Author Topic: Possible Roman scheme against the SSPX  (Read 7250 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Caminus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3013
  • Reputation: +1/-0
  • Gender: Male
Possible Roman scheme against the SSPX
« Reply #30 on: September 14, 2011, 11:06:06 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: SpiritusSanctus
    Whoa, PartyIsOver. I think you're an awesome poster, but you must admit calling Stevus a serpent is a little uncalled for.

    Stevus, that quote from ABL does you no justice when you read THIS quote from him:

    Quote
    If one day they shall excommunicate us because we remain faithful to these theses we shall consider ourselves excommunicated by Freemasonry. Our consolation will be that we remain in the company of God and of all the martyrs who have given their lives to keep the Faith.


    You don't understand his language which was obviously figurative, but certainly meaningful.  That is part of the problem with many whose minds cannot deal with certain concepts, even less mystical notions, e.g. Eternal Rome vs. Neo-Modernist Rome.  They can't help but crudely literalize and absolutize them because they are carnal minded.  Case in point: the use of the term conciliar church.  This figurative, descriptive term causes literalists who abuse language to ask the absurd question, how can the Pope be head of two different Churches.    

    Offline s2srea

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5026
    • Reputation: +3828/-29
    • Gender: Male
    Possible Roman scheme against the SSPX
    « Reply #31 on: September 15, 2011, 07:32:51 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • My dear Matt- Clearly you have an understanding of theology, which many on this forum lack. But it feels to me as if, sometimes, you might be all too ready to go on a personal attack too, which frustrates the reader who might not even be the one being criticized, who might otherwise be more accepting of your conclusions; add a little tact to your recipe- I'm sure the rest of us simple folk would appreciate it. If we're wrong, please explain why, not insult us 'word abusing, non-understanding carnal minded' friends of yours. Just an observation from a friend.  :smirk:


    Offline Blackie

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 10
    • Reputation: +0/-0
      • h
    Possible Roman scheme against the SSPX
    « Reply #32 on: September 15, 2011, 09:07:24 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • How is Bishop Williamson the issue?
     Pope Benedict XVI has already stated in his book Light of the World as follows:

    The Williamson Affair
    Question:
    For .the first four years, the Pope had been doing a “good job”, to put it colloquially. His opponents had literally been silenced. But things changed in January 2009, and all at once the vicious attacks started up again as well. A certain portion of the press resurrected the charge that Pope Benedict is an ice-cold technocrat. We touched on the event that triggered this reaction at the beginning of the interview: the lifting of the excommunication of four bishops of the Society of Saint Pius X, which had broken off from Rome under the French Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. At the present time, the Society comprises, according to its own account, around 600,000 members, 500 priests, over 200 seminarians, 86 schools, and two institutions of higher education.

    To start with: You must also have assumed that this step would bring you anything but approval in the world of public opinion, is that not right? The advantage to be gained was actually rather slight, whereas the risk of damage was considerable.


    That is correct. I have already explained that this step is to a large extent parallel to what we are doing in China. When bishops who are under excommunication because they have offended against the primacy later acknowledge the primacy, they are justly freed from the excommunication. In other words, their excommunication had nothing to do with Vatican II, as I have already said, but had been pronounced on account of an offense against the primacy. But now they had written a letter declaring their Yes to the primacy, and the next step was therefore quite clear from a canonical point of view.

    Incidentally, already under John Paul II an assembly of all the heads of the dicasteries, that is, all those in charge of Vatican bureaus, had decided to lift the excommunication in the event a letter of this kind was sent. Unfortunately, the public relations work was not done well from our side, so that the real, canonical substance and the limits of this process were never made clear. Then, to top it all off, there was the total meltdown with Williamson, which we had unfortunately not foreseen, and that is a particularly distressing circumstance.

    Benedict XVI, Pope; Peter Seewald (2010-11-23). Light Of The World (Kindle Locations 1614-1622). Ignatius Press. Kindle Edition.

    Question:
    Would. you have signed the decree lifting the excommunication if you had known that among the four bishops there was a person who denied the existence of the Nazi gas chambers?

    No. If I had known, the first step would have been to separate the Williamson case from the others. Unfortunately, though, none of us went on the Internet to find out what sort of person we were dealing with.

    Question:
    Shouldn't the very first step before lifting an excommunication have been to scrutinize the excommunicated persons and to examine carefully how they conducted their lives—especially when you were dealing with a community whose isolation had skewed its development in a direction that was both theologically and politically dubious?

    It is correct that Williamson is an atypical case in that he was, when you think about, never Catholic in the proper sense. He was an Anglican and then went over directly to Lefebvre. This means that he has never lived in the great Church, that he has never lived with the Pope. Our offices that are in charge of dealing with these matters assured us that all four of the bishops were unreservedly ready to accept the primacy. But of course one is always more intelligent in hindsight.

    Today one cannot help suspecting that the affair might have involved a plot aimed at inflicting the maximum possible damage on the Pope. The timing alone makes one suspect concerted action.1 In any case, the damage was massive. For weeks there was a hailstorm of negative headlines. And yet precisely one of the factors that made the affair possible in the first place was the hushing up of the facts. The Vatican press agency may not have done the best job, but the journalists in the employ of the major secular media did an even poorer one. One or two inquiries would have sufficed to clear things up. But no one wanted to spoil his own headlines about the scandal. As a matter of fact, the decree clearly explained that the Pope had decided only to “rethink” the canonical situation of the four bishops. It was clear that the four bishops would remain canonically suspended. They were forbidden to exercise their office. The step that had been taken did not mean a reconciliation, and it certainly did not mean a rehabilitation. And yet German’s Süddeutsche Zeitung published the devastating headline “Pope Rehabilitates Holocaust-Denier”. Which the paper went on to call a shameful signal, indeed, a sinful lapse. How was it possible for your gesture to be understood as in any way a disavowal of reconciliation between Jews and Christians?

    As I wrote in my letter afterward, we seem to be dealing here with a hostility, a readiness to pounce, that waits for these kinds of things to happen in order to strike a well-aimed blow. On our side, it was a mistake not to have studied and prepared the case more carefully. On the other hand, though, there was precisely, shall we say, a readiness for aggression, which was lying in wait for its victim.
    Pax domini sit semper vobiscum
    Blackie

    Offline ServusSpiritusSancti

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8213
    • Reputation: +7164/-1
    • Gender: Male
    Possible Roman scheme against the SSPX
    « Reply #33 on: September 15, 2011, 09:14:56 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Blackie
    It is correct that Williamson is an atypical case in that he was, when you think about, never Catholic in the proper sense. He was an Anglican and then went over directly to Lefebvre. This means that he has never lived in the great Church, that he has never lived with the Pope.


    Ridiculous.

    Offline ServusSpiritusSancti

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8213
    • Reputation: +7164/-1
    • Gender: Male
    Possible Roman scheme against the SSPX
    « Reply #34 on: September 15, 2011, 09:16:40 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Caminus
    You don't think the Church is already being chastised?


    You clearly aren't familiar with the three days of darkness.

    The founder of the very group you support, Archbishop LeFebvre, believed there was a concilicar church. He's right, the NO church is not the true Church.


    Offline stevusmagnus

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3728
    • Reputation: +824/-0
    • Gender: Male
      • h
    Possible Roman scheme against the SSPX
    « Reply #35 on: September 15, 2011, 09:17:01 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    It is correct that Williamson is an atypical case in that he was, when you think about, never Catholic in the proper sense. He was an Anglican and then went over directly to Lefebvre. This means that he has never lived in the great Church, that he has never lived with the Pope.


    This is factually incorrect. BW converted to Catholicism before he was ever in the SSPX.

    By the way, is this the same book where BXVI says that a gay prostitute using a condom is a first step towards moral responsibility?

    Offline s2srea

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5026
    • Reputation: +3828/-29
    • Gender: Male
    Possible Roman scheme against the SSPX
    « Reply #36 on: September 15, 2011, 10:36:17 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    It is correct that Williamson is an atypical case in that he was, when you think about, never Catholic in the proper sense. He was an Anglican and then went over directly to Lefebvre. This means that he has never lived in the great Church, that he has never lived with the Pope.


    If he meant that he was never a priest, "in the prorper sense" that he's speaking about. I would it is much worse to be a "Catholic [priest]... in the great Church.. with the Pope," and to have abandoned the Papacy from within.

    Offline s2srea

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5026
    • Reputation: +3828/-29
    • Gender: Male
    Possible Roman scheme against the SSPX
    « Reply #37 on: September 15, 2011, 10:39:46 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: stevusmagnus
    Quote
    It is correct that Williamson is an atypical case in that he was, when you think about, never Catholic in the proper sense. He was an Anglican and then went over directly to Lefebvre. This means that he has never lived in the great Church, that he has never lived with the Pope.


    This is factually incorrect. BW converted to Catholicism before he was ever in the SSPX.

    By the way, is this the same book where BXVI says that a gay prostitute using a condom is a first step towards moral responsibility?


    Thanks for the clarification!  :farmer:


    Offline Matthew

    • Mod
    • *****
    • Posts: 23958
    • Reputation: +20946/-420
    • Gender: Male
    Possible Roman scheme against the SSPX
    « Reply #38 on: September 15, 2011, 10:47:11 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I should point out that there ARE different legitimate opinions in this Crisis, even within the SSPX.

    Some are more inclined to make a deal with Rome at all costs, thinking that the dropping of the "pariah" status might make for more converts.

    Others, perhaps more "big picture" oriented, who see the modern world as a whole and see how the whole package takes men away from true integral Catholicism, believe that we're not going to convert any significant number until there's a chastisement.

    Let's put it this way -- right now, ANYONE is welcome to run the gauntlet and join a Traditional Catholic chapel, for purposes of this discussion let's say an SSPX chapel.
    They realize they're different, that many don't agree, and that the Powers That Be are very much against them.

    Isn't that the attitude that we should all have with the World anyhow -- a prerequisite for properly opposing it? We all have to be willing to stand out, be scorned, be misunderstood, etc. if we want to live an integrally Catholic life in this modern world.

    So if the SSPX became approved, you'd remove the prerequisite of "willing to be different" from going to Mass, but NOT from being a good Catholic in the world today. The prerequisite would still hold on the World side of things.

    There are only so many people who are that strong.

    Maybe this is why Indult Catholics are often very worldly and seldom "integral" in their practice of Catholicism? "Willingness to stand up against opposition" is not required for membership there, so statistically you'll only have a couple members at the Church who HAPPEN to be willing to thus stand out.

    But at an SSPX chapel, they ALL have to be willing to stand out, be criticized unjustly, etc.

    Now even if Rome "converted" tomorrow and every local Catholic Church became as authentically Catholic as an SSPX chapel -- would we have any more serious Catholics? Sure, we'd have some -- whoever in the Novus Ordo is opposing the world and living a Catholic life to rival any traditional Catholic today. But how many of those are there, REALLY?

    We'd all STILL have to oppose the world, and let's not forget that the SSPX (whose position is true Catholicism) preaches a very HARD religion -- one that most men reject due to malice and/or weakness.

    Perhaps the World would know the jig is up and start persecuting Catholics if the Catholic Church turned into a super-sized SSPX. That's why I say a chastisement is ultimately necessary. The world is just TOO far gone at this point.
    Start your Amazon.com session by clicking this link, and my family and I get a commission on your purchase!

    Offline stevusmagnus

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3728
    • Reputation: +824/-0
    • Gender: Male
      • h
    Possible Roman scheme against the SSPX
    « Reply #39 on: September 15, 2011, 10:47:47 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • http://www.sspx.org/news/enlightenment_pope/enlightenment_pope-notes_on_benedict_xvi_recent_book-fr_nicolas_portail.htm

    Quote
    ...And that is not all. To finish washing his hands of this episcopal “Holocaust-denier”, the pope explains that “Williamson is an atypical case, in that he was… never Catholic in the proper sense. He was an Anglican and then went over directly to Lefebvre” (pp. 121-122). Benedict XVI is rewriting history.
     
    In fact, Richard Williamson renounced Anglicanism and applied to St. Pius X Seminary in Econe, which at that time was quite thoroughly recognized and encouraged by the Roman Congregations. He made his first promise on December 8, 1973, more than two years before the (illegal) suppression of the Priestly Society of St. Pius X. To anyone who is trying to be objective, these three pages in Light of the World are at most conjectural and, alas, unfair. One would think that the pope was better informed than that about Traditionalism...

     

    Offline Caminus

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3013
    • Reputation: +1/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Possible Roman scheme against the SSPX
    « Reply #40 on: September 15, 2011, 10:50:30 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: s2srea
    My dear Matt- Clearly you have an understanding of theology, which many on this forum lack. But it feels to me as if, sometimes, you might be all too ready to go on a personal attack too, which frustrates the reader who might not even be the one being criticized, who might otherwise be more accepting of your conclusions; add a little tact to your recipe- I'm sure the rest of us simple folk would appreciate it. If we're wrong, please explain why, not insult us 'word abusing, non-understanding carnal minded' friends of yours. Just an observation from a friend.  :smirk:


    I'm meant "carnal-minded" in the sense that St. Paul used the term to describe the contentious men of the Church at Corinth.  In many instances, when there is virtually no substance to a statement, when an actual argument is not presented, the problem usually lies with the man himself.  Sure, there are logical fallacies to be addressed, assumptions to be analyzed, but ad hominem is a perfectly legitimate procedure when there is something wrong with the man himself as evinced by his words.  If we fix the spirit of the man first, all else would eventually fade away.        


    Offline Caminus

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3013
    • Reputation: +1/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Possible Roman scheme against the SSPX
    « Reply #41 on: September 15, 2011, 11:04:09 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • And I do not understand the concern over the subjective intentions of the Pope.  Worrying about whether he is a clever deceiver, in good faith or somewhere in between is immaterial.  The notion that legal recognition amounts to "absorption" into conciliarism is simply a gratuitious statement without foundation.  If you hold that these priests maintain their integrity, resisting errors from within the Church, juridical recognition will not in anyway alter this character of the Society.  We have to look at objective reality and avoid hand-wringing about subjective dispositions.  This only applies to those Catholics who recognize that there is any jurdicial authority left in the Catholic Church.  For those who do not recognize this dogmatic fact, I invite you to analyze the grave implications of such an opinion.  

    Our Lord's Body was mutilated, bruised, beaten and in consequence His Most Precious Blood flowed copiously from his wounds, yet not a bone was broken.  The Blood signifies the grace and charity extinguished from the Body of the Church through error and moral corruption, but the integrity of His bones signifies the foundation of legal jurisidiciton, i.e. authority within the mutilated Church, the Mystical Body of Christ.  The moment that His Sacred Heart stopped beating upon His death, signifies the diabolical disorientation of Rome and its infestation with heretics and errant and immoral prelates, at the very heart of the Church.

    Look for the resurrection of the Church which will come about from within the Body of the Church, the very thing the sedevacantist denies because their imaginary body lacks a constitutive principle and thus an entirely foreign body must be reconstituted that lacks continuity with the previous Body.        

    Offline stevusmagnus

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3728
    • Reputation: +824/-0
    • Gender: Male
      • h
    Possible Roman scheme against the SSPX
    « Reply #42 on: September 15, 2011, 12:21:50 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I agree there are many considerations that must take place in analyzing the preamble and setting up a structure whereby the Society can have autonomy. I am certainly not advocating that the Society cave. I think if they can sign the preamble with no doctrinal concessions and ensure a structure where they will have autonomy they should take it.

    Otherwise it is important to heed ABL's words from his biography...

    Quote
    “Ecclesia Dei” Catholics in general think they work more effectively “from inside the Church” than Archbishop Lefebvre who, they say, has placed himself “on the outside”. The Archbishop replied energetically to this objection:

    What Church are we talking about? If it is the Conciliar Church it would supposedly have been necessary for us (who fought against her for twenty years and who want the Catholic Church) to re-enter the Conciliar Church to make it, as it were, Catholic. This is a complete illusion. Subjects do not make the superiors; it is the superiors who make the subjects. With all the Roman Curia and in the midst of all the bishops of the world who are progressives, my voice would have been completely drowned out. I would have been incapable of doing anything to protect the faithful and the seminarians. They would have said to us: “Well, we are going to give you this bishop to do the ordinations; your seminarians will have to accept these professors from such and such a diocese.” It is impossible! In the Society of St. Peter they have professors from the diocese of Augsburg. Who are these professors? What do they teach?


    Offline LordPhan

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1171
    • Reputation: +826/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Possible Roman scheme against the SSPX
    « Reply #43 on: September 15, 2011, 12:24:52 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • Offline Emerentiana

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1420
    • Reputation: +1194/-17
    • Gender: Female
    Possible Roman scheme against the SSPX
    « Reply #44 on: September 15, 2011, 12:42:21 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Matthew
    I should point out that there ARE different legitimate opinions in this Crisis, even within the SSPX.

    Some are more inclined to make a deal with Rome at all costs, thinking that the dropping of the "pariah" status might make for more converts.

    Others, perhaps more "big picture" oriented, who see the modern world as a whole and see how the whole package takes men away from true integral Catholicism, believe that we're not going to convert any significant number until there's a chastisement.

    Let's put it this way -- right now, ANYONE is welcome to run the gauntlet and join a Traditional Catholic chapel, for purposes of this discussion let's say an SSPX chapel.
    They realize they're different, that many don't agree, and that the Powers That Be are very much against them.

    Isn't that the attitude that we should all have with the World anyhow -- a prerequisite for properly opposing it? We all have to be willing to stand out, be scorned, be misunderstood, etc. if we want to live an integrally Catholic life in this modern world.

    So if the SSPX became approved, you'd remove the prerequisite of "willing to be different" from going to Mass, but NOT from being a good Catholic in the world today. The prerequisite would still hold on the World side of things.

    There are only so many people who are that strong.

    Maybe this is why Indult Catholics are often very worldly and seldom "integral" in their practice of Catholicism? "Willingness to stand up against opposition" is not required for membership there, so statistically you'll only have a couple members at the Church who HAPPEN to be willing to thus stand out.

    But at an SSPX chapel, they ALL have to be willing to stand out, be criticized unjustly, etc.

    Now even if Rome "converted" tomorrow and every local Catholic Church became as authentically Catholic as an SSPX chapel -- would we have any more serious Catholics? Sure, we'd have some -- whoever in the Novus Ordo is opposing the world and living a Catholic life to rival any traditional Catholic today. But how many of those are there, REALLY?

    We'd all STILL have to oppose the world, and let's not forget that the SSPX (whose position is true Catholicism) preaches a very HARD religion -- one that most men reject due to malice and/or weakness.

    Perhaps the World would know the jig is up and start persecuting Catholics if the Catholic Church turned into a super-sized SSPX. That's why I say a chastisement is ultimately necessary. The world is just TOO far gone at this point.


    Wow!  Matthew!  That was a great post.  :applause:
     I totally agree that Catholics will not unite or move forward until after the chastisement.  Those  faithful Catholics, small in number, who have endured so many hardships for the faith, will be priviledged to witness the anting when our tests come.   Please note the boxed quote I found in her message.  LaSalette gives us Catholics everything we need to know about today and the future.  
    Let us take every opportunity that God gives us to suffer.  Contradictions are a very acute form of suffering.  We have the faith amoung billions in the world without it.  The thin line  of  true priests priests and bishops  in the world bring us the sacraments.  Lets pray for their perserverence

    Here are a couple of quotes pertinent to this discussion  from the LaSalette Secret b]


    Quote
    The true faith to the Lord having been forgotten, each individual will want to be on his own and be superior to people of same identity, they will abolish civil rights as well as ecclesiastical, all order and all justice would be trampled underfoot and only homicides, hate, jealousy, lies and dissension would be seen without love for country or family.
    [/b][/color]


    Quote
    I make an urgent appeal to the earth. I call on the true disciples of the living God who reigns in Heaven; I call on the true followers of Christ made man, the only true Saviour of men; I call on my children, the true faithful, those who have given themselves to me so that I may lead them to my divine Son, those whom I carry in my arms, so to speak, those who have lived on my spirit. Finally, I call on the Apostles of the Last Days, the faithful disciples of Jesus Christ who have lived in scorn for the world and for them selves, in poverty and in humility, in scorn and in silence, in prayer and in mortification, in chastity and in union with God, in suffering and unknown to the world. It is time they came out and filled the world with light. Go and reveal yourselves to be my cherished children. I am at your side and within you, provided that your faith is the light which shines upon you in these unhappy days. May your zeal make you famished for the glory and the honour of Jesus Christ. Fight, children of light, you, the few who can see. For now is the time of all times, the end of all ends.
    [/b][/color]


     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16