout and holy Society priests.
-
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.
Don't worry. There are well informed laity in the pews. I don't doubt for a moment there are devout and holy Society priests.
Not at my chapel.
All I hear about is "getting the right deal."
That is what the debate centers on.
Apparently, all have forgotten that ABL categorically refused to consider any terms of a practical solution while the doctrinal issues remained.
Bishop Fellay has played his game well by framing the argument within these confines.
The laity are stupid for the most part, with only instinct to guide them.
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.
-
The laity are stupid for the most part, with only instinct to guide them.
If the SSPX chapel is thought from the perspective of networking, then a deal is a great way to extend contacts.
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.
Yes, it really is mind-blowing. Selling the birth right for "papal" pottage.
-
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.
Don't worry. There are well informed laity in the pews. I don't doubt for a moment there are devout and holy Society priests.
Not at my chapel.
All I hear about is "getting the right deal."
That is what the debate centers on.
Apparently, all have forgotten that ABL categorically refused to consider any terms of a practical solution while the doctrinal issues remained.
Bishop Fellay has played his game well by framing the argument within these confines.
The laity are stupid for the most part, with only instinct to guide them.
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.
This gives your comment weight.
http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=9320
Dear cantate,
Today I spoke with Father at great length, I was concerned and confused by many of your writings here, so I printed and brought to him your posts. I wanted to seek his wise counsel on the words you put forth. I am now under holy obedience to not read anything you are posting, as Father determined it is a danger to one's soul, and obey him I shall. One small request, in charity, please I beg of you, do not refer to Our Blessed Lord's anointed ones, as a "corpse". Further, I beg of you, for your own spiritual good and for the good sake of your soul, please seek the guidance of a holy priest. May God bless you.
Far too much blind obedience here.
-
I am now under holy obedience to not read anything you are posting, as Father determined it is a danger to one's soul, and obey him I shall.
translation:
I cover my ears for the priests of the cult as they sell out Archbishop Lefebvre.
The mind control these cult priests try to exercise when telling people to never criticize them is to say things that could be equally said about the priests who brought in Vatican II.
-
I am now under holy obedience to not read anything you are posting, as Father determined it is a danger to one's soul, and obey him I shall.
translation:
I cover my ears for the priests of the cult as they sell out Archbishop Lefebvre.
The mind control these cult priests try to exercise when telling people to never criticize them is to say things that could be equally said about the priests who brought in Vatican II.
With the greatest respect to this Marie-Elisabeth, her mindset is very cultish. Now, if she is a third order member, I understand as they are under limited obedience to Bishop Fellay. I personally declined joining the third order for this specific reason.
Marie-Elisabeth's attitude here is very unhealthy. I remain at a loss as to why she feels obliged to be this obedient to a cleric.
In the case of the cleric I spoke to at St George's House, I found it insulting to my intelligence for him to suggest what I can and cannot read.
I believe this cleric gave Marie-Elisabeth very wrong advice.
-
I'm not suggesting we become free thinkers and anything goes nor should we not take advice from our clergy but this blind obedience is not wise counsel.
-
I'm not suggesting we become free thinkers and anything goes nor should we not take advice from our clergy but this blind obedience is not wise counsel.
Couldn't that cant about not reading anything critical of God's anointed apply to the modernists in the Novus Ordo?
http://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/SiSiNoNo/1994_June/They_Think_Theyve_Won_PartVI.htm
They think they've won. Seems like they're about to win another big battle.
It's amazing the SSPX leadership can so easily get away with talking out of both sides of its mouth.
-
Here is my response to Bishop Fellay (Citing.......Bishop Fellay)
Please notice that everything he observes between Rome/Campos now applies to the SSPX:
Superior General’s Letter # 63
- January 2003 -
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Friends and Benefactors,
Our relations with Rome
Once again our letter to Friends and Benefactors is reaching you a little late. Once again we hesitated to write to you sooner for fear of leaving out an important development in our relations with Rome, especially after the Campos-Rome agreement. In the eyes of Rome, obviously, what happened in Campos was merely meant to be the prelude to our own “regularization” in the Society of Saint Pius X, but in our eyes what is happening to our former friends should rather serve as a lesson to us.
Generally speaking, Rome means, all things being equal, to come to an agreement with the SSPX. On all sides we hear that the Pope would like to settle this matter before he dies. Alas, our fears roused by the Campos agreement have proved to be well-founded, and the evolution we observe of the Campos Apostolic Administration, contrary to Roman expectations, leaves us distrustful.
Of course we are dealing with a volatile situation capable of sudden and surprising changes, like in times of political instability. And in such a situation, nobody can be certain of what turn it will take. Also we do behold in the Vatican offices a certain questioning of the way things have gone for the last few decades, and a desire on the part of some officials to put an end to the downhill slide.
However, it is clear that the principle governing today’s Rome is still to put the Council into practice as has been done for the last 40 years. Neither official docuмents nor general policy show any fundamental re-thinking of this principle. On the contrary, we are always being told that what the Council set in motion is irreversible, which leads us to ask why there has been a change of attitude with regard to ourselves. Various explanations are possible, but it is primarily because of the pluralist and ecuмenical vision of things now prevailing in the Catholic world. According to this vision, everybody is to mix together without anybody needing any longer to convert, as Cardinal Kasper said in connection with the Orthodox and even the Jєωs. From such a standpoint there will even be a little room for Catholic Tradition, but for our part we cannot accept this vision of variable truth any more than a mathematics teacher can accept a variable multiplication table.
The day will come, we are sure and certain, when Rome will come back to Rome’s own Tradition and restore it to its rightful place, and we long with all our hearts for that blessed day. For the time being, however, things are not yet at that point, and to foster illusions would be deadly for the SSPX, as we can see, when we follow the turn of events in Campos. For this purpose, let us emphasize two points in the evolution of the Campos situation: firstly, how their attitude to Rome has changed since the agreement and secondly, how Campos is moving further and further away from ourselves, with all the upset that that implies.
Changes in Campos
Campos, through its leader, Bishop Rifan, is crying out for all to hear that nothing has changed, that the priests of the Apostolic Administration are just as Traditional as before, which is the essence of what they have been granted, and why they accepted Rome’s offer: because Rome approved of the Traditional position.
For our part, let us begin by noting that we are well aware that in any disagreement one tends to discredit one’s adversary. For instance in the case of our former friends in Campos, there are certainly false rumors circulating to the effect that “Bishop Rifan has concelebrated the New Mass”, [not false; my addition] or, “Campos has completely given up Tradition”. However, that being said, here is what we observe:
1. The Campos website lays out the Campos position on the burning question of ecuмenism: they claim to follow the Magisterium of the Church, past and present. There are quotes from Pius XI’s encyclical letter Mortalium Animos, next to quotes from John Paul II’s Redemptoris Missio. We cannot help observing that there has been a careful selection process: Campos quotes John Paul II’s traditional passages while other passages introducing a quite new way of looking at the question are passed over. We read, “Being Catholics, we have no particular teaching of our own on the question. Our teaching is none other than that of the Church’s Magisterium. The extracts which we publish here from certain docuмents old and new, bear especially on points of Catholic doctrine which are in greater danger today”.
2. The ambiguity implicit here has become more or less normal in the new situation in which they find themselves: they emphasize those points in the present pontificate which seem favourable to Tradition, and tip-toe past the rest. Say what we will: there took place in Campos on January 18, 2002, not only a one-sided recognition of Campos by Rome, as some claim, but also, in exchange, an undertaking by Campos to keep quiet. And how could it be otherwise? It is clear by now that Campos has something to lose which they are afraid or losing, and so in order not to lose it they have chosen the path of compromise: “We Brazilians are men of peace, you Frenchmen are always fighting”. Which means that, in order to keep the peace with Rome, one must stop fighting. They no longer see the situation of the Church as a whole, they content themselves with Rome’s gesture in favour of a little group of two dozen priests and say that there is no longer any emergency in the Church because the granting of a Traditional bishop has created a new juridical situation…They are forgetting the wood for a single tree.
3. Bishop Rifan, in the course of a brief visit to Europe, went to see Dom Gerard at Le Barroux Abbey in France to present his apologies for having so criticized him back in 1988 when Dom Gerard condemned Archbishop Lefebvre’s consecrating or four bishops. In a lecture he gave to the monks, Bishop Rifan pretended there were two phases in the life or Bishop de Castro Mayer: up till 1981 he was supposedly a docile bishop respecting the rest of the hierarchy, from 1981 onwards he was a much harder churchman… “We choose to follow the pre-1981 de Castro Mayer” [and now we see similar SSPX statements regarding ABL! -my addition], said Bishop Rifan to the monks, some of whom were surprised at such words, and one of them was scandalized to the point of coming over to the SSPX.
4. Within this way of thinking even the Novus Ordo Mass can be accommodated. Campos forgets the 62 reasons for having nothing to do with it, Campos now finds that if it is properly celebrated, it is valid (which we have never denied, but that is not the point). Campos no longer says that Catholics must stay away because the New Mass is bad, and dangerous. Bishop Rifan says, by way of justifying his position on the Mass: “So we reject all use of the Traditional Mass as a battle-flag to insult and fight the lawfully constituted hierarchical authority of the Church. We stay with the Traditional Mass, not out of any spirit of contradiction, but as a clear and lawful expression of our Catholic Faith!”. We are reminded of the words of a Cardinal a little while back: “Whereas the SSPX is FOR the old Mass, the Fraternity of Saint Peter Is AGAINST the New Mass. It’s not the same thing”. That was Rome’s argument to justify taking action against Fr. Bisig of the Fraternity of Saint Peter at about the same time that Rome was cozying up to the SSPX. The Cardinal’s curious distinction is now being put into practice by Campos, as they pretend to be for the old Mass but not against the new. Likewise for Tradition, but not against today’s Rome. “We maintain that Vatican II cannot contradict Catholic Tradition”, said Bishop Rifan quite recently to a French magazine, Famille Chr
étienne. Yet a well-known Cardinal said that Vatican II was the French Revolution inside the Church. Bishop de Castro Mayer said the same thing….
So little by little the will to fight grows weaker and finally one gets used to the situation. In Campos itself, everything positively traditional is being maintained, for sure, so the people see nothing different, except that the more perceptive amongst them notice the priests’ tendency to speak respectfully and more often of recent statements and events coming out of Rome, while yesterday’s warnings and today’s deviations are left out. The great danger here is that in the end one gets used to the situation as it is, and no longer tries to remedy it. For our part we have no intention of launching out until we are certain that Rome means to maintain Tradition. We need signs that they have converted [incidentally, this is like a V2 time-bomb; the justification he would later use to sign a practical agreement while all the doctrinal issues remained unresolved].
Leaving the SSPX behind
Besides this wholly foreseeable evolution of minds by which the Campos priests have, whatever they say, given up the fight, we must note another occurrence, the increasing hostility between us. Bishop Rifan still says that he wants to be our friend, but some Campos priests are already accusing us of being schismatic because we refuse their agreement with Rome [and will Bishop Fellay say that about his own people that avoid the snare he is leading them into? -my addition].
A little like one sees a boat pushing into mid-river, drifting down-stream and leaving the bank behind, so we see, little by little, several indications of the distance growing between ourselves and Campos. We had warned them of the great danger, they chose not to listen. Since they have no wish to row up-stream, then even while inside the boat things carry on as before, which gives them the impression that nothing has changed, nevertheless they are leaving us behind, as they show themselves more and more attached to the magisterium of today, as opposed to the position they held until recently and which we still hold, namely a sane criticism of the present in the light of the past.
To sum up, we are bound to say that the Campos priests, despite their claims to the contrary, are slowly being re-molded, following the lead of their new bishop, in the spirit of the Council. That is all Rome wants – for the moment.
One may object that our arguments are weak and too subtle, and of no weight as against Rome’s offer to regularize our situation. We reply that if one considers Rome’s offer of an Apostolic Administration just by itself, it is as splendid as the architect’s plan of a beautiful mansion. But the real problem is the practical problem of what foundations the mansion will rest on. On the shifting sands of Vatican II, or on the rock of Tradition going back to the first Apostle?
To guarantee our future, we must obtain from today’s Rome clear proof of its attachment to the Rome of yesterday [which would have been doctrinal conversion, not the 3 gestures Bishop Fellay asked of Rome -my addition]. When the Roman authorities have restated with actions speaking louder than words that “There must be no innovations outside of Tradition”, then “we” shall no longer be a problem. And we beg God to hasten that day when the whole Church will flourish again, having re-discovered the secret of her past strength, freed from the modern unthought of which Paul VI said that “It is anti-Catholic in nature, Maybe it will prevail. It will never be the Church. There will have to be a faithful remnant, however tiny”.
Life inside the SSPX
Let us also tell you of life inside the Society, to give you a little share in our apostolic joys and labours. And let us make use of this letter to tell you a little of our activity in missionary countries. It is true that today almost all countries, especially in our old Europe, are again becoming missionary countries. Priests, in their apostolic travels, visit over 65 countries, some of them still today suffering direct persecution of the Faith. But as this letter is already long, let us confine ourselves to two new areas of our apostolate. We had been visiting them off and on for a number of years, but just recently we think they are opening up in an astonishing way: Lithuania and Kenya.
In order the better to organize our apostolate in Russia and White Russia, we have established a bridgehead in Lithuania, a country which suffered much under Russian Communist persecution and where it took heroism to keep Catholicism going. Once the Iron Curtain fell, the Eastern countries put their trust in the novelties from the Vatican, being persuaded that anything coming from the West had to be good! These countries swiftly caught up on the state of disaster inflicted by the reforms. Any reaction is rather passive than visible, so we do not see them taking action. But once our priests got over the language difficulty, they are discovering ground that promises to be fertile for Tradition, more so than our first fruitless attempts had given us to expect. Welcomed with a severe warning from the local bishops to Catholics to stay away from us, our priests nevertheless discovered numerous priests wishing to join us. These explained their bishops’ severity: it was out of fear that Catholics would come to us in large numbers. For instance we have been approached by a little congregation of Sisters, founded by Cardinal Vincentas Sladkevicius, Archbishop Emeritus of Kaunas. Before he died on May 28, 2000, he left orders with the Sisters: “When the Society of Saint Pius X comes, you must join them. They will restore the Church in Lithuania”. May God with His grace enable us to live up to the Archbishop’s expectation! The main cities now have their little Mass center where interest is slight for the moment, but becomes more pressing each day.
Kenya has been receiving sporadic visits from Society priests for the last 25 years, but we have only just discovered the existence of a group of 1,500 faithful organizing their struggle for the Faith with their refusal of communion in the hand and standing. Our first contacts with them show very clearly that they are battling not only for the right way to receive communion but also for a whole Traditional attitude. We are discovering also a number of nuns who have left their different Congregations or been chased out of them because they refused the Vatican II reforms. Living in the world they remained faithful to their vows. Now 16 of them are coming over to us in the hope of being able once more to live in community.
A young priest said to us, “If you set up a chapel here, it will empty out the cathedral. When I visit the faithful they say to me: ‘Why have you changed our Church? Say Mass like it used to be!’ But I don’t know the old Mass, I don’t know how the Church was before. When I ask older priests, they send me packing. Can you teach me to say the old Mass? Can I visit you to learn?” Another priest, also young, said in a tone of voice that spoke volumes. “I will note down in my diary for this evening: my first Tridentine Mass”.
How can the Church authorities not heed the cry of these souls thirsting for grace and the Catholic life? Beneath the ashes and ruins left by Vatican II, there are still traditional Catholic embers glowing, needing only to blaze up again. The Church does not die. God watches over it. May He grant us to be His docile instruments to spread the fire that His Heart burns to spread throughout the world!
But you in particular, dear faithful, are well aware that we cannot manage to do all we would like to do; how we need priests! Pray, pray the master of the harvest to send numerous workers into his apostolic field.
At the beginning of this new year, full of gratitude and warm thanks for all your unfailing generosity, we entrust you with praying for priests, for the sacrifice of the Mass. God bless you and all your families with an abundance of all His graces.
+Bishop Fellay
January 6, 2003
But today, you are supposed to practice "crimethink" (a la 1984) if you are on the verge of remembering these words!
Thank goodness "3 oppose 1."
-
I wonder, will the Society now put the French Revolution to bed?
-
I am now under holy obedience to not read anything you are posting, as Father determined it is a danger to one's soul, and obey him I shall.
translation:
I cover my ears for the priests of the cult as they sell out Archbishop Lefebvre.
The mind control these cult priests try to exercise when telling people to never criticize them is to say things that could be equally said about the priests who brought in Vatican II.
With the greatest respect to this Marie-Elisabeth, her mindset is very cultish. Now, if she is a third order member, I understand as they are under limited obedience to Bishop Fellay. I personally declined joining the third order for this specific reason.
Marie-Elisabeth's attitude here is very unhealthy. I remain at a loss as to why she feels obliged to be this obedient to a cleric.
In the case of the cleric I spoke to at St George's House, I found it insulting to my intelligence for him to suggest what I can and cannot read.
I believe this cleric gave Marie-Elisabeth very wrong advice.
Can you imagine if the early trads in the late 60's were blindly obedient to the Vatican !! church? We would have NO traditional Catholics today. No priest or bishop today has the AUTHORITY to bind any layperson to obedience.
Even in religious orders, if the superior is forcing obedience to something that is wrong, he should not be obeyed.
The priest here at our local SSPX chapel put a man under obedience not to attend CMRI masses. The man believed the CMRI masses were valid, and so did the priest.
-
I am now under holy obedience to not read anything you are posting, as Father determined it is a danger to one's soul, and obey him I shall.
translation:
I cover my ears for the priests of the cult as they sell out Archbishop Lefebvre.
The mind control these cult priests try to exercise when telling people to never criticize them is to say things that could be equally said about the priests who brought in Vatican II.
With the greatest respect to this Marie-Elisabeth, her mindset is very cultish. Now, if she is a third order member, I understand as they are under limited obedience to Bishop Fellay. I personally declined joining the third order for this specific reason.
Marie-Elisabeth's attitude here is very unhealthy. I remain at a loss as to why she feels obliged to be this obedient to a cleric.
In the case of the cleric I spoke to at St George's House, I found it insulting to my intelligence for him to suggest what I can and cannot read.
I believe this cleric gave Marie-Elisabeth very wrong advice.
Marie-Elizabeth went in there with a transcript of postings from IA...she was asking her revered priest to guide her...and he did...in a cult like manner! When clerics begin to tell you what you should and should not read...alarm bells should go off in your head. The sspx is famous for controlling what the faithful may read...why else do they have their own bookstores at their chapels? They censor what their faithful read, pure and simple....CULT ALERT.
-
I am now under holy obedience to not read anything you are posting, as Father determined it is a danger to one's soul, and obey him I shall.
translation:
I cover my ears for the priests of the cult as they sell out Archbishop Lefebvre.
The mind control these cult priests try to exercise when telling people to never criticize them is to say things that could be equally said about the priests who brought in Vatican II.
With the greatest respect to this Marie-Elisabeth, her mindset is very cultish. Now, if she is a third order member, I understand as they are under limited obedience to Bishop Fellay. I personally declined joining the third order for this specific reason.
Marie-Elisabeth's attitude here is very unhealthy. I remain at a loss as to why she feels obliged to be this obedient to a cleric.
In the case of the cleric I spoke to at St George's House, I found it insulting to my intelligence for him to suggest what I can and cannot read.
I believe this cleric gave Marie-Elisabeth very wrong advice.
Marie-Elizabeth went in there with a transcript of postings from IA...she was asking her revered priest to guide her...and he did...in a cult like manner! When clerics begin to tell you what you should and should not read...alarm bells should go off in your head. The sspx is famous for controlling what the faithful may read...why else do they have their own bookstores at their chapels? They censor what their faithful read, pure and simple....CULT ALERT.
Council of Trent condemns the belief that clerics cannot forbid writings.
I suggest you retract your statement.
-
Marie-Elizabeth went in there with a transcript of postings from IA...she was asking her revered priest to guide her...and he did...in a cult like manner! When clerics begin to tell you what you should and should not read...alarm bells should go off in your head. The sspx is famous for controlling what the faithful may read...why else do they have their own bookstores at their chapels? They censor what their faithful read, pure and simple....CULT ALERT.
He forbid her from reading IA? Or something else?
-
Apparently you have not heard of the Index?
-
Apparently you have not heard of the Index?
The SSPX index?
Does the SSPX set Canon Law? Is the SSPX the Holy Office?
-
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...
-
I am now under holy obedience to not read anything you are posting, as Father determined it is a danger to one's soul, and obey him I shall.
translation:
I cover my ears for the priests of the cult as they sell out Archbishop Lefebvre.
The mind control these cult priests try to exercise when telling people to never criticize them is to say things that could be equally said about the priests who brought in Vatican II.
With the greatest respect to this Marie-Elisabeth, her mindset is very cultish. Now, if she is a third order member, I understand as they are under limited obedience to Bishop Fellay. I personally declined joining the third order for this specific reason.
Marie-Elisabeth's attitude here is very unhealthy. I remain at a loss as to why she feels obliged to be this obedient to a cleric.
In the case of the cleric I spoke to at St George's House, I found it insulting to my intelligence for him to suggest what I can and cannot read.
I believe this cleric gave Marie-Elisabeth very wrong advice.
Marie-Elizabeth went in there with a transcript of postings from IA...she was asking her revered priest to guide her...and he did...in a cult like manner! When clerics begin to tell you what you should and should not read...alarm bells should go off in your head. The sspx is famous for controlling what the faithful may read...why else do they have their own bookstores at their chapels? They censor what their faithful read, pure and simple....CULT ALERT.
Council of Trent condemns the belief that clerics cannot forbid writings.
I suggest you retract your statement.
I suggest you butt off...until the sspx is back in the church under the man they say is the pope, they have no business censoring writings, books, or anything else for that matter.
-
Apparently you have not heard of the Index?
The SSPX index?
Does the SSPX set Canon Law? Is the SSPX the Holy Office?
The principle alleged by you is that it is cult like behavior to prevent reading.
I have showed that the Church Herself has prevented reading.
-
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.
-
I suggest you butt off...until the sspx is back in the church under the man they say is the pope, they have no business censoring writings, books, or anything else for that matter.
This is a protestant mentality. A priest certainly can forbid someone he directs spiritually from reading something, if it is harmful to that person's faith, morals, or peace of soul. If for example, a person was reading the writings of Richard Dawkins (for some reason other than comic relief, of course....), and their faith and/or peace of soul was being disturbed by those writings, a priest can certainly forbid him/her from reading that sort of thing, even if it is not specifically on the Index.
I know the thread in question. It does not seem that the priest forbade her from reading things critical of the Society because he wanted her to have a cult-like obedience to the SSPX, but rather because she was getting too worked up and upset by the whole situation. Most likely he felt it was having an adverse effect on her spiritual life.
-
The principle alleged by you is that it is cult like behavior to prevent reading.
No, I didn't make it a principle that all prohibitions are cult-like.
For example, if the SSPX said not to read a book that was notoriously anti-Christian, I wouldn't have a problem with that.
I have showed that the Church Herself has prevented reading.
Which shows your principle: what the SSPX does it does with the authority of the Church.
I explained my reason this is not binding before: What the SSPX is saying about its priests is the same thing conciliarists could have said about their priests in the 60s, when they were selling out. Someone uses some rhetoric they regard as intemperate, so then they use that as a pretext to keep people from getting information that doesn't come from SSPX sources.
That's cult-like. A small group inside the Church, using its non-existent authority to control discussions about its theological positions.
-
This is a protestant mentality. A priest certainly can forbid someone he directs spiritually from reading something, if it is harmful to that person's faith, morals, or peace of soul.
That's a lot like the people who say being a traditionalist is being Protestant, when they disobey priests who tell them avoid trad writings.
Sorry!
This isn't about forbidding an immoral or clearly heretical book.
If for example, a person was reading the writings of Richard Dawkins (for some reason other than comic relief, of course....), and their faith and/or peace of soul was being disturbed by those writings, a priest can certainly forbid him/her from reading that sort of thing, even if it is not specifically on the Index.
This isn't about forbidding an immoral or clearly heretical book.
I know the thread in question. It does not seem that the priest forbade her from reading things critical of the Society because he wanted her to have a cult-like obedience to the SSPX, but rather because she was getting too worked up and upset by the whole situation. Most likely he felt it was having an adverse effect on her spiritual life.
It seems to me that is exactly what happened. She was questioning the society and they told her to stop reading anything that questions the society. It's as though you read some intemperate language about Vatican II prelates, and were therefore told to ignore objections to Vatican II.
-
correction:
Which shows your principle: that the SSPX does what it does with the authority of the Church.
-
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.
-
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...
-
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.
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.
-
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 .....
-
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!
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Where is this proof that ABL signed a deal in 1988?
-
"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
-
You have completely missed the point that Bp Fellay is doing EXACTLY
What point has he missed, Vinny F?.
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?
-
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.
-
You are obviously upset at seeing criticism of Bishop Fellay but can you ignore this, Vinny F? It was posted in another thread.
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 !
-
You are obviously upset at seeing criticism of Bishop Fellay but can you ignore this, Vinny F? It was posted in another thread.
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?
-
I am not upset at criticism of Bp Fellay.
With respect you clearly are. I have nothing further to add or write to you about. :dancing:
-
I am not upset at criticism of Bp Fellay.
With respect you clearly are. I have nothing further to add or write to you about. :dancing:
Are you not gong to post the link to the alleged letter by the three bishops?