This made it possible for us to conduct direct discussions which have cleared out the doubts and dissipated any misunderstandings, resulting in peace and unity of hearts, which of course is something to rejoice about.
Sounds good, I pray that the talks with Rome move forward and are successful.
The voice of "Everything's fine. Let's go to the beach!" speaks. This is commonplace.
You have to be kidding! The only way to deal with the Pope now is to force him to speak from the Chair of Peter. We have enough heresy, enough apostasy, enough ambiguity to last at least another generation.
Yes, but how do we do this? I doubt the SSPX has the influence to encourage his to be done.
I asked a friend's opinion on your post and this is the reply I received. I would like to pass it along.
Marie Auxiliadora
The holy Roman Church holds the highest and complete primacy and spiritual power over the universal Catholic Church which she truly and humbly recognizes herself to have received with fullness of power from the Lord Himself in Blessed Peter, the chief or head of the Apostles whose successor is the Roman Pontiff. And just as to defend the truth of Faith she is held before all other things, so if any questions shall arise regarding faith they ought to be defined by her judgment. And to her anyone burdened with affairs pertaining to the ecclesiastical world can appeal; and in all cases looking forward to an ecclesiastical examination, recourse can be had to her judgment.
Second Council of Lyons, Denz. 466
And since the Roman Pontiff is at the head of the universal Church by the divine right of apostolic primacy, We teach and declare also that he is the supreme judge of the faithful, and that in all cases pertaining to ecclesiastical examination recourse can be had to his judgment.
First Vatican Council, Denz. 1830
Very well. Good to keep these in mind.
Traditional Catholics have seen their appeals to Rome since the end of Vatican II, for definitive judgments from the Chair of Peter on questions of doctrine and liturgical practice, met with stoned silenced.
And there is
a reason for the stoned silence, lest we forget. What's the reason?
Finally, Rome [publicly] enters into "doctrinal discussions" the question of traditional Catholicism, and representing traditional Catholicism is the incompetent Bishop Bernard Fellay.
Actually, it was +de Galarreta who was at the helm of the negotiations, thank God!
Who knows what further disaster would have been made if it had been +Fellay?
In his secret negotiations with divinely revealed truth, it never entered into this man's head to demand from Rome ...
Here follows a list of the things that "could have been demanded?!
And what, pray tell, would have been the response if they had been demanded?
More stoned silence? Of course! But why?
Why the stoned silence?~ a syllabus of errors on the "hermeneutic of rupture";
~ to demand definitive dogmatic declarations from the Chair of Peter on clearly articulated doctrinal propositions;
~to demand a declaration from the Chair of Peter on the rights of immemorial tradition, particularly the right of the faithful to the "received and approved" immemorial Roman rite of Mass.
Great ideas. I'm going to write these down. Thank you!
BTW: we should say the "Canonized Traditional Latin Mass."
Because there can never be any other Canonized Mass in the Roman Rite.
Why would Rome have had no reply if these things had been "demanded?"
Bishop Fellay carried out his doctrinal discussions in the context of the 'hermeneutic of continuity' of Pope Benedict ...
It was literally +de Galarreta, but +Fellay was overseeing from a distance.
... and the legitimacy of the Reform of the Reform. It is hard to believe that he could be so incompetent, and yet the only alternative to this is a willing betrayal of Archbishop Lefebvre and all who have fought to defend our Faith since the close of Vatican II. If this man had any character at all, any sense of honor or shame, he would resign immediately. What do we get? Another self-serving interview with prepared questions and more of his secrecy that may be proper for the Masonic brotherhood but is out of place in the public defense of Catholic Truth.
Your righteous indignation is justified. And what you say is true.
However, you are missing a key factor in this. Why would there have been stone
silence if the SSPX had demanded those things, or any other definitive acts of
authority that the Church so desperately needs right now? The Sede response is
that the pope is not the pope, etc. That's a shallow cop-out. The real answer is
right before our eyes, and it's also (I'll eat my hat if it's not!) in the Third Secret
of Fatima.
If Bishop Fellay does not step down from the SSPX leadership or if he cannot be removed, the other bishops should directly begin ordaining other bishops and priests for all traditional Catholic communities so that never again will the light of Catholic tradition fall into the incompetent hands of Bishop Fellay.
I'm on board with that. +Fellay should step down in shame. But he won't.
So the other bishops should consecrate new bishops and ordain new priests. As
Fr. Chazal said, "War On!" And it would be, then.
But why the stone silence? And don't say, "Because the pope is not the pope."
That's a shallow cop-out.
Topic: Bishop Fellay speaks on the SSPX General Chapter (Read 7432 times)