Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: John Grace on June 09, 2011, 11:35:40 AM
-
It's clear there is a difference between the mission of the SSPX and the mission of Bishop Fellay. It can be concluded that atleast three of the four SSPX Bishops and majority of clerics are faithful to mission of the Archbishop.
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/
From an interview granted by the Superior General of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X, Bishop Bernard Fellay, on June 1, 2011, as he visited Gabon:
Allow me to end [this interview], Your Excellency, with two questions. The first is related to the relations between the Fraternity and Rome. Where are you in your contacts? A subsidiary question: can we expect, on a mid- term, a normalization of these relations?
The contacts continue. We are probably reaching the end of a phase of discussions. This is not yet completely clear. What will happen? What will be the outcome of this phase? This answers the second question. What does Rome foresee for us now? One should not be mistaken: we are truly within the crisis of the Church; it has certainly not ended. What is our fate in this crisis? I believe that, at some level, the Good Lord linked us with this crisis, because we work for the restoration of the Church, but this may still last for a decade, maybe two. It is necessary to have lots of courage and perseverance. This can be resolved tomorrow, this may be be resolved the day after tomorrow. All is in the hands of the Good Lord. Let us all remain simply faithful.
My second question is related to your feeling following the beatification of Pope John Paul II.
A very mixed feeling. The impression [that is given is that] of an incredible precipitation, that disregards all rules that the Church herself expressed before proceeding to these kinds of acts. The impression of imprudence. One example: when one wishes to beatify or to canonize, what was said and written by the candidate that is called "venerable" is very closely examined. Well, here, the greatest part of what was written by him is located within the secret archives of the Vatican, that have not yet been opened. We remain, therefore, uneasy. We fear seeing there a desire to cement a cause that John Paul II put in place, that he wished to continue throughout his Pontificate, of which he wished to be the apostle.
-
I am really starting to think that I don't want my daughter confirmed by Fellay next week....
-
It's clear there is a difference between the mission of the SSPX and the mission of Bishop Fellay. It can be concluded that atleast three of the four SSPX Bishops and majority of clerics are faithful to mission of the Archbishop.
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/
From an interview granted by the Superior General of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X, Bishop Bernard Fellay, on June 1, 2011, as he visited Gabon:
Allow me to end [this interview], Your Excellency, with two questions. The first is related to the relations between the Fraternity and Rome. Where are you in your contacts? A subsidiary question: can we expect, on a mid- term, a normalization of these relations?
The contacts continue. We are probably reaching the end of a phase of discussions. This is not yet completely clear. What will happen? What will be the outcome of this phase? This answers the second question. What does Rome foresee for us now? One should not be mistaken: we are truly within the crisis of the Church; it has certainly not ended. What is our fate in this crisis? I believe that, at some level, the Good Lord linked us with this crisis, because we work for the restoration of the Church, but this may still last for a decade, maybe two. It is necessary to have lots of courage and perseverance. This can be resolved tomorrow, this may be be resolved the day after tomorrow. All is in the hands of the Good Lord. Let us all remain simply faithful.
My second question is related to your feeling following the beatification of Pope John Paul II.
A very mixed feeling. The impression [that is given is that] of an incredible precipitation, that disregards all rules that the Church herself expressed before proceeding to these kinds of acts. The impression of imprudence. One example: when one wishes to beatify or to canonize, what was said and written by the candidate that is called "venerable" is very closely examined. Well, here, the greatest part of what was written by him is located within the secret archives of the Vatican, that have not yet been opened. We remain, therefore, uneasy. We fear seeing there a desire to cement a cause that John Paul II put in place, that he wished to continue throughout his Pontificate, of which he wished to be the apostle.
Please explain what precisely you mean by your assertion and how it is drawn from the words above. In other words, what is wrong with the cited text and how do you infer a "separate" mission of Bishop Fellay? If you think it is found within maintaining contacts with Rome, I would simply remind you that the great Archbishop himself always maintained contacts with Rome and even held discussions with Popes about these matters. What is there to fear from stating the traditionalist case before Roman authorities? Nothing at all. So, what's your problem?
-
It's clear there is a difference between the mission of the SSPX and the mission of Bishop Fellay. It can be concluded that atleast three of the four SSPX Bishops and majority of clerics are faithful to mission of the Archbishop.
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/
From an interview granted by the Superior General of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X, Bishop Bernard Fellay, on June 1, 2011, as he visited Gabon:
Allow me to end [this interview], Your Excellency, with two questions. The first is related to the relations between the Fraternity and Rome. Where are you in your contacts? A subsidiary question: can we expect, on a mid- term, a normalization of these relations?
The contacts continue. We are probably reaching the end of a phase of discussions. This is not yet completely clear. What will happen? What will be the outcome of this phase? This answers the second question. What does Rome foresee for us now? One should not be mistaken: we are truly within the crisis of the Church; it has certainly not ended. What is our fate in this crisis? I believe that, at some level, the Good Lord linked us with this crisis, because we work for the restoration of the Church, but this may still last for a decade, maybe two. It is necessary to have lots of courage and perseverance. This can be resolved tomorrow, this may be be resolved the day after tomorrow. All is in the hands of the Good Lord. Let us all remain simply faithful.
My second question is related to your feeling following the beatification of Pope John Paul II.
A very mixed feeling. The impression [that is given is that] of an incredible precipitation, that disregards all rules that the Church herself expressed before proceeding to these kinds of acts. The impression of imprudence. One example: when one wishes to beatify or to canonize, what was said and written by the candidate that is called "venerable" is very closely examined. Well, here, the greatest part of what was written by him is located within the secret archives of the Vatican, that have not yet been opened. We remain, therefore, uneasy. We fear seeing there a desire to cement a cause that John Paul II put in place, that he wished to continue throughout his Pontificate, of which he wished to be the apostle.
There is nothing you posted in that interview that is wrong or contrary to the mission of the SSPX. It is obvious you are reading into his words using your own foregone conclusions and thereby creating scandal where there is none.
This is contrary to the laws of Trent. You cannot just randomly attack a legitamate Bishop. If you did have some evidence of heresy against Bishop Fellay(which you do not) then it would be your duty to bring it to the other Bishops of the SSPX. It would NOT be your duty to attack him in a public forum.
-
It's clear there is a difference between the mission of the SSPX and the mission of Bishop Fellay. It can be concluded that atleast three of the four SSPX Bishops and majority of clerics are faithful to mission of the Archbishop.
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/
From an interview granted by the Superior General of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X, Bishop Bernard Fellay, on June 1, 2011, as he visited Gabon:
Allow me to end [this interview], Your Excellency, with two questions. The first is related to the relations between the Fraternity and Rome. Where are you in your contacts? A subsidiary question: can we expect, on a mid- term, a normalization of these relations?
The contacts continue. We are probably reaching the end of a phase of discussions. This is not yet completely clear. What will happen? What will be the outcome of this phase? This answers the second question. What does Rome foresee for us now? One should not be mistaken: we are truly within the crisis of the Church; it has certainly not ended. What is our fate in this crisis? I believe that, at some level, the Good Lord linked us with this crisis, because we work for the restoration of the Church, but this may still last for a decade, maybe two. It is necessary to have lots of courage and perseverance. This can be resolved tomorrow, this may be be resolved the day after tomorrow. All is in the hands of the Good Lord. Let us all remain simply faithful.
My second question is related to your feeling following the beatification of Pope John Paul II.
A very mixed feeling. The impression [that is given is that] of an incredible precipitation, that disregards all rules that the Church herself expressed before proceeding to these kinds of acts. The impression of imprudence. One example: when one wishes to beatify or to canonize, what was said and written by the candidate that is called "venerable" is very closely examined. Well, here, the greatest part of what was written by him is located within the secret archives of the Vatican, that have not yet been opened. We remain, therefore, uneasy. We fear seeing there a desire to cement a cause that John Paul II put in place, that he wished to continue throughout his Pontificate, of which he wished to be the apostle.
There is nothing you posted in that interview that is wrong or contrary to the mission of the SSPX. It is obvious you are reading into his words using your own foregone conclusions and thereby creating scandal where there is none.
This is contrary to the laws of Trent. You cannot just randomly attack a legitamate Bishop. If you did have some evidence of heresy against Bishop Fellay(which you do not) then it would be your duty to bring it to the other Bishops of the SSPX. It would NOT be your duty to attack him in a public forum.
It is you who mention the word heresy.Can you cite where I mentioned heresy? I haven't attacked Bishop Fellay.Is he or the Society for that matter beyond criticism? Can one not offer an opinion?
-
Bishop Williamson was correct to call the discussions the "dialogue of the deaf.” :applause:
-
Nothing in there from Bishop Fellay contradicts the mission of Archbishop LeFebvre. I admit that Fellay's stance is different from LeFebvre's and Bishop Williamson's on some subjects, but I think this is just another cheap shot at the SSPX.
-
but I think this is just another cheap shot at the SSPX.
You must realise the SSPX is not beyond criticism.
-
My second question is related to your feeling following the beatification of Pope John Paul II.
A very mixed feeling.
Why does +F have a very mixed feeling? He must agree on one level that the beatification was good. " Mixed feeling" conveys very little to me.
-
My second question is related to your feeling following the beatification of Pope John Paul II.
A very mixed feeling.
Why does +F have a very mixed feeling? He must agree on one level that the beatification was good. " Mixed feeling" conveys very little to me.
I wouldn't limply describe my feelings as "mixed" on this matter. OUTRAGED would be more like it!
-
but I think this is just another cheap shot at the SSPX.
You must realise the SSPX is not beyond criticism.
I never said the SSPX was beyond criticism. In case you haven't noticed, I often criticize Bishop Fellay, particularly because of what he did to +Williamson. My point was that just because you don't agree with everything they say and do doesn't mean you should cut them down left and right. Afterall, next to the FSSP they are responsible for most of the TLMs that are around today. And if not for Archbishop LeFebvre, the FSSP wouldn't even exist.
-
but I think this is just another cheap shot at the SSPX.
You must realise the SSPX is not beyond criticism.
And what precisely is your criticism as it pertains to your quoted text? Or is it that you have a chip on your shoulder and you sift every word of Bishop Fellay in order to discover some malignant meaning? You've got a serious problem, pal, and I say this fully recognizing the fact that he has seriously mishandled the case of Bishop Williamson. If you are looking for perfection, you'll have to leave this world. If you are looking to seize upon a mistake, then that's your own spritual problem. And I defy you to find one SSPX priest who asserts that the SSPX is "above criticism" in terms of its individual member priests.
-
Or is it that you have a chip on your shoulder and you sift every word of Bishop Fellay in order to discover some malignant meaning? You've got a serious problem, pal
Are you going to continue with this type of written conversation?
-
My second question is related to your feeling following the beatification of Pope John Paul II.
A very mixed feeling.
Why does +F have a very mixed feeling? He must agree on one level that the beatification was good. " Mixed feeling" conveys very little to me.
I wouldn't limply describe my feelings as "mixed" on this matter. OUTRAGED would be more like it!
:applause:
-
Or is it that you have a chip on your shoulder and you sift every word of Bishop Fellay in order to discover some malignant meaning? You've got a serious problem, pal
Are you going to continue with this type of written conversation?
Are you going to continue with your campaign only to revert to silence when questioned?
-
Or is it that you have a chip on your shoulder and you sift every word of Bishop Fellay in order to discover some malignant meaning? You've got a serious problem, pal
Are you going to continue with this type of written conversation?
Are you going to continue with your campaign only to revert to silence when questioned?
What campaign?
-
FWIW, "mixed" does, in normal usage, indicate a mixture of good and bad. Bp F's remarks about The Deuce's beatification were in no way positive, although he was not nearly as clear and firm as he should have been. We don't need to see any more writings from JP2 to know the man was the textbook definition of a modernist. He wrote the three most devastating docuмents of V2. WHAT MORE could we need to see? Letters written in Hebrew to his Judaic mother and тαℓмυdic friends?
As for the first comment quoted, the first part (especially) sounds like he is talking in circles. I am not saying he is wrong or being coy/evil/whatever; he just seems to be talking to talk, saying nothing of substance. Poor translation?
-
Or is it that you have a chip on your shoulder and you sift every word of Bishop Fellay in order to discover some malignant meaning? You've got a serious problem, pal
Are you going to continue with this type of written conversation?
Are you going to continue with your campaign only to revert to silence when questioned?
What campaign?
JG- you are acting very arrogant. Caminus is being very straight forward, yet you are being a coward and not engaging for obvious reasons. I would expect that though from someone who posted the OP of this thread.
PS- To avoid anymore of your "avoiding", "obvious reasons" would be that you are unable to justify the claims being made against you, so you cower by attempting not to respond.
-
Or is it that you have a chip on your shoulder and you sift every word of Bishop Fellay in order to discover some malignant meaning? You've got a serious problem, pal
Are you going to continue with this type of written conversation?
Instead of beating around the bush, how about addressing the posts from Caminus and I? I remember when you were a somewhat frequent poster back in December or January and also remember you taking alot of shots at the SSPX. Caminus and I both admit that Fellay did not properly handle the situation with Bishop Williamson. Nor do we believe that Fellay, Williamson, or anyone else in the SSPX is above criticism. But you seem to think your stance is above criticism. You will never win any arguments that way.
-
First question, answered by numerous other questions. One assumes this means that he has no real idea what is going on.
Second question, What does he mean to say "mixed feelings"?
H.E. knows outright that there are indisputable reasons why the beatification should not have happened and, that it gave great scandal when it did happen.
This was a timid and evasive answer.
It would be so much better if Bishop Fellay would refrain from commenting on things unless he actually has something to say. The whimsical waxing and waning utterances are beginning to sound empty and insincere.
-
First of all, the translation is terrible, second of all, you make much of the words "mixed feelings" when the context clearly demonstrates what constitutes those "mixed feelings" which contain not a mixture of good and bad, but various bad impressions. It's evident that you've got a bone to pick and you'll spare no effort to insult and deride Bishop Fellay whether it be by means of innuendo or simply outright malice. You, sir, have a bad attitude and you are not helping the SSPX or the Church at all. In fact, your little campaigns are causing more harm to an already bad situation. This fact has apparently eluded you while you busy yourself with self-righteous condemnations.
-
Or is it that you have a chip on your shoulder and you sift every word of Bishop Fellay in order to discover some malignant meaning? You've got a serious problem, pal
Are you going to continue with this type of written conversation?
Are you going to continue with your campaign only to revert to silence when questioned?
What campaign?
JG- you are acting very arrogant. Caminus is being very straight forward, yet you are being a coward and not engaging for obvious reasons. I would expect that though from someone who posted the OP of this thread.
PS- To avoid anymore of your "avoiding", "obvious reasons" would be that you are unable to justify the claims being made against you, so you cower by attempting not to respond.
You seem to have forgotten many participants on this forum live in different Nations hence different time zones. I would ask that you apologise and withdraw your remark about me being a coward.
-
You should apologize for taking shots at the SSPX on an SSPX forum.
-
The fact is that the sedes and crypto-sedes will hit the road if the Society is given a juridical status by Rome. Let them. They don't understand ABL or the Society's mission and history which is not that of some sede anti-church. They betray this lack of knowledge by their ridiculous frantic interpretation of everything BF says as some veiled message of surrender and compromise. If ABL were alive today, he'd be doing and saying the same thing as BF and the sedes and crypto-sedes would be mocking him.
-
The fact is that the sedes and crypto-sedes will hit the road if the Society is given a juridical status by Rome. Let them. They don't understand ABL or the Society's mission and history which is not that of some sede anti-church. They betray this lack of knowledge by their ridiculous frantic interpretation of everything BF says as some veiled message of surrender and compromise. If ABL were alive today, he'd be doing and saying the same thing as BF and the sedes and crypto-sedes would be mocking him.
I for one would be glad if Bp. Fellay did a deal with Rome. His whole record as head of ABL's construct has greatly confused the faithful with his off/on inconsistencies, bad management and growing loss of credibility. Within conciliar Rome his faction could fill another niche in the gallery reserved for Ecclesia Dei poseurs. I guess he will take all the property, something the leadership was always preoccupied with, leaving those serious about their conciliar opposition voting with their feet.
-
What campaign?
JG- you are acting very arrogant. Caminus is being very straight forward, yet you are being a coward and not engaging for obvious reasons. I would expect that though from someone who posted the OP of this thread.
PS- To avoid anymore of your "avoiding", "obvious reasons" would be that you are unable to justify the claims being made against you, so you cower by attempting not to respond.
You seem to have forgotten many participants on this forum live in different Nations hence different time zones. I would ask that you apologise and withdraw your remark about me being a coward.
JG- I am sorry that I insulted you, however I will clarify that my comment was objective in nature. If it was a time zone and lack of time issue, than my response would be different. However no clarification had been done, and actually none has been done. So, for the fact that no clarification has been made, and that you still have not responded to Caminus' question, makes it difficult to think that you are not avoiding something.
He was very clear. You seem to be looking clinging to the negative side of semantics when posting anything and everything to do with +Felay in order to point out the evil he must be bringing upon people. Why? If this is not true, then you should clarify your position with a clear, verifiable, non calumnious response sir. Just because we do not agree 100% with a given Bishop's position, doesn't mean they are evil because they do not think like us.
-
I for one would be glad if Bp. Fellay did a deal with Rome. His whole record as head of ABL's construct has greatly confused the faithful with his off/on inconsistencies, bad management and growing loss of credibility. Within conciliar Rome his faction could fill another niche in the gallery reserved for Ecclesia Dei poseurs. I guess he will take all the property, something the leadership was always preoccupied with, leaving those serious about their conciliar opposition voting with their feet.
You want the SSPX to do a deal with Rome just to see them fall apart and have one more victory for the Novus Ordo Church?
This is the problem I see with dogmatic sedevacantism. The viewpoint that a priestly group cannot be good if they aren't sede (even if they celebrate the TLM exclusively!) is a bizzare and absurd position to hold. I'll be the first to admit that there are problems with Bishop Fellay's recent leadership decisions. But to go as far as to say that you hope they make a deal with Rome is just plain silly.
-
If ABL were alive today, he'd be doing and saying the same thing as BF and the sedes and crypto-sedes would be mocking him.
Wrong. Do you honestly believe Archbishop LeFebvre would say "Jesus is Jew, Mary is Jew, the Apostles were Jews, so we shouldn't be anti-Jew"? Fellay's position doesn't hold a candle to the position Archbishop LeFebvre had.
-
The fact is that the sedes and crypto-sedes will hit the road if the Society is given a juridical status by Rome. Let them. They don't understand ABL or the Society's mission and history which is not that of some sede anti-church. They betray this lack of knowledge by their ridiculous frantic interpretation of everything BF says as some veiled message of surrender and compromise. If ABL were alive today, he'd be doing and saying the same thing as BF and the sedes and crypto-sedes would be mocking him.
I for one would be glad if Bp. Fellay did a deal with Rome. His whole record as head of ABL's construct has greatly confused the faithful with his off/on inconsistencies, bad management and growing loss of credibility. Within conciliar Rome his faction could fill another niche in the gallery reserved for Ecclesia Dei poseurs. I guess he will take all the property, something the leadership was always preoccupied with, leaving those serious about their conciliar opposition voting with their feet.
If you believe that the concillar church is not licit, if you believe they are heretics then wishing non heretics to join a heretic church would constitute a greivous mortal sin on your part. You profess the faith but do not seem to live it. You are talking like the Novus Ordo, politics over salvation.
Dogmatic Sede's should not be allowed on this forum, if they deny communion with those who are true catholics then they are by definition schismatic.
-
You should apologize for taking shots at the SSPX on an SSPX forum.
I haven't taken shots at the SSPX and I support the Society. You seem to have misunderstood matters. :cheers:
-
What campaign?
JG- you are acting very arrogant. Caminus is being very straight forward, yet you are being a coward and not engaging for obvious reasons. I would expect that though from someone who posted the OP of this thread.
PS- To avoid anymore of your "avoiding", "obvious reasons" would be that you are unable to justify the claims being made against you, so you cower by attempting not to respond.
You seem to have forgotten many participants on this forum live in different Nations hence different time zones. I would ask that you apologise and withdraw your remark about me being a coward.
JG- I am sorry that I insulted you, however I will clarify that my comment was objective in nature. If it was a time zone and lack of time issue, than my response would be different. However no clarification had been done, and actually none has been done. So, for the fact that no clarification has been made, and that you still have not responded to Caminus' question, makes it difficult to think that you are not avoiding something.
He was very clear. You seem to be looking clinging to the negative side of semantics when posting anything and everything to do with +Felay in order to point out the evil he must be bringing upon people. Why? If this is not true, then you should clarify your position with a clear, verifiable, non calumnious response sir. Just because we do not agree 100% with a given Bishop's position, doesn't mean they are evil because they do not think like us.
There has been no calumny and I'm not aware anybody has suggested that Bishop Fellay is evil. Let's get back to the discussion. :cheers:
-
There has been no calumny and I'm not aware anybody has suggested that Bishop Fellay is evil. Let's get back to the discussion. :cheers:
Fair enough sir :cheers:
Now what were we talking about again.......? LOL JK JK
-
You should apologize for taking shots at the SSPX on an SSPX forum.
I haven't taken shots at the SSPX and I support the Society. You seem to have misunderstood matters. :cheers:
My apologies then. :cheers:
-
It's clear there is a difference between the mission of the SSPX and the mission of Bishop Fellay. It can be concluded that at least three of the four SSPX Bishops and majority of clerics are faithful to mission of the Archbishop.
You were asked to substantiate this claim based on the cited text.
-
Aw man caminus we were just getting to the fun with all the beer :alcohol:... lol jk jk carry on
-
The latest column from Bishop Williamson.
ELEISON COMMENTS CCV (June 18, 2011) : DISCUSSIONS' AFTERMATH
As the doctrinal Discussions which were held from the autumn of 2009 to the spring of this year between the Society of St Pius X and Rome drop back into the past, the question naturally arises of future relations between the two. Among Catholics on both sides there is a wish for contacts to continue, but since such pious wishes for union easily give rise to illusions, it is necessary to keep one's grip on reality if one is not to join the whole modern world in its anti-God fantasy.
Originally the Discussions were wanted not by the Society but by Rome, as it hoped to dissolve the Society's notorious resistance to the Neo-modernism of Vatican II. The great obstacle was doctrine, because the Society is well protected inside the fortress of the Church's age-old and unchanging doctrine. It had to be lured out of that fortress. Now for Neo-modernists, just as for Communists, any contact or dialogue with an adversary in a secure position was - and remains - better than none, because he can only lose by it while they can only gain. So Rome agreed even to doctrinal Discussions.
Alas for Rome, the Society's four representatives believe clearly and held firm. As one of the four Roman theologians taking part in the Discussions was overheard to say afterwards, "We do not understand them and they do not understand us." Of course. Unless the Romans abandoned their Neo-modernism or the Society priests betrayed the Truth, it was bound to be a relatively fruitless dialogue. But Rome cannot stand its own betrayal of the Truth being shown up by the paltry Society, so it is not likely to give up. That is why we already hear of an Ecclesia Dei spokesman telling that Rome will very soon offer an "Apostolic Ordinariat" to the Society. Of course such a quote may be merely a trial balloon to test reactions, but it is also a tempting idea. Unlike a Personal Prelature, an Apostolic Ordinariat is independent of the local bishops, and unlike an Apostolic Administration, such as Campos in Brazil, it is not confined to just one diocese. What more could the Society ask for?
It asks that Rome should come back to the Truth, because it knows, as do Communists and Neo-modernists, that any practical co-operation which would skirt around doctrinal disagreement leads eventually, for all kinds of human reasons, to absorbing the false doctrine of the enemies of the Faith, in other words to betraying the Truth. Here is why the Society's Superior General has in public more than once repudiated any canonical agreement with Rome that would precede a doctrinal agreement. But the Discussions have served at least to demonstrate the depth of the doctrinal disagreement between the Society and Neo-modernist Rome. That is why Catholics should be prepared for the Society to refuse even the offer of an Apostolic Ordinariat, however well-intentioned the Roman authorities may be.
But why is doctrine so important ? Because the Catholic Faith is a doctrine. But why is Faith so important ? Because without it we cannot please God (Heb.XI,6). But why must it be the Catholic Faith? Will no other faith in God do ? No, because God himself underwent the horror of the Cross to reveal to us the one true Faith. All other "faiths" contradict, more or less, that true Faith, with lies.
Four future numbers of "Eleison Comments" will show, with all due respect, how disoriented in this respect is the way of believing of the present Pope, however well-intentioned he may also be.
Kyrie eleison.