RESISTANCE UNDERMINED

The good news from the General Chapter of the Society of St Pius X which closed on Saturday is that the SSPX, led to the brink of ѕυιcιdє, has been given a reprieve by the Chapter. However, if the following words, spoken in an interview broadcast worldwide, are any indication of the mind of the leaders still in place for another six years, prayers must still go up for the reprieve to last. Here are the words (which may or may not still be accessible on the Internet -- see Catholic News Service):--

“Many people have an understanding of the Council (Vatican II) which is a wrong understanding, and now we have people in Rome who say it. We may say, in the Discussions (between Rome and the Society of St Pius X, from 2009 to 2011), I think, we see that many things which we (in the SSPX) would have condemned as coming from the Council are in fact not from the Council, but from the common understanding of it.”

To comment, we must go back to Vatican II. Containing both truth and error, its 16 docuмents are profoundly ambiguous and contradictory. Following Archbishop Lefebvre, the SSPX has never said that the docuмents contain no truth, but it has always accused them of containing serious errors, for instance the doctrine that the State has no right to repress non-Catholic religions. Conciliar Rome has always defended the docuмents, for instance by referring to the opposite truths contained in them, such as that every man must in matters religious find out and profess the truth. But the truths have never been the problem. The problem is the error and the contradiction. For instance, if a mass of individuals, such as the State, may be neutral in religion, why should the single individual not be ? The contradiction opens the door wide to the liberation of man from God - liberalism.

The Doctrinal Discussions of 2009 to 2011 were set up to examine the doctrinal clash between the Romans’ Conciliar subjectivism and the SSPX’s Catholic objectivism. They showed, of course, that the clash is profound and irreconcilable, not between Conciliar truth and Catholic truth, but between Conciliar error and Catholic truth, in effect between the religion of man and the religion of God.

Now comes the speaker to state that the “people in Rome” are right, and that “we” are wrong, i.e. the SSPX, because “many things” the SSPX has constantly condemned as coming from the Council come only from a “common understanding” of the Council. In other words, the Archbishop and his Society were wrong from the beginning to accuse the Council, and accordingly to resist Conciliar Rome. It follows that the episcopal consecrations of 1988 must have been an unnecessary decision, because Conciliar bishops could have been trusted to look after Catholic Tradition. Yet the Archbishop called those consecrations “Operation Survival”, and he called trusting Conciliar Rome “Operation ѕυιcιdє”.

Today the speaker - consistently with his words quoted above - is certainly favouring a Rome-SSPX agreement. Moreover he is quoted as suggesting in Austria two months ago that this agreement would entrust Conciliar Rome with choosing the SSPX’s future bishops. Then unless Rome has stopped being Conciliar since the Archbishop’s day, and all the evidence cries out against such an illusion, the Archbishop would have said that the speaker was promoting “Operation ѕυιcιdє” of the SSPX - unless the speaker has since disowned these words.

Kyrie eleison.
 
© 2012 Richard N. Williamson. All Rights Reserved.

Bishop Williamson has made his comment all the more pointed by studiously avoiding to put a name to the individual who uttered the words cited in the second paragraph.

His Excellency can't even stand saying the name of the traitor any longer, and neither do I.

Years ago this was fairly easy to understand, but now its gotten like a Rubik cube with no solution, or listening to the con-artist, suspecting the con, then knowing its a con and not buying it, then turning around and saying- 'hey that makes sense'.  I'm dizzy just from how convoluted this whole thing as become. What ever happened to Si Si No No?  :shocked: :idea: :confused1:

Neither *can I.

 

...Vatican II: Containing both truth and error, its 16 docuмents are profoundly ambiguous and contradictory.

Contradictory? The reader's attention is drawn to contradiction in the V II docs......

Following Archbishop Lefebvre, the SSPX has never said that the docuмents contain no truth, but it has always accused them of containing serious errors, for instance the doctrine that the State has no right to repress non-Catholic religions.

The good bishop is describing an element of the heresy of Americanism, which is a
very difficult thing to condemn in America, even when one speaks to Catholics in
America.

Therefore, condemnation of error arises in the reader's mind.

Conciliar Rome has always defended the docuмents, for instance by referring to the opposite truths contained in them, such as that every man must in matters religious find out and profess the truth.

The good bishop identifies one of the Conciliar subversive techniques: to respond
to accusations of error with references to their opposite truths. Therefore, we can
easily conclude from this, that since the Vat II docuмents were drawn up with
very deliberate design, then it must have been part of the plan from the beginning
to put self-contradictory statements in, that is, in one place a truth which is the
opposite teaching of what is found in another place in the docuмents. These
opposing "doctrines" should not be likely found in physical approximation to each
other, but separated by some 10 or more pages, usually. And therefore, it may be
likely to find more of them, either the errors or their opposite truths, near the
beginning of the docuмents or near the end of the docuмents.

But regardless of where they are found, the point here is that they are indeed
found, and have been found, for many years. But they were placed there with the
intention of using them this way in the future, so-called "Time Bombs of Vatican II."

And as Pope St. Pius X defined in Pascendi, it is typical of Modernist writings to
have sound doctrine on one page, and then when you turn the page you find
heresy. What he did not say, however, is that the truth on the left side of the page
would be the opposite of the heresy on the right side of the page. I wish that he
had! Or, even better still, that anywhere at all, but more likely several pages or
more away, one should not be alarmed to find the contradiction of a truth with its
opposing error, or the contradiction of a heresy with its contradictory truth; and
that when accused of the error or the heresy, the author can simply reply by
quoting the contradiction of it on some other page.

But the truths have never been the problem. The problem is the error and the contradiction. For instance, if a mass of individuals, such as the State, may be neutral in religion, why should the single individual not be ? The contradiction opens the door wide to the liberation of man from God - liberalism.

The liberation of man from God - liberalism. I wonder why that's not in the
dictionary? Bishop Williamson could write a new dictionary, one that will stand as
a monument to Catholic thinking for many future generations, that is, if they don't
hunt it down and burn it.

The problem is the error - which is not condemned, and the contradiction - which
violates the principle of non-contradiction: ultimately, that a thing cannot be and
not be at the same time. But in this application the principle would be that these
Vatican II docuмents, if they are legitimate and honest, cannot have opposite and
contradictory statements or teachings both in the docuмents, albeit on different
pages.

Therefore, we have three things the reader's mind is now focused on: there are
no condemnations of error in Vatican II, but instead there are assertions of
error. And secondly, while there should be no contradictory material, a truth here
and its opposite and contradictory heresy there, there are in fact numerous such
places where such things are found in the repugnant docuмents of Vatican II,
which only grow more and more repugnant the more one studies them. And
thirdly, these objectively evil things were placed in the Vat II docs. deliberately,
with the full intention, albeit not pronounced as such (except of course, behind
closed doors!), of using them at some point in the future, as the need arises.

From these three things, evoked by a critical reading of this EC, and applying
our knowledge that the good Bishop does not need to explain, because he knows
his readership is not uniformed, we learn that the Vatican II docuмents are
therefore a treasure trove of resource for Modernist Rome, out of which it can
continue to draw its bad fruit and find excuses for saying it is good fruit. It is the
source of denial of the principle of non-contradiction, and it is the source of the
heresy that condemnation of error is not required for legitimate exercise of
Church authority.

The Doctrinal Discussions of 2009 to 2011 were set up to examine the doctrinal clash between the Romans’ Conciliar subjectivism and the SSPX’s Catholic objectivism. They showed, of course, that the clash is profound and irreconcilable, not between Conciliar truth and Catholic truth, but between Conciliar error and Catholic truth, in effect between the religion of man and the religion of God.

The clash between Conciliar error and Catholic truth is profoundly irreconcilable.

Can stronger language possibly be found? Anyone want to bet that can be found
in the "Doctrinal Preamble?" Anyone want to believe this is why Rome doesn't
want us to see its contents? Hey, if they showed us the Preamble, we might then
ask to see the Third Secret of Fatima! Then their jive would be in real trouble.

The doctrinal clash between the Romans' Conciliar subjectivism and the SSPX's
Catholic objectivism is not found between Concilar truth and Catholic truth. By
their methods, we could expect Rome to say, "Let's explore our common ground."

But the SSPX knows there is nothing to be gained by ignoring the problem, and
the problem is not in the "common ground," but in the profoundly irreconcilable
clash.

Quote from: MaterDominici

“Many people have an understanding of the Council (Vatican II) which is a wrong understanding, and now we have people in Rome who say it. We may say, in the Discussions (between Rome and the Society of St Pius X, from 2009 to 2011), I think, we see that many things which we (in the SSPX) would have condemned as coming from the Council are in fact not from the Council, but from the common understanding of it.”

Now comes the speaker to state that the “people in Rome” are right, and that “we” are wrong, i.e. the SSPX, because “many things” the SSPX has constantly condemned as coming from the Council come only from a “common understanding” of the Council. In other words, the Archbishop and his Society were wrong from the beginning to accuse the Council, and accordingly to resist Conciliar Rome.

In a subsequent interview, Fr. Rostand said it was "dishonest" to interpret +Fellay's quoted words as a change of position.

No, what is dishonest is Fr. Rostand's denial that what +Fellay said is credible.

The interviewer then asked specifically whether or not the SSPX had changed its position. Fr. Rostand could not directly answer the question:

http://www.gloria.tv/?media=300906

The SSPX leadership appears unsure about and unwilling to admit its own position.

Fr. Rostand claims that the Society's position "is public," and it's "well known," but
he nonetheless cannot seem to put it into words for the interview.

Why not put out a "communique" that either verifies or disavows Bishop Fellay's interview statement? Do the prerequisites of office include a right to obfuscate on core doctrine? Such is the legacy of Vatican II.

The linked gloriatv interview is a scream.

Q: Some people have used the recent interview of Bishop Fellay with Catholic News Service to indicate or argue that perhaps he's backing down, or softening his position on doctrinal questions that affect the faith... (interviewer was about to make it into a question but the anxious Fr. Rostand was so eager to keep the question from getting more sticky that he interrupted here)

A: That.. make [sic] no sense to me. How can you use one quote from an interview and say the position has changed?

Uuuuuuhhh.. Let me guess: Because if it doesn't mean that, then the speaker
was lying to say it? Oh, right. Maybe he's a liar, so then of course, he lies.

No.. Wait: He is adopting the "denial of the principle of non-contradiction" from the
unclean spirit of Vatican II, whereby he can hold one truth in his mind, and at
the same time hold the opposite, the denial of that truth, in his mind as well? In
this way, you see, when B16 watches the interview (and you can be sure that B16
was watching the interview!), then +Fellay gets two silver brownie points.

Yeah. That's the ticket.

I mean, take a conference.. aah, where Bishop Fellay explained his position on religious liberty and say, okay, zis position has change [sic] from the past. Okay. But take one sentence which has been used by a journalist from an interview of.. an hour, take a few.. not even a minute and say zis is an official position of Bishop Fellay -- it's dishonest. It doesn't make any sense.

So when we hear his voice and see his face and he says something in a published
interview which the world can see, and the pope can see it, and what he says
describes a change in the SSPX's longstanding position on religious liberty in the
direction of what B16 would call "progress" toward the (erroneous) teachings of  
Vatican II -- we should just ignore that, right? And why? Because Fr. Rostand says
it makes no sense to believe what +Fellay is saying!

The entire interview was scripted. +Fellay had plenty of chances to say something
else there. But he deliberately chose to say that "the religious liberty of Vatican II
is very, very limited." He deliberately chose to say that all these years +ABL and
the Society have been accusing the Council of error without just cause. But we
should not believe that because Fr. Rostand says we should not believe that.

I don't think so. If we follow Fr. Rostand's advice, we should not believe Fr.
Rostand's advice either, because he's giving it in an interview, and it's different
from what the SSPX has always taught, so Fr. Rostand, when he says "it makes no
sense," is in fact, making no sense!

The interviewer makes several attempts to ask Fr. Rostand what is today the
position of the SSPX on these things if it is not what +Fellay had described in the
quoted interview with CNS, but each time Fr. diverts the subject to say that the
Church teaches the truth, and the Catholic faith is true, etc. Then he turns the
subject onto this regularization with Rome, and "the question of prudence":

The recognition by Rome is a matter of prudence. If the faith is not compromised and we can stay as we are (he has still not explained what the SSPX's position is, but is now saying "we can stay as we are" -- BUT HOW ARE WE?), well, to go forward then (to sign a "deal") is a question of prudence.

The interviewer did not ask if signing the "deal" would be prudent. He asked what
the position of the SSPX is, if it is different from what +Fellay described in the
CNS interview.

Bishop Fellay has been very clear on these two questions. There is no way that we would accept to compromise the faith...

Q: Father, to go one step even further, what would you say to the argument that even to accept a recognition by Rome would be a compromise?

A: It is an interesting question. It's one of the major objections to a recognition of the Society today, um, that because we have seen so many errors in the Church in the past decades that would have been, being recognized, would that be a compromise on the faith? Well, uh, No. Because, once again, we have been
discussing with Rome the doctrine and Rome knows exactly our positions. And our position on religious liberty, on ecuмenism is public, is known. And we have made no statement and we have no intention of making any statement of backing down on this fight for the faith.

So "our position is known" but Fr. Rostand cannot describe it. And "we have made
no statement of backing down," even though +Fellay did make a statement, in
his interview with CNS, that describes backing down.

PAY NO ATTENTION TO THAT MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN, DOROTHY!!

Fr. Rostand is taking us for fools.

The recognition of the Society is a different matter than this fight for the faith. Would you say that in 1970 when Archbishop Lefebvre made a request for recognition of his newborn society, or when in '88 when he signed the protocol, was Archbishop making a compromise by the simple fact that he asked the blessing of the Church for the society that he was founding in 1970, and in the process of the protocol in 1988? No, no, Archbishop Lefebvre never compromised on the faith. And the situation today between the Society and Rome is similar to the situation of 1988 with the possible protocol of that time.

One thing that is very different today, however, is that in 1988, we did not have
a Superior General giving interviews from a bunker in Menzingen saying that the
Society has been wrong all along, and then that followed by the US District
Superior giving another interview telling us not to believe the Menzingen
interview, because doing so would not make sense.

In that regard, the situation today is entirely DIFFERENT, not "similar" to the
situation in 1988. We have, therefore, two things. We have the situation in 1988
and we have the situation today, and they are opposite extremes in that regard,
but Fr. Rostand says "They are similar."

When my daughter was in Kindergarten, I went there to volunteer during the
school day from time to time, and saw them doing a lesson "Same or Different?"
They would compare two things, and decide if they are the same, or, if they are
different. And they did this exercise many times. Many times. I have to wonder
if Fr. Rostand somehow missed that lesson in Kindergarten, and could he be living
now a life where he cannot discern between "Same" and "Different?"



OVERALL, Fr. Rostand gives the impression of the hardened will, his every
response and his every sentence describes his "face set like flint" on giving
the party line, the propaganda piece, the whitewash, the doublespeak version
of reality. He is entirely dedicated to denying anything that might lend a
shadow of doubt to the party line. If you see or hear anything that is in conflict
with what Fr. Rostand tells you, you are hereby ordered (even though he has no
jurisdiction!) to not believe your eyes and ears.

You are to believe what Fr. Rostand says, because he said it.

The interviewer has my deepest sympathy. If I had tried to conduct that
interview, I would have either lost my composure, or would have pressed the
issue too hard, and Fr. Rostand would have stopped his answers and refused
Angelus Press to publish the contents.

Yes, that is one of the most appalling things.

Fellay falsely asks for tens of millions of Rosaries to be prayed that certain things will happen, and then when they do happen – he falsely claims it is a “miracle”.
But he has known from the start that these things would happen. Because it is all prearranged with Ratzinger.
So there is no “miracle” occurring there.
Just a ploy by deceitful Fellay, and his master Ratzinger.

For Fellay to get people praying for something that he knows is already accomplished and is no “miracle”, is horrifyingly sinful on his part.

The Rosary is a precious prayer from Our Lady.

How dare this man try to manipulate people by lying about the Rosary and using it to claim false “miracles.”