I met Bishop Tissier de Mallerais on Thursday night and he said that we have talked with Rome for two years and nothing of what they have said is in the preamble and it is as if the two years of talks about the faith meant nothing. They just want us to join their concillar church and they have no intention of changing. To which my friend said "Then that means no deal" and he replied "of course no deal"

I met Bishop Tissier de Mallerais on Thursday night and he said that we have talked with Rome for two years and nothing of what they have said is in the preamble and it is as if the two years of talks about the faith meant nothing. They just want us to join their concillar church and they have no intention of changing. To which my friend said "Then that means no deal" and he replied "of course no deal"

A number of us have been saying this for the past two years.  I mean, was it not evident from the beginning that nothing would come of these "discussions?" that Rome would not move an inch?  I don't feel necessarily vindicated by Bp. T's confirmation of what probably many of us already knew.  I am disappointed, that's all, and feel that Bp. F should have known as well as we that nothing would come of it.  But apparently he plans to bulldoze ahead with future talks.  

I met Bishop Tissier de Mallerais on Thursday night and he said that we have talked with Rome for two years and nothing of what they have said is in the preamble and it is as if the two years of talks about the faith meant nothing. They just want us to join their concillar church and they have no intention of changing. To which my friend said "Then that means no deal" and he replied "of course no deal"

No matter what the decision will be the damage has be done. For me I think the SSPX should be embarrassed and ashamed that these so called talks, negotiations, the Bishop Williamson affair etc etc have all come to this.

I think the whole pretext is a fraud!

What is the matter with SSPX, anyway?

Why is it necessary to have some agreement with Rome?

Who is Rome?

Why is it so important to you?

Will it give you some good feelings because a heretical organization likes you or accepts you? Why not make an agreement with England or the Lutherans? It is the same thing? Why not set up negotiations with The Church of England? Maybe if they recognize you and if the Mormons recognize you and the Jehovah's witnesses and the COGIC, you can have lots of recognition and feel really accepted!

In another thread you denied communion with anyone saying an una cuм mass, that is a schismatic act, thusly you are no different then the Schismatics you just cited.

It is neccesary to convert Rome to restore the Church to what it was, your lack of faith in the possibility of it happening shows a lack of faith in God.

Athanasius faced tougher odds and succeeded, so too will we in time.

Over time we will convert them then those who were heretics will be condemned as such, the reason the Sedecavantists do not want us to even try is because you are afraid we will succeed.

Quote from: LordPhan

Why should we be embarrased that we are attempting to convert Rome to the Catholic Faith? Are you against conversions? are you against saving the church?

Quote from: LordPhan

It is neccesary to convert Rome to restore the Church to what it was, your lack of faith in the possibility of it happening shows a lack of faith in God.

Over time we will convert them then those who were heretics will be condemned as such, the reason the Sedecavantists do not want us to even try is because you are afraid we will succeed.

You see, its this very premise that makes absolutely no sense in the history of the Church. When you say you want to "save the Church", it is not physically because if it were that would mean going to war with whoever was invading and trying to take the Church and its property by force. Right?

You must mean spiritually save it. Well... isn't the Church supposed to save us? Isn't the Church the bride of Christ? And aren't we the sinners who are called TO the Church? How can we save the Church when it is the Church that saves us? Is this SSPX fuzzy logic?

It doesn't get more clear cut than this, folks.

The only ones with fuzzy logic are you, your attempt to make up some utopian view of church history is quite sad. This is not the first crisis, are you not aware of WHY the Council of Trent was called? Or why Nicea was called? Or why most of the councils were called? Because there have always been attacks on the church from outside and within. The ones within must be dealt with from within. As they have always been.  You state the word history but don't cite anything, is this some americanized history? I can cite a Pope who defended Arianism in the Sixth Century, which was Centures after Nicea Condemned it, I can cite John XXII who taught heresy in his sermons and was rebuked by his Cardinals and threatened with being deposed until he studied the issue and recanted. By your view they should of deposed him, but the Church teaches otherwise.

Here are some facts that show you have no catholic charity, nor are you thinking as a catholic.

Fact 1: In order to declare anyone a heretic you must first rebuke them. Have you personally rebuked the Pope? Did he deny a dogma after you rebuked it to his face?

Fact 2: In order to declare someone a manifest and obstinate heretic you must hold a position of authority over him. Do you hold an authority over the Papal Chair? The Law itself can anethamatize someone but it must be stated to the person in person and then they must be given an opportunity to retract their false view.

Fact 3: Without a Pope who acts as a Pope should there will never be unity in the Church, the restoration of the Church must be done at Rome, whether that is through a miracle and instant or through the acts of true Catholics expressing true charity to convert him back from his worldlyness over time is immaterial. It must happen so therefore it will happen.

Fact 4: A Catholic who would deny preach the faith to someone willing to listen has no charity. You would have us not speak to them at all, we have already seen small gains in converting people, including altering the way the church acts. We only need be vindicated in the end.

I am not in favour of a deal, I could care less, if it helps us we can sign one, if it harms us we can refuse. But the Doctrinal talks were our idea not Rome's, it was a condition before we would even consider talking to them. So we agreed to consider joining them if they would let us preach to them the one true faith. They let us and we did. Now we have considered and rejected their half hearted offer. Personally I am on the Side of Bishop Williamson that we should not sign a deal until Rome Converts in full. But in no way shape or form should anyone or can anyone say that attempting to convert them is wrong. That is tantamount to heresy.

We cannot be excommunicated, once again you fail to understand the laws of the church

 If the SSPX is excommunicated as a whole, will you become a sedevacantist then?

This has been tried before and the SSPX did not become sedes. The Vatican can declare anything, and it would not change the Mission of Archbishop Lefebvre, To restore all things in Christ. Certainly if you are Catholic part of your Identity is the Holy See. Why not start there? Where Tradition is being held hostige. We are out to convert the Vatican as a whole. Would sedes be willing to come back if that happened? The way I see it, the Society need to not sign anything. They have the Truth on their side. The Vatican can declare their Canonical status or call them Schismatic, none of which require a signature as a "deal" implies. This will not effect the mission by most Catholics to convert the Vatican, just like the lifting of the excommunications. We will not be satisfied until ALL things are retored in Christ.

When I was in the seminary, a few years ago now, I can remember a talk given to us by a Priest or Bishop of the SSPX ,not too sure who, about the signs that lead to a priest leaving the SSPX. He said it starts of small and then grows. Example he might not read some of his brievery or maybe prefer lay peoples company rather than his brother priest, only small thing but can lead to disaster if not corrected.
I guess that is how I see this crisis now, small things but put them together and…..! The lifting of the excommunications: Why did bishop Fellay ask for it when we in the eyes of the SSPX were not excommunicated in the first place? Then not seeing Archbishops name nor Bishop deCastro Meyer’s name maybe should of sounded alarms. The motu Propio The Priests were free to say it anyway, then the ordasity of calling it an extraordinary rite, and the novus ordo an ordinary rite, no no no things do not add up. What about Bishop Williamson treatment does not add up, like him or not he has not done anything that he would not have done when the Archbishop was alive. He is protecting the faith and explaining it. You look at the introduction of Maxy Krah into the SSPX and hell the alarm bells are getting louder and louder. The Dominican novus ordo sister that got permission from rome to join the traditional SSPX Dominicans. Can probably think of a lot more examples but that is enough for now.

I ask myself where has rome changed from lets say 1988 till now to justify the SSPX returning and you no what, I can’t answer it, if anything rome is worse. They still are the artists in ambiguous writings and sucking up to those Jєωs in my book and still canot be trusted. I cannot see too many good signs.