Author Topic: Bp. Zendejas's Apostolic Mission?  (Read 2827 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Last Tradhican

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4794
  • Reputation: +2493/-1411
  • Gender: Male
Re: Bp. Zendejas's Apostolic Mission?
« Reply #60 on: April 07, 2021, 09:52:12 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • But the SSPX doesn't do this as a rule.
    True, but they too will covert from their ways.
    The Vatican II church - Assisting Souls to Hell Since 1962

    For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect. Mat 24:24

    Offline MiserereMei

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 110
    • Reputation: +49/-10
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Bp. Zendejas's Apostolic Mission?
    « Reply #61 on: April 07, 2021, 10:00:08 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Yes, you would have to start earlier than 1988, because after 1988, you have no support from Lefebvre for your position.

    But let me ask you this:

    When someone asks you what St. Augustine taught, do you cite/argue from his early Tractates, or do you cite his later Retractates (which contain his final and matured teachings on the same matters)?

    Every honest writer who wanted to present the saint’s teaching would only cite from the latter.

    Same thing with Lefebvre:

    Returning to earlier positions he later amended, in order to find support for the ralliement, is simply dishonest.
    Perfectly said! 
    Also, for Xavier, the Society is not a bishopric or diocese. Mgr. Lefevbre being in the middle of the battle and his wisdom, had his reasons for not having a bishop as Superior.


    Offline SoldierofCtK

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 203
    • Reputation: +209/-25
    • Gender: Male
      • YouTube Channel
    Re: Bp. Zendejas's Apostolic Mission?
    « Reply #62 on: April 07, 2021, 10:26:57 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Not to derail the thread further, but adding to the point of a priest being the superior of a bishop: wasn't Fr. Schmidberger the Superior General while +ABL was alive, since 1982?
    +J.M.J.+

    Fides Ex Auditu - Faith Comes From Hearing
    YouTube - SoldierofCtK

    Offline Matthew

    • Mod
    • *****
    • Posts: 25664
    • Reputation: +22226/-297
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Bp. Zendejas's Apostolic Mission?
    « Reply #63 on: April 07, 2021, 01:14:45 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Not to derail the thread further, but adding to the point of a priest being the superior of a bishop: wasn't Fr. Schmidberger the Superior General while +ABL was alive, since 1982?
    Yes he was.
    Feeling generous? Want to say "thank you"? Feel free to send gifts from my Amazon wishlist!
    https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

    Start Amazon.com session by clicking this link, and my family and I get a commission on your purchase!

    Furthermore, I consider that Vatican II must be destroyed.

    Offline MiserereMei

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 110
    • Reputation: +49/-10
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Bp. Zendejas's Apostolic Mission?
    « Reply #64 on: April 07, 2021, 04:19:50 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Perfectly said!
    Also, for Xavier, the Society is not a bishopric or diocese. Mgr. Lefevbre being in the middle of the battle and his wisdom, had his reasons for not having a bishop as Superior.
    Someone correct me if I'm wrong... the bishops were supposed to have some kind of "political independence" from the Society in order to attend the needs of other communities (communautés amies) like, at that time, Morgon, Avrillé, independent priests, etc.


    Offline Shrewd Operator

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 54
    • Reputation: +34/-4
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Bp. Zendejas's Apostolic Mission?
    « Reply #65 on: April 07, 2021, 09:16:54 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0

  • The resistance being granted any jurisdiction, or any other gift, from Francis would actually make Francis look more legitimate and make the Resistance more suspect.

    It's like receiving, or asking for, permission from Evil to do, or be, Good.

    Who WANTS an agreement with a Pachamama pusher, or needs it, to be true Fishers of Men?
     
    Xavier:
    By divine law, SO, Ordinary Jurisdiction can only be granted through the Pope, as the Resistance agrees. Since there are advantages to having Ordinary Jurisdiction, we hold our Bishops have a right to obtain it. Why was it ok to found a canonically regular society in 1970?

    Why was it ok to almost approach full normalization in 1988? Even after 1988, the Society has often sought canonical normalization before 2012. Bishop Fellay said something like Apostolic Administration was offered to the Society around 2000. Was that not legitimate?

    God Bless.


    Shrewd Operator:

    I am both glad and sad that you have to ask this and use these particular examples. It's sad you haven't made the observations I will now provide, but I'm glad to point them out for everyone who needs to understand the difference.

    When the Archbishop got permission Official permission to start the society, he obtained legitimacy by legitimate means. He was not acting as a rebel, a schismatic, a modernist, etc. He got a parting gift from a non-modernist about to retire to fight the program of the many modernists who would have instantly accused him of being what they already were; rebels, etc . 

    In 88, the gentle modernists, JP II and Papa Bene, were ready to give ABL anything he wanted as long as he, falling down would adore the Council; or at least agree to stop opposing it openly. He had pretty much accepted the deal when he decided it was NOT OK. It was still a surrender. Attempts at normalization after 88 were then aimed at the opposite goal; get the modernist to admit that the big tent was still big enough to include Tradition somewhere between the clown section and the Muslim quarter. Papa Bene took the deal and offered SP with a disclaimer. The gentle, williamson-free SSPX was ready to come in from the cold through the door of the Hermenutic of Continuity. Everything was going great (not really great because it was still the same old bait and switch) when Bene or, someone in his outfit, again insisted on the old demand of recognizing all the errors of the Council and everything that had happened since. Fellay had to pull back at that point. Ever since then, Francis has continued to move the goal posts and Fellay has been reworking the SSPX to keep it in a position to catch anyone trying to escape the NO and Francis' increasingly blatant infidelity.

    The Archbishop founded the SSPX to save the priesthood. If it was not going to be safe again in his lifetime, that meant consecrating. Jurisdiction was not necessary to keep it going and would only open him up to further accusations. The Traditional bishops SHOULD have jurisdiction, just as they SHOULD be free from modernist attack. Those two problems will have to be solved together at the same time. Until that time we must stick to what ABL told Papa Bene: We cannot work together. We are going in different directions. We are trying to Christianize the world and you are trying to de-Christianize it.

    Offline XavierSem

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2262
    • Reputation: +354/-601
    • Gender: Male
    • Glorious Risen Lord Jesus Christ, Save Us All!
    Re: Bp. Zendejas's Apostolic Mission?
    « Reply #66 on: April 08, 2021, 04:54:33 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!3
  • SO, if +ABL could work in a canonically regular structure in 1970, the SSPX can do so now in 2021. On May 5, 1988, Archbishop Lefebvre signed a protocol for the canonical normalization of the Society: https://fsspx.org/en/protocol-agreement-may-5-1988

    On May 6th, 1988, as documented in the above link, +ABL still said he had signed with "real satisfaction". His main reason for hesitating was the lack of a guarantee of a Catholic Bishop for Tradition. Tradition now has many Catholic Bishops, including 3 with Ordinary Jurisdiction i.e. Apostolic Mission. Hence, the Society said, under Bishop Fellay, "This concrete situation, with the canonical solution that has been proposed, is quite different from that of 1988. And when we compare the arguments that Archbishop Lefebvre made at the time, we conclude that he would not have hesitated to accept what is being proposed to us. Let us not lose our sense of the Church, which was so strong in our venerated founder. "

    +ABL, 1988: "Your Eminence, Yesterday it was with real satisfaction that I put my signature on the Protocol drafted during the preceding days. However, you yourself have witnessed my deep disappointment upon reading the letter that you gave me informing me of the Holy Father’s answer concerning episcopal consecrations ... In the hope that this request shall not be an insurmountable obstacle to the reconciliation in process, please, Your Eminence, accept my respectful and fraternal sentiments in Christo et Maria.
    + Marcel Lefebvre
    Former Archbishop-Bishop of Tulle"

    Sean, LOLOL. What you are asking is worse than Luther and Calvin asking for every Catholic Doctrine to be proved by Sola Scriptura. It is like Deists/Rationalists asking for every Truth to be proved from Christ's Word in the Gospel alone. But even "Sola post 1988" can be met. Can you answer my questions before that: (1) Do you agree with what +ABL said in 1983 about the Nine, or do you consider it now mistaken and retracted? (2) Do you agree with the Nine that Resistance to +ABL was justified and necessary, because of his continued negotiations with Rome? (3) Do you agree with Fr. Cekada (God rest his soul), who said he would have resisted +ABL in 1988?

    +ABL, 1990: "humanly speaking, there is no chance of any agreement between Rome and ourselves at the moment.

    Someone was saying to me yesterday, "But what if Rome accepted your bishops and then you were completely exempted from the other bishops' jurisdiction?" But firstly, they are a long way right now from accepting any such thing, and then, let them first make us such an offer! But I do not think they are anywhere near doing so. For what has been up till now the difficulty has been precisely their giving to us a Traditionalist bishop. They did not want to. It had to be a bishop according to the profile laid down by the Holy See.
    "Profile". You see what that means! Impossible. They knew very well that by giving us a traditional bishop they would be setting up a Traditionalist citadel able to continue. That they did not want. Nor did they give it to the Fraternity of St. Peter."

    From: https://sspx.org/en/two-years-after-consecrations

    So +ABL, post the magical date of 1988, said: "(1) humanly speaking, there appears to be no chance of reconciliation. (2) if Rome accepted +ABL's Bishops for Catholic Tradition and gave them OJ of their own, +ABL would be open to the offer. (3) Rome was quite far from making any such offer at the time. So, in other words, by making such an offer now, Rome has come a long way since then.
    So do you agree with +ABL that the Society can legitimately be open to such an offer coming from the Roman Authorities, or not?

    Re: Priest being Superior. It's fine if the Bishops don't have Jurisdiction. Imho, once Bishops get Apostolic Mission, as the SSPX Bishops now do, as Sean agrees, then they should be Superior. But that's a minor point not related to the broader issue. If Bishop Zendejas had AM, H.E. could command the Priests under him and they would be bound to obey. That's why I hold there are advantages to having AM, and it should be obtained when possible.

    Ladislaus, Sean agrees with Baptism of Desire, as you know. I hold St. Augustine didn't retract BOD but believed all who received Baptism of Desire would also receive Baptism of Water. St. Augustine never denied, for instance, that Cornelius in Acts 10 received BOD.

    God Bless.
    Make this Life Offering to the Twin Hearts of Jesus and Mary today! Don't delay! You can Save Souls!

    (1) All your family members will be saved (2) Your loved ones in Purgatory will be released, and (3) you yourself will not need Purgatory if you make it.
    https://marianapostolate.com/life-offering

    Offline Incredulous

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6310
    • Reputation: +6747/-690
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Bp. Zendejas's Apostolic Mission?
    « Reply #67 on: April 08, 2021, 07:40:54 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0


  • Ladislaus, Sean agrees with Baptism of Desire, as you know. I hold St. Augustine didn't retract BOD but believed all who received Baptism of Desire would also receive Baptism of Water. St. Augustine never denied, for instance, that Cornelius in Acts 10 received BOD.

    God Bless.
    Can anyone provides source for when St. Aquinas retracted his doubts about the Immaculate Conception?
    "Some preachers will keep silence about the truth, and others will trample it underfoot and deny it. Sanctity of life will be held in derision even by those who outwardly profess it, for in those days Our Lord Jesus Christ will send them not a true Pastor but a destroyer."  St. Francis of Assisi


    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8059
    • Reputation: +6022/-1830
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Bp. Zendejas's Apostolic Mission?
    « Reply #68 on: April 08, 2021, 08:51:20 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • SO, if +ABL could work in a canonically regular structure in 1970, the SSPX can do so now in 2021. On May 5, 1988, Archbishop Lefebvre signed a protocol for the canonical normalization of the Society: https://fsspx.org/en/protocol-agreement-may-5-1988

    On May 6th, 1988, as documented in the above link, +ABL still said he had signed with "real satisfaction". His main reason for hesitating was the lack of a guarantee of a Catholic Bishop for Tradition. Tradition now has many Catholic Bishops, including 3 with Ordinary Jurisdiction i.e. Apostolic Mission. Hence, the Society said, under Bishop Fellay, "This concrete situation, with the canonical solution that has been proposed, is quite different from that of 1988. And when we compare the arguments that Archbishop Lefebvre made at the time, we conclude that he would not have hesitated to accept what is being proposed to us. Let us not lose our sense of the Church, which was so strong in our venerated founder. "

    +ABL, 1988: "Your Eminence, Yesterday it was with real satisfaction that I put my signature on the Protocol drafted during the preceding days. However, you yourself have witnessed my deep disappointment upon reading the letter that you gave me informing me of the Holy Father’s answer concerning episcopal consecrations ... In the hope that this request shall not be an insurmountable obstacle to the reconciliation in process, please, Your Eminence, accept my respectful and fraternal sentiments in Christo et Maria.
    + Marcel Lefebvre
    Former Archbishop-Bishop of Tulle"

    Sean, LOLOL. What you are asking is worse than Luther and Calvin asking for every Catholic Doctrine to be proved by Sola Scriptura. It is like Deists/Rationalists asking for every Truth to be proved from Christ's Word in the Gospel alone. But even "Sola post 1988" can be met. Can you answer my questions before that: (1) Do you agree with what +ABL said in 1983 about the Nine, or do you consider it now mistaken and retracted? (2) Do you agree with the Nine that Resistance to +ABL was justified and necessary, because of his continued negotiations with Rome? (3) Do you agree with Fr. Cekada (God rest his soul), who said he would have resisted +ABL in 1988?

    +ABL, 1990: "humanly speaking, there is no chance of any agreement between Rome and ourselves at the moment.

    Someone was saying to me yesterday, "But what if Rome accepted your bishops and then you were completely exempted from the other bishops' jurisdiction?" But firstly, they are a long way right now from accepting any such thing, and then, let them first make us such an offer! But I do not think they are anywhere near doing so. For what has been up till now the difficulty has been precisely their giving to us a Traditionalist bishop. They did not want to. It had to be a bishop according to the profile laid down by the Holy See.
    "Profile". You see what that means! Impossible. They knew very well that by giving us a traditional bishop they would be setting up a Traditionalist citadel able to continue. That they did not want. Nor did they give it to the Fraternity of St. Peter."

    From: https://sspx.org/en/two-years-after-consecrations

    So +ABL, post the magical date of 1988, said: "(1) humanly speaking, there appears to be no chance of reconciliation. (2) if Rome accepted +ABL's Bishops for Catholic Tradition and gave them OJ of their own, +ABL would be open to the offer. (3) Rome was quite far from making any such offer at the time. So, in other words, by making such an offer now, Rome has come a long way since then.
    So do you agree with +ABL that the Society can legitimately be open to such an offer coming from the Roman Authorities, or not?

    Re: Priest being Superior. It's fine if the Bishops don't have Jurisdiction. Imho, once Bishops get Apostolic Mission, as the SSPX Bishops now do, as Sean agrees, then they should be Superior. But that's a minor point not related to the broader issue. If Bishop Zendejas had AM, H.E. could command the Priests under him and they would be bound to obey. That's why I hold there are advantages to having AM, and it should be obtained when possible.

    Ladislaus, Sean agrees with Baptism of Desire, as you know. I hold St. Augustine didn't retract BOD but believed all who received Baptism of Desire would also receive Baptism of Water. St. Augustine never denied, for instance, that Cornelius in Acts 10 received BOD.

    God Bless.

    Nice try, but no cigar:

    1) Your first quote is from prior to the consecrations;

    2) Your second quote wrongly rends and misconstrues Lefebvre as still being willing to negotiate:

    This is a disingenuous hallucination, when in fact Lefebvre’s response (“first, let them make an offer!”) was scoffing at the mere suggestion.  This is obvious from his comment in Spiritual Journey only a few months later (and which he was already writing at the time of this interview), in which he again states collaboration with a conciliar church is impossible.

    And only a few months prior, Lefebvre has explained that Rome must accept the doctrine of the great post-ʀɛʋօʟutιօnary encyclicals (ie.  Rome must convert).

    When Rome converts, we can talk.

    In other words, for your tortured interpretation to be correct, you must introduce incoherence into Lefebvre’s mind (ie., a Lefebvre willing to negotiate with a conciliar Rome, for which it is a strict duty to remain separated), which according to the great accordist, Fr. Celier (“How to Interpret Archbishop Lefebvre”) is not permissible, nor -supposing you were correct in your wrong interpretation- is a stray comment permitted to stand against a consistent and overwhelming body of writings and comments to the contrary, from the time of the consecrations.

    In other words, you are still without any support from Lefebvre for your position.
    Romans 5:20 "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    -I retract any and all statements I have made that are incongruent with the True Faith, and apologize for ever having made them-

    Offline Matthew

    • Mod
    • *****
    • Posts: 25664
    • Reputation: +22226/-297
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Bp. Zendejas's Apostolic Mission?
    « Reply #69 on: April 08, 2021, 10:54:13 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Just like a lukewarm Catholic only needs to see a single priest watching anything on TV as an excuse to maintain one's Netflix subscription and watch ANYTHING it offers, about 2 1/2 hours a day --

    Likewise, for those motivated (by convenience, weakness, human respect, worldliness, lukewarmness) to be "accepted" by the Modern World, to have their convenient Mass, any excuse will do. Any pathetic, false, tortured interpretation of +Lefebvre's words will put their conscience to sleep on the issue.

    They are just looking for an excuse for their compromise. It's that simple. They aren't going to think about it too deeply. It's just something they will shout at their conscience every time it dares to raise its voice to them.

    When it comes right down to it, they are not willing to suffer for Christ, or for the truth. And no, going to an SSPX Mass or being in the SSPX in 2021 does NOT involve suffering, persecution, or any major inconvenience. Maybe in the 1980's SSPX chapels were few and far between, and persecution was everywhere. But not today. The SSPX is practically mainstream accepted now, and there are SSPX Mass centers all over the USA; convenience-wise, it's about 2 steps away from Mass at your local parish. Unless YOU chose to live in some remote wasteland devoid of Tradition (which would be your fault), you can get to an SSPX Mass center pretty easily: for weekly Mass, Holy Days, sometimes even weekdays. It's Vatican II all over again -- "I don't want to give up my regular Mass, so I have to stay. Excuse, excuse..."

    Fortunately for me, my heroes left "the Mass" in the 1970s and for some years had *no* option for Mass, until they found a Traditional chapel. They called the Novus Ordo for what it was: not worth attending, even if it's the only option.

    Furthermore, I consider that Vatican II must be destroyed.
    Feeling generous? Want to say "thank you"? Feel free to send gifts from my Amazon wishlist!
    https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

    Start Amazon.com session by clicking this link, and my family and I get a commission on your purchase!

    Furthermore, I consider that Vatican II must be destroyed.

    Offline Sgt Rock USMC

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 1
    • Reputation: +1/-0
    • Christ the King Militia
    Re: Bp. Zendejas's Apostolic Mission?
    « Reply #70 on: April 08, 2021, 12:16:06 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  •  They called the Novus Ordo for what it was: not worth attending, even if it's the only option.
    Hear, Hear!  

    This sums it all up in a nutshell.  

    Novus Ordo = Not worth attending...full stop.  


    Offline XavierSem

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2262
    • Reputation: +354/-601
    • Gender: Male
    • Glorious Risen Lord Jesus Christ, Save Us All!
    Re: Bp. Zendejas's Apostolic Mission?
    « Reply #71 on: April 08, 2021, 10:10:08 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!2
  • Matthew, Eastern Catholics, under ƈσmmυɳιsm, suffered death and torture rather than be separated from Rome. It was the easiest thing in the world for them to cut themselves off from Rome, remain almost the same, become Orthodox, and just carry on. But they refused to do it, because they know all Catholics, Latin or Eastern, should always strive to remain in communion with Rome. Its not at all worldly to want to be Roman and Catholic. Your understanding of the motivations of Indult Traditionalists is simply mistaken, I'm afraid. We care about communion with Rome.

    As Spork said on another thread, many FSSP Priests are just as pious and fervent, if not more, than SSPX Priests. Many are opposed to having any television in the house at all. I have no tv in my house. Having regular relationship with the Roman Authorities is a completely different thing. And as a purely practical matter, the Resistance is not helping the cause of restoring +ABL's reputation by its attitude toward Rome.

    Incred, I believe some studies have shown St. Thomas, near the end of his life, accepted the Immaculate Conception. I'll try to find them later on.

    Sean, 

    (1) The first quote is still from 1988. +ABL said he hopes for reconciliation between Rome and the SSPX to Cardinal Ratzinger.
    (2) It is your opinion that my second quote is misconstrued. +ABL says, let Rome make an offer, and then we will see.

    Well, guess what, under the same Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, Rome did make such an offer, around 2012. So the SSPX has the right to take it. At the least, our interpretation of Archbishop Lefebvre is just as plausible as yours. Please quote Fr. Celier if you think he said otherwise, I don't think he would have. As you noted, he was an accordist. And if we expand it to before 1988, it is completely unambiguous.

    Regarding doctrine, I agree completely. I am for at least four doctrinal proposals. (1) Rome should bring back the Oath against Modernism, like +ABL said. (what a big Triumph for Tradition in Rome that would be!) (2) Rome should declare Christ's Kingship dogmatically, as +ABL insisted.

    I would add two more. (3) Rome should declare there is no salvation without Christ, as Bishop Athanasius said, as posted on another thread; Bishop Fellay has also insisted on the same, as shown below. Bishop Fellay recently condemned a recent non-Magisterial theological document that promised salvation to Jews without Christ, with His Excellency insisting Our Lord Jesus is the Only Name that saves, as St. Peter taught: https://sspx.org/en/can-pastoral-council-be-debatable (4) Ecumenism should focus on the return of non-Catholics to the Unity of the Church. This last, which was insisted on by Cardinal Burke as well, would put an end to false ecumenism also, the other major error coming from Vatican II

    The step (3) would also put an end to false interfaith dialogue which has no interest in making conversions to salvation in Jesus Christ. 

    We can fight for all these things without cutting of communion and regular relationships with Rome. Tradition needs its representatives in Rome.

    I can perfectly hold to all these and more as an Indult Traditionalist without in any breaking off communion with Rome or supporting doing that.

    Why doesn't the Resistance suggest some concrete and doctrinal steps Rome can take toward Tradition? Go ahead, Sean, the ball's in your court.

    God Bless.
    Make this Life Offering to the Twin Hearts of Jesus and Mary today! Don't delay! You can Save Souls!

    (1) All your family members will be saved (2) Your loved ones in Purgatory will be released, and (3) you yourself will not need Purgatory if you make it.
    https://marianapostolate.com/life-offering


     

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