Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Matthew on May 13, 2012, 02:35:28 PM
-
Remember +Williamson's clever analogy about the SSPX being the "ugly fat kid" playing "anchor man" in a tug-of-war game?
You have the SSPX (unloved and under-appreciated by most) playing anchor man, keeping the rope from being pulled too far across the line into modernism.
In the middle, you have Campos et al. who might move a bit over the line this way, then back over that way. But because of the anchor man, they don't get "pulled" completely into modernism (think "average Novus Ordo Parish in California", or NovusOrdoWatch material).
But now you have the anchor man about to get hit over the head with a baseball bat. What becomes of all the groups in the middle -- between absolute non-compromise (SSPX) and complete modernist abandon (NovusOrdoWatch material)?
Obviously Rome can now deal more harshly with FSSP, Indult groups, etc. because where are they going to go? The recently destroyed SSPX?
Without a large, organized resistance like the SSPX, the modernists in the Vatican can convene Vatican III and take their machinations to the Next Level.
On the surface, the Sedevacantists would seem to be the least affected, and might even gain a few members. But the fact is that they were pretty insignificant to begin with; you have to admit they don't get much attention from anyone except themselves. When do they ever make the news, or get Rome's attention? They don't.
The movement might preserve the Faith for some, and I realize many in the movement are of good will, but it's a dead-end path with no real solution. Moreover, the fruits of Sedevacantism seem to be rather scarce.
-
The movement might preserve the Faith for some, and I realize many in the movement are of good will, but it's a dead-end path with no real solution. Moreover, the fruits of Sedevacantism seem to be rather scarce.
Although this is not in the Crisis section, I'm going to make one comment in reference to the comment above.
I really don't understand why you, and others, seem to think the fruits of "sedevacantism" are so scarce. It seems that the SSPX is the just the latest sedeplentist group (and perhaps the last one?) to be mesmerized by the trappings of Modernist--and apostate--Rome. The SSPX priest at Mass today even noted that the internet publication of the bishops' letters was harmful in "our eventual canonical status with Rome."
Are there problems in some sedevacantist circles? Of course. The shepherd is struck and the sheep are scattered. But outside some of those groups that refuse communion with anyone on the outside (these are cults), the "fruits of sedevacantism" are the preservation, without adulteration, of the Catholic faith, untouched by Modernism. It doesn't look like the SSPX will be able to say that much longer.
I'll refrain from further discussion of this issue outside the Crisis section.
-
You have the SSPX (unloved and under-appreciated by most) playing anchor man, keeping the rope from being pulled too far across the line into modernism.
Yes, this is something many people don't understand. There is nothing more destructive to the opposition to liberalism than to have the leaders of the opposition consciously and unconsciously move towards it.
The 60s and 70s were so out of control because of Vatican II. It was the movement of the supposedly most traditional institution, the members of the church, that was the levee break that caused the flood.
The reason abortion is recognized by the Supreme Court is that the prolife movement supported a candidate who promised to make a woman his first Supreme Court choice. Because they supported a candidate whose father was in Planned Parenthood, who had the nick-name "rubbers." Because they supported a candidate whose father had chosen one of the most pro-abortion members of the Supreme Court, Souter.
The reason feminism is out of control in family life is because of the behavior of so-called traditional fathers, who have become worshippers of "their little girls."
Yes, the shift of Bishop Fellay away from Archbishop Lefebvre's teachings on Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ, Judaism, Vatican II, etc, is going to be devastating. Absolutely devastaing to the future of many Catholic families.
-
TKGS,
The greater number of Sede's have lost what it even means to be a Catholic, let alone to be preserving Catholicism. Like the Schismatic Orthodox who have a great liturgy with all the trappings, but who no longer have the faith, for with time without being able to grasp the consequences and remaining adamant about being 'orthodox' they have fallen away from the faith.
Similar also to this is what happened to the group of French and Belgian Roman Catholics known as the The Petite Église (little church) who still exist today but who have separated themselves from the Church of Rome and yet like the Sede’s maintain they are Catholics. The Sede’s eventually will fall into the same boat (if they haven’t already).
-
TKGS,
The greater number of Sede's have lost what it even means to be a Catholic,
No, the greater part of those who recognize Benedict XVI have lost what it means to be Catholic. Sedes believe that a heretic cannot be Pope. That is, someone who denies the resurrection of the body cannot be the Pope. Someone who prays in ѕуηαgσgυєs cannot be Pope. Someone who says condoms can be a first step towards a humane sɛҳuąƖity cannot be Pope. The people who have lost what it means to be Catholic are not the sedes. The people who follow a non-Catholic "Pope" are the ones who have, for the most part lost what it means to be Catholic. Going into the vast majority of Novus Ordo parishes is enough to confirm this.
let alone to be preserving Catholicism. Like the Schismatic Orthodox who have a great liturgy with all the trappings,
No, sedes hold to traditional Catholic ecclesiology. It is your "Pope" who rejects that ecclesiology. As far as your "Pope" is concerned, the Orthodox are to be given more respect than sedes because sedes actually adhere to traditional Catholic ecclesiology, and the "Pope" doesn't.
but who no longer have the faith, for with time without being able to grasp the consequences and remaining adamant about being 'orthodox' they have fallen away from the faith.
Everyone here knows that Benedict XVI doesn't have the Faith. Some of those people are sedes. They have good reason to be sedes.
Similar also to this is what happened to the group of French and Belgian Roman Catholics known as the The Petite Église (little church) who still exist today but who have separated themselves from the Church of Rome and yet like the Sede’s maintain they are Catholics. The Sede’s eventually will fall into the same boat (if they haven’t already).
No, it's a totally different situation, and you know it. Believing Catholics adhere to the Faith. Apostates adhere to those who publicly teach the rejection of the Catholic Faith, as Benedict XVI does.
-
Incredible as it may seem, one minute you have 500 priests all hostile towards the conciliar church ....... and then next minute you will have these priests in communion with the conciliar church. Like switching sides in a war. Your enemies will become your friends and friends enemies. But, of course, it is not happening like that. The transformation will be slow and has already started! The leadership will rely on the drip-drip method of change and of man's ability to adapt comfortably in small doses. The Three Bishops will have to upset this process with something dramatic. Their unified response to the preamble imposition was a start but there needs to be a series of similar tactics to hold the line. War with Menzingen has started and the bishops must have a solid strategy to win.
-
TKGS,
The greater number of Sede's have lost what it even means to be a Catholic, let alone to be preserving Catholicism. Like the Schismatic Orthodox who have a great liturgy with all the trappings, but who no longer have the faith, for with time without being able to grasp the consequences and remaining adamant about being 'orthodox' they have fallen away from the faith.
Similar also to this is what happened to the group of French and Belgian Roman Catholics known as the The Petite Église (little church) who still exist today but who have separated themselves from the Church of Rome and yet like the Sede’s maintain they are Catholics. The Sede’s eventually will fall into the same boat (if they haven’t already).
I hate to talk about this in the General Discussion section, but I have to ask...Do you really know the "greater number of Sede's"? I actually know a couple of dozen. I know of a few dozen more.
The ones I actually know, personally, have the faith and don't anathematize everyone that aren't with them. The ones people like you rail against are like the Dimond brothers as if they are they typical example of the sedevacantist. They aren't.
-
The movement might preserve the Faith for some, and I realize many in the movement are of good will, but it's a dead-end path with no real solution. Moreover, the fruits of Sedevacantism seem to be rather scarce.
Although this is not in the Crisis section, I'm going to make one comment in reference to the comment above.
I really don't understand why you, and others, seem to think the fruits of "sedevacantism" are so scarce. It seems that the SSPX is the just the latest sedeplentist group (and perhaps the last one?) to be mesmerized by the trappings of Modernist--and apostate--Rome. The SSPX priest at Mass today even noted that the internet publication of the bishops' letters was harmful in "our eventual canonical status with Rome."
Are there problems in some sedevacantist circles? Of course. The shepherd is struck and the sheep are scattered. But outside some of those groups that refuse communion with anyone on the outside (these are cults), the "fruits of sedevacantism" are the preservation, without adulteration, of the Catholic faith, untouched by Modernism. It doesn't look like the SSPX will be able to say that much longer.
I'll refrain from further discussion of this issue outside the Crisis section.
I agree totally with TKGS and also Telesphorus.
If anyone here considers BXVI to be their "Pope" then they should not be in the least bit upset about the agreement about to take place between +Fellay and Rome.
It is not a Catholic position to claim that BXVI is your Pope but virtually ignore everything he says or does; with the exception to criticize the latest heresy to come out of his mouth or the latest prayer meeting with schematics, heretics and pagans. If BXVI is your Pope, then you owe him obedience and submission.
I mean, isn’t this is just a natural consequence of the SSPX’s incoherent dogma of sedeplenism?
-
Incredible as it may seem, one minute you have 500 priests all hostile towards the conciliar church ....... and then next minute you will have these priests in communion with the conciliar church. Like switching sides in a war. Your enemies will become your friends and friends enemies. But, of course, it is not happening like that. The transformation will be slow and has already started! The leadership will rely on the drip-drip method of change and of man's ability to adapt comfortably in small doses. The Three Bishops will have to upset this process with something dramatic. Their unified response to the preamble imposition was a start but there needs to be a series of similar tactics to hold the line. War with Menzingen has started and the bishops must have a solid strategy to win.
Hopefully there will be a spit. The bigger, the better.
-
I think Matthew should give some serious consideration to banning Anthony M. He's obviously another guy like White Donkey or bobbyva who's here to pick fights over this deal.
-
TKGS,
The greater number of Sede's have lost what it even means to be a Catholic, let alone to be preserving Catholicism. Like the Schismatic Orthodox who have a great liturgy with all the trappings, but who no longer have the faith, for with time without being able to grasp the consequences and remaining adamant about being 'orthodox' they have fallen away from the faith.
Similar also to this is what happened to the group of French and Belgian Roman Catholics known as the The Petite Église (little church) who still exist today but who have separated themselves from the Church of Rome and yet like the Sede’s maintain they are Catholics. The Sede’s eventually will fall into the same boat (if they haven’t already).
I suppose if you cannot demonstrate how signing a merely practical agreement does not constitute acceptance of doctrinal pluralism, you must revert to the tired "all who refuse are sedes" line.
Please see Bishop Fellay refute this charge in his Letter to Benefactors #63.
Why do you refuse obedience to Bishop Fellay and insist on calling such people sedes?
Also, why does Bishop Fellay refuse obedience to Bishop Fellay on the same score?
Wait! It is because you two are sedes!!! After all, failure to render obedience = sedevacantism!
-
My questions in this whole thing, are:
"Has the Society of Saint Pius X secured their property so that it cannot be confiscated from the 'local ordinary' once whatever 'practical agreement' has been made?"
Also, "What if certain congregations of the Society whose buildings do not belong to the SSPX per se, that belong to individuals, perhaps, do not go along with such a 'practical agreement' and decide to 'boot out' the SSPX?"
"Will there be more SSPX chapels/priests going 'independent' if the 'practical agreement' is not agreed on by certain priests?"
"Will some of these priests that do not sign onto the 'practical agreement' end up going and getting advice from some of the 'elders' that endured this same type of conundrum years ago when they left the Society, without going 'full blown sede?'"
There is much at stake here.
-
Hopefully there will be a spit. The bigger, the better.
You do not do the Sede position any good when you make uncharitable remarks like this.
-
Incredible as it may seem, one minute you have 500 priests all hostile towards the conciliar church ....... and then next minute you will have these priests in communion with the conciliar church. Like switching sides in a war. Your enemies will become your friends and friends enemies. But, of course, it is not happening like that. The transformation will be slow and has already started! The leadership will rely on the drip-drip method of change and of man's ability to adapt comfortably in small doses. The Three Bishops will have to upset this process with something dramatic. Their unified response to the preamble imposition was a start but there needs to be a series of similar tactics to hold the line. War with Menzingen has started and the bishops must have a solid strategy to win.
Hopefully there will be a spit. The bigger, the better.
Are you not aware that this statement alone ipso facto removes YOU from the Church?
-
I for one hope that a split can be avoided, I hope that Bishop Fellay can be removed from his position, unfortunately this does not seem like that will happen.
From what I've been told, the SSPX has control of the properties, they have made sure to do this ever since 1983.
Times are going to get tough for many of us, but perhaps it is a test to see if we are as strong as those who resisted immediately after V2.
It may be a cleansing of sorts.
Bishop Tissier de Mallerais is the exact position that Archbishop Lefebre had, Bishop Williamson is similar but does things in a slightly different way. I believe but do not know for certain that Bishop De Gallareta is the same.
It is apparent that Bishop Fellay is not. He seems to hold the position that the FSSP holds. We will all soon find out who our friends are.
Keep strong and keep your eyes open to any events.
Yesterday I saw a disturbing sermon from the District Superior of Canada, pronounce that:
1: That Bishop Fellay has done as much as or more for the SSPX than
Archbishop Lefebvre! (I kid you not, he said these words)
2: That a non-Catholic businessman told Menzingen that the SSPX were wrong
in their methods; that is one example of why they should join Rome
3: He attacked the priest who leaked the letter, calling it a mortal sin
to
do so. He said that if someone receives a letter from someone and shows it
to someone else, that it is a mortal sin. Well, I received an email and
showed it to someone today; I don't think I committed a mortal sin.
4: He disgustingly referred to Bishop Williamson as a h0Ɩ0cαųst denier.
5: He praised the Pope numerous times, including the above jab, which
amounted to “Rome was gracious enough to overlook one of our Bishops being
a
h0Ɩ0cαųst denier).
6: He essentially said we must obey Bishop Fellay without question. (How
can
one be a member of the SSPX, let alone one of its Superiors, and not know
what false obedience is!)
I’m not the only one who had a problem with this; there were several
others.
I got word from a friend that he had the complete opposite sermon from another famous SSPX Priest:
commented that the SSPX position has always been no practical deal without doctrinal solution, and that Bp Fellay seems dot be abandoning is. He then gave a sermon condemning relativism/subjectivism (basically a more detailed version of the 3 bishops' letter). After Mass he send the letters in question to everyone on the chapel email list and commented that BpF's response was "unconvincing".
-
Hopefully there will be a spit. The bigger, the better.
Are you not aware that this statement alone ipso facto removes YOU from the Church?
Hmm... interesting perspective.
It didn't jump off the page to me at all.
Thanks for pointing that out, LordPhan.
Could you provide some reference point you're basing it on? Unity of the Church?
-
I’m not the only one who had a problem with this; there were several others.
Only several others?? Oh, dear.
I should think you could find 7 out of 10 at least!
Or, was this a really small crowd?
-
Hopefully there will be a spit. The bigger, the better.
Are you not aware that this statement alone ipso facto removes YOU from the Church?
Hmm... interesting perspective.
It didn't jump off the page to me at all.
Thanks for pointing that out, LordPhan.
Could you provide some reference point you're basing it on? Unity of the Church?
On the contrary, Augustine (Contra Faust. xx, 3; Contra Crescon. ii, 4) distinguishes between schism and heresy, for he says that a "schismatic is one who holds the same faith, and practises the same worship, as others, and takes pleasure in the mere disunion of the community, whereas a heretic is one who holds another faith from that of the Catholic Church." Therefore schism is not a generic sin.
Summa Theologica second part of the second part Question 39.
-
I’m not the only one who had a problem with this; there were several others.
Only several others?? Oh, dear.
I should think you could find 7 out of 10 at least!
Or, was this a really small crowd?
I went to the low Mass and I didn't speak to most of the people. I was also very cautious in who I spoke to. I ran into opposition from one family who refuses to even read the letters.
Then there were others who approached me knowing where I would stand and told me they were on the side of the 3 and not the 1.
I don't think alot of the people wanted to speak about it, probably because the District Superior was hovering around.
-
A member of Ignis Ardens named Cristera posted this:
N. Friburgo – may 13-2012 95º anniversary of the first apparition of Our Lady at Fatima
Open letter to my fellows priests, faithful and friends.
Reading the letter of three Bishops of the Society to the General House and the response of this one by Bishop Fellay and his followers, (this letter has more or less the same mistakes that the ones expressed by Dom Gérard, Bishop Rifan and Father Muñoz) I want to express:
1 º Our total adhesion to the SPPX and to his Founder and therefore my absolute support to the three Bishops who remain faithful to the work of Archbishop Lefebvre in whom I place my obedience.
2 º My disregard for the authority of Bishop Fellay, due his obstinacy and deviation from the principles of the founder, and for all who share his position to hand over Rome; my rejection to the position of Bishop Fellay founded on his political views deviated from the “Yes, yes- no, no” of the Gospel and also deviated from the principles given by Archbishop Lefebvre.
3 º Our absolute rejection to any agreement with the modernist Rome, at which this bishop, BF, is dragging us shamelessly in a ѕυιcιdє operation, ignoring the advice of:
a) Our Fouder
b): His three fellow Bishops.
c) Several priests over the past few years, who objected with good reason the steps taken towards the communion with a church defined as "post-conciliar" and non-Catholic, who is the enemy of Our Lord and of his universal kingdom; and ended up expelled or resigned to avoid ending up in the unfortunate situation in which we are placed today.
4 For this reason, I make an appeal to the three bishops who remain faithful and have the authority bequeathed by the founder, to take charge of the fraternity to avoid dismantling and dispersal.
5 ° I call upon the faithful members who still keep loyalty, faithfulness and obedience to our founder, to clearly and effectively support our three loyal bishops and remove the support to all the obsequious followers who have allowed with his consent, cooperation and silence the current state of things leading to the irremediable division of the Fraternity.
Because we are confirmed, we are soldiers or Christ the King; we made the anti-modernist oath prior to our ordination, for not to end up in the perjury and apostasy, I urge everyone to take a tough stance on tradition, to direct our efforts to support the defense of the Society, safely boat in which many goals have been reached and in which we have survived the apostasy of our times, while waiting for a real and complete conversion of the Pope and the Eternal Rome.
Confident in the consecration once made by our religious family to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, let’s fight with Her and for Her until the end, Amen.
Father E.J.J.Cardozo
-
Cristera has updated the thread.
http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=9437
Father Cardozo has been suspended because of his sermon on the Good Shepherd Sunday. He quoted AB Lefebvre saying than an agreement with Rome is imposible. Now he is the Monastery of the Holy Cross in Brasil, he was received by the Benedictines until his situation is defined.
-
Hopefully there will be a spit. The bigger, the better.
Are you not aware that this statement alone ipso facto removes YOU from the Church?
Hmm... interesting perspective.
It didn't jump off the page to me at all.
Thanks for pointing that out, LordPhan.
Could you provide some reference point you're basing it on? Unity of the Church?
On the contrary, Augustine (Contra Faust. xx, 3; Contra Crescon. ii, 4) distinguishes between schism and heresy, for he says that a "schismatic is one who holds the same faith, and practises the same worship, as others, and takes pleasure in the mere disunion of the community, whereas a heretic is one who holds another faith from that of the Catholic Church." Therefore schism is not a generic sin.
Summa Theologica second part of the second part Question 39.
Phan, I cannot help but not be convinced by your assertion. It seems to me that if Bishop Fellay takes the Roman deal, he is effectively endorsing doctrinal pluralism -- ecuмenism -- and therefore by his public actions does not believe in the Catholic Faith, but the Conciliar one as enunciated by the "hermeneutic of continuity." That is to say, he seems to be willing to negotiate on points of Catholic doctrine, putting himself and his organisation at the mercy of neo-Modernists and their interpretations -- i.e., their teachings. This is not exactly the old Conciliarist religion; it is a qualified and updated version, but it is a form of the same old Conciliarism nonetheless in that Tradition is being subjugated to novel "hermeneutics" and subversive political programmes.
You said it yourself : Bishop Fellay seems to have adopted the position of the FSSP. If the FSSP believes in the continuity between the old doctrines and the new ones invented at and since the Robber Council, they practice with Benedict a different religion than the Catholic one, since they do not believe in the Church's teachings on religious liberty, ecuмenism, the visible unity of the Mystical Body of Christ, the authority of the Pope, etc. How would Fellay's situation be any different from that of the FSSP and Campos and Papa Stronsay ? He would be practicing the Benedictine religion, too, no ?
Thus, I do not think it is just to accuse somebody who favours a big split of supporting schism. On the contrary, it seems clear that Fellay means to make the deal, in which case the Catholic Faith would benefit from the most amount of people in the SSPX possible not going along with Menzingen's manoeuvre.
If we were to apply your logic to Papa Stronsay's situation, for instance, we would have no choice but to accuse of being a schismatic anybody who privately or publicly expressed the desire that as many of the Transapline Redemptorists as possible would leave their organisation and stay faithful to their old position and the Catholic Faith. The same applies to Campos, in which case we would need to accuse almost everybody in the SSPX -- who opposed both deals as defections and praised those priests who didn't go along with them -- of schism. Are you ready to do that ? It seems like it would be better to rescind your statement and apologise to Mysterium Fidei.
-
Are you not aware that this statement alone ipso facto removes YOU from the Church?
How does hoping for a split excommunicate one from the Church? If only you were that quick to say such a thing about Benedict.
I don't necessarily WANT the Society to split. But if Fellay accepts a deal, a split would be for the best.
-
I have often wondered if +Fellay is concerned that a split would occur, and whether that has had significant effect on his behavior and choice of words over the past years.
If he is, it seems he has never said so. Therefore, he has gone about all his activities as superior general while holding this concern inside, and not able to talk to anyone about it. That would be a heavy, self-imposed burden to bear.
-
Hopefully there will be a spit. The bigger, the better.
Are you not aware that this statement alone ipso facto removes YOU from the Church?
Hmm... interesting perspective.
It didn't jump off the page to me at all.
Thanks for pointing that out, LordPhan.
Could you provide some reference point you're basing it on? Unity of the Church?
On the contrary, Augustine (Contra Faust. xx, 3; Contra Crescon. ii, 4) distinguishes between schism and heresy, for he says that a "schismatic is one who holds the same faith, and practises the same worship, as others, and takes pleasure in the mere disunion of the community, whereas a heretic is one who holds another faith from that of the Catholic Church." Therefore schism is not a generic sin.
Summa Theologica second part of the second part Question 39.
Phan, I cannot help but not be convinced by your assertion. It seems to me that if Bishop Fellay takes the Roman deal, he is effectively endorsing doctrinal pluralism -- ecuмenism -- and therefore by his public actions does not believe in the Catholic Faith, but the Conciliar one as enunciated by the "hermeneutic of continuity." That is to say, he seems to be willing to negotiate on points of Catholic doctrine, putting himself and his organisation at the mercy of neo-Modernists and their interpretations -- i.e., their teachings. This is not exactly the old Conciliarist religion; it is a qualified and updated version, but it is a form of the same old Conciliarism nonetheless in that Tradition is being subjugated to novel "hermeneutics" and subversive political programmes.
You said it yourself : Bishop Fellay seems to have adopted the position of the FSSP. If the FSSP believes in the continuity between the old doctrines and the new ones invented at and since the Robber Council, they practice with Benedict a different religion than the Catholic one, since they do not believe in the Church's teachings on religious liberty, ecuмenism, the visible unity of the Mystical Body of Christ, the authority of the Pope, etc. How would Fellay's situation be any different from that of the FSSP and Campos and Papa Stronsay ? He would be practicing the Benedictine religion, too, no ?
Thus, I do not think it is just to accuse somebody who favours a big split of supporting schism. On the contrary, it seems clear that Fellay means to make the deal, in which case the Catholic Faith would benefit from the most amount of people in the SSPX possible not going along with Menzingen's manoeuvre.
If we were to apply your logic to Papa Stronsay's situation, for instance, we would have no choice but to accuse of being a schismatic anybody who privately or publicly expressed the desire that as many of the Transapline Redemptorists as possible would leave their organisation and stay faithful to their old position and the Catholic Faith. The same applies to Campos, in which case we would need to accuse almost everybody in the SSPX -- who opposed both deals as defections and praised those priests who didn't go along with them -- of schism. Are you ready to do that ? It seems like it would be better to rescind your statement and apologise to Mysterium Fidei.
Hoping for a split amongst the faithful is schismatic. The Catholic thing to do is to pray that those causing it come to their senses, saying "The bigger the split the better" is in itself taking joy in schism. We are to be pained by it but be aware that it is happening and being on the right side.
Do not defend sin sir.
-
Hoping for a split amongst the faithful is schismatic. The Catholic thing to do is to pray that those causing it come to their senses, saying "The bigger the split the better" is in itself taking joy in schism. We are to be pained by it but be aware that it is happening and being on the right side
:pray:
-
Are you not aware that this statement alone ipso facto removes YOU from the Church?
How does hoping for a split excommunicate one from the Church? If only you were that quick to say such a thing about Benedict.
I don't necessarily WANT the Society to split. But if Fellay accepts a deal, a split would be for the best.
I have said such things about Benedict, you do not understand that you cannot lose office by merely being excommunicated personally, the ipso facto excommunication applies to your soul immediately, it applies to your office and station and your relation to the community(having to be avoided) after and only after you have been declared as such.
The Code of Canon Law of 1917 explicitly states that someone who ipso facto excommunicates themselves it not olbligated to act as if he has been excommunicated and can continue to function so long as the declaration has not been made.
The fact you qualified your statement with "I don't necessarily WANT the Society to split. But if Fellay accepts a deal, a split would be for the best"
makes your statement fine, there is not problem with it, it is how the other poster worded his statement that he is taking pleasure in a split, not just accepting that it is happening.
Technically we should pray that Bishop Fellay sees reason and stops dividing us, it is HE who is dividing us not the 3. The 3 are on the side of Archbishop Lefebre.
I hope that makes sense to you.
-
Hoping for a split amongst the faithful is schismatic. The Catholic thing to do is to pray that those causing it come to their senses, saying "The bigger the split the better" is in itself taking joy in schism. We are to be pained by it but be aware that it is happening and being on the right side.
Do not defend sin sir.
I think we can assume in charity that everybody here would prefer for Bishop Fellay's heart to be moved against the deal. Of course we do not hope for him to make the deal and would rather have him take up the legacy of the Archbishop. I think that the original poster, however, implied that, since it seems clear that the deal will happen and that there is division in the Society over it, a big split is best according to the circuмstances. He seemed to be making a statement that was contingent upon the deal happening, rather than an absolute statement. I will let him clarify his comment, but I already gave him the benefit of the doubt and read his comment in that context. It seems like charity obliges us to give him that benefit.
-
Hoping for a split amongst the faithful is schismatic. The Catholic thing to do is to pray that those causing it come to their senses, saying "The bigger the split the better" is in itself taking joy in schism. We are to be pained by it but be aware that it is happening and being on the right side.
Do not defend sin sir.
I think we can assume in charity that everybody here would prefer for Bishop Fellay's heart to be moved against the deal. Of course we do not hope for him to make the deal and would rather have him take up the legacy of the Archbishop. I think that the original poster, however, implied that, since it seems clear that the deal will happen and that there is division in the Society over it, a big split is best according to the circuмstances. He seemed to be making a statement that was contingent upon the deal happening, rather than an absolute statement. I will let him clarify his comment, but I already gave him the benefit of the doubt and read his comment in that context. It seems like charity obliges us to give him that benefit.
I can be persuaded by this arguement, if that is what he meant then I take back my statement. It would then have merely been worded wrong.
-
Open letter to my fellows priests, faithful and friends.
Reading the letter of three Bishops of the Society to the General House and the response of this one by Bishop Fellay and his followers, (this letter has more or less the same mistakes that the ones expressed by Dom Gérard, Bishop Rifan and Father Muñoz) I want to express:
1 º Our total adhesion to the SPPX and to his Founder and therefore my absolute support to the three Bishops who remain faithful to the work of Archbishop Lefebvre in whom I place my obedience.
2 º My disregard for the authority of Bishop Fellay, due his obstinacy and deviation from the principles of the founder, and for all who share his position to hand over Rome; my rejection to the position of Bishop Fellay founded on his political views deviated from the “Yes, yes- no, no” of the Gospel and also deviated from the principles given by Archbishop Lefebvre.
3 º Our absolute rejection to any agreement with the modernist Rome, at which this bishop, BF, is dragging us shamelessly in a ѕυιcιdє operation, ignoring the advice of:
a) Our Fouder
b): His three fellow Bishops.
c) Several priests over the past few years, who objected with good reason the steps taken towards the communion with a church defined as "post-conciliar" and non-Catholic, who is the enemy of Our Lord and of his universal kingdom; and ended up expelled or resigned to avoid ending up in the unfortunate situation in which we are placed today.
4 For this reason, I make an appeal to the three bishops who remain faithful and have the authority bequeathed by the founder, to take charge of the fraternity to avoid dismantling and dispersal.
5 ° I call upon the faithful members who still keep loyalty, faithfulness and obedience to our founder, to clearly and effectively support our three loyal bishops and remove the support to all the obsequious followers who have allowed with his consent, cooperation and silence the current state of things leading to the irremediable division of the Fraternity.
Because we are confirmed, we are soldiers or Christ the King; we made the anti-modernist oath prior to our ordination, for not to end up in the perjury and apostasy, I urge everyone to take a tough stance on tradition, to direct our efforts to support the defense of the Society, safely boat in which many goals have been reached and in which we have survived the apostasy of our times, while waiting for a real and complete conversion of the Pope and the Eternal Rome.
Confident in the consecration once made by our religious family to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, let’s fight with Her and for Her until the end, Amen.
Father E.J.J.Cardozo
-
I hope everyone in the SSPX follows the 3, then there will be a smaller split, just Menzingen!
-
Open letter to my fellows priests, faithful and friends.
Reading the letter of three Bishops of the Society to the General House and the response of this one by Bishop Fellay and his followers, (this letter has more or less the same mistakes that the ones expressed by Dom Gérard, Bishop Rifan and Father Muñoz) I want to express:
1 º Our total adhesion to the SPPX and to his Founder and therefore my absolute support to the three Bishops who remain faithful to the work of Archbishop Lefebvre in whom I place my obedience.
2 º My disregard for the authority of Bishop Fellay, due his obstinacy and deviation from the principles of the founder, and for all who share his position to hand over Rome; my rejection to the position of Bishop Fellay founded on his political views deviated from the “Yes, yes- no, no” of the Gospel and also deviated from the principles given by Archbishop Lefebvre.
3 º Our absolute rejection to any agreement with the modernist Rome, at which this bishop, BF, is dragging us shamelessly in a ѕυιcιdє operation, ignoring the advice of:
a) Our Fouder
b): His three fellow Bishops.
c) Several priests over the past few years, who objected with good reason the steps taken towards the communion with a church defined as "post-conciliar" and non-Catholic, who is the enemy of Our Lord and of his universal kingdom; and ended up expelled or resigned to avoid ending up in the unfortunate situation in which we are placed today.
4 For this reason, I make an appeal to the three bishops who remain faithful and have the authority bequeathed by the founder, to take charge of the fraternity to avoid dismantling and dispersal.
5 ° I call upon the faithful members who still keep loyalty, faithfulness and obedience to our founder, to clearly and effectively support our three loyal bishops and remove the support to all the obsequious followers who have allowed with his consent, cooperation and silence the current state of things leading to the irremediable division of the Fraternity.
Because we are confirmed, we are soldiers or Christ the King; we made the anti-modernist oath prior to our ordination, for not to end up in the perjury and apostasy, I urge everyone to take a tough stance on tradition, to direct our efforts to support the defense of the Society, safely boat in which many goals have been reached and in which we have survived the apostasy of our times, while waiting for a real and complete conversion of the Pope and the Eternal Rome.
Confident in the consecration once made by our religious family to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, let’s fight with Her and for Her until the end, Amen.
Father E.J.J.Cardozo
Father was suspended and is currently with the Benedictines. Cristera updated the thread.They correctly oppose an agreement.
-
Hoping for a split amongst the faithful is schismatic. The Catholic thing to do is to pray that those causing it come to their senses, saying "The bigger the split the better" is in itself taking joy in schism. We are to be pained by it but be aware that it is happening and being on the right side.
Do not defend sin sir.
I think we can assume in charity that everybody here would prefer for Bishop Fellay's heart to be moved against the deal. Of course we do not hope for him to make the deal and would rather have him take up the legacy of the Archbishop. I think that the original poster, however, implied that, since it seems clear that the deal will happen and that there is division in the Society over it, a big split is best according to the circuмstances. He seemed to be making a statement that was contingent upon the deal happening, rather than an absolute statement. I will let him clarify his comment, but I already gave him the benefit of the doubt and read his comment in that context. It seems like charity obliges us to give him that benefit.
I can be persuaded by this arguement, if that is what he meant then I take back my statement. It would then have merely been worded wrong.
I think that is the Catholic and noble thing to do.
-
Hoping for a split amongst the faithful is schismatic. The Catholic thing to do is to pray that those causing it come to their senses, saying "The bigger the split the better" is in itself taking joy in schism. We are to be pained by it but be aware that it is happening and being on the right side
:pray:
Sounds like a plan. I'm not SSPX but I know that at the moment other traditional Catholics need prayers to stay traditonal, so I pray. :pray:
-
Open letter to my fellows priests, faithful and friends.
[..]
Because we are confirmed, we are soldiers or Christ the King; we made the anti-modernist oath prior to our ordination, for not to end up in the perjury and apostasy, I urge everyone to take a tough stance on tradition, to direct our efforts to support the defense of the Society, safely boat in which many goals have been reached and in which we have survived the apostasy of our times, while waiting for a real and complete conversion of the Pope and the Eternal Rome.
Confident in the consecration once made by our religious family to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, let’s fight with Her and for Her until the end, Amen.
Father E.J.J.Cardozo
What a brave priest this Father Cardozo is. The Spanish catholics are very militant.
God save this priest and all other clerics who fight for the eternal Rome and hence oppose the SSPX sellout.
Sanct Ignatius of Loyola, pray for us!
-
I for one hope that a split can be avoided, I hope that Bishop Fellay can be removed from his position, unfortunately this does not seem like that will happen.
From what I've been told, the SSPX has control of the properties, they have made sure to do this ever since 1983.
Times are going to get tough for many of us, but perhaps it is a test to see if we are as strong as those who resisted immediately after V2.
It may be a cleansing of sorts.
Bishop Tissier de Mallerais is the exact position that Archbishop Lefebre had, Bishop Williamson is similar but does things in a slightly different way. I believe but do not know for certain that Bishop De Gallareta is the same.
It is apparent that Bishop Fellay is not. He seems to hold the position that the FSSP holds. We will all soon find out who our friends are.
Keep strong and keep your eyes open to any events.
Yesterday I saw a disturbing sermon from the District Superior of Canada, pronounce that:
1: That Bishop Fellay has done as much as or more for the SSPX than
Archbishop Lefebvre! (I kid you not, he said these words)
2: That a non-Catholic businessman told Menzingen that the SSPX were wrong
in their methods; that is one example of why they should join Rome
3: He attacked the priest who leaked the letter, calling it a mortal sin
to
do so. He said that if someone receives a letter from someone and shows it
to someone else, that it is a mortal sin. Well, I received an email and
showed it to someone today; I don't think I committed a mortal sin.
4: He disgustingly referred to Bishop Williamson as a h0Ɩ0cαųst denier.
5: He praised the Pope numerous times, including the above jab, which
amounted to “Rome was gracious enough to overlook one of our Bishops being
a
h0Ɩ0cαųst denier).
6: He essentially said we must obey Bishop Fellay without question. (How
can
one be a member of the SSPX, let alone one of its Superiors, and not know
what false obedience is!)
I’m not the only one who had a problem with this; there were several
others.
I got word from a friend that he had the complete opposite sermon from another famous SSPX Priest.
commented that the SSPX position has always been no practical deal without doctrinal solution, and that Bp Fellay seems dot be abandoning is. He then gave a sermon condemning relativism/subjectivism (basically a more detailed version of the 3 bishops' letter). After Mass he send the letters in question to everyone on the chapel email list and commented that BpF's response was "unconvincing".
Words cannot describe how incensed this makes me. :barf:
-
Hopefully there will be a spit. The bigger, the better.
Are you not aware that this statement alone ipso facto removes YOU from the Church?
Hmm... interesting perspective.
It didn't jump off the page to me at all.
Thanks for pointing that out, LordPhan.
Could you provide some reference point you're basing it on? Unity of the Church?
On the contrary, Augustine (Contra Faust. xx, 3; Contra Crescon. ii, 4) distinguishes between schism and heresy, for he says that a "schismatic is one who holds the same faith, and practises the same worship, as others, and takes pleasure in the mere disunion of the community, whereas a heretic is one who holds another faith from that of the Catholic Church." Therefore schism is not a generic sin.
Summa Theologica second part of the second part Question 39.
Phan, I cannot help but not be convinced by your assertion. It seems to me that if Bishop Fellay takes the Roman deal, he is effectively endorsing doctrinal pluralism -- ecuмenism -- and therefore by his public actions does not believe in the Catholic Faith, but the Conciliar one as enunciated by the "hermeneutic of continuity." That is to say, he seems to be willing to negotiate on points of Catholic doctrine, putting himself and his organisation at the mercy of neo-Modernists and their interpretations -- i.e., their teachings. This is not exactly the old Conciliarist religion; it is a qualified and updated version, but it is a form of the same old Conciliarism nonetheless in that Tradition is being subjugated to novel "hermeneutics" and subversive political programmes.
You said it yourself : Bishop Fellay seems to have adopted the position of the FSSP. If the FSSP believes in the continuity between the old doctrines and the new ones invented at and since the Robber Council, they practice with Benedict a different religion than the Catholic one, since they do not believe in the Church's teachings on religious liberty, ecuмenism, the visible unity of the Mystical Body of Christ, the authority of the Pope, etc. How would Fellay's situation be any different from that of the FSSP and Campos and Papa Stronsay ? He would be practicing the Benedictine religion, too, no ?
Thus, I do not think it is just to accuse somebody who favours a big split of supporting schism. On the contrary, it seems clear that Fellay means to make the deal, in which case the Catholic Faith would benefit from the most amount of people in the SSPX possible not going along with Menzingen's manoeuvre.
If we were to apply your logic to Papa Stronsay's situation, for instance, we would have no choice but to accuse of being a schismatic anybody who privately or publicly expressed the desire that as many of the Transapline Redemptorists as possible would leave their organisation and stay faithful to their old position and the Catholic Faith. The same applies to Campos, in which case we would need to accuse almost everybody in the SSPX -- who opposed both deals as defections and praised those priests who didn't go along with them -- of schism. Are you ready to do that ? It seems like it would be better to rescind your statement and apologise to Mysterium Fidei.
Hoping for a split amongst the faithful is schismatic. The Catholic thing to do is to pray that those causing it come to their senses, saying "The bigger the split the better" is in itself taking joy in schism. We are to be pained by it but be aware that it is happening and being on the right side.
Do not defend sin sir.
Let me clarify my position. Although I disagree with the SSPX regarding their position on the man that they recognize as the Pope, I have absolutely nothing against the SSPX, Bishop Fellay, or any of those that choose go to SSPX Chapels and receive the Sacraments from them. It is my fervent prayer that +Fellay comes to his senses and rejects any proposed deal with the Modernists, and remain faithful to Tradition.
I am operating under the assumption that a deal between +Fellay and Rome is basically a done deal and the only thing remaining to be done is to announce the agreement. IF then there is a deal, it is my hope and prayer that the 3 remaining Bishops and as many clergy and laity as possible reject the compromise with Modernists and remain faithful to Tradition.
My statement about hoping for a big split was certainly not meant to be uncharitable and I sincerely apologize if it appeared to be lacking in charity.
-
I hope everyone in the SSPX follows the 3, then there will be a smaller split, just Menzingen!
This is basically what I was trying to say, only I didn't say it very clearly.
-
I retract my previous assertion and statement regarding your post.
I also apologize for MY uncharitableness as Pere kindly pointed out. Earlier today I was very stressed out and overly excitable, I should not have jumped to conclusions about your post especially without asking for a clarification on your intentions. This is no excuse of course, as I should have contemplated my response before writing it as I usually do.
God Bless.
-
"What if certain congregations of the Society whose buildings do not belong to the SSPX per se, that belong to individuals, perhaps, do not go along with such a 'practical agreement' and decide to 'boot out' the SSPX?"
I don't think this exists anywhere. After past experiences, the SSPX policy is not to serve a Mass location unless any property is owned by the SSPX.
-
I retract my previous assertion and statement regarding your post.
I also apologize for MY uncharitableness as Pere kindly pointed out. Earlier today I was very stressed out and overly excitable, I should not have jumped to conclusions about your post especially without asking for a clarification on your intentions. This is no excuse of course, as I should have contemplated my response before writing it as I usually do.
God Bless.
Completely understandable. This is a very stressful time indeed. Although I don’t have a “dog in this fight” so to speak, I would certainly consider a deal between the SSPX and the Modernists in Rome a severe blow to the cause of Tradition.
Hopefully Rome is seeing what appears to be growing resistance to +Fellay’s deal and may be getting cold feet. I think it is good that the letter of the 3 remaining Bishops became public.
All we can do is to continue to pray.
-
Dear Matthew,
Thank you so much for banning Anthony M!!!
That really did me good.
He was obviously trying to manipulate us all, and trying to confuse those who are susceptible to his kind of
persuasion.
Thank you again.
God Bless you, Matthew.
-
...
I also apologize for MY uncharitableness as Pere kindly pointed out.
...
God Bless.
That PereJoseph certainly has a way with words, EH?
"What if certain congregations of the Society whose buildings do not belong to the SSPX per se, that belong to individuals, perhaps, do not go along with such a 'practical agreement' and decide to 'boot out' the SSPX?"
I don't think this exists anywhere. After past experiences, the SSPX policy is not to serve a Mass location unless any property is owned by the SSPX.
Years ago, there was an independent chapel in town where an SSPX priest would come to say Mass as a substitute whenever the regular priest was out of town or infirm. That happened about 5 times a year, round figures. I don't know if it's still going on, though.
As a side note, that letter post drives me nuts with all its typos!
-
Yes Matthew, thak you for banning Anthony M.
God Bless.