Catholic Info

Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: Incredulous on July 09, 2013, 08:33:29 AM

Title: Bp. Fellays Declaration of Fidelity to newChurch
Post by: Incredulous on July 09, 2013, 08:33:29 AM
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)
Title: Bp. Fellays Declaration of Fidelity to newChurch
Post by: hugeman on July 09, 2013, 08:54:55 AM
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 docuмent
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.
Title: Bp. Fellays Declaration of Fidelity to newChurch
Post by: brainglitch on July 09, 2013, 09:19:07 AM
If Traditio told me the sun set in the west, I'd step outside to check.
Title: Bp. Fellays Declaration of Fidelity to newChurch
Post by: Frances on July 10, 2013, 12:35:19 AM
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:
Title: Bp. Fellays Declaration of Fidelity to newChurch
Post by: Incredulous on July 10, 2013, 01:16:08 AM
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.
Title: Bp. Fellays Declaration of Fidelity to newChurch
Post by: Frances on July 10, 2013, 02:26:08 AM
Patience!  The truth will come out sooner or later.  I wouldn't rely on Traditio for it, however!
Title: Bp. Fellays Declaration of Fidelity to newChurch
Post by: Viva Cristo Rey on July 10, 2013, 09:41:18 AM
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.






Title: Bp. Fellays Declaration of Fidelity to newChurch
Post by: Elsa Zardini on July 10, 2013, 09:53:46 AM

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?
Title: Bp. Fellays Declaration of Fidelity to newChurch
Post by: Telesphorus on July 10, 2013, 10:16:15 AM
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?

Title: Bp. Fellays Declaration of Fidelity to newChurch
Post by: hugeman on July 10, 2013, 11:25:50 AM
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 ?
Title: Bp. Fellays Declaration of Fidelity to newChurch
Post by: Elsa Zardini on July 10, 2013, 12:32:40 PM
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 ecuмenismo, 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.
Title: Bp. Fellays Declaration of Fidelity to newChurch
Post by: Neil Obstat on July 10, 2013, 02:30:23 PM
.

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!



Title: Bp. Fellays Declaration of Fidelity to newChurch
Post by: Viva Cristo Rey on July 10, 2013, 04:27:09 PM
A lot of free masons under pope Francis.   How do you feel about  that Neil obstAt.
Title: Bp. Fellays Declaration of Fidelity to newChurch
Post by: hugeman on July 10, 2013, 09:35:00 PM
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 ecuмenism, 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 docuмent 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.
Title: Bp. Fellays Declaration of Fidelity to newChurch
Post by: Incredulous on July 10, 2013, 11:44:16 PM
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.
Title: Bp. Fellays Declaration of Fidelity to newChurch
Post by: Neil Obstat on July 11, 2013, 01:09:41 AM
.

You're welcome, Incredulous.  


I have a problem with this paragraph:

Quote

 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.



I am quite sure that if I were to hand Fr. Pfeiffer this paragraph
he would refuse to sign his name to it.  

And Fr. Hewko has said, literally, that to sign such a thing would
be a sin for him, and that he would not do so even if it meant
that he would be subject to martyrdom.  

So no, I don't think Fr. P or Fr. H would sign this paragraph.

There would be no point in "binding" oneself to the use of the
John XXIII missal.  And the same goes for the John XXIII
breviary, calendar, or anything else.  How could "binding"
yourself to that be in any way good?  Forget it.  



Title: Bp. Fellays Declaration of Fidelity to newChurch
Post by: Neil Obstat on July 11, 2013, 12:03:17 PM
.

To be clear, Fr. Hewko did not say that, exactly, about this
paragraph, above, but about the AFD from 2012.  What I was
trying to say is that he holds some of these things coming out of
Menzingen lately to be of grave doctrinal consequence and that
we cannot abide by doctrinal compromise, even if it means facing
death.

The paragraph above says, "I bind myself to make exclusive use
of them," which is entirely unnecessary.  The missal, rubrics,
calendar and breviary of John XXIII was a first step toward the
Newmass, Newsacraments, Newcode of canon law, New-false-
ecuмenism, New-religious-liberty, New-false-collegiality and
Newsyncretism.  

Why would anyone want to "bind" himself to always taking a step
the wrong direction?  

Let's say that to get yourself to Confession you have to travel
east on the road.  If you bind yourself to always taking a step
to the west, how will you ever get to Confession?  Every step
you take, will take you further away from Confession, not closer
to it.  

This is like saying you are making a promise to never take a stand
against the accommodation with error that happened in 1962
when this missal, rubrics, calendar and breviary were in common
use.  To sign one's name to this paragraph is to promise that you
willingly place yourself on the path toward all the postconciliar
corruptions that happened after 1962 in the Church of that time.



Title: Bp. Fellays Declaration of Fidelity to newChurch
Post by: brainglitch on July 11, 2013, 01:41:34 PM
Quote from: Neil Obstat
.

To be clear, Fr. Hewko did not say that, exactly, about this
paragraph, above, but about the AFD from 2012.  What I was
trying to say is that he holds some of these things coming out of
Menzingen lately to be of grave doctrinal consequence and that
we cannot abide by doctrinal compromise, even if it means facing
death.

The paragraph above says, "I bind myself to make exclusive use
of them," which is entirely unnecessary.  The missal, rubrics,
calendar and breviary of John XXIII was a first step toward the
Newmass, Newsacraments, Newcode of canon law, New-false-
ecuмenism, New-religious-liberty, New-false-collegiality and
Newsyncretism.  

Why would anyone want to "bind" himself to always taking a step
the wrong direction?  

Let's say that to get yourself to Confession you have to travel
east on the road.  If you bind yourself to always taking a step
to the west, how will you ever get to Confession?  Every step
you take, will take you further away from Confession, not closer
to it.  

This is like saying you are making a promise to never take a stand
against the accommodation with error that happened in 1962
when this missal, rubrics, calendar and breviary were in common
use.  To sign one's name to this paragraph is to promise that you
willingly place yourself on the path toward all the postconciliar
corruptions that happened after 1962 in the Church of that time.





This is the exact same argument that the Nine made in 1983, when Archbishop Lefebvre made the 1962 mandatory.

How ironic.
Title: Bp. Fellays Declaration of Fidelity to newChurch
Post by: Neil Obstat on July 11, 2013, 02:55:58 PM
.

ABL did not make the 1962 "mandatory" because of it's inherent
attributes, but because he made a compromise with modernist
Rome.  Priests who knew him personally attest to his later
REGRET for having made the MISTAKE of thinking that by giving
the RATS IN ROME a little something that he would then get
something in return.  

Well, he didn't get squat.  

So it was a mistake to make the 1962 missal of John XXIII the
standard of the Society, and it has been downhill ever since.

The entire landscape of Catholic Tradition worldwide would
today be better off if this mistake of ABL had never been made.

To this day, the two bishops, +W and +dM use rubrics from
the pre-1954 missal, even while they're surrounded by priests
who use more 'updated' rubrics.  



Title: Bp. Fellays Declaration of Fidelity to newChurch
Post by: Ambrose on July 11, 2013, 03:04:09 PM
Archbishop Lefebvre's reason for using the 1962 missal was not compromise with the modernists, it was based on a solid principle.

Archbishop Lefebvre said:

Quote

The basic principle of the Society’s thinking and action in the painful crisis the Church is going through is the principle taught by St. Thomas Aquinas in the Summa Theologica (II, II, q. 33, a.4). That one may not oppose the authority of the Church except in the case of imminent danger to the Faith. Now, there is no danger for the Faith in the liturgy of Pope Pius XII and Pope John XXIII, whereas there is great danger for the Faith in the liturgy of Pope Paul VI, which is unacceptable.

 
http://op54rosary.ning.com/forum/topics/archbishop-lefebvre-why-the-sspx-uses-the-1962-missal
Title: Bp. Fellays Declaration of Fidelity to newChurch
Post by: Neil Obstat on July 11, 2013, 03:49:01 PM
Quote from: Ambrose
Archbishop Lefebvre's reason for using the 1962 missal was not compromise with the modernists, it was based on a solid principle.

Archbishop Lefebvre said:

Quote

The basic principle of the Society’s thinking and action in the painful crisis the Church is going through is the principle taught by St. Thomas Aquinas in the Summa Theologica (II, II, q. 33, a.4). That one may not oppose the authority of the Church except in the case of imminent danger to the Faith. Now, there is no danger for the Faith in the liturgy of Pope Pius XII and Pope John XXIII, whereas there is great danger for the Faith in the liturgy of Pope Paul VI, which is unacceptable.

 
http://op54rosary.ning.com/forum/topics/archbishop-lefebvre-why-the-sspx-uses-the-1962-missal


.Looks like the thread is going off-topic.



Again,

ABL did not make the 1962 "mandatory" because of it's inherent
attributes.  

That is to say, it was a negative reason, not a positive one.

He did not go with it for what it WAS, but for what is WAS
NOT.
 It is my opinion, therefore, that it is far better to
institute a missal and rubrics for daily Mass for a POSITIVE
reason rather than for a NEGATIVE reason.  This is why the
1954 and prior missal is superior, because of what it IS, AS
OPPOSED TO WHAT IT IS NOT.  For it too has all the attributes
in the NEGATIVE that the latter version has, and it also has a lot
more in the positive attributes.

To say there is "no danger for the faith" in something is not the
same as to say that it promotes the same practice and tradition
that is promoted by what the thing replaces.

You are entitled to your opinion, but I am entitled to mine as
well, and because of knowing priests who knew ABL and spoke
to him about this, my opinion is that if ABL were alive today,
he would use the pre-1954 missal, rubrics, calendar and
breviary, and he would be entirely willing to admit that it was
a most regrettable mistake for him to side with the missal
and rubrics of John XXIII.  And I think this is the case because
of the facts of what we have seen happen since he made this
mistake in 1983.  That was the year of the Newcode, you know.


............IMHO.



Title: Bp. Fellays Declaration of Fidelity to newChurch
Post by: Ambrose on July 11, 2013, 04:25:46 PM
Neil Obstat wrote:

Quote
ABL did not make the 1962 "mandatory" because of it's inherent
attributes, but because he made a compromise with modernist
Rome.
Priests who knew him personally attest to his later
REGRET for having made the MISTAKE of thinking that by giving
the RATS IN ROME a little something that he would then get


I was commenting on your accusation that Archbishop Lefebvre compromised with the modernists.  I showed you proof from his own words that your accusation was not true.  Instead of retracting what you wrote, you accuse me of being off topic.  
Title: Bp. Fellays Declaration of Fidelity to newChurch
Post by: Neil Obstat on July 11, 2013, 04:52:05 PM
Quote from: Ambrose
Neil Obstat wrote:

Quote
ABL did not make the 1962 "mandatory" because of it's inherent
attributes, but because he made a compromise with modernist
Rome.
Priests who knew him personally attest to his later
REGRET for having made the MISTAKE of thinking that by giving
the RATS IN ROME a little something that he would then get


I was commenting on your accusation that Archbishop Lefebvre compromised with the modernists.  I showed you proof from his own words that your accusation was not true.  Instead of retracting what you wrote, you accuse me of being off topic.  


Sorry, what you showed was no such "proof."

At the time, ABL did not think of it as being a compromise, but after
the fact, that is exactly what it appeared to be, in retrospect. Things
are often clearer in hindsight.  Why should I retract something when
the accusation against what I said isn't true?  

Not only is it false, it is off-topic.

Did you know ABL?  Did you ask him about this?  I'm not saying it's a hard
and fast rule.  I'm saying that what I have related is what I have been
given.  You're going on your own interpretation of what was written, but
that isn't the whole story.  It's more complicated than that.  



Title: Bp. Fellays Declaration of Fidelity to newChurch
Post by: Ambrose on July 11, 2013, 05:07:58 PM
Quote from: Neil Obstat
Quote from: Ambrose
Neil Obstat wrote:

Quote
ABL did not make the 1962 "mandatory" because of it's inherent
attributes, but because he made a compromise with modernist
Rome.
Priests who knew him personally attest to his later
REGRET for having made the MISTAKE of thinking that by giving
the RATS IN ROME a little something that he would then get


I was commenting on your accusation that Archbishop Lefebvre compromised with the modernists.  I showed you proof from his own words that your accusation was not true.  Instead of retracting what you wrote, you accuse me of being off topic.  


Sorry, what you showed was no such "proof."

At the time, ABL did not think of it as being a compromise, but after
the fact, that is exactly what it appeared to be, in retrospect. Things
are often clearer in hindsight.  Why should I retract something when
the accusation against what I said isn't true?  

Not only is it false, it is off-topic.

Did you know ABL?  Did you ask him about this?  I'm not saying it's a hard
and fast rule.  I'm saying that what I have related is what I have been
given.  You're going on your own interpretation of what was written, but
that isn't the whole story.  It's more complicated than that.  





I will stick with the the Archbishop's public statement that he never retracted over hearsay from unidentified sources.
Title: Bp. Fellays Declaration of Fidelity to newChurch
Post by: Frances on July 11, 2013, 05:28:40 PM
 :scratchchin:
Thanks, hugeman.  Benedict XVI is no longer head of the Church.  And Fr. Pfeiffer is out of the SSPX.  So it doesn't matter what Fr. Pfeiffer signed.  Unless I'm mistaken, an evil oath is like an  evil law- no law at all.  
Did I sound like I was opposing you in a nasty manner?  I'm sorry!  Things often don't come across as intended on-line.  If I sounded a bit testy, it is because I'm dealing with a person who tells others that the Resistance priests' Masses and sacraments are invalid.  So when a story comes to light it gets bizarrely twisted.  This same person claims Fr. Pfeiffer is mentally ill  and should be "taking something for it."
I've publicly rebuked him on two occasions and he's allowed to continue because people WANT to believe nonsense.
  :jester:
Title: Bp. Fellays Declaration of Fidelity to newChurch
Post by: hugeman on July 11, 2013, 05:45:52 PM
This may appear off thread, but it is not. It is absolutely
critical that we understand what has happened to the traditionalists,
and the the faith, in the past-- or we will continually make the same mistakes
over and over.

Perhaps it is the great wealth of experience that leads Bishop Williamson
to favor, right now, a loose network of traditional priests , and faithful, served by
a traditional bishop?

At any rate, we each have to admit that we all have made errors and mistakes in this
Great Battle in which we have been engaged in since, for some of us, the 1960's.
And yes, our priests and monks also made mistakes. But we love them. And we pray they come to the right side, soon!

Just look at Father Hewko snd his brother. One clearly sees the light, the other is still shrouded in the darkness emanating throughout the SSPX. Look at the Fathers Pfeiffer. One, Father Joseph, saw the track of modernism and  finally shouted " enough"; the ither one is happily in denial.

I never dreamed that Fr. Schmidberger would be orchestrating this sell out the way he has-- yet look what he did to the "nine" when they were objecting to, and opposing, modernist moves.

Take as an example the debacle of Econe force-feeding the  dialogue Mass through. There were actually priests in the US (French priests usually), who claimed that one was not Catholic if one didn't go along-- even though the Archbishop had made it a "firm"
Principle of the SSPX " not to change any customs" in any country in which the SSPX sent priests!

So, we need to seek the truth, be patient, not resort to name calling, and learn from our mistakes.