Author Topic: Possible Roman scheme against the SSPX (Read 8232 times)

Elizabeth · « **Reply #60 on:** September 15, 2011, 11:59:12 PM »

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus

Quote from: Elizabeth
Quote from: SpiritusSanctus
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.

John Grace · « **Reply #61 on:** September 17, 2011, 05:44:26 AM »

A conference the Archbishop gave in 1984

Quote

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.

parentsfortruth · « **Reply #62 on:** September 17, 2011, 09:12:22 AM »

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus

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.

John Grace · « **Reply #63 on:** September 26, 2011, 01:20:51 PM »

http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2011/09/two-proposals-and-how-sspx-superior.html

Quote

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]

John Grace · « **Reply #64 on:** September 26, 2011, 01:28:11 PM »

There was a post elsewhere online of what Max Barret wrote in his 'Courrier de Tychique'. A google translation is supplied below.

Quote

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 ...

PereJoseph · « **Reply #65 on:** May 10, 2012, 04:04:53 PM »

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.

s2srea · « **Reply #66 on:** May 10, 2012, 09:31:14 PM »

Thanks PJ. Its good to look at this from a different perspective, now with new information in the air.