Author Topic: Quo Vadis, SSPX?  (Read 8115 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline John Grace

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5521
  • Reputation: +120/-6
  • Gender: Male
Quo Vadis, SSPX?
« on: May 30, 2011, 12:23:58 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I was reading the Mr Heiner article.

    http://truerestoration.blogspot.com/2011/05/quo-vadis-sspx-part-i-failure-of.html
    Quote
    Quo Vadis, SSPX? Part I: The Failure of the Negotiations
    This article was originally published as an Op-Ed piece in the May 2011 issue of The Four Marks.

    I didn’t come to the Traditional Catholic movement until 1996, long after Archbishop Lefebvre had passed from this world to the next. But, I, like any honest Traditional Catholic, know that without him, there would likely be many fewer Traditional Masses throughout the world. Some say he went too far, some say he didn’t go far enough, but I am grateful for what he did do. What Traditional Catholics need to realize is that the situation is now quite different for Catholics than it was in 1991, when the Archbishop died. The question is not “what the Archbishop/SSPX would do” but rather, “what is the reality of the situation?”

    Bishop Fellay recently announced the end of the “negotiations” with the Roman authorities. He seems disappointed, but can he really have expected otherwise? Let us review some facts.

    The Society of St. Pius X takes dispute with Vatican II. The Roman authorities consider this to be an ecumenical council, much like Nicea, Trent, and Vatican I. Its teachings and spirit have permeated the structures of the Catholic Church since 1962 and have destroyed the faith of millions. The Society of St. Pius X adopts a hybrid position in regards to this Council: their bishops and priests and vast majority of the faithful who attend their chapels consider Vatican II to be an “optional” or “questionable” council. They cite terms like “pastoral” in order to make their case, while ignoring that every Vatican II document was signed by Paul VI as, “We, too, by the Apostolic Authority conferred on us by Christ, join with the venerable fathers in approving, decreeing, and establishing these things in the Holy Spirit, and we direct that what has thus been enacted in synod [council] be published to God’s glory…(signed) I, Paul, Bishop of the Catholic Church.”

    I once made this point to a friend outside of Mass, asking him by what authority he, or any SSPX bishop or priest, questioned the authority of Vatican II. “It goes against Tradition,” he said. “Okay, and who made the Society of St Pius X the arbiter of ‘Tradition’? Where can I find in my catechism that if a council is dubious, a religious congregation in Switzerland is to be my guide?” You can imagine I got no answer.

    Additionally, what started as a simple fact-finding mission, an interview with Bishop Tissier de Mallerais nearly 5 years ago now, turned into an avocation for me, and apart from hearing Bishop Tissier say that Vatican II must be “erased” from Church history, I’ve also heard Bishop Williamson tell me that Vatican II is a “poisoned cake” and must be “discarded entirely.” Bishop de Galerreta has once referred, in a sermon he gave at a Winona ordination, to the last 20 years as the “institutionalization of the Revolution,” implying that Vatican II was a revolution. Bishop Fellay and the vast majority of Society priests and faithful will often refer to the Conciliar religion as a “new religion” which is manifestly clear, as this new religion has new sacraments, new beliefs, and new behavior. When I ask the question, “How can JPII/Benedict XVI be heads of a ‘new religion’ as well as heads of the Catholic Church?” the silence I receive is indicative of two things: 1) there is a failure to think through the implications of such rhetoric as “new religion” and that 2) the intellectual conclusions of calling it a “new religion” are too horrifying to even discuss.

    So, the Society considers Vatican II to be suspect AND Benedict XVI to be a legitimate Pope. There is no Catholic teaching anywhere on earth that makes provision for a Swiss (or any) congregation to be the arbiter of “Tradition” nor is there an explanation anywhere as to how the Supreme Head of the Church on earth, the Vicar of Christ, can be the head of a “new religion” other than the Catholic Church. But, this is the explanation for why there were “negotiations” in the first place. If you believe that you are holding the Catholic Faith, and that all that remains is for you to show the wayward Pope and the other billions of Catholics that they, indeed, are the ones who are lost, then of course you will, like naïfs and ingénues, show up in Rome for “negotiations.” Yet, even this was simply an imitation of the Archbishop’s actions, instead of learning from his mistakes. Countless times the Archbishop went “to Rome” and countless times he was disappointed. Formed in the Roman diplomatic tradition, Archbishop Lefebvre was always looking for one more angle with which to treat with Rome, instead of recognizing that at some point, his tenuous holding position could have only one real conclusion – that the men who let the “smoke of satan” into the Church were the Churchmen themselves. This is why the Archbishop ordained known sedevacantists and had sedevacantist professors at Econe for years: he knew it was a future possibility.

    The negotiations failed not because the SSPX was unconvincing or because Bishop de Galerreta was rude, or as some supremely ignorant laymen postulate, because Bishop Williamson hates Jews (or women, or children, or dwarfs too perhaps), but because, as Bishop Fellay seems surprised to learn, they believe in a DIFFERENT RELIGION than the Society holds. The question then devolves to the Society: do we hold the Catholic Faith? If we do, then those in possession of the Catholic instruments of authority are usurpers, as the Arians were during the time of St. Athanasius and St. Eusebius. If those in the Society dare to say that they don’t have the Catholic Faith, and that wearing a white cassock makes you right (even though antipopes have worn the white cassock, reigned from Rome, etc.), then they should humbly, on their knees, seek suppliance, forgiveness, and reintegration into the Catholic Church.

    The negotiations failed because the Society of St Pius X has a distorted ecclesiology, and the chickens finally came home to roost. What remains to be seen is what will happen now. For those of us who have watched the SSPX for years, the predictable will likely happen: the SSPX will crawl back into the bunker, after some time in the sunshine after the (ironically more restrictive) Motu Proprio of Benedict XVI and the propagation of the Orwellian phrase "Extraordinary Form." There will be appeals to “tradition” and “the Archbishop” and all that, and no honest confrontation of what is going on.

    The negotiations failed because the Conciliar Church, as headed by Paul VI, JPI and JPII, and now Benedict XVI, are bent on creating a One World Religion. All the Archbishop did in 1986 when Assisi I happened was make a statement of protest. He never called it what it was: an act of apostasy. Assisi II happened and Bishop Fellay made his necessary noises. And now Assisi III will happen, in the same year that John Paul II was made “Beato.” Yet the Society continues to, in Orwellian fashion, tell us that none of this means anything. It doesn’t matter that the Pope writes books saying that contraception is okay, it doesn’t matter that he prays in mosques or synagogues, it doesn’t matter that he is calling a congress of religions, and it doesn’t matter that he beatified who is potentially the worst Pope (if he was one) in Church history. Nothing matters. He has a white cassock, and as such, HAS to be Pope. The issue of canonizations/beatifications has proven to be a thornier one, as no one really cared when John XXIII was “beatified.” But people know that JPII was notoriously bad – not just for his heresies, but for his conduct. Yet the SSPX and other "recognize and resisters" maintain that canonizations/beatifications are not covered by infallibility – yet the issue of Sainthood/Blessedhood must indeed be covered by the Church’s disciplinary Magisterium. It is not for a congregation, Swiss or otherwise, to dispute who the Church proclaims as worthy of veneration. It is out of order in the organizational sense, and it is completely unfounded in the Catholic sense.

    The negotiations failed because the large checks that flow into Menzingen and other Society General Houses around the world would stop if the Society were to ask The Question: Is the Pope Catholic?

    As for the faithful, who are struggling to simply get to Mass, say the Rosary, and live a virtuous life, it is a battle entirely out of their control. If the SSPX does one day lose its schizophrenic current ecclesiology, it will either: 1) rejoin the New World Order Church that it was briefly part of in 1970-1971 or 2) realize its own Catholicity and reject the holders of authority in the Church as usurpers. In the first scenario, tens of thousands of faithful will return to garage and hotel Masses, and learn the lesson that St. Augustine drives home in the City of God: nothing on this earth lasts. In the second scenario, tens of thousands of faithful will ask the question in prayer that has been too horrific for the SSPX to confront since the Archbishop died: what do I do now? Yet, in both of these scenarios, the faithful will gain, as they will be confronted with the truth. The SSPX’s current position, schizophrenic and distorted, is simply unsustainable, and more importantly, not Catholic.

    Offline ServusSpiritusSancti

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8213
    • Reputation: +7164/-1
    • Gender: Male
    Quo Vadis, SSPX?
    « Reply #1 on: May 30, 2011, 03:38:26 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • They weren't negotiations. They were attempts to convert Rome. In any case, it's no surprise that they were unsuccessful. When you have infiltrators who are Freemasons, Communists, and gays, they won't convert no matter what (I'm not saying Benedict is one, I'm talking about the Vatican in general).


    Offline ServusSpiritusSancti

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8213
    • Reputation: +7164/-1
    • Gender: Male
    Quo Vadis, SSPX?
    « Reply #2 on: May 31, 2011, 09:44:00 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Oh, by the way, there's three parts in that article I strongly disagree with. First of all, Bishop Williamson does not hate Jews, or women, or children. The man is a Traditional Catholic Bishop, he knows better than to hate people. Secondly, Archbishop LeFebvre DID call Assisi an act of apostasy. And to say the position the SSPX holds isn't even Catholic? That is absurd. How can you refuse to celebrate the Novus Ordo and only say the Traditional Latin Mass yet not have a Catholic position? The person who wrote this article doesn't know what they're talking about.

    Offline TKGS

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4553
    • Reputation: +3909/-365
    • Gender: Male
    Quo Vadis, SSPX?
    « Reply #3 on: May 31, 2011, 11:38:31 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: SpiritusSanctus
    Oh, by the way, there's three parts in that article I strongly disagree with. First of all, Bishop Williamson does not hate Jews, or women, or children. ....


    I suggest you re-read the article.  Obviously, you did not understand it if you thought Mr. Heiner thinks this.

    Offline ServusSpiritusSancti

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8213
    • Reputation: +7164/-1
    • Gender: Male
    Quo Vadis, SSPX?
    « Reply #4 on: May 31, 2011, 03:15:46 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • It may not be what he thinks, but this line from the article implies it (unless he's trying to say he doesn't hate Jews):

    "The negotiations failed not because the SSPX was unconvincing or because Bishop de Galerreta was rude, or as some supremely ignorant laymen postulate, because Bishop Williamson hates Jews (or women, or children, or dwarfs too perhaps),"...


    Offline Darcy

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 481
    • Reputation: +113/-0
    Quo Vadis, SSPX?
    « Reply #5 on: May 31, 2011, 08:21:48 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: SpiritusSanctus
    They weren't negotiations. They were attempts to convert Rome. In any case, it's no surprise that they were unsuccessful. When you have infiltrators who are Freemasons, Communists, and gays, they won't convert no matter what (I'm not saying Benedict is one, I'm talking about the Vatican in general).


    Can you direct me to the documentation where it is stated that these were attempts at conversion rather than negotiations?

    I need to know. ty

    Offline LordPhan

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1171
    • Reputation: +826/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Quo Vadis, SSPX?
    « Reply #6 on: May 31, 2011, 09:06:09 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Darcy
    Quote from: SpiritusSanctus
    They weren't negotiations. They were attempts to convert Rome. In any case, it's no surprise that they were unsuccessful. When you have infiltrators who are Freemasons, Communists, and gays, they won't convert no matter what (I'm not saying Benedict is one, I'm talking about the Vatican in general).


    Can you direct me to the documentation where it is stated that these were attempts at conversion rather than negotiations?

    I need to know. ty


    http://www.sspx.org/superior_generals_news/54_answers_from_bishop_fellay_feb_2011/54_answers_bp_fellay1.htm

    Offline stevusmagnus

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3728
    • Reputation: +824/-0
    • Gender: Male
      • h
    Quo Vadis, SSPX?
    « Reply #7 on: May 31, 2011, 09:34:05 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: TKGS
    Quote from: SpiritusSanctus
    Oh, by the way, there's three parts in that article I strongly disagree with. First of all, Bishop Williamson does not hate Jews, or women, or children. ....


    I suggest you re-read the article.  Obviously, you did not understand it if you thought Mr. Heiner thinks this.


    This is why I finally broke down and put SS on ignore.

    Ahhhhhh....... no more worrying about complete epic comrehension failures and illogic.

    Refreshing!  :cheers:


    Offline Darcy

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 481
    • Reputation: +113/-0
    Quo Vadis, SSPX?
    « Reply #8 on: May 31, 2011, 10:03:24 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • It seems like its a waste of time in spite of the forced attitude of optimism.(Regarding the talks)

    But clearly, SSPX needs Bishops.
    And they should talk with them seriiously about becoming Tradtionalists, even Bishops from Polish Nationalist Church, Orthodox, Eastern Rite and even converting protestants.

    It seems that the conciliar church must have a nice pension. I don't understand why more are not leaving.

    Offline stevusmagnus

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3728
    • Reputation: +824/-0
    • Gender: Male
      • h
    Quo Vadis, SSPX?
    « Reply #9 on: May 31, 2011, 10:12:24 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I haven't kept up with Stephen Heiner, but I had always assumed he was an SSPX type Trad and not a sede. This article seems to demonstrate he is a sede, is this correct? In any case, his article is so full of slap dash conclusions based on errouneous interpretation of facts, I'm not sure where I'd even begin to respond. It amazes me this guy conducted so many interviews with SSPX Bishops and priests and still doesn't get them.

    If the situation is different from 1991 at all it is because it is better, not worse. BXVI gave the Society all three of their pre-conditions. The Mass is "freed", the Society is no longer "excommunicated" and Rome conceded to doctrinal discussions.

    Bishop Fellay is following in the exact footsteps and the direction of ABL who urged them to always be open to dialogue with Rome because the Society would always be attached to Rome as the seat of the Faith. ABL, after 1988, said he learned an important lesson. A lesson which the SSPX has learned as well and a mistake they are not repeating. ABL said if he had to do '88 over again, he would never try to agree to a practical arrangement before the doctrinal issues were settled. Thus ABL himself gave impetus to the discussions as it was his desire. How Heiner does not know this after his involvement with Tradition since '96 and his constant interviews, I have no idea.

    The Society does not deny Paul VI signed VCII. Who cares? It's like me signing a completely ambiguous statement that says nothing and everything at the same time. It's as if I signed a Magic Eye painting where everybody sees what they want to.

    He asked the wrong question to his friend outside of Mass. He asked by what authority he questions the authority of VCII? Nobody questions the authority of VCII. VCII by its own admission was a pastoral council that defined nothing and obligated nothing. It authoritatively said....nothing.

    In this context the Bishops' statements make sense. Yes, this non-infallible, non-dogmatic Council which waxed poetic in dangerous ambiguous language lending itself to heterodox interpretation should indeed be "erased from Church history", "discarded entirely", and the last 20 years were indeed the "institutionalization of the Revolution". The Revolution was the entire VCII event including the ambiguous documents and the complete lack of discipline in allowing the innovators to use the Council as a pretext for every sort of heresy and scandal.

    The PC popes are heads of a "new religion" in the sense of the non-binding, non-mandatory, optional post-concilliar novelties they support and perpetuate. They are also popes of the Catholic Church as they have never condemned or forbade Traditional belief and practice or officially changed the Faith.

    The Society is not the "arbiter" of Tradition, as if Tradition were some ambiguously vague and contradictory post-conciliar text that needed to be "arbited" by some sort of gnostic prophet like George Weigel. The Society keeps Tradition and the Faith as it stood before the Council. This cannot be wrong. They arbiter nothing. Instead they hold fast to Tradition and point out when the current gang does something differently than what the Church has always done.

    Heiner brings up the Arians as usurpers. Yes many current bishops are similar usurpers. But St. A did not declare Liberius anti-pope and start his own church then. Neither does the Society today.

    Heiner then trots out the usual sede dog and pony show and tries the "shock and awe" approach to convince one of sede-ism. He presents a laundry list of bad things JPII did, etc and asks how he could possibly be pope much less be beatified. But he fails to see the Society's arguments for what they are. The Society doesn't dismiss beatifications as crap. They distinguish that they are not, in fact, infallible and point out that honoring the beatus is optional. Canonizations were thought to be infallible but this opinion was formed when there was a devil's advocate and other safeguards present. Also the only thing infallible about the old canonizations was that the canonized was in Heaven.

    Then Heiner pulls a Cekada and attributes all Society beliefs not to core convictions but to attempts to collect more money. That doesn't even need a response.

    He then presents the same tired old false sede dichotomy that has become old hat by now. He attempts to force a choice between the NO Church and Sede-ism. This is the situation the sedes have manufactured as a fiction, through the very same "shock and awe" Heiner uses, but, unfortunately for them, does not reflect reality.

    If I were Heiner I'd spend more time actually reading and understanding the very tenable Society position rather than apparently interviewing Society priests without any context with which to understand their comments and then flying off the cuff writing articles refuting, not Society positions, but strawmen.

    Offline John Grace

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5521
    • Reputation: +120/-6
    • Gender: Male
    Quo Vadis, SSPX?
    « Reply #10 on: June 01, 2011, 09:38:40 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Darcy
    Quote from: SpiritusSanctus
    They weren't negotiations. They were attempts to convert Rome. In any case, it's no surprise that they were unsuccessful. When you have infiltrators who are Freemasons, Communists, and gays, they won't convert no matter what (I'm not saying Benedict is one, I'm talking about the Vatican in general).


    Can you direct me to the documentation where it is stated that these were attempts at conversion rather than negotiations?

    I need to know. ty


    They were/are discussions.


    Offline John Grace

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5521
    • Reputation: +120/-6
    • Gender: Male
    Quo Vadis, SSPX?
    « Reply #11 on: June 01, 2011, 09:40:24 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I see the staff on Ignis Ardens have locked the thread on Quo vadis SSPX?
    Quo vadis Ignis Ardens?

    Offline DecemRationis

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 248
    • Reputation: +64/-6
    • Gender: Male
    Quo Vadis, SSPX?
    « Reply #12 on: June 01, 2011, 09:50:34 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Stevus,

    Quote
    The PC popes are heads of a "new religion" in the sense of the non-binding, non-mandatory, optional post-concilliar novelties they support and perpetuate.


    Yes. But they could be heretics by virtue of their "non-binding, non-mandatory, optional post-concilliar novelties they support and perpetuate."

    Quote
    They are also popes of the Catholic Church as they have never condemned or forbade Traditional belief and practice or officially changed the Faith.


    Yes again. Except . . . they may not be popes.

    But the fact that one may remain a Traditional Catholic and believe exactly what was believed, and worship as Catholics worshipped, before V2, does indicate caution in saying they are not popes - I would think true anti-pope heretics who are tools of the Anti-Christ (if not the Anti-Christ) would put an end to that freedom to be a Traditional Catholic.

    On the other hand, heretics are not popes, and they may be heretics.

    This is why forums like this are full of endless, spirited debates on these issues.  
    I believe in the Apostolic Catholic Church. I reject and denounce the malfeasant or “dysfunctional papal or episcopal Newchurch.” - Father Paul Trinchard

    Offline stevusmagnus

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3728
    • Reputation: +824/-0
    • Gender: Male
      • h
    Quo Vadis, SSPX?
    « Reply #13 on: June 01, 2011, 10:10:16 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Decem,

    The argument goes that only if they are formal heretics could they possibly lose their office as Pope. None of us have the authority to officially declare the Pope is in formal heresy. Thus it is a non-issue.

    Futhermore none of the PC popes have pertinaciously denied Catholic dogma. They believe Catholic dogma. They also believe certain novelties and new expressions are a true consistent development and organic growth of these dogmas and that the liturgical practices "renew" the Faith through modern expression, etc. etc.

    To consider any pope an anti-pope the opinion goes that the pope would need to unequivocally deny Catholic dogma and cling to that denial in the face of correction. For instance a pope would have to officially state that Our Lady was not Immaculately Conceived and cling to that belief in the face of correction. We have not even so much as approached this in our lifetimes.

    Instead we get a bunch of double-talking, amorphous, ambiguous, fluff that coulds the Traditional understanding of the Church, all the while repeating that it changes nothing. It is an illusion. Smoke and mirrors. It is not a true rejection of Catholic dogma, though sedes fall for it every time, declare the smoke and mirrors "heresy" and go on about their business.

    Offline ServusSpiritusSancti

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8213
    • Reputation: +7164/-1
    • Gender: Male
    Quo Vadis, SSPX?
    « Reply #14 on: June 01, 2011, 10:36:45 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: stevusmagnus
    Quote from: TKGS
    Quote from: SpiritusSanctus
    Oh, by the way, there's three parts in that article I strongly disagree with. First of all, Bishop Williamson does not hate Jews, or women, or children. ....


    I suggest you re-read the article.  Obviously, you did not understand it if you thought Mr. Heiner thinks this.


    This is why I finally broke down and put SS on ignore.

    Ahhhhhh....... no more worrying about complete epic comrehension failures and illogic.

    Refreshing!  :cheers:


    For someone that has me on ignore you sure are thumbing down alot of my posts, which is interesting considering I'm sticking up for the Society which you support. And even though I put you on ignore as well, don't think I can't see your un-charitable posts, I sometimes take people off ignore for the heck of it. Keep up these un-charitable posts and you'll be in violation of even more forum rules here.

    And it's funny because I was also refreshed to have put you on ignore. Ahhhhhh...... no more worrying about neo-Cath nonsense and denial of plain heresies. Refreshing!  :cheers:

    See how I can play at your game too, Stevus? Back on ignore.

     

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