Author Topic: John Vennari on the Doctrinal Preamble  (Read 6023 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline LordPhan

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1171
  • Reputation: +826/-0
  • Gender: Male
John Vennari on the Doctrinal Preamble
« on: September 19, 2011, 10:24:15 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • This article was posted by John Vennari Editor of Catholic Family News, he is a very intelligent man, I have been at a conference of his held at my SSPX chapel.

    Quote
    Society of St. Pius X “Regularization”
    Not as Easy as You Think

    By John Vennari

                The September 14 letter from the Vatican to the Society of St. Pius X has launched a wave of premature celebration.

                Though the contents of the “doctrinal preamble” sent by the Vatican are still under wraps, Bishop Fellay indicated in his September 14 interview that it contains some sort of doctrinal statement the SSPX will be expected to sign, and an invitation to proceed to the next step toward canonical recognition.

                The proposed recognition for the SSPX appears to be that of a personal prelature along the lines of Opus Dei.

                 When Bishop Fellay requests at the end of his interview that we increase our Rosaries and prayers for the SSPX for “the graces of light and strength that we need more than ever”, he is not uttering a mere pious platitude. In the court of public opinion, the pressure on the Bishop Fellay and the SSPX is colossal.

                From all sides, we hear calls for Bishop Fellay to take this “deal” and run with it, on the false premise that it is now-or-never for the SSPX, as conditions may never be so favorable again in the foreseeable future for “regularization”.

                Those who urge this hasty approach have not thought the matter through. The last thing Bishop Fellay and the SSPX will sign is an Obamacare-styled “we have to pass the bill so we can see what’s in it” agreement. No, the steps towards proposed regularization have to be approached with great caution – a caution that will necessary take more than a couple of months of deliberating.

                The SSPX will have to make sure it has examined the matter thoroughly, scrutinized all the implications of regularization, and be prepared to say ‘no’ – against tremendous pressure – if all details are not sorted out in advance.

                We should not be surprised if Bishop Fellay approaches any type of canonical proposal with caution and reserve. I speak as one who has been directly involved with the traditional movement for over 30 years, and who has seen a number of regularization agreements turn sour. Though Catholic Family News does not represent the Society of St. Pius X in any way, we fully support Bishop Fellay in this cautious approach.

                Here are just some of the 1,001 questions that need to be answered before any canonical agreement is reached:

                • How will diocesan bishops react in the long term to SSPX bishops regularly stepping into their dioceses to perform the sacrament of Confirmation, especially when the bishops knows the congregation wants the SSPX prelate because it trusts neither the new rite of Confirmation nor the diocesan bishop himself?

                • What about opening new Chapels and Mass centers? New schools? New seminaries, as the seminary soon to be constructed in Virginia? Will the Society have to first receive permission from the diocesan bishop – who in many cases is hostile to Tradition? And if so, does this not greatly endanger future growth for the Society?

                • How will a Vatican hierarchy, still weakened by modernist thought, withstand the complaints of diocesan bishops  – who will see the SSPX as a threat to their power – without compromising the SSPX?

                • What about the independent chapels the SSPX are now friendly with, and for whom the SSPX performs Confirmations?

                • Will Rome expect the SSPX to cease performing Confirmations in these independent chapels? Will the Vatican expect the SSPX to effectively shun those who have been life-long allies? What kind of guaranteed freedom and protection will the Vatican give the SSPX to continue administering Confirmation to those chapels, the chaplains of which believe in conscience they cannot yet make a canonical agreement with the local bishop?

                • How will autonomy of education in SSPX schools be absolutely guaranteed?

                • How will autonomy of the counter-revolutionary formation in SSPX seminaries be absolutely guaranteed?

                • What are the exact provisions for Consecration of future SSPX bishops?

                • What about the religious orders connected with the Society of St. Pius X? What about the SSPX’s relations with the traditional Benedictines? The traditional Dominicans? The traditional Capuchins? The traditional Carmelites?

                • Under the proposed “personal prelature”, will the SSPX still be able to support and ordain men for these groups?

                • Will these SSPX-affiliated Orders have to change their names and cease calling themselves Dominicans, Benedictines, Carmelites under such an agreement? (When the traditional Transalpine Redemptorists accepted regularization three years ago, the first thing they were forced to do was change their name to “The Sons of the Most Redeemer”, since the Novus Ordo Redemporists would not allow them to use the name “Redemptorists”. Rome immediately backed the modern Redemptorists against the Transalpines).

                • What about the Dominican Sisters who teach at SSPX-affiliated schools, two of which are in the United States? Will the SSPX be allowed to continue this affiliation? Will these Dominicans be permitted the same autonomy with the local bishops as the SSPX supposedly will have, and will the traditional Dominican nuns be allowed to retain the “Dominican” title?

                • Do not the same questions apply to the SSPX’s affiliation with the Franciscan Sisters in Kansas City?

                • Does not the SSPX’s affiliation with the traditional religious orders also entail getting the Vatican’s Sacred Congregation for Religious involved, which will further complicate regularization?

                • What about possible insurrection in the ranks if many believe the Vatican is proceeding with a regularization agreement too quickly?

                • Do we really believe that any sort of discussion about the legitimacy of the Vatican II will continue after the SSPX is regularized, when the Vatican may then say to itself: “The chase is over, we’ve bagged the game”?

                • In any election of a new Prelate for Opus Dei, the Pope must confirm the appointment. If an SSPX prelature is modeled along the lines of Opus Dei personal prelature, will a pro-Vatican II Pope approve a new SSPX leader that most resembles Archbishop Lefebvre, or rather hold out for a leader after his own heart?

                • Will a “regularized” SSPX be expected to obtain an Imprimatur for any books it publishes? How will an Imprimatur be obtained for books such as John Paul II – Doubts About a Beatification which questions the beatification of Pope John Paul II; Father Dominique Bourmaud’s superb 100 Years of Modernism; or even yet-unpublished writings of Archbishop Lefebvre that sharply criticize Vatican II and the progressivism of the post-Conciliar hierarchy?

                • France’s District Superior of the SSPX just published an honest, necessary and blistering critique of the upcoming pan-religious Assisi meeting – a critique squarely based on the traditional teachings of the Church. Will such public critiques actually be tolerated by Rome if the SSPX is regularized?

                 • Archbishop Lefebvre said, “If Rome wishes to give us a true autonomy, the one we have now, but with submission, we would want it.” What happens when the SSPX’s understanding of “true autonomy” conflicts with the Vatican’s understanding of “true autonomy”?

                • Is there a danger of the SSPX ending up as just another Ecclesia Dei group that is directly or indirectly coerced into just keeping to the Old Mass and shying away from publicly defending the Catholic Faith “whole and entire” against the present modernist onslaught unleashed within the Church for the past 50 years?

                • Can Tradition fully operate under a Novus Ordo hierarchy?
                These and countless other questions will have to addressed by Bishop Fellay and the SSPX before any sort of realistic canonical agreement can be reached.

                The Society of St. Pius X has never taken a pragmatic approach, but has always argued from doctrine, which means it argues from a position of strength. I believe the SSPX will continue its discussions along this strong, doctrinal line.

                Bishop Fellay knows the charism of the SSPX is that of its founder: to defend the Faith “whole and entire” without compromise, especially regarding the current errors of the day. He knows the duty of the priest requires nothing less.

                It is primarily the priest’s obligation to lead us in the battle to defend the Faith. Saint Thomas Aquinas did not leave it to the laity to combat the Manichees. St. Francis de Sales did not leave it the laity to combat Protestantism. We laity have our part, but it belongs to the nature of the priesthood to publicly defend the Faith.

                This is why we loved Archbishop Lefebvre. He led us in the battle.

                Of course, every sermon does not have be an assault on Vatican II and the New Mass, but it is the priest’s responsibility to warn his flock against prevalent errors that undermine the Faith and destroy souls. And tragically, the greatest assault on the Catholic Faith in our day comes from Vatican II, the contemporary hierarchy, and the revolutionary Polish Pope whom Benedict just beatified.

                How will a “regularized” SSPX be guaranteed the ability to fight this counter-revolutionary battle unimpeded?

                This myriad of questions now weighs on Bishop Fellay and on the Society of St. Pius X. A consideration of these questions helps us better understand why Bishop Fellay closed his interview requesting increased prayers and Rosaries for the SSPX for “the graces of light and strength that we need more than ever.”


    Offline LordPhan

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1171
    • Reputation: +826/-0
    • Gender: Male
    John Vennari on the Doctrinal Preamble
    « Reply #1 on: September 19, 2011, 10:25:01 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I have posted this in the general forum, because I would like this to be a discussion for those in the SSPX only.



    Offline LordPhan

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1171
    • Reputation: +826/-0
    • Gender: Male
    John Vennari on the Doctrinal Preamble
    « Reply #2 on: September 19, 2011, 10:30:49 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I generally agree with what John has said here, I had many of these thoughts myself especially in regards to the Dominicans affiliated with us, also I believe S2SREA made me think about the Independant chapels affiliated with us, at Corpus Christi not only did all of the SSPX chapels in Southern Ontario get to together at St. Catherines but Father Gruner and his Fatima Crusaders from Ft. Erie were there aswell in solidarity.


    http://www.cfnews.org/1001questions.htm This is the original link I forgot it.

    Offline Telesphorus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 12714
    • Reputation: +7/-12
    • Gender: Male
    John Vennari on the Doctrinal Preamble
    « Reply #3 on: September 19, 2011, 10:42:25 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: LordPhan
    I have posted this in the general forum, because I would like this to be a discussion for those in the SSPX only.


    Being a sede doesn't mean one cannot discuss such matters.  Discussion of sedevacantism is forbidden, not being a sede.

    There is absolutely no reason for these negotiations to be secret.

    Bishop Fellay is a Machiavellian character.  He says things to keep people placated until the fait accompli of his objectives.


    Offline Telesphorus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 12714
    • Reputation: +7/-12
    • Gender: Male
    John Vennari on the Doctrinal Preamble
    « Reply #4 on: September 19, 2011, 10:43:33 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Archbishop Lefebvre:

    "The Vatican is a masonic lodge"


    Offline LordPhan

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1171
    • Reputation: +826/-0
    • Gender: Male
    John Vennari on the Doctrinal Preamble
    « Reply #5 on: September 19, 2011, 10:45:13 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Telesphorus
    Quote from: LordPhan
    I have posted this in the general forum, because I would like this to be a discussion for those in the SSPX only.


    Being a sede doesn't mean one cannot discuss such matters.  Discussion of sedevacantism is forbidden, not being a sede.

    There is absolutely no reason for these negotiations to be secret.

    Bishop Fellay is a Machiavellian character.  He says things to keep people placated until the fait accompli of his objectives.



    Obviously I asked that Sede's not enter because a) It dosn't concern you and b) I'm not interested in your opinion on the matter.

    Offline Telesphorus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 12714
    • Reputation: +7/-12
    • Gender: Male
    John Vennari on the Doctrinal Preamble
    « Reply #6 on: September 19, 2011, 10:49:51 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: LordPhan
    Quote from: Telesphorus
    Quote from: LordPhan
    I have posted this in the general forum, because I would like this to be a discussion for those in the SSPX only.


    Being a sede doesn't mean one cannot discuss such matters.  Discussion of sedevacantism is forbidden, not being a sede.

    There is absolutely no reason for these negotiations to be secret.

    Bishop Fellay is a Machiavellian character.  He says things to keep people placated until the fait accompli of his objectives.



    Obviously I asked that Sede's not enter because a) It dosn't concern you and b) I'm not interested in your opinion on the matter.


    That's incorrect.  

    You seem to be seriously lacking in the ability to think.  Discussion of sedevacantism and being a sedevacantist are two different things.  

    But why is that SSPXers are always confusing things?  Maybe because that's how they're told to think?  It makes it easier for those in charge to run things?

    It does concern sedes.  Because many SSPX mass attendees are sedes.  And probably many priests.  

    "The Vatican is a masonic lodge."

    -Archbishop Lefebvre.

    If a masonic lodge is swallowing up a large group of traditional Catholics it's of concern to everyone.

    Offline PereJoseph

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1411
    • Reputation: +1973/-0
    • Gender: Male
    John Vennari on the Doctrinal Preamble
    « Reply #7 on: September 20, 2011, 12:44:57 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Tele, excellent posts.

    Like I said before, I hope that all the indications do not lead to their probable conclusion and that Bishop Fellay does not accept the deal.  But the SSPX will still have the serious problem of the new orientation -- directed by Fellay's administration and desire to play politics -- with which to deal, even if the Roman document is rejected.  Krah will still be in place, the liberalisation of the Society and its distancing from the integrally counter-revolutionary spirit of the Archbishop will not have been halted, and there will be even more odious pressure on the whole Society coming from the struggles with the German apostolate in its sad attempt to placate the Masonic and anti-Catholic German government.

    Will Menzingen reject a deal and then also repent of its persecution of Bishop Williamson and its embrace of the chief enemy of the Mystical Body of Christ, the perfidious Jews ?  One is inclined to doubt the latter regardless of the outcome with Rome.  No matter how many concessions from the Vatican, undoubtedly the worst part of any deal with them is the placement of orthodoxy and heresy on the equal footing of "legitimate theological opinions."  Shame on anybody who accepts all of the Romans' gifts in exchange for defection on the crucial principle that the Faith is exclusively true and non-negotiable, especially if they are motivated by the low motives of politics in such a betrayal.


    Offline PereJoseph

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1411
    • Reputation: +1973/-0
    • Gender: Male
    John Vennari on the Doctrinal Preamble
    « Reply #8 on: September 20, 2011, 12:53:54 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • With how many privileges in the face of the the dioceses would it be necessary to endow the new prelature in order to win Menzingen's coöperation ?  If Rome gave thirty such concessions on what can be publicly said and the type of canonical immunities from diocesan interference, would that be enough ?  Would the reunion be heralded with the kiss of another Te Deum ?

    Offline Stubborn

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 10083
    • Reputation: +3945/-946
    • Gender: Male
    John Vennari on the Doctrinal Preamble
    « Reply #9 on: September 20, 2011, 08:09:18 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • What it all *really* boils down to is this:

    Quote

    By John Vennari

              • Can Tradition fully operate under a Novus Ordo hierarchy?      


    According to the Novus Ordo hierarchy, that answer has always been "no" since +45 years ago - nothing has or even remotely shows any signs of changing far as that goes so why would they want to sign anything?


    I find it very hard to understand why on earth the SSPX would sign or join the NO. I mean the NO not only shows no interest whatsoever in anything traditional, they fail to even to acknowledge, let alone admit that there are any problems with the NO. The only problems the NO admit have to do with anything traditional - not a place many trads, let alone the SSPX are even welcome at.

    The whole thing seems like a waste of time imo.  
    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man." - Fr. Hesse

    Offline ServusSpiritusSancti

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8213
    • Reputation: +7164/-1
    • Gender: Male
    John Vennari on the Doctrinal Preamble
    « Reply #10 on: September 20, 2011, 03:39:16 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I can't help but look at what's going on in the SSPX right now and feel concerned. I disagree with Telesphorus on a LOT of things, but he is right about one thing. Archbishop LeFebvre said that if the SSPX were to be excommunicated, it would only mean they are excommunicated from Freemasonry. Yet here we are 20 years after the Archbishop's death, watching Bishop Fellay inch closer to accepting a deal with the very people Archbishop LeFebvre said were the ones really outside the Church.

    I have supported the SSPX since about the time I became a Traditional Catholic. But for the first time since then, I'm thinking that maybe I should withdraw my status as an SSPXer. I have definitely lost some respect for Bishop Fellay the past year. He silenced his own fellow Bishop and says that sedevacantists are "on a plane with no pilot" but proceeds to say we shouldn't be against the Jews? SSPXer or not, you must admit that is illogical.

    When I look at what Fellay has done the last year, I can't help but think of how Vatican II slowly took away the parts of the Traditional Latin Mass. They took away the chapel veils, then the altar rails, kneeling for Communion, etc. until they presented the Novus Ordo. Fellay threw Bishop Williamson under the bus for his comments on the Holocaust, then removed all anti-Jewish content from the SSPX web-site, tried to get the sedes out of the Society, silenced Bishop Williamson, and now appears to be near a deal with Rome. A striking similarity indeed. According to the preamble, they would have to accept Vatican II and its Magisterium as valid, they could just have the freedom to accept and reject what they wanted to. Should Fellay accept the deal, it would basically be like having a second Fraternity of St. Peter only they wouldn't be quite as soft spoken about the crisis in the Church.

    It's obvious why +Williamson was silenced. Fellay knew he would oppose the "regularization" with Rome. And he does. On his blog, +Williamson said he predicted something like this would happen, that Rome would dangle an attractive carrot in front of the Society's face by letting them pick and choose parts of Vatican II. And the reason Rome didn't want Bishop Williamson expelled just yet is quite simple. Their thinking is "Hey, if we're gonna have a one world religion we need to bring everyone in!". That's really the basis behind Benedict lifting their excommunication in the first place.

    Looking at Fellay's actions the past year, you can see how things lead up to this offer. It's quite shocking how Fellay went from saying there are four Freemasonic lodges operating in the Vatican, to being close to "becoming one of them" 12 years later. It only shows that at some point he lost his marbles. It is very shocking and sad, and the Society needs our prayers.


    Offline Wessex

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1311
    • Reputation: +1951/-361
    • Gender: Male
    John Vennari on the Doctrinal Preamble
    « Reply #11 on: September 20, 2011, 04:07:17 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • The Society is a mixed bag of covert sedevecantists, liberal nostalgics and a central core which will go wherever the leadership takes it. That is why there are so many different views around. Regardless of whether it signs or not this time, it will continue on its modernisation path for it to be easier to sign next time. The German zone is already a fan of Rome against its dioceses and along with France has seen a generational drift. One must not be blind to a trend taking place; one intended to integrate better with mainstream religious and political life than in the past. The counter-reformation has run out of steam. Was Lefebvrism really that much of a rebellion or a half-hearted piece of drama in several acts? The finale may not be far off.

    Offline Caminus

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3013
    • Reputation: +1/-0
    • Gender: Male
    John Vennari on the Doctrinal Preamble
    « Reply #12 on: September 20, 2011, 05:05:04 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: SpiritusSanctus
    I can't help but look at what's going on in the SSPX right now and feel concerned. I disagree with Telesphorus on a LOT of things, but he is right about one thing. Archbishop LeFebvre said that if the SSPX were to be excommunicated, it would only mean they are excommunicated from Freemasonry. Yet here we are 20 years after the Archbishop's death, watching Bishop Fellay inch closer to accepting a deal with the very people Archbishop LeFebvre said were the ones really outside the Church.[/quot]

    You're taking ABL's figurative, but meaningful language, and turning it into a literal statement.  ABL never asserted anyone was "outside the Church."  He realized, unlike you and many, the import of such an accusation.  And need I remind you that ABL held conversation and contacts in Rome for the duration of his ministry.  He had private meetings with Popes and other prelates as well.  He was certainly open to legal recognition because he understood it would be a great good for the Church.  I think you are caving in to a certain characterization of Bishop Fellay that is as unjust as the treatment of ABL was when he was living; a small but vocal body of discontents who never cease looking for an opportunity to spin anything in a negative light.  The idea of fraternal charity has given way to an odd sort of tone akin to modern ideological political commentary.  Utterly lacking from such commentary is the demands that justice and charity require of Catholics.  Even as moral theologians have disagreed about concrete solutions to moral questions, so too will men vary in opinion with regard to the prudential order.  Yet, those same theologians would never dream of impugning the character of an equally reputable theologian for coming to a different concrete conclusion.  The rashness and sweeping statements made here and elsewhere only serve to injure the very men who are helping the Church; these men are your brothers and fathers.  To cast an evil eye upon one for the slightest indication is rather a testament to your own disordered intellect and will.

    So if you are going to stick with these inane accusations, at least be precise and specific, not relying upon vague innuendo.        


    Offline stevusmagnus

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3728
    • Reputation: +824/-0
    • Gender: Male
      • h
    John Vennari on the Doctrinal Preamble
    « Reply #13 on: September 20, 2011, 05:16:24 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Apologia/Vol_three/Chapter_68.htm

    Quote from: Archbishop Lefebvre
    ...Next Tuesday I am to meet Cardinal Ratzinger, who is without a doubtone of the cardinals closest to the Pope. Why am I going to Rome? Why am I going to see Cardinal Ratzinger?

    The Pope has appointed him as successor to the late Cardinal Seper. Cardinal Ratzinger's duties include liaising with me, with the Society, not as Prefect of the Congregation for the Faith, but as personal delegate of the Holy Father. When someone says to us, "You're against the Pope. You don't want to be in union with the Pope," they are wrong. We are working only to re establish Tradition in Rome. All my activities have only one purpose : that the Church may go on, that there may be no division in the Church.

    But how can we be certain that we are the ones to help the Church carry on? As Our Lord says, "A tree is judged by its fruit." What are the fruits of prayer? The most beautiful fruit of prayer is religious vocations. These souls who come to pray in our chapels are so drawn to Our Lord Jesus Christ that they think, "I've had enough of the world, I no longer want to live in the world, I want to live with Our Lord Jesus Christ, I want to give myself to Jesus forever. I will shut myself up in a convent and give my soul to God."

    Where are the real vocations? Where do they come from? Well now, these souls have found their vocation in traditional places of prayer, that is, in the Catholic Church. On the other hand, in the beautiful churches, in the grand cathedrals, there is now a sterility where vocations cannot take root. Or if there are some that take root, they are badly formed, they do not grow as Jesus wishes, as the Church has always wished. Consequently, where the fruits are, there is also the Church, the fruits of sanctity in the Church. For this reason we are sure that the day will corne (God alone knows when) when the Church will see that we are right and congratulate us for maintaining Tradition.

    This is why I am going to Rome next Tuesday. After so many visits, will this one be more fruitful than the others? I do not know. But I am doing it as a duty of conscience, so that, when the Good Lord calls me, He will not say that I have done nothing to help re establish Tradition. I am doing all that I can toward this goal. If it is the Good Lord's will that our leaders should in a sense desert us, well, that will be a great tribulation of the Church. But we do not have the right to be discouraged and say, "Since they are not listening to us, let us break with the bishops; there is no longer a Church, it is finished." No, the Church is still with us. If those in positions of leadership are not doing their duty, if they are bad shepherds, that is no reason for us to abandon them. We must trust in Providence. The Good Lord is with His Church; we have no right to abandon the Roman Catholic Church. And in doing everything we have a duty to do, we can be at peace.

    Let us continue to pray, to sanctify ourselves and to entrust ourselves to the Blessed Virgin Mary: she is our Mother in heaven who has already overcome all heresies. She will overcome this one too. Let us be confident!



    Offline ServusSpiritusSancti

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8213
    • Reputation: +7164/-1
    • Gender: Male
    John Vennari on the Doctrinal Preamble
    « Reply #14 on: September 20, 2011, 08:49:26 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Caminus
    You're taking ABL's figurative, but meaningful language, and turning it into a literal statement. ABL never asserted anyone was "outside the Church." He realized, unlike you and many, the import of such an accusation.


    Actually, he said that those who called him and the Society schismatics were the real schismatics. ABL was never afraid to speak the truth. And the truth is the Vatican broke away from Tradition in the first place, not the Society.

    Quote
    He had private meetings with Popes and other prelates as well. He was certainly open to legal recognition because he understood it would be a great good for the Church.


    But there is a difference. Archbishop LeFebvre said he would never compromise his position, his mission was to convert Rome. Yet here you have Bishop Fellay seriously considering an offer that would require him to accept Vatican II. ABL would never accept such an absurd offer.

    Quote
    I think you are caving in to a certain characterization of Bishop Fellay that is as unjust as the treatment of ABL was when he was living; a small but vocal body of discontents who never cease looking for an opportunity to spin anything in a negative light. The idea of fraternal charity has given way to an odd sort of tone akin to modern ideological political commentary. Utterly lacking from such commentary is the demands that justice and charity require of Catholics.


    Unlike most of the critics of ABL and the Society, I support the SSPX and don't dislike Bishop Fellay. I'm only stating the obvious, which is Fellay shouldn't compromise his position just so more laypeople will recognize him. The SSPX was never really "outside the Church" anyway, so why should he care if Novus Ordites think he and the SSPX as schismatic?


     

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