Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: Bishop Fernando A. Rifan submits Resignation, MEETS Pope Leo XIV  (Read 419 times)

1 Member and 12 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Twice dyed

  • Supporter
  • ***
  • Posts: 785
  • Reputation: +303/-31
  • Gender: Male
  • Violet, purple, and scarlet twice dyed. EX: 35, 6.
"...John Paul II erected the Apostolic Administration  in 2002 to welcome the priests and faithful of Campos, state of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, who remained attached to the Traditional Roman Rite."

https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2025/11/bishop-rifan-describes-his-meeting-with.html?m=1

Excerpt:


Quote
Quote
...I showed him how we are in communion with our diocesan bishop and with the other Catholic bishops.
I explained to him how our seminary works ....
....I explained to him that we also serve 11 other dioceses with the permission or request of the local bishops.
I therefore spoke to him about the need to continue with our Apostolic Administration for the good of the Church.

Quote
Quote
I told him that I had already submitted my letter of resignation, due to my 75 years of age, and the need to continue to have a bishop.
Of course, his response will come through the proper channels, after the usual consultations....


...Let us pray that the Pope will do what is best for the future of our Apostolic Administration, for the good of the Church, and for the glory of God.
Our Lady, Mother of the Church, will always protect us.
God provides, God will provide! His mercy will not fail us.....


+ F. A.  Rifan
Nov 17, 2025

********
The SSPX, in 2002, reminded the Trad movement never to place itself under Modernist Rome.  But in 2012, neo-SSPX came within a camel's hair of accepting a Personal Prelature 🐪
*****

https://stmarcelinitiative.org/bishop-fellay-iii/


"...on the mindset which induces the Superior General of the Society of St Pius X to pursue implacably a merely practical agreement with Church authorities in Rome, a good friend reminded me that the ideas driving him were laid out four years ago in his Letter of April 14, 2012, in which he replied to the Society’s three other bishops, who warned him seriously against making any merely practical agreement with Rome. Many readers today of these “Comments” may have forgotten, or never known of, that warning, or Bishop Fellay’s reply. Indeed the exchange of letters tells a great deal that is worth recalling. Here they are, summarised as cruelly as usual, with brief comments:—
The three bishops’ main objection to any practical agreement with Rome being made without a doctrinal agreement was the depth of the doctrinal gulf between Conciliar Rome and the Traditional Catholic Society. Half a year before he died Archbishop Lefebvre said that the more one analyses the docuмents and aftermath of Vatican II, the more one comes to realise that the problem is less any classic errors in particular, even such as religious liberty, collegiality and ecuмenism, than “a total perversion of mind” in general, underlying all the particular errors and proceeding from “a whole new philosophy founded on subjectivism.” To a key argument of Bishop Fellay that the Romans are no longer hostile but benevolent towards the Society, the three bishops replied with another quote from the Archbishop: such benevolence is just a “manoeuvre,” and nothing could be more dangerous for “our people” than to “put ourselves into the hands of Conciliar bishops and modernist Rome.” The three bishops concluded that a merely practical agreement would tear the Society apart, and destroy it.
To this deep objection, as deep as the gulf between subjectivism and objective truth, Bishop Fellay replied (google Bishop Fellay, April 14, 2012):— 1 that the bishops were “too human and fatalistic.” 2 The Church is guided by the Holy Ghost. 3 Behind Rome’s real benevolence towards the SSPX is God’s Providence. 4 To make the Council’s errors amount to a “super-heresy” is an inappropriate exaggeration, 5 which will logically lead Traditionalists into schism. 6Not all Romans are modernists because fewer and fewer of them believe in Vatican II, 7 to the point that were the Archbishop alive today he would not have hesitated to accept what the SSPX is being offered. 8 In the Church there will always be wheat and chaff, so Conciliar chaff is no reason to back away. 9 How I wish I could have turned to the three of you for advice, but each of you in different ways “strongly and passionately failed to understand me,” and even threatened me in public. 10 To oppose Faith to Authority is “contrary to the priestly spirit.”
And finally, the briefest of comments on each of Bishop Fellay’s arguments:—
1 “Too human”? As the Archbishop said, the great gulf in question is philosophical (natural) rather than theological (supernatural). “Too fatalistic”? The three bishops were rather realistic than fatalistic. 2 Are Conciliar churchmen guided by the Holy Ghost when they destroy the Church? 3 Behind Rome’s real malevolence is its firm resolve to dissolve the SSPX’s resistance to the new Conciliar religion – as of how many Traditional Congregations before it! 4 Only subjectivists themselves cannot see the depth of the gulf between subjectivism and Truth. 5 Objectivist Catholics clinging to Truth are far from schism. 6 Freemasons hold the ring in Rome. Any non-modernists have no power there to speak of. 7 To believe that the Archbishop would have accepted Rome’s present offers is to mistake him completely. The basic problem has got only much worse since his day. 8Bishop Fellay’s spoon is much too shor..."

The measure of love is to love without measure.
                                 St. Augustine (354 - 430 AD)

Offline Incredulous

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9519
  • Reputation: +9288/-933
  • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0



  • "Psst... Bobby, we jews have had a lock on the 
    Seat since 1939. Hang in there and you'll be a pope too."
    "Some preachers will keep silence about the truth, and others will trample it underfoot and deny it. Sanctity of life will be held in derision even by those who outwardly profess it, for in those days Our Lord Jesus Christ will send them not a true Pastor but a destroyer."  St. Francis of Assisi


    Online HeidtXtreme

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 92
    • Reputation: +41/-42
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • I wonder if Bishop Rifan will be the Consecrator or co-consecrator for the next Bishop… I wouldn’t be surprised if Rome decided not to include him as a co-consecrator like Bishop Rangel was before him, because the successor would then be another Traditionally valid Bishop.

    Offline Plenus Venter

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1651
    • Reputation: +1322/-103
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0


  • Quote
    I spoke about our theological and spiritual journey, about how we left the state of separation from the Church and how we came to understand the need for communion, in which we now find ourselves, thanks to God and the Church.

    I expressed our communion and firm adherence to the Chair of Peter, in his person.
    He asked me several questions about our position, which I answered correctly, leaving him very satisfied.
    He realized that we are very different from other radical and schismatic groups.
    I reminded him of St. Augustine's phrase: “Outside the Church, one can have many good things; one can sing Hallelujah, Amen, make the sign of the cross, etc... But outside the Church, there is no salvation.”
    I showed him how we are in communion with our diocesan bishop and with the other Catholic bishops.
    Oh what a tragic fall! The poor bishop. Can you believe he was personal secretary to Bishop de Castro Mayer and accompanied him to the 1988 Episcopal Consecrations at Econe?


    Did he use any of this precious 30 minutes with the Supreme Pontiff to express his concerns? Maybe his concerns about the environment and the Lefebvrists....


    Quote
    Of course, I asked for nothing more than his blessing. 
    Of course. Why would a Traditional bishop ask for anything else in the current crisis? 



    Quote
    I repeated to him the phrase he used as a cardinal during the Conclave: “We are in the hands of the Holy Spirit and the Church.”
    Not if you voluntarily place yourself in the hands of evil men... just like Bishop Fellay tried so hard to do with the SSPX. Too much opposition there, so they put them on the slow track.

    It's ironic that he says he prayed the prayer with the Holy Father "May the Lord preserve him... and deliver him not up into the hands of his enemies", yet has not Bishop Rifan given himself and all his flock into those very hands?

    Pray for poor Bishop Rifan.


    Offline Plenus Venter

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1651
    • Reputation: +1322/-103
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • "...on the mindset which induces the Superior General of the Society of St Pius X to pursue implacably a merely practical agreement with Church authorities in Rome, a good friend reminded me that the ideas driving him were laid out four years ago in his Letter of April 14, 2012, in which he replied to the Society’s three other bishops, who warned him seriously against making any merely practical agreement with Rome. Many readers today of these “Comments” may have forgotten, or never known of, that warning, or Bishop Fellay’s reply. Indeed the exchange of letters tells a great deal that is worth recalling. Here they are, summarised as cruelly as usual, with brief comments:—
    The three bishops’ main objection to any practical agreement with Rome being made without a doctrinal agreement was the depth of the doctrinal gulf between Conciliar Rome and the Traditional Catholic Society. Half a year before he died Archbishop Lefebvre said that the more one analyses the docuмents and aftermath of Vatican II, the more one comes to realise that the problem is less any classic errors in particular, even such as religious liberty, collegiality and ecuмenism, than “a total perversion of mind” in general, underlying all the particular errors and proceeding from “a whole new philosophy founded on subjectivism.” To a key argument of Bishop Fellay that the Romans are no longer hostile but benevolent towards the Society, the three bishops replied with another quote from the Archbishop: such benevolence is just a “manoeuvre,” and nothing could be more dangerous for “our people” than to “put ourselves into the hands of Conciliar bishops and modernist Rome.” The three bishops concluded that a merely practical agreement would tear the Society apart, and destroy it.
    To this deep objection, as deep as the gulf between subjectivism and objective truth, Bishop Fellay replied (google Bishop Fellay, April 14, 2012):— 1 that the bishops were “too human and fatalistic.” 2 The Church is guided by the Holy Ghost. 3 Behind Rome’s real benevolence towards the SSPX is God’s Providence. 4 To make the Council’s errors amount to a “super-heresy” is an inappropriate exaggeration, 5 which will logically lead Traditionalists into schism. 6Not all Romans are modernists because fewer and fewer of them believe in Vatican II, 7 to the point that were the Archbishop alive today he would not have hesitated to accept what the SSPX is being offered. 8 In the Church there will always be wheat and chaff, so Conciliar chaff is no reason to back away. 9 How I wish I could have turned to the three of you for advice, but each of you in different ways “strongly and passionately failed to understand me,” and even threatened me in public. 10 To oppose Faith to Authority is “contrary to the priestly spirit.”
    And finally, the briefest of comments on each of Bishop Fellay’s arguments:—
    1 “Too human”? As the Archbishop said, the great gulf in question is philosophical (natural) rather than theological (supernatural). “Too fatalistic”? The three bishops were rather realistic than fatalistic. 2 Are Conciliar churchmen guided by the Holy Ghost when they destroy the Church? 3 Behind Rome’s real malevolence is its firm resolve to dissolve the SSPX’s resistance to the new Conciliar religion – as of how many Traditional Congregations before it! 4 Only subjectivists themselves cannot see the depth of the gulf between subjectivism and Truth. 5 Objectivist Catholics clinging to Truth are far from schism. 6 Freemasons hold the ring in Rome. Any non-modernists have no power there to speak of. 7 To believe that the Archbishop would have accepted Rome’s present offers is to mistake him completely. The basic problem has got only much worse since his day. 8Bishop Fellay’s spoon is much too shor..."
    Classic letter from Bishop Williamson, thanks for posting TD. How can any thinking Trad not be with the Resistance?


    Online Giovanni Berto

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1452
    • Reputation: +1178/-89
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I did not realize he was this old.

    Who will be the new bishop? One of their priests?