Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Matthew on September 13, 2011, 09:54:01 PM
-
PereJoseph posted a couple posts that jumped out at me. I believe they deserve their own thread!
I will not be surprised if Bishop Fellay takes the deal, but would be if he rejects it. The Vatican knows what it is doing and will obviously submit a docuмent for Fellay's decision that he cannot justify rejecting; and, in true NO fashion, it will mot likely contain a few phrases that entirely compromise the SSPX position, popular phrases that allow them to ruthlessly rub their victory in the faces of the SSPX bishops while maintaining a gentle smile appropriate for an art gala. Of course, accepting this docuмent would be incredibly short-sighted, if the official talking points are any indication : Already John Zhulsdorf's blog and the news story that gives quotations from Jean-Marie Guenois show that the SSPX position on religious liberty will be warmly embraced by the NO establishment... as a private and legitimate theological opinion. This docuмent will therefore define the doctrines of the Church as not doctrines at all, only opinions. The SSPX will be left alone for a while, and in one more generation, Rome has the precedent to tighten its grip. The SSPX cause will lose steam and the only real Catholics twenty years from now will be sedevacantists or those loyal to Bishop Williamson's group that will surely be started after the deal is made. He will be called schismatic and is now isolated by the Judaeo-Masonic media and European governments, who will persecute him (and perhaps us ?), etc., Rome wins the diplomatic chess game and Bishop Fellay will prove himself to be a great fool and a liberal, though he will be heralded as a generous and heroic son of the Church.
Here is an example about how crafty Rome is that I think will be instructive. This was told to me by my fiancée who heard it from French non-una cuм priest who left the SSPX. He said that Bishop Fellay and Menzingen have long desired to expel Bishop Williamson from the SSPX but that Rome gave them specific instructions not to do so. This is genius on the part of Rome, and it is clear why. First -- and perhaps this has not been considered as the Romans' intentions by Menzingen, not that this point would be spoken of by either Rome or Menzingen, which increases its impression, -- it puts more pressure on Menzingen in order to save their window of opportunity to (i) save their German apostolate and (ii) capitalise on the opportunity afforded them by Ratzinger's friendly disposition before he dies in the potentially near future. This pressure is efficient because it is all on Menzingen and is not mentioned. Second, Rome surely has read everything Bishop Williamson has written and knows what he cannot abide. Their deal can easily be tinted such that it will ensure Bishop Williamson leaves of his own accord, now an easy target for the label of schism and a magnet for the liberal-bourgeois world's hatred. He will bring all of those unwilling to coöperate with him, and they will quickly become irrelevant in NO establishment circles. Done deal; Rome achieves a coup from the inside, nullifies the momentum and vigour of the Archbishop's message, and turns his true followers into lepers who cursed themselves as untouchable by their stiff-necked decision to pursue formal schism. Meanwhile the SSPX will have been regularised in the NO establishment, as all the papers will let everybody know.
I have long suspected (in my worst nightmares, of course) that something like this would happen -- that the Crisis would get worse before it gets better. The SSPX is just too juicy a target for adversaries like the devil, the Freemasons, and Conciliar Rome to leave alone. If the Catholic Church founded by Christ could be infiltrated and damaged from the inside, who would claim that a mere BRANCH of the tree would be somehow immune?
Well, if this speculation actually comes to pass I'll be doing a bit of editing to the header of this forum...
-
This is what I suspected as well, although I wasn't as good at expressing it as PereJoseph.
-
You know, the way Bishop Williamson (and the true traditional Catholic cause) is being treated by the SSPX leadership, I'd say there could be a split in the SSPX no matter WHAT happens on September 14.
Maybe the reason there hasn't been a split is because +W hasn't been kicked out yet, and he's a good obedient man?
But if a false agreement were reached, +W would be forced in conscience to act, and not go along with it. That's when the masks would come off and he'd be kicked out, encouraged to quit, etc.
Then they'd have their split. That's actually the only way I ever see an SSPX split happening.
DIVIDE AND CONQUER
-
...I have long suspected (in my worst nightmares, of course) that something like this would happen -- that the Crisis would get worse before it gets better. The SSPX is just too juicy a target for adversaries like the devil, the Freemasons, and Conciliar Rome to leave alone. If the Catholic Church founded by Christ could be infiltrated and damaged from the inside, who would claim that a mere BRANCH of the tree would be somehow immune?...
The damage seems to often come from the leader of the sspx particularly recently.
Well, if this speculation actually comes to pass I'll be doing a bit of editing to the header of this forum...
Great!
-
I could no longer consider myself a supporter of the SSPX if Bishop Williamson is kicked out. The fact that Fellay wants to kick him out only shows the flaws in his leadership skills...
-
This infamous affair that has been developing for the past several years shows, at the very least, that Bishop Fellay is a brilliant administrator, since he has subjugated and ostracised those priests who are faithful to the Archbishop's cause by demoting them and framing the language he uses publicly and privately to get them to leave the Society on their own or else compromise themselves. Meanwhile, he has posted French priests docile to his programme all over, especially in the US, which, ironically, is of all places the land of rigorism (I use that word very lightly here, since I am perhaps am one of the most appropriate targets for that meaningless epithet). Otherwise, in France, for instance, there has been a generational drift towards liberalism that has been solidified by the belief that one must act in a way that is politically attractive or else become irrelevant.
On the other hand, Bishop Fellay is entirely inept as a diplomat, bumblingly allowing himself to become utterly checkmated by Rome. Or is he ? Given what we know of his subtlety as an administrator, as well as his execrable public declarations ("antisemitism," "Jєωs our elder brothers," "extremist," etc.), it seems that we cannot suppose this to be the case. On the contrary, it seems far more likely, given who he associates with (the Zionist bourgeois-liberal calumniator Krah and the other calumniator, Fr Pfluger), that this deal or something like it is what he wants. I am reminded of what a friar told me about a letter from Pope St Leo the Great to one Priscillus, who wanted to Christianise astrology and spent his time, therefore, speaking to pagan astrologers in order to better understand their teachings. Pope Leo cut to the chase, he said (and I paraphrase), "You keep talking with these people; it must be because you believe as they do."
-
But if a false agreement were reached, +W would be forced in conscience to act, and not go along with it. That's when the masks would come off and he'd be kicked out, encouraged to quit, etc.
This is precisely why it behooves us to pray for Bishop Williamson, that he may receive through the patronage and tutelage of the Blessed Virgin Mary, together with the intercession of all Angels and Saints, the graces necessary for him to bear meritously the great crosses and tribulations that he is facing and shall face for the greater edification of the faithful. Bishop Williamson will suffer a "bloodless martyrdom" no matter what happens between Rome and the SSPX.
:pray:
-
I would remind everyone you only have the word of an anonymous poster to go on with this, I am not accusing him of lying, but I caution everyone to bear that in mind.
For what it's worth, these things are not being talked about right now, word is Bishop Fellay will reject any deal, the only way I see anything happening is if what one of the posts in the other thread stated along the lines of
"The Society become regularised but can say and do as it pleases"
To which I would reply, how would that be any different then SSPX pre-1988?
We were in the Church then and disobeying what was wrong and attacking the Pope for Assisi.
I would also like to point out that the attack on Assisi which I posted earlier today came with the permission of Bishop Fellay from Bishop Fellay's appointed District Superior of France.
I would also like to point out that people are making it out like there are 2 camps in the SSPX Fellay's and Williamson's... but France will follow Bishop Tissier de Mallerais and theologically he is as hard-lined as Bishop Williamson from what I've heard.
I have absolutely no knowledge of Bishop de Gallereta but he was appointed to head the doctrinal commision of the SSPX by Archbishop Lefebre himself. It was HE who handled the doctrinal discussions.
Some(See how you qualify statements everyone) Sedevacantists are trying to split us for their own gain, bewary of that.
Bishop Williamson is not a Sedevacantist nor does he support that thesis. I know. I know more then I let on, but I have heard nothing of what PereJoseph stated.
The way I see it, there are 2 possibilities tommorow, Rome will have conditions and it will be rejected, rome will not have conditions and you could flip a coin which way it will go, there are Priests in the SSPX that want a deal and there are Priests that do not want a deal. If any were in the first camp they would not tell me, I only heard they exist from others being taken aside during a BBQ party. I cannot mention names but they would be credible to anyone here.
Let us all sit back and see what happens, worrying about it will do us no good.
-
This infamous affair that has been developing for the past several years shows, at the very least, that Bishop Fellay is a brilliant administrator, since he has subjugated and ostracised those priests who are faithful to the Archbishop's cause by demoting them and framing the language he uses publicly and privately to get them to leave the Society on their own or else compromise themselves. Meanwhile, he has posted French priests docile to his programme all over, especially in the US, which, ironically, is of all places the land of rigorism (I use that word very lightly here, since I am perhaps am one of the most appropriate targets for that meaningless epithet). Otherwise, in France, for instance, there has been a generational drift towards liberalism that has been solidified by the belief that one must act in a way that is politically attractive or else become irrelevant.
On the other hand, Bishop Fellay is entirely inept as a diplomat, bumblingly allowing himself to become utterly checkmated by Rome. Or is he ? Given what we know of his subtlety as an administrator, as well as his execrable public declarations ("antisemitism," "Jєωs our elder brothers," "extremist," etc.), it seems that we cannot suppose this to be the case. On the contrary, it seems far more likely, given who he associates with (the Zionist bourgeois-liberal calumniator Krah and the other calumniator, Fr Pfluger), that this deal or something like it is what he wants. I am reminded of what a friar told me about a letter from Pope St Leo the Great to one Priscillus, who wanted to Christianise astrology and spent his time, therefore, speaking to pagan astrologers in order to better understand their teachings. Pope Leo cut to the chase, he said (and I paraphrase), "You keep talking with these people; it must be because you believe as they do."
Where do you attend Mass? Is it SSPX, Sedevacantist, independant what? Where do you get your information? The Press? Firsthand? Laymen? Priests?
-
Well, it is possible that Rome could be so stupid as to give Bishop Fellay a docuмent that he cannot accept as per their knowledge of his inclinations and the results of the doctrinal discussions. But he has really tee-ed everything up for them so nicely, it would be inconsistent with their own goals and their past record of diplomatic aptitude for them to waste their golden opportunity. They announced the meeting on relatively short notice; perhaps it is because they are confident in its outcome because they were able to draft a fool-proof docuмent (whatever that desired outcome might be -- who knows, maybe they now despise the SSPX and want to cut them off for good, even though this is not in keeping with Ratzinger's character). Rule of thumb in high politics : never leave to chance what can be achieved by calculation.
-
LordPhan, I attend Mass at an independent sedevacantist chapel. I get my information from publicly available sources (see the open letters from Fr Basil Meramo, the Capuchin in France who denounced Bishop Fellay as an infiltrator, the interview with Fr Floriano Abrahamowicz on True Restoration, and the various other letters, one of which is from a priest in Colombia -- all of these are on the internet; likewise, the Krahgate file is as well) and private sources, both priests and laymen, whether firsthand or secondhand. Suffice it to say, I trust the veracity of what is told to me and understand the gravity of public speculation and calumny when there is no solid basis for one's words. I choose not to disclose my souces by name, however, lest some Menzingen attack dogs are sicced on them or me. Most of what I have written, though, is my own speculation unless I otherwise denote that it is information given to me, in which case I describe the source. I have not mentioned anything told to me by private sources in confidence.
-
LordPhan, I attend Mass at an independent sedevacantist chapel. I get my information from publicly available sources (see the open letters from Fr Basil Meramo, the Capuchin in France who denounced Bishop Fellay as an infiltrator, the interview with Fr Floriano Abrahamowicz on True Restoration, and the various other letters, one of which is from a priest in Colombia -- all of these are on the internet; likewise, the Krahgate file is as well) and private sources, both priests and laymen, whether firsthand or secondhand. Suffice it to say, I trust the veracity of what is told to me and understand the gravity of public speculation and calumny when there is no solid basis for one's words. I choose not to disclose my souces by name, however, lest some Menzingen attack dogs are sicced on them or me. Most of what I have written, though, is my own speculation unless I otherwise denote that it is information given to me, in which case I describe the source. I have not mentioned anything told to me by private sources in confidence.
Thank you, I just wanted to know where it was coming from. I also do not disclose my sources, I usually just don't disclose the information at all. I gather not disimminate, I have once heard something on this board that I dismissed and was later told by very reliable sources a week later in person, so I don't dismiss rashly, though I do take heed of where the information is coming from lest I be led astray. Hope you understand, you probably do, probably the same way.
Deo Gratias
-
LordPhan, yes, I think we are on the same page.
-
This is ridiculous agitprop for Sedes and malcontents.
ABL always talked with Rome and simply wished for Rome to allow the "experiment of Tradition" to exist in the Church unimpeded. If he were offered regularization with no strings he would have taken it. BXVI has agreed to all 3 preconditions of the Society in a move unheard of under JPII. The thought that this would happen when BF made the demands was minuscule.
This is a far better situation for Tradition than under the wrath of Paul VI who dolled out censures and treated the Society with disdain. And even then ABL talked to Paul VI and only asked that he leave them alone.
If some would have their way, the Society would just go into open schism, refusing to accept communion with the man they recognize as the Roman Pontiff when they can do so with no doctrinal compromise. They may as well be Sedes if they do so, for that is the only way they could remain consistent. BW has been a crypto-Sede for years. If you posted his articles with no attribution you'd think John Lane were talking.
The Society was meant to be a "lifeboat" for Tradition, not a parallel Church who does their own thing in perpetuity.
-
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2011/09/communique-of-holy-see-meeting-between.html
On September 14, 2011, at the office of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, a meeting was held between His Eminence, Cardinal William Levada, Prefect of this Congregation and President of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, His Excellency, Archbishop Luis Ladaria, S.J., Secretary of this Congregation, and Monsignor Guido Pozzo, Secretary of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, and His Excellency, Bishop Bernard Fellay, Superior General of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X, and Fathers Niklaus Pfluger et Alain-Marc Nély, General Assistants of the Fraternity
Following the petition addressed on December 15, 2008, by the Superior General of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X to His Holiness, Pope Benedict XVI, the Holy Father had taken the decision of lifting the excommunication of the four bishops consecrated by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and to open at the same time doctrinal conversations with the Fraternity, aiming to overcome the difficulties and the problems of a doctrinal nature, and to achieve a reduction of the existing rupture.
Obedient to the will of the Holy Father, a mixed study commission, composed of experts of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X and of experts of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, assembled eight times for meetings that took place in Rome between the month of October 2009 and the month of April 2011. These conversations, whose objective was that of presenting and examining the major doctrinal difficulties on controversial themes, achieved their goal, which was that of clarifying the respective positions and their motivations.
Given the concerns and explanations presented by the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X regarding the integrity of the Catholic faith considering the hermeneutic of rupture of the Second Vatican Council in respect of Tradition - hermeneutic mentioned by Pope Benedict XVI in his Address to the Roman Curia of December 22, 2005 -, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith takes as a fundamental basis for a full reconciliation with the Apostolic See the acceptance of the Doctrinal Preamble which was delivered in the course of the meeting of September 14, 2011. This preamble enunciates some of the doctrinal principles and criteria of interpretation of Catholic doctrine necessary for ensuring fidelity to the Magisterium of the Church and to the sentire cuм Ecclesia, while leaving open to legitimate discussion the study and theological explanation of particular expressions and formulations present in the texts of the Second Vatican Council and of the Magisterium that followed it.
In the course of the same meeting, some elements were proposed regarding a canonical solution for the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X, which would follow the eventual and hoped-for reconciliation.
[Original Text: French]
-
the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith takes as a fundamental basis for a full reconciliation with the Apostolic See the acceptance of the Doctrinal Preamble which was delivered in the course of the meeting of September 14, 2011. This preamble enunciates some of the doctrinal principles and criteria of interpretation of Catholic doctrine necessary for ensuring fidelity to the Magisterium of the Church and to the sentire cuм Ecclesia, while leaving open to legitimate discussion the study and theological explanation of particular expressions and formulations present in the texts of the Second Vatican Council and of the Magisterium that followed it.
What is in this "preamble" makes or breaks it.
-
I wanna see this "doctrinal preamble." I'm pretty sure it's NOT the Athanasian Creed...
-
The heading at the bottom of CatholicInfo says Bishop Williamson retired. Is this true? Because I haven't heard anything about it.
-
I would like to draw your attention to the words "de facto".
He was de-facto forced into early retirement.
He hasn't chosen to retire, or officially retired.
BUT he has been removed from any professorial/rector position, as well as from any public work of the SSPX -- including confirmations and any public teaching/sermons.
So although he hasn't officially retired, he might as well have. The result is the same as if he had. That's the definition of "de facto".
-
Ok, thanks. Shame on me for not using a dictionary. :facepalm:
-
This is ridiculous agitprop for Sedes and malcontents.
Sorry, but I have to pull the bull card here mr. Stevus, my friend. Suffice it to say, all here who are familiar with your posts, know you are to the SSPX, what NeoCaths are to the VII sect. The idea, and theory, that the Society can do no evil is just plain wrong. The fact that they do much good, possibly more than most other groups in this crisis (in the way of administering the sacraments, bringing many to tradition, etc.) is noted. But it is silly to think that an intelligent person as you would really believe that this is simply daft 'agitprop for Sedes and malcontents.'
Again, its this 'camp' mentality which does the most harm in Traddie land, IMHO. It seems, when someone disagrees with another, they throw themselves, and their opponents, into "camps". "You're over there, I'm over here, and since we're apart, we'll never be together." And perhaps its quite natural for the Catholic to think that way; but I believe if he really thought about the disaster that's at hand, he would focus on what it is that makes us in the same camp.
ABL always talked with Rome and simply wished for Rome to allow the "experiment of Tradition" to exist in the Church unimpeded.
WRONG. Its true, and you are correct, to say that he may have taken that offer, to "simply" allow Tradition to continue, at the time, considering his circuмstances, but I would highly doubt that he would "simply" stopped there. He wasn't stupid; he realized that, at that time, he had to crawl before he would walk; his group of seminarians and young priests at that time, were very fragile. At this point, they hardly need to take such 'simply' simple offers (toung twister :wink:). And also consider that the fruits of VII have shown themselves considerably since the mid-60's and 70's. And this not only in the Church, but the world she is to rule in (of course the Concilliar church wouldn't recognize this latter fact). If anything, there should be much more leverage on the part of the SSPX to push for more!
+Lefebvre wasn't a defender of traditionalism because it was superficial to him, as it is to most in FSSP, ICK, and Indult, and as it is to many in the SSPX. He defended it at its core. If he seemed to be submissive to the idea that Tradition would be "simply allowed", it was due to the circuмstances he was in, at that time. Times have changed brother.
Thats why Matt feared, " that the Crisis would get worse before it gets better". Do you consider Matt a malcontent? Is it such a far fetched idea? I mean, if the whole of the church could be lead astray, as it has, why not the Society? Has it some divine protection or has it been revealed it would then be that much smaller of a target? Does the Society (and the SSPX-friendly) exclusively comprise the last of the Catholics on Earth? I answer strongly, while restraining a laugh: No way!
This is a far better situation for Tradition than under the wrath of Paul VI who dolled out censures and treated the Society with disdain. And even then ABL talked to Paul VI and only asked that he leave them alone.
Maybe it was better under Paul VI? I remember having a black friend who moved here from the South. And I remember asking him about racism and he said he thought it was easier in the south, because "at least you know who's racist." Capiche?
If some would have their way, the Society would just go into open schism, refusing to accept communion with the man they recognize as the Roman Pontiff when they can do so with no doctrinal compromise.
They already refuse full communion with him. ..?
They may as well be Sedes if they do so, for that is the only way they could remain consistent. BW has been a crypto-Sede for years.
And? I see you fail to quote +Lefebvre here.
The Society was meant to be a "lifeboat" for Tradition, not a parallel Church who does their own thing in perpetuity.
Yes, and preserving that tradition is exactly what those here are concerned with. What would be the point of jumping off a "lifeboat" onto the sinking titanic?
-
Stevus, reveal yourself , you serpent. COME OUT!
-
...I think I gained a few IQ points just for having read that post!
Thanks, s2s!
I wish there were a "high five" feature along with the thumbs-up feature...
EDIT: I think I just lost my newly-acquired IQ points after reading the post which followed it...
-
S2S,
If you think things were better under Paul VI, you need to do some serious reading.
Here's your ABL quote:
"If Rome wishes to give us a true autonomy, the one we have now, but with submission, we would want it. We have always hoped for it: to be subjected to the Holy Father; no possibility of despising the authority of the Holy Father".
Yes things have changed since ABL talked of the experiment of Tradition....for the better!
Can you say Summorum Pontificuм? Freeing of the Mass, Sacraments, and Breviary? Remitting of "Excoms"? Almost a year of doctrinal discussions?
Some of you fail to see the mission of ABL and of the Society from the beginning and you fail to see how committed ABL was with constantly communicating with Rome even when people criticized him for it.
I think you need to realize that however sincere, the sedes do not have the best interest of the Society at heart. Misery loves company. They want us all to become sedes and basically start our own Church. That was diametrically opposed to the vision of ABL.
Right now ROME refuses communion with the Society. If they offer the Society regularization with no compromise, the SOCIETY will be rejecting communion with the Roman Pontiff for no justifiable reason and will be in schism.
Now we do not know that Rome has offered regularization with no concessions, but if they have, what I said applies.
-
The debate, Stevus, is:
How can regularization without compromise -- without danger -- occur when the crisis is FAR FROM OVER?
How can the SSPX accept the rightful Roman authority when it is still a hive of modernism? Doesn't some kind of conversion have to take place first?
Rome is the one that left. They need to convert. The SSPX represents a specific portion of the Church that stayed traditional -- and since our religion is inherently traditional, you could also say "stayed Catholic". There is no onus on the SSPX to prove anything. They need not apologize.
I don't see how something Catholic can be re-absorbed into something non-Catholic and still remain Catholic. Does not compute.
I'm no theologian, but I play one on the Internet (just kidding). Seriously, I'm no theologian, but I am a down to earth guy with common sense (thanks be to God).
Matthew
-
EDIT: I think I just lost my newly-acquired IQ points after reading the post which followed it...
If only I could take back thumb-ups....
-
The debate, Stevus, is:
How can regularization without compromise -- without danger -- occur when the crisis is FAR FROM OVER?
How can the SSPX accept the rightful Roman authority when it is still a hive of modernism? Doesn't some kind of conversion have to take place first?
Rome is the one that left. They need to convert. The SSPX represents a specific portion of the Church that stayed traditional -- and since our religion is inherently traditional, you could also say "stayed Catholic". There is no onus on the SSPX to prove anything. They need not apologize.
I don't see how something Catholic can be re-absorbed into something non-Catholic and still remain Catholic. Does not compute.
I'm no theologian, but I play one on the Internet (just kidding). Seriously, I'm no theologian, but I am a down to earth guy with common sense (thanks be to God).
Matthew
If you concede that the SSPX is already within the Catholic Church, then this concern is really moot, for if they are in the Church and continue their work, juridical recognition will not affect the Society one iota. You're not thinking in concrete terms. When a regularization comes about, the little chapel that you attend will still be the little chapel you attend; same Mass, same sacraments, same doctrine, same tradition. You also don't seem to realize the need for juridical legitimacy viz. the crisis of the Church. You have it precisely backwards: that the crisis must end and then the Society will and should be recognized. On the contrary, it is precisely this regularization that will bring about the restoration from within the Church because there are many Catholics who mistakenly think the Society is "outside the Church." The crisis will never be resolved until the Society is recognized. It will be from within the Church that the restoration shall come about. On the other hand, if you hold the untenable position that the entire conciliar church is a "sect" then you must deal with impossible theological enormities. Those who live in a self-constructed fantasy world, who rely on mere gossip and rumors (such as PereJoseph) do not fully comprehend the implications of their own opinions.
The restoration will come about when the Papacy is occupied by a traditional Pope and the Bishops follow suit. When the anathemas come thundering again from Rome, you will see the Church dwindle dramatically in size as the schismatic, errant and heretical Bishops and Priests will have to finally come to terms with the authority of the Roman Catholic Church.
-
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:
If one day they shall excommunicate us because we remain faithful to these theses we shall consider ourselves excommunicated by Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ. 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.
-
If you concede that the SSPX is already within the Catholic Church, then this concern is really moot, for if they are in the Church and continue their work, juridical recognition will not affect the Society one iota. You're not thinking in concrete terms. When a regularization comes about, the little chapel that you attend will still be the little chapel you attend; same Mass, same sacraments, same doctrine, same tradition. You also don't seem to realize the need for juridical legitimacy viz. the crisis of the Church. You have it precisely backwards: that the crisis must end and then the Society will and should be recognized.
I disagree. First of all I don't think that's what Matthew was saying, and secondly the Society is already recognized. Not by the Vatican II church, but by the true Catholic Church. They never lost Communion with it, but actually could as a result of selling out! Are you saying this whole thing is a good thing because it makes people "recognize" the Society more?
The restoration will come about when the Papacy is occupied by a traditional Pope and the Bishops follow suit. When the anathemas come thundering again from Rome, you will see the Church dwindle dramatically in size as the schismatic, errant and heretical Bishops and Priests will have to finally come to terms with the authority of the Roman Catholic Church.
Actually that is not correct. The Church will never be fully restored until the chastizement.
-
I disagree. First of all I don't think that's what Matthew was saying, and secondly the Society is already recognized. Not by the Vatican II church, but by the true Catholic Church. They never lost Communion with it, but actually could as a result of selling out! Are you saying this whole thing is a good thing because it makes people "recognize" the Society more?
Where is the true Catholic Church? Where does its authority reside? Yes, legal recognition would be a good thing for the Church.
The restoration will come about when the Papacy is occupied by a traditional Pope and the Bishops follow suit. When the anathemas come thundering again from Rome, you will see the Church dwindle dramatically in size as the schismatic, errant and heretical Bishops and Priests will have to finally come to terms with the authority of the Roman Catholic Church.
Actually that is not correct. The Church will never be fully restored until the chastizement.[/quote]
You don't think the Church is already being chastised?
-
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:
If one day they shall excommunicate us because we remain faithful to these theses we shall consider ourselves excommunicated by Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ. 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.
-
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:
-
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 circuмstance.
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 nαzι 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 h0Ɩ0cαųst-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 Jєωs 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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 gαy prostitute using a condom is a first step towards moral responsibility?
-
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.
-
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 gαy prostitute using a condom is a first step towards moral responsibility?
Thanks for the clarification! :farmer:
-
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.
-
http://www.sspx.org/news/enlightenment_pope/enlightenment_pope-notes_on_benedict_xvi_recent_book-fr_nicolas_portail.htm
...And that is not all. To finish washing his hands of this episcopal “h0Ɩ0cαųst-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...
-
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.
-
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.
-
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...
“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?
-
http://angelqueen.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=38943
-
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]
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]
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]
-
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.
How does the state of the world factor into the question of juridical recognition of the SSPX? The sentence doesn't make any sense. How can anyone make a prudent judgment based upon speculation about what may or may not happen in the future? Upon how many prospective "converts" one might acquire? That's not looking at the "big picture" that is paralyzing the ability to make rational judgments based upon facts.
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.
Catholics ought to be willing to be the same as the holy examplars. It's not a question of being motivated by some nebulous notion of "being different" which could be as variant as there are peoples' notions of it. The motive for going to the traditional Mass is not to be different -- it is to sanctify ourselves in and by the tradition of the Church. How does it remove the ability to be a good Catholic in the world today? How does juridical recognition nullify this ability?
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.
This classifying of Catholics based upon the order of priests that administer the sacraments has to stop. The worldiness of Catholics varies in degrees in any location and extension in time. This is all subjectivism and doesn't touch upon the legal aspect of the question which is the only question facing us. As I said, "legalization" of the SSPX will not change its character. The characters of individual Catholics can and must change for the better, their personal progress in virtue is their business, not yours, much less does an ecclesiastical legal question hang upon it.
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?
Who knows? And how is that pertinent?
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.
The chastisement of the Church began in 1965. In order for the Church to turn into a super-sized SSPX, i.e. simple traditional clerics, they must first recognize traditional clerics who reject the very things that are ruining the Church. None of the "approved" traditional orders publicly oppose the errors and reforms and that is why they are only half-priests. When the SSPX is recognized, then the Church will eventually have to come to terms with the force of their arguments -- for the ace card, illegality, will be taken from their mouths and then they will have to face their opponents head on.
-
As much as you love your home village, (which you left when a plague broke out), you can't do anything to help it if you prematurely return to it while the plague is still raging. You have to stay in the countryside until the plague has run its course.
Would you accuse a simple villager of not loving his village just because he wants to stay in the countryside until he has reason to believe the plague has ceased?
-
How does the state of the world factor into the question of juridical recognition of the SSPX? The sentence doesn't make any sense. How can anyone make a prudent judgment based upon speculation about what may or may not happen in the future? Upon how many prospective "converts" one might acquire? That's not looking at the "big picture" that is paralyzing the ability to make rational judgments based upon facts.
I see the big picture should the SSPX accept this deal, and it doesn't look good. According to the newly-released details on the preamble, the Society would have to accept a Magisterium flawed with modernism. That would be an extremely dumb decision. You need to see the big picture.
This classifying of Catholics based upon the order of priests that administer the sacraments has to stop. The worldiness of Catholics varies in degrees in any location and extension in time. This is all subjectivism and doesn't touch upon the legal aspect of the question which is the only question facing us. As I said, "legalization" of the SSPX will not change its character. The characters of individual Catholics can and must change for the better, their personal progress in virtue is their business, not yours, much less does an ecclesiastical legal question hang upon it.
I fail to see why you want the Society to "join Rome" so badly. Why, because more people will accept them as being "in Communion"? It must be pointed out that the SSPX never lost Communion with the Catholic Church, rather the Vatican lost it. It's also quite foolish of Bishop Fellay to deem the Vatican trustworthy, especially considering Archbishop LeFebvre concluded in 1988 that they can't be trusted.
The chastisement of the Church began in 1965. In order for the Church to turn into a super-sized SSPX, i.e. simple traditional clerics, they must first recognize traditional clerics who reject the very things that are ruining the Church. None of the "approved" traditional orders publicly oppose the errors and reforms and that is why they are only half-priests. When the SSPX is recognized, then the Church will eventually have to come to terms with the force of their arguments -- for the ace card, illegality, will be taken from their mouths and then they will have to face their opponents head on.
First of all, the "chastizement" began when Vatican II started, not ended. And secondly, you need to familarize yourself with what Matthew and I are talking about when we say "chastizement". The chastizement will be when the three days of darkness come. During that time, the whole world will be covered in darkness and all the demons in hell will be released to destroy their targets. About 3/4 of the world's population will be wiped out. I suggest you read what St. Padre Pio says on the subject.
-
As much as you love your home village, (which you left when a plague broke out), you can't do anything to help it if you prematurely return to it while the plague is still raging. You have to stay in the countryside until the plague has run its course.
Would you accuse a simple villager of not loving his village just because he wants to stay in the countryside until he has reason to believe the plague has ceased?
Except that A) We never left the village and B) juridical recognition doesn't amount to a contagious disease. It seems you have little faith, not in the Vatican, but rather in the priests that fill the ranks of the Society itself.
-
SS, I'm familiar with such prophecies, but the thing you don't seem to understand is that many prophecies are contingent upon the actions of men. In other words, the idea that we should just sit around waiting for the chastisement is to utterly miss the point of the warning to begin with.
-
The chastisement is a done deal, we've already been garaunteed there will be one. Yes I agree we shouldn't just sit around, but to say the crisis will be resolved (or will be closer to being resolved) once the SSPX is recognized by the Novus Ordo community is incorrect. The NO community needs to recognize Tradition itself, that's what is important.
By the way, I really feel what Blackie posted a page or two back about Bishop Williamson should be deleted. That was one of the dumbest things I have ever read, and by posting such a thing he seems to be implying +Williamson is not even a member of the Catholic Church.
-
The chastisement is a done deal, we've already been garaunteed there will be one. Yes I agree we shouldn't just sit around, but to say the crisis will be resolved (or will be closer to being resolved) once the SSPX is recognized by the Novus Ordo community is incorrect. The NO community needs to recognize Tradition itself, that's what is important.
Do you understand what the word "contingent" means? These prophecies of chastisement have been with us since the very beginning, in Old Testament times up to the present. Do you think the world and the Church would be chastised if the members therein were obeying God's Law? No, it wouldn't and that is what we are to work towards. The juridical recognition of the SSPX is a step towards that goal. For example, rooting out the toxic doctrine and practice of ecuмenism will be a great boon for the Church, who else would do that but the Society priests? Their voice is suppressed and considered irrelevant because they are allegedly "irregular". Whether you like it or not, jurdical recognition is a necessary component in this process of restoring the Church. You're putting words into my mouth viz. the magical resolution of the crisis.
-
The chastisement is a done deal, we've already been garaunteed there will be one. Yes I agree we shouldn't just sit around, but to say the crisis will be resolved (or will be closer to being resolved) once the SSPX is recognized by the Novus Ordo community is incorrect. The NO community needs to recognize Tradition itself, that's what is important.
By the way, I really feel what Blackie posted a page or two back about Bishop Williamson should be deleted. That was one of the dumbest things I have ever read, and by posting such a thing he seems to be implying +Williamson is not even a member of the Catholic Church.
SS, I think Blackie was quoting text from Benedict XVI's book, Light of the World.
I feel the same distress at those words, however.
-
Uh....does anybody here think the present state of the Church is NOT a chastisement ITSELF?!
I think this IS the great chastisement:
To have to doubt 95% of the sacraments being offered by the "church" because 95% of the clergy has been invalidly ordained, using sacramental rites that are no longer "sacraments" because of invalid matter!
The gravity here is that Such priests (95% of Priests Identifying themselves as Catholic) offer:
1. Invalid Mass.
2. Invalid Confession.
3. Invalid Confirmation.
4. Invalid Unction.
5. Invalid Orders.
6. Valid marriage (With seriously compromised rites)
7. Valid Baptism (With Butchered Rites)
I am NOT the only one who sees this as a Chastisement, right?
By the way, we have no Supreme Pontiff that we know of (He may be underground), Almost all the theologians are compromised, the majority of the faithful don't know squat about the faith, and the Catholic church is now infected with tares (heretics, schismatics and apostates) to such a degree, that 95% of churches claiming to be Catholic no longer look ANYTHING like the Catholic Church. And realistically, the majority of people who attend them are not even REALLY Catholic anymore, effectively speaking.
What else needs to happen to be a chastisement?
-
The chastisement is a done deal, we've already been garaunteed there will be one. Yes I agree we shouldn't just sit around, but to say the crisis will be resolved (or will be closer to being resolved) once the SSPX is recognized by the Novus Ordo community is incorrect. The NO community needs to recognize Tradition itself, that's what is important.
By the way, I really feel what Blackie posted a page or two back about Bishop Williamson should be deleted. That was one of the dumbest things I have ever read, and by posting such a thing he seems to be implying +Williamson is not even a member of the Catholic Church.
SS, I think Blackie was quoting text from Benedict XVI's book, Light of the World.
I feel the same distress at those words, however.
I know, but the first thing he said in his post was "Bishop Williamson is the issue" then proceeded to post crapolla from Benedict's book on how +Williamson isn't really a member of the Chuch.
-
The chastisement is a done deal, we've already been garaunteed there will be one. Yes I agree we shouldn't just sit around, but to say the crisis will be resolved (or will be closer to being resolved) once the SSPX is recognized by the Novus Ordo community is incorrect. The NO community needs to recognize Tradition itself, that's what is important.
Do you understand what the word "contingent" means? These prophecies of chastisement have been with us since the very beginning, in Old Testament times up to the present. Do you think the world and the Church would be chastised if the members therein were obeying God's Law? No, it wouldn't and that is what we are to work towards. The juridical recognition of the SSPX is a step towards that goal. For example, rooting out the toxic doctrine and practice of ecuмenism will be a great boon for the Church, who else would do that but the Society priests? Their voice is suppressed and considered irrelevant because they are allegedly "irregular". Whether you like it or not, jurdical recognition is a necessary component in this process of restoring the Church. You're putting words into my mouth viz. the magical resolution of the crisis.
Yes, the chastisement is due to the actions of man. But the point I'm trying to make is God said the great chastisement will come. This world has so much evil right now that only God can completely reverse it. The evil isn't in just the Church, it's pretty much worldwide.
-
Gregory, I think you should read the first post of this thread, containing Padre Pio's words on the real chastisement.
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=13786&f=12&min=0&num=10
-
The chastisement is a done deal, we've already been garaunteed there will be one. Yes I agree we shouldn't just sit around, but to say the crisis will be resolved (or will be closer to being resolved) once the SSPX is recognized by the Novus Ordo community is incorrect. The NO community needs to recognize Tradition itself, that's what is important.
By the way, I really feel what Blackie posted a page or two back about Bishop Williamson should be deleted. That was one of the dumbest things I have ever read, and by posting such a thing he seems to be implying +Williamson is not even a member of the Catholic Church.
SS, I think Blackie was quoting text from Benedict XVI's book, Light of the World.
I feel the same distress at those words, however.
And Benedict's words are not dumb like they may appear to be on the surface. You can be certain that what he writes is weighed and calculated.
Ratzinger remains a cunning Modernist.
-
The chastisement is a done deal, we've already been garaunteed there will be one. Yes I agree we shouldn't just sit around, but to say the crisis will be resolved (or will be closer to being resolved) once the SSPX is recognized by the Novus Ordo community is incorrect. The NO community needs to recognize Tradition itself, that's what is important.
By the way, I really feel what Blackie posted a page or two back about Bishop Williamson should be deleted. That was one of the dumbest things I have ever read, and by posting such a thing he seems to be implying +Williamson is not even a member of the Catholic Church.
SS, I think Blackie was quoting text from Benedict XVI's book, Light of the World.
I feel the same distress at those words, however.
And Benedict's words are not dumb like they may appear to be on the surface. You can be certain that what he writes is weighed and calculated.
Ratzinger remains a cunning Modernist.
(munning) conartist is more accurate yeh i know the spelling is off
-
The chastisement is a done deal, we've already been garaunteed there will be one. Yes I agree we shouldn't just sit around, but to say the crisis will be resolved (or will be closer to being resolved) once the SSPX is recognized by the Novus Ordo community is incorrect. The NO community needs to recognize Tradition itself, that's what is important.
By the way, I really feel what Blackie posted a page or two back about Bishop Williamson should be deleted. That was one of the dumbest things I have ever read, and by posting such a thing he seems to be implying +Williamson is not even a member of the Catholic Church.
SS, I think Blackie was quoting text from Benedict XVI's book, Light of the World.
I feel the same distress at those words, however.
I know, but the first thing he said in his post was "Bishop Williamson is the issue" then proceeded to post crapolla from Benedict's book on how +Williamson isn't really a member of the Chuch.
"The Light of the World" -- what an ironic title, no?
Anyhow, Blackie only got 8 thumbs down for it --
Has anyone here not voted on the post yet?
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=15954&min=30&num=10#p3
Of course, his reputation is "2" at the moment, so only 6 more downvotes and he'll be at zero.
-
The chastisement is a done deal, we've already been garaunteed there will be one. Yes I agree we shouldn't just sit around, but to say the crisis will be resolved (or will be closer to being resolved) once the SSPX is recognized by the Novus Ordo community is incorrect. The NO community needs to recognize Tradition itself, that's what is important.
By the way, I really feel what Blackie posted a page or two back about Bishop Williamson should be deleted. That was one of the dumbest things I have ever read, and by posting such a thing he seems to be implying +Williamson is not even a member of the Catholic Church.
SS, I think Blackie was quoting text from Benedict XVI's book, Light of the World.
I feel the same distress at those words, however.
I know, but the first thing he said in his post was "Bishop Williamson is the issue" then proceeded to post crapolla from Benedict's book on how +Williamson isn't really a member of the Chuch.
My fault for careless reading.
-
A conference the Archbishop gave in 1984
We present to you this beautiful Conference of Archbishop Lefebvre, which he gave to the priests of the District of France, at St. Nicholas du Chardonnet, Paris, 13 December 1984. Though it is addressed to priests, we thought it of great value for the laity. It reveals the spirit in which His Excellency has trained his priests; the lessons on our dependence upon God are valuable for all Catholics, and the necessity of preserving the Faith is also well stressed!
...Why the struggle for the school? The stakes are such that this struggle must be kept up strenuously. You still see the liberalism, which frees the states from Our Lord Jesus Christ, this liberalism of the Vatican! It is the Vatican that has asked for the independence of the states with regard to Our Lord Jesus Christ. The men in the Vatican do not have the Catholic spirit. ...Likewise, independence of the Holy City in regard to Our Lord. The City of Rome is no longer a sacred city. This is evident. They have fallen under the thumb of Masonry, of an those liberal ideas -"two centuries" as Cardinal Ratzinger said - and now they are supplying water for the mill of the revolution against Our Lord Jesus Christ.... With that I think that I have said what I wanted to say to you, and given you a certain line of conduct in the present events, which perhaps are going to go even faster. There will be possibly other manifestations of putting the brakes on by the Vatican; and it is very, very dangerous for us to "rally" ourselves now. No rallying, no rallying to the liberals; no rallying to the ecclesiastics who are governing in the Church now and who are liberals; there is no rallying to these people. From the moment when we rally ourselves, this rallying will be the acceptance of the liberal principles. We cannot do this, even if certain appeasements are given us on the Mass of St. Pius V - certain satisfactions, certain recognitions, certain incardinations, which could even be offered to you eventually...That is not possible! One cannot come to terms like that! That they give us back everything. That they give up their liberalism, that they come back to the real truth of the Church, to the faith of the Church, to the basic principles of the Church, of this total dependence of society, of families, of individuals on Our Lord Jesus Christ! ...But as long as one is dealing with people who have made this agreement with the Devil, with liberal ideas, we cannot have any confidence. They will string us along little by little; they will try to catch us in their traps, as long as they have not let go of these false ideas. So, from my point of view, it is not a question of doing whatever one can. Those who would have a tendency to want to accept that will end up being recycled.
We have verified it with the seminarians and those who have left us, and who have gone off to Rome and to whom beautiful promises have been made: "We will keep for you the Mass of St. Pius V." Little by little they have been lined up, they have been recycled. They had to take it or leave it. They accepted all the novelties. We find ourselves now in a new period, in a new phase, and they would like to entice us also with certain traditional appearances, whereas in reality they put us in the margin, as they say, by the Decree! We are not concerned with this, since we are among those who do not accept the Council without reserve, who do not accept the New Mass.
..So then we have to warn our faithful strongly, so that they do not let themselves be deceived, or be captured by an exterior of traditional reform, which would lead them inevitably to the adoption of liberalism and liberal ideas.
-
Gregory, I think you should read the first post of this thread, containing Padre Pio's words on the real chastisement.
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=13786&f=12&min=0&num=10
We don't really know if this is something that can really be attributed to him, honestly. Nevertheless, it's a good read.
-
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2011/09/two-proposals-and-how-sspx-superior.html
The two proposals - and how the SSPX Superior General views them
Yesterday, at Ruffec (Indre Department, Centre, France), Bishop Fellay [the Superior General of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X - FSSPX / SSPX] received the first vows of a religious woman of the Society [the Sisters of Saint Pius X]. In the end of his sermon, he addressed the ongoing discussions with Rome.
...
If nothing, or close to nothing, has been said, it is because things are more complex than they may appear.
Rome has presented two proposals to the Fraternity of Saint Pius X: one doctrinal, the other canonical. Neither one, nor the other are clear. These two texts are modifiable, they can be rewritten, their essence being preserved. The problem is to find out what the essence is. There are lots of questions, but not many answers.
Rome moves one step towards the Fraternity. The latter must examine it seriously. The texts will be the object of a very attentive study. The Fraternity will not sign a text that is not clear. It will not do anything that may diminish its Faith or the spirit of its Faith. And it will not make a move if it is not certain of the good intentions regarding it. And, according to each different curial prelate that is questioned, a different response may be obtained.
It is a decisive phase, which, whatever its outcome, will not be without consequences. [Source: Fecit-Forum, author: Austremoine]
-
There was a post elsewhere online of what Max Barret wrote in his 'Courrier de Tychique'. A google translation is supplied below.
We know, for example, that whatever the canonical solution to be proposed, Rome will require "full communion with the Holy See "! We also know that this "full communion" implies "de facto" membership of the Catholic faithful "with religious respect for the will and intelligence "to the Pope and the college of bishops teaching' when they exercise their authentic Magisterium "(source:" Tradinews "- September 18, 2011) even if these lessons are proclaimed not dogmatic, that is to say final! Comment seems superfluous!
Therefore, it is worth recalling the words of Archbishop Lefebvre, when one of his last spiritual lectures on Ecône seminar on 8 and 9 February 1991 - that is to say less than two months before his death:
"I invite you to read the dense feature article" Si, si, no, no 'which was released today on Cardinal Ratzinger: that appalling. I do not know who is the author of the article because they use a pseudonym, but the article is very docuмented and concludes that Cardinal Ratzinger is a heretic. "And Archbishop Lefebvre develops his reflection he concludes and "What is serious is that it questions the very reality of the Magisterium of the Church. He doubts that there is a Magisterium that is permanent and definitive in the Church. It is not possible! ... It attacks the very root of education of the Church. No more Truth permanent in the Church of truths of faith, dogma, therefore, it's over dogmas of the Church that is radical. Of course it's heresy! It's so clear is horrible, but it's like that. ". This is exactly what was said Bishop Tissier de Mallerais at its meeting of 11 November 2007 in Paris:
"For Ratzinger, the dogmas are merely symbols" But the Cardinal Ratzinger was prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine for the Faith! He, an heretic, who was supposed to watch over the purity of doctrine! The mind boggles! ...Let us remember also, that the day of his election to the pontificate, he told the Cardinals: "It's my turn and time where I have to put myself in the service of what constitutes the proper mission of the successor of Peter, I want to say with force my determination to pursue the path already started the implementation of Vatican II "
Three weeks before his death (March 4, 1991), Archbishop Lefebvre wrote: "The dissemination and adherence of the authorities Masonic Roman errors, repeatedly condemned by their predecessors, is a great mystery of iniquity ruined to its foundations the Catholic faith (...) The fact of sitting on the seats of authority is not, unfortunately, a guarantee orthodoxy of the faith of those who occupy them. "(In" Docuмentation on the Revolution in the Church "of Abbe Tam)
It is this "heretic" which requires that the hierarchy of the FSSP X state the "full communion" with him ...
-
Bump.
In the interest of me not having to repeat all of the reasons why nobody should be surprised at Bishop Fellay's actions (notably in his letter), I encourage anybody who is interested to read this thread if they are surprised at the letter, find it to be "out of character," or are in any other way optimistic about any deal in the works between Fellay and the Vatican. We should not pretend that the nature of any such deal cannot be known. Moral theology teaches us that we can determine many things about a person's motives through analysis of their works and their public words. For instance, the Ratzinger of today has participated in public blasphemy by speaking highly of JPII's Assisi abominations, wherein the true religion was publicly presented as being one amongst many other valid ways to go to God. He likewise has not abjured any of his past erroneous and heretical comments, such as his denial of the Resurrection of Our Lord in a union of soul and glorified body, his denial of the sacrifice on the Cross, and so forth. This is public sin for which there has been no repentance. Thus, we know enough to know that he cannot be trusted and we can come to other conclusions as our intellect and upright hearts concerned for the Faith and the unity of the Mystical Body of Christ lead us. Likewise, we can infer with confidence certain things about Bishop Fellay given that he overlooks these salient facts about Ratzinger, as well as his associations with Maximilian Krah, Sarto Group, Zionism, and so forth. The fideistic and pietistic calls for hiding our heads in the sand until we see a formal docuмent of agreement are just that; let us instead have hearts to help those faithful who, like myself, are concerned about where they are going to find the sacraments for themselves and their families in the near future.
-
Thanks PJ. Its good to look at this from a different perspective, now with new information in the air.