Read an Interview with Matthew, the owner of CathInfo

Author Topic: Bp. Fellays Declaration of Fidelity to newChurch  (Read 3713 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Incredulous

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3989
  • Reputation: +4949/-246
  • Gender: Male
Bp. Fellays Declaration of Fidelity to newChurch
« on: July 09, 2013, 08:33:29 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Sorry if this topic has already been reported.

    Maybe someone inside the "ExSPX" can advise if this story is accurate ?




    Bp. Fellay's "Declaration of Fidelity" Is Leaked to the Catholic World
    It Requires His Priests to Swear Allegiance to the Novus Ordo Church.


    Bp. Bernard Fellay, Superior-General of the Neo-SSPX
    Now Requires that They Swear Allegiance to the Worst of the Novus Ordo

    He Allows No Room for Conscience, No Room for Doubt
    He Has Already Sold out to the New Order Sect in His Mind
    Now He Forces His Priests to Follow Him in His Modernist Mania

    The "Declaration of Fidelity" that Bp. Fellay, the Superior-General of the Neo-SSPX, now requires of all his priests to swear has been leaked to the Catholic world.

    The "Declaration of Fidelity" indicates clearly that Bp. Fellay has already sold out to the New Order sect.

    First, Bp. Fellay's NSSPX priests must swear that they "recognize" the sitting Newpope as "Pope of the Holy Catholic Church." There are no exceptions of conscience for those who believe in part or in whole, or simply have well-founded doubts, that the New-popes have fallen from the traditional Catholic Faith.

    This is a condition that Benedict-Ratzinger imposed on Fellay as part of the "negotiations" to sell out the Neo-SSPX to the New Order sect. According to Bp. Fellay's own communiqué, those negotiations have ceased (but have they really?), yet Bp. Fellay continues to impose Ratzinger's condition.

    Second, Fellay's NSSPX priests must swear that at least some of the Novus Ordo services performed are "not invalid."

    Bp. Fellay rejects St. Augustine's dictum: "In dubiis libertas."

    Third, Bp. Fellay's NSSPX priests must swear that the "liturgical reforms of John XXIII" are "legitimate."

    From Tradition (edited)
    "Some preachers will keep silence about the truth, and others will trample it underfoot and deny it. Sanctity of life will be held in derision even by those who outwardly profess it, for in those days Our Lord Jesus Christ will send them not a true Pastor but a destroyer."  St. Francis of Assisi

    Offline hugeman

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 342
    • Reputation: +669/-0
    • Gender: Male
      • h
    Bp. Fellays Declaration of Fidelity to newChurch
    « Reply #1 on: July 09, 2013, 08:54:55 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • This was also posted in Traditio dot com
    ( use the usual world wide web ). I don't know
    where their source is from, as there's no reference.
    But it says  "leaked out ", so someone has a
    hard copy. I also don 't know if this is the same document
    that we on  ( dot com) reported on last fall,
    after having received from Father Robinson  a copy of a letter he
    had sent to Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer, decrying the fact that he, Fr. Pfeiffer,
    Had "signed" the oath of allegiance to the "pope" and the
    "Nervous Disorder".
         To that letter, Fr. Robinson had attached the oath of allegiance.
    I will pull it out and repost it, here.


    Offline brainglitch

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 410
    • Reputation: +0/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Bp. Fellays Declaration of Fidelity to newChurch
    « Reply #2 on: July 09, 2013, 09:19:07 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • If Traditio told me the sun set in the west, I'd step outside to check.

    Offline Frances

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2660
    • Reputation: +2239/-1
    • Gender: Female
    Bp. Fellays Declaration of Fidelity to newChurch
    « Reply #3 on: July 10, 2013, 12:35:19 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Fr. Pfeiffer signed an oath of allegiance to the pope and accepted that some novus ordo masses could be valid.  So?  
    Is this someone's skewed interpretation of the Oath Against Modernism?  I believe the SSPX priests have to take it before they're ordained.  "Allegiance" does not mean unconditional, blind obedience.  Allegiance has to do with loyalty or fidelity.  It would pertain to the Holy Office of the Pope, not to the Pope as a man.  "Valid" is not synonymous with good or licit.  If something is valid, it is real or authentic.  A Satanic mass can be valid if it is offered by a real priest.  It certainly is not licit or good, however.  There is no reason why Fr. Pfeiffer could not sign such an oath.  If he did, he has not violated it, rather he has shown his loyalty by speaking out when the Pope has strayed from sound doctrine.  If he didn't care, he'd remain silent.  Fr. Pfeiffer is not a Sedevacantist.  (I know that disappoints some CI posters.)  The simple fact is that Fr. Pfeiffer has no way of judging every single novus ordo mass, whether it is valid.  Only God Himself is privy to that information.  Fr. Pfeiffer shows mercy over rash judgment and humility over pride in accepting the possibility that some novus ordo masses may be valid.
    So far as the information coming from Traditio, I too, wouldn't trust much of anything on the site.  They have a bitter, vindictive spirit about them.  It sounds to me as if someone has an ax to grind with Fr. Pfeiffer and is too wimpy to confront him one-on-one.  
    As for this Fr. Robinson, he was either mislead or is in error himself regarding the nature of obedience.  I'm curious now, if Fr. Pfeiffer responded, and how?
    Heh! Heh!  The plot thickens!---- :detective:
     St. Francis Xavier threw a Crucifix into the sea, at once calming the waves.  Upon reaching the shore, the Crucifix was returned to him by a crab with a curious cross pattern on its shell.  

    Offline Incredulous

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3989
    • Reputation: +4949/-246
    • Gender: Male
    Bp. Fellays Declaration of Fidelity to newChurch
    « Reply #4 on: July 10, 2013, 01:16:08 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Thanks Frances.

    I just wonder why +ABL never required the SSPX priests to sign a loyalty oath to the Pope?

    One observation:  It seems Conciliarists become most upset if one dares to question "their system".  


    For example, Msgr. Williamson has referred to Pat Buchanan as a sincere man, but that his real problem was, "... he still believed in the US "electoral system"..  +W implied Buchanan needed to stop thinking this way to find the truth.

    At one point during a Vatican II, promulgation by Pope Paul VI, the notorious Msgr. Bugnini dared any Bishops or Cardinals to resist the Pope, claiming their action to do so would mean they did not believe Paul VI was the Pope.

    How different a world it would be if the Cardinals and Bishops would have had the courage to have done just that ?

    It is interesting to see Msgr. Fellay, a man willing to "sell-out" Catholic tradition, now interested in having his Order take a loyalty oath to the newChurch system ?

    If the Vatican II warhorse, Pope Benedict, required the oath from the SSPX, it is truly reminiscent of Msgr. Buginini's previous defense of the newChurch system.
    "Some preachers will keep silence about the truth, and others will trample it underfoot and deny it. Sanctity of life will be held in derision even by those who outwardly profess it, for in those days Our Lord Jesus Christ will send them not a true Pastor but a destroyer."  St. Francis of Assisi


    Offline Frances

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2660
    • Reputation: +2239/-1
    • Gender: Female
    Bp. Fellays Declaration of Fidelity to newChurch
    « Reply #5 on: July 10, 2013, 02:26:08 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Patience!  The truth will come out sooner or later.  I wouldn't rely on Traditio for it, however!
     St. Francis Xavier threw a Crucifix into the sea, at once calming the waves.  Upon reaching the shore, the Crucifix was returned to him by a crab with a curious cross pattern on its shell.  

    Offline Viva Cristo Rey

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6720
    • Reputation: +1889/-109
    • Gender: Female
    Bp. Fellays Declaration of Fidelity to newChurch
    « Reply #6 on: July 10, 2013, 09:41:18 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • There is a difference between b Fellay oath to fidelity and Pope Pius x 's oath against modernism.  Who cares what Fr. Phieffer signed.  

    Father Pheiffer is giving Obedience to God. Not Fellay.  
    Father Pheiffer loves God , Our Blessed Mother and the true Church and Mass.

    Father Pheiffer is Catholic and an American.   With God and Our Blessed Mother he leads the Resistance.  

    He's a humble and down to earth manly priest who wants to lead our souls to Heaven.






    To live with the Saints in Heaven is all bliss and glory....To live with the saints on Earth is just another story!  (unknown)

    Offline Elsa Zardini

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 317
    • Reputation: +0/-0
    Bp. Fellays Declaration of Fidelity to newChurch
    « Reply #7 on: July 10, 2013, 09:53:46 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • Yes Viva Cristo Rey. Would all priests signing the Declaration (see my other posts today) headed by +W, have allowed Father Pfeiffer's signature just below +W's if it would have been otherwise?


    Offline Telesphorus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 12714
    • Reputation: +5/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Bp. Fellays Declaration of Fidelity to newChurch
    « Reply #8 on: July 10, 2013, 10:16:15 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • No wonder they want to suppress the Archbishop's sermons.

    How can you demand that priests swear an oath against sedevacantism when the founder of the order speculated that it could be true?


    Offline hugeman

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 342
    • Reputation: +669/-0
    • Gender: Male
      • h
    Bp. Fellays Declaration of Fidelity to newChurch
    « Reply #9 on: July 10, 2013, 11:25:50 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Viva Cristo Rey
    There is a difference between b Fellay oath to fidelity and Pope Pius x 's oath against modernism.  Who cares what Fr. Phieffer signed.  

    Father Pheiffer is giving Obedience to God. Not Fellay.  
    Father Pheiffer loves God , Our Blessed Mother and the true Church and Mass.

    Father Pheiffer is Catholic and an American.   With God and Our Blessed Mother he leads the Resistance.  

    He's a humble and down to earth manly priest who wants to lead our souls to Heaven.







    OK, ok, OK ! Viva and Frances; no one was, and least of all myself,
    Castigating  Fr. Pfeiffer in my post, above. I was commenting on a report
    Of some " Oath " required by Bp Fellay which was recently revealed.
         I wanted to find the source, as did thr initial poster.
         In tbat context, we discussed a letter of Fr. Robinson to Fr. Pfeiffer
    which exoriated him for failing( supposedly) to honor the oath of loyalty
    to Benedict XVI (and the new mass), which, so stated Fr. Robinson, Fr. Pfeiffer
    had freely signed.
         Now, did Fr. Pfeiffer sign it? Most likely-- just ask him if you think he did not. On that score,
    I doubt Fr. Robinson is wrong. And most likely, either Fellay or Rostand were probably
    Insisting all the priests sign it. Can you imagine any priest being told to sign " this oath from the Superior General" REFUSING to sign it, and then joining everybody in the dining room for meals?NOT!
         So, lets wait til we get some confirmation as to this new oath, who authored it, who has to sign it, and what it really says. Fair ?

    Offline Elsa Zardini

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 317
    • Reputation: +0/-0
    Bp. Fellays Declaration of Fidelity to newChurch
    « Reply #10 on: July 10, 2013, 12:32:40 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quite sure Incred. is referring to something recent, but just in case,

    Declaración vigente en el seminario de La Reja en 2008 y 2009:

    DECLARACIÓN DE FIDELIDAD A LAS POSTURAS DE LA FRATERNIDAD SACERDOTAL SAN PÍO X

    Yo…, el que suscribe,
    reconozco a Benedicto XVI como Papa de la Santa Iglesia Católica. Razón por la cual estoy dispuesto a rezar públicamente por él en cuanto Soberano Pontífice. Me niego a seguirlo cuando se aleja de la Tradición católica, particularmente en materia de libertad religiosa y de ecumenismo, así como en las reformas que son nocivas para la Iglesia.

    Admito que las Misas celebradas según el nuevo rito no son todas inválidas. Sin embargo, considerando las malas traducciones del Novus Ordo Missae, su ambigüedad que favorece su interpretación en un sentido protestante y la pluralidad de sus modos de celebración, reconozco que el peligro de invalidez es muy grande.

    Afirmo que es cierto que el nuevo rito de la misa no formula ninguna herejía de manera expresa, pero que “se aleja de una manera impresionante, tanto en su conjunto como en sus detalles, de la teología católica de la santa Misa”, y que por esta razón, este nuevo rito es malo en sí mismo.

    Por eso no celebraré nunca la Santa Misa según ese nuevo rito, aún bajo amenaza de penas eclesiásticas; y no aconsejaré jamás de manera positiva a quien quiera que sea, participar activamente en una misa semejante.

    Admito, por último, como legítima la reforma litúrgica de Juan XXIII. Por eso recibo de ella como católicos todos los libros litúrgicos: misal, breviario, etc., y me comprometo a utilizarlos exclusivamente, según su calendario y rúbricas, particularmente para la celebración de la Misa y para la recitación en común del breviario.

    Al hacer esto, deseo manifestar la obediencia que me liga a mis Superiores, y la que me une al Sumo Pontífice en todos sus actos legítimos.


    Online Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 17907
    • Reputation: +8171/-615
    • Gender: Male
    Bp. Fellays Declaration of Fidelity to newChurch
    « Reply #11 on: July 10, 2013, 02:30:23 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • .

    From page 1:

    Quote from: Incredulous
    Thanks Frances.

    I just wonder why +ABL never required the SSPX priests to sign a loyalty oath to the Pope?




    Good question.  And for reasons perhaps you have not considered, Incredulous.

    This oath of fidelity thingy goes way back.  It is something that the
    Freemasons practice and have practiced for a long time.  But that's not
    the key issue, just a point to ponder and not forget in all this.

    The Jesuits under St. Ignatius Loyola took vows of poverty, chastity and
    obedience, as well as a "fourth oath" of personal obedience to the Holy
    Father Himself.  They did not use the terms "fidelity" or "allegiance" --
    those have been applied to this concept only recently - that is, post Vat.II.

    Don't forget about the Freemasons.

    Taking oaths of obedience is part of Catholic Tradition.  Then along came
    Pope St. Pius X (at the time he wasn't known as "Saint" obviously) and
    his Oath Against Modernism.  This was out of the ordinary.  I like to think
    of it as "catching the devil by surprise" because it was something that was
    unprecedented in the history of the Church.  Never before had a Pope
    demanded of all the priests and superiors of religious orders and so on and
    so on to take an oath "AGAINST" something.  It's like it was the
    worst fears of the devil coming into reality, something the devil really had
    hoped that no one would figure it out or come up with this plan.  But
    come up with it, the Pope-Saint did!

    And you should have seen all the fireworks!  The Modernists lined up for
    miles pleading incessantly to the Pope to have mercy on them and to
    grant them exempt from this most heavy of crosses to bear, and on and
    on and on and on.  He was practically stymied in his other duties and
    concerns because of the TSUNAMI of appeals to be exempt from having
    to TAKE THE OATH.

    But even so, the taking of the Oath Against Modernism (Sacrorum
    Antistitum)
    was a very successful project, and it endured many years,
    all the way up to, well, up until the unclean spirit of Vat.II undermined
    the interest in keeping it in force.  That's another story, which I have
    already told before here on CI.

    The Oath was abandoned in 1967, after the abominable Council, and
    it was IMHO a necessary step to abandon it before the Newmass could
    be instituted under the APPEARANCE of being 'promulgated' (which it
    was NOT -- See elsewhere).  

    But something else took its place, as it were.  So to speak, a replacement
    thingy was put into effect, and this replacement thingy was not paraded
    around in large font or bold type or bullhorn-announcement.  It was
    quietly proffered, as it were, not promulgated, just like the Newmass
    was not promulgated.  But it was different.  This replacement thingy
    was not something that anyone was PUNISHED for not adhering to.  So
    to that extent, it was proffered at a different level than the Newmass,
    which indeed was imposed by force of censure, insult, penalty,
    punishment, excoriation, derision, vitriol, exclusion, banishment and even
    excommunication.  

    The replacement thingy was called a "Vatican Statement."  And it has
    been scrubbed from the files of the Vatican, and it has been forgotten,
    as if 'tossed down the memory hole'.  It is only something that I am
    aware of because I had the good fortune of a bad experience in 1999
    in Hamilton, Canada.

    Again, don't forget about the Freemasons.

    It was a Pledge of Fidelity and Allegiance to the Pope (if I recall
    correctly), who, at that time was the infamous Paul VI of infelicitous
    memory,
    as Canon Gregorius Hesse told me so many times.  

    And this newfangled thingy that HEBF is rumored to be pushing sounds
    a lot like that thingy, from Paul-VI-of-infelicitous-memory.



    Quote
    One observation:  It seems Conciliarists become most upset if one dares to question "their system".  



    Right again.  As do the Freemasons, about whom you should not forget.


    Quote
    For example, Msgr. Williamson has referred to Pat Buchanan as a sincere man, but that his real problem was, "... he still believed in the US 'electoral system'.".  +W implied Buchanan needed to stop thinking this way to find the truth.

    At one point during a Vatican II, promulgation by Pope Paul VI, the notorious Msgr. Bugnini dared any Bishops or Cardinals to resist the Pope, claiming their action to do so would mean they did not believe Paul VI was the Pope.




    Don't forget that Annibale Bugnini buried his mother in a Freemason
    grave and his own mausoleum slab covers his remains with inscriptions
    that are unquestionably Freemasonic symbols.

    This event to which you refer touches directly on the replacement thingy
    I was talking about, above, the Vatican Statement that was a Pledge
    of Fidelity and Allegiance to the Pope.  In retrospect, it was an attempt
    to forestall sedevacantism even before the sede trend had even begun,
    or, perhaps it was right at the moment that it was beginning, and this
    might explain why this Pledge was not heavy-handed, because then the
    sede movement might have consequently garnered a greater following.

    This is key to the Resistance right NOW!  

    The Resistance is a force to be reckoned with because it strikes fear
    and TERROR into the hearts of the Menzingen-denizens.  I have seen
    this with my own eyes and I am therefore an eye-witness, for those
    with eyes to see and ears to hear.  

    It is precisely because of the effectiveness of the Resistance that
    HEBF* would have any inclination whatsoever to ask such a thingy of
    the SSPX priests.  

    Now, this is not to say that we should pass judgment on any such
    priest who signs the Pledge or Oath or whatever it's called.  



    Quote
    How different a world it would be if the Cardinals and Bishops would have had the courage to have done just that ?




    True, again!



    Quote
    It is interesting to see Msgr. Fellay, a man willing to "sell-out" Catholic tradition, now interested in having his Order take a loyalty oath to the newChurch system ?

    If the Vatican II warhorse, Pope Benedict, required the oath from the SSPX, it is truly reminiscent of Msgr. Buginini's previous defense of the newChurch system.




    And it is reminiscent of Paul VI's contemporaneous reaction against
    the forming of the sedevacantist movement, which no doubt struck
    fear deep into his very soul.  

    Can you imagine being the pope who endeavors to institute all those
    changes only to find a significant faction of Catholics willing to stand
    up and say, "You are obviously not Pope because of your actions!"?  

    He did NOT want that kind of idea to begin to pick up speed on the track!!




    P.S. Don't forget the Freemasons.. because they have not forgotten you!



    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.

    Offline Viva Cristo Rey

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6720
    • Reputation: +1889/-109
    • Gender: Female
    Bp. Fellays Declaration of Fidelity to newChurch
    « Reply #12 on: July 10, 2013, 04:27:09 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • A lot of free masons under pope Francis.   How do you feel about  that Neil obstAt.
    To live with the Saints in Heaven is all bliss and glory....To live with the saints on Earth is just another story!  (unknown)

    Offline hugeman

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 342
    • Reputation: +669/-0
    • Gender: Male
      • h
    Bp. Fellays Declaration of Fidelity to newChurch
    « Reply #13 on: July 10, 2013, 09:35:00 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Taken from the SOSS ave Our  SSPX  site, which was posted there last year.Recently, Traditio dot com, one of the first Traditional Catholic websites, posted an item which stated that SSPX priests are required to take an oath supporting the pope and the new mass. Upon inquiry, we have realized that the oath referred to is the one detailed below. As was stated in an earlier post on this thread, the original , hard copy of this oath was provided to us by Fr. Kevin Robinson, so we feel if is very reliable. He (Fr.Robinson) was referring to the oath in a letter he wrote to Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer, exoriating him for his "resistance" sermons and writings, and reminding him (Fr. Pfeiffer), that "remember you also took this oath (attahed)?"

    "
    THE OATH REQUIRED OF SSPX PRIESTS AND SEMINARIANS
         As detailed by an SSPX priest, this oath is required of all SSPX priests. It was never required by Archbishop Lefebvre-- it couldn't be required by him, because it is full of intellectual dishonesty! One can not say that the principal public prayer and act of worship to Almighty God is valid, and yet at the same time promise to never say it!! Archbishop Lefebvre called the novus ordo a "Bastard mass", when, coupled with the conciliar churchs' "bastard sacraments", constituted their "new religion"-- a religion which Bp. Fellay has apparently adopted, but which the Archbishop had "no desire to belong(to)"  
        The inherent contradictions in this oath become all the more clear in the light of Fr LeRoux' announcement at Auriesville Shrine, in New York last May, 2012, that "Our priests obtain their mission from the local ordinaries!." I was flabbergasted by his statement-- yet he told me "yes-- that is true-- we receive our mission from the diocesan ordinaries !"  Well-- the Archbishop didn't believe that at all! The Archbishop KNEW that the SSPX priests received their mission ( as true Catholic priests) from Our Lord Jesus Christ, through the Holy Apostles, through the Church's Magisterium, and through himself, as a true Bishop, faithful to the Church's teachings. That The Society's official position is the priests of the SSPX receive their mission through Bishops who are NOT in union with the Catholic Church, who, in many cases, DO NOT BELIEVE the Catholic faith, who,in most cases, see the Vatican Council II and the novus ordo mess as a rejection of Vatican Council I, of St Pius X, and of Church teaching for two thousand years , is a phenomenal leftward move for the Society. So, this oath plants the seed of confusion and intellectual dishonesty right in the heart of the seminarians and the young, moldable priests.
                         DECLARATION OF FIDELITY

        (To the Positions of the Society of St Pius X)


    I, the undersigned, ___________(name)________ recognize Benedict XVI as Pope of the Holy Catholic Church. That is why I am ready to pray in public for him as Sovereign Pontiff. I refuse to follow him when he departs from the Catholic tradition, especially in the questions of religious liberty and ecumenism, as also in the reforms which are harmful to the Church.

      I grant that Masses celebrated according to the new rite are not all invalid. However,
    considering the bad translations of the Novus Ordo Missae, its ambiguity favoring its being interpreted in a Protestant sense, and the plurality of ways in which it can be celebrated, I recognize that the danger of invalidity is very great.

        I affirm that the new rite of Mass does not, it is true, formulate any heresy in an explicit manner, but that it departs" in a striking manner overall as well as in detail, from the Catholic theology of the Holy Mass", and for this reason the new rite is in itself bad.

        That is why I shall never celebrate the Holy Mass according to this new rite, even if I am
    threatened with ecclesiastical sanctions; and I shall never advise anyone in a positive manner to take an active part in such a Mass.

        Finally, I admit as being legitimate the liturgical reform of John XXIII. Hence I take all the  liturgical books from it to be Catholic: the Missal, the Breviary, etc.; and I bind myself to make  exclusive use of them according to their calendar and rubrics, in particular for the celebration of  Mass and for the recitation in common of the Breviary.

      In doing this I desire to show the obedience binding me to my superiors, as also the
    obedience binding me to the Roman Pontiff in all his legitimate acts.

    Signed ________________________"




    There-- now you have it! Debate away. "The new rite is in itself bad"; "the liturgical reforms of (the pro-communist) John"cast down the bastions"XXIII are legitimate"; " I recognize Benedict XVI as pope of the Holy Catholic Church (funny-- he doesn't recognize himself as pope-- and he never really did. He believes in collegiality, a cardinal; virtue of the Council, where the bishops decide their beliefs). And his replacement on the chair? He doesn't believe he's the pope either-- he refused the mantle of the pope, and he insists he's the "bishop of Rome."
       At any rate, with respect to Fr. Pfeiffer, or any other priest "signing" this poorly worded pile of double-speak and modernistic intellectual nonsense, how would they NOT sign it, when presented this document by their superior? Unless you were already on the way out the SSPX door, you'd sign it. How would you tell a crazed Fr.Rostand that "I decline" to sign that stupid "Declaration of Fidelity", but I'd still like a nice position and a pleasant chapel to serve in, with nice families and convenient schedules. Not likely to happen.
        We see, Fellay and Co. have been softening up the opposition for a long, long time (this is what the bomber pilots did before the ground forces move in-- the soften up the opposition). They have used the 2000 pilgrimage to Rome, the Cor Unums, the Rosary Crusades, and the Superior General's missives to get everyone in line and accept this deal they were arranging. That's why Fellay was in such a tizzy when the letter of the Three Bishops broke out! That's why they went into overdrive to shut down the internet sites, claiming that the faithful have "no right to know what's going on in the workings of the Fraternal Society." And that's why Fellay said he could accept a split in the Society-- he knew he was causing it!
        Just as an example: Bishop Williamson was at the 2000 pilgrimmage in Rome-- the famous back-drop for the "oh so enthusiastic" meeting and dinner with Cardinal Hoyos, and the subsequent "smiles all around and Masonic handshake with the pope" photo op. Had Bishop Williamson THEN REALIZED that Fellay was working overtime to sell tradition down the drain, would he have attended the pilgrimage? Consider that.

    Offline Incredulous

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3989
    • Reputation: +4949/-246
    • Gender: Male
    Bp. Fellays Declaration of Fidelity to newChurch
    « Reply #14 on: July 10, 2013, 11:44:16 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Neil Obstat
    .

    From page 1:

    Quote from: Incredulous
    Thanks Frances.

    I just wonder why +ABL never required the SSPX priests to sign a loyalty oath to the Pope?




    Good question.  And for reasons perhaps you have not considered, Incredulous.

    This oath of fidelity thingy goes way back.  It is something that the
    Freemasons practice and have practiced for a long time.  But that's not
    the key issue, just a point to ponder and not forget in all this.

    The Jesuits under St. Ignatius Loyola took vows of poverty, chastity and
    obedience, as well as a "fourth oath" of personal obedience to the Holy
    Father Himself.  They did not use the terms "fidelity" or "allegiance" --
    those have been applied to this concept only recently - that is, post Vat.II.

    Don't forget about the Freemasons.

    Taking oaths of obedience is part of Catholic Tradition.  Then along came
    Pope St. Pius X (at the time he wasn't known as "Saint" obviously) and
    his Oath Against Modernism.  This was out of the ordinary.  I like to think
    of it as "catching the devil by surprise" because it was something that was
    unprecedented in the history of the Church.  Never before had a Pope
    demanded of all the priests and superiors of religious orders and so on and
    so on to take an oath "AGAINST" something.  It's like it was the
    worst fears of the devil coming into reality, something the devil really had
    hoped that no one would figure it out or come up with this plan.  But
    come up with it, the Pope-Saint did!

    And you should have seen all the fireworks!  The Modernists lined up for
    miles pleading incessantly to the Pope to have mercy on them and to
    grant them exempt from this most heavy of crosses to bear, and on and
    on and on and on.  He was practically stymied in his other duties and
    concerns because of the TSUNAMI of appeals to be exempt from having
    to TAKE THE OATH.

    But even so, the taking of the Oath Against Modernism (Sacrorum
    Antistitum)
    was a very successful project, and it endured many years,
    all the way up to, well, up until the unclean spirit of Vat.II undermined
    the interest in keeping it in force.  That's another story, which I have
    already told before here on CI.

    The Oath was abandoned in 1967, after the abominable Council, and
    it was IMHO a necessary step to abandon it before the Newmass could
    be instituted under the APPEARANCE of being 'promulgated' (which it
    was NOT -- See elsewhere).  

    But something else took its place, as it were.  So to speak, a replacement
    thingy was put into effect, and this replacement thingy was not paraded
    around in large font or bold type or bullhorn-announcement.  It was
    quietly proffered, as it were, not promulgated, just like the Newmass
    was not promulgated.  But it was different.  This replacement thingy
    was not something that anyone was PUNISHED for not adhering to.  So
    to that extent, it was proffered at a different level than the Newmass,
    which indeed was imposed by force of censure, insult, penalty,
    punishment, excoriation, derision, vitriol, exclusion, banishment and even
    excommunication.  

    The replacement thingy was called a "Vatican Statement."  And it has
    been scrubbed from the files of the Vatican, and it has been forgotten,
    as if 'tossed down the memory hole'.  It is only something that I am
    aware of because I had the good fortune of a bad experience in 1999
    in Hamilton, Canada.

    Again, don't forget about the Freemasons.

    It was a Pledge of Fidelity and Allegiance to the Pope (if I recall
    correctly), who, at that time was the infamous Paul VI of infelicitous
    memory,
    as Canon Gregorius Hesse told me so many times.  

    And this newfangled thingy that HEBF is rumored to be pushing sounds
    a lot like that thingy, from Paul-VI-of-infelicitous-memory.



    Quote
    One observation:  It seems Conciliarists become most upset if one dares to question "their system".  



    Right again.  As do the Freemasons, about whom you should not forget.


    Quote
    For example, Msgr. Williamson has referred to Pat Buchanan as a sincere man, but that his real problem was, "... he still believed in the US 'electoral system'.".  +W implied Buchanan needed to stop thinking this way to find the truth.

    At one point during a Vatican II, promulgation by Pope Paul VI, the notorious Msgr. Bugnini dared any Bishops or Cardinals to resist the Pope, claiming their action to do so would mean they did not believe Paul VI was the Pope.




    Don't forget that Annibale Bugnini buried his mother in a Freemason
    grave and his own mausoleum slab covers his remains with inscriptions
    that are unquestionably Freemasonic symbols.

    This event to which you refer touches directly on the replacement thingy
    I was talking about, above, the Vatican Statement that was a Pledge
    of Fidelity and Allegiance to the Pope.  In retrospect, it was an attempt
    to forestall sedevacantism even before the sede trend had even begun,
    or, perhaps it was right at the moment that it was beginning, and this
    might explain why this Pledge was not heavy-handed, because then the
    sede movement might have consequently garnered a greater following.

    This is key to the Resistance right NOW!  

    The Resistance is a force to be reckoned with because it strikes fear
    and TERROR into the hearts of the Menzingen-denizens.  I have seen
    this with my own eyes and I am therefore an eye-witness, for those
    with eyes to see and ears to hear.  

    It is precisely because of the effectiveness of the Resistance that
    HEBF* would have any inclination whatsoever to ask such a thingy of
    the SSPX priests.  

    Now, this is not to say that we should pass judgment on any such
    priest who signs the Pledge or Oath or whatever it's called.  



    Quote
    How different a world it would be if the Cardinals and Bishops would have had the courage to have done just that ?




    True, again!



    Quote
    It is interesting to see Msgr. Fellay, a man willing to "sell-out" Catholic tradition, now interested in having his Order take a loyalty oath to the newChurch system ?

    If the Vatican II warhorse, Pope Benedict, required the oath from the SSPX, it is truly reminiscent of Msgr. Buginini's previous defense of the newChurch system.




    And it is reminiscent of Paul VI's contemporaneous reaction against
    the forming of the sedevacantist movement, which no doubt struck
    fear deep into his very soul.  

    Can you imagine being the pope who endeavors to institute all those
    changes only to find a significant faction of Catholics willing to stand
    up and say, "You are obviously not Pope because of your actions!"?  

    He did NOT want that kind of idea to begin to pick up speed on the track!!




    P.S. Don't forget the Freemasons.. because they have not forgotten you!






    Thank you for the detailed analysis Neil.
    You can articulate and express ideas and thoughts that I am still struggling to to formulate.
    "Some preachers will keep silence about the truth, and others will trample it underfoot and deny it. Sanctity of life will be held in derision even by those who outwardly profess it, for in those days Our Lord Jesus Christ will send them not a true Pastor but a destroyer."  St. Francis of Assisi

     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16