Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: ServusSpiritusSancti on May 08, 2012, 11:37:27 PM
-
People here know I'm against a deal between the SSPX and Rome, but I think it's important that we list some key reasons as to why they should not sign. In no particular order, here are my reasons. Others are free to add their list their own reasons.
1- The other three Bishops (+Williamson, +Tissier, and +Galarreta) appear to be opposed to a deal. This could mean that, if Bishop Fellay goes ahead and signs a deal with Rome, there could be a major split in the SSPX.
2- The Society would be under the watch and control of Rome. Like the Fraternity of Saint Peter, practically every move they make will be monitored by Rome. This means that their ability to speak out against Vatican II, the Novus Ordo, and any other actions modernist Rome is doing will be very limited, if not completely diminished.
3- Rome has not converted yet. They still do not favor Traditional Catholicism and still adhere to many errors and heresies. The SSPX should wait for Rome to convert first. This was the mindset of Archbishop LeFebvre. The Society never broke from Tradition, it was Rome that did so.
4- Someone even more modern than Benedict could be elected in the future and could attempt to abolish Tradition. Then the Society, if they wanted to do the right thing, would be forced to break away again, making the point of reconciling with them a waste of time and effort to begin with.
5- Archbishop LeFebvre would not have supported a deal, as his own quote seems to indicate:
TWO YEARS AFTER THE CONSECRATIONS:
WE MUST NOT WAVER, WE MAY NOT COMPROMISE
Archbishop Lefebvre's address to his priests given in Econe, Switzerland on September 6, 1990
...A FALSE CHARITY
And we must not waver for one moment either in not being with those who are in the process of betraying us. Some people are always admiring the grass in the neighbor's field. Instead of looking to their friends, to the Church's defenders, to those fighting on the battlefield, they look to our enemies on the other side. "After all, we must be charitable, we must be kind, we must not be divisive, after all, they are celebrating the Tridentine Mass, they are not as bad as everyone says" —but THEY ARE BETRAYING US —betraying us! They are shaking hands with the Church's destroyers. They are shaking hands with people holding modernist and liberal ideas condemned by the Church. So they are doing the devil's work.
Thus those who were with us and were working with us for the rights of Our Lord, for the salvation of souls, are now saying, "So long as they grant us the old Mass, we can shake hands with Rome, no problem." But we are seeing how it works out. They are in an impossible situation. Impossible. One cannot both shake hands with modernists and keep following Tradition. Not possible. Not possible. Now, stay in touch with them to bring them back, to convert them to Tradition, yes, if you like, that's the right kind of ecuмenism! But give the impression that after all one almost regrets any break, that one likes talking to them? No way! These are people who call us corpse-like Traditionalists, they are saying that we are as rigid as corpses, ours is not a living Tradition, we are glum-faced, ours is a glum Tradition! Unbelievable! Unimaginable! What kind of relations can you have with people like that?
This is what causes us a problem with certain layfolk, who are very nice, very good people, all for the Society, who accepted the Consecrations, but who have a kind of deep-down regret that they are no longer with the people they used to be with, people who did not accept the Consecrations and who are now against us. "It's a pity we are divided", they say, "why not meet up with them? Let's go and have a drink together, reach out a hand to them" —that's a betrayal! Those saying this give the impression that at the drop of a hat they would cross over and join those who left us. They must make up their minds.
WE CANNOT COMPROMISE
That is what killed Christendom, in all of Europe, not just the Church in France, but the Church in Germany, in Switzerland —that is what enabled the Revolution to get established. It was the Liberals, it was those who reached out a hand to people who did not share their Catholic principles. We must make up our minds if we too want to collaborate in the destruction of the Church and in the ruin of the Social Kingship of Christ the King, or are we resolved to continue working for the Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ? All those who wish to join us, and work with us, Deo Gratias, we welcome them, wherever they come from, that's not a problem, but let them come with us, let them not say they are going a different way in order to keep company with the liberals that left us and in order to work with them. Not possible.
6- It wouldn't be God's Will at this point (most important reason).
Feel free to provide your own thoughts.
-
http://www.cfnews.org/page10/page28/sspx-regularization-1001questions.html
-
Oh, and I forgot another reason:
7- The Consecrations of more Bishops would likely be in jeopardy.
-
#8 The modernists cannot be trusted.
-
Does anyone here believe that Benedict XVI truly believes in the Gospels with supernatural Faith?
-
One problem that has already developed with merely holding "discussions" is that the SSPX seems to have shifted in its view of the new rites of ordination and consecration.
Even Society priests have questioned the validity of the new rites, and their questions are not frivolous. There are real concerns. Yet, Bishop Fellay seems to have put the Society in a position in which the new rites really cannot be questioned without answering any of the objections. Never does the Church merely use her authority to declare a doctrinal (or sacramental) truth. She uses her authority to put the question to rest but her authority is always based upon reason.
The questions concerning the validity of the new rites of orders have never been answered without simply commanding submission to what amounts to an arbitrary decision in Rome.
With some sort of agreement with Rome, how long can the faithful, who have positive--and reasonable doubts--about the validity of the orders of Conciliar priests (and bishops) be able to continue at Society chapels?
-
Does anyone here believe that Benedict XVI truly believes in the Gospels with supernatural Faith?
He has already shown that he doesn't believe the Gospels with purely natural faith. He believes they have to be viewed through (the condemned) historical-critical lense.
-
Does anyone here believe that Benedict XVI truly believes in the Gospels with supernatural Faith?
Only BpFellay, Frs Schmidberger,Pfluger, Wailliez,Rostand,Vernoy, Couture ...if they are members of this forum
-
Does anyone here believe that Benedict XVI truly believes in the Gospels with supernatural Faith?
Only BpFellay, Frs Schmidberger,Pfluger, Wailliez,Rostand,Vernoy, Couture ...if they are members of this forum
They can't possibly really believe that. So one has to ask, what do they really believe?
-
People here know I'm against a deal between the SSPX and Rome, but I think it's important that we list some key reasons as to why they should not sign. In no particular order, here are my reasons. Others are free to add their list their own reasons.
1- The other three Bishops (+Williamson, +Tissier, and +Galarreta) appear to be opposed to a deal. This could mean that, if Bishop Fellay goes ahead and signs a deal with Rome, there could be a major split in the SSPX.
Of course, this is only hearsay. Even Bishop Williamson stops short of saying it should be stopped at all costs.
2- The Society would be under the watch and control of Rome. Like the Fraternity of Saint Peter, practically every move they make will be monitored by Rome. This means that their ability to speak out against Vatican II, the Novus Ordo, and any other actions modernist Rome is doing will be very limited, if not completely diminished.
So what if they monitored everything? What can they do to courageous priests and bishops? Suspend them again?
3- Rome has not converted yet. They still do not favor Traditional Catholicism and still adhere to many errors and heresies. The SSPX should wait for Rome to convert first. This was the mindset of Archbishop LeFebvre. The Society never broke from Tradition, it was Rome that did so.
Conversion of Rome was not a pre-requisite for ABL to sign the Protocol in 1988. He was courageous enough to think that he could form the soldiers for this battle. I think it is almost pathetic to expect the modernists in Rome to convert before we storm their castles. Almost cowardly.
4- Someone even more modern than Benedict could be elected in the future and could attempt to abolish Tradition. Then the Society, if they wanted to do the right thing, would be forced to break away again, making the point of reconciling with them a waste of time and effort to begin with.
You've got to be kidding. This is no excuse. St. Francis could have said the same thing to the Pope when he was asked to reform the church.
5- Archbishop LeFebvre would not have supported a deal, as his own quote seems to indicate:
You completely misinterpret ABLs statement. His challenge to never compromise on the faith is the advice that applies here. Nowhere does he say to avoid a canonical agreement with the Pope that does not include a compromise of faith. Assuming that it does at this point is relying on insight that you do not possess.
6- It wouldn't be God's Will at this point (most important reason).
I guess I'm speechless to know that He has confided this to you.
-
People here know I'm against a deal between the SSPX and Rome, but I think it's important that we list some key reasons as to why they should not sign. In no particular order, here are my reasons. Others are free to add their list their own reasons.
1- The other three Bishops (+Williamson, +Tissier, and +Galarreta) appear to be opposed to a deal. This could mean that, if Bishop Fellay goes ahead and signs a deal with Rome, there could be a major split in the SSPX.
Of course, this is only hearsay. Even Bishop Williamson stops short of saying it should be stopped at all costs.
2- The Society would be under the watch and control of Rome. Like the Fraternity of Saint Peter, practically every move they make will be monitored by Rome. This means that their ability to speak out against Vatican II, the Novus Ordo, and any other actions modernist Rome is doing will be very limited, if not completely diminished.
So what if they monitored everything? What can they do to courageous priests and bishops? Suspend them again?
3- Rome has not converted yet. They still do not favor Traditional Catholicism and still adhere to many errors and heresies. The SSPX should wait for Rome to convert first. This was the mindset of Archbishop LeFebvre. The Society never broke from Tradition, it was Rome that did so.
Conversion of Rome was not a pre-requisite for ABL to sign the Protocol in 1988. He was courageous enough to think that he could form the soldiers for this battle. I think it is almost pathetic to expect the modernists in Rome to convert before we storm their castles. Almost cowardly.
4- Someone even more modern than Benedict could be elected in the future and could attempt to abolish Tradition. Then the Society, if they wanted to do the right thing, would be forced to break away again, making the point of reconciling with them a waste of time and effort to begin with.
You've got to be kidding. This is no excuse. St. Francis could have said the same thing to the Pope when he was asked to reform the church.
5- Archbishop LeFebvre would not have supported a deal, as his own quote seems to indicate:
You completely misinterpret ABLs statement. His challenge to never compromise on the faith is the advice that applies here. Nowhere does he say to avoid a canonical agreement with the Pope that does not include a compromise of faith. Assuming that it does at this point is relying on insight that you do not possess.
6- It wouldn't be God's Will at this point (most important reason).
I guess I'm speechless to know that He has confided this to you.
Re: General Discussion » Open Invitation - Post about SSPX, Bp Fellay, SSPX priests
I read the joint letter of Mgr. Alfonso de Galarreta, Mgr. Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Mgr. Richard Williamson :
Lettre au Conseil Général de la Fraternité St Pie X, le 7 avril 2012
Yes it is real. It is a stiff letter. It predicts a profound division of the fraternity when Bp Fellay continues his fatal course. The 3 bishops are in battle mode now. They have to because Bp Fellay will pull off the Betrayal.
Stand by to repel boarders !
-
Of course, this is only hearsay
Amazing. If we had more like you, Vinny F. Such a letter as outlined below exists.
Re: General Discussion » Open Invitation - Post about SSPX, Bp Fellay, SSPX priests
I read the joint letter of Mgr. Alfonso de Galarreta, Mgr. Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Mgr. Richard Williamson :
Lettre au Conseil Général de la Fraternité St Pie X, le 7 avril 2012
Yes it is real. It is a stiff letter. It predicts a profound division of the fraternity when Bp Fellay continues his fatal course. The 3 bishops are in battle mode now. They have to because Bp Fellay will pull off the Betrayal.
Stand by to repel boarders !
-
Of course, this is only hearsay
Amazing. If we had more like you, Vinny F. Such a letter as outlined below exists.
Re: General Discussion » Open Invitation - Post about SSPX, Bp Fellay, SSPX priests
I read the joint letter of Mgr. Alfonso de Galarreta, Mgr. Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Mgr. Richard Williamson :
Lettre au Conseil Général de la Fraternité St Pie X, le 7 avril 2012
Yes it is real. It is a stiff letter. It predicts a profound division of the fraternity when Bp Fellay continues his fatal course. The 3 bishops are in battle mode now. They have to because Bp Fellay will pull off the Betrayal.
Stand by to repel boarders !
John,
It doesn't help that you keep referring to a letter that I can't find. Please have mercy on us technically challenged folks and give us a link to the letter.
-
Of course, this is only hearsay. Even Bishop Williamson stops short of saying it should be stopped at all costs.
It's not "hearsay". They do indeed appear to be opposed to a deal. Your statement shows you haven't been following the issue.
So what if they monitored everything? What can they do to courageous priests and bishops? Suspend them again?
Why do you think FSSP priests can never say anything bad about Vatican II or the NO? They'll get in trouble with their bishop or with Rome themselves. You saw what happened to Father Bisig.
Conversion of Rome was not a pre-requisite for ABL to sign the Protocol in 1988. He was courageous enough to think that he could form the soldiers for this battle. I think it is almost pathetic to expect the modernists in Rome to convert before we storm their castles. Almost cowardly.
ABL stated many times that Rome must convert first, and he did not sign the protocol. And what do you mean by "storm their castles"? Are you suggesting that the Society would somehow be big enough infiltrate Rome? With all those thousands of liberals and Masons in there? You need to get your facts straight.
You've got to be kidding. This is no excuse. St. Francis could have said the same thing to the Pope when he was asked to reform the church.
Had there been any modernist Popes during the days of St. Francis?
You completely misinterpret ABLs statement. His challenge to never compromise on the faith is the advice that applies here. Nowhere does he say to avoid a canonical agreement with the Pope that does not include a compromise of faith. Assuming that it does at this point is relying on insight that you do not possess.
You're naive. Read it again. He went much further than warning not to compromise the Faith.
I guess I'm speechless to know that He has confided this to you.
I never said He did. But it is common sense that God woudn't Will any "reconciliation" between modernist Rome and a group that never left the Church to begin with.
-
Of course, this is only hearsay
Amazing. If we had more like you, Vinny F. Such a letter as outlined below exists.
Re: General Discussion » Open Invitation - Post about SSPX, Bp Fellay, SSPX priests
I read the joint letter of Mgr. Alfonso de Galarreta, Mgr. Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Mgr. Richard Williamson :
Lettre au Conseil Général de la Fraternité St Pie X, le 7 avril 2012
Yes it is real. It is a stiff letter. It predicts a profound division of the fraternity when Bp Fellay continues his fatal course. The 3 bishops are in battle mode now. They have to because Bp Fellay will pull off the Betrayal.
Stand by to repel boarders !
John,
It doesn't help that you keep referring to a letter that I can't find. Please have mercy on us technically challenged folks and give us a link to the letter.
Here's the thread the link was posted on:
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Letter-of-Three-SSPX-Bishops-to-Bishop-Fellay
-
Of course, this is only hearsay
Amazing. If we had more like you, Vinny F. Such a letter as outlined below exists.
Re: General Discussion » Open Invitation - Post about SSPX, Bp Fellay, SSPX priests
I read the joint letter of Mgr. Alfonso de Galarreta, Mgr. Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Mgr. Richard Williamson :
Lettre au Conseil Général de la Fraternité St Pie X, le 7 avril 2012
Yes it is real. It is a stiff letter. It predicts a profound division of the fraternity when Bp Fellay continues his fatal course. The 3 bishops are in battle mode now. They have to because Bp Fellay will pull off the Betrayal.
Stand by to repel boarders !
John,
It doesn't help that you keep referring to a letter that I can't find. Please have mercy on us technically challenged folks and give us a link to the letter.
Here's the thread the link was posted on:
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Letter-of-Three-SSPX-Bishops-to-Bishop-Fellay
Thanks! Got it.
-
What about the real estate?
The SSPX owns a lot of property all over the world.
Why would any "deal" with Rome not include handing over the land to the local diocese?
This seems to be the elephant in the living room nobody wants to talk about.
First, the property changes hands.
Next, the local bishops sell some of it off to pay for pederasty lawsuits.
Then, with what's left over, they send in wreckovation crews to start taking down the bastions of Tradition.
All the widows' mites are cast into the wind and you can start over. Again.
Can't happen you say?
But we've already been there. It's already happened.
Why wouldn't the same thing happen all over, again?
A leopard can't change his spots, and a tiger is a tiger is a tiger.
-
The SSPX leaders will keep their property. Make no mistake about that.
-
Does anyone here believe that Benedict XVI truly believes in the Gospels with supernatural Faith?
Only BpFellay, Frs Schmidberger,Pfluger, Wailliez,Rostand,Vernoy, Couture ...if they are members of this forum
They can't possibly really believe that. So one has to ask, what do they really believe?
These guys will believe anything they want to believe at the moment. And, I forgot to add Fr Simoulin.
-
Does anyone here believe that Benedict XVI truly believes in the Gospels with supernatural Faith?
Only BpFellay, Frs Schmidberger,Pfluger, Wailliez,Rostand,Vernoy, Couture ...if they are members of this forum
They can't possibly really believe that. So one has to ask, what do they really believe?
These guys will believe anything they want to believe at the moment. And, I forgot to add Fr Simoulin.
It's pretty apparent there are no real concessions, except for symbolic ones, made by the Vatican. But the statements being made by Bishop Fellay are very damaging to the integrity of the SSPX position.
-
Good points on why the SSPX shouldn't regularize. Another series of reasons is brought to mind by this situation with the baseball game and Our Lady of Sorrows parish in Phoenix. If the SSPX had regularized last month, this situation would have turned out much differently. Fr. Burfitt would have let the administrator of the other school that OLS would not play if the young lady was participating. That administrator would have called "Bishop" (sic) Olmstead. Now, maybe Olmstead does nothing, maybe he tries to explain to the administrator how OLS is a little different than the other Catholic churches/schools in the area and that he doesn't have exactly the same governing capacity over it. But, we all know that is going to be the exception to the rule, not just with Olmstead but with every local "Ordinary" throughout the country and the world. 9 times out of 10, the local "bishop" is going to make a call to the Fr. Burfitt in any given area and say: "Hey, this isn't how we do things here. You are under my authority. I am the bishop in this diocese and you are not going to give the diocese a black eye." Because, the local newspapers and local tv and national television and Yahoo.com aren't going to say: "The good, well-intentioned diocese doesn't like what the SSPX parish is doing. They want to make them play in the game...but blah blah personal prefecture blah blah." No, the story is going to be that this crazy backwards parish in Phoenix won't play in a baseball game because of a girl on the other team and the spineless diocese won't do anything. Now multiply that by 10,000 worldwide. Whether it is not playing against another school's baseball team, or refusing to wed a Catholic to a non-Catholic in the church, or requiring marriage prep for a wedding, or withholding Communion at a wedding to a lesbian, or letting non-Catholic children into the school, or teaching traditional moral principles in the school, or railing against social evils in sermons, or selling books that oppose these same social evils etc. etc. It is going to be practically a recreational activity for the local journalists in every diocese to go to their local SSPX parish and try to find something they can write a story about and pull the diocese into about. You can see the evening newscast: "Joe Smith here at Our Lady of Sorrows in Phoenix, AZ. This church, fully accepted by the local Catholic diocese, is selling these books. Look at this one, about the Jews! Look at this one about the roles of men and women. Look at this one about the Crusades. And, hear what the priest said in his sermon! He talked about how non-Catholics are heretics, schismatics or pagans!" It is going to be such an easy story, such an easy way to create a conflict that the journalists can practically live off. Rome and each diocese is going to let that go on about 2 1/2 minutes before they come down like a hammer on each individual SSPX parish. And there isn't a thing Fellay could do even if he were inclined to, which he won't be. And what about all the diocesan initiatives? What about the percentage of donations from all religious houses in the dioceses which are required to go to the diocesan structure? Your and my money going to pay for pedophile legal defense every week. And, that isn't even addressing malice on the part of local "bishops". How many "bishops" out there are going to be taking every opportunity to put the local SSPX parish in uncomfortable situations? When I went to the Indult and FSSP, the local "bishop" would come on a regular basis to give sermons and make speeches, not to mention having the Novus Ordo there. Anything they could do to make sure the parishioners understood who was the sheriff in town. What are the Fr. Burfitts of the world going to do? Are they going to tell the local "bishop" to jump in a lake every week over some new issue? We all know what is going to happen. Either human respect is going to make more and more of the Fr. Burfitts to back down and submit "out of obedience" to their local "bishop" or they are going to complain up the chain of command. And, there is no way that Fellay is going to tell to engage in direct disobedience on a perpetual basis.
Not being able to freely criticize Vatican II and the Novus Ordo is certainly a serious issue and may or may not be an issue that comes up on a regular basis. But, what will come up constantly in every SSPX parish and what I hope and pray that Fr. Burfitt and all the other SSPX priests throughout the world realize and take to heart is the fact that regularization will end their ability to sit out of a baseball game, sell a truly Catholic book, give a truly Catholic sermon or do anything else in their parish that may be offensive to any element of society who might complain to the local ordinary, go tattle to the news media or otherwise bring the ordinary into conflict with the local SSPX parish.
-
Also relevant to point out, I think, that since the "talks" with Rome began, the official position of the SSPX on the following issues changed drastically:
1). Novus Ordo "Episcopal Consecrations" (sic) went from probably invalid to definitely valid.
2). Novus Ordo "priestly ordinations" (sic) went from possibly invalid to definitely valid
3). Novus Ordo "Confirmations" (sic) went from probably invalid to definitely valid
4). the docuмents of Vatican II went from containing outright heresies and impossible to read in any way consistent with tradition, to now, in the recent Fellay interview with CNS, being part of the tradition of the Church and something that all Catholics "must" look at and accept in the light of tradition.
5). The Novus Ordo "mass" (SIC SIC) went from blasphemous and probably invalid to definitely valid and something that Fellay and some SSPX priests (Fr. Novak, for example) have attended as a display of "good will".
6). I would say that the SSPX official position on the terrible abuse of children by the Vatican II anti-church has changed...if Fellay had ever mentioned anything about it in the first place. Condemnations of this evil have come from all quarters - religious leaders, politicians, actors, lawyers, civil rights groups, and so forth, shining the condemning light of truth on all the culprits from the Vatican on down...from all quarters, that is, except from the SSPX. Can you imagine what kind of a Crusade the Monsignor would have launched on Modernist Rome on this issue? But, if you lived in a box populated only by you, Fellay and all the Fellay's men, you'd have about as much awareness of the Novus Ordo church's abuse of children as say, the other SSPX Bishops had of Fellay's negotiations with Rome...that is, ZERO.
-
Reasons why the Society should not sign with Rome by Bishop Williamson, just found on the Dinoscopus mailing-list. Love it already. Fits well here, so I pasted it. S2srea rightly gave a separate thread to the EC. (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Elesion-Comments-Faith-Killers)
Eleison Comments Number CCLII (252), 12 May 2012
FAITH KILLERS
But if Rome offers the Society of St Pius X all that it wants, why should the SSPX still refuse? Apparently there are Catholics still believing that if a practical agreement fulfilled all the SSPX’s practical demands, it should be accepted. So why not? Because the SSPX was brought into existence by Archbishop Lefebvre not for its own sake, but for the sake of the true Catholic Faith, endangered by Vatican II as it has never been endangered before. But let us see here why the Newchurch authorities will seek any practical agreement as much as the SSPX must refuse it.
The reason is because the Newchurch is subjectivist, and any merely practical agreement implies that subjectivism is true. According to the new Conciliar religion, dogmas of Faith are not objective truths but symbols that serve subjective needs (Pascendi, 11-13, 21). For instance if my psychological insecurity is calmed by the conviction that God became man, then for me the Incarnation is true, in the only sense of the word “true”. So if Traditionalists have their need of the old religion, then that is what is true for them, and one can even admire how they cling to their truth. But in justice they must agree to let us Romans have our Conciliar truth, and if they cannot make that concession, then they are insufferably arrogant and intolerant, and we cannot allow such divisiveness within our Church of luv.
Thus Neo-modernist Rome would be happy with any practical agreement by which the SSPX would even only implicitly renounce its radical claim to the universality and obligation of “its” truths. On the contrary the SSPX cannot be happy with any agreement that in an action speaking louder than words would deny the objectivity of “its” religion of 20 centuries. It is not “its” religion at all. To come to an agreement with subjectivists, I have to stop insisting on objectivity. To insist on objectivity, I cannot accept any terms at all proposed by subjectivists, unless they renounce their subjectivism.
These Romans are doing no such thing. Yet another proof of their crusading insistence upon their new religion came in the form of their recent “Note on the conclusions of the canonical visit to the Institute of the Good Shepherd” in France. Readers will remember that this Institute was one of several founded after the Council to enable Traditional Catholicism to be practised under Roman authority. Rome can wait for a few years before closing in, to make sure that the poor fish is well on the hook, but then -
The “Note” requires that Vatican II and the 1992 Catechism of the Newchurch must be included in Institute studies. The Institute must insist on the “hermeneutic of renewal in continuity”, and it must stop treating the Tridentine rite of Mass as its “exclusive” rite of Mass. The Institute must enter into official diocesan life with a “spirit of communion”. In other words, the Traditional Institute must stop being so Traditional if it wants to belong to the Newchurch. What else did the Institute expect? To keep to Tradition, it would have to get back out from under the Newchurch’s authority. What chance is there of that? They wanted to be swallowed by the Conciliar monster. Now it is digesting them.
So why, in Heaven’s name, would it be any different with the SSPX? Rome’s temptation may be rejected this time round by the SSPX, but let us be under no illusions: the subjectivists will be back and back and back to get rid of that objective truth and objective Faith which constitute a standing rebuke to their criminal nonsense.
Kyrie eleison.
© 2012 Richard N. Williamson. All Rights Reserved.
A non-exclusive license to print out, forward by email, and/or post this article to the Internet is granted to users who wish to do so provided that no changes are made to the content so reproduced or distributed, to include the retention of this notice with any and all reproductions of content as authorized hereby. Aside from this limited, non-exclusive license, no portion of this article may be reproduced in any other form or by any other electronic or mechanical means without permission in writing from the publisher, except by a reviewer who may quote brief passages in a review, or except in cases where rights to content reproduced herein are retained by its original author(s) or other rights holder(s), and further reproduction is subject to permission otherwise granted thereby.
-
S2srea rightly gave a separate thread to the EC.
Kelley made a very nice image copy in the General section. (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Eleison-Comments-CCLII-252)
'
-
...No, the story is going to be that this crazy backwards parish in Phoenix won't play in a baseball game because of a girl on the other team and the spineless diocese won't do anything. Now multiply that by 10,000 worldwide. Whether it is not playing against another school's baseball team, or refusing to wed a Catholic to a non-Catholic in the church, or requiring marriage prep for a wedding, or withholding Communion at a wedding to a lesbian, or letting non-Catholic children into the school, or teaching traditional moral principles in the school, or railing against social evils in sermons, or selling books that oppose these same social evils etc. etc. It is going to be practically a recreational activity for the local journalists in every diocese to go to their local SSPX parish and try to find something they can write a story about and pull the diocese into about...
Or letting outside groups use the chapel for non-Catholic ceremonies or same-sex weddings... (thinking of some news stories I've read recently that would have killed my parents if God in His infinite mercy had not already taken them a few years ago.)
Thank you for a very informed and insightful couple of posts, Justin.
-
Or letting outside groups use the chapel for non-Catholic ceremonies or same-sex weddings... (thinking of some news stories I've read recently that would have killed my parents if God in His infinite mercy had not already taken them a few years ago.)
Absolutely, these and more, I'm sure. And, there are plenty of people within the diocesan structures throughout the world who would attempt to do these sorts of things just to put the SSPX in a bind. After nearly 4 decades of what they see as insults and bigotry towards them and their causes, there are so many people in the Novus Ordo establishment who are salivating at the opportunity to put the SSPX in all sorts of compromising situations.
When was the last time the Vatican every rebuked a diocesan bishop for anything he commanded of any religious group within his diocese? Priest withholds Novus Ordo cookie from lesbian...priest gets censured by local "bishop"...priest refuses to recant...priest forbidden to offer Novus Ordo...priest appeals to Vatican...crickets chirping forever. There are so many hundreds and, truly, thousands of these similar events over the years. Not once, not one single time, has the Vatican reversed the local ordinary.
So, basically, we are supposed to believe that Bishop Fellay, the former bursar general, sharp as a tack, polyglot, etc is so ignorant as to think that, of all the hundreds of dioceses in the world where the SSPX has chapels/missions, not one of those diocesan bishops is going to aggress against the SSPX parish? Or, that the Vatican is going to break its thousands of situations straight streak of supporting the local ordinary? Who knows what Bishop Fellay's intentions are or have been, but I think it is impossible to think that he actually believes the SSPX will be able to continue on. So, he KNOWS that the SSPX is going to be hammered throughout the world and he knows the Vatican is going to allow it. Does a man who truly is a traditional Catholic do this?
And then you have the fact of Fellay's consistently changing statements on a whole range of theological issues (always slowly, steadily and surely drifting in the direction of appeasing the Vatican) and his underhanded dealings with anyone who has stepped out of line with what his position at the time was (i.e. Fr. Aulagnier and Fr. Vanderputten when he mouthed Archbishop Lefebvre's post 1988 position and priests like Fr. Abrahamowicz when he pretended there never was a post-1988 Archbishop Lefebvre as if he passed away the day before the Consecrations). A court battle with Archbishop Lefebvre's own family and getting an injunction against releasing any material to the public? All the shady financial dealings through Krah? Quoting Archbishop Lefebvre to support his positions when he knows very well the Monsignor's views altered completely after 1988? That is no different than lying.
I'm not saying Fellay was a plant from the beginning or some kind of conspiracy theory like that, although it is obvious that Fellay has been angling towards this situation for years. I'm saying that people change or perhaps personal spiritual/psychological/emotional issues arise in people with internal foibles that cause them to rethink who they are or perhaps lose any altruistic motives for their actions and become filled with personal ambition and aggrandizement. We've seen the former happen with laypeople and even some priests and the latter happens with pretty much every single business CEO in the world. Fellay was never an active priest; he never lived his vocation as a shepherd or as a monastic. He never actually lived in the world nor even the spiritual/cloistered one. He entered the seminary as a 19 year old, was ordained and immediately was bundled off into the accounting office of the General Headquarters as Bursar and he stayed there until his episcopal consecration. If you've ever conversed with him, you can tell right away that he is socially awkward and not in a way that could be confused with a reserved and dignified spiritual deportment, such as with His Excellency Tissier de Mallerais. Bishop Fellay is just, well, socially awkward. He doesn't know how to relate to people. It isn't a language thing because people who have spoken to him in French have said the same thing. And, not to make any suggestions because I do not believe he is perverse, but he seems to me (and others who have spoken to him in person have seconded this observation) that he has a definite effemenacy in his manner. You can see how a person like this can, over time, kind of lose his way spiritually, and become something of a jaded pragmatist. But, I certainly don't buy this high-minded, altruistic, idealistic talk of trusting in God and Rosary Crusades and depending on God's protection and providence. A person doesn't believe those sorts of things and then give dishonest quotes to support their position, dishonestly sack people who disagree with you, sue your consecrating bishop's family members to keep them from possession of his writings and forbid them from disseminating any of them, involve the SSPX in all kinds of lucrative but ethically tenuous financial dealings, refuse to keep your fellow bishops apprised of your actions and dealings, lie to your district superiors about the docuмents in your possession and then change your story when pushed, have your district superiors change their websites to remove factual events that you don't want the laypeople to know the details of, etc etc. The list goes on and on with him. And when you have a guy who clearly is an Ends-Justify-the-Means pragmatist claiming these spiritual motives, WATCH OUT.