CathInfo.com

Quote from: Guga

He is kind nervous, isn't him?

He seemed VERY nervous.  Like when you've been caught and are trying to formulate an "explanation" for why your hand is in the cookie jar.


Summary of the latest propaganda video-
Fr.R-"Let me explain, my hand is not really in the cookie jar, those are just rumors, you must not listen to people telling you this.  don't believe what you are seeing just believe what I am telling you".

The beautiful background muisic becomes repugnant in the context. Like every thing is just fine, relax, we just want a recognition etc. Trying to give us a false sense of the reality.
Same with the + Fellay interview.    

Did anyone catch the introduction where he says "it is not true that the unity of the Church is based soley on the Faith"?

Someone might remind him that there can be no unity without unity of the Faith.

Ahh!  Someone has come to do that .......Pope Leo XIII:


"The Church of Christ, therefore, is one and the same for ever; those who leave it depart from the will and command of Christ, the Lord - leaving the path of salvation they enter on that of perdition. "Whosoever is separated from the Church is united to an adulteress. He has cut himself off from the promises of the Church, and he who leaves the Church of Christ cannot arrive at the rewards of Christ....He who observes not this unity observes not the law of God, holds not the faith of the Father and the Son, clings not to life and salvation" (S. Cyprianus, De Cath. Eccl. Unitate, n. 6).

6. But He, indeed, Who made this one Church, also gave it unity, that is, He made it such that all who are to belong to it must be united by the closest bonds, so as to form one society, one kingdom, one body - "one body and one spirit as you are called in one hope of your calling (Eph. iv., 4). Jesus Christ, when His death was nigh at hand, declared His will in this matter, and solemnly offered it up, thus addressing His Father: "Not for them only do I pray, but for them also who through their word shall believe in Me...that they also may be one in Us...that they may be made perfect in one" John xvii., 20-21 23). Yea, He commanded that this unity should be so closely knit and so perfect amongst His followers that it might, in some measure, shadow forth the union between Himself and His Father: "I pray that they all may be one as Thou Father in Me and I in Thee" (Ibid. 21).

Agreement and union of minds is the necessary foundation of this perfect concord amongst men, from which concurrence of wills and similarity of action are the natural results. Wherefore, in His divine wisdom, He ordained in His Church Unity of Faith; a virtue which is the first of those bonds which unite man to God, and whence we receive the name of the faithful - "one Lord, one faith, one baptism" (Eph. iv., 5). That is, as there is one Lord and one baptism, so should all Christians, without exception, have but one faith. And so the Apostle St. Paul not merely begs, but entreats and implores Christians to be all of the same mind, and to avoid difference of opinions: "I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no schisms amongst you, and that you be perfect in the same mind and in the same judgment" (I Cor. i., 10). Such passages certainly need no interpreter; they speak clearly enough for themselves. Besides, all who profess Christianity allow that there can be but one faith. It is of the greatest importance and indeed of absolute necessity, as to which many are deceived, that the nature and character of this unity should be recognized. And, as We have already stated, this is not to be ascertained by conjecture, but by the certain knowledge of what was done; that is by seeking for and ascertaining what kind of unity in faith has been commanded by Jesus Christ."

An excerpt from his encyclical, Satis Cognitum on the unity of the Church.

Did anyone catch the introduction where he says "it is not true that the unity of the Church is based soley on the Faith"?

I sure did.  :shocked:

And I wasted 13 minutes of my life that I can never get back by watching and listening further to this propaganda.

Essentially what the current storyline is as of 6/11/12 is that the Pope one day woke up and decided that it would be good to recognize the SSPX, and that all along, the Superior General has not been looking for an "agreement."

And now, according to Bishop Fellay, in his latest CNS interview, the SSPX is classified in his mind as a "traditional apostolate," not simply a priestly fraternity holding and safeguarding the Roman Catholic faith of all time. This is evidenced in this statement:

We have great expectations for the traditional apostolate, just as some important personages in Rome do, and the Holy Father himself.  We have great hopes that Tradition will develop with our arrival. (DICI Interview, 6/7/12)

And, we're told further yet nothing when Fr. Rostand said: "our positions were expressed, stated, to Rome. And, last September, came the first announcement of first possible recognitions of the Society."

Well, my question to Fr. would be this (and I know this is not original): what exactly were those positions Father? Assuming they were matters of faith, and nothing political, why were the faithful kept from seeing what exactly the positions of the SSPX were that were presented to Rome during these discussions? After all, we're led to believe that the Society has not deviated iota unum from it's positions of the last forty years, what's the secret? Why not put out there in plain sight and simple language as to what is being discussed and what positions the Society presented to Rome? A good majority of these rumors that the SSPX leadership is so distraught and distressed over would be put to bed if there were some genuine transparency and forthrightness in what has been going on. What positions were expressed to Rome that would possibly elicit a response from Rome such as the presentation of a "doctrinal preamble." And, while we're at this, if this is a "purely practical agreement," then why was it called a doctrinal preamble?

But the meat of the matter came in the last minute of Part I of the interview when Fr. Rostand was asked directly asked this question: "there are those who will argue that the Society is simply looking for a practical agreement, even contrary to the wishes of Archbishop Lefebvre himself. What would you say to that argument?"

Then comes the response: "I think first of all, um, must make it clear that Bishop Fellay is not really looking for an agreement. Rome is proposing a regularization of the Society, so the term "agreement" is confusing, it's uhm, its not clear, it's too vague. An agreement would be maybe on doctrine, which is not the case, but uhm, a recognition of the Society, that's what we're talking about today."

So we've agreed to disagree. That's the jist of this whole thing. Forget doctrine, let's just be recognized by the Conciliar Church so we can continue our "traditional apostolate" with the blessings of modernist apostates.  

 :sign-surrender: