Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: SeanJohnson on October 18, 2011, 03:22:30 PM
-
Check out the article over at Rorate Coeli.
-
It would have made more sense to post the article rather than tell people to go read it. Here's the article:
A report on the conference given by H.E. Bernard Fellay SSPX in Our Lady of Victories Church, Cubao, Quezon City, Metro Manila on October 16, 2011
I attended Pontifical Mass from the throne (two assistant deacons and all) in the SSPX church in Metro Manila on the morning of October 16. The Mass was offered by Bishop Fellay and he was assisted by the District Superiors for Asia and for France. The church was packed to overflowing thanks to the presence of delegates from the SSPX-guided Praesidia of the Legion of Mary from all over the Philippines. (This is not to say that the church is not full on ordinary Sundays.)
During his sermon for the Mass, Bishop Fellay focused mostly on the need to trust in God, and the fact that the Lord who performed the miracle described in the gospel for that Sunday (the forgiving of sins and healing of the man sick with palsy) is the same Lord who is in the tabernacle. He has lost none of His power, and therefore we must have recourse to Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament with complete trust. He also related the following story from Lourdes, which according to the bishop took place a few years back: there was this little girl who was very ill, and who had gone to Lourdes in the hope of being healed. She stood in line to be blessed with the Blessed Sacrament, as is the practice in that shrine. However, when the priest blessed her with the Blessed Sacrament, nothing happened to her. She then pointed to the Blessed Sacrament (which by then had been brought over to another person) and said, "I'll tell this to Your Mother!". At that instant, she was healed! The bishop did not neglect to speak about the need to pray the rosary and to have trusting recourse to the intercession of the Blessed Virgin. In the course of this he remarked that the crisis in the Church was so great that, humanly speaking, it can't be raised up, and only divine intervention can do so.
After the Pontifical Mass, the bishop gave an hour-long conference (open to the public) on the state of the relationship between the Vatican and the SSPX.
The bishop had no notes, but his talk was remarkably well-organized.
(I report here only those parts of the talk that are not merely about SSPX history pre-Benedict XVI and other relatively unimportant matters already repeated elsewhere by the bishop. The talk was an hour long, packed with information, and inevitably this report cannot reproduce everything that he said in detail.)
Almost at the beginning of the talk he described the situation in the Church today as not being better, but only as "something that looks better"; there may be New Movements, he said, but these New Movements are "strange", and the Neo-Catechumenal Way in particular is "Protestant".
He narrated the entire story of the relationship between the SSPX and the Vatican from 1987 to the present. Most of the incidents he recounted have been told before, but some stories seemed to me to be new. For instance, he recounted that when he read the Pope's December 22, 2005 discourse on the hermeneutic of continuity, he said that "I thought we were being condemned" because the SSPX also believes that Vatican II IS a rupture with the past.
He also recounted (as he had in previous occasions) the 2005 meeting where Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos said that there is no problem with the SSPX and that it can be given canonical recognition. The Pope told him that the SSPX has no right to invoke the State of Necessity because he -- the Pope -- is trying to solve the problems. According to Fellay, he inwardly but not externally said, "Thank you, Holy Father", because the Pope, in saying that he is trying to solve the problems in the Church, had just admitted that he is doing something about the problems in the Church, that there are problems in the Church, and that these problems are not yet over, because the Pope is still "solving" them. The Pope also said that "perhaps" there is a state of necessity in France and Germany. According to Fellay, he wanted to ask, "but how about in other countries? In Switzerland, Belgium, and everywhere else?"
Fellay then said that the problem with the Vatican is that it doesn't see the problem with Vatican II: the Pope, in particular, wants to keep the things that came from the Council. The main problem with the hermeneutic of continuity, according to Fellay, is that for the Vatican the Church can do no wrong, and therefore since the Church came out with the New Mass and the Church came out with the Conciliar teachings then these things ARE in continuity with what the Church previously did and taught. Of course the Society cannot accept this. It asks, "WHERE is the continuity?"
Fellay described Summorum Pontificuм as "an interesting docuмent" with elements that are both good and bad. For instance, it says that the New Mass and the Old Mass are two forms of the same Rite, and this -- according to Fellay -- is "absurd". What is important, though, is that it restores the Old Mass and makes it available to all priests and to all the faithful, and it admits that this Mass was never abrogated.
Fellay also described Universae Ecclesiae as being the same mixture of good and bad; among other observations, he noted that the provision of Universae Ecclesiae which says that TLM's cannot be asked by those who question the legitimacy of the New Rite (and, according to Fellay, "legitimacy" can mean a lot of things) is "an attack on all of us Traditionalists". (He must have been referring to UE # 19.)
Msgr. Fellay also recounted the now well-known story about the priest who was "excommunicated" last year by the Congregation for Religious for joining the "schism of Archbishop Lefebvre", a claim that was then derided by Msgr. Pozzo, who suggested that the decree of excommunication should be torn in two.
And so, Msgr. Fellay came to the doctrinal talks. According to him, the doctrinal talks clearly showed that Rome and the SSPX disagree on all the topics dealt with by the talks such as ecuмenism, collegiality and religious liberty.
Fellay then moved on to the Doctrinal Preamble. According to Fellay, the Doctrinal Preamble contains not a single word evaluating the doctrinal talks between Rome and the SSPX. In light of this, according to the bishop, the Doctrinal Preamble means that "things are back to zero"; he described the back and forth between Rome and the SSPX as " just going around in circles".
Towards the end, Fellay said that if the Society does not accept the Preamble, Rome "may" declare us schismatic, although "Rome didn't really put it that way". Fellay then told his listeners, "So, be ready, then." According to him, "it is not the end yet" but things may become very difficult. If they must go through "another trial", then "glory to God, and glory to the Blessed Virgin"!
At the same time, Fellay said that they have "information" that the Pope may have something "even better to give us in place of what we now have". (It was not entirely clear
what was meant by that.)
Shortly after that, the public conference ended.
-
Well, where are all of the folks who were convinced Bishop Fellay was selling out ?
Anyhow, he is correct. Nothing has changed. The majority of the hierarchy are of poisoned minds and any trad clergy can see that.
I wish the trad clergy who are not affiliated with New Rome would unite and proclaim what they are, the true Roman Catholic Church. It will flourish as New Rome rots.
-
Well, where are all of the folks who were convinced Bishop Fellay was selling out ?
Hey hey- it ain't over till..
(http://www.blackswantrading.com/Portals/78756/images/image001-be6a4c42fc0548b18019d35a0112584e.jpg)
-
This is what I expected them to do and prayed they would do. As some of my post say, I did not think Rome is being sincere. Over the years we have all gotten to know Rome rather well, and at this time they have no problem with mixing good and bad. I don't look at like 2+2=4 or 2+2=5, my take is truth+lie=lie. This was truly the best choice at this time in my opinion, I will still pray for those in Rome to be converted by God.
-
Well, where are all of the folks who were convinced Bishop Fellay was selling out ?
Anyhow, he is correct. Nothing has changed. The majority of the hierarchy are of poisoned minds and any trad clergy can see that.
I wish the trad clergy who are not affiliated with New Rome would unite and proclaim what they are, the true Roman Catholic Church. It will flourish as New Rome rots.
How do you take anything away from what he said?
Towards the end, Fellay said that if the Society does not accept the Preamble, Rome "may" declare us schismatic, although "Rome didn't really put it that way". Fellay then told his listeners, "So, be ready, then." According to him, "it is not the end yet" but things may become very difficult. If they must go through "another trial", then "glory to God, and glory to the Blessed Virgin"!
At the same time, Fellay said that they have "information" that the Pope may have something "even better to give us in place of what we now have". (It was not entirely clear
what was meant by that.)
It's not at all clear what's going to happen, just that the "doctrinal preamble" is seems like too much for them to swallow at this time.
I think Bishop Fellay's conduct has spoken for itself - but that doesn't ever mean I thought an agreement was imminent. I think it will take some years yet - but what's evident now is there is a path towards an agreement that is being followed.
-
schismatic from what? A heretical church, that is a blessing. You can't proclaim people to be schismatic from a church you yourself are not part of.
-
Let's not disregard what Ethelred told us about Father Pflueger's talk and its cold reception.
You people take what is spoken to the public too much at face value.
-
Well, where are all of the folks who were convinced Bishop Fellay was selling out ?
Anyhow, he is correct. Nothing has changed. The majority of the hierarchy are of poisoned minds and any trad clergy can see that.
I wish the trad clergy who are not affiliated with New Rome would unite and proclaim what they are, the true Roman Catholic Church. It will flourish as New Rome rots.
How do you take anything away from what he said?
Towards the end, Fellay said that if the Society does not accept the Preamble, Rome "may" declare us schismatic, although "Rome didn't really put it that way". Fellay then told his listeners, "So, be ready, then." According to him, "it is not the end yet" but things may become very difficult. If they must go through "another trial", then "glory to God, and glory to the Blessed Virgin"!
At the same time, Fellay said that they have "information" that the Pope may have something "even better to give us in place of what we now have". (It was not entirely clear
what was meant by that.)
It's not at all clear what's going to happen, just that the "doctrinal preamble" is seems like too much for them to swallow at this time.
I think Bishop Fellay's conduct has spoken for itself - but that doesn't ever mean I thought an agreement was imminent. I think it will take some years yet - but what's evident now is there is a path towards an agreement that is being followed.
I just feel Bishop Fellay is the same as he was 5 years ago. Just my opinion.
I trust him more that I do anyone in Rome.
-
Well, where are all of the folks who were convinced Bishop Fellay was selling out ?
Hey hey- it ain't over till..
true
-
schismatic from what? A heretical church, that is a blessing. You can't proclaim people to be schismatic from a church you yourself are not part of.
A proclamation of schism by this "Holy See" is a rejection of orthodoxy.
If they have the nerve, let them.
-
From this commentary alone, I see that we are in the same place we were before all this began. We (that is, the faithful) really don't know anything, we're not being told anything but vague statements and trial balloons, and Bishop Fellay, despite our yearning for truth, simply says, "Trust me. You can't handle the truth."
This commentary does not re-assure me. It does not make me trust where I have not had trust. To be sure, it doesn't make me trust the Society less but that is not necessarily a good thing.
Taking all of Bishop Fellay's actions and comments that have been made public together...I am not encouraged.
-
I agree to a point. We can only make a personal decision from what we know or what information we are given. Really, most history books are grotesquely wrong, just look at the information about the French "revolution". On the other hand there is a term in law enforcement coined, "totality of circuмstances".
-
Let's not disregard what Ethelred told us about Father Pflueger's talk and its cold reception.
You people take what is spoken to the public too much at face value.
I agree we do take it a face value too often, but it's the only thing we have to discuss.
I'd like to see a copy of the preamble, but if the SSPX agreed to keep it private, then it's just a matter of integrity. I doubt it reveals anything about Rome we don't already know.
-
So I wonder if Bishop Fellay by some small chance does not accept the preamble and the Pope calls us a schismatic group, then those good and holy priests that were expelled for their schimatic tendencies would be allowd to return.
-
Well, where are all of the folks who were convinced Bishop Fellay was selling out ?
The danger is not past, not at all.
We have good reasons to fear that the bishop will still try to get back in with Rome. God forbid!
From personal talks with Bishop Fellay I know that what he's saying is not necessarily what he's doing. He's a double-thinker. He don't like to be called one, see his angry letter to Bishop Williamson (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Letter-from-Bishop-Fellay-to-Bishop-Williamson) who apparently must have called Bishop Fellay to be double-tongued ("And you talk to us of being double tongued!").
Well, not just since early 2009 I've absolutely no reason to trust Bishop Fellay or his assistants, namely Fr Pfluger. They brought us Krah, and that's just the one bad egg most Internet users who're aware of the Krah-Gate know of! There are others, too.
Telesphorus hit the nail on the head:
You people take what is spoken to the public too much at face value.
I would vote +1 many of his posts, but the forum continues to tell me "I'm sure Telesphorus appreciates your support, but let's give others a turn"... :-)
-
Bp. Fellay could not change the mind of the Society overnight but he has been making changes over the last few years prompted by the Motu Proprio and 'excommunication' moves in Rome. He has lost no time in creating some kind of convergence between the two parties leading to the current engagement. To do that you have to clean out some old stables and bring out some long knives! And having gone thus far he will consolidate his position and bring on new reforms so that the next dialogue with Rome will achieve greater success. Until then, more of the old guard have to die or retire and a new generation with no experience of the old religion will acquire a 21st century version of tradition that fits better into modern life. This is how change by stealth happens.
-
.... This is how change by stealth happens.
Thanks for your post. It hits the nail on the head.
Still, let's not forget providence. Lord Almighty has got the last word. We don't need to know Irlmaier's timetable (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/The-Prophecies-Of-Alois-Irlmaier) in order to see that the Newchurch's and globalist world's mess are reaching their "answer" very soon.
... This must sound kind of funny for elder long time SSPX catholics, because in the 1970's when Archbishop Lefebvre founded his society most catholics thought the spiritual emergency would only last a few years. But now it lasts for more than four decades! And I know quite some elder long time SSPX catholics who by now think it could last another decades. Let's observe the signs of our time. Our Lord told us to do so. They're very interesting and tell a lot about what's directly ahead of us. Let's be patient...
-
The article seems to indicate that Bishop Fellay isn't very interested in accepting the preamble, but he does appear hopeful that Rome will offer him something better. But he's obviously forgotten what Archbishop LeFebvre said: Wait for Rome to convert first.
Like Charles, I do trust Fellay more than anyone in the Vatican. At the same time though, I also think Fellay has changed the last few years. I don't agree with his sudden sympathetic attitude towards the Jews, saying we shouldn't be "anti-Jew" because "Jesus, Mary, and the Apostles were all Jew".
I think for Tradition's sake, Fellay and +Williamson need to try and make mends if the Society is going to avoid totally collapsing. And Fellay is the one who needs to make those mends rather than practically threatening +Williamson and throwing him under the bus.
-
I think Bishop Fellay's conduct has spoken for itself - but that doesn't ever mean I thought an agreement was imminent. I think it will take some years yet - but what's evident now is there is a path towards an agreement that is being followed.
What "path towards an agreement?" I see no such path. Are you suggesting that Bp. Fellay & Co. must continue to travel hat-in-hand to Rome for discussions into the indefinite future? They may do that, but not from any financial assistance I plan to provide!
-
What "path towards an agreement?" I see no such path. Are you suggesting that Bp. Fellay & Co. must continue to travel hat-in-hand to Rome for discussions into the indefinite future? They may do that, but not from any financial assistance I plan to provide!
Didn't Bishop Fellay say:
"At the same time, Fellay said that they have "information" that the Pope may have something "even better to give us in place of what we now have."
So how will an agreement work? It seems likely the SSPX leadership will not for some time yet be able to sign something satisfactory to Benedict XVI et al - but they will do what they have done lately, that is, gradually shifting its teachings into a form palatable for Benedict XVI et al. That process will take time.
It seems the Eleison comments will help sort things out sooner though, now that the international Zionists are outraged over it. Telling the truth is enough to drive some people absolutely crazy.
-
http://www.cathinfo.com/index.php/What-is-in-the-doctrinal-preamble
-
Well, where are all of the folks who were convinced Bishop Fellay was selling out ?
The only reason BF is not selling out is not because of him at all, but because of the opposition he got at the superiors meeting and the opposition his group got trying to sell it to SSPX in Germany and other countries.
-
Well, where are all of the folks who were convinced Bishop Fellay was selling out ?
The only reason BF is not selling out is not because of him at all, but because of the opposition he got at the superiors meeting and the opposition his group got trying to sell it to SSPX in Germany and other countries.
Really ? Who said what at the meeting ?
Honest question. Can you quote those who were there ?
-
A question about something I've seen no mention of anywhere.
What role are major SSPX benefactors playing ?
-
The only reason BF is not selling out is not because of him at all, but because of the opposition he got at the superiors meeting and the opposition his group got trying to sell it to SSPX in Germany and other countries.
Really ? Who said what at the meeting ?
Honest question. Can you quote those who were there ?
Well, I can -- what's concerning the mentioned German meeting. I've by now double-checked the story and I'm sure it's accurate in its main points.
The best part however is that in Albano something similar must have happened, so the German district meeting was just a kind of final rehearsal for Albano. Thank God! :-)
I'm going to quote my initial report from this Cathinfo thread (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=16097&min=19) with just a few minor corrections:
-----
At the end of September 2011 there was a SSPX' meeting of all priests working or staying in Federal Republic of Germany (FRG), with their district superior Fr Schmidberger. That's a bare 50 priests or so.
The special speaker was Bp Fellay's first assistant, Fr Pfluger from Menzingen.
He's a Swiss-German priest and the mentor of Zionist Krah (or the other way round). Some say he's the most dangerous cleric in the entire SSPX. (Verifiable he's one of the clerics who hate Bishop Williamson the most.)
On this meeting Fr Pfluger tried for about two hours to advocate a SSPX agreement with Newrome. He mentioned that they want a contract with Newrome, based on an edited version of Newrome's offer.
He's being fully supported by Fr Schmidberger's assistant and public relation man Fr Steiner, who also edits the messy official SSPX newsletter. (There for example he wrote a weird Big-Bang propagation in spring 2010.)
Although Fr Schmidberger didn't and doesn't speak as openly as Fr Pfluger on this matter, good sources tell me that considering a contract with Newrome Fr Schmidberger is in the same boat with Pfluger and Steiner.
After Fr Pfluger's Newrome speech, the elder father Franz-Josef Maeßen stood up and gave a short but intense speech which just lasted a few minutes. With his impressive arguments he completely swept away in a few minutes what Fr Pfluger said in two hours.
After Fr Maeßen's counterattack, Fr Pfluger was not only silent but pale. He was unable to reply anything, which is a rare moment!
Fr Maeßen's underlined as the crux of the matter, that Newrome was modernist at the time of Archbishop Lefebvre and still is modernist today, so no agreement is possible at all.
As an additional information: Fr Maeßen was a former German SSPX district superior, he's uncompromisingly pro Archbishop Lefebvre, and by now he usually stays in an old people's home and is just working sometimes in SSPX chapels (where he gives very ardent sermons with an immense love for Archbishop Lefebvre). In contrast to some younger priests he's not in fear of certain superiors.
Now comes the crowning moment:
After his short speech, about three-quarters of the priests applauded Fr Maeßen !
(And I know of priests who liked to applaud too, but didn't dare because of potential sanctions against them.)
-
Well, where are all of the folks who were convinced Bishop Fellay was selling out ?
The only reason BF is not selling out is not because of him at all, but because of the opposition he got at the superiors meeting and the opposition his group got trying to sell it to SSPX in Germany and other countries.
Really ? Who said what at the meeting ?
Honest question. Can you quote those who were there ?
Honest answer It is pretty well known the opposition in France and Germany. And if you think the meeting at Albano went smoothly over tea and biscuits boy you are in for a shock. Don't forget this is politics at its best or worst.
-
The only reason BF is not selling out is not because of him at all, but because of the opposition he got at the superiors meeting and the opposition his group got trying to sell it to SSPX in Germany and other countries.
Really ? Who said what at the meeting ?
Honest question. Can you quote those who were there ?
Well, I can -- what's concerning the mentioned German meeting. I've by now double-checked the story and I'm sure it's accurate in its main points.
The best part however is that in Albano something similar must have happened, so the German district meeting was just a kind of final rehearsal for Albano. Thank God! :-)
I'm going to quote my initial report from this Cathinfo thread (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=16097&min=19) with just a few minor corrections:
-----
At the end of September 2011 there was a SSPX' meeting of all priests working or staying in Federal Republic of Germany (FRG), with their district superior Fr Schmidberger. That's a bare 50 priests or so.
The special speaker was Bp Fellay's first assistant, Fr Pfluger from Menzingen.
He's a Swiss-German priest and the mentor of Zionist Krah (or the other way round). Some say he's the most dangerous cleric in the entire SSPX. (Verifiable he's one of the clerics who hate Bishop Williamson the most.)
On this meeting Fr Pfluger tried for about two hours to advocate a SSPX agreement with Newrome. He mentioned that they want a contract with Newrome, based on an edited version of Newrome's offer.
He's being fully supported by Fr Schmidberger's assistant and public relation man Fr Steiner, who also edits the messy official SSPX newsletter. (There for example he wrote a weird Big-Bang propagation in spring 2010.)
Although Fr Schmidberger didn't and doesn't speak as openly as Fr Pfluger on this matter, good sources tell me that considering a contract with Newrome Fr Schmidberger is in the same boat with Pfluger and Steiner.
After Fr Pfluger's Newrome speech, the elder father Franz-Josef Maeßen stood up and gave a short but intense speech which just lasted a few minutes. With his impressive arguments he completely swept away in a few minutes what Fr Pfluger said in two hours.
After Fr Maeßen's counterattack, Fr Pfluger was not only silent but pale. He was unable to reply anything, which is a rare moment!
Fr Maeßen's underlined as the crux of the matter, that Newrome was modernist at the time of Archbishop Lefebvre and still is modernist today, so no agreement is possible at all.
As an additional information: Fr Maeßen was a former German SSPX district superior, he's uncompromisingly pro Archbishop Lefebvre, and by now he usually stays in an old people's home and is just working sometimes in SSPX chapels (where he gives very ardent sermons with an immense love for Archbishop Lefebvre). In contrast to some younger priests he's not in fear of certain superiors.
Now comes the crowning moment:
After his short speech, about three-quarters of the priests applauded Fr Maeßen !
(And I know of priests who liked to applaud too, but didn't dare because of potential sanctions against them.)
Thanks, interesting stuff.
-
Well, where are all of the folks who were convinced Bishop Fellay was selling out ?
The only reason BF is not selling out is not because of him at all, but because of the opposition he got at the superiors meeting and the opposition his group got trying to sell it to SSPX in Germany and other countries.
Really ? Who said what at the meeting ?
Honest question. Can you quote those who were there ?
Honest answer It is pretty well known the opposition in France and Germany. And if you think the meeting at Albano went smoothly over tea and biscuits boy you are in for a shock. Don't forget this is politics at its best or worst.
I have no opinion of what went on there. I just thought there might be an interview or article I missed. All I know for sure is that the meeting occurred.
-
I have no opinion of what went on there (at Albano). I just thought there might be an interview or article I missed. All I know for sure is that the meeting occurred.
Unfortunately, none of us probably will. But Ethelred's input helps us to triangulate and come up with a reasonable assessment of what probably occured. Others report that a number of priests in attendance offered plenty of resistance. I think we can pretty well conclude that +F and Fr. Phluger have been thwarted in making any kind of agreement with New Rome.
-
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"
You must have spoken to him in Toronto at the Church of the Transfiguration. If it is no deal, then why is Bishop Fellay taking so long to respond to Rome?
-
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 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!
-
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.
-
The people who are against having doctrinal talks are acting contrary to the catholic faith, they are also acting contrary to Archbishop Lefebre who stated that he would always keep the door open to rome. Embarrased? No! 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? You should be embarrased at the very premise you have stated, since it puts you in schism.
All Catholics have a duty to profess the faith to all who will listen, they were willing to listen thus the SSPX professed the faith. Whether or not it had an effect is of no consequence.
I seriously doubt the catholicity of many of the people on this forum recently.
I suggest many of you take time off of the internet and work toward a better interior life and a better understanding of the faith. Stop being worldly, and stop basing your decisions in a way that is based on countering the novus ordo and instead base them off of Thomistic teaching. IE: Don't just try and do the opposite of the Novus Ordo, but form your faith from the ground up on Thomistic theology.
-
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.
-
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?
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.
-
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?
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.
-
Ok, LordPhan, breathe. I was only talking about the "Save the Church!" point, and you go off on an entire tangent about why you still think sedevacantists are judging the Pope. I grow EXTREMELY WEARY of having to tell you that sedes do not do this, and you have failed to grasp repeatedly. It's like telling someone with Alzheimers that your name is Robert but they keep calling you Marty. ... so keep calling me Marty, LordPhan, and I'll just nod my head and smile because you have become the Alzheimers geriatric in this situation.
QUESTION QUESTION, LORDPHAN! If the SSPX is excommunicated as a whole, will you become a sedevacantist then? And will you apologize for all your belligerent actions towards the sedevacantist groups here and abroad? I truly wonder how all the SSPX will be.... *sale on chicken flavoring* Going to go real well with the soup of Foot you will be having to eat.
-
We cannot be excommunicated, once again you fail to understand the laws of the church
-
I suggest you scroll down and read the thread where I posted the St. Thomas on Obedience. You display false obedience like the Neo-Cath's, you think that a Pope has more authority then God, that is very wrong. If the Pope contradicts God, you must disobey him. If an contradicts an order of a Pope then the Pope's authority prevails unless he contradicts his superior God who is above all men always.
-
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.
-
Excellent points LordPhan.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
i.e., why not mass una cuм Lutherans? or Jews? or Muslims?Don't we want to convert them?
-
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:
because the result of that would be an end to the Crisis sooner rather then later and thusly the Salvation of more souls.
-
But isn't mass "una cuм" someone heretical who needs to "convert" the same as putting ourselves in the same faith as that faithless person and doing the same thing as what JPII did at Assissi?
In the good Friday mass, we pray for all heretics, Jews, etc., but that is not the same as "una cuм".
Is it?
-
What are those to do with Rome who have the ability to convert her? Not 'try' to convert her? Sure, the fruit may, and I believe, never be good, and it will be the Immaculate Heart of our Blessed Mother who will eventually prevail. However, wouldn't it be imprudent to leave Rome to destroy herself now. I know the Saints have said tell someone twice of their error, then leave them to their demise, but this isn't a plain ol' someone. This is what's left of the Church in Rome. I think its bigger than what I can ever be able to explain, not being a theologian.
-
There are typically two schools of thought regarding this, both of which are valid:
1. He who communes with heretics makes himself a heretic, by implicitly wishing them Godspeed in their works. We should retire from the company of heretics and allow ourselves freedom from the corrupting influences of Satan.
2. Those heretics may never hear the truth proclaimed unless we tell them. Thus, we will be salt to the conciliar church, and work for renewal from the inside, whether by keeping our traditionalism quiet and seeking to occupy positions at CCD and RCIA where we will have the oppurtunity to plant the seeds of Tradition; or by simply not abandoning the Novus Ordo PEOPLE, although we may despise their "priests" and masses.
I have been invited by conciliar priests to teach CCD before. It boggles my mind what I would do...Probably give them all copies of the Douay Catechism and Go line by line...
My Point is that there have been saints on both sides of the fence; I.E. the Great Western Schism, especialyl St. Vincent Ferrer, who defended the Anti-Pope Benedict XIII and was arguably one of the greatest saints who ever lived.
I like the idea of Not communing with heretics. But I also like the idea of not abandoning these people to their ignorance, and if there is something I can do and say, or even if there is a position I could take that could help save souls...
What do you think?
-
We cannot be excommunicated, once again you fail to understand the laws of the church
OK, I did not feel I needed to elaborate on this point as I thought it was obvious.
OF COURSE, no one can be excommunicated from the Vatican II Church because they possess no power to do so. That is obvious , to the sede.
But to the SSPX of today, how is that possible? You can't say the Pope is the Pope, yet not then respect his orders of excommunication on your group if he in fact does this. I am not the only one seeing this glaring issue...
-
I suggest you scroll down and read the thread where I posted the St. Thomas on Obedience. You display false obedience like the Neo-Cath's, you think that a Pope has more authority then God, that is very wrong. If the Pope contradicts God, you must disobey him. If an contradicts an order of a Pope then the Pope's authority prevails unless he contradicts his superior God who is above all men always.
Well who is denying this? Go read the post I just made, and in reality you are the one with a brain in a state of duplicity.
If Ratzinger is the Pope, you must acknowledge his orders of excommunication should it come to that. Because he is the Pope, and thus the Pope when ordained by God speaks on behalf of His Church.
If he is not the Pope, then you are free to sidestep any reality of being excommunicated from the Catholic Church because Ratzinger was ipso facto never the Pope.
This is not very hard to understand, yet it blows again the underpinnings of your mindset, LordPhan.
-
Once again you only show how little you understand Catholic Law and the faith POI.
A Pope cannot order me to do anything that is contrary to what God Teaches, furthermore his orders are invalid if they are unjust, his orders are invalid if they are against the law and contary to the spirit of the law.
I have posted the parts of the Summa on Epikea, Obedience and Judgement I suggest you read them.
I suggest you read the entire Summa actually. I think I stated that earlier.
-
I like the idea of Not communing with heretics. But I also like the idea of not abandoning these people to their ignorance, and if there is something I can do and say, or even if there is a position I could take that could help save souls...
What do you think?
I would never be in favor of abandoning anyone to their ignorance and if anyone has had success in waking novus ordos up about what is going on, I think that might be a worthy page in and of itself, and is what we all pray for!
...but I believe that does not constitute a justification for a una cuм mass, which is an entirely different point, isn't it?.
-
There are typically two schools of thought regarding this, both of which are valid:
1. He who communes with heretics makes himself a heretic, by implicitly wishing them Godspeed in their works. We should retire from the company of heretics and allow ourselves freedom from the corrupting influences of Satan.
2. Those heretics may never hear the truth proclaimed unless we tell them. Thus, we will be salt to the conciliar church, and work for renewal from the inside, whether by keeping our traditionalism quiet and seeking to occupy positions at CCD and RCIA where we will have the oppurtunity to plant the seeds of Tradition; or by simply not abandoning the Novus Ordo PEOPLE, although we may despise their "priests" and masses.
I have been invited by conciliar priests to teach CCD before. It boggles my mind what I would do...Probably give them all copies of the Douay Catechism and Go line by line...
My Point is that there have been saints on both sides of the fence; I.E. the Great Western Schism, especialyl St. Vincent Ferrer, who defended the Anti-Pope Benedict XIII and was arguably one of the greatest saints who ever lived.
I like the idea of Not communing with heretics. But I also like the idea of not abandoning these people to their ignorance, and if there is something I can do and say, or even if there is a position I could take that could help save souls...
What do you think?
Excellent question...but one I can't answer.
I assisted a diocesan TLM today. The old priest in his 90's who used to pray the Mass there doesn't do so now, due to his health, and the Pastor there who now prays the TLM is suspect. He has eliminated the Tuesday and Thursday TLM noon Mass. And today, instead of a sermon, he spends 20 minutes explaining the upcoming revisions for the NO. Why ? He said at some point we would be going to the NO for weddings, funerals, baptisms, etc. That was his reasoning.
I found myself wishing I had my rosary with me to pray while he praised the "wonderful changes" .
I dunno. In that parish, it would be tough to open many eyes.
-
Rorate Caeli?
A common, though by no means a universal, failing of converts is to forget that they were wrong before, so they should have the humility and prudence to doubt themselves—not to doubt the Faith, but to doubt themselves (and their pontifications).
The problem is, of course, exacerbated in those who cannot leave their racial conceits behind.
New Christians, New Catholics, (http://www.Jєωιѕнvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/Marranos.html) beware!
-
Well, not just since early 2009 I've absolutely no reason to trust Bishop Fellay or his assistants, namely Fr Pfluger. They brought us Krah, and that's just the one bad egg most Internet users who're aware of the Krah-Gate know of! There are others, too.
Fr. Marcus Heggenberger
-
I don't agree with his sudden sympathetic attitude towards the Jews, saying we shouldn't be "anti-Jew" because "Jesus, Mary, and the Apostles were all Jew".
I think for Tradition's sake, Fellay and +Williamson need to try and make mends if the Society is going to avoid totally collapsing. And Fellay is the one who needs to make those mends rather than practically threatening +Williamson and throwing him under the bus.
Agreed on both points.
I would add this. A prelate should know the difference—and teach the difference—between TRUE Jews and "the ѕуηαgσgυє of Satan, those who say they are Jews, and are not, and do lie (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=73&ch=3&l=9&f=s#x)." I can put no trust in a prelate who conflates true Jews with the ѕуηαgσgυє of Satan. I can put no trust in a prelate who has fear of the Jews.
Let us rescue Bp. Williamson from his prison.
-
Well, not just since early 2009 I've absolutely no reason to trust Bishop Fellay or his assistants, namely Fr Pfluger. They brought us Krah, and that's just the one bad egg most Internet users who're aware of the Krah-Gate know of! There are others, too.
Fr. Marcus Heggenberger
Oh yes, this is true, unfortunately.
-
forum member:
I seriously doubt the catholicity of many of the people on this forum recently.
Well, from what I have learned, the SSPX leaders doubt the "catholicity" of Bp. Williamson, as well. That's about all I can say. Perhaps Ethelred can corroborate that such a doubt, on the part of SSPX leadership, has been expressed about +W, because it certainly has. Doubting others' "catholicity" seems to be in vogue these days among some.
-
forum member: I seriously doubt the catholicity of many of the people on this forum recently.
Well, from what I have learned, the SSPX leaders doubt the "catholicity" of Bp. Williamson, as well. That's about all I can say. Perhaps Ethelred can corroborate that such a doubt, on the part of SSPX leadership, has been expressed about +W, because it certainly has.
Yes, I can. I've heard with with my proper ears that Fr Pfluger likes to doubt or even deny the fact that Bishop Williamson is roman-catholic.
That's no surprise however, because Krah does so in public, and his public actions are usually rubber-stamped by Fr Pfluger first. They even use the same strange abbreviations which must be © by Pfluger-Krah.
Doubting others' "catholicity" seems to be in vogue these days among some.
Yes. Also here on Cathinfo, see some of Capistrano's opponents.
-
Yes, I can. I've heard with with my proper ears that Fr Pfluger likes to doubt or even deny the fact that Bishop Williamson is roman-catholic.
That's no surprise however, because Krah does so in public, and his public actions are usually rubber-stamped by Fr Pfluger first. They even use the same strange abbreviations which must be © by Pfluger-Krah.
Yes, there is a cultish clique that is unprincipled - as they lead the SSPX away from Archbishop's mission, they turn it from a good and holy religious body into a cult.
-
While I agree that Bishop Fellay is not following Archbishop LeFebvre's mission, calling the Society a cult is not logical. The definition of a cult would be the Protestant Reformation, when people followed Martin Luther, a man who had no authority what-so-ever.
-
forum member: I seriously doubt the catholicity of many of the people on this forum recently.
Well, from what I have learned, the SSPX leaders doubt the "catholicity" of Bp. Williamson, as well. That's about all I can say. Perhaps Ethelred can corroborate that such a doubt, on the part of SSPX leadership, has been expressed about +W, because it certainly has. Doubting others' "catholicity" seems to be in vogue these days among some.
Made me think of these words by BXVI
"Williamson is an atypical case in that he was, when you think about it, never Catholic in the proper sense. He was an Anglican and then went over directly to Lefebvre. This means that he has never lived in the great Church, that he has never lived with the Pope"
I don't agree at all, just noting the similar sentiment. +Williamson is a Roman Catholic bishop .... to the core.
-
Whoever thumbed down my post apparently doesn't think the Protestant Reformation was a cult. That's basically what they implied by thumbing it down (and I have a feeling who thumbed it down).
-
+Williamson is a Roman Catholic bishop .... to the core.
Yes, and that is probably why he has been put on the shelf. A few of the leading SSPX officials are not Catholic to the core. They are politicians and deal makers to the core!