Author Topic: SSPX development (Read 3436 times)

bobbyva2001 · « **on:** April 24, 2012, 12:54:34 PM »

http://layobserver.wordpress.com/2012/04/24/explanation-of-the-clarifications-of-bishop-fellay-given-by-sspx-priest-in-argentinia/

Dino · « **Reply #1 on:** April 24, 2012, 05:38:36 PM »

Thank you very much for sharing Bobby. This is excellent "clarification" concerning negotiations taking place in the last week. I'm going to email this to some fellow parishioners. God bless Father Prior Ezequiel Rubio, and all religious, and all the faithful. Oh, and welcome to Cathinfo.... :applause:

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #2 on:** April 24, 2012, 07:43:41 PM »

Blah blah.

The SSPX wants freedom to save souls.

Rome is not sure it wants the souls to be saved.

Rome believes in a counterfeit Catholicism, and we are no longer concerned they should ever revert back to the Faith.

We just want to coexist on equal footing with heretics.

Wait a minute:

Don't we have the freedom to preach the faith today without worry of suppression, and believe that the sanctions levied against us are bogus?

Then why cut a deal that implies worry about the sanction, jeopardizes our liberty, and castrates any hope of a Roman return to the Faith?

We have been lied to if it is now acceptable to sign a practical deal whilst all the heresies remain promoted in Rome.

Archbishop Lefebvre would never go along with this!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Dino · « **Reply #3 on:** April 24, 2012, 08:22:08 PM »

Quote from: Seraphim

Blah blah.

The SSPX wants freedom to save souls.

Rome is not sure it wants the souls to be saved.

Rome believes in a counterfeit Catholicism, and we are no longer concerned they should ever revert back to the Faith.

We just want to coexist on equal footing with heretics.

Wait a minute:

Don't we have the freedom to preach the faith today without worry of suppression, and believe that the sanctions levied against us are bogus?

Then why cut a deal that implies worry about the sanction, jeopardizes our liberty, and castrates any hope of a Roman return to the Faith?

We have been lied to if it is now acceptable to sign a practical deal whilst all the heresies remain promoted in Rome.

Archbishop Lefebvre would never go along with this!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Maybe you didn't read the communique? It's basically saying that Bishop Fellay agrees with your statement!

KofCTrad · « **Reply #4 on:** April 24, 2012, 08:24:02 PM »

From the article/link:

"2) Liberty to preach to all its faithful of those diocese that assistance in the new mass, that is celebrated by the Pope and the majority of the bishops, is seriously favorable to the heresy and that to attend it with full conscience is a mortal sin, save extraordinary circuмstances when permission is given, such as permitting seminarians to see it for studying purposes, in order to note the spirit Protestantization of it."

Love the SSPX. and have nothing against it and I know this is the party line BUT it presents quite a problem and I don't think the Vatican would ever go for it. And well they should not if they want to keep the "facade"/game going.

This is the heart of the problem with the SSPX's position:

cannon 7 of Session XXII of the council of trent:

"If anyone says, that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs, which the Catholic Church makes use of in the celebration of masses, are incentives to impiety, rather than offices of piety; let him be anathema"

The SSPX is in a very strange predicament. It's dialoguing with the "Holy See" over "doctrine" while it's official position is the Vatican II Novus Ordo apparatus is a danger to souls.

The sedevacantists are much more consistent.

SSPX position is wanting.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #5 on:** April 24, 2012, 08:41:05 PM »

Quote from: Dino

Quote from: Seraphim
Blah blah.

The SSPX wants freedom to save souls.

Rome is not sure it wants the souls to be saved.

Rome believes in a counterfeit Catholicism, and we are no longer concerned they should ever revert back to the Faith.

We just want to coexist on equal footing with heretics.

Wait a minute:

Don't we have the freedom to preach the faith today without worry of suppression, and believe that the sanctions levied against us are bogus?

Then why cut a deal that implies worry about the sanction, jeopardizes our liberty, and castrates any hope of a Roman return to the Faith?

We have been lied to if it is now acceptable to sign a practical deal whilst all the heresies remain promoted in Rome.

Archbishop Lefebvre would never go along with this!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Maybe you didn't read the communique? It's basically saying that Bishop Fellay agrees with your statement!

Maybe you need to read it again.

We are negotiating a practical deal while the doctrinal matters remain unresolved.

Bishop Fellay is saying that he cannot sign the preamble because of certain ambiguous passages.

But what you are missing is that, apparently, there would be no problem signing a deal with the modernists if there were no ambiguous passages!

In other words, we don't care if Rome wants to convert or not.

Just give us our liberty, we will forget about ABL's requirement that, for the good of the whole Church, Rome convert before we will sign any practical agreement.

The struggle is not about what the SSPX can broker for itself.

It is about bringing sanity back to Rome, since only she can restore the Church!

A practical agreement while Rome is still out in left field neutralizes any reasonable hope of this in out time.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #6 on:** April 24, 2012, 08:43:54 PM »

Quote from: KofCTrad

From the article/link:

"2) Liberty to preach to all its faithful of those diocese that assistance in the new mass, that is celebrated by the Pope and the majority of the bishops, is seriously favorable to the heresy and that to attend it with full conscience is a mortal sin, save extraordinary circuмstances when permission is given, such as permitting seminarians to see it for studying purposes, in order to note the spirit Protestantization of it."

Love the SSPX. and have nothing against it and I know this is the party line BUT it presents quite a problem and I don't think the Vatican would ever go for it. And well they should not if they want to keep the "facade"/game going.

This is the heart of the problem with the SSPX's position:

cannon 7 of Session XXII of the council of trent:

"If anyone says, that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs, which the Catholic Church makes use of in the celebration of masses, are incentives to impiety, rather than offices of piety; let him be anathema"

The SSPX is in a very strange predicament. It's dialoguing with the "Holy See" over "doctrine" while it's official position is the Vatican II Novus Ordo apparatus is a danger to souls.

The sedevacantists are much more consistent.

SSPX position is wanting.

Nothing new in this post.

You are a sede, so you dont want to undertand or accept the Churches doctrine of necessity (i.e., a cause excusing from obedience to superiors, first taught by divine inspiration in Galations when St. Paul resisted Peter to the face because he was to be blamed).

Additionally, you seem unwilling to distinguish netween the doctrinal and disciplinary dictates of the canons of the Council of Trent.

Dino · « **Reply #7 on:** April 24, 2012, 08:47:44 PM »

Quote from: Seraphim

Quote from: Dino
Quote from: Seraphim
Blah blah.

The SSPX wants freedom to save souls.

Rome is not sure it wants the souls to be saved.

Rome believes in a counterfeit Catholicism, and we are no longer concerned they should ever revert back to the Faith.

We just want to coexist on equal footing with heretics.

Wait a minute:

Don't we have the freedom to preach the faith today without worry of suppression, and believe that the sanctions levied against us are bogus?

Then why cut a deal that implies worry about the sanction, jeopardizes our liberty, and castrates any hope of a Roman return to the Faith?

We have been lied to if it is now acceptable to sign a practical deal whilst all the heresies remain promoted in Rome.

Archbishop Lefebvre would never go along with this!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Maybe you didn't read the communique? It's basically saying that Bishop Fellay agrees with your statement!

Maybe you need to read it again.

We are negotiating a practical deal while the doctrinal matters remain unresolved.

Bishop Fellay is saying that he cannot sign the preamble because of certain ambiguous passages.

But what you are missing is that, apparently, there would be no problem signing a deal with the modernists if there were no ambiguous passages!

In other words, we don't care if Rome wants to convert or not.

Just give us our liberty, we will forget about ABL's requirement that, for the good of the whole Church, Rome convert before we will sign any practical agreement.

The struggle is not about what the SSPX can broker for itself.

It is about bringing sanity back to Rome, since only she can restore the Church!

A practical agreement while Rome is still out in left field neutralizes any reasonable hope of this in out time.

Yeah, I agree with what you saying. Maybe the society is going to do this one step at a time. I'm sure that is their long term/short term desire, that is, the conversion of Rome. God Bless....

stevusmagnus · « **Reply #8 on:** April 24, 2012, 09:35:46 PM »

Bishop Fellay is saying in effect, "Rome, you insist on a "practical agreement"? Fine. The only "practical agreement" we can accept is that you take us "as is." We keep doing exactly what we've been doing. The bishops have no power over us. We still preach the New Mass should be avoided. And we still have freedom to consecrate whatever bishops we'd like."

If that's the deal and Rome takes it, the doctrinal differences don't matter all that much because the Society keeps doing what it has always done except with the "stamp of approval" of Rome, which would simply lead to more converts once the bogeyman is removed.

I think BF deserves a lot of credit. All sorts of Traditionalists were claiming he was going to sell out. This is not selling out at all. It's saying, "Take us 'as is' or don't take us. My respect for BF just grew even more.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #9 on:** April 24, 2012, 09:44:42 PM »

Quote from: stevusmagnus

Bishop Fellay is saying in effect, "Rome, you insist on a "practical agreement"? Fine. The only "practical agreement" we can accept is that you take us "as is." We keep doing exactly what we've been doing. The bishops have no power over us. We still preach the New Mass should be avoided. And we still have freedom to consecrate whatever bishops we'd like."

If that's the deal and Rome takes it, the doctrinal differences don't matter all that much because the Society keeps doing what it has always done except with the "stamp of approval" of Rome, which would simply lead to more converts once the bogeyman is removed.

I think BF deserves a lot of credit. All sorts of Traditionalists were claiming he was going to sell out. This is not selling out at all. It's saying, "Take us 'as is' or don't take us. My respect for BF just grew even more.

I marvel that Rome and laity alike miss the golden egg:

Rome could have destroyed the SSPX long ago if they would just have given them approval.

The indultarians and neo-cons would so flood the SSPX chapels, that tradition would be more diluted in one year than Satan could possibly have hoped for by any other means.

Infiltration of the pews, seminary, and eventually clergy by a new hybrid layman who never supported the fight of ABL, never understood him and his plan, and (just like the plan of the Alta Vendita) will ascend to positions of mis-influence to the destruction of all.

You would think a trad would know better.

stevusmagnus · « **Reply #10 on:** April 24, 2012, 09:58:31 PM »

Seraphim,

You bring up a very valid concern. However, you'd have a situation where the Society is still in charge of their own chapels and seminaries and they can get to weeding out pseudo-trads just like the libs have weeded out anyone with half a Traditionalist tendency from their seminaries for 50 years.

Also, I don't think Neo-Trads or Indultarians would last very long in Society Chapels. They'd show up at first for the novelty, then take off in horror thinking the people there are intolerant, rigid, nut jobs. Neo-Caths on CAF will still despise the Society if they are regularized "as is." No way Rome will do it, though. They'd have a revolution on their hands. The Conciliarites could not bear having the Society railing on the Mass, JPII, ecuмenism, etc. "inside the Church" with them. They will be up in arms. Those who were so tolerant of every type of liberal heretic for 50 years "obeying" the Pope's doing nothing, will all of a sudden question the Pope at every turn if he should be so bold as to allow the "integrists" back in.

LordPhan · « **Reply #11 on:** April 24, 2012, 09:59:26 PM »

Quote from: KofCTrad

From the article/link:

"2) Liberty to preach to all its faithful of those diocese that assistance in the new mass, that is celebrated by the Pope and the majority of the bishops, is seriously favorable to the heresy and that to attend it with full conscience is a mortal sin, save extraordinary circuмstances when permission is given, such as permitting seminarians to see it for studying purposes, in order to note the spirit Protestantization of it."

Love the SSPX. and have nothing against it and I know this is the party line BUT it presents quite a problem and I don't think the Vatican would ever go for it. And well they should not if they want to keep the "facade"/game going.

This is the heart of the problem with the SSPX's position:

cannon 7 of Session XXII of the council of trent:

"If anyone says, that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs, which the Catholic Church makes use of in the celebration of masses, are incentives to impiety, rather than offices of piety; let him be anathema"

The SSPX is in a very strange predicament. It's dialoguing with the "Holy See" over "doctrine" while it's official position is the Vatican II Novus Ordo apparatus is a danger to souls.

The sedevacantists are much more consistent.

SSPX position is wanting.

The fact that you don't understand the Canon you quoted is your problem not ours. Every Canon is directly linked to a problem that arose or a controversy that arose, that Canon is directly linked to the Latin Mass. It has absolutely no bearing on any abuses introduced.

Canons are infallbile decrees of things that come from Christ or his apostles, they can only be infallible if they are NOT tied to something new but are tied to what has always been believed.

This Canon you quoted was about the Latin Mass in direct response to the Protestants during their 'reformation' rebellion.The Protestants were at the Council of Trent, for many of the sessions, and argued their cases, they were attacking the Tridentine Mass, which was Canonized by the Council.

Novelities, Abuses and New Rites(Which are forbidden to be created in the same Council) are not in consideration.

If anything that Canon condemns the Novus Ordo, not the SSPX.

Do not pretend you are a theologian.

Dino · « **Reply #12 on:** April 24, 2012, 10:06:33 PM »

Quote from: stevusmagnus

Bishop Fellay is saying in effect, "Rome, you insist on a "practical agreement"? Fine. The only "practical agreement" we can accept is that you take us "as is." We keep doing exactly what we've been doing. The bishops have no power over us. We still preach the New Mass should be avoided. And we still have freedom to consecrate whatever bishops we'd like."

If that's the deal and Rome takes it, the doctrinal differences don't matter all that much because the Society keeps doing what it has always done except with the "stamp of approval" of Rome, which would simply lead to more converts once the bogeyman is removed.

I think BF deserves a lot of credit. All sorts of Traditionalists were claiming he was going to sell out. This is not selling out at all. It's saying, "Take us 'as is' or don't take us. My respect for BF just grew even more.

stevusmagnus · « **Reply #13 on:** April 24, 2012, 10:10:47 PM »

Good work, Phan. Neo-Caths use this line repeatedly to quash all criticism of the Novus Ordo. It's very similar to the way they have perverted the notion of obedience. Obedience is meant to serve the Faith. After the Council, the same group that were disobedient, then used "obedience" to quash dissent from their New Religion. It's all a grand farce. A mimicry of virtue used to protect error.

Diego · « **Reply #14 on:** April 24, 2012, 10:36:29 PM »

Quote from: Seraphim

Quote from: stevusmagnus
Bishop Fellay is saying in effect, "Rome, you insist on a "practical agreement"? Fine. The only "practical agreement" we can accept is that you take us "as is." We keep doing exactly what we've been doing. The bishops have no power over us. We still preach the New Mass should be avoided. And we still have freedom to consecrate whatever bishops we'd like."

If that's the deal and Rome takes it, the doctrinal differences don't matter all that much because the Society keeps doing what it has always done except with the "stamp of approval" of Rome, which would simply lead to more converts once the bogeyman is removed.

I think BF deserves a lot of credit. All sorts of Traditionalists were claiming he was going to sell out. This is not selling out at all. It's saying, "Take us 'as is' or don't take us. My respect for BF just grew even more.

I marvel that Rome and laity alike miss the golden egg:

Rome could have destroyed the SSPX long ago if they would just have given them approval.

The indultarians and neo-cons would so flood the SSPX chapels, that tradition would be more diluted in one year than Satan could possibly have hoped for by any other means.

Infiltration of the pews, seminary, and eventually clergy by a new hybrid layman who never supported the fight of ABL, never understood him and his plan, and (just like the plan of the Alta Vendita) will ascend to positions of mis-influence to the destruction of all.

You would think a trad would know better.

... and... it is a pipe dream to believe that the SSPX will do the work of conversion under the umbrella of the Novus Ordo apparatus. When push came to shove look how quickly a certain "traditional" prelate adopted Elder Brother, uranium, hand grenade NewSpeak. And then there is the matter of a Zionist admirer of nudity and Madonna having control over the finances of that "traditional" order.

I could vomit.