Author Topic: More on the rebranding (Read 5618 times)

Machabees · « **Reply #35 on:** June 11, 2013, 04:24:42 PM »

Quote from: Gwaredd

Speaking of "practical deal(s)" there seems to be three groups who have an opinion about deals. One party states that +Fellay made no deal with Rome, another says that he did and still another says he didn't but acts as if he did. :confused1:

The word "deal" is used with two senses. Deal as a Legal Docuмent. And a Deal as a compromise of Faith.

In your three questions about the different groups,

1) There has not been a disclosed Legal Deal that has been made public. That is the present statement of the SSPX.

2) For those who said the SSPX had made a Legal Deal needs to produce Docuмents and facts -there is none- that has surfaced.

3) For those who say that the SSPX did not yet make a Legal Deal with Rome in FACT, because no evidence has surfaced, yet, say that the SSPX "acts as if they did" is based on the second sense of the word "Deal"; that the SSPX had made a "Deal" in SPIRIT -and has acted out that "new Doctrine" of compromise by FACT- with the heavy handedness of punishments and expulsions of their many priests and Bishop who do NOT go along with the "new Doctrine" espoused by the present leaders of the SSPX. As with the new orientation of conduct of SILENCE for anyone who does not agree with their "Superiors". So the present SSPX leaders try to take the discussion off of the substance and contents of their own compromises, to "Spin" it into one of -"obedience". The same strategic tactic that Vatican II had done while still pushing through their agenda.

It is a proven FACT, within the official Docuмent of Menzingen to Rome, which was done in secret and leaked-Bishop Fellay's 2012 Doctrinal Declaration- as with, the 2012 General Chapter's (scandalous) 6-conditions, and the leaked contents of the exchanges of the April 2012 letters between the three Bishops to Bishop Fellay, and Bishop Fellay's letter in return to the he three Bishops, that the present leaders of the SSPX have compromised the Faith that Archbishop Lefebvre has given to us, in which they had promised to protect, and failed.

So this overall crisis in the SSPX is NOT a question about a piece of paper, or if Bishop Fellay's Doctrinal Declaration was signed, accepted, or "[verbally] withdrawn". It is about Menzingen's path in which they do "believe and accept" the scandalous CONTENTS of what they had Officially and LEGALLY sent to conciliar Rome.

A Docuмent that is of a DOCTRINAL NATURE, describe in Bishop Fellay's words as a "Doctrinal Declaration", that in whole, is a disastrous and treasonous act of FAITH.

There can be NO compromise to the Faith -at all- hence the present crisis within the SSPX!

Please see the many threads listed on Cathinfo about this in disclosing this betrayal...

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #36 on:** June 11, 2013, 04:52:52 PM »

.

The best example I've heard comes from Fr. Hewko, who gave this
during the Christmas season conference in Kentucky.

When does a woman who is having an abortion commit a mortal sin,
when she shows up for the appointment or when she first makes
the appointment 3 weeks in advance?

In order to have committed a mortal sin, someone must have made
an act of the will that is gravely sinful, such as deciding to kill
someone (like a baby by abortion), and must know that this is a
mortally sinful thing to do, and knowing that, commits the act of
will anyway.

So, provided that the woman picking up the telephone knows that
she is making an appointment to kill her baby, and knowing that this
act of her will is a mortal sin, proceeds to make the appointment,
she is thereby committing a mortal sin. Even if she later cancels
the appointment or just doesn't show up, it makes no difference
for the fact that she sinned grievously in making the appointment.

So then going through with the operation is really two mortal sins.

Applying this principle to the dealmaking with modernist Rome,
the decision to enter into a 'deal' with modernist Rome, evidenced
by the fact that B. Fellay drew up the Dialectical Doctrinal
Declaration in the first place, and signed it, and delivered it to
Rome, amounts to his having committed a sin, one of compromise
with error, since the Dialectical Doctrinal Declaration compromises
with error.

However, it is not our place to judge whether it is a mortal sin for
him to do this. But he really should know better.

He made a morally unjustifiable offer to Rome in that docuмent,
which is a sinful act, and to that extent, he made a 'deal' because
it was entirely in the power of modernist Rome to merely accept
it, and then the 'deal' would be complete.

The fact that Rome did not accept it makes no difference from the
perspective of B. Fellay who made the offer.

If a man goes into a house of prostitution, pays the fee and goes
to a room where he waits for the prostitute, he has committed a
sin already. If the prostitute does not show up, he has still
committed the sin. This is what B. Fellay has effectively done, for
his Dialectical Doctrinal Declaration, the AFD, waits for the other
party to show up. And Rome backed out. Bishop de Mallerais said
this was due to the intervention of Our Blessed Mother that Rome
did not accept the AFD.

Frances · « **Reply #37 on:** June 13, 2013, 08:58:10 PM »

The Society looked for "key words" to describe who they are? They were decided centuries ago! "ONE - HOLY - CATHOLIC - APOSTOLIC". If the current leadership no longer identifies with these, it is because they are no longer Catholic.

Elsa Zardini · « **Reply #38 on:** June 14, 2013, 06:33:50 AM »

Machabees. PERFECT. :applause: