Author Topic: Bishop Fellay Confirms: SSPX Meeting in Rome on September 14 (Read 3125 times)

romanitaspress · « **on:** August 24, 2011, 10:54:07 AM »

This was just posted on SSPX.ORG with some interesting links: http://sspx.org/discussions/bishop_fellay_confirms_8-24-2011.htm.

John Grace · « **Reply #1 on:** August 24, 2011, 03:06:08 PM »

It has been posted already on Cath Info but the following is relevant to this thread.The column of Bishop Richard Williamson.

Quote

ELEISON COMMENTS CCXIV (Aug. 20, 2011) : "GREEK GIFTS" -- I

On September 14 in a few weeks' time is due to take place in Rome, so we are told, a meeting of Cardinal Levada and Roman officials with the Superior General of the Society of St Pius X and his two Assistants. Catholics who appreciate all that Archbishop Lefebvre and his Society have been given to do over the last 40 years in defence of the Faith need to be forewarned, because that Faith is ever more in danger, and "Forewarned is forearmed", especially by prayer.

It was Cardinal Levada, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, who was entrusted two years ago with overseeing the doctrinal Discussions that ran from the autumn of 2009 to April of this year, between Rome and the SSPX. It was Rome that invited the SSPX to this meeting. It seems reasonable to anticipate that the Romans on September 14 will be laying down as to future relations with the SSPX their decision emerging from the Discussions.

Now by all accounts the Discussions made clear that no doctrinal agreement is possible between the SSPX as cleaving to the age-old Church doctrine, and today's Rome as set upon the Conciliar teaching of the Newchurch, and moreover persevering in this disorientation, as is clear from the Newbeatification of John-Paul II in May and from Assisi III due to happen this coming October. So the situation coming out of the Discussions remains exactly where it was two years ago, going into the Discussions: on the one hand, for the glory of God and for the salvation of souls, the SSPX strives to help Rome back to the true Catholic Faith, whilst for the glory of modern man and for the satisfaction of his ignoble media (as in January and February of 2009), Conciliar Rome is doing all within its power to induce the SSPX to blend into the mind- and soul-rotting ecuмenism of the Newfaith.

What then can we imagine Rome imposing on September 14 ? Either carrot or stick, more probably, as adjusted by their expertise in its reading of the current state of mind within the SSPX, both. The stick could be a threat of total "excommunication" for the SSPX, once and for all. But who that has the Catholic Faith could be scared by such a threat ? When Archbishop Lefebvre was threatened for the first time with "excommunication" from the Newchurch, we remember his reply: "How can I be put out of a 'church' to which I have never belonged ?"

On the other hand the cleverest carrot from Rome could be the apparently irresistible offer of "full communion with Rome" on the SSPX's own terms. Only there might be hidden away a little clause that would stipulate that future SSPX Superiors and Bishops might be chosen by a joint committee of Rome and the SSPX with the merest majority of members being -- Romans. After all, would the SSPX be wanting to come under Rome, or not ? "Make up your minds !" will be their reasonable demand, as Cardinal Ratzinger reportedly cried out in 2001.

Clear minds recall the saying of the wise -- but scorned -- Trojan who did not want the Greeks' Horse to be brought into Troy: "Howsoever it be, I fear the Greeks, even when they bear gifts." But the Trojan Horse was brought in. We all know what happened to Troy.

Kyrie eleison

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #2 on:** August 24, 2011, 03:09:03 PM »

It will be a waste of time for the most part. The Society needs to shake the dust from its feet and move on.

Matthew · « **Reply #3 on:** August 24, 2011, 03:22:43 PM »

+W taught us this classical gem:

"Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes"

I fear the Greeks even when they bear gifts.

PereJoseph · « **Reply #4 on:** August 24, 2011, 04:20:45 PM »

Well, if there's a deal, there will surely be a division in the Society, in which case the work of the Archbishop could potentially be promoted in purity. So, if there's a deal and Bishop Fellay accepts it, here's to a split ! :cheers:

Sigismund · « **Reply #5 on:** August 24, 2011, 05:52:08 PM »

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus

It will be a waste of time for the most part. The Society needs to shake the dust from its feet and move on.

Move on to what?

Zenith · « **Reply #6 on:** August 24, 2011, 07:28:36 PM »

Quote from: Sigismund

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus
It will be a waste of time for the most part. The Society needs to shake the dust from its feet and move on.

Move on to what?

To promoting the reign of Christ the King. They should stop wasting time talking to Rome when there is no indication of any return to Tradition. There is only a return to the apostacy of Assisi.

Ratzinger's idea of unity is to lure everyone in to his idea of one big happy family. Everyone from Jєωs, Freemasons, Buddists, Muslims, and he is trying to lure in Traditional Catholics. It is one big cesspool filled with varying deprees of lies and half truths.

Sigismund · « **Reply #7 on:** August 24, 2011, 08:47:56 PM »

Are you a sedevacantist? (I honestly don't remember.) If so, what you are suggesting makes perfect sense. However, If Benedict XVI is the pope, then I don't see how any Catholic is free to walk away from him.

LordPhan · « **Reply #8 on:** August 24, 2011, 08:55:34 PM »

Quote from: Sigismund

Are you a sedevacantist? (I honestly don't remember.) If so, what you are suggesting makes perfect sense. However, If Benedict XVI is the pope, then I don't see how any Catholic is free to walk away from him.

You are required to disobey any authority which teaches or promotes error or is an occasion of sin.

You are required to submit to a Holy Pope yes.

The Apostolic Constitution also permits one to disobey a Pope who commits heresy, as per the Apostolic Consitution of Pope Paul IV. It states however that when he dies and a new Pope is elected and is not a heretic then you MUST submit. IE: You must recognize the errors and resist for the salvation of your soul.

This is and has always been the position of the SSPX.

You were not taught this because the Neo-Cath's and the Sede's want you to believe what they believe. However you'll note that the SSPX clergy are trained in Thomistic Theology, the way ordered to be trained by the Council of Trent, the Sede's and the Neo-Cath's are not. The Sede's are trained by apprenticeship and the Neo-Cath's are trained to be worldly heretics which the laws of Trent were meant to prevent.

parentsfortruth · « **Reply #9 on:** August 24, 2011, 09:18:05 PM »

"I do not say that the pope is not the pope, but I do not say either that one cannot say that the pope is not the pope."

--Archbishop Lefevbre

Zenith · « **Reply #10 on:** August 24, 2011, 09:31:13 PM »

Quote from: Sigismund

Are you a sedevacantist? (I honestly don't remember.) If so, what you are suggesting makes perfect sense. However, If Benedict XVI is the pope, then I don't see how any Catholic is free to walk away from him.

No I am not a sedevacantist. I can see there are strong arguments for sedevacantism though I choose not to make that decision myself.

No one is obliged to follow Benedict XVI if what he teaches breaks with 2000 years of Catholic teaching.

Daegus · « **Reply #11 on:** August 24, 2011, 09:33:06 PM »

Quote from: parentsfortruth

"I do not say that the pope is not the pope, but I do not say either that one cannot say that the pope is not the pope."

--Archbishop Lefevbre

That's an interesting quote from him, but the fallacious reasoning is quite clear. (I'm not trying to turn this into a sede discussion, I'm just making a point) I'm not completely sure of the context in which he said that, but here's my take on what I see:

No one (with honest intentions) says that the true pope isn't the pope. That is contrary to reason. It doesn't make sense. People who don't believe that the current papal claimant isn't the pope say that the man isn't the pope. It makes no sense for you to say you "cannot say that the pope is not the pope", because, by your own admission, you yourself are saying that the man is the pope. So if you believe he is pope, you can't say that you can't say that (not a grammar error btw, just sounds weird) the pope is not the pope.

:soapbox:

Zenith · « **Reply #12 on:** August 24, 2011, 09:39:14 PM »

Quote from: Daegus

Quote from: parentsfortruth
"I do not say that the pope is not the pope, but I do not say either that one cannot say that the pope is not the pope."

--Archbishop Lefevbre

That's an interesting quote from him, but the fallacious reasoning is quite clear. (I'm not trying to turn this into a sede discussion, I'm just making a point) I'm not completely sure of the context in which he said that, but here's my take on what I see:

No one (with honest intentions) says that the true pope isn't the pope. That is contrary to reason. It doesn't make sense. People who don't believe that the current papal claimant isn't the pope say that the man isn't the pope. It makes no sense for you to say you "cannot say that the pope is not the pope", because, by your own admission, you yourself are saying that the man is the pope. So if you believe he is pope, you can't say that you can't say that (not a grammar error btw, just sounds weird) the pope is not the pope.

:soapbox:

Daegus, Archbishop Lefevbre did not say that you cannot say that the pope is not the pope.

He says that he does not say that you cannot say the pope is not the pope.

i.e. he is not opposed to the sedevacantist theory but rather indifferent or indecisive.

Daegus · « **Reply #13 on:** August 24, 2011, 09:40:52 PM »

Quote from: Zenith

Quote from: Daegus
Quote from: parentsfortruth
"I do not say that the pope is not the pope, but I do not say either that one cannot say that the pope is not the pope."

--Archbishop Lefevbre

That's an interesting quote from him, but the fallacious reasoning is quite clear. (I'm not trying to turn this into a sede discussion, I'm just making a point) I'm not completely sure of the context in which he said that, but here's my take on what I see:

No one (with honest intentions) says that the true pope isn't the pope. That is contrary to reason. It doesn't make sense. People who don't believe that the current papal claimant isn't the pope say that the man isn't the pope. It makes no sense for you to say you "cannot say that the pope is not the pope", because, by your own admission, you yourself are saying that the man is the pope. So if you believe he is pope, you can't say that you can't say that (not a grammar error btw, just sounds weird) the pope is not the pope.

:soapbox:

Daegus, Archbishop Lefevbre did not say that you cannot say that the pope is not the pope.

He says that he does not say that you cannot say the pope is not the pope.

i.e. he is not opposed to the sedevacantist theory but rather indifferent or indecisive.

I'm a little confused by the way the sentence is worded. It's tricky. :furtive:

Graham · « **Reply #14 on:** August 24, 2011, 09:45:41 PM »

Quote from: Daegus

Quote from: parentsfortruth
"I do not say that the pope is not the pope, but I do not say either that one cannot say that the pope is not the pope."

--Archbishop Lefevbre

That's an interesting quote from him, but the fallacious reasoning is quite clear. (I'm not trying to turn this into a sede discussion, I'm just making a point) I'm not completely sure of the context in which he said that, but here's my take on what I see:

No one (with honest intentions) says that the true pope isn't the pope. That is contrary to reason. It doesn't make sense. People who don't believe that the current papal claimant isn't the pope say that the man isn't the pope. It makes no sense for you to say you "cannot say that the pope is not the pope", because, by your own admission, you yourself are saying that the man is the pope. So if you believe he is pope, you can't say that you can't say that (not a grammar error btw, just sounds weird) the pope is not the pope.

:soapbox:

Give the man more credit than that. He obviously meant pope in two different senses, as in "I do not say either that one cannot say that the man who many call the pope, and who currently sits in St. Peter's chair, is not the true pope."