Here's the link:

http://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/lefebvre-love-church-not-controversy-3297

Nothing to write home about. Just more stuff about our not being truly Catholic if we don't strive to normalize relations with . . . you know what.

The "arguments" presented are stuff we've already gone over many, many times. I'd say what's interesting is the nervous self-congratulatory tone of the article (if you recall "Bagdad Bob" from Gulf War II), essentially claiming that those who've left for the Resistance are relatively insignificant in numbers.

Well, if so, then why keep taking these jabs as though desperately having something to prove? Why not just do an article on "love, love, love," "social justice," or "youth unemployment"?  

Why not just go ahead and embrace Rome right now? It seems the fruit has already ripened and fallen into the filthy palms of ʝʊdɛօ-Masonic Rome. So why this pseudo-traditionalist drama? So go right ahead, Menzingen, "That which thou dost, do quickly" (John 13:27)!    

Some choice quotes from the Menzingen mouthpiece:

. . . it is untrue to accuse Bishop Fellay of being unfaithful to Archbishop Lefebvre. Aside from differences in temperament or personal experience, the line has remained the same, and there are no indications that it is about to change; quite the contrary.


In all this controversy, what many people lack is quite simply the sensus Ecclesiae, the mind of the Church. I do not claim to be better than those who abandon us, but I wonder: toward what Church are they venturing? The Church of Pius XII? Of St. Pius X? Of St. Pius V? But these “Churches” do not exist, any more than the “conciliar Church” or “modernist Rome” exist . . .

Therefore it is not possible to think that one is in communion with the Church independently of the Pope, acting as though he did not exist, refusing all contact and all dealings with him, and not seeking to establish relations that enable us to accept his jurisdiction while refusing to compromise with his errors. All this is difficult, delicate, risky, and whatever else you want to call it—granted. But not to desire this, or even to reject it a priori, is to reject communion with the Church as she was constituted by Jesus Christ and as she lives in 2014.

Yes . . . they are ready to come out and sign. The fish indeed rots from the head. The SSPX really did officially die with the AFD, and all we've been seeing in the months following were the "traditional" reflexed of the limbs mistaken to be the signs of life ("wishfully") still left in it. The SSPX (NEO-SSPX) is not just TOAST; it's a stinking CADAVER!!! It reeks of the smell of death and modernism!!!

And folks, don't be fooled by the article's style of presentation as a "personal reflection" or an opinion piece. If it's up in the SSPX website, it's up there because Bishop Fellay and his FSSP-wannabe circle approve of it!!!

 

Here's the link:

http://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/lefebvre-love-church-not-controversy-3297



And folks, don't be fooled by the article's style of presentation as a "personal reflection" or an opinion piece. If it's up in the SSPX website, it's up there because Bishop Fellay and his FSSP-wannabe circle approve of it!!!

 

Looks like the FSSP plan is working.....to put pressure on the SSPX. Abandoning principle in hopes of gaining acceptance is the mark of a weak soul and flawed intellect.

It is in way remarkable that this desire to be reconciled with modern Rome is now a big issue with the Society after decades of doing its own thing. It may be to do with being hooked on the profitable R & R formula and avoid straying into SV territory or finding it is always necessary to be friendly with Rome because conservatives in society would otherwise shun you. Being independent but open for dialogue is a familiar stance that can become a permanency. It now needs no absolute purpose to stay in place but its own existential one of being.

The next theme that the Society will use to inveigle the punters will centre around co-operating with external bodies in 'Reforming the Church'. It has to have a theme because it lacks a goal. 'Liberating the Mass' was one and it attracted a large crowd. This was replaced after Rome stole the idea and 'Doctrinal Talks' became the hot issue. When this one grew cold, 'Canonical Solution' suddenly appeared. And so it goes on, exercising the leadership and ensuring its survival with the help of professional consultants and legal teams.

The 'Reform of the Church' will have a long currency because it is a meaningless concept or rather it can mean anything. The Society should feed off this one greedily. It reminds me of the mantra being used by our secular masters to deal with the financial crisis when they say: "We are all in it together". Of course, the opposite is the case; self-interest becomes the norm during an emergencty. The modern SSPX knows it only has to feign mutuallity to keep the wolves at bay. The argument is about no longer wanting it to be a prime target for rapacious society. In other words, if you cannot beat them, join them!  

   

 :dancing-banana:
The SSPX no longer knows what love is.  True love speaks out against error in those she loves.  According to this article, speaking out is now a sign of hatred for authority and of love for controversy for its own sake.  
Also, why is V2 downplayed?  It is now just one failure among many?  What other council or Church ruling resulted in the loss of millions of souls?  
Why persist in citing the docuмent from which ABL removed his signature after a sleepless night?  
Notice, also, that the opposition is never named.  If the writer is honest, he will name names.  Why not say, "Fr. Pfeiffer and the Resistance?"  Everyone knows who is meant anyway!  

. . . it is untrue to accuse Bishop Fellay of being unfaithful to Archbishop Lefebvre. Aside from differences in temperament or personal experience, the line has remained the same, and there are no indications that it is about to change; quite the contrary.
 

In all this controversy, what many people lack is quite simply the sensus Ecclesiae, the mind of the Church. I do not claim to be better than those who abandon us, but I wonder: toward what Church are they venturing? The Church of Pius XII? Of St. Pius X? Of St. Pius V? But these “Churches” do not exist, any more than the “conciliar Church” or “modernist Rome” exist . . .  

Therefore it is not possible to think that one is in communion with the Church independently of the Pope, acting as though he did not exist, refusing all contact and all dealings with him, and not seeking to establish relations that enable us to accept his jurisdiction while refusing to compromise with his errors. All this is difficult, delicate, risky, and whatever else you want to call it—granted. But not to desire this, or even to reject it a priori, is to reject communion with the Church as she was constituted by Jesus Christ and as she lives in 2014.

More boring, untruthful rhetoric.

Aside from differences in temperament or personal experience,

Bingo! which leads directly to his liberal thoughts and actions.

Subtext of the rest:

The OLDChurch is gone, only an illusory concept, the same as the illusion of the Conciliar devastation.

No mention that their sensus Ecclesiae conflicts with the sensus Catholica of Tradition.

Finally, get over it folks! The Conciliar sect of Rome is the Church constituted by our Lord Jesus Christ.  The Church of the New Advent is the will of God today in 2014.

You can all head to your local Ordinary Rite this Sunday without scruple of conscience. Any appearance of evil or scandal will only be an illusion, not really there. It really is the Mass constituted by Jesus Christ as it lives in 2014.

.

You've done a not-too-shabby start on this, Clavis.

Actually, TheRecusant just reprinted the work of another group in the Open Letter to Fr. Themann.  There was no commentary on it, even.  So maybe TheRecusant could print your own work, eh??  Don't laugh.  You should send Ed. an e-mail.

The Recusant should do an analysis of this text.

These parts are especially interesting:

Quote from: sspx.org

"He [Abp. Lefebvre]  fought and condemned the modern errors, those from before the Council, those of the Council and those after the Council, but he never fought or condemned Rome or the Pope."

So I guess it was somoene else who called those in Rome "antichrists" and said that John Paul II wasn't Catholic ("we say no more, but we say no less") etc. etc.

Could it be some kind of amnesia perhaps?  :idea:

You're too kind!

Quote

"...and history also tells us that the protocol agreement that he [Abp. Lefebvre] had signed on May 5, 1988 went much further than Bishop Fellay’s proposals of last year"

First of all, Bp. Fellay's proposal wasn't last year (the article was written this month).

Good point.  But again, you're too kind.  My outlook is much darker.

It would seem to me that this is an attempt to make the AFD seem like it was only REAL when we became aware of its existence -- kind of a subjectivity thing.  "Reality is in the mind."  Therefore, even though +F penned the lousy thing in early April (while he pretended to be IGNORANT of it on April FOURteenth, 2012, the DAY BEFORE he turned it in, and it took more than a few hours to compose), since he HID it from view for AN ENTIRE YEAR, and we only became apprised of it in March 2013, now THAT is the date on which they're basing its manifestation, which is the beginning of it's "life" in our minds.  

IOW -- we're supposed to forget all about that lost year, and the fact that the SG was trying to deceive everyone all over the world by keeping his dark dealings secret.

Just FUGGEDABOUDIT, okay?

Get it?

So, did the Archbishop say that the new Mass was "legitimately promulgated", or, did he accept the whole of Chapter 3 of Lumen Gentium (which teaches collegiality), with or without the Nota explicativa, or, did he say that Vatican II enlightens the doctrines of the Church implicitly present within Her but not yet formulated?

Huh, I guess not. Maybe it's that pesky amnesia again.  :confused1:

ABL in fact left us a very nice present in regards to the Nota explicativa praevia that was attached to Lumen Gentium. He wrote about it briefly in his Open Letter to Confused Catholics, and it would seem this very point is the source of the title of that whole book.  Catholics were confused about the authority of Vat.II more than they were the collegiality controversy.  And it was therefore most telling what "Danger Cardinal Felici" told ABL in front of witnesses ("Danger" is how Google translates his first name).  For what he said, ('strictly off the record'???) was as follows:

“We have to distinguish according to the schemas and the chapters those which have already been the subject of dogmatic definitions in the past;  as for the declarations which have a novel character, we have to make reservations.”

...And he was NOT talking about making hotel 'reservations'!

If the topic is of interest you ought to read this post.

Quote from: sspx.org

"And Archbishop Lefebvre was not the one who put an end to the meetings; it was none other than Cardinal Ratzinger, by refusing what His Excellency requested in his letter dated May 6, 1988 ... so he [Abp. Lefebvre] did not reject the Protocol the next day as has been falsely claimed"

So, I guess it wasn't Abp. Lefebvre who said, when asked what he thought about Dom Gerard accepting the proposals of the Pope: "At our last meeting, he asked me if I could accept the Protocol [of May 5, 1988] THAT I MYSELF REFUSED!...We must no longer discuss with the Roman authorities. They only want to bring us back to the Council, we must not have a relationship with them!" (Controverses, No. 0, September 1988, Le Rocher No. 84).

"If only you knew what a night I passed after signing that infamous agreement! Oh! How I wanted morning to come so that I could give Fr. du Chalard my letter of retraction which I had written during the night." (Marcel Lefebvre, Bp. Tissier de Mallerais p. 555).

I'm glad you picked that one out, Clavis, because it's a hot item.  You know you're making progress in an exorcism when the devil screeches in 'agony' and makes a lot of fuss.  It is a BIG DEAL for the Fellayites to deny that ABL "refused" the May 5th Protocol.  They're staking a lot of resources on keeping that platform intact.  If it was so important to them, why didn't they talk to ABL about it when he was still alive and speaking?  Well, obviously, if they had asked him, his answer wouldn't have been what they're looking for!  That's why!!

So they waited until he DIED, and they they could re-make the story in their own image.  Kind of like re-creation.  Or Communism, actually.

Whatever it takes to rip off the Real Estate.

(How many sins are there here, crying to heaven for vengeance, again?)

Quote

"Some may disagree with Archbishop Lefebvre’s stance (but then they should have said so during his lifetime!), or Bishop Fellay’s (but then they should have said so at the time of the first contacts in 2000!),

They wouldn't ever take on this tactic without professional advice.  Someone is telling them, "Go ahead, and LIE BOLDLY!  Hey, it worked for Galileo, and it worked for Martin Luther before him, so it'll work for you TOO."

Quote

but it is strange that this reawakening of consciences is occurring only now that nothing was accomplished and nothing is foreseen; and it is untrue to accuse Bishop Fellay of being unfaithful to Archbishop Lefebvre. Aside from differences in temperament or personal experience, the line has remained the same, and there are no indications that it is about to change; quite the contrary."

This selective amnesia sure makes people deaf and blind, huh.

If only those liberals who disagreed with Abp. Lefebvre all left during his lifetime, maybe the Society wouldn't be in this mess.

Now THAT'S the spirit!   :cheers:

Oh, and again we hear the straw-man argument that all those who resist the new direction are opposed to any contact with Rome - they are not opposed to talking but to signing an agreement.

I have to take issue with this one.   ABL said it was a DIALOGUE OF THE DEAF.  The last 3 years of his life he realized there was no use in talking.  He said the time for talk is over, and now it's time for Rome to convert.  If they won't be converted then there is nothing to gain by talking with them.  All that will happen is a corruption of those who do the talking.  Well looky here. It was Bishop Alfonso de Galarreta who  was in charge of the talks, and see where it has led him?  

I say no more.

Quote

"I do not claim to be better than those who abandon us, but I wonder: toward what Church are they venturing?

What a snake.  Who's abandoning whom?  And who is doing this mythical  'venturing'?  This is the language of the UNCLEAN SPIRIT OF VAT.II SPEAKING.

"He that hath an ear, let  him hear what the Spirit saith to the churches" (Apoc. ii. 7.1.29. iii.6.13.22).

Quote

The Church of Pius XII? Of St. Pius X? Of St. Pius V? But these “Churches” do not exist, any more than the “conciliar Church” or “modernist Rome” exist—these are merely expressions to describe the state of the Church or of Rome since the last Council, since they have been infested with a “non-Catholic sort of thinking” that tries to give them a more “worldly” face."

Once again, you're too kind, Clavis.  My outlook is much darker.

It seems to me what we have here is Friedrich Nietzsche.  We have Antonio Gramschi. We have Karl Marx and Auguste Comte.  These terms are "just words."  Communism is what you make of it.  There is no modernist Rome. It's a figment of your imagination. And there is no devil and there is no hell.  Hell is not a place.  I believe in a God but not a Catholic God. There is no "conciliar Church." These "churches"  do not exist.  These are just words, mere expressions to describe the state of the Church or of Rome since the last Council, since they have been infested with a "non-Catholic sort of thinking."  One that tries to give them a  more "worldly face,"  but it doesn't really matter.  Because Communism is what you make of it.  

Get it?

Again contrary to the Archbishop, who said e.g.
"This Council represents, both in the opinion of the Roman authorities as in our own, a new church, which they call themselves the "Conciliar Church" ... All those who cooperate in the application of this overturning accept and adhere to this new "Conciliar Church", as His Excellency Mgr. Benelli called it in the letter that he sent me in the name of the Holy Father last June 25, and they enter into the schism."
(Interview with Abp. Lefebvre, Figaro, August 4, 1976)

"We are suspended a divinis by the Conciliar Church and for the Conciliar Church, to which we have no wish to belong. That Conciliar Church is a schismatic Church, because it breaks with the Catholic Church that has always been. It has its new dogmas, its new priesthood, its new institutions, its new worship, all already condemned by the Church in many a docuмent, official and definitive....

The Church that affirms such errors is at once schismatic and heretical. This Conciliar Church is, therefore, not Catholic. To whatever extent Pope, Bishops, priests, or faithful adhere to this new Church, they separate themselves from the Catholic Church."
(Abp. Lefebvre, Reflections on Suspension a divinis, June 29, 1976)

"Exactly the same day nine years ago on the 21st of November, I drew up a manifesto which also brought down on me the persecution of Rome, in which I said I can't accept Modernist Rome. I accept the Rome of all time with its doctrine and with its Faith. That is the Rome we are following, but the Modernist Rome which is changing religion? I refuse it and I reject it. And that is the Rome which was introduced into the Council and which is in the process of destroying the Church. I refuse that Church.
(Abp. Lefebvre, Press Conference, Paris, 9 December, 1983)

Quote

"To refuse to seek to reestablish canonical ties with the Church, in the state in which she exists today, as she lives and suffers today, whatever pretext may be given, is quite simply to reject the Church, which is not a Catholic thing to do."

Here they condemn Abp. Lefebvre, who said that he would not sign anything unless the popes accepted the doctrines of their predecessors (because it would be dangerous to the Faith to allow control to those who are destroying the Church and who want to bring the SSPX to the Council).

It is a sad state of affairs in the Society. Recently a priest told me that no criticism at all of Bp. Fellay is allowed. Authority vs. Truth.

Good and Merciful God, please shorten this time and this confusion, and renew Your Church soon.

Senhor Clavis, muito obrigado!  

.

Enjoy Concilliarism- It's the new Arianism!
 Refreshing, progressive, heretical!

There's your rebranding.

Deo gratias.

I really liked the bit about making hotel reservations.  

But, being serious, we have to avoid rash judgment, like attributing insidious motives to the author, accusing him of lying, or Bishop Fellay of wanting to steal the real estates of the Society.

A Catholic has to be above that. We shouldn't be dragging ourselves, and others with us, through the mud like the Protestants.

If I ventured into sarcasm, it was to show how obvious the change of direction from that of the Archbishop really was.

Just because we are right does not mean we have to insult or demonize the opposition. And if they are doing it, it doesn't mean we should drop to that level, because that is the mark of error, not truth.

Those who possess the truth are at peace, and those in error are tossed about in the oceans of hate and bitterness.

Magna est veritas et praevalet. The truth is mighty and it prevails. There is much confusion in the Society and in the Church today, but the worse things get the more certain we should be that the glorious Restoration is at hand.

Soon, God willing, the Doctrinal Preamble will be just a paragraph in the history books.

See, I told you, send Ed. an e-mail because maybe he can use your stuff.  He can't use mine because I'm too pessimistic.  He's looking for that British diplomacy thing.


.