Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: Matthew on May 10, 2012, 04:21:52 PM
-
I'm no fan of Fr. Cekada, but I'm compelled to post this here because it adds value to the current discussions here, and I can't find anything wrong with his analysis.
Hey, if we only read books/articles by
Catholics --> Traditional --> SSPX --> "Those we agree with"
our bookshelf would have about 3 books on it, and we wouldn't have many articles to read either!
A good traditional Catholic can even learn from a Protestant author, depending on the topic at hand.
So this article can be good, regardless of Fr. C's past/present actions or personal life.
BISHOP FELLAY,
THE THREE
AND
THE SSPX DEAL:
A PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS
by
Rev. Anthony Cekada
------------------------------------------
THE EXCHANGE of letters in April 2012 between three SSPX bishops (Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Gallaretta) and SSPX Superior General Bernard Fellay over whether SSPX should accept a Vatican offer to be integrated into the Conciliar Church represents a fascinating twist in the ongoing drama of the Society of St. Pius X's negotiations with "Rome."
Here are some preliminary thoughts.
THE LETTER OF THE THREE
"The Three" make a number of excellent points in their letter, in particular:
1. They nail exactly how an SSPX integration without a doctrinal accord would fit into the Ratzingerian ecclesiology, which allows for "union" among those who do not profess the same doctrine. This is the "Frankenchurch" heresy.
2. They "call out" Benedict XVI's subjectivism — a topic that +Tissier analyzed in great detail, and that +Williamson repeatedly addressed in a popular and easily comprehensible way.
3. They also nail the practical effect an SSPX integration would have in the long run — gradual (or perhaps not-so-gradual) absorption on the level of apostolate and theology.
BP. FELLAY'S RESPONSE
Bp. Fellay's response is noteworthy because:
1. It demonstrates, I think, that +Fellay is determined to do the deal with or without "The Three."
2. It in effect explains why so much of the SSPX senior management has been thumping the drum for the deal. +Fellay needed to show B16 that he has the support of the people who actually CONTROL the organization.
3. He makes it very clear that as Superior General he does indeed control the organization, that this was what +Lefebvre wanted, and that by that standard, they are out of line.
4. He more or less recapitulates standard ecclesiology on the need to submit to the Roman Pontiff, and rubs their noses in it by hinting that what they say makes them (gasp) SED*&@#@N+!STS. (This is a cheap shot at them; fat chance!)
5. His response to The Three's warnings about absorption and compromise tells me he is either disingenuous or clueless.
Both sides, predictably, trade quotes from +Lefebvre to back up their respective positions. No surprise there, as I've pointed out.
CAN +FELLAY SELL THE VATICAN ON A ONE-MAN SHOW?
How could this rather fundamental dispute play out from the Vatican's perspective? Obviously, they would want to get all FOUR bishops on board for the deal in order to end what they see as a schism.
To allay the Vatican's fears, +Fellay could pitch the deal to them more or less as follows:
• I control the organization and the properties.
• The senior SSPX officials throughout the world, as you can see, all weighed in and support the deal.
• As my upper management and branch managers, I can count on them to keep the lower clergy in line.
• I can also count on them to pitch the deal to the laity through speeches, magazines, bulletins, etc.
• Realistically, The Three do not present much of a threat.
• +Williamson is compromised because of the Jews, etc. No confirmations by HIM, Your Holiness, in your old Bavarian backyard!
• + De Gallaretta, as a Spaniard has no home constituency.
• +Tissier is the only threat because he would have considerable support in France. He is also extremely intelligent and has written extensively on modern theological errors,
• However, +Tissier is older, has a less-than-dynamic personality, and, since any of his French clergy supporters would be shut out of the properties SSPX would still control, he would have to conduct his apostolate in the meeting rooms of Sofitels (or whatever).
• In countries outside of France, the situation would be the same. Supporters of an SSPX "rump faction" would have no bases from which to operate, and in the face of our already existing parishes, etc. would find it virtually impossible to operate.
• Effectively, The Three would be marginalized and would pose no threat whatsoever.
• Ergo, Your Holiness, let's do the deal.
• And pass the strudel.
Thus my initial reading of the exchange.
However things may finally turn out, though, you don't need the gift of prophecy to predict that for trads, the rest of May 2012 will be very interesting indeed!
-
I wonder how he finds the time to write these pieces.
Maybe he's vacationing at 'Bishop's Lodge' in New Mexico again and had a spare moment in between his spa treatments.
-
Well, there's a third alternative, and it's the simplest, and it utterly neutralizes the fact that Bishop Fellay has taken over the properties.
It simply means breaking cult-control atmosphere of fear and guilt that is used to control the SSPX priests. If a huge proportion of the priests start being insubordinate at once there's nothing Bishop Fellay can do.
-
Insubordinate in this sense:
They preach what they want, when they want, in alliance with the other three bishops, without regard to anything their superiors tell them.
That would effectively neutralize any "compromise."
-
This is overall a good analysis by Fr. Cekada. Thanks for posting it Matthew.
-
Real issue is this my friends.
Fr. Cekada and the other self appointed popes all feel threatened by this agreement with Rome. Why you might ask? Well, simply because they only exist or stand because of the SSPX and the Archbishop to a great extent. They can reasonably foresee that if all works out well with Rome and the SSPX they might in the future have much of an income and anyone left to pontificate upon.
As to a split with the other Bishop's of the SSPX - Sorry that isn't going to happen either. Regardless of what some may think of Bishop Fellay on a personal level, as such the other bishops will go along with him (so long as no compromise on the faith is required, and that is what has already been guaranteed).
How can I be so sure of that you might ask? Well read the letter of the three bishops. It doesn't say that we intend to leave or depart from the SSPX if it is approved by Rome. They simply state their caution on such dealings.
What is more is that the other bishops themselves had already by the standards of the hard liners on this list already compromised long ago once they signed the docuмent asking the Holy Father to remove the excommunications, which contradictory enough they claimed they didn't acknowledge as being a just excommunication. So were they not seeking Conciliar approval already by that act?
The other 3 Bishops did not make an outcry against the doctrinal discussions did they?
And so now to presume that they are totally against a recognition by Rome is madness/wishful thinking.
What is more is that the greater number of the SSPX are right behind bishop Fellay as far as seeking legal recognition of work of the SSPX even if they might not personally think much of Fellay himself. It is not a personal issue here.
-
I do not understand all of this - and I may be completely wrong about the possible outcome (I do not think there will be "a deal" that SSPX will agree to) - but is it just me or has everyone gone batty about this?
Here we have an ex-SSPX priest with absolutely no axe to grind [/sarcasm] doing a preliminary analysis of the "SSPX deal". What deal?
Where is everyone getting all the latest inside information from and what's next?
-
Stubborn,
You are on the mark. People on this forum, as like so many others have gone nutty and are doing exactly what the devil wants to see - division and discord. Maybe a sign of there inner shallowness perhaps?
And yes, who gives the heck what a dishonest money grabbing self appointed pope and former SSPXer like Fr. Cekada has to say! I am sure he want what is best for the SSPX ? He wouldn't be using this as an opportunity to sow discord and bring people to his party line. I would find that very hard to imagine?
-
Anthony M, did you read what Matthew wrote? He made it clear that he is not a supporter of Fr. Cekada, yet he agrees with his analysis. As do I.
-
Stubborn,
You are on the mark. People on this forum, as like so many others have gone nutty and are doing exactly what the devil wants to see - division and discord. Maybe a sign of there inner shallowness perhaps?
Well I certainly understand the interest, but this whole thing has gone from talks between SSPX and Rome for the purpose of converting Rome - to the SSPX is going to forget the last 45 years entirely and join up with the modernist crooks for the sake of joining up with modernist crooks! I mean WTH?
And yes, who gives the heck what a dishonest money grabbing self appointed pope and former SSPXer like Fr. Cekada has to say! I am sure he want what is best for the SSPX ? He wouldn't be using this as an opportunity to sow discord and bring people to his party line. I would find that very hard to imagine?
C'mon, no need to disrespect Fr. C. He is a priest, none of us know where we would be today if we had to pass through the same trials he had to pass through - and I am no sede but he IS a priest and should be shown proper respect.
He certainly has some deep SSPX scars is my guess - goes with the territory imo, but I am sure he would not shed a tear if the SSPX were to crumble tomorrow - and seems like a lot of trads feel the same way.
At any rate, the rumors, statements and gossip are unsubstantiated - yet are successful in sowing confusion - --- kinda like a replay of the 70s when the modernist media swayed whoever fell for their lying bs, and I just hope folks realize that no one really knows what's going to happen - - - - but we do know that +Fellay said that they would accept a deal if Rome accepts SSPX as they are - and he sent them that same exact reply two times.
IMO, all Rome is doing now is rehearsing more lying bs to fool whoever they can manage to fool yet again by declaring that the SSPX in one way or another finally compromised - - - - - - of course they'll word it in a convincing way...............or they'll do whatever - who knows?
-
I wonder how he finds the time to write these pieces.
Maybe he's vacationing at 'Bishop's Lodge' in New Mexico again and had a spare moment in between his spa treatments.
Typical newbie! You need to be spending more time here to get the real facts.
Father Cekada's CATS were getting spa treatments at Bishops' Lodge in New Mexico, and eating snails flown in from the Goring Hotel in London, because they were blackmailing him over an open investigation by the West Chester police into child and koi fish abuse at SGG (report taken by Sgt Joe Friday), all of which was paid for by the Columbus church building fund.
SJB and other people here can give you details. Welcome to CathInfo! :dancing:
-
Real issue is this my friends.
Fr. Cekada and the other self appointed popes all feel threatened by this agreement with Rome. Why you might ask? Well, simply because they only exist or stand because of the SSPX and the Archbishop to a great extent. They can reasonably foresee that if all works out well with Rome and the SSPX they might in the future have much of an income and anyone left to pontificate upon.
I think you are wrong on this, because Fr Cekada said somewhere recently that he would PREFER it if the Society made a deal with Rome. His reason was that the difference between the pro-V2 side and the anti-V2 side would be very clear then. He also said he thought SSPX would probably not make a deal because of the danger that it would actually have to obey the pope.
I tried to find the quote today, but I didn't have any luck. If I do, I will post it.
-
My main point is that the Sede's and other crack pots want you to falsely believe that just because the SSPX may receive approval from Rome that somehow it has sold out. That is madness. Did the Archbishop sell out the SSPX during the time it was approved by Rome ? NO. And the same applies today.
Those spreading false rumours and promiting division have a serious amount to answer for before God.
And yes, if you want to speak about respect for Fr. Cekada, granted, then the same applies for Bishop Fellay who is both a bishop and superior of the SSPX !
-
My main point is that the Sede's and other crack pots want you to falsely believe that just because the SSPX may receive approval from Rome that somehow it has sold out.
Approval from masonic Rome?
That is madness. Did the Archbishop sell out the SSPX during the time it was approved by Rome ? NO. And the same applies today.
Those were quite different times, things were still developing. He wasn't approved for very long.
Those spreading false rumours and promiting division have a serious amount to answer for before God.
Those who have eyes to see and ears to hear can see how the lines the SSPX is following have been gradually shifted. One can also see how much effort has been put into building up a false sense of security together with a reluctance to question the leadership.
-
My main point is that the Sede's and other crack pots want you to falsely believe that just because the SSPX may receive approval from Rome that somehow it has sold out.
Rome does not have the Faith; placing oneself under its rule therefore places the Catholic Faith at the same table as a non-Catholic religion. It is presumed, following from this, that reasonable men of good will can both maintain the Catholic Faith and the religion of Man simultaneously. This is an objective insult to the divine Faith of Our Lord Jesus Christ, as well as a blasphemy.
And just because you call somebody a 'crackpot,' or an 'extremist' or whatever other silly epithet you like, does not make it so.
That is madness.
Believing in the reconciliation of two irreconcilable principles, A and non-A, is truly madness.
And the same applies today.
Given the information he had at the time, it was truly a miracle of grace that protected him from the Vatican's tentacles. Besides, it is a completely different situation since then, given Assisi I, II, and III, the false beatifications and canonisations of heretics and enemies of the Faith, acts of apostasy, non-abjuration of heresies, and the statement of heresies by the men in the white cassock.
Those spreading false rumours and promiting division have a serious amount to answer for before God.
If you think the division within the Society and the letters are 'false rumors,' you're a little late to the game. :laugh1: Where have you been ? As for division, that is all that can save the legacy of the Archbishop from the machinations of Benedict and Fellay now.
Bishop Fellay who is both a bishop and superior of the SSPX !
And he's running it into the ground and betraying the good fight to join up with a house of heresy, blasphemy, and the Revolution.
-
If the other 3 Bishops don't recognise 'Masonic Rome' then why did they sign a letter to 'Masonic Rome' asking for there excommunications to be lifted by 'Masonic Rome'?
I didn't say they didn't recognize the Pope. You can certainly ask someone you disapprove of to remove an injustice. As for claiming they asked for the "excommunications to be lifted" - that's not technically true, because they didn't believe they were legitimately excommunicated. They asked the supposed excommunications be declared null.
The Vatican is still the same masonic lodge it was when Archbishop said it was. And now we see priests like Father Celier having their books introduced with the author Maxence who writes for a Grand Orient Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ journal.
For Bishop Fellay to be approved by modernist Rome he's giving them a great deal. More than he ever has to publicly admit to giving. And it's obvious what he's giving from the change in tenor of society preaching and writings. That some people are willfully blind to this reality doesn't change the reality.
Is that being selective or what? Archbishop Lefebvre himself never acknowledge these 'communications' as being just or binding in the first place. Did they betray Archbishop Lefebvre and 'Sell out' the SSPX by that act?
And neither did the three bishops. Didn't you just read Bishop Fellay quoted as saying Vatican II can be seen as part of the tradition of the Church, the problem is in application? That he approves of 95% of it?
The sad thing is, we should have understood what his equivocation, his double-talk, from the moment he first said the Jews were our "Elder Brothers." That was the first and most critical sign of submission. The recognition he's now giving to Vatican II is more of a technicality.
Why did they not protest against the doctrinal discussions with 'Masonic Rome'?
Didn't Bishop Tissier say the object was to convert Rome?
Now we've heard from some that the intention was never to reach agreement?!
As for putting "masonic rome" in quotes, that is the phrase Archbishop Lefebvre used. And even Bishop Fellay has spoken of Freemasons in the Vatican. I think he mentioned four lodges?
Archbishop Lefebvre always acknowledge the See of Rome and the authority it had over him and his work. He only refused to acknowledge any unjust wish asked of him, namely to accept Vat II and New Mass as being part of the Catholic faith.
He said that the "excommunications" were the same being excommunicated from a masonic Lodge.
Keep in mind that the Archbishop was at VII and worked for it.
I think today's Trad's try to appeal to the Archbishop as though was opposed to having his work recognized when the contrary is evident both from his words and actions.
I think that modernists and their apologists are the ones who try to rewrite history.
Masonic Rome (http://gloria.tv/?media=142663)
-
My main point is that the Sede's and other crack pots want you to falsely believe that just because the SSPX may receive approval from Rome that somehow it has sold out.
The sedes are always thrown in to this, but they really have little to do with it. I think people like you use it as a distraction so as to take the blame off of Bishop Fellay.
That is madness.
It's madness that Bishop Fellay would want to reconcile with Modernist Rome.
Did the Archbishop sell out the SSPX during the time it was approved by Rome ? NO. And the same applies today.
This is a very confusing argument, and it doesn't work.
Those spreading false rumours and promiting division have a serious amount to answer for before God.
Who here is spreading rumours?
And yes, if you want to speak about respect for Fr. Cekada, granted, then the same applies for Bishop Fellay who is both a bishop and superior of the SSPX !
People like you never say that about Bishop Williamson. I see right through that double standard.
-
Yes, the Sede issue is part of it. Either he is the pope and you have to obey a legitimate command or he is not the pope and you make yourself pope. The Issue is serious. Don't try to avoid the issue at hand !
I'm not.
Watch what you say - I don't need to put up with your bs.
Don't. I could not care less. I prefer not to waste my time with people who foolishly rally behind Bishop Fellay throuhout all of this.
I have never made an statement of disrespect to him. I afford him the due respect of bishop even if I may not agree with everything he says.
I never said you did. But my point was Bishop Fellay gets too much credit, and when he threw +Williamson under the bus many people took up for Fellay either because they were neo cons or because they were afraid to speak the truth. I'm not saying YOU are guilty of that, but I think you give Fellay too much credit.
The same must be granted for Bishop Fellay. The nutcases on this list think that it is Ok to start pushing all this venomous irrational nonsense against him as though he were the anti-Christ. What sinful nonsense.
He has behaved like a liberal lately, and thus is going to be treated like a liberal until he straightens up and backs out of a deal, and apologises to Bishop Williamson whom he has wronged.
-
Either he is the pope and you have to obey a legitimate command or he is not the pope and you make yourself pope. The Issue is serious. Don't try to avoid the issue at hand !
So if he tells Bishop Fellay to call the Jews "Elder brothers" - to say "95% of Vatican II is okay" "Vatican II is part of Tradition" - are those because Bishop Fellay is being commanded to say things like that or is Bishop Fellay just really eager to please?
The same must be granted for Bishop Fellay. The nutcases on this list think that it is Ok to start pushing all this venomous irrational nonsense against him as though he were the anti-Christ. What sinful nonsense.
He shouldn't have hired an Israel friendly lawyer to hire Bishop Williamson's defense.
The man is a tyrant.
Calling us "nutcases" is par for the course for modernists and their enablers.
And those who support the apostates in Rome are either modernists or their enablers.
-
It is not about what Bishop Fellay thinks. It is about what the SSPX is being asked to hold. As far as that is concerned (prove me wrong if you can - And I am glad to be shown to be wrong here) the SSPX is being asked to accept the NO or VII.
Bishop Williamson thanked openly Bishop Fellay for allowing him to have a lawyer that was able to help him win the case. - Keep in mind that Bishop Fellay has to do his best for the SSPX as a whole. It is not easy for anyone in authority regardless. You should know that.
Nutcases are those who put out venomous statements without just cause and without any proof.
As to the Conciliar Modernists - I call them what they are - Modernists. But like Christ said of the murderous leaders of his day 'Do as they say (so long as it conforms to the law of God), but don't do as they do.-
The same applies today. We can't make the mistake of rejecting the authority established by God. This will have disastrous long term effects on all the faithful.
Trying to set ourselves up as self appointed popes like the Sede's has disastrous consequences as even the Sede's themselves have lived to witness.
Let's call a spade a spade without detracting from the authority of the Holy See just as the Holy Archbishop did.
Friends don't add to the confusion that is at present, just wait and see. That is what Bishop Williamson himself is doing. - He isn't out there spitting nonsense invectives against Bishop Fellay even if he may not agree with bishop Fellay.
Patience and Charity. - Is that to much to ask?
-
The same applies today. We can't make the mistake of rejecting the authority established by God. This will have disastrous long term effects on all the faithful.
That is ridiculous, to say we are bound to follow heretics destroying the Church. Absolutely absurd.
You have absolutely no authority to quote the Gospel to defend apostate clerics.
-
If you don't offer your back to be stabbed, you're a nutcase.
If you dont't get down on your knees to be kicked in the teeth, you're a crank.
A cult that pretends to be traditional, the neo-SSPX, under the tyrant Bishop Fellay, who kicks priests to the curb when the speak of real Tradition.
-
It is not about what Bishop Fellay thinks. It is about what the SSPX is being asked to hold. As far as that is concerned (prove me wrong if you can - And I am glad to be shown to be wrong here) the SSPX is being asked to accept the NO or VII.
Precisely why a deal is out of the question. They should not be accepting Vatican II or the Bogus Ordo.
Bishop Williamson thanked openly Bishop Fellay for allowing him to have a lawyer that was able to help him win the case. - Keep in mind that Bishop Fellay has to do his best for the SSPX as a whole. It is not easy for anyone in authority regardless. You should know that.
Bishop Fellay is doing his best when he gives +Williamson a Jєωιѕн laywer?
As to the Conciliar Modernists - I call them what they are - Modernists. But like Christ said of the murderous leaders of his day 'Do as they say (so long as it conforms to the law of God), but don't do as they do.-
What Benedict is asking Catholics to do does not conforum to the law of God.
The same applies today. We can't make the mistake of rejecting the authority established by God. This will have disastrous long term effects on all the faithful.
This is just plain nonsense.
Trying to set ourselves up as self appointed popes like the Sede's has disastrous consequences as even the Sede's themselves have lived to witness.
Huge exaggeration on your part. Most sedes don't support self-appointed popes. Those are conclavists.
Let's call a spade a spade without detracting from the authority of the Holy See just as the Holy Archbishop did.
Archbishop LeFebvre did the opposite. And Bishop Fellay sure doesn't call a spade a spade.
Friends don't add to the confusion that is at present, just wait and see. That is what Bishop Williamson himself is doing. - He isn't out there spitting nonsense invectives against Bishop Fellay even if he may not agree with bishop Fellay.
He has called him out for his errors.
Patience and Charity. - Is that to much to ask?
Did Bishop Fellay display charity when he threw +Williamson under the bus? Your arugments swing both ways.
-
Totally irrational responses from people, now, normally a man would expect that from a 'nutcase'.
According to what you are saying then, all the SSPX priests have already sold out and the other bishops also since at the moment they are still with Bishop Fellay and have been for the Last decade!
Planet earth please?
-
Totally irrational responses from people, now, normally a man would expect that from a 'nutcase'.
Non-responsive.
According to what you are saying then, all the SSPX priests have already sold out and the other bishops also since at the moment they are still with Bishop Fellay and have been for the Last decade!
non sequitur
Planet earth please?
bottom of the barrel. There are people in the SSPX who have a cult mentality, and they smear people as mentally ill, as cranks whenever the cult feels threatened.
For example, Bishop Fellay's hired man Krah smeared Bishop Williamson in his court testimony.
-
Totally irrational responses from people, now, normally a man would expect that from a 'nutcase'.
I would expect a post like that from someone with a liberal mindset in terms of a deal.
According to what you are saying then, all the SSPX priests have already sold out and the other bishops also since at the moment they are still with Bishop Fellay and have been for the Last decade!
This is absurd and, of course, I never said that.
-
Sad to see you have become so blind as to even see how illogical your position is.
SP denies affirming that the other bishops have sold out long ago, when he practically implies it since they have been aligned with the SSPX (Ergo with bishop Fellay) till now.
What is more is than non of the issues I pointed out are answered instead mere insults are retorted. Hence my point 'crack pot.'
Maybe the crack pots can answer this for me:
How is it that Archbishop Lefebvre who could call a spade a spade, and even use some harsh words to refer to the Conciliar Church leaders long before 1987, could also turn around (as I already showed you all in my posting on the issue) and ask the Holy See for recognition without becoming a traitorous apostate by your reasoning? Given also he had already written great expositions on the conciliar errors and the new Mass and yet he would ask for recognition of his work by the Holy See. Please explain to me how you can then claim that you are representing this saintly giant of man?
How is it that the 3 other bishops are not seen by your reasoning as traitorous apostates for asking the Holy See (in writing with their own hand written signatures) to remove the excommunications with the Archbishop himself never considered as just or binding in the first place?
How is it that the other 3 bishops could go along with Bishop Fellay till now without making an open contentions regarding the negotiations and the doctrinal discussions, without being seen as traitorous apostates?
My point is that you are selective in try to make it all a "Bishop Fellay" issue, when the entire SSPX is in on this position. Reality is just hard for some people to handle for some. Hence planet Earth, well . . . for some Mars seems to be the preference?
The crack pots on the list try to shift the issue by attacking Fellay and saying well, you are 'Liberal, Modernist, etc if you don't follow us self appointed pontiffs who great at putting out venomous invectives against anyone without scruple that we shall answer to God for it, since, well, we are Trad Cats !
-
How is it that Archbishop Lefebvre who could call a spade a spade, and even use some harsh words to refer to the Conciliar Church leaders long before 1987, could also turn around (as I already showed you all in my posting on the issue) and ask the Holy See for recognition without becoming a traitorous apostate by your reasoning?
You need to stop erecting straw-men.
We haven't used the "reasoning" your putting forward to call Bishop Fellay a "traitorous apostate."
It's very very common for SSPX apologists to practice deceptive debating techniques, as you are doing here.
Archbishop Lefebvre didn't say the sort of things Bishop Fellay has been saying. Archbishop Lefebvre wasn't playing the double game that Bishop Fellay has been playing.
Ultimately the fact that Archbishop Lefebvre considered an agreement is a moot point.
Archbishop Lefebvre rejected the agreement.
Bishop Fellay can't go back on what he's done now. Not as leader of the SSPX.
Given also he had already written great expositions on the conciliar errors and the new Mass and yet he would ask for recognition of his work by the Holy See. Please explain to me how you can then claim that you are representing this saintly giant of man?
You certainly can't honestly claim Bishop Fellay is representing him. Archbishop Lefebvre was a trusting man. Look at how the nine took advantage of him. He was not disingenuous as Bishop Fellay has been, Bishop Fellay who is acting as a tyrant, going against the advice of the other three bishops. Bishop Fellay's words today are nothing like Archbishop Lefebvre's words.
How is it that the 3 other bishops are not seen by your reasoning as traitorous apostates for asking the Holy See (in writing with their own hand written signatures) to remove the excommunications with the Archbishop himself never considered as just or binding in the first place?
You just keep repeating straw men. If there's one thing that's typical of cultish SSPX apologists, it's a complete lack of intellectual honesty in debate.
How is it that the other 3 bishops could go along with Bishop Fellay till now without making an open contentions regarding the negotiations and the doctrinal discussions, without being seen as traitorous apostates?
They apparently have been acting in good faith and are under the thumb of Bishop Fellay, who has become a tyrant.
My point is that you are selective in try to make it all a "Bishop Fellay" issue, when the entire SSPX is in on this position.
They obviously don't agree with Bishop Fellay's position. The fact you claim somehow my assertions lead to the assertion that they agree with Bishop Fellay should be a clue that your reasoning is faulty, but I don't think you really care about the truth. If you did, you wouldn't be defending Bishop Fellay's statements and policies.
Reality is just hard for some people to handle for some. Hence planet Earth, well . . . for some Mars seems to be the preference?
Modernists and their apologists are the ones who rewrite history, scripture, etc. Saying we must follow modernists because of what Christ said about the Pharisees. It is truly a diabolical statement.
The crack pots
The modernist apologists have only one tactic to deal with being called on their shifting positions, on their double-tongued tactics, on their deceit. They call people who tell the truth about them "crackpots" - that's how the cult mentality in the SSPX operates. Point out the absurdity of their position, and you're the crack-pot.
on the list try to shift the issue by attacking Fellay and saying well, you are 'Liberal, Modernist, etc if you don't follow us self appointed pontiffs who great at putting out venomous invectives against anyone without scruple that we shall answer to God for it, since, well, we are Trad Cats !
People who support apostate leadership in the church are surely in peril of their souls. Anyone who calls the Jews "Elder brothers" - silences his brother bishops with threats, etc, shifts his position on Vatican II, etc, well, it's very clear where his loyalties are.
-
This is what the faithful priests in the SSPX should band together and agree to do:
They preach what they want, when they want, in alliance with the other three bishops, without regard to anything their superiors tell them.
That would effectively neutralize any "compromise."
-
My main point is that the Sede's and other crack pots want you to falsely believe that just because the SSPX may receive approval from Rome that somehow it has sold out. That is madness. Did the Archbishop sell out the SSPX during the time it was approved by Rome ? NO. And the same applies today.
Those spreading false rumours and promiting division have a serious amount to answer for before God.
And yes, if you want to speak about respect for Fr. Cekada, granted, then the same applies for Bishop Fellay who is both a bishop and superior of the SSPX !
Hey look: Another pro-deal newbie who joined on May 10!
Does he realize he is also implicitly accusing the 3 bishops with his line of reasoning?
Notice how opposition to a deal now equals sedevacantism?
Remember when Bishop fellay himself refuted that idea when camps used it against the Sspx?
And most importantly: Notice the weak attempt to cite Archbishop Lefebvre's implicit approval on the grounds that the modernist once allowed him a regularization (as though you were not supposed to reflect upon all the reasons over the last 40 year why that approval was yanked!).
Mending does not want you to remember these words: No practical agreement until the doctrinal issues are resolved.
To pretend any other path is consistent with the often published position of archbishop lefebvre is calculated dishonesty.
-
My main point is that the Sede's and other crack pots want you to falsely believe that just because the SSPX may receive approval from Rome that somehow it has sold out. That is madness. Did the Archbishop sell out the SSPX during the time it was approved by Rome ? NO. And the same applies today.
Those spreading false rumours and promiting division have a serious amount to answer for before God.
And yes, if you want to speak about respect for Fr. Cekada, granted, then the same applies for Bishop Fellay who is both a bishop and superior of the SSPX !
Hey look: Another pro-deal newbie who joined on May 10!
Does he realize he is also implicitly accusing the 3 bishops with his line of reasoning?
Notice how opposition to a deal now equals sedevacantism?
Remember when Bishop fellay himself refuted that idea when camps used it against the Sspx?
And most importantly: Notice the weak attempt to cite Archbishop Lefebvre's implicit approval on the grounds that the modernist once allowed him a regularization (as though you were not supposed to reflect upon all the reasons over the last 40 year why that approval was yanked!).
Mending does not want you to remember these words: No practical agreement until the doctrinal issues are resolved.
To pretend any other path is consistent with the often published position of archbishop lefebvre is calculated dishonesty.
Should say:
"Menzingen does not want.....
-
SP denies affirming that the other bishops have sold out long ago, when he practically implies it since they have been aligned with the SSPX (Ergo with bishop Fellay) till now.
That is absurd logic. Just because they haven't broken away yet means they have sold out? You don't know what you're talking about.
How is it that Archbishop Lefebvre who could call a spade a spade, and even use some harsh words to refer to the Conciliar Church leaders long before 1987, could also turn around (as I already showed you all in my posting on the issue) and ask the Holy See for recognition without becoming a traitorous apostate by your reasoning? Given also he had already written great expositions on the conciliar errors and the new Mass and yet he would ask for recognition of his work by the Holy See. Please explain to me how you can then claim that you are representing this saintly giant of man?
Once again, you leave out the fact that the Archbishop NEVER SIGNED A DEAL. You're being dishonest.
How is it that the 3 other bishops are not seen by your reasoning as traitorous apostates for asking the Holy See (in writing with their own hand written signatures) to remove the excommunications with the Archbishop himself never considered as just or binding in the first place?
This is crazy.
How is it that the other 3 bishops could go along with Bishop Fellay till now without making an open contentions regarding the negotiations and the doctrinal discussions, without being seen as traitorous apostates?
The other Bishops have not "gone along" with it. You are lying. May I remind you that Bishop Williamson is practically limited to his Eleison Comments blog to speak the truth given his de facto boot from his position in the Society? Oh, but according to you he's gone along with it. You're a liar.
My point is that you are selective in try to make it all a "Bishop Fellay" issue, when the entire SSPX is in on this position. Reality is just hard for some people to handle for some. Hence planet Earth, well . . . for some Mars seems to be the preference?
I think you deserve to be banned.
The crack pots on the list try to shift the issue by attacking Fellay and saying well, you are 'Liberal, Modernist, etc if you don't follow us self appointed pontiffs who great at putting out venomous invectives against anyone without scruple that we shall answer to God for it, since, well, we are Trad Cats !
More insanity.
-
Telesphorus
More dishonest nonsense.
Once again you didn't answer the questions. You simply replied with same, crack pot "I am the pope' nonsense.
It is the very spirit of the 9 crack pots who betrayed the Archbishop that you are advocating. The very statements that you are making against Bishop Fellay they were making against the Archbishop and the SSPX back then. Just read the correspondence.
Beyond that I never claimed to advocate Bishop Fellay, but simply the solid position upon which the SSPX has stood and continues to stand. Never made a defense of Bishop Fellays personal behavior which I may not agree with and equally find reprehensible, but I also am not one to cast a stone, since who is there without fault on a personal level? But what I do agree with is the position of the faith that he holds. His personal actions and idea are his own. That goes for everyone !
It isn't about personalities, and that is what you are using to attack the Trad cause to deceive people into your 'I am pope' position.
The point is you fail to answer the questions. When you are ready to use your brain and act like a real person, rather than spit out your venomous trash let me know.
I simply showed clearly the illogical trash of your own erroneous position ! Reality again, well it's hard . . .
You may not be a modernist, etc, but you are certainly on the road to perdition by placing yourself out of the faith and out of reality which you refuse to submit to. The devil doesn't care how he gets souls to hell, either by one extreme or the other, either way it works for his cause.
Beyond that, sorry to disappoint you, but Bishop Williamson et alia have no intention of splitting from the SSPX you can call and ask them yourself if you want confirmation of that point. Bishop Williamson and the other bishops are not shallow nitwits like the crack pots who have been advocating your nonsense.
You need to make a serious examination of conscience on this issue (and perhaps a confession for all your insulting words against a Catholic prelate? or does that apply only to those who say or act against prelates you may happen to like?) .
Fr:
I will support Bishop Fellay's initiative to sign with Rome if you can demonstrate 2 things:
1) Signing a purely practical deal while all the doctrinal issues remain unresolved is not an implicit acceptance of doctrinal pluralism;
2) You cite post-1988 citations of archbishop lefebvre asserting a purely practical solution would be an acceptable response to the crisis in the church.
Everything else in this dialogue is an irrelevant distraction.
-
Anthony M, you keep asserting that those who do not believe Benedict is the Pope therefore objectively treat themselves as if they can make judgments that only one with papal authority can. Yet those who hold to this theological opinion -- which has the backing of many approved theologians prior to the Latrocinium -- do so precisely out of obedience to the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, being uncomfortable with the SSPX's position of "sifting" through magisterial statements and deciding which are binding and which are not. You have not established your central claim, yet you keep repeating the charge despite the fact that, if anything, you are guilty of it whereas those you accuse are not. Perhaps that is why you rely on using middle class political epithets like "crackpot," which is the equivalent of the term "extremist," which seems to imply that one who holds opinions that are rejected by the majority of the mediocre crowd are somehow not of sound mind. Do you not see how un-Catholic such a social attitude is ? Do you not see how unfair and unjust you are being and how you therefore objectively embarrass yourself and your position ?
Those are just a few things for you to consider before, during, and after you post over the course of... however long you are still a member here (the next few days ?).
-
Fr. Anthony Cekeda will be interviewed on Restoration Radio tomorrow
Monday 5/14/2012 at 8pm and can be heard on the Internet on the possible
deal with the SSPX and the Vatican.
-
Once again my assertions and questions have not been answered. Hence why I say ‘crack pots’ –
It was stated:
I will support Bishop Fellay's initiative to sign with Rome if you can demonstrate 2 things:
1) Signing a purely practical deal while all the doctrinal issues remain unresolved is not an implicit acceptance of doctrinal pluralism;
2) You cite post-1988 citations of archbishop lefebvre asserting a purely practical solution would be an acceptable response to the crisis in the church.
Everything else in this dialogue is an irrelevant distraction.
My answer is thus.
1. Prove the contrary that it is an acceptance of false pluralism. The SSPX has always claimed that it believes Benedict XVI is pope and that in all lawful things it subjects itself to him even if there wasn’t any working canonical agreement between them and the Holy See, and so the working canonical agreement will change nothing but simply give them the due recognition which is due to them as true members of the Catholic Church.
2. After the Archbishops request for recognition of his work was turned down he never again expected his request to be heard under JPII. That said, he made it clear that he in non way rejected the Holy See and the office it holds as mother, guide and teacher.
Perejoseph, please get a brain. Prove what you claim or else if you don’t have anything intelligent to write don’t waste our time!
Anthony-
1) I would be happy to.
But don't take my words for it.
Listen to the three bishops make my case for me in their letter to Bishop Fellay:
"He would accept us within the framework of relativistic and dialectical pluralism, with the proviso that we would remain in “full communion,” in relation to the authority and to other “ecclesiastical entities .” For this reason the Roman authorities can tolerate that the Society continue to teach Catholic doctrine, but they will absolutely not permit that it condemn Counciliar teachings."
If therefore Bishop Fellay will accept a merely practical agreement that will not permit him to condemn Conciliar error, please explain to me how that is anything other than implicit acceptance of doctrinal pluralism?
He knows once he signs on the dotted line, he must not condemn Roman modernism.
As the old Latin maxim states: "Qui tacit consentire" (i.e., Silence implies consent).
And this line of reasoning (i.e., to agree not to condemn is to accept), which should be plain to most not prejudiced by bias, is the thinking of the bishops.
2) Who is rejecting the idea that the Holy See has authority to govern the Church? All of the sudden, a new SSPX doctrine has been invented: If the Pope is the Pope, we must sign an agreement and obey. What of all the distinctions between true/false obedience? Epikeia? Necessity? What about all the solid refutations the SSPX has published over the years along these lines against the same assertions made by Campos, FSSP, TAR, La Barroux, etc?
If you are right today, then you owe them all a big apology for the injustices the SSPX positions represented at those times.
But since you are not right today, but instead are merely parroting the Roman/Menzingen line of "We have authority! Obey!" without any reference to doctrine, how do you expect the persipcacious SSPXer to abide by your position?
-
To agree not to condemn modernism/Conciliarism, while being free to teach your truth, is the essense of accepting doctrinal pluralism.
Don't shoot the messenger.
-
prior to the Latrocinium
I kept thinking, "where have I heard that before?". Took me a minute, but then .....
Gotcha. Nice one.
An apt historical reference to the Robber Council of Ephesus AND a very fitting Latin reference to Vatican II, all in one word.
Good job!
-
Perejoseph, please get a brain. Prove what you claim or else if you don’t have anything intelligent to write don’t waste our time!
I can almost smell the stench of your arrogance here in Belgium. Please go wash yourself; there is a great kind of soap out there called humility.
-
I do not understand all of this - and I may be completely wrong about the possible outcome (I do not think there will be "a deal" that SSPX will agree to) - but is it just me or has everyone gone batty about this?
Here we have an ex-SSPX priest with absolutely no axe to grind [/sarcasm] doing a preliminary analysis of the "SSPX deal". What deal?
Where is everyone getting all the latest inside information from and what's next?
I, for one, get the idea that the SSPX is preparing the faithful for a deal with Rome from the SSPX priest who told us in his sermon on Sunday that the leaking of the letters from the Society bishops was not helpful in "our eventual canonical status with Rome."
-
Once again, looks like your interested in your own views above reality and truth. Learn to think of the Church and not yourself.
Why do you bother to post if you ignore the argument?
I just laid out for you how the command to accept an agreement on the part of Bishop Fellay direcctly contradicts the Faith, as it is an acceptance of doctrinal pluralism.
Let you next post be nothing other than a demonstration of how I am wrong, and we can continue the dialogue.
Anything other than that will be ignored.
-
Why do you bother to post if you ignore the argument?
I just laid out for you how the command to accept an agreement on the part of Bishop Fellay direcctly contradicts the Faith, as it is an acceptance of doctrinal pluralism.
Let you next post be nothing other than a demonstration of how I am wrong, and we can continue the dialogue.
Anything other than that will be ignored.
Absolutely! We need to stay on point and not deviate. There has been an almost immediate upswing in threads and posters on this and other forums raising irrelevant issues like this and sedevacantism. It is all meant to distract from the core issue of doctrine. Just as Bishop Fellay's letter ignored answering the doctrinal issue raised by the three, and instead scolded them lie errant schoolchildren, distracting the reader from the central question of heterodox vs orthodox incompatability.
When discussing this subject of an agreement, we should ignore any line of inquiry which clouds or distracts from the central issues of doctrine and the purity of the Faith.
-
Prove the contrary that it is an acceptance of false pluralism.
Res ipsa loquitur. To join up with Rome under the aegis of being allowed to preach the Traditional doctrines as mere matters of tolerated opinion, while Rome tolerates many heterodox doctrinal theories as like matters of tolerated opinion, is to subjugate Catholic doctrine to the level of open discussion rather than treating them as doctrine as such. No further arguments or inferences need to be drawn; this is a defection from the doctrines of the Church in itself.
Perejoseph, please get a brain.
Our Lord gave me one so that I might know the Faith He reveals through His Church, love it, and defend it when it is threatened. I try my best.
Prove what you claim or else if you don’t have anything intelligent to write don’t waste our time!
Which claims in particular do you think require further proofs ?