Catholic Info

Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: Matthew on October 03, 2017, 02:53:49 PM

Title: Arguing Against An Angry Accordista Again
Post by: Matthew on October 03, 2017, 02:53:49 PM
JPM originally wrote:
> Dear Matthew,
>
>         The Cardinal Burke string would have to get a lot better in order to qualify as drivel.  It's ignorance, prejudice, rash judgment and recklessness as far as the eye can see.
>
>         The Jewish cartoon pretty much epitomizes the spirit of Cathinfo.  This sort of thing can greatly damage the traditional Catholic cause, and nobody cares.
>
>         I think the jury is out as to whether you're any better than these guys.  I'd suggest that you settle the issue by leaving Cathinfo, and shutting it down if you can.
>
> In Christo Rege et Maria,
>
> JAM

==================================================
I responded:

You and your masters sure would like that, wouldn't you?

Too bad.

I intend to continue to be the voice of truth, and a thorn in your collective side at the same time.

Matthew

==================================================
JPM responded:


Dear Matthew,

      Do you read books on the spiritual life?  The Imitation, Divine Intimacy, ++Lefebvre's spiritual writings and conferences,etc.?

      They hammer away on love of neighbor, including going to great lengths to avoid alienating your neighbor even when you're in the right.

      So do a great many of the Sunday epistles and gospels, and Dom Gueranger's commentaries on them.

      Can you square what they say with the stuff that you publish?

      Christ sometimes (not always, but sometimes) condemned the Pharisees in very strong terms.  He is the Son of God.  What are your credentials for condemnation?

      Have you ever examined your conscience on rash judgment?  For example, have you ever asked yourself just how standardizing the look of the SSPX's publications was a "rebranding" as part of selling out to Rome?

      Is there anything that you think you know about the SSPX for which you have evidence that would stand up in a court of law?

JAM

==================================================
To which I responded:


Just like each of the elements of 9/11 can be "explained away", especially to non-engineers, non-chemists, those who live far from there, the ignorant, etc. but as a whole, the evidence all adds up and it's extremely dubious in the end.

Those covering up a truth ALWAYS like to "divide and conquer", coming up with excuses for each point that are varying degrees of believable. (From the quite convincing, all the way to the ridiculous).

This isn't a court of law, Mr. Lawyer. This is about the truth, not American jurisprudence.

I am well aware that the SSPX hired a branding corporation (no doubt for some serious $$$) to implement the "standardization" as you call it. It is just one small sign (out of many) of how they've lost the spirit of the Apostles and The Divine Word, and are instead adopting the ways of The World.

Fr. Wegner telling San Antonio's parishioners that Novus Ordo bishops aren't so bad is another example. And such examples pile up to the sky. There is only one PATTERN which emerges: a movement away from +Lefebvre's SSPX, and towards Vatican II and the world.

The slightest warming up to Vatican II is a huge red flag. The ONLY possible Trad attitude towards Vatican II is: "Vatican II delenda est." or "Vatican II must be destroyed." This should be said at all hours of the day, before meals, upon rising, and right before bed.

I shouldn't be surprised that you're missing this point, however, because that's exactly how they got away with Vatican II! Each sentence, on its own, can be excused or explained away. But as a whole, the works of Vatican II were the subtlest handiwork of Satan himself and they can't be excoriated enough! But you have to have a "big picture" view to see it: Vatican II *is* a superheresy. It *is* the worst disaster to ever befall the Church in Her long history.

You rash judge me even as you complain about my rash judgment. Priceless!

I've read the books you mention. Despite the propaganda your "handlers" have spoon fed you: I haven't given up on my spiritual life, I'm not ignorant of the spiritual life, I'm not a malcontent, I'm not poorly informed, I'm not a sedevacantist, etc.

Matthew
Title: Re: Arguing Against An Angry Accordista Again
Post by: Matthew on October 03, 2017, 02:56:51 PM
To be a Traditional Catholic, deserving of the name, we must repudiate Vatican II completely and completely avoid Vatican II and its modernism. Lest we become infected with it ourselves.
Title: Re: Arguing Against An Angry Accordista Again
Post by: Maria Regina on October 03, 2017, 03:02:56 PM
This must be the "J" whom a few at CI warned us would issue a scathing remark.

Is he threatening to sue?
Title: Re: Arguing Against An Angry Accordista Again
Post by: St Ignatius on October 03, 2017, 03:04:41 PM
Where do I sudmit my address so that I may recieve such inspiring letters? Quite a "badge of honor," if you ask me... you must be doing something right, keep up the good fight! 
:boxer:
Title: Re: Arguing Against An Angry Accordista Again
Post by: Maria Regina on October 03, 2017, 03:06:51 PM
To be a Traditional Catholic, deserving of the name, we must repudiate Vatican II completely and completely avoid Vatican II and its modernism. Lest we become infected with it ourselves.
Indeed, even reading the doublespeak in the documents of Vatican II in an attempt to counter its modernism is dangerous.
I would rather read the lives of the catacomb saints so that my own faith is strengthened by their courageous and virtuous examples of heroic faith and love.
Title: Re: Arguing Against An Angry Accordista Again
Post by: JPaul on October 03, 2017, 08:54:02 PM
This fellow is proposing the same apologist pablum that we were treated to in 2012 by the SSPX partisans when they sank Ignis Ardens. They do not approve our manner of speech so like the Jew, they seek to forbid it.



Quote
Edgar. Draw thy sword,
That, if my speech offend a noble heart,
Thy arm may do thee justice. Here is mine.
Behold, it is the privilege of mine honours,
My oath, and my profession. I protest-
Maugre thy strength, youth, place, and eminence,
Despite thy victor sword and fire-new fortune,
Thy valour and thy heart- thou art a traitor;
False to thy gods, thy brother, and thy father;
Conspirant ‘gainst this high illustrious prince;
And from th’ extremest upward of thy head
To the descent and dust beneath thy foot,
A most toad-spotted traitor. Say thou ‘no,’
This sword, this arm, and my best spirits are bent
To prove upon thy heart, whereto I speak,
Thou liest.           —King Lear


Classic Liberalism lives and breathes in the halls of Menzingen.
Title: Re: Arguing Against An Angry Accordista Again
Post by: Incredulous on October 04, 2017, 10:08:54 AM
God jousting Matthew!
His front teeth are loose now.

In reading the biased criticisms of Cathinfo, by those who have compromised with the enemies of the Church, the Book of Esdras is a good lesson.

Nehemias, a layman, rallied the King of Persia to allow him to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem after the Babylonian captivity.

The enemies of the Jews, the Ammonites, Arabians and Azotonians heard of this and were exceedingly angry.
They attacked them, trying to prevent the rebuilding of Jerusalem's wall and burnt gates.

The Jews kept guard by day and night, wearing swords on their belts to defend against attacks as they worked on the walls.

(https://assetsnffrgf-a.akamaihd.net/assets/m/1102016077/univ/art/1102016077_univ_lsr_xl.jpg)

So too must lay Trads defend against the attacks of: newChurch sycophants, neo-trads, jews and masons.

Let us rally under Our Lady to defend true Catholic tradition.
Title: Re: Arguing Against An Angry Accordista Again
Post by: Captain Tor on October 04, 2017, 02:10:29 PM
To be a Traditional Catholic, deserving of the name, we must repudiate Vatican II completely and completely avoid Vatican II and its modernism. Lest we become infected with it ourselves.

But as I wrote last time, against the truth there is no argument. For the past forty years, the archbishop, bishops, superior generals, and seminary rectors of the SSPX have ALL maintained the same position ... uncomfortable reading:

Abp. Lefebvre (1976), "I do not reject it [Vatican II] altogether. I accept the council in so far as it conforms to Tradition."
[France-Soir, Aug. 4, 1976]

Abp. Lefebvre (1980), "I am fully in agreement ... that the Council must be understood in the light of the whole of holy Tradition, and on the basis of the unvarying Magisterium of Holy Mother Church."
[Letter of Mgr. Lefebvre to Cardinal Seper, quoted in Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre Vol. III, Ch. XLV]

Abp. Lefebvre (1981), "As to the Council, I reaffirm that I subscribe to what the Holy Father said, asking that it should be received "in the light of Tradition and the constant Magisterium of the Church.""
[Letter of Mgr. Lefebvre to Cardinal Seper, quoted in Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre Vol. III, Ch. LII]

Abp. Lefebvre (1982): "The necessity of judging the Second Vatican Council in light of Tradition and the unchanging Magisterium of the Church, so as to correct the texts that are either incompatible with Tradition or equivocal."
[Letter of Mgr. Lefebvre to Cardinal Ratzinger, quoted in CFN:Rome-SSPX: Background to the Doctrinal Discussions]

Abp. Lefebvre (1985), "We consider likewise indispensable noteworthy revisions of documents like ‘The Church in the Modern World’, ‘Non-Christian Religions’, ‘Ecumenism’, and clarifications of numerous texts presently tending toward confusion."
[Letter of Mgr. Lefebvre to Cardinal Ratzinger, quoted in CFN:The April 15 Deadline]

Fr. Richard Williamson (1985), "The Archbishop's central position is that the documents of Vatican II are acceptable on condition that they are sifted according to Tradition (what text would not be acceptable, on such a condition?)"
[Letter to Friends and Benefactors #80]

Fr. Schmidberger (1989), "...opposition to the Novus Ordo Missae, and to certain [parts] of the conciliar documents..."
[God's Ways are not Our Ways, The Angelus, Jan 1989]

Bp. Fellay (2001), "we go along with about 95% of the Second Vatican Council, ..."
[DICI no. 6, May 2001]

Fr. de Cacquerary (2006), "Father Cacquerary’s outline is not his own, but conforms to the position of Archbishop Lefebvre who noted it crucial that doctrinal questions of the Council be resolved according to the traditional teaching of the Church, ..."
[Letter of Mgr. Lefebvre to Cardinal Ratzinger, quoted in CFN: The April 15 Deadline]

Bp. Fellay (2009), "but when speaking of the letter [of the Council], we do not reject it in full as it is ..."
[Mgr Fellay, de la Fraternité saint Pie X, dit ses réserves sur Vatican II, AFP, 10th Feb 2009]

Fr. Schmidberger (2009), "The SSPX does not reject the whole Council. Archbishop Lefebvre himself participated in the council, was in the preparatory commissions and approved most of the documents."
[Where Do We Stand, The Angelus, March 2009]

Fr. Pfluger (2009), "we do not deny the Council as an historical fact, but we ask that ambiguous texts and decrees be explained and revised if necessary."
[Interview Fr. Niklaus Pfluger, The Angelus, April 2009]

Bp. de Galarreta (2009), "Therefore to study the Council in the light of Tradition means rejecting everything that is in contradiction to the traditional teaching and Magisterium, and accepting that which is consistent and harmonious with what was believed always, everywhere and by all"
[An Interview With Bishop de Galarreta, The Angelus, July 2009]

Bp. Fellay (2010), "The only way to read the Council in a Catholic way is to read with the filter of Tradition"
[2010 Angelus Press Conference]

Fr. Laisney (2012), "But Archbishop Lefebvre and his Society do not reject everything in Vatican II; we carefully distinguish between that which is in conformity with the previous teachings of the Church (and we fully accept this)"
[The Remnant:The New Doctors of the Law, April 2012]

Fr. Schmidberger (2012), "In this statement of Abp. Lefebvre of his epochal declaration of 21 November 1974 are contained two inseparable fundamental principles: on one hand, the rejection of the spirit of the Council, of some of the declarations of the council and of some of the reforms that arose from the Council ..."
[Mitteilungsblatt, May 2012]
Title: Re: Arguing Against An Angry Accordista Again
Post by: hollingsworth on October 04, 2017, 02:31:42 PM
i think that captain tor's collection  of quotes from abl, williamson and others may have put matthew into a rather awkward position.  that's the problem with the era we live in.  hermetically sealed absolutes are in short supply.
Title: Re: Arguing Against An Angry Accordista Again
Post by: St Ignatius on October 04, 2017, 05:28:03 PM
But as I wrote last time, against the truth there is no argument. For the past forty years, the archbishop, bishops, superior generals, and seminary rectors of the SSPX have ALL maintained the same position ... uncomfortable reading:

Uncomfortable reading? For whom? 

Maybe for those who pick and choose certain quotes out of context to seek their own ends...

Let's balance your litany with some more quotes from the archbishop... (and as you should know, there's many more than one can cite in a single post.)

Quote
“It appears to us much more certain that the faith taught by the Church over twenty years cannot contain error than that there is absolute certainty that the Pope really is the pope. Heresy, schism, ipso facto excommunication, and the invalidity of the election are all potential reasons why a Pope was never really the Pope or should cease to be the Pope. In such a case, clearly a very exceptional one, the Church would find herself in a situation similar to that which she experiences after the decease of a Sovereign Pontiff. For, in a word, a very serious problem presents itself to the conscience and the faith of all Catholics since the beginning of the papacy of Paul VI. How is it that a Pope, the true successor of Peter, assured of the assistance of the Holy Ghost, could preside over the destruction of the Church, the most profound and extensive in her history, in such a short space of time, something which no heresiarch has ever succeeded in doing? To this question there will one day have to be a reply.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, Declaration to Figaro, shortly after his suspension by Paul VI, August 27th, 1976)

“If our priests came to abandon the true liturgy, the true Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the true Sacraments, then it would no longer be worth while to continue. It would be suicide!

When Rome asked: “But surely you can adopt the new liturgy and continue your seminaries, that won’t make them disappear,” I answered: “Yes, it will make out seminaries disappear. They would not be able to accept the new liturgy, it would amount to introducing the poison of the conciliar spirit into the community. If others were unable to hold on, it is because they adopted this new liturgy, all of these reforms and this new spirit. As for us, if we accept the same things, we will have the same results.

This is why we must absolutely maintain our Traditional line, in spite of the appearance of disobedience and the persecutions of those who use their authority in an unjust and often illegal manner.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, Conference given during a priestly retreat Econe, September 1986)

“We must not be afraid to affirm that the current Roman authorities, since John XXIII and Paul VI, have made themselves active collaborators of international Jewish Freemasonry and of world socialism. John Paul II is above all a communist-loving politician at the service of a world communism retaining a hint of religion. He openly attacks all of the anti-communist governments and does not bring, by his travels, any Catholic revival.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, “Marcel Lefebvre: The Biography” by Bishop Tissier, pp. 602-603)

“Eminence, even if you give us everything–a bishop, some autonomy from the bishops, the 1962 liturgy, allow us to continue our seminaries–we cannot work together because we are going in different directions. You are working to dechristianize society and the Church, and we are working to Christianize them.” (Archbishop Lefebvre to Cardinal Ratzinger, 1987)

“We must not forget also the prophecies of the most holy Virgin Mary. She warned us: without the Conversion of Russia, without conversion of the world, without prayer and penance, communism shall invade the whole world. What does that mean? We know very well that the goal of the secret societies is a world government, with Masonic ideals, i.e the rights of men, equality, fraternity and liberty, understood in an anti-christian sense, against Our Lord. These ideals would be promoted by a world government, which would establish a kind of socialism for all countries and then a congress of religions, encompassing all religions, including the Catholic Religion, in the service of this world government, as the Russian Orthodox are in the service of the soviets. There would be two congresses: a universal political congress, which would control the whole world, and this Congress of religions, which would support this world government, in a mercenary way.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, sermon given at Paris on the occasion of the celebration of his 60th anniversary of ordination, November 19th, 1989)

“The pope stated on many occasions that he was in favor of modernist ideas, in favor of a compromise with the world. In his own words, it was ‘necessary to throw a bridge between the church and the secular world.’

The pope said that it was necessary to attempt humanist ideas, that it was necessary to discuss such ideas; that it was necessary to have dialogs. At this stage, it is important to state that dialogs are contrary to the doctrines of the Catholic faith. Dialogs presuppose the coming together of two equal and opposing sides; therefore, in no way could (dialog) have anything to do with the Catholic faith.

We believe and accept our faith as the only true faith in the world. All this confusion ends up in compromises, which destroy the Church’s doctrines, for the misfortune of mankind and the church alike.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, interview, 197

“So by way of conclusion, either we are the heirs of the Catholic Church, i.e., of Quanta Cura, of Pascendi, with all the Popes down to the Council and with the great majority of bishops prior to the Council, for the reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ and for the salvation of souls; or else we are the heirs of those who strive, even at the price at breaking with the Catholic Church and her doctrine, to acknowledge the principles of the Rights of Man, based on a veritable apostasy, in order to obtain a place as servants in the Revolutionary World Government. That is it. They will manage to get quite a good place as servants in the Revolutionary World Government because, by saying they are in favour of the Rights of Man, religious liberty, democracy and human equality, clearly they are worth being given a position as servants in the World Government.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, address to his priests at Econe, 1990)

“I do not see how one could found a seminary using the New Mass. I would not find in it the strength, even with the greatest good will. The True, Traditional Latin Mass, is the heart of the seminary, of the priest, of the Church, of the Gospel, of Our Lord. St. Pius V saw this well: the True Ancient Mass is also faith’s barrier against heresy. (Archbishop Lefebvre, November 23rd, 1972)


“The devil’s greatest victory is to have undertaken the destruction of the Church without making any martyrs.

But the Church against her past and her Tradition is not the Catholic Church; this is why being excommunicated by a liberal, ecumenical, and revolutionary Church is a matter of indifference to us.(Archbishop Lefebvre, The Biography of Marcel Lefebvre by His Excellency Bishop Bernard Tissier, Kansas City, Missouri: Angelus Press, 2004, pp. 547.)

“Ecumenism is not the Church’s mission. The Church is not ecumenical, she is missionary. The goal of the missionary Church is to convert. The goal of the ecumenical Church is to find what is true in errors and to remain at this level. It is to deny the truth of the Church. (Archbishop Lefebvre, April 14th, 1978)

“Yes, I am a rebel. Yes, I am a dissident. Yes, I am disobedient to people like those Bugninis. For they have infiltrated themselves into the Church in order to destroy it. There is no other explanation.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, Conference on the Infiltration of modernism in the Church, Montreal Canada, 1982)

“. . . .most recently, the Pope has been into the synagogue of the Jews in Rome. How can the Pope pray with the enemies of Jesus Christ? These Jews know and say and believe that they are the successors of the Jews that killed Jesus Christ, and they continue to fight against Jesus Christ everywhere in the world. At the end of the Pope’s visit, the Jews sang a “hymn” that included the line “I believe with all my heart in the coming of the Messiah,” meaning they refuse Jesus as the Messiah, and the Pope had given permission for this denial of Christ to be sung in his presence, and he listened, with head bowed!” (Archbishop Lefebvre, talk on Assisi meeting, 1986)

“We consider as null…all the post-conciliar reforms, and all the acts of Rome accomplished in this impiety.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, Joint Declaration with Bishop de Castro Mayer following Assisi, December 2, 1986)

“Two religions confront each other; we are in a dramatic situation and it is impossible to avoid a choice, but the choice is not between obedience and disobedience. What is suggested to us, what we are expressly invited to do, what we are persecuted for not doing, is to choose an appearance of obedience. But even the Holy Father cannot ask us to abandon our faith.

We therefore choose to keep it and we cannot be mistaken in clinging to what the Church has taught for two thousand years. The crisis is profound, cleverly organised and directed, and by this token one can truly believe that the master mind is not a man but Satan himself. For it is a master-stroke of Satan to get Catholics to disobey the whole of Tradition in the name of obedience [...] St. Thomas Aquinas, to whom we must always refer, goes so far in the “Summa Theologica” as to ask whether the “fraternal correction” prescribed by Our Lord can be exercised towards our superiors. After having made all the appropriate distinctions he replies: “One can exercise fraternal correction towards superiors when it is a matter of faith.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, “Open Letter to Confused Catholics”, 1986)

John Paul II “now continually diffuses the principles of a false religion, which has for its result a general apostasy.”(Archbishop Lefebvre, Preface to Giulio Tam’s Osservatore Romano 1990, contributed by the Archbishop just three weeks before his death)

“It is not for me to know when Tradition will regain its rights at Rome, but I think it is my duty to provide the means of doing that which I shall call “Operation Survival,” operation survival for Tradition. Today, this day, is Operation Survival. If I had made this deal with Rome, by continuing with the agreements we had signed, and by putting them into practice, I would have performed “Operation Suicide”. There was no choice, we must live! That is why today, by consecrating these bishops, I am convinced that I am continuing to keep Tradition alive, that is to say, the Catholic Church.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, sermon given at Consecrations of fourBishops at Econe, June 30th, 1988) 
God Bless. 

Adapted from :TraditionalCatholicRemnant (http://traditionalcatholicremnant.wordpress.com/author/spiritumsanctum/)

http://cor-mariae.com/index.php?threads/archbishop-lefebvre-speaks.164/
Title: Re: Arguing Against An Angry Accordista Again
Post by: JPaul on October 04, 2017, 08:57:45 PM
The contradiction here is very clear, if you accept the council as a valid ecumenical council of the Church, you cannot pick and choose line by line what you accept and what you reject. That would certainly be schismatic and is indeed a new and novel proposition, and on that basis the above quotes are nonsense.

If you reject it or doubt it as a whole, in toto, then that is another matter. Father Hesse explained the canonical and theological rules which govern this question a number of times.

Is it any wonder that Traditionalists have been confused and uncertain for decades?
Title: Re: Arguing Against An Angry Accordista Again
Post by: Merry on October 04, 2017, 09:12:43 PM
Death to the Novus Ordo. 
Title: Re: Arguing Against An Angry Accordista Again
Post by: DZ PLEASE on October 04, 2017, 09:22:49 PM
Death to the Novus Ordo.
Does it really live, and if so in what way?

Regardless, why linger in its orbit like moths to a flame?

If you can rightly wish it dead, then why consider it any more relevant than any other false system? 

If you don't wish to be tricked then how wise is it to do the bidding of the magician, most of all by paying him unmerited and imprudent attentions?

Why so much focus, so much emphasis on that which not only has no salvific value, but quite the opposite?

Do we render justice to the True, Beautiful, and Good in minding so much that which is otherwise?

Is this not at least possibly a form of idolatry, witting or otherwise?
Title: Re: Arguing Against An Angry Accordista Again
Post by: Merry on October 04, 2017, 10:12:38 PM
Listen DZ, Pius X has condemned Modernism.  The Novus Ordo is that.  It can't be allowed to exist unopposed - it has to be worked against.  It is more than just a bane upon the Church.

Why is this a problem for you?  What's with the argument?  Can't you just take the spirit? 
Title: Re: Arguing Against An Angry Accordista Again
Post by: DZ PLEASE on October 04, 2017, 10:14:42 PM
Listen DZ, Pius X has condemned Modernism.  The Novus Ordo is that.  It can't be allowed to exist unopposed - it has to be worked against.  It is more than just a bane upon the Church.

Why is this a problem for you?  What's with the argument?  Can't you just take the spirit?
Never mind.
Title: Re: Arguing Against An Angry Accordista Again
Post by: Truecharity on October 04, 2017, 11:13:54 PM
Does it really live, and if so in what way?

Regardless, why linger in its orbit like moths to a flame?


The thing is, sedeplenists cannot ignore the NO. 
Title: Re: Arguing Against An Angry Accordista Again
Post by: DZ PLEASE on October 04, 2017, 11:18:27 PM
The thing is, sedeplenists cannot ignore the NO.
That's as may be but the questions remain, perhaps all the more pressing upon those holding such a position; is this your point?
Title: Re: Arguing Against An Angry Accordista Again
Post by: Truecharity on October 05, 2017, 12:30:47 AM
That's as may be but the questions remain, perhaps all the more pressing upon those holding such a position; is this your point?
Yes. I was simply answering one of your questions.
Title: Re: Arguing Against An Angry Accordista Again
Post by: DZ PLEASE on October 05, 2017, 12:32:51 AM
Yes. I was simply answering one of your questions.
Thank you.
Title: Re: Arguing Against An Angry Accordista Again
Post by: Captain Tor on October 05, 2017, 10:51:59 AM
Further, the SSPX has always taught that that to say "The documents of Vatican II are openly heretical. There is nothing worth salvaging from that Council." is moderately Sedevacantists, as stated in their Which are the true Catholics leaflet.
Title: Re: Arguing Against An Angry Accordista Again
Post by: St Ignatius on October 05, 2017, 11:18:17 AM
Please read here (http://sodalitium-pianum.com/subversive-letter-of-bishop-fellay/) for better format.

Subversive Letter of Bishop Fellay
October 4, 2017 (http://sodalitium-pianum.com/subversive-letter-of-bishop-fellay/)Sean Johnson (http://sodalitium-pianum.com/author/sean-johnson/)
Uncategorized (http://sodalitium-pianum.com/category/uncategorized/)

(http://sodalitium-pianum.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/SSPX-Bp-Bernard-Fellay.jpg)

A [Subversive] Word from the Superior General

Cor Unum – June/2017

[French Original Here (http://resistance.vraiforum.com/t417-Cor-Unum-juin-2017.htm)]
[size={defaultattr}][font={defaultattr}][size={defaultattr}][font={defaultattr}][size={defaultattr}]
 
Dear members of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X:
A few troubles have broken out in our dear Fraternity in recent months. Some members felt that they had to take a position publicly to express their point of view, using the pulpit or their bulletins for that purpose. In this they have acted in disregard of the elementary rules of every organized society, and also of our internal statutes and rules which require that relations with Rome be reserved for the Superior General. This is a provision of our venerated founder. Any article on this subject must therefore receive the approval of the Superior General, after having been submitted to the judgment of the Superior of the district.
We therefore condemn these untimely initiatives, the most serious of which have been sanctioned. Is it necessary to recall that the General Chapter of 2006 included among the grounds for dismissal of the Fraternity rebellion and the public dissemination of a dispute with the authority? Let this warning be taken seriously.
As always, these confreres imagine they are defending Tradition. But in fact, the means they use weaken it by seriously attacking the unity of our fraternity, sowing discord and causing confusion among the members and the faithful. Moreover, they pretend to dictate to the authority what should be its conduct. Whatever the good intention or the quality of the arguments, it is impossible to use an evil and unlawful means without causing damage to the common good.
Once again, we take this opportunity to recall the nature of our relations with Rome, since that is what it is all about.
[/size][/font][/size][/font][/size]

[size={defaultattr}][font={defaultattr}][size={defaultattr}][font={defaultattr}][size={defaultattr}][size={defaultattr}][font={defaultattr}]
Here we touch on the crux of the problem that affects us all, for it involves our future, and even our existence. How can we concretely hold the principle of obedience to the Church when in the very name of obedience we must reject everything from the errors that destroy it?
A line of action has been defined, in particular at the Chapters of 2006 and 2012. It emerges from a set of principles and practical applications. The principles do not change, but the circumstances in which they must be applied are modified and require adjustments or clarifications, which was done in 2012 or last year in Anzère.
The fundamental principle that we follow from the beginning is that of fidelity to the Church and its perennial teaching. For the Church can not change either the faith or the commandments of God. The accidental modifications, the new dispositions which it applies prudently throughout the centuries, must correspond to this first principle: “nihil novi nisi quod traditum est.” That is why we cry out loud and clear that we remain Catholic, even if we do not follow the reforms of the last fifty years, and that we refuse to follow the ecclesiastical authorities whenever they wish to impose them. For nothing in the world we do not want to distance ourselves from this line of conduct.
This may give the impression of a certain contradiction: we affirm our submission to the legitimate authority and we almost systematically refuse to follow it. However, with helping time and human nature being what it is, some of us adopt erroneous attitudes, either by exaggeration, by simplism, or by intellectual laziness. If we are to remain in the Truth, we must also respect the reality and verify that our affirmations of the moment really correspond to the facts as they unfold before our eyes.
It is imperative that the justification of our line of conduct strictly respects all Catholic principles. We can not free ourselves from it. For example, it is a false and very dangerous approximation to say: “We do not need a delegation for marriages”; “The substitute jurisdiction for confessions is enough for us …”; “The acceptance of a delegation for marriages signifies acceptance of the novelties of the Council,” etc. I am afraid that some will end up “dogmatising” a prudential action. It is not because we are struggling in an interminable crisis that we should a priorirefuse any advance in favor of Tradition, free ourselves from any rule, was it established at the Council of Trent, or disregard the power of the keys given to the successor of Peter. We have never refused in principle to recognize the acts of the Pope when they are legitimate.
Much good, much work to bring priests or faithful to Tradition, are thus prevented by cerebral and abstract reasoning that does not correspond to reality. I wonder how some consider the “conversion of Rome,” the return of the Church to its Tradition, while they carefully avoid any action, any contact with the official Church, not to mention the Ecclesia Dei mobility. Saint Francis de Sales already understood that one did not catch flies with vinegar …
It is a fundamental mistake to think that there is nothing better to expect from the official Church, purely and simply identified with the modernist or conciliar Church. While we receive everything from the Church even today. All the means of sanctification, all that we bring to the faithful, we have from this Church with its hierarchy, its pope, its bishops, a very real and concrete Church, the one we have before us. To want to identify it with the conciliar Church inevitably leads to a sterile refusal of all initiative, even good, under the false pretext that it would corrupt our work. It is like wanting to convert sinners while avoiding them!
We must maintain the principle according to which we receive from the Catholic hierarchy, especially from the pope, but also from the bishops, the means of sanctification. The axiom ecclesia supplet is valid only in the event of the failure of the authorities for various reasons, the main one being the salus animarum, the transmission of integral faith, the communication of grace through sacraments certainly valid. Even in cases where it is outside the normal exercise of authority, the principle of legislative intent must nevertheless be carefully preserved. We are not free to do what we want in the regime of the Church’s substitution of jurisdiction – and I fear that we have taken a liking to this false appearance of freedom.
We mistrust the official Church because of the grave deficiencies of disastrous reforms for the good of souls, and rightly so. But to come to the conclusion that “everything is bad” is necessarily exaggerated and false. Especially since there exists today, though imperfectly, a movement of resistance and reaction to the conciliar disaster.
For several years now, we have witnessed a slow evolution in conservative circles. There is today a real realization of the gravity of the widespread errors, a questioning of certain reforms of the Council. In liturgy as in theology, there is a real desire for a return to much more serious. The fact that the dominant line remains strongly progressive and does its utmost to neutralize conservative efforts no longer allows universal assertions such as “everything is corrupt”, “they are all modernists”, and so on.
The same is true of the Ecclesia Deimovements, including in the Fraternity of St. Peter, where there are a number of Nicodemes, convinced that the analysis of Bishop Lefebvre on Vatican II is the right one.
This does not mean that all the prerequisites and requirements for canonical recognition are already met. Nevertheless, progress in this direction is undeniable. Here is, for example, what Pozzo wrote to me in March/2017:
“I underlined [with Pope Francis] that the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X longs to preserve the spiritual, theological, disciplinary and pastoral identity desired by Archbishop Lefebvre, that is, experience and life of Catholic Tradition prior to the reforms that followed the Second Vatican Council. The pope has not expressed any reservation on this subject. Similarly, with regard to the two points discussed (the possibility of consecrating auxiliary bishops among the clergy of the Prelature and recognition of the clerical state from tonsure and commitment to celibacy as early as sub-diaconate), His Holiness stated that he had no objection to this.”
In conclusion, we believe that it is right to say that we are gradually seeing an improvement in the conditions imposed on us by Rome, that this is part of a more general reaction to the objectively more serious situation of the Church in its aggregate. But as far as Rome and ourselves are concerned, this situation is not yet satisfactory to conclude. After a short period of exaggerated optimism on the part of Bishop Pozzo, who was pushing, even as probable, the date of recognition of May 13 this year, we heard in turn Pope Francis and Cardinal Müller announce that things would still take time. “To walk, to walk, and then we shall see” the papal will of not rushing. In the same way Cardinal Müller: “We must take the time, (…) it takes a deeper heart conversion”.
In the present phase, therefore, we need to know whether the Roman authorities will confirm the “relativization” of the Council in spite of the pressure of the Progressives, and whether the Pope is prepared to concretize in either specific or universal laws what was reported to us by Bishop Pozzo.
As for us, we see no other option than to continue to treat with great caution with the Roman authorities, who for the moment have shown benevolence. We have much to gain, both Tradition and the whole Church. Time works for us, and we discern every day in an evident way the hand of Divine Providence.
Let us look at the history of the Fraternity sub specie æternitatis. And then the serene and all-powerful protection of the God of peace which it has enjoyed hitherto, should calm the minds of the troubled people of the Church.
Deign Notre-Dame, his Immaculate Heart, to grant all the members of the Fraternity peace of hearts under his benevolent protection.
On the Feast of the Holy Trinity, Menzingen, June 11, 2017
+ Bernard Fellay[/font][/size][/size][/font][/size][/font][/size]
Title: Re: Arguing Against An Angry Accordista Again
Post by: JPaul on October 05, 2017, 11:57:00 AM
Further, the SSPX has always taught that that to say "The documents of Vatican II are openly heretical. There is nothing worth salvaging from that Council." is moderately Sedevacantists, as stated in their Which are the true Catholics leaflet.
Yes if you do not subscribe to their hybrid principals you are punished with a detraction.This is why they keep the sedvacantist card at the ready and alive, as a means of coercion to keep the faithful in line and bannish dissenters. 
Title: Re: Arguing Against An Angry Accordista Again
Post by: Merry on October 05, 2017, 09:17:48 PM
Does it really live, and if so in what way?

Regardless, why linger in its orbit like moths to a flame?

If you can rightly wish it dead, then why consider it any more relevant than any other false system?

If you don't wish to be tricked then how wise is it to do the bidding of the magician, most of all by paying him unmerited and imprudent attentions?

Why so much focus, so much emphasis on that which not only has no salvific value, but quite the opposite?

Do we render justice to the True, Beautiful, and Good in minding so much that which is otherwise?

Is this not at least possibly a form of idolatry, witting or otherwise?
DZ, with all due - as you would say - I finally realized the liberal, peacenik approach you are advocating here.  

You may not be old enough as are some of us who lived in and remember the Church before the Council, but there would be no traditional movement/resistance to this awful Council and its results, if it wasn't for those who responded in indignation and reaction against the sacrileges and heresies that came to the Catholic world in the wake of Vat. II.  There are some of us on this board who were among the original student and child guinea pigs of "the Changes." 

You appear to be saying just ignore the thing.  

Pius X disagrees with you.  He said the modernists should "be beaten with fists."  He said those who oppose modernism will be called "traditionalists."  He bemoaned the lethargy of Catholics who do not resist evil.

Our confirmation graces require that we stay away from sin, esp. sacrilege - and charity requires we warn others about the dangers of the modern Vat. II Church. But what is more - if anyone can see or realize to any extent, the goodness of God in His Mass, in His Blessed Eucharist, to not only feed us with Himself but to actually remain on our altars, and then not rise in horror when the devil's legions flooded the sanctuaries and men's souls with the "spread of Communism's errors" -- this overtly satanic attack on the Church -- well what kind of "Catholic" is such a person?  WE ARE THE CHURCH MILITANT.  Our Lord cried out to St. Margaret Mary about the coldness of the men of the 1600's - and He wanted reaction to it, He wanted reparation, He wanted LOVE.

How much more now!?!?  

With Christian love I say to you, DZ, to quit your cutesy, cryptic, edgy, hard-to-understand-and-a-pain-to-"try"-to-read-so-frequent-contributions around here (not to mention how funny it is that you of all people correct other people's grammatical errors since no one knows what you yourself are even saying half the time!) and spend more time reading or thinking about or praying concerning this deluge of atrocity we are under and the insults Almighty God is enduring - not to mention how few Masses He is receiving now to expiate this multitude of daily crimes.    

With what you wrote above, you don't seem to have the Faith.  You are lacking a Catholic spirit.  It seems you actually don't understand what the NEW ORDER is as pertaining to its attack on the Church and what it means and is.  Catholics in the 60's with your approach are the ones who just laid down and let it happen.    
Death to the Novus Ordo.
Title: Re: Arguing Against An Angry Accordista Again
Post by: Incredulous on October 05, 2017, 09:28:44 PM

Poor Bp. Fellay... talking in circles again.
Title: Re: Arguing Against An Angry Accordista Again
Post by: DZ PLEASE on October 05, 2017, 09:33:12 PM
DZ, with all due - as you would say - I finally realized the liberal, peacenik approach you are advocating here.  

You may not be old enough as are some of us who lived in and remember the Church before the Council, but there would be no traditional movement/resistance to this awful Council and its results, if it wasn't for those who responded in indignation and reaction against the sacrileges and heresies that came to the Catholic world in the wake of Vat. II.  There are some of us on this board who were among the original student and child guinea pigs of "the Changes."

You appear to be saying just ignore the thing.  

Pius X disagrees with you.  He said the modernists should "be beaten with fists."  He said those who oppose modernism will be called "traditionalists."  He bemoaned the lethargy of Catholics who do not resist evil.

Our confirmation graces require that we stay away from sin, esp. sacrilege - and charity requires we warn others about the dangers of the modern Vat. II Church. But what is more - if anyone can see or realize to any extent, the goodness of God in His Mass, in His Blessed Eucharist, to not only feed us with Himself but to actually remain on our altars, and then not rise in horror when the devil's legions flooded the sanctuaries and men's souls with the "spread of Communism's errors" -- this overtly satanic attack on the Church -- well what kind of "Catholic" is such a person?  WE ARE THE CHURCH MILITANT.  Our Lord cried out to St. Margaret Mary about the coldness of the men of the 1600's - and He wanted reaction to it, He wanted reparation, He wanted LOVE.

How much more now!?!?  

With Christian love I say to you, DZ, to quit your cutesy, cryptic, edgy, hard-to-understand-and-a-pain-to-"try"-to-read-so-frequent-contributions around here (not to mention how funny it is that you of all people correct other people's grammatical errors since no one knows what you yourself are even saying half the time!) and spend more time reading or thinking about or praying concerning this deluge of atrocity we are under and the insults Almighty God is enduring - not to mention how few Masses He is receiving now to expiate this multitude of daily crimes.    

With what you wrote above, you don't seem to have the Faith.  You are lacking a Catholic spirit.  It seems you actually don't understand what the NEW ORDER is as pertaining to its attack on the Church and what it means and is.  Catholics in the 60's with your approach are the ones who just laid down and let it happen.    
Death to the Novus Ordo.
You "realize" little sir, but I "realize" that there would be no point in elaborating further.

Save your BS "charity bat" while you're at it, and perhaps learn to make some distinctions, stop assuming, and actually understand a thing before you attack another thing thinking it your target.

Have a care, not so Merry.
Title: Re: Arguing Against An Angry Accordista Again
Post by: St Ignatius on October 05, 2017, 09:34:08 PM
Caption Tor, could you please hand deliver this to your "handlers?"




(Fictitious) Open Letter of All SSPX Priests to Bishop Fellay
October 5, 2017 (http://sodalitium-pianum.com/fictitious/)Sean Johnson (http://sodalitium-pianum.com/author/sean-johnson/)
Uncategorized (http://sodalitium-pianum.com/category/uncategorized/)

(http://sodalitium-pianum.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/maxresdefault-1.jpg)

Having read Bishop Fellay’s subversive Cor Unum letter of June/2017, we noted not a single voice of opposition from the 600+ priests of the SSPX dispersed throughout the world.  Even so recently as six years ago, such a letter would have caused such a firestorm within the Society, that Bishop Fellay’s survival of the forthcoming General Chapter would have been endangered. 

Those days seem so long ago!

But today, not a word.  

Consequently, Sodalitium Pianum took it upon itself to create a fictitious response which might have come from the SSPX clergy in better days.

Open Letter to Bishop Fellay from All Priests and Bishops of the SSPX

June/2017

Continue reading here (http://sodalitium-pianum.com/fictitious/)...
Title: Re: Arguing Against An Angry Accordista Again
Post by: Merry on October 05, 2017, 09:53:55 PM
DZ - If you are not for destroying the Novus Ordo, as Pius X intended to do with his condemnation of Modernism, his Pascendi and Lamentabilis - then what are you doing here?

You may understand yourself, but you may not see how you are coming across.  Or, maybe you are exactly as you are coming across.
Title: Re: Arguing Against An Angry Accordista Again
Post by: St Ignatius on October 05, 2017, 10:03:24 PM
DZ - If you are not for destroying the Novus Ordo, as Pius X intended to do with his condemnation of Modernism, his Pascendi and Lamentabilis - then what are you doing here?

You may understand yourself, but you may not see how you are coming across.  Or, maybe you are exactly as you are coming across.

FWIW Merry, take a good slug of scotch, followed with a long deep breath and don't be so serious all the time... some humor just takes some time to soak in...  
:cheers:
Title: Re: Arguing Against An Angry Accordista Again
Post by: Merry on October 05, 2017, 11:08:30 PM
Sorry St. Ig - didn't care for what DZ said to my first post here and had to respond.  

On that, very serious.

Will still do scotch, though.  
Title: Re: Arguing Against An Angry Accordista Again
Post by: hismajesty on October 09, 2017, 05:40:37 AM
Captain Tor needs a good slap!

We're not in a cult of Archbishop Lefebvre here. He said lots of stupid things like we all do. We don't have to follow everything he did. We follow the truth.

So go and be cosy with your friend Pope Francis, and see how far it gets you!
Title: Re: Arguing Against An Angry Accordista Again
Post by: DZ PLEASE on October 09, 2017, 05:51:39 AM
So go an be cosy with your friend Pope Francis, and see how far it gets you!
“Even if he were an incarnate devil, we ought not to raise up our heads against him – but calmly lie down to rest on his bosom.”
... “He who rebels against our Father, Christ on earth, is condemned to death, for that which we do to him, we do to Christ in heaven – we honor Christ if we honor the pope, we dishonor Christ if we dishonor the pope… I tell you that God will(s) and has so commanded that even if the priests and the pastors of the Church and Christ on earth were incarnate devils, it is seemly that we are obedient and subject to them, not for their sake, but for the sake of God, out of obedience to Him, for He wills that we should act thus. ... Know that the son is never in the right against the father, even if the father is ever so evil and unjust, for so great is the good which he has received from the father, that is, life itself, that he can never repay him for it. And we have received the life of grace from the Church, which is so great a benefit, that we can never, by any kind of homage or gratitude, pay the debt we owe.”
f/ "Catherine of Siena: A Biography", by Anne Baldwin (OSV Publishing 1987, pp.95, 96)

emph. DZ P
Title: Re: Arguing Against An Angry Accordista Again
Post by: kiwiboy on October 10, 2017, 01:53:21 PM
The cry of every novus ordo-ite...
Title: Re: Arguing Against An Angry Accordista Again
Post by: DZ PLEASE on October 10, 2017, 09:14:47 PM
The "cry" of "every" short-busing Old "Catholic"...

The cheek of a heretic knows no bounds. You will burn in Hell if you persist KB.
Title: Re: Arguing Against An Angry Accordista Again
Post by: kiwiboy on October 12, 2017, 03:28:30 PM
Where would I be without your flame of burning fraternal charity?
Title: Re: Arguing Against An Angry Accordista Again
Post by: DZ PLEASE on October 12, 2017, 03:37:45 PM
Where would I be without your flame of burning fraternal charity?

Charity, yes.

Fraternal? No. You are a heretic, ergo you are not of the Church. You are not my "frater".

Consider this example as yet another bit of evidence that you suck at thinking, in addition to telling the truth.
Title: Re: Arguing Against An Angry Accordista Again
Post by: Merry on October 12, 2017, 11:26:00 PM
Pius X said that the Modernists should be beaten with fists.  Imagine his horror at these recent Popes!

Death to the Novus Ordo (which Pius X condemened).