Author Topic: Bp. Huonder to consecrate 2 Bishops for SSPX (Read 9238 times)

Nishant Xavier · « **Reply #75 on:** March 09, 2019, 01:07:17 AM »

Quote from: Meg

Do you believe that the SSPX is destined to save the Church?

Yes, Meg, I do. There was even an exorcism where it was said, "After a long struggle, Econe will triumph." Archbishop Lefebvre always believed the Good Lord had specially chosen a Society of traditional Priests who would contribute toward building an Army for Christ our King in this world. That's what the SSPX has done and is still doing. And all alleged reports of its demise, I regret to announce, are premature. Some people here strike me as waiting for somebody's funeral, but, thank God, that will never come! I hate to be the messenger of unpleasant news, but the SSPX is alive and well, and the future for Catholic Tradition in the Church looks good.

So certainly, I believe the SSPX will play the principal part in the coming restoration; not necessarily the only part of course, other traditional groups will also contribute. The only real solution is a traditional and holy Pope in Rome again. Prophesy speaks of an Angelic Pastor. I believe we may have that holy Pope in the next 20 to 30 years - possibly from among our current traditional Bishops - if we take the right steps now, and fight in such a way where we actually believe we can win and act accordingly. But even if it takes 40 to 50 years, we intend to keep working and give our lives to the cause without wavering, irrespective of what others allege or accuse us of doing. Just think what running away from Rome does - it sounds good, but really, it plays into the hands of the enemies of the Church. If traditional Bishops stay far away from Rome - as far away as the modernists want - none of them will ever become Cardinals, and therefore could hardly ever become Pope.

If we convince the Pope and the Bishops to Consecrate Russia - something all Three SSPX Bishops https://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/act-consecration-russia-immaculate-heart-mary-31607 , and I'm sure Resistance Bishops as well - fully and enthusiastically support, as Heaven asked us to do through Our Lady of Fatima, Restoration may come even faster, through the demise of Communism, the return of the Orthodox, the TLM widely restored in the Latin Church, and the Triumph.

Archbishop Lefebvre used to ask sedevacantists and others, "is an Angel from Heaven going to bring us a Pope". If we believe a good holy Pope can solve the crisis, we should either work to bring the current Pope, by God's Grace, back to Tradition, or work with the Cardinals as Bp. Fellay is doing for Tradition to have its rights recognized there. Btw, Fr. Kevin Cusick, Rorate Caeli contributor, said some time ago that Cardinal Burke was now a leading candidate to be elected in the next conclave. Bp. Fellay has said numerous Cardinals and Bishops are coming closer and closer to Tradition and now there are many who support the Society's work.

Things don't look bad for Tradition. There may be as many as 5-7,000 Priests throughout the Church now offering the TLM according to another recent article. Restoration must come from the bottom up. When that number has touched, say, 100,000 Priests, at least 500 Bishops, and hopefully 40-50 Cardinals, Tradition will be ready to take over the Church. After Summorum Pontificuм and Universae Ecclesiae, strictly speaking, any Priest, even exclusively, can begin offering the TLM.

This is a perfectly reasonable way to restore the Church. Meanwhile, Fr. Pagliarani asked for renewed doctrinal discussions. The Superior General has set this path for the Society and it intends to follow it. If anyone has a better plan to work on, let us know. 3 doctrines the SSPX will try to promote are, the Kingship of Christ and the necessity of faith in Him for salvation; this will undermine one of the main errors that came up after Vatican II, the idea of non-confessional states, and of salvation without Christ, both wrong; it would be ideal to ask the Vatican to direct Catholic states to expressly recognize the Kingship of Christ in their constitutions; and similarly the Queenship of the Blessed Mother, and devotion to Her Immaculate Heart, as a necessary means of salvation and perseverance in grace. The truth of Her universal mediation of all graces. Finally, the Eucharistic reign of our Lord in His Church and His internal reign in our hearts by grace. Our Lord asked us to place His Mother's Immaculate Heart next to Him in all things. St. John Bosco foretold Vatican II and the chaos following it, and said Eucharistic and Marian devotion will be the Two Pillars of Restoration. Our Lady of Quito foretold the weakening of the Sacraments, and spoke of Restoration coming finally through a Good Shepherd. These above are some of the main errors in this age of modernism and relativism, of liberalism and of subjectivism. The SSPX is still fighting the good fight against all of them.

Nishant Xavier · « **Reply #76 on:** March 09, 2019, 01:16:48 AM »

Quote

So, XavierSem, could you explain why you opted for SSPX vs. FSSP? I'm not seeing it.

Well, Mr. Ladislaus, I don't have to justify my choice to anyone; but let me explain. I believe the SSPX is the best Fraternity for Catholic Tradition by far - doesn't mean I think the FSSP, the ICK and other Indult groups are bad or non-Catholic, I don't. The SSPX has a special role to play in Church Restoration. As of Spring 2017, beside others not mentioned, the Society had Priests : 612 Seminarians : 204 Pre-seminarians : 36 SSPX Brothers : 116 working around the world and around the clock for the salvation of souls worldwide. Why should I choose any other Fraternity? It's not a case of good or bad, but of the SSPX being better and the best.

Stats from: https://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/recent-numbers-sspx Then there are many holy Nuns, Sisters, Brides of Christ, working with and helping the Society.
http://archives.sspx.org/chapel_news/2012/sspx_sisters_10-2012/sspx_sisters_10-2012.htm The real question is, why would you not want to unite with these works and prayers and contribute your own help and support toward continuing this manifest work of God, blessed and fostered by divine Providence from day one until today?

All the Faithful can contribute toward Church Restoration, by prayers and sacrifices, by fulfilling the duties of one's own state of life, being united in prayer and in spirit, without division and schism, to our Sisters, Monks, Priests and Bishops, and through them, to Rome, which is now and always the head of the Church.

On the Validity and relative weakness of new rites: For an example - the New Rite of Priestly Ordination, as docuмented in Michael Davies' Order of Melchizedek, and widely known, many prayers pertaining to the "integrity" of the rite have been removed, but the essential form is almost entirely intact, except for a single word "ut" or that, which doesn't affect the meaning. Catholic Theology is that the essential form confects the Sacrament, when matter and intention are present. Now, every single omitted prayer causes a loss of grace - and when we're speaking of 100s of thousands of Priests worldwide, this is a huge loss of grace and a catastrophe for the Church. The likely result would be that we would have Priests who don't know what Priests are suppposed to do, and experience of the last several decades confirms that. It doesn't mean that they aren't Priests, it means they sadly lost ample graces on the day of their ordination that they would otherwise have received.

I don't know how many of you have read the very well-docuмented and widely researched study published by Fr. Pierre Marie of the SSPX on the New rite of episcopal consecration - of course we won't use this rite, it will be in the traditional rite, when 2 new Bishops are Consecrated; but it shows Bp. Huonder is a valid Bishop. Before that study, yes, there were divergent opinions even among SSPX Priests, because the matter was not yet firmly decided. After that, almost any SSPX Priest you speak to will tell you it is valid. Fr. Marie shows that (1) the new rite is essentially found in a work attributed to St. Hippolytus called Apostolic Tradition, authored in the 3rd century; (2) is used in two Eastern rites, (3) signifies clearly the Order of Episcopacy, by speaking of the Principal Spirit Christ gave to His Apostles - which is obviously episcopal authority, since no one doubts the Apostles were Bishops etc. What Rome tried to do was try to mix western and eastern rites to create some kind of synthetic new rite for ecuмenism which would allegedly bring the East closer to Rome. It didn't work and there's no reason to adopt that.

Fr. Marie also says there would be hardly any valid residential Roman-rite Bishop even then if it was invalid, all of which is plainly contrary to indefectibility.

So we stick with the traditional rites, which we know by Faith, reason and experience are more powerful. Similarly, in Baptism, if someone just like that omits everything else in the powerful traditional rite, and only uses the essential form, the rite will be valid, but abundant graces will be lost, and have to be supplied later. You have even chief exorcists of the Vatican themselves that say the new rite of exorcism is terribly, terribly, weak in comparison to the old; though a good exorcist Priest would still be able, with difficulty, to obtain some kind of deliverance from demons using it, he would be much wiser to use the traditional rite, and would obtain much better effects against demons in his exorcisms. Similarly, a Priest who offers the Tridentine Mass will, for e.g. deliver more souls from Purgatory.

Also, you missed the point completely with Bp. Williamson's view on Eucharistic Miracles: if you agree with Bp. Williamson, that there have been miracles, then it necessarily follows that both the new rite of Priestly Ordination (because only Priests can confect the Sacrament) and the new rite of Mass are at least valid.

And if you contest them, well, I can show you 19th century books written by Fr. Mueller on the Eucharist, where he docuмents many historical Eucharistic miracles; it is clear Father considers them proof of the Real Presence against Protestants and heretics, and of the Divinity of Christ and the Supernatural against modernists and agnostics. There was one in the lifetime of Pope St. Gregory the Great, after which a formerly doubting woman never doubted the Real Presence again. Eucharistic miracles have continued, you can either consider what they may have to show you, or ignore them just as you choose. Theology teaches God alone can be the efficient cause of an act of Transubstantiation. To Transubstantiate is more than even to Create. In Creation, something is created from nothing. In Transubstantiation, the Substance of the bread ceases to exist after, usually, the Body of Christ begins to inhere in the accidents of bread. And as only God can create, only God can bring about the effect of Transubstantiation. Therefore, docuмented examples of Transubstantiation visibly taking place in Eucharistic miracles can only come from God.

In eucharistic miracles, the accidents don't remain. Of course, the TLM is always a miracle, a hidden miracle of God's Infinite love for us. In Lanciano, many centuries ago transubstantiation happened visibly. God sometimes gives miracles to strengthen weak faith.

Finally, according to Fr. G-L, citing St. Thomas, if a Priest only said those words, "Hoc est enim Corpus Meum - This is My Body", and "Hic est enim Calix Sanguinis Mei - This is the Chalice of My Blood", he would consecrate the Body and Blood of the Lord, though of course he is not ordinarily allowed to do it just like that. The reason given is that, as God created, by saying "Fiat Lux - Let there be light", and instantly there was light, so also when Christ says, This is My Body, by His Priest, it instantly becomes His Body. And when likewise, This is the Chalice of My Blood, the wine is instantly turned into Blood in the Chalice. References later if needed.

Last Tradhican · « **Reply #77 on:** March 09, 2019, 03:34:17 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on March 08, 2019, 11:02:35 AM

…...I would say that you're schismatic to refusing to enter full communion without any particularly grave reason to do so. Do you just like the smell of the incense that the SSPX seminary uses better what the FSSP burns?

.....Honestly, I have more respect for an FSSPer these days than a neo-SSPXer. At least they'e consistent. ...SSPX seems to be in a state of self-contradiction that demands resolution.

I concur 100% with Ladislaus observations.

The gentleman Xaviersem speaks in clichés that have long ago been shown to be hollow. Also he is very syrupy, like priests on the 1960's that later went along with the Novus Ordo. Those priests were so optimistic for the new future, having to listen to them was like eating a whole jar of strawberry jelly on top of half a toast. They were naive children, as history has proven.

Plenus Venter · « **Reply #78 on:** March 09, 2019, 04:38:57 AM »

Quote

I don't know how many of you have read the very well-docuмented and widely researched study published by Fr. Pierre Marie of the SSPX on the New rite of episcopal consecration - of course we won't use this rite, it will be in the traditional rite, when 2 new Bishops are Consecrated; but it shows Bp. Huonder is a valid Bishop. Before that study, yes, there were divergent opinions even among SSPX Priests, because the matter was not yet firmly decided. After that, almost any SSPX Priest you speak to will tell you it is valid.

Dear Xaviersem, Fr Pierre Marie's is a theological opinion. The opinion is that the new rite is probably valid. That still leaves a shadow of a doubt as Bishop Williamson refers to in this sermon. Furthermore, in practice, that doubt is further compounded by doubtful ministers, translation, intention... Below is a more recent posting from the Dominicans of Avrille. Take note of footnote 1 the opinion of Fr Calderon, Theology Professor at La Reja. As you say, though, there is a tendency now in the SSPX to simply admit probably valid ordinations/consecrations as certainly valid, all part of the rallying to modernist Rome. Do you not see the danger here? This is extremely grave, it is one of the reasons we 'resist'. When our priests and superiors in Tradition start contradicting what they have previously taught us, that is cause for concern.

Questionable priestly ordinations in the conciliar Church

A letter of Archbishop Lefebvre

[ Editor’s note: In this transcription, we have left unchanged the spelling and style found in the handwritten letter of the Archbishop. ]

Ecône, 28 oct. 1988

Very dear Mr. Wilson,

thank you very much for your kind letter. I agree with your desire to reordain conditionnaly these priests, and I have done this reordination many times.

All sacraments from the modernists bishops or priests are doubtfull now. The changes are increasing and their intentions are no more catholics.

We are in the time of great apostasy.

We need more and more bishops and priests very catholics. It is necessary everywhere in the world.

Thank you for the newspaper article from the Father Alvaro Antonio Perez Jesuit!

We must pray and work hardly to extend the kingdom of Jesus-Christ.

I pray for you and your lovely family.

Devotly in Jesus and Mary.

Marcel Lefebvre

http://www.dominicansavrille.us/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Handwritten-Letter-from-Arch-Lefebvre-necessary-to-conditionally-ordain.jpg

Meg · « **Reply #79 on:** March 09, 2019, 05:39:43 AM »

Quote from: XavierSem on March 09, 2019, 01:07:17 AM

Yes, Meg, I do. There was even an exorcism where it was said, "After a long struggle, Econe will triumph." Archbishop Lefebvre always believed the Good Lord had specially chosen a Society of traditional Priests who would contribute toward building an Army for Christ our King in this world. That's what the SSPX has done and is still doing. And all alleged reports of its demise, I regret to announce, are premature. Some people here strike me as waiting for somebody's funeral, but, thank God, that will never come! I hate to be the messenger of unpleasant news, but the SSPX is alive and well, and the future for Catholic Tradition in the Church looks good.

The SSPX does provide the traditional sacraments. That is still alive and well. But they cannot build an army of Christ if they are afraid to proclaim the Truth. And they are afraid. Tradition cannot be restored by only providing the Latin Mass and traditional sacraments. The Latin Mass cannot save anyone, or the Church. The Truth saves. When God's rights are proclaimed, and error denounced, then the SSPX might have a chance to restore tradition. But they've given up on that in order to be "liked."

They cannot restore tradition without fighting for the Truth. And they don't do that anymore. Modernism has to be fought against, but the SSPX has forgotten what that means. They have given up the battle that +ABL fought for.

They aren't much different than the FSSP, and you'll notice that the FSSP hasn't restored tradition in the conciliar church.

You have come up with all sorts of ways in which tradition will be restored if the SSPX reconciles. But they are pie-in-the-sky methods which don't include denouncing error (the errors of the Modernists) Your methods aren't based on reality. Until the SSPX goes back to using the methods of Archbishop Lefebvre, they will not be able to come close to restoring tradition. They will only be the FSSP Part ll.

Nishant Xavier · « **Reply #80 on:** March 09, 2019, 11:19:51 AM »

Dear Plenus Venter, thanks for your response. I know the son of the Mr. Wilson to whom you refer. In my opinion, Plenus, we cannot go wrong by accepting the praxis of our Bishops and Superiors on this; it should be noted that, as you say, defect of intention and so on can crop in, Fr. Pierre Marie's study admits this, and thus a careful background investigation into the concerned candidate is generally carried out. The Bishops and Priests of the Society would discuss together what to do about it, and then go ahead, and imho, it's almost inconceivable that they in their collective wisdom could make a mistake on such a matter. If grave positive doubts were present, and especially if it was requested, there would be conditional consecration. But I think we as lay faithful Catholics would do well to accept their judgment.

Just passing through now and don't intend to answer Meg and others right away. I'll just post an excerpt from the new rite in the text of St. Hippolytus, which effectively depends on an eastern rite still in use, and thus we can assure ourselves, is in itself certainly valid.

"Let the bishop be ordained after he has been chosen by all the people. When he has been named and shall please all, let him, with the presbytery and such bishops as may be present, assemble with the people on a Sunday. While all give their consent, the bishops shall lay their hands upon him, and the presbytery shall stand by in silence. All indeed shall keep silent, praying in their heart for the descent of the Spirit. Then one of the bishops who are present shall, at the request of all, lay his hand on him who is [to be] ordained bishop, and shall pray as follows, saying:

‘God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Father of mercies and God of all comfort, who dwellest on high yet hast respect to the lowly, who knowest all things before they come to pass. Thou hast appointed the borders of thy church by the word of thy grace, predestinating from the beginning the righteous race of Abraham. And making them princes and priests, and leaving not thy sanctuary without a ministry, thou hast from the beginning of the world been well pleased to be glorified among those whom thou hast chosen. Pour forth now that power, which is thine, of Thy Principal Spirit, which thou gavest to thy beloved Servant Jesus Christ, which he bestowed on his holy apostles, who established the church in every place, the church which thou hast sanctified unto unceasing glory and praise of thy name. Thou who knowest the hearts of all, grant to this thy servant, whom thou hast chosen to be bishop, [to feed thy holy flock] and to serve as thy high priest without blame, ministering night and day, to propitiate thy countenance without ceasing and to offer thee the gifts of thy holy church. And by the Spirit of high-priesthood to have authority to remit sins according to thy commandment, to assign the lots according to thy precept, to loose every bond according to the authority which thou gavest to thy apostles, and to please thee in meekness and purity of heart, offering to thee an odour of sweet savour. Through thy Servant Jesus Christ our Lord, through whom be to thee glory, might, honour, with [the] Holy Spirit in [the] holy church, both now and always and world without end. Amen'." (The Apostolic Tradition of St. Hyppolitus).

Mention is made of high Priests [summus sacerdos] and the Spirit of High Priesthood in the rite, which is just another term sacred Tradition, the Fathers and ancient liturgies use for the Episcopacy. By analogy with the three grades of order that existed in ancient Israel, the Deacons are Levites, simple Priests are Priests and Bishops are high Priests. This analogy is pointed out often by the Church Fathers. It is clear in the rite above that the specific grace of the Spirit of the High Priesthood or the Episcopal Authority given to the Apostles is being conferred. It is not doubtful that high Priesthood is univocal. Simple Priests are not High Priests. Moreover, is it doubtful that the Apostles were Bishops? No.

Part of the problems here are antiquarianism, and also a desire for ecuмenism with the East. That is sufficient to not use the rite. But it doesn't matter how much or how far the ecuмenists look in antiquity, or in the East, they won't be able to find an invalid rite, without minimal significations of the episcopacy at least.

Here's Fr. Pierre Marie's original study for those who wish to pursue their inquiry further: http://sspx.org/en/validity-new-rite-episcopal-consecrations

"Let us note in passing that these two rites are perfectly Catholic ... To assure ourselves of the validity of Pope Paul VI’s rite, it will suffice for us to place side by side the new consecratory prayer and the two Eastern rites in question. The validity of these two rites can in no wise be called into question, otherwise the Coptic Church (Catholic as well as Orthodox) and the Syrian Church (which includes the Maronites) would have neither bishops nor priests, nor would they ever have had them. We have prepared a four-column comparison (refer Table 3: Four-column comparison of 1968 edition with Hippolytus text, Coptic and Maronite Rites) with, in order from left to right, Pope Paul VI’s new consecratory prayer,[77] the Latin version of the Apostolic Tradition [i.e., “of Hippolytus”—Ed.],[78] the Coptic rite, and the Syrian rite. For the latter two texts we have used the Denzinger translation.[79] With the four prayers transcribed into the same language, the comparison is made easy." See Table 3 http://sspx.org/en/table-3-validity-new-episcopal-consecrations

Stanley N · « **Reply #81 on:** March 09, 2019, 11:32:26 AM »

Quote from: Meg on March 09, 2019, 05:39:43 AM

They aren't much different than the FSSP, and you'll notice that the FSSP hasn't restored tradition in the conciliar church.

To be fair, the FSSP has agreed to some things the SSPX has not.

One of the big ones, in my opinion, is the view on the new Mass. FSSP clergy sign a statement that includes, among other things, agreeing to the "valitudinem" (health, wellness) of the new Mass.

This is much much more than agreeing to the "validitatem" (validity) of the new Mass (according to the typical edition, in Latin, etc.) that the Archbishop seemed to agree to at least at one point.

By saying the new Mass is "healthy", the FSSP is in principle saying that there's nothing really wrong with the new Mass, though they may think the old Mass is "better". That's hardly a position from which to restore tradition.

Meg · « **Reply #82 on:** March 09, 2019, 11:55:07 AM »

Quote from: Stanley N on March 09, 2019, 11:32:26 AM

To be fair, the FSSP has agreed to some things the SSPX has not.

One of the big ones, in my opinion, is the view on the new Mass. FSSP clergy sign a statement that includes, among other things, agreeing to the "valitudinem" (health, wellness) of the new Mass.

This is much much more than agreeing to the "validitatem" (validity) of the new Mass (according to the typical edition, in Latin, etc.) that the Archbishop seemed to agree to at least at one point.

By saying the new Mass is "healthy", the FSSP is in principle saying that there's nothing really wrong with the new Mass, though they may think the old Mass is "better". That's hardly a position from which to restore tradition.

Yes, you are right. Though I think that there may be many clergy in the FSSP who really can't stand the New Mass, but they have to keep quiet about it. At least the SSPX does, at times, still speak out against the New Mass. That's a good thing, of course. But they rarely speak out against Modernism.

On the other hand, at the local SSPX chapel here, the laity stand during the Agnus Dei and Sanctus at a High Mass (which appears to be in keeping with the practice in the New Mass). But....the local FSSP still kneel during the Angus Dei and Sanctus. What are we to make of that?

hollingsworth · « **Reply #83 on:** March 09, 2019, 02:49:33 PM »

What happens on CI topics all too often is a digression into other discussion areas, often unrelated, which the original OP never introduced or hardly anticipated. It always opens the way for crazies like Plenus Ventor to attach reams and reams of ridiculous off-topic links(?), in an effort, I guess, to make some elusive point. I think, maybe, that PV is simply a nut. But he is the kind of nut who seems to show up whenever the real topic at hand has gone wobbly and strayed.

Xavier Sem is another of these individual who inserts himself predictably. Never at a loss for words and lots of them. Personally, I don’t care a nickle that XS supports the SSPX and believes it to be the chief tool in God’s arsenal to restore the Church. I just dismiss it all as nonsense and move on.
Yet several CI members, however, seem always to fall for the bait. They actively engage XS, having really no knowledge about this individual. Is he, for example, a male of 6, 16, or 60? Is he even a male of the specie. Who are his connections? Is he, perhaps, an sspx seminary student? A priest of the Society? An employee in Menzingen or Kansas City? How exactly is he connected to the Society, if at all? What are his credentials? His level of education? Or, is he just a troll having a bit of fun with gullible folks who enjoy delivering wordy responses?

I doubt that XS will ever reveal his true identity, unless he did this elsewhere. I am not aware that he did. Why should he? He’s having too good a time as it is. Why possibly ruin the attention focused upon himself. Why give up anonymity? It could jeopardize the dubious reputation which he presently seems to enjoy. It might turn away otherwise eager interlocutors who presently engage him.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #84 on:** March 09, 2019, 03:33:53 PM »

Quote from: XavierSem on March 09, 2019, 01:16:48 AM

Well, Mr. Ladislaus, I don't have to justify my choice to anyone; but let me explain. I believe the SSPX is the best Fraternity for Catholic Tradition by far - doesn't mean I think the FSSP, the ICK and other Indult groups are bad or non-Catholic, I don't. The SSPX has a special role to play in Church Restoration. As of Spring 2017, beside others not mentioned, the Society had Priests : 612 Seminarians : 204 Pre-seminarians : 36 SSPX Brothers : 116 working around the world and around the clock for the salvation of souls worldwide. Why should I choose any other Fraternity? It's not a case of good or bad, but of the SSPX being better and the best.

Really? You prefer SSPX over FSSP due to the size of their organization? I was asking specifically with a view to their respective theological positions. Why is the theological position/status of the SSPX better than that of FSSP? By answering this way, you're demonstrating that you have no other reason for your preference than personal taste. Consequently, people like you are in fact schismatic for refusing full communion with the Church when you have no reasons in conscience to prevent you from going with FSSP. Dear God, I would never break communion with the Church for reasons this superficial. You're the kind of seminarian SSPX was trying to draw with their fancy new seminary.

So you cite alleged Eucharistic miracles and words purportedly uttered during some exorcism as theological proofs for your "positions" ... such as they are?

Lord, please deliver us from the priests who derive their "principles" from emotional considerations (feel-good pseudo-revelation and the coolness of the seminary). We're in a world of trouble.

Matthew · « **Reply #85 on:** March 09, 2019, 05:07:57 PM »

Quote from: XavierSem on March 09, 2019, 01:07:17 AM

Yes, Meg, I do. There was even an exorcism where it was said, "After a long struggle, Econe will triumph."

An exorcism? really? And you believe the devil why? He's called the father of lies for a reason, you know. Only if God forces him will he say anything truthful or helpful to the triumph of God's kingdom. By default he is the great deceiver.

You need to go back to the seminary.

The devil is an angelic intellect, not God. The devil, having an angelic intellect, seems very advanced compared to us. But he's not all-knowing like God. The devil is not capable of prophecy.

Let me clue you in:
One of the limits on the devil's abilities is that he can't predict anything hinging on human Free Will (we can surprise the devil. yes, really!) or the inner plans of God's Providence. He also can't read our innermost heart.

God, meanwhile, is behind true prophecy because He knows the future, even things dependent on dozens of humans' Free Will. He knows what everyone will choose. And yet our will is still free! It is metaphysically impossible to surprise God.

The devil just understands the physical world intimately, knowing the laws of physics (etc.) intuitively, because he has an angelic intellect. As for predicting what humans will do, he is nothing more than a really well-informed, good guesser.

P.S. I've read dozens of Lives of the Saints, so I know loosely where you're getting this idea from. In various cases, the devil has been constrained by God to admit this or that about his tactics, the way he operates, truths of the Catholic Faith, the Real Presence, etc. But the devil can't be forced to prophesy, because he doesn't have the ability to see the future. That's how I know that the story is NONSENSE (to put it politely) -- wherever you read it from.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #86 on:** March 09, 2019, 06:09:22 PM »

Quote

The SSPX has a special role to play in Church Restoration.

This is just pure sentimentalism, with no basis in Church History. Sure, throughout the ages, certain Saints and religious organizations played a role in turning the tide against heresy but these individuals and orders did not restore the Church; God did, through providing a good pope and the hierarchy. And those saints/orgs that helped during those faith-less time periods did 3 things consistantly:

1. Waged utter, all-out war against heresy and lukewarmness and error.
2. Preached spiritual goals, penance and conversion to sanctity.
3. Usually, in a temporal sense, had all kinds of failures, obstacles to success and attackers of all kinds, including from within the Church.

Think of the non-compromising, multiple-times excommunicated St Athanasius against Arianism; the preaching of St Dominic on the Rosary against the Albigensians (who tried to kill him); the loss of titles, friends and wealth of St Thomas More; the contradictions and sufferings of St Margaret Mary and the Sacred Heart; the challenges, perils and death threats against St Patrick; etc, etc, etc.

Does the new-sspx have obstacles from new-rome anymore? Are they facing persecution for protecting the Faith? Are they in a fight to save the Truth against the enemies in rome? No, no, and no. In fact, the new-sspx now boasts that they are being "friendly" with new-rome. How can you be friends with a person who wants to destroy what you love? Either you don't really love what you say you do (i.e. Truth and the Church), or you're just tired of fighting and you want a nice, easy life. Either way, you're a hypocrite and a wimp.

Does the new-sspx preach against V2 and the new mass as they used to do? Do they preach against Modernism and all its heresies, without compromise? Do they condemn V2 as an ambigious time-bomb of crappy theology and protestantized catholicity? No, they do not. Not anymore. Instead, +Fellay and friends preach that V2 is 95% ok and "only" 5% wrong.

Would you give a child a coca-cola with "only" 5% of anti-freeze in it? I hope not, cause they'd die very quickly.

Nishant Xavier · « **Reply #87 on:** March 10, 2019, 12:46:24 AM »

Quote from: Matthew

P.S. I've read dozens of Lives of the Saints, so I know loosely where you're getting this idea from. In various cases, the devil has been constrained by God to admit this or that about his tactics, the way he operates, truths of the Catholic Faith, the Real Presence, etc.

Great. I'm sure, Matthew, you'll remember the famous one in the life of St. Dominic, then, when the demons were compelled against their will to bear witness to the Power of the Holy Rosary and the Blessed Mother's intervention, "Oh you who are our enemy, our downfall and our destruction, why have you come from Heaven just to torture us so grievously? O Advocate of sinners, you who snatch them from the very jaws of Hell, you who are the very sure path to Heaven, must we, in spite of ourselves, tell the whole truth and confess before everyone who it is who is the cause of our shame and our ruin? Oh woe unto us, princes of darkness: "Then listen well, you Christians: the Mother of Jesus Christ is all-powerful and she can save her servants from falling into Hell. She is the Sun which destroys the darkness of our wiles and subtlety. It is she who uncovers our hidden plots, breaks our snares and makes our temptations useless and ineffectual ... "Now that we are forced to speak we must also tell you this: nobody who perseveres in saying the Rosary will be damned, because she obtains for her servants the grace of true contrition for their sins and by means of this they obtain God's forgiveness and mercy." Then Saint Dominic had them all say the Rosary very slowly and with great devotion, and a wonderful thing happened: at each Hail Mary that he and the people said together a large group of devils issued forth from the wretched man's body under the guise of red-hot coals." http://www.catholictradition.org/Classics/secret-rosary33.htm

Quote

But the devil can't be forced to prophesy, because he doesn't have the ability to see the future.

I agree with what you said about the devil's limited angelic intellect and lack of full knowledge, but I disagree with your conclusion; for the simple reason that God often, for the further shame and humiliation of the enemies of the Truth, tells them in a general way (not in a specific way, with more details, like some of the inspired prophesies in Scripture) what will happen. The devils know Mary is going to crush them in the future, as God showed them long ago. And thus it is not unlikely God could have told them the SSPX will play a major part in Restoration. Here's a Priest who had 35 years of experience in exorcism from about a 100 years ago, who relates to us similar things, ""MARY CRUSHES THE SERPENT -30 Years of Experiences As An Exorcist Told In His Own Words" --Sequel to “Begone Satan”. Edited by Rev. Theodore Geiger. Translated: by Rev. Celestine Kapsner, O.S.B. This article contains some excerpts from an old booklet “Mary Crushes the Serpent”, originally distributed by Keefe's Catholic Gift Shop, 372 Selby Avenue, St. Paul, Minn. 55102 and obtainable on the internet for $3.00 from Spirit Daily here. The booklet was written under obedience by a German priest who was an exorcist for over 30 years; from 1874 to his holy death in 1909. The booklet was begun after his first 25 years of experience." http://www.mysticsofthechurch.com/2010/09/mary-crushes-serpent-virgin-marys-role.html

Mr. Ladislaus, would you like to address the examples of how Sacramental rites can be weakened by omitting prayers that pertain to integrity, while the essential form remains intact so that, the sacramental effect, however weakly, is still conferred? Can you explain what would happens in all Baptisms for example, if everything else was omitted, and only the "I baptize you in the Name of the Father ..." was used? I think you will agree loss of reverence for the Sacrament eventually and abundant loss of other graces will be consequent upon this. So why object when we appeal to a similar principle? I think you're just continuing your favorite R&R bashing activity.

It is a matter of little consequence to some of you apparently that, while there may already be potentially as many as 10,000 Mass Centres worldwide who would love to have the Traditional Mass every Sunday or even daily, not even all traditionalist orders together are able to do this for them: and yet we say we care about the salvation of souls and about that only. Do we really? You can do as you choose, Mr. Ladislaus. I reject your strawmen and your insinuations that the SSPX are not Catholic or not in full communion or whatever. I have every confidence in Bp. Fellay and Fr. Pagliarani to lead and represent the cause of Catholic Tradition worldwide and in Rome.

This is from Rorate Caeli: https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2019/02/around-5000-priests-currently-celebrate.html what is the gravest and most urgent need of the hour is many tens of thousands of more Priests worldwide who will celebrate the Tridentine Mass.

That which someone said earlier, "the Conciliar Church is so many LOST SHEEP: let's get ourselves in there and help them straighten it out" is a perfectly legitimate approach and imho is the correct one, Ladislaus. You can disagree if you want. We'll see 10 years from now.

Mr. Hollingsworth, you can enjoy yourself saying anything you like about me, as you are doing! If you really want to know any details about me, ask me and I will tell you: either on the forum or in a PM. I am a pre-seminarian in the SSPX. I have no idea why my height is important. It's about 5'11, close to 180 cm, for your information. Anyway, Important matters like validity of episcopal consecrations cannot, I'm afraid, be treated of in some 40 words, as you seem to wish. Whether or not Bp. Huonder is a valid Bishop is, of course, relevant to the thread topic and the conversation. So that brings us back to Fr. Marie's study and the new rite of episcopal consecration.

Meg and Pax Vobis, can you explain to me where, in the below interview I gave earlier from Bp. Fellay in 2015, His Excellency has been unwilling to combat errors? Bp. Fellay imho continues to do that courageously; it's just that he also has supernatural hope in doing so.

Quote

More than ever, on this feast day of November 21st, which for us is a major anniversary of the Declaration by Archbishop Lefebvre in 1974—a veritable charter for our battle for the Church of all ages—let us maintain a Catholic attitude in all circuмstances, whatever the difficulties and trials may be. Let us have the mind of the Church, let us be faithful to Our Lord, let us remain devoted to his Holy Sacrifice, to his teachings, to his examples. Yesterday I read that Cardinal Müller, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, feared a “protestantization of the Church”. He is right. But what is the new Mass, if not a protestantization of the Mass of all time? And what are we to think about the Pope who, like his predecessors, goes to a Lutheran church? When we see how the five hundredth anniversary of the Protestant Reformation in 2017 is being prepared, how the figure of Luther is now saluted, although he was one of the major heresiarchs and schismatics in history, ferociously opposed to the Roman Catholic Church, it is enough to make you lose heart! Truly, Archbishop Lefebvre saw correctly when he said that “the only attitude of fidelity to the Church and to Catholic doctrine, for our salvation, is the categorical refusal to accept the Reformation,” because between Luther’s reform and the one undertaken by Vatican II there is more than one point in common. And with him, we say again that, “without any rebellion, bitterness, or resentment, we pursue our work of priestly formation under the guidance of the never-changing Magisterium, convinced as we are that we cannot possibly render a greater service to the Holy Catholic Church, to the Sovereign Pontiff, and to posterity.”

You understand this very well, dear friends and benefactors of the Society of St. Pius X. Your fervent prayers, your admirable generosity, and your constant devotion are for us an invaluable support. Thanks to you, the work of Archbishop Lefebvre is developing everywhere. With all my heart I thank you for this.

We pray to Our Lady to obtain for you all the graces that you need. We ask the Good Lord to grant you His blessings for you and your families, so that you may prepare for the great feast of Christmas by a holy Advent, and that you may entrust the coming year, with its joys and crosses, to our Mother in Heaven."

On the Feast of the Presentation of the Blessed Virgin, November 21, 2015
+ Bernard Fellay

Plenus Venter · « **Reply #88 on:** March 10, 2019, 01:11:47 AM »

Quote

What happens on CI topics all too often is a digression into other discussion areas, often unrelated, which the original OP never introduced or hardly anticipated. It always opens the way for crazies like Plenus Ventor to attach reams and reams of ridiculous off-topic links(?), in an effort, I guess, to make some elusive point. I think, maybe, that PV is simply a nut. But he is the kind of nut who seems to show up whenever the real topic at hand has gone wobbly and strayed.

Dear Hollingsworth, I see that you are a senior member. I am surprised by such an attack. We should treat others online just as we would treat them in person. I recommend to you the latest Eleison Comments.
Perhaps I am a nut. I don't know anything about you either, whether you are 4 years old, 40 or 80. Does it matter? Tell us all about yourself if you wish. We are here, please God, to help each other get to Heaven, to help others see through the confusion occasioned by Bishop Fellay's steering the SSPX on a dangerous course that puts souls in danger.
I don't believe my posting was a digression. It relates directly to episcopal consecrations. It even quotes Fr Calderon on this topic whom Bishop Williamson refers to in his sermon as being in his opinion the best theologian in the Society.
Furthermore, when Xaviersem directly contradicts what BW tells us in this sermon, that there is a shadow of a doubt with the new form of episcopal consecration, by stating that it is certainly valid, should we not highlight the error? When it comes to the sacraments, no doubt is acceptable, we must have certainty. This has serious implications for souls, particularly in the context of the current crisis in Tradition.
I apologise that for some reason my copy and paste went horribly wrong and half of the article did not appear. But is that reason to attack someone? I will try again posting the remainder of the article from Avrille which did not appear.
Again, I draw attention particularly to footnote 1:

[font=&quot,serif]Commentary[/font][/color][/u]

[font=&quot,serif]Archbishop Lefebvre relies on two principal arguments to assert that the new sacraments, especially ordinations, are henceforth questionable:[/font][/color]

·        [font=&quot,serif]the evolution of the rites;[/font][/color][/b]

·        [font=&quot,serif]and the defect in intention.[/font][/color][/b]

[font=&quot,serif] [/font][/color]

[font=&quot,serif]The new rites of the sacraments promulgated by the conciliar Church, promulgated in the typical editions in Latin, are probably valid[/font][/color][/b][font=&quot,serif] [/font][/color]^{[font=&quot,serif]1[/font]}[/color][/sup][font=&quot,serif]. But that does not prevent numerous sacraments from being invalid in practice, for the two reasons quoted above.[/font][/color]

[font=&quot,serif]Archbishop Lefebvre said that in his opinion a great number of new masses were invalid – while admitting the validity of the new rite in itself.[/font][/color]

[font=&quot,serif] [/font][/color]

[font=&quot,serif]Bp Tissier de Mallerais[/font][/color][/b][font=&quot,serif], in his sermon from June 29, 2016 at Econe, spoke as follows concerning the rite of ordination for priests:[/font][/color]

[font=&quot,serif]“Clearly, we cannot accept this faked new rite of ordination that leaves doubts concerning the validity of numerous ordinations done according to the new rite[/font][/color][/b][font=&quot,serif]. [/font][/color][/i][font=&quot,serif]Thus this new rite of ordination is not Catholic. And so we will of course faithfully continue to transmit the real and valid priesthood by the traditional priestly rite of ordination.”[/font][/color]

[font=&quot,serif] [/font][/color]

[font=&quot,serif] [/font][/color]

[font=&quot,serif]In an article that appeared in Le Sel de la terre 54 on the subject of the validity of the new rite of episcopal consecration, after showing that the rite in itself is probably valid, we added:“Due to the generalized disorder, both at the liturgical and dogmatic levels, we can have serious reasons to doubt the validity of certain episcopal ordinations.”[/font][/color]

[font=&quot,serif]And we quoted the remarks of Archbishop Lefebvre on the subject of the episcopal consecration of Bp Daneels, auxiliary bishop of Brussels: “Little booklets were published on the occasion of this consecration. For the public prayers, here is what was said and repeated by the crowd: Be an apostle like Peter and Paul; be an apostle like the patron of this parish; be an apostle like Gandhi; be an apostle like Luther; be an apostle like (Martin) Luther King; be an apostle like Helder Camara; be an apostle like Romero.Apostle like Luther, but what intention did the bishops have when they consecrated this bishop, Bp. Daneels[/font][/color]^{[font=&quot,serif]2[/font]}[/color][/sup][font=&quot,serif]?”“It is frightening…Was this bishop really consecrated? We can doubt it anyway. And if that is the intention of the consecrators, it is incomprehensible! The situation is even more serious than we thought[/font][/color][/i]^{[font=&quot,serif]3[/font]}[/color][/sup][font=&quot,serif].”[/font][/color][/i]

[font=&quot,serif]We could quote numerous examples of sacraments given in the conciliar Church that were certainly invalid: confirmations given without using holy oils; baptisms where one person pours the water, while another pronounces the words, etc[/font][/color]^{[font=&quot,serif]4[/font]}[/color][/sup][font=&quot,serif].[/font][/color]

[font=&quot,serif]This is why the position of Archbishop Lefebvre in the letter that we have quoted here, appears wise: because of the particular importance of the sacrament of ordination, it is necessary to conditionally re-ordain the priests who come from the conciliar Church to the Traditional one.[/font][/color][/b]

[font=&quot,serif](Taken from “Le Sel de la terre” 98)[/font][/color]

[font=&quot,serif] [/font][/color]

[font=&quot,serif]1.    1. [/font][/color][font=&quot,serif]We can make an exception for the new rite of Confirmation that permits the use of oils other than olive oil, which introduces a doubt concerning the validity, by reason of a defect of matter. We also point out that Fr Alvaro Calderon (SSPX), in the Spanish language review Si Si No No (#267, November 2014), speaks of a “slight doubt,” a “shadow” concerning the validity of the new rite of episcopal consecration in itself (see Le Sel de la terre 92, p. 172).[/font][/color]

[font=&quot,serif]2.    2. [/font][/color][font=&quot,serif]Archbishop Lefebvre, Conference in Nantes (France), February 5, 1983.[/font][/color]

[font=&quot,serif]3.    3. [/font][/color][font=&quot,serif]Archbishop Lefebvre, Conference in Ecône (Switzerland), October 28, 1988.[/font][/color]

[font=&quot,serif]4.    4. [/font][/color][font=&quot,serif]We take this occasion to ask our readers who have knowledge of sacraments that are certainly invalid (notably baptism) to kindly send us their testimony.[/font][/color]

Meg · « **Reply #89 on:** March 10, 2019, 10:03:26 AM »

Quote from: XavierSem on March 10, 2019, 12:46:24 AM

Meg and Pax Vobis, can you explain to me where, in the below interview I gave earlier from Bp. Fellay in 2015, His Excellency has been unwilling to combat errors? Bp. Fellay imho continues to do that courageously; it's just that he also has supernatural hope in doing so.
Quote
More than ever, on this feast day of November 21st, which for us is a major anniversary of the Declaration by Archbishop Lefebvre in 1974—a veritable charter for our battle for the Church of all ages—let us maintain a Catholic attitude in all circuмstances, whatever the difficulties and trials may be. Let us have the mind of the Church, let us be faithful to Our Lord, let us remain devoted to his Holy Sacrifice, to his teachings, to his examples. Yesterday I read that Cardinal Müller, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, feared a “protestantization of the Church”. He is right. But what is the new Mass, if not a protestantization of the Mass of all time? And what are we to think about the Pope who, like his predecessors, goes to a Lutheran church? When we see how the five hundredth anniversary of the Protestant Reformation in 2017 is being prepared, how the figure of Luther is now saluted, although he was one of the major heresiarchs and schismatics in history, ferociously opposed to the Roman Catholic Church, it is enough to make you lose heart! Truly, Archbishop Lefebvre saw correctly when he said that “the only attitude of fidelity to the Church and to Catholic doctrine, for our salvation, is the categorical refusal to accept the Reformation,” because between Luther’s reform and the one undertaken by Vatican II there is more than one point in common. And with him, we say again that, “without any rebellion, bitterness, or resentment, we pursue our work of priestly formation under the guidance of the never-changing Magisterium, convinced as we are that we cannot possibly render a greater service to the Holy Catholic Church, to the Sovereign Pontiff, and to posterity.”

You understand this very well, dear friends and benefactors of the Society of St. Pius X. Your fervent prayers, your admirable generosity, and your constant devotion are for us an invaluable support. Thanks to you, the work of Archbishop Lefebvre is developing everywhere. With all my heart I thank you for this.

We pray to Our Lady to obtain for you all the graces that you need. We ask the Good Lord to grant you His blessings for you and your families, so that you may prepare for the great feast of Christmas by a holy Advent, and that you may entrust the coming year, with its joys and crosses, to our Mother in Heaven."

On the Feast of the Presentation of the Blessed Virgin, November 21, 2015
+ Bernard Fellay

Can you provide a link to the above communication of Bp. Fellay? I would like to see the entirety of the communication.

You mentioned that it's an interview, but Bp. Fellay looks to be addressing "friends and benefactors." I'm confused as to what sort of communication it is. Is it an interview, or is it a communication to friends and benefactors?

Author Topic: Bp. Huonder to consecrate 2 Bishops for SSPX (Read 9238 times)

Nishant Xavier

Re: Bp. Huonder to consecrate 2 Bishops for SSPX

Nishant Xavier

Re: Bp. Huonder to consecrate 2 Bishops for SSPX

Last Tradhican

Re: Bp. Huonder to consecrate 2 Bishops for SSPX

Plenus Venter

Re: Bp. Huonder to consecrate 2 Bishops for SSPX

Meg

Re: Bp. Huonder to consecrate 2 Bishops for SSPX

Nishant Xavier

Re: Bp. Huonder to consecrate 2 Bishops for SSPX

Stanley N

Re: Bp. Huonder to consecrate 2 Bishops for SSPX

Meg

Re: Bp. Huonder to consecrate 2 Bishops for SSPX

hollingsworth

Re: Bp. Huonder to consecrate 2 Bishops for SSPX

Ladislaus

Re: Bp. Huonder to consecrate 2 Bishops for SSPX

Matthew

Re: Bp. Huonder to consecrate 2 Bishops for SSPX

Pax Vobis

Re: Bp. Huonder to consecrate 2 Bishops for SSPX

Nishant Xavier

Re: Bp. Huonder to consecrate 2 Bishops for SSPX

Plenus Venter

Re: Bp. Huonder to consecrate 2 Bishops for SSPX

Meg

Re: Bp. Huonder to consecrate 2 Bishops for SSPX