Author Topic: John Vennari on the Doctrinal Preamble (Read 10098 times)

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #10 on:** September 20, 2011, 03:39:16 PM »

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 Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ. 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 h0Ɩ0cαųst, then removed all anti-Jєωιѕн 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.

Wessex · « **Reply #11 on:** September 20, 2011, 04:07:17 PM »

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.

Caminus · « **Reply #12 on:** September 20, 2011, 05:05:04 PM »

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 Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ. 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.

stevusmagnus · « **Reply #13 on:** September 20, 2011, 05:16:24 PM »

http://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/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!

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #14 on:** September 20, 2011, 08:49:26 PM »

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?