Author Topic: Strong words from the quiet Bishop (Read 2030 times)

TheD · « **on:** May 24, 2009, 11:22:20 AM »

Rorate Caeli

TheD · « **Reply #1 on:** May 24, 2009, 11:23:21 AM »

sorry:

http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2009/05/years-of-discussions.html

TheD · « **Reply #2 on:** May 24, 2009, 11:24:05 AM »

Years of discussions
Amidst some well-known talking points, the interview granted by Bishop Alfonso de Galarreta to District magazine Iesus Christus (one of the four bishops consecrated by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre for the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X - FSSPX / SSPX in 1988 and whose excommunication was lifted by Pope Benedict XVI last January) included the following:

-What prospects do you see for the Fraternity of Saint Pius X in the future? An agreement with Rome? A canonical recognition?

-[Galarreta:] No, absolutely not, whether in the immediate or in the mediate future. We specifically exclude this possibility. We know that while there is no return to Tradition on the part of Rome, any practical or canonical agreement is incompatible with the public confession and defense of the faith, and would mean our death. In the best of cases, humanly speaking, we will have several years of discussions.

Source: Iesus Christus, monthly of the SSPX District of South America, via Radio Cristiandad Blog (whole interview in Spanish).

parentsfortruth · « **Reply #3 on:** May 25, 2009, 04:39:46 PM »

I was confirmed by DeGaleretta. I will never forget his sermon that day. I have a tremendous amount of respect for him. He is probably the closest one of the four to Archbishop Lefevbre.

It's a very confusing time. I really pray for him to keep his wits about him with all this garbage with "dialoguing with the vatican."

It sounds like he, personally, won't sell out, even if Fellay and Williamson do.

I've heard some conflicting info about Williamson, like that he met with the vatican before the talks between Fellay and the vatican. Anyone have any comments on that?

roscoe · « **Reply #4 on:** May 25, 2009, 05:24:27 PM »

Richard Williamson believes that Ratzinger is a true pope and this is troubling.

TheD · « **Reply #5 on:** May 25, 2009, 07:59:08 PM »

I highly doubt that +Bishop Williamson would sell out!

Matthew · « **Reply #6 on:** May 25, 2009, 09:19:37 PM »

Quote from: parentsfortruth

I've heard some conflicting info about Williamson, like that he met with the vatican before the talks between Fellay and the vatican. Anyone have any comments on that?

That sounds like a classic case of a "rumor" if I ever heard one.

Any evidence, sources, links?

parentsfortruth · « **Reply #7 on:** May 26, 2009, 10:58:44 AM »

TheD · « **Reply #8 on:** May 26, 2009, 12:38:50 PM »

Rome must return to Tradition! There is no other way!

parentsfortruth · « **Reply #9 on:** May 28, 2009, 10:26:55 PM »

Bump!

Kephapaulos · « **Reply #10 on:** May 28, 2009, 10:52:16 PM »

Obviously, looking through the lenses of sedevacantism and conclavism makes it all hopeless. The SSPX position is a balanced approach to the crisis in the Church. We can argue all year about what I just said, but I still say that Abp. Lefebvre chose the right men to be consecrated bishops.

parentsfortruth · « **Reply #11 on:** May 29, 2009, 10:37:08 AM »

I am not sede vacant if that was directed towards me. I was just wondering if anyone could confirm or deny what happened during that secret contact with Rome last year.

Raoul76 · « **Reply #12 on:** June 10, 2009, 09:42:26 PM »

Huh? You are not sedevacantist, pft?

Tres decevant!

All this junk about "reconciliation" with the Vatican is a red herring. By saying "una cuм" they are already reconciled and if you go to SSPX you are implicitly denying the infallibility of the Church. Not only that but you are sticking a dagger right through the heart of the resistance, because you want to be comfortable. That is the main sin.

SSPX plays on your fear, it makes you feel safe taking the middle course. It says "You don't have to be lonely like those paranoid sedevacantists. Go ahead, have 20 children and bring them up in our Jansenist compound. Meanwhile we'll be denying dogmas left and right in your name."

You are so not safe that it is not even funny. You are part of an illogical third order that makes up its own rules as it goes along. If you are a sedevacantist however you are upholding infallibility and indefectibility, and you are consistent and whole of mind and purpose, as the Catholic Church always has been. I'll pray that everyone on this site realizes it.

YOU
HAVE
NO
SAFETY
IN
NUMBERS

Raoul76 · « **Reply #13 on:** June 10, 2009, 09:59:28 PM »

Yes, "Jean de Morgon" is lying, parentsfortruth.

You are in a hall of mirrors. You cannot get out by analyzing your reflection in each one. You have to break them all. It is a Hegelian maze full of false heroes and villains. When you read a statement like that, analyze it, break it down, ask yourself "What is this statement trying to make me think?" You are being drawn into a counterfeit reality.

For instance, in the above statement by Jean de Morgon, there is the usual lie that Lefebvre was a great conservative and that SSPX has somehow fallen from his glorious height. The SSPX loves to mythologize Lefebvre. People have now unconsciously started to go along with this, so that now you will hear SSPXers lamenting about how they need to "get back" to Lefebvre's tough stance. Pretty soon there will be statues of him everywhere and you will need to kiss his feet before entering your SSPX third-order "church."

Actually Fellay and Lefebvre are two peas in a pod. They both have the same technique -- win peoples' trust by saying conservative things, and then shiv them in the back. Some people call this "wavering," but it is actually deliberate mind-control technique. They use it in the media and in the government as well, changing the truth day by day, keeping you unsteady. It is meant to demoralize you and make you feel helpless and eventually apathetic.

The difference between Vatican II and SSPX is like the difference between Democrats and Republicans. Is that extreme? Maybe only a wee bit.

CM · « **Reply #14 on:** June 10, 2009, 10:19:57 PM »

What do SSPX, Vatican II, Democrats and Republicans all have in common?