CONTRADICTORY ROMANS?

August 22, 2015
Number CDXXIII (423)

 
No doctrine? Then apostasy will win.
Doctrine must be maintained, through thick or thin.

Two Roman churchmen have seemed to contradict one another in remarks made recently about relations between Rome and the Society of St Pius X, but one explanation of the contradiction may be that Rome is playing on the Society a police trick as old as the hills. By the “good cop, bad cop” routine, when the police want to get a confession out of a criminal, firstly a brutal policeman is sent in to beat up the criminal until he is in a very sorry condition, requiring all kinds of sympathy. Then a really nice policeman is sent in, oozing with a sympathy which often makes the criminal open up and confess his crime.

The “bad cop” in this case would be no less than the Prefect for the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Müller, who early this month in an interview with katholisch.de, official website of the German Bishops’ Conference, said about a Rome-SSPX agreement that “There is no substantial new development. The Holy Father wishes that we keep trying: “con tenacia e pazienza” – “with tenacity and patience.” The precondition for a full reconciliation is the signing of a doctrinal preamble in order to guarantee a full agreement in the essential questions of the Faith. In the past months, there were encounters of different ways which are meant to strengthen the mutual trust.”

Here it is clearly stated that the SSPX will have to sign a doctrinal text agreeable to neo-modernist Rome if it wishes for an agreement with Rome. The Cardinal is also being a “bad cop” when he reveals that there were “encounters of different ways” between Romans and the SSPX “to strengthen mutual trust.” Or is the SSPX happy that Rome is shedding the light of day upon contacts otherwise unknown? Yet who that has the Catholic faith is re-assured by mutual trust being established with neo-modernists? But now comes the “good cop.”

Earlier this year Bishop Athanasius Schneider visited two seminaries of the SSPX “in order to conduct a discussion on a specific theological topic with a group of theologians of the SSPX and with His Excellency Bishop Fellay.” Just recently he conducted an interview with a Hispanic website, Rorate Caeli en español, in which among other things he commented favourably on these visits. He himself was treated with cordial respect, and he observed a respect all around for the reigning Pontiff, Pope Francis. After his visits he could see “no weighty reasons to deny the clergy and faithful of the SSPX the official canonical recognition, and meanwhile they should be accepted as they are.” Bishop Schneider confirmed that he saw no doctrinal problem in the way of an agreement by downplaying the importance of Vatican II: the Council was primarily pastoral, and of its time, he said.

So who represents the real Rome? Cardinal Müller or Bishop Schneider? Certainly both. If the “good cop, bad cop” routine is not conscious, it is certainly instinctive. Rome, by keeping its options open, can continue to play the SSPX like a fish, reeling it in, letting it out, raising hopes and then dashing them, bending the wire and straightening it out again, and again, until finally it snaps. Alas, one may suspect that by “encounters” the leaders of the SSPX are complicit in this game of Rome.

Kyrie eleison.

.

So who represents the real Rome? Cardinal Müller or Bishop Schneider? Certainly both. If the “good cop, bad cop” routine is not conscious, it is certainly instinctive. Rome, by keeping its options open, can continue to play the SSPX like a fish, reeling it in, letting it out, raising hopes and then dashing them, bending the wire and straightening it out again, and again, until finally it snaps. Alas, one may suspect that by “encounters” the leaders of the SSPX are complicit in this game of Rome.

Kyrie eleison.

It's not too difficult to understand why +Fellay did not answer +Williamson's request for a list of objections to his EC's.  The former would have had to return the latter's package of ALL his past EC's, because there isn't anything in them to which the former would have no objection.

The above paragraph is a great example.  The stark reality of this "good cop, bad cop" routine cuts +Fellay to the bone, making an obvious caricature of his inexcusable agenda, i.e., his life-long ambition.  

Is it any wonder that +F, who obviously cannot bear to face the truth, had to find some way to part ways with him?

.

This trick is "as old as the hills".  And, +fellay in my opinion is definitely in on it.      

In my own diocese, the rumor was making the rounds that Cardinal Balony - I mean Mahony - was a Freemason.  One day I asked a well-informed friend what kind of evidence we might have of his masonic involvement, and his answer was cryptic so to speak.  He said that one thing all masons have in common is their fingernails are flawlessly manicured, and that I should take a good look at Balony's nails.  

I mean Mahony's.

So I did.  I had to wait in line, but I got about 2 (two) feet away from him, in person, and took a long, hard look at his fingernails, and for sure, there was not a single speck of less than perfection in any of them.  They were all trimmed to exactly the same length, which must have been done within the previous two days, or perhaps three at the most.  

Hits the nail on the head, as usual.        

Then I did the same thing with +Fellay.............................

I'll leave you to your own conclusions.

.

Quote from: Neil Obstat

.

Quote from: +W

So who represents the real Rome? Cardinal Müller or Bishop Schneider? Certainly both. If the “good cop, bad cop” routine is not conscious, it is certainly instinctive. Rome, by keeping its options open, can continue to play the SSPX like a fish, reeling it in, letting it out, raising hopes and then dashing them, bending the wire and straightening it out again, and again, until finally it snaps. Alas, one may suspect that by “encounters” the leaders of the SSPX are complicit in this game of Rome.

Kyrie eleison.

It's not too difficult to understand why +Fellay did not answer +Williamson's request for a list of objections to his EC's.  The former would have had to return the latter's package of ALL his past EC's, because there isn't anything in them to which the former would have no objection.

The above paragraph is a great example.  The stark reality of this "good cop, bad cop" routine cuts +Fellay to the bone, making an obvious caricature of his inexcusable agenda, i.e., his life-long ambition.  

Is it any wonder that +F, who obviously cannot bear to face the truth, had to find some way to part ways with him?

.

I assume that he is talking about conciliar Rome, not Catholic Rome.

It would seem so.  Just to be sure, I tried out including that word, and found that it applies not only to "Rome" but to other nouns equally as well.

Check it out:

CONTRADICTORY [conciliar] ROMANS?

August 22, 2015
Number CDXXIII (423)

 
No doctrine? Then apostasy will win.
Doctrine must be maintained, through thick or thin.

Two [conciliar] Roman churchmen have seemed to contradict one another in remarks made recently about relations between [conciliar] Rome and the Society of St Pius X, but one explanation of the contradiction may be that [conciliar] Rome is playing on the Society a police trick as old as the hills. By the “good cop, bad cop” routine, when the police want to get a confession out of a criminal, firstly a brutal policeman is sent in to beat up the criminal until he is in a very sorry condition, requiring all kinds of sympathy. Then a really nice policeman is sent in, oozing with a sympathy which often makes the criminal open up and confess his crime.

The “bad cop” in this case would be no less than the [conciliar] Prefect for the [conciliar] Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, [conciliar] Cardinal Müller, who early this month in an interview with katholisch.de, official website of the German [conciliar] Bishops’ Conference, said about a [conciliar] Rome-SSPX agreement that “There is no substantial new development. The [conciliar] Holy Father wishes that we keep trying: “con tenacia e pazienza” – “with tenacity and patience.” The precondition for a full reconciliation is the signing of a doctrinal preamble in order to guarantee a full agreement in the essential questions of the Faith. In the past months, there were encounters of different ways which are meant to strengthen the mutual trust.”

Here it is clearly stated that the SSPX will have to sign a doctrinal text agreeable to neo-modernist [and conciliar] Rome if it wishes for an agreement with [conciliar] Rome. The [conciliar] Cardinal is also being a “bad cop” when he reveals that there were “encounters of different ways” between [conciliar] Romans and the SSPX “to strengthen mutual trust.” Or is the SSPX happy that [conciliar] Rome is shedding the light of day upon contacts otherwise unknown? Yet who that has the Catholic faith is re-assured by mutual trust being established with [conciliar] neo-modernists?

But now comes the “good cop.”

Earlier this year [conciliar] Bishop Athanasius Schneider visited two seminaries of the SSPX “in order to conduct a [quasi-conciliar] discussion on a specific theological topic with a group of theologians of the SSPX and with His Excellency Bishop Fellay.” Just recently he conducted an interview with a Hispanic website, Rorate Caeli en español, in which among other things he commented favourably on these [quasi-conciliar] visits. He himself was treated with cordial respect, and he observed a [conciliar] respect all around for the reigning [conciliar] Pontiff, Pope Francis. After his [quasi-conciliar] visits he could see “no weighty [conciliar] reasons to deny the clergy and faithful of the SSPX the official [conciliar] canonical recognition, and meanwhile they should be accepted as they are.”  [Conciliar] Bishop Schneider confirmed that he saw no [conciliar] doctrinal problem in the way of an agreement by downplaying the importance of Vatican II: the Council was primarily pastoral, and of its time, he said.

So who represents the real [conciliar] Rome?  [Conciliar] Cardinal Müller or [conciliar] Bishop Schneider? Certainly both. If the “good cop, bad cop” routine is not conscious, it is certainly instinctive.  [Conciliar] Rome, by keeping its [conciliar] options open, can continue to play the SSPX like a fish, reeling it in, letting it out, raising hopes and then dashing them, bending the [conciliar] wire and straightening it out again, and again, until finally it snaps. Alas, one may suspect that by [quasi-conciliar] “encounters” the leaders of the SSPX are complicit in this game of [conciliar] Rome.

Kyrie eleison.

I refrained from "conciliar Vatican II" or "the conciliar Council" to avoid redundancy.

The one case that really surprised me is "conciliar doctrinal problem."  For through the eyes of a conciliar Vatican official, certainly doctrine itself is affected by this CONCILIAR outlook and praxis (process).  

Conciliarism is a philosophy, a foundation, a new way of thinking, that would have effects on everything we would do and say.

No?


It's not too difficult to understand why +Fellay did not answer +Williamson's request for a list of objections to his EC's.  

The former would have had to return the latter's package of ALL his past EC's, because there wasn't anything in them to which the former would have no objection.

The above paragraph is a great example.  The stark reality of this "good cop, bad cop" routine cuts +Fellay to the bone, making an obvious caricature of his inexcusable agenda, i.e., his life-long ambition.  (Corrolary:  +Fellay's lifelong agenda is an inexcusable ambition.)

Is it any wonder that +F, who obviously cannot bear to face the truth, had to find some way to part ways with him?


.

At that time for Bishop Fellay to explain himself as to what good reason he had for his dictates to Bishop Williamson would have been a disaster. They had a predetermined narrative and did not want to engage in any discussion about it. It was a one way monologue about the Bishop's misbehavior and to allow any debate was to open the door to the total discrediting of Bishop Fellay,  so no answers to the accused, no direct acknowledgement of the accused, only a summary judgement sentence and punishment along with a suitable program of prudential propaganda to keep all others in line lest they be punished as well.

(Does this methodology sound familiar to anyone?.....................kind of has a WWII feel about it)

I am suprised that the Menzingen/Krah team did not sue Bishop Williamson for reparations...........................

Yes, Divine Truth having been supplanted by prudential truth and hard principle by visionaries and speculations of good will.

So who represents the real Rome? Cardinal Müller or Bishop Schneider? Certainly both. If the “good cop, bad cop” routine is not conscious, it is certainly instinctive. Rome, by keeping its options open, can continue to play the SSPX like a fish, reeling it in, letting it out, raising hopes and then dashing them, bending the wire and straightening it out again, and again, until finally it snaps. Alas, one may suspect that by “encounters” the leaders of the SSPX are complicit in this game of Rome.

Kyrie eleison.

The "good cop, bad cop" analogy makes a lot of sense. Bp. Williamson says above that it may not be conscious by Rome, but certainly instinctive.

I sometimes wonder if Pope Benedict was told that he had to bring in the SSPX into "full communion," or else. Maybe he was threatened with something if he didn't deliver them up (to eventually be eliminated if they reconciled, perhaps). I think that this might have something to do with his retiring from the papacy, since he retired shortly after the SSPX decided that they would not reconcile. It seems far-fetched, I know. The hatred of traditionalism by the liberals in the Church can never be underestimated.