Author Topic: Bishop Fellay: The Pope May Declare Us Schismatic (Read 34276 times)

LordPhan · « **Reply #45 on:** October 22, 2011, 11:26:59 PM »

Quote from: pbax

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 jews in my book and still canot be trusted. I cannot see too many good signs.

I agree that Bishop Williamson has been mistreated, I am on his side, that has nothing to do with this thread however. I also do not like anything I have heard about Krah either. We are in agreement on these things.

As for your question about the lifting of the excommunications, simply put, that is not what the SSPX demanded(this would be a better word though the truth would probably be a word in between what you said and I just said but I can't think of one right now that fits) that they declare the excommunications null and void. The Pope turned around and 'lifted' them. We don't consider that they were ever in effect in the first place. You are correct on this. However I am under the impression that Bishop Fellay did not think Rome would say yes to any of the conditions/demands whatever we want to call them.

What is wrong with a nun converting to the true faith by joining the SSPX? Who cares whether or not she got permission?

LordPhan · « **Reply #46 on:** October 22, 2011, 11:33:02 PM »

As for the Moto Proprio, they didn't ask for the Moto for the SSPX to be able to say the mass, they asked that the Mass be freed for all Priests without penalty. basically a declaration. All of these were conditions for the SSPX to talk with Rome about a deal.

Essentially, Rome came to the SSPX wanting us to join them, the SSPX stated that they wouldn't even consider it unless 3 conditions were met.

They fullfilled them, though as you say, they did so on their terms and not in the way the SSPX envisioned. But it is what it is.

As I stated, I am not in favour personally of a deal unless Rome converts in full, but I am always in favour of attempting to convert them and anyone else, but especially them because the result of that would be an end to the Crisis sooner rather then later and thusly the Salvation of more souls.

Edit: Of course if Rome converts in full then the SSPX disbands as per it's mission.

sedesvacans · « **Reply #47 on:** October 23, 2011, 12:09:48 AM »

Quote from: LordPhan

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.

Isn't it interesting that you cite my statement on the una cuм and in the very next sentence you talk about converting Rome? Una cuм who, then? Someone you need to convert? And convert from what?

Did Athanasius make deals? What are you referring to? I would like to know.

Sedevacantists are not afraid of success, but success comes from taking the high road, otherwise it is no success.

I think conversion of Rome would be the most excellent thing in the last 50 years to happen on earth!

But as Rome stands now, una cuм is damning to one's soul.

BTW, Benedict is often quoted saying that his changes are directly opposed to the syllabus...He is fully aware of what he is promoting.

sedesvacans · « **Reply #48 on:** October 23, 2011, 12:12:51 AM »

i.e., why not mass una cuм Lutherans? or Jews? or Muslims?Don't we want to convert them?

s2srea · « **Reply #49 on:** October 23, 2011, 09:23:02 AM »

Quote from: sedesvacans

i.e., why not mass una cuм Lutherans? or Jews? or Muslims?Don't we want to convert them?

I think he answered your question in his last post:

Quote

because the result of that would be an end to the Crisis sooner rather then later and thusly the Salvation of more souls.