Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: Matthew on November 15, 2015, 01:20:13 PM
-
I just received an important e-mail. Possibly the most important e-mail CathInfo has received since May 2012!
3 1/2 years ago, the Resistance was born thanks to the "outing" of the SSPX Bishops' correspondence by Fr. ____, an SSPX priest. He posted the Letter of the Three to the One and the Letter of the One to the Three here on CathInfo. The subsequent bright light shed on the secret dealings of Bp. Fellay and a large pro-Rome cabal within the SSPX caused the deal to be scuttled, or at least postponed.
The rest is history...
I am a Traditional Catholic [...] Yes there are a lot of Resistance supporters and strong opponents of a practical agreement with Conciliar Rome "within" the SSPX - priests as well as laymen. I am pretty sure that you are aware of that fact. "We" are waiting for the upcoming agreement and then we will split.
Since your forum Cathinfo.com is one of the most important platforms for resistance supporters, I am sending you the following news:
Rome has sent an agreement proposal to Menzingen a few days ago. +Fellay is currently considering the final signing.
I have this information from our priests who are also against this Operation ѕυιcιdє and they have three sources:
1. The district leader of Switzerland F. Henry Wuilloud has told his priests that Menzingen received the agreement proposal at their last meeting.
2. [...]
3. F. Franz Schmidberger, currently head of the seminary at Zaitzkofen, has told a layman that Menzingen has now the proposal on the table and that it will only take a short while that all will be settled with Rome. They only have to solve a "few minor issues".
You do not know me in person and I am only a passive reader of Cathinfo.com, but I am begging you: Spread the word that the deal is now on the table!
Matthew, there are still many good but extremely naive laymen out there. They cannot imagine +Fellay negotiating with Conciliar Rome. They still hope that there will be no sellout of our beloved Society. But the sooner they are hit by reality the better.
We will also try our best to get the word out there.
My wife and I will pray for you and your important work within the Resistance! May God bless you, your family and your good work!
Many thanks and best wishes!
-
I received word earlier this week that Bishop Tissier said he is preparing himself for a deal with Rome, so all those who had hope in him taking a stand will be disappointed. Seems like this is why the comment was made. Granted the source, I believe the comment.
-
This is very sad. But we don't have time to weep
A interesting situation: the SSPX will still have valid priests for quite some time, but they will be "old rite" in apostasy (in agreement with the Vatican II sect) so can these priests be attended for confession? how about the Mass?
I'm not sure but if I'm right the time which people around the web say "There's no place for Mass, no place for confession" has come
Let's just hope some independent Priests will be around so the Faithful can go to Mass at least once a year.
Even if the Freemasons in Rome let the SSPX use the old rites (Mass, ordination, etc) they will not be less freemasons than Rome because of that.
Even if the Priests of SSPX speak only latim 24/7 and use a pre-1962 Missal they will be as freemasons (traitors and enemies of Christ) as the Priests that dances during Mass.
As much as some Priests are "naive" , good and/or pious if this priest supports SSPX I would recommend treating him just like you would treat a enemy of our Lord, that is, do not respect him and do not call him "Father".
-
Waiting for it to be verified....
If true, then it shows the SSPX's utter lack of understanding of the Crisis! Archbishop Lefebvre will be relegated to the nostalgic bin where his memory will be venerated of course but where his doctrine (nothing other than Catholic doctrine) will be more or less forgotten.
-
Waiting for it to be verified....
If true, then it shows the SSPX's utter lack of understanding of the Crisis! Archbishop Lefebvre will be relegated to the nostalgic bin where his memory will be venerated of course but where his doctrine (nothing other than Catholic doctrine) will be more or less forgotten.
I agree, those who lead the SSPX today are foolish, as in "the opposite of wise". What else do you call catering to the Modern World and hiding truth(s) in search of more pew-warmers? Isn't that the strategy the Novus Ordo takes to the Nth degree? Indeed, what we see in the Novus Ordo today is the logical conclusion to the path the SSPX is setting out on.
If you (or anyone else reading this) manages to get additional confirmation(s) please paste it in this thread. I'm sure everyone would like to be up-to-date on this developing story.
CentroAmerica's post (above) seems to corroborate it. Bishop de Mallerais is not looking forward to a deal. If he's resigned himself to it, then it must be imminent.
-
Waiting for it to be verified....
If true, then it shows the SSPX's utter lack of understanding of the Crisis! Archbishop Lefebvre will be relegated to the nostalgic bin where his memory will be venerated of course but where his doctrine (nothing other than Catholic doctrine) will be more or less forgotten.
Did you see what happened to Bishop De Castro Mayer after the Campos priests made a deal? Their websites were purged of any memory of him. Their faithful think that he went schismatic at the end. His tomb is in a church kept by the third order Carmelites, whom he strengthened greatly in his diocese. The Campos priests do not visit his tomb or pray for him on the Commemoration of the Faithful Departed.
-
Waiting for it to be verified....
If true, then it shows the SSPX's utter lack of understanding of the Crisis! Archbishop Lefebvre will be relegated to the nostalgic bin where his memory will be venerated of course but where his doctrine (nothing other than Catholic doctrine) will be more or less forgotten.
Did you see what happened to Bishop De Castro Mayer after the Campos priests made a deal? Their websites were purged of any memory of him. Their faithful think that he went schismatic at the end. His tomb is in a church kept by the third order Carmelites, whom he strengthened greatly in his diocese. The Campos priests do not visit his tomb or pray for him on the Commemoration of the Faithful Departed.
I didn't know that! Wow, what a sad testament, and a vindication of the behavior of all the faithful priests and bishops who continue to reject Vatican II in all its works and all its pomps.
It helps to have locals who can give their honest testimony about things like this. First hand testimony is always the most valuable! For readers who don't know, Centroamerica lives in Brazil.
-
Waiting for it to be verified....
If true, then it shows the SSPX's utter lack of understanding of the Crisis! Archbishop Lefebvre will be relegated to the nostalgic bin where his memory will be venerated of course but where his doctrine (nothing other than Catholic doctrine) will be more or less forgotten.
Imagine ''Pope'' Francis going on a statement to say during the ceremonial of SSPX-Vatican II reconciliation:
"+Lefebvre was a Bishop of the Catholic Church who loved the Church Tradition, loved the Old Mass, loved the old buildings and he was scared of the revolutions. But as we've learned my dear brothers, the changes were for the better of the Church, the Vatican II was a Council of love and teaching, the Council tried to imitate [sic] the life of Our Lord and preach to everyone, no one should be considered outside the Church. +Lefebvre was a man who was very obedient to the Pope and the Holy Spirit assisted the Church during this sad time of separation. "
"Dear brothers, lesbians, gαys, and every heretic that is hearing us: I'm so happy the good and soldier of Christ Archbishop Lefebvre have united back with the Catholic Church, the eternal and loving Rome which loves all."
Note: these people, theologians and priests who are going to write books about +Lefebvre were quiet for the past 25 years if not long, they will only write as long as Francis say anything good about +Lefebvre. Even if "a good thing" means Francis making a joke about +Lefebvre. Also these theologians and priests are going to write about +Lefebvre so they will be regarded as "priests friends of Tradition" by the layman.
There are many many many theologians waiting for this opportunity put a seal on the question "Vatican II was a Council of the Church" and "Vatican II must be interpreted in the light of Tradition".
-
Waiting for it to be verified....
If true, then it shows the SSPX's utter lack of understanding of the Crisis! Archbishop Lefebvre will be relegated to the nostalgic bin where his memory will be venerated of course but where his doctrine (nothing other than Catholic doctrine) will be more or less forgotten.
Did you see what happened to Bishop De Castro Mayer after the Campos priests made a deal? Their websites were purged of any memory of him. Their faithful think that he went schismatic at the end. His tomb is in a church kept by the third order Carmelites, whom he strengthened greatly in his diocese. The Campos priests do not visit his tomb or pray for him on the Commemoration of the Faithful Departed.
Unbelievable!
-
Another color in the rainbow flag of Vatican II.
-
So the pluralism that the Modern Church so promotes would only be augmented with the SSPX in:
Read what Bishop Fellay said in 2002 - I think it is somewhat relevant since it shows contradictory thinking:
http://archives.sspx.org/sspx_and_rome/sspx_update_part_1.htm
Published originally in two parts in the February and March 2003 issues of The Angelus, this conference given December 19, 2002 by the SSPX's Superior General, Bishop Bernard Fellay, at St. Vincent de Paul Church, Kansas City, Missouri.
The liturgical zoo
It sounds laughable at first when I say that some in Rome are starting to recognize something has gone wrong in the Church, but that’s really where we are. It seems unbelievable to hear it, but we are there. A certain number recognize that the Church is in a disaster, in a catastrophe, but you won’t find much when it comes to solutions being offered. The authorities are helpless. They are stuck in a system. For decades they have convinced themselves that "Whatever we do is good." Now they see that it is not good, but they don’t know how to get out of this system, to say how it can be repaired. It is a gridlock, as if they were saying to themselves, "It is not good, but is good." They don’t want to put themselves in question so they avoid addressing possible solutions. I can give you one example.
Cardinal Ratzinger speaks about the altar, the Mass. He agrees that the table, the priest facing the faithful, is not good, that it has never been so in the Church. Liturgically, it is nonsense, he believes. These are very, very good, strong statements. The solution seems very simple, doesn’t it? If the table is wrong, let us return to the altar as before. But is that what Cardinal Ratzinger will advise? —He responds, "No! It would be too much trouble! It would cost too much! So let’s put a cross in the middle of the table and that will stand for the mystical East!" That’s his solution. That’s typical of the reasoning in Rome to address its problems, to solve the crisis which is becoming more evident to it. The authorities see there is a crisis, but they don’t want to use the right means to solve it. We are still here. I might say, we are stuck here! Currently, there is no conviction that tradition is the right way. They see the fruits; they even say the fruits are good! They say the Holy Ghost is there! (Not too bad!) But, they don’t say, "That’s the way to go." Instead, they say, "Tradition is a way amongst other ways."
Their perspective is pluralism. Their thinking goes something like this:
Oh, look, if we have progressive people who do silly things as members of the Church, then we should also have a place for those who like tradition – a place in the middle of this circus, of this zoo, a place for dinosaurs and the prehistoric animals
- that’s our place(!) - "But just stay in your zoo cage," they will train us,
You can get your food - the Old Mass; that’s for the dinosaurs, but only for the dinosaurs. Don’t give that food to the other zoo animals; they would be killed!
That is why we cannot reconcile where this mentality is prevalent. The availability of the Old Mass extends beyond us; our concern regarding it is not exclusive to only the Society of St. Pius X. In any case, we have the Old Mass, don’t we? If we make an agreement by which Rome permits the Old Mass to us, it is not even an agreement because we already have it. What the Society wants is that this Mass, a common good of the Church, become again a common good for all Catholics, and not just a particular good of any particular group. No, it belongs to all Catholics; all Catholics have a right to it, not only us.
Indeed, Your Excellency, indeed.
-
1) this is so far only a rumor ... from an anonymous e-mailer
2) even if it's true, there's no certainty that +Fellay will sign it
3) even if he signs it, one would have to read the terms of the agreement to be able to assess the full impact
So let's not jump the gun here. Several more steps. It could be sent back to Rome with suggestions for revisions, which Rome then may or may not make, and the whole thing could fizzle again.
-
There is only one "deal" to agree with: the complete repeal of Vatican II.
Given we know that's not going to happen, exactly what is there to consider?
-
I received word earlier this week that Bishop Tissier said he is preparing himself for a deal with Rome, so all those who had hope in him taking a stand will be disappointed. Seems like this is why the comment was made. Granted the source, I believe the comment.
Do you know precisely what Bishop Tissier's words were? Context is very important here. "Preparing himself" could mean "preparing" to follow +Fellay's folly or it could mean "preparing" to do the right thing.
-
I bet +Fellay fancies the ring of Bernard Cardinal Fellay.
-
IMO, if they accept Francis' "year of mercy", they will have to sign the agreement before the start (8th December). Give 2-3 weeks!
-
IMO, if they accept Francis' "year of mercy", they will have to sign the agreement before the start (8th December). Give 2-3 weeks!
That's rather a good observation, I hadn't thought of that. You may very well be right unfortunately.
-
IMO, if they accept Francis' "year of mercy", they will have to sign the agreement before the start (8th December). Give 2-3 weeks!
Why?
-
IMO, if they accept Francis' "year of mercy", they will have to sign the agreement before the start (8th December). Give 2-3 weeks!
I believe this will happen, also, either before or on Dec. 8th. First of all because it is the start of this so-called "year of mercy". Secondly, because Dec. 8th is significant to the SSPX because on Dec. 8, 1984 the SSPX was Consecrated to the Immaculate Mother of God which is renewed each year on that date.
-
I received word earlier this week that Bishop Tissier said he is preparing himself for a deal with Rome, so all those who had hope in him taking a stand will be disappointed. Seems like this is why the comment was made. Granted the source, I believe the comment.
Do you know precisely what Bishop Tissier's words were? Context is very important here. "Preparing himself" could mean "preparing" to follow +Fellay's folly or it could mean "preparing" to do the right thing.
From what was told to me earlier this week, the context was, all who were in high hopes over Bishop Tissier taking a stand will be let down...this was in a communication that Bishop Tissier made- "...is preparing himself for a recognition by Rome." The context is perhaps missing and could be misleading, I admit, but I didn't receive the communication so I wouldn't know.
Also attached to this was this tidbit... "Fr. Wegner was in Houston 2 weeks ago, he told the SSPX faithful, 'Don't be surprised if one day you wake up and you are in Rome.'"
-
Has anybody factored in the visit of Bishop Faure to Canada and the USA in the next 3 weeks - interesting coincidence of events. Bishop Tissier might be preparing for a compromise but on the other hand....
-
I received word earlier this week that Bishop Tissier said he is preparing himself for a deal with Rome, so all those who had hope in him taking a stand will be disappointed. Seems like this is why the comment was made. Granted the source, I believe the comment.
I hope this is not true. I liked the Bishop's bio of Abp Lefebvre. I hope Bp Fellay will know better than to sell out to one of the worst of the Novus Ordo Popes. There is probably some idea that if they take over the SSPX, they can use that to limit the application of Summorum Pontificorum to SSPX and FSSP churches or chapel. Maybe.
-
During the General Chapter in which Bishop Williamson was expelled, I remember being told that the meeting was still a victory for those who opposed a deal because it prevented Bishop Fellay from signing a deal with Rome unilaterally, that is, he would have to call a special General Chapter meeting who would have to consider any deal before it would be effective.
Was this assurance incorrect? Can Bishop Fellay simply sign a binding agreement?
-
Honestly, this definitely stirs the emotions! What gain would the person have in sending that email to Matthew?
-
"Can +Fellay simply sign a binding agreement?"
Of course he can.
Remember the old Military/Bureaucratic saying.
"Tis better to ask forgiveness, than permission."
-
Something for Bp. Fellay to consider: if Francis manages to change Church teaching, under the guise of 'pastoral practice,' then what will keep the SSPX priests (if they reconcile) from being forced to give Holy Communion to anyone who approaches the altar, such as the divorced and remarried, homo, and other living-in-sin Catholics? I've no doubt that Francis will try to allow these unrepentant Catholics to receive communion, if he can possibly find a way to do so.
-
I believe there has to be a general chapter to vote on a deal or not, but since BF has surrounded himself with yes men, the result is a foregone conclusion..
-
Something for Bp. Fellay to consider: if Francis manages to change Church teaching, under the guise of 'pastoral practice,' then what will keep the SSPX priests (if they reconcile) from being forced to give Holy Communion to anyone who approaches the altar, such as the divorced and remarried, homo, and other living-in-sin Catholics? I've no doubt that Francis will try to allow these unrepentant Catholics to receive communion, if he can possibly find a way to do so.
How could they refuse if they are under Rome?
-
"Can +Fellay simply sign a binding agreement?"
Of course he can.
Remember the old Military/Bureaucratic saying.
"Tis better to ask forgiveness, than permission."
I guess the real question, then, is how secure is Bishop Fellay that there will not be a major revolt.
Based on what I've read here by and about the supporters of the neo-SSPX, if more than a handful of priests and, perhaps, a few dozen lay-faithful revolted, I would be surprised.
-
1) this is so far only a rumor ... from an anonymous e-mailer
2) even if it's true, there's no certainty that +Fellay will sign it
3) even if he signs it, one would have to read the terms of the agreement to be able to assess the full impact
So let's not jump the gun here. Several more steps. It could be sent back to Rome with suggestions for revisions, which Rome then may or may not make, and the whole thing could fizzle again.
In regards to #1, It's not really "anonymous". It is from an un-named source. Clearly, Matthew would not have posted an anonymous email without a well-founded reason to believe that the information contained therein is credible. He has not divulged the identity of the source, but this does not make it "anonymous".
Of course, you are absolutely correct about #2, though I doubt a serious proposal would have been sent to Menzingen without a well-founded belief on the part of the Vatican that the terms are acceptable to Bishop Fellay.
In regards to #3, try as I might, I cannot imagine terms that would be acceptable to Rome that would also be acceptable to a faithful Catholic. On this matter, however, it's probably better not to speculate because, as we've seen in the past, anything we can think, Modernist Rome can make even more despicable.
-
There's a difference between true and believable. This information is believable, but not necessarily true.
Matthew, maybe you can ask the source to be disclosed. If not, you could at least offer a character testimony.
For all we know, it could just be someone who wants the forums to stop focusing on Ambrose Moran and Boston KY. That'd be believable, if not true.
-
Has anybody factored in the visit of Bishop Faure to Canada and the USA in the next 3 weeks - interesting coincidence of events. Bishop Tissier might be preparing for a compromise but on the other hand....
Yes, he could be packing his bags to join +W & +F now that the die is cast. I don't believe he will take the train to Rome.
-
Also attached to this was this tidbit... "Fr. Wegner was in Houston 2 weeks ago, he told the SSPX faithful, 'Don't be surprised if one day you wake up and you are in Rome.'"
This.
This tends to corroborate this pending deal with Rome. Why would Fr. Wegner say this in Houston JUST TWO WEEKS AGO to get us all ready?
-
1) this is so far only a rumor ... from an anonymous e-mailer
2) even if it's true, there's no certainty that +Fellay will sign it
3) even if he signs it, one would have to read the terms of the agreement to be able to assess the full impact
So let's not jump the gun here. Several more steps. It could be sent back to Rome with suggestions for revisions, which Rome then may or may not make, and the whole thing could fizzle again.
In regards to #1, It's not really "anonymous". It is from an un-named source. Clearly, Matthew would not have posted an anonymous email without a well-founded reason to believe that the information contained therein is credible. He has not divulged the identity of the source, but this does not make it "anonymous".
Of course, you are absolutely correct about #2, though I doubt a serious proposal would have been sent to Menzingen without a well-founded belief on the part of the Vatican that the terms are acceptable to Bishop Fellay.
In regards to #3, try as I might, I cannot imagine terms that would be acceptable to Rome that would also be acceptable to a faithful Catholic. On this matter, however, it's probably better not to speculate because, as we've seen in the past, anything we can think, Modernist Rome can make even more despicable.
Yes indeed. The OP was not positive proof, but it's somewhat more than a baseless rumor whispered in a dark alley by someone in the shadows.
The person used his real name, so he is only anonymous to you and the other CathInfo members :) He is European and his e-mail address was European.
I'm just passing along the news here. His only motivation is to scuttle a deal with Rome, for the good of souls and the SSPX.
P.S. I edited his post (like the editor of a magazine might) for grammar, punctuation, etc. I wanted his writing to be standard English, so you couldn't guess anything about him by his speech. So if he sounds too American -- it's because I corrected the original e-mail. Nothing was substantially changed, however, except for things I intentionally left out for privacy reasons.
-
I'm just passing along the news here. His only motivation is to scuttle a deal with Rome, for the good of souls and the SSPX.
He didn't exactly say that and I wouldn't randomly apply to him such extreme optimism. Here's what he gave as his reason:
Matthew, there are still many good but extremely naive laymen out there. They cannot imagine +Fellay negotiating with Conciliar Rome. They still hope that there will be no sellout of our beloved Society. But the sooner they are hit by reality the better.
-
IMO, if they accept Francis' "year of mercy", they will have to sign the agreement before the start (8th December). Give 2-3 weeks!
Why?
Perhaps because if they don't, Francis might remove their faculties to hear confessions?
-
I don't think it's open for debate whether this was worth posting. 4,000 votes say "Yes". I think the traffic to this thread has already confirmed and vindicated my gut feeling that this was important news.
If you aren't interested until I can produce a picture of Bishop Fellay signing a deal with Rome with a notary's seal on the bottom, well... What can I say? Feel free to browse other threads that do interest you.
People vote with their clicks "what's worthwhile" and what constitutes interesting news.
No one is forcing anyone to follow this news story. Feel free to ignore it, go look at cat jokes on the Internet, or whatever suits your fancy. It's a free country (err...at least it used to be).
-
UPDATE:
I decided that I edited too much from point #3. I realized that I accidentally edited out some quite important content:
3. F. Franz Schmidberger, currently head of the seminary at Zaitzkofen, has told a layman that Menzingen has now the proposal on the table and that it will only take a short while that all will be settled with Rome. They only have to solve a "few minor issues".
-
...It's a free country (err...at least it used to be).
That is a phrase that will drop from usage. Here is another common phrase that will drop from usage: "Is the Pope Catholic?"
At least the bear is still in the woods.
-
Something for Bp. Fellay to consider: if Francis manages to change Church teaching, under the guise of 'pastoral practice,' then what will keep the SSPX priests (if they reconcile) from being forced to give Holy Communion to anyone who approaches the altar, such as the divorced and remarried, homo, and other living-in-sin Catholics? I've no doubt that Francis will try to allow these unrepentant Catholics to receive communion, if he can possibly find a way to do so.
Or reject the speedy 45 days annulments?
-
Something for Bp. Fellay to consider: if Francis manages to change Church teaching, under the guise of 'pastoral practice,' then what will keep the SSPX priests (if they reconcile) from being forced to give Holy Communion to anyone who approaches the altar, such as the divorced and remarried, homo, and other living-in-sin Catholics? I've no doubt that Francis will try to allow these unrepentant Catholics to receive communion, if he can possibly find a way to do so.
Or reject the speedy 45 days annulments?
Yeah, that too. Maybe I'm over-reacting, but it would seem to me that if the SSPX, after reconciliation, were to refuse to give Holy Communion to anyone who asks for it, then it could be grounds for reprimand of some kind. I already worry that this might happen to the Ecclesia Dei communities, too, if Francis has his way. Though maybe he won't get away with it just yet. I dunno.
-
This is possible for only one of the following 2 reasons:
a) the modernists have stopped opposing Catholicism and have converted, or
b) the Catholics have stopped opposing modernism and have surrendered.
"No man can serve two masters. For either he will hate the one, and love the other: or he will sustain the one, and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon." (Matthew 6:24)
"Bear not the yoke with unbelievers. For what participation hath justice with injustice? Or what fellowship hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? Or what part hath the faithful with the unbeliever? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? For you are the temple of the living God; as God saith: I will dwell in them, and walk among them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore, Go out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing: And I will receive you; and I will be a Father to you; and you shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty." (2 Corinthians 6:14-18)
"A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid: Knowing that he, that is such an one, is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned by his own judgment." (Titus 3:10-11)
-
Something for Bp. Fellay to consider: if Francis manages to change Church teaching, under the guise of 'pastoral practice,' then what will keep the SSPX priests (if they reconcile) from being forced to give Holy Communion to anyone who approaches the altar, such as the divorced and remarried, homo, and other living-in-sin Catholics? I've no doubt that Francis will try to allow these unrepentant Catholics to receive communion, if he can possibly find a way to do so.
Or reject the speedy 45 days annulments?
Yeah, that too. Maybe I'm over-reacting, but it would seem to me that if the SSPX, after reconciliation, were to refuse to give Holy Communion to anyone who asks for it, then it could be grounds for reprimand of some kind. I already worry that this might happen to the Ecclesia Dei communities, too, if Francis has his way. Though maybe he won't get away with it just yet. I dunno.
Americans accounted for about half of the nearly 50,000 annulments granted in 2012, the latest year for which statistics are available. Beginning the “year of mercy”, Dec. 8th, they will be granted in 45 days and free, except for a nominal fee for administrative costs. How many do you think will be granted during 12/2015 - 12/2016? Even if they denied Communion to the divorced and remarried, they can get their “mercy” annulment in 45 days and get back in line. Then what?
-
As they say, "the devil is in the details," and one must pray that Bp. Fellay and company discern that "devil" in the details among those remaining "issues" they still need to work out. Otherwise, that plastic "red hat" they give him may prove to be the most costly plastic hat in all of human history.
-
Just more hearsay. Anyone can make up anything thing they want. Does not mean what they say holds water. I, from my computer here, could say anything I want about bishop Fellay and many of you would believe it, even if it was not true.
Given the 4 or 5 sources from three different locations all pointing to an imminent agreement, I'd say it's more than worth passing the idea around for the sake of conversation (this is a discussion forum, after all).
This is the part I find least believable:
Yes there are a lot of Resistance supporters and strong opponents of a practical agreement with Conciliar Rome "within" the SSPX - priests as well as laymen. I am pretty sure that you are aware of that fact. "We" are waiting for the upcoming agreement and then we will split.
I'm sure this person is speaking accurately of their own plans, but I find it hard to believe that there will be any sizable number fitting this description.
-
This deal has been in the works for years. Fellay wants a deal, the superiors want it - no one's been hiding this fact; they have just been waiting, arguing and selling this whole deal as a "positive" thing, so the most people would accept it. Fellay was always going to push this though, it has just been a matter of time.
And if this deal closes on Dec 8, (which is likely, so that the society can then exclaim, "Oh, my! What a wonderous grace we've been given by God!") what a slap in the face to Our Lady!
-
If the SSPX goes liberal, which I do not think it will...
You're a day late and a dollar short. They've already gone liberal. The clear pursuit of a practical agreement with Rome is the effect of their liberalism, not the cause.
The fact that you don't "think" there will be an agreement or that you don't see the liberalism is irrelevant.
-
The fact that you think there WILL be an agreement or that you DO see liberalism, is irrelevant.
We shall see.
If a practical agreement is reached, do you plan on coming back to this thread to apologize and admit the liberalism of the SSPX leadership?
I will be perfectly honest, I am a Catholic who wants no compromise with something that is not Catholic. I will admit that I am confused about what is going on with the Resistance, Rome, and the SSPX. There seems to be a lot of confusion, I being one of those who are confused.
-
Antony, you make a good point...there are many, many good priests still in the society. But they aren't in charge of negotiations, they aren't privy to the meetings, they are just being told Fellays version of events. They are being fed the "we will convert Rome" and "we are finally going home!" emotional arguments so that they will go along with the deal.
But good priests only stay good priests (same for laymen) if their souls are nurtured by the 100% true faith, which they wont have, if they follow the society down the yellow brick road to Rome's modernistic land of Oz.
-
Antony, you make a good point...there are many, many good priests still in the society. But they aren't in charge of negotiations, they aren't privy to the meetings, they are just being told Fellays version of events. They are being fed the "we will convert Rome" and "we are finally going home!" emotional arguments so that they will go along with the deal.
But good priests only stay good priests (same for laymen) if their souls are nurtured by the 100% true faith, which they wont have, if they follow the society down the yellow brick road to Rome's modernistic land of Oz.
I appreciate your point. I did not come from the Novus Ordo to Tradition only to go back to liberalism. If what many say is correct, that the SSPX will be dismantled as we know it and becomes liberal, I will go elsewhere...if there is any elsewhere. I just personally have not seen the liberalism.
-
Now Francis will be called a Conservative and will be able to wreak as much havoc as one. What will Bp Fellay be called, I wonder ....?
-
If Judas at Menzingen signs the agreement, I wonder if Bishop Williamson will consecrate another bishop(s) to help fortify the true Resistance for time to come...?
-
If Judas at Menzingen signs the agreement, I wonder if Bishop Williamson will consecrate another bishop(s) to help fortify the true Resistance for time to come...?
It wouldn't be directly related as he has already said that he intends to consecrate more.
-
So, okay. Newbie talking.
As y'all know, I've only recently started going to Society Mass. So, why is it bad if they get reconciled with Rome? I'm not being rhetorical. Please tell me plainly.
-
So, okay. Newbie talking.
As y'all know, I've only recently started going to Society Mass. So, why is it bad if they get reconciled with Rome? I'm not being rhetorical. Please tell me plainly.
There are many good ways to answer this question and here is one:
The Mass of an Ecclesia Dei priest is the Mass of a priest who, at least officially, obeys the local bishop and the Pope; a priest who will therefore from time to time receive his bishop for ceremonies; a priest who does not preach that the New Mass is bad, dangerous for the Faith; a priest who will therefore gather around himself faithful who are weaker in their Faith, less well informed on the serious dangers which threaten Catholic life in the Conciliar Church; a priest who, if he is logical with himself, thinks that the situation in the Church today is basically normal, in any case normal enough to render a public resistance illegitimate; a priest who, by obeying liberal and modernist authorities, will inevitably deviate; finally, a priest who betrays everything Archbishop Lefebvre did, who betrays souls and tricks them by making them believe, by his public submission to the hierarchy, that the Pope truly leads his sheep and lambs in the paths of the True Faith.
...
The Archbishop spoke like that in his time! An Ecclesia Dei priest, right now, does not have a just position in the Church. He is not in order with the Good Lord. He is not in the truth. He is between two stools, torn between his desire to do good and his submission to to the Conciliar authorities. His sermons necessarily feel the effects of this, as well as the bookstall and the periodicals which are on sale there. There will also be diocesan docuмentation at the back of the church. There is also the serious risk of allowing himself to become lukewarm over time by being in contact with faithful who are less well informed in the Faith, as well as the risk of letting himself be attracted either by a more lenient doctrine, or, as the case may be, by the sympathy of the people or other priests.
Excerpts from a text written by Fr Jacques Mérel (SSPX), published in the Newsletter of Priory Saint-Jean-Eudes (France) in July/August 2008.
I wonder where Fr. Merel is today. Does he still agree with these things which he has written?
-
:shocked:
Wow. I wonder if another benchmark moment is coming for me. I originally started going to Society Mass this Fall because of a scheduling problem.
But this is a bit more hardcore.
I like the fact that Society priests know and tell us that the Novus Ordo Mass is a modernist abuse. To be prevented from saying that? Hmmm. Sort of a game changer.
I haven't been fully on board with the Society. But as things progress and I become more involved, I find myself leaning towards hesitation at the idea of a reconciliation without Rome repenting of their modernism.
A lot to think about, this.
-
These are simply false accusations. The SSPX is I'm sure a fine organization. However, they hardly own some patent on Tradition. There is a variety of adherence to Tradition (and rejection of Conciliarism, including modernism in general) among the various Ecclesia Dei groups and individuals, not to mention other trads. It's not a monochrome. The excerpts above reveal quite a bit of ignorance. The text above also assumes quite a bit from someone not in a position to make such broad judgments about people he doesn't know.
Tradition is not a Zero Sum game.
ETA: I'm not referring to posters here.
Yes, it is monochrome, binary, black or white.
There IS a Crisis in the Church. There IS a false pope trying to destroy the Church (or even a lack of pope, according to some) and a ton of Churchmen not doing their jobs to protect the Faith. Lots of Modernists in the highest places in Rome, including the hierarchy and even the Papacy.
There are only TWO paths:
Resisting this (Tradition)
Going along with it (Novus Ordo, pseudo-Tradition, etc.)
That's why I say the Indult is NOT Traditional, properly speaking. I allow Indult-goers on CathInfo, because not everyone knows or understands fully, and PEOPLE (not ideas) need to be given some slack. Also, they are Catholic (since they are obviously interested in, and are practicing, the Catholic Faith) even if misguided. It's not my place to excommunicate.
But talking about the position, strictly speaking an Indult or "approved by Rome" Latin Mass-going Catholic is NOT a Traditionalist. They are a conservative Catholic.
Why?
Because there is a cardinal rule for the Traditional Movement, and Indult-goers deny or violate this rule:
There is a Crisis in the Church (caused by infiltration of Modernism and Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ into the Church), and the highest law of the Church ("The Salvation of Souls") demands that we save our souls and keep the Faith; hence we have the right to doubt-free priests and doubt-free sacraments, and a right to the timeless Mass of St. Pius V, along with all the Catholic doctrines, practices, and morality that goes along with it. To this end, we Trads have a right and a duty to set up independent (outside the authority and jurisdiction of Rome) chapels, Mass centers, seminaries, etc. with the Church supplying ALL necessary jurisdiction for Mass, confession, marriages, and ordination.
If you disagree with that mission statement for the Traditional Movement, you're not a Trad, PERIOD. At least strictly speaking. You might be conservative, you might like smells and bells, but if you don't believe in being aloof from Rome and the right of Tradition to exist without special permission, you're NOT a Trad.
-
.
Good answer, Matthew.
It is a pleasure to know this forum is run by someone with his head screwed on straight.
.
-
.
Good answer, Matthew.
It is a pleasure to know this forum is run by someone with his head screwed on straight.
.
Yes, he sure speaks for me in that last post.
The the point of this thread - the OP is credible because +Fellay wants to make a deal, it's just a matter of what price he is willing to pay. One minute it seems he has lost sight of why the SSPX even exists, the next minute it seems he sees clear why it exists. This waffling is the warning beacon that if he does not stop this waffling and take a firm stand against the NO, merging into the new church is going to happen.
That he takes no firm stand against a determinedly subversive Rome compels us to be immediately suspicious, and that is the way we must remain unless he makes a firm stand against the new church. The longer this goes on, the closer to him making a deal we get.
St. Philip Neri said "the coward is the victor when he flees temptation," +Fellay needs to flee because he cannot make a deal and call that a win, and he needs to flee now.
-
.
Post (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=38816&min=10#p3)
There is only one "deal" to agree with: the complete repeal of Vatican II.
Given we know that's not going to happen, exactly what is there to consider?
From the Pope on down to the local parishes all the Conciliar church believes is based on the false "council" Vat.II. They can't let go of it because for them it is everything they know and adhere to.
There will be no recovery from the current crisis in the Church until this false "council" is recognized for what it is, namely that it is NOT a Council of the Church.
There have been 20 Ecuмenical Councils and this Vat.II thing doesn't belong to the group, but it's going to take a REAL council of the Church to make that official. While they're at it, they could consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary and make a real difference for a change.
The only question remaining is how much CARNAGE will befall this earth before this great day comes to pass. The recent events in Paris, for example, are not even a drop in the bucket.
.
-
:shocked:
Wow. I wonder if another benchmark moment is coming for me. I originally started going to Society Mass this Fall because of a scheduling problem.
But this is a bit more hardcore.
I like the fact that Society priests know and tell us that the Novus Ordo Mass is a modernist abuse. To be prevented from saying that? Hmmm. Sort of a game changer.
I haven't been fully on board with the Society. But as things progress and I become more involved, I find myself leaning towards hesitation at the idea of a reconciliation without Rome repenting of their modernism.
A lot to think about, this.
Laramie, the most compelling reason why one would oppose a deal is if you look at what happened to all those once Traditional groups who made a deal. (To that we can add the story of the 'conservative' FFI and what happened to them under Francis). A very good docuмentation of the former can be found in this pdf...a must read for those in situations like yourself.
https://isthisoperationѕυιcιdє.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/operation-ѕυιcιdє-published-20121029.pdf
-
These are simply false accusations. The SSPX is I'm sure a fine organization. However, they hardly own some patent on Tradition. There is a variety of adherence to Tradition (and rejection of Conciliarism, including modernism in general) among the various Ecclesia Dei groups and individuals, not to mention other trads. It's not a monochrome. The excerpts above reveal quite a bit of ignorance. The text above also assumes quite a bit from someone not in a position to make such broad judgments about people he doesn't know.
.
I agree with this.
Yes, it is monochrome, binary, black or white.
There IS a Crisis in the Church. There IS a false pope trying to destroy the Church (or even a lack of pope, according to some) and a ton of Churchmen not doing their jobs to protect the Faith. Lots of Modernists in the highest places in Rome, including the hierarchy and even the Papacy.
There are only TWO paths:
Resisting this (Tradition)
Going along with it (Novus Ordo, pseudo-Tradition, etc.)
That's why I say the Indult is NOT Traditional, properly speaking. I allow Indult-goers on CathInfo, because not everyone knows or understands fully, and PEOPLE (not ideas) need to be given some slack. Also, they are Catholic (since they obviously want to be real Catholics) even if misguided. It's not my place to excommunicate.
But talking about the position, strictly speaking an Indult or "approved by Rome" Latin Mass-going Catholic is NOT a Traditionalist. They are a conservative Catholic.
Why?
Because there is a cardinal rule for the Traditional Movement, and Indult-goers deny or violate this rule:
There is a Crisis in the Church, and the highest law of the Church ("The Salvation of Souls") demands that we save our souls and keep the Faith; hence we have the right to doubt-free priests and doubt-free sacraments, and a right to the timeless Mass of St. Pius V, along with all the Catholic doctrines, practices, and morality that goes along with it. To this end, we Trads have a right and a duty to set up independent (outside the authority and jurisdiction of Rome) chapels, Mass centers, seminaries, etc. with the Church supplying ALL necessary jurisdiction for Mass, confession, marriages, and ordination.
If you disagree with that mission statement for the Traditional Movement, you're not a Trad, PERIOD. At least strictly speaking. You might be conservative, you might like smells and bells, but if you don't believe in being aloof from Rome and the right of Tradition to exist without special permission, you're NOT a Trad.
I would say, here, Matt, that you also prove Magdala's point above; that you are not someone in a position to make judgement about people you don't know. There is no (and I think you'll agree with me) "traditionalists" or "non-traditionalist", there is either "Catholic", or "not". Its easy to become fixated on funneling those who are Catholic, unconsciously(?), out of what we consider Catholic. Whether its to make ourselves feel more confident in our position, to make others see our position as more right, or both. There are plenty of Catholics who are not-SSPX, not-Resistance, etc. The Archbishop and the SSPX may have had a huge role to play in the protection of Tradition and ensuring its survival, but that is no longer the case. There are many Catholics, priests and laity, who are keeping the Faith- thanks to the Archbishop, to be sure- who operate within the diocesan structures of the Church. They have the Faith, wholly. One can see that they are growing also.
And I can attest, first-hand, as I believe you cannot (but I am not sure) that it is not all "smells and bells". Sure, there are Smells and bells Catholics out there who attend, say,FSSP masses. But there are just as many people who attend "Trad" masses for the wrong reasons also; and that's what we find wrong with 'smells and bells' Catholics- that they "don't get it" and/or that they attend for the wrong reasons, etc. We don't even have to look outside the Resistance for that. And there are just as many people who attend FSSP masses (with which I have experience) who are, as I've said, are genuinely keeping the Faith. I may say that I've seen a greater deal of Charity in them as well then I've ever encountered in most Trad parishes- and I've been to many- SSPX, independent, CMRI.
Anyways, these are just my 2 cents. Not worth much. Not trying to be polemical. Just trying to get my thoughts down on paper
and hoping for the salvation of us all.
-
...
And I can attest, first-hand, as I believe you cannot (but I am not sure) that it is not all "smells and bells". Sure, there are Smells and bells Catholics out there who attend, say,FSSP masses. But there are just as many people who attend "Trad" masses for the wrong reasons also; and that's what we find wrong with 'smells and bells' Catholics- that they "don't get it" and/or that they attend for the wrong reasons, etc...
I tend to be glad that even those who attend "for the wrong reasons" (i.e. superficial, aesthetic ones) are attending. They might eventually come to be there for the right reasons. Meanwhile, I'd rather they come for the wrong ones than not come at all.
-
I tend to be glad that even those who attend "for the wrong reasons" (i.e. superficial, aesthetic ones) are attending. They might eventually come to be there for the right reasons. Meanwhile, I'd rather they come for the wrong ones than not come at all.
And lets be frank- they 'are' getting the Faith (I'm speaking specifically of those who attend the Tridentine Rite churches). Lets not delude ourselves into thinking that there is nothing more than Protestantism there. Someone who thinks that is either not being fair to the whole picture or is ignorant. Is there error in some places? Sure. But look at the Trad world. It is far from free from error.
-
No surprises here. The mindset of the new Society has existed for a couple of decades. Its leaders no longer believe in a state of emergency and therefore want rid of any suggestion of schism. The will to resist evaporated a long time ago if it ever existed and the only interest has been to find a special place within the pantheon away from the great unwashed where the membership can indulge in classical ritual and please an audience at the same time.
-
The argument here is tending/trending towards the idea that it is better to go to (any) church than to go to none. Similar to the one that there will always be something pleasing to God in any church. This raises the institution/organisation as a feature of merit against the notion of private worship which so many of my friends now prefer. Who can blame them? They will do without the aesthetics which they will say is very distracting!
-
These are simply false accusations. The SSPX is I'm sure a fine organization. However, they hardly own some patent on Tradition. There is a variety of adherence to Tradition (and rejection of Conciliarism, including modernism in general) among the various Ecclesia Dei groups and individuals, not to mention other trads. It's not a monochrome. The excerpts above reveal quite a bit of ignorance. The text above also assumes quite a bit from someone not in a position to make such broad judgments about people he doesn't know.
.
I agree with this.
Yes, it is monochrome, binary, black or white.
There IS a Crisis in the Church. There IS a false pope trying to destroy the Church (or even a lack of pope, according to some) and a ton of Churchmen not doing their jobs to protect the Faith. Lots of Modernists in the highest places in Rome, including the hierarchy and even the Papacy.
There are only TWO paths:
Resisting this (Tradition)
Going along with it (Novus Ordo, pseudo-Tradition, etc.)
That's why I say the Indult is NOT Traditional, properly speaking. I allow Indult-goers on CathInfo, because not everyone knows or understands fully, and PEOPLE (not ideas) need to be given some slack. Also, they are Catholic (since they obviously want to be real Catholics) even if misguided. It's not my place to excommunicate.
But talking about the position, strictly speaking an Indult or "approved by Rome" Latin Mass-going Catholic is NOT a Traditionalist. They are a conservative Catholic.
Why?
Because there is a cardinal rule for the Traditional Movement, and Indult-goers deny or violate this rule:
There is a Crisis in the Church, and the highest law of the Church ("The Salvation of Souls") demands that we save our souls and keep the Faith; hence we have the right to doubt-free priests and doubt-free sacraments, and a right to the timeless Mass of St. Pius V, along with all the Catholic doctrines, practices, and morality that goes along with it. To this end, we Trads have a right and a duty to set up independent (outside the authority and jurisdiction of Rome) chapels, Mass centers, seminaries, etc. with the Church supplying ALL necessary jurisdiction for Mass, confession, marriages, and ordination.
If you disagree with that mission statement for the Traditional Movement, you're not a Trad, PERIOD. At least strictly speaking. You might be conservative, you might like smells and bells, but if you don't believe in being aloof from Rome and the right of Tradition to exist without special permission, you're NOT a Trad.
I would say, here, Matt, that you also prove Magdala's point above; that you are not someone in a position to make judgement about people you don't know. There is no (and I think you'll agree with me) "traditionalists" or "non-traditionalist", there is either "Catholic", or "not". Its easy to become fixated on funneling those who are Catholic, unconsciously(?), out of what we consider Catholic. Whether its to make ourselves feel more confident in our position, to make others see our position as more right, or both. There are plenty of Catholics who are not-SSPX, not-Resistance, etc. The Archbishop and the SSPX may have had a huge role to play in the protection of Tradition and ensuring its survival, but that is no longer the case. There are many Catholics, priests and laity, who are keeping the Faith- thanks to the Archbishop, to be sure- who operate within the diocesan structures of the Church. They have the Faith, wholly. One can see that they are growing also.
And I can attest, first-hand, as I believe you cannot (but I am not sure) that it is not all "smells and bells". Sure, there are Smells and bells Catholics out there who attend, say,FSSP masses. But there are just as many people who attend "Trad" masses for the wrong reasons also; and that's what we find wrong with 'smells and bells' Catholics- that they "don't get it" and/or that they attend for the wrong reasons, etc. We don't even have to look outside the Resistance for that. And there are just as many people who attend FSSP masses (with which I have experience) who are, as I've said, are genuinely keeping the Faith. I may say that I've seen a greater deal of Charity in them as well then I've ever encountered in most Trad parishes- and I've been to many- SSPX, independent, CMRI.
Anyways, these are just my 2 cents. Not worth much. Not trying to be polemical. Just trying to get my thoughts down on paper
and hoping for the salvation of us all.
This was not my experience in my 40 years in conciliardom. I can only think of 2 priests from conciliardom who were free of modernism and who would meet the grand standard you assert--one of them has been dead nearly 15 years and the other one about 4 years. I was exposed to many priests because my family traveled quite a bit and never skipped Mass. I have encountered many times over more effeminates/fαɢɢօts in conciliarist clergy than priests who would match what you set out.
I lived in a parish that may superficially pass for what you describe. That's where one of the priests I mentioned was. The younger priests, superficially, appeared the same. But in personal discussion, they were clearly tainted with modernism. And after providing the "TLM" for 3 years, they were still bumbling through it like a bad dress rehearsal.
Also, the new rite ordinations and concecrations are a deal breaker. Which reminds me--a bunch of R&Rers here are frequently saying they don't believe those ordinations and concecrations are valid, or at least doubt they are. How is Bergoglio, who was concecrated in new rite (and possibly ordained in new rite--I'm not as sure about that and don't have time to look it up right now), exempt from this?
-
...+Fellay wants to make a deal, it's just a matter of what price he is willing to pay. One minute it seems he has lost sight of why the SSPX even exists, the next minute it seems he sees clear why it exists.
Agreed. That's why, IMO, it's going to depend entirely on what's in this proposed deal. If it's almost unilateral with merely some lip-service profession of subjection to the Magisterium (without taking away their right to respectfully disagree with certain things about V2), then I think +Fellay would take it in a heartbeat. But if there's a lot more in there that implies the illegitimacy of any form of resistance, then +Fellay probably wouldn't take it.
-
...+Fellay wants to make a deal, it's just a matter of what price he is willing to pay. One minute it seems he has lost sight of why the SSPX even exists, the next minute it seems he sees clear why it exists.
Agreed. That's why, IMO, it's going to depend entirely on what's in this proposed deal. If it's almost unilateral with merely some lip-service profession of subjection to the Magisterium (without taking away their right to respectfully disagree with certain things about V2), then I think +Fellay would take it in a heartbeat. But if there's a lot more in there that implies the illegitimacy of any form of resistance, then +Fellay probably wouldn't take it.
Ah Yes, Ladislaus, but what about Fr. Laguerie and the other former SSPX priests who set up the Institute of the Good Shepherd and were offered as part of their mission to "loyally" criticize the Second Vatican Council but who, a few months later was writing on his "blog" questioning how they could criticize the Council, when to do so would be to criticize the Church and who is our Mother, and the Pope who is the Vicar of Christ". ?
-
This was not my experience in my 40 years in conciliardom.
For the record, i was not speaking of anything other than those chapels which offer the traditional rites.
Also, the new rite ordinations and concecrations are a deal breaker. Which reminds me--a bunch of R&Rers here are frequently saying they don't believe those ordinations and concecrations are valid, or at least doubt they are. How is Bergoglio, who was concecrated in new rite (and possibly ordained in new rite--I'm not as sure about that and don't have time to look it up right now), exempt from this?
I used to think this way as well. I cannot speak to this for you.
-
The argument here is tending/trending towards the idea that it is better to go to (any) church than to go to none. Similar to the one that there will always be something pleasing to God in any church.
I dont mean to sound vain, but if your comments are directed towards my post, you have completely misunderstood me or i have (which is more likely) failed to adequately explain myself.
-
Also, the new rite ordinations and concecrations are a deal breaker. Which reminds me--a bunch of R&Rers here are frequently saying they don't believe those ordinations and concecrations are valid, or at least doubt they are. How is Bergoglio, who was concecrated in new rite (and possibly ordained in new rite--I'm not as sure about that and don't have time to look it up right now), exempt from this?
I used to think this way as well. I cannot speak to this for you.
What is it you "used to think"?
Did you use to think the new rites of orders are invalid or did you use to think that you didn't understand the R&R people who somehow exempt Bergoglio from this invalidity?
-
I used to have doubts to the new rites. With prayer and study, those doubts are gone and seem to me nothing more than a trick of the devil.
Edit: i do not say all New Rite consecrations and/or ordinations are valid. But i do say the new rites themselves are not invalid.
-
...+Fellay wants to make a deal, it's just a matter of what price he is willing to pay. One minute it seems he has lost sight of why the SSPX even exists, the next minute it seems he sees clear why it exists.
Agreed. That's why, IMO, it's going to depend entirely on what's in this proposed deal. If it's almost unilateral with merely some lip-service profession of subjection to the Magisterium (without taking away their right to respectfully disagree with certain things about V2), then I think +Fellay would take it in a heartbeat. But if there's a lot more in there that implies the illegitimacy of any form of resistance, then +Fellay probably wouldn't take it.
Ah Yes, Ladislaus, but what about Fr. Laguerie and the other former SSPX priests who set up the Institute of the Good Shepherd and were offered as part of their mission to "loyally" criticize the Second Vatican Council but who, a few months later was writing on his "blog" questioning how they could criticize the Council, when to do so would be to criticize the Church and who is our Mother, and the Pope who is the Vicar of Christ". ?
I'm only saying what I think it would take for +Fellay to sign it.
-
I must say, these "fruits" of the resistance do cause one to take pause.
Don't judge the actions of the SSPX based on the "fruits" of the resistance. The two are mutually exclusive. One must look at the idea of a practical agreement on its own merits.
-
Three years ago there were a lot of ‘unknowns’. But now we do know. We know what the alternatives are: A loose association and no formal structure. At least four groups have become Sedevacantist. There’s Pablo, Ambrose, going months without the sacraments and the revolutionary spirit that sets resister against resister – “it’s chaos from here on in”, to quote Bp. Williamson.
I must say, these "fruits" of the resistance do cause one to take pause.
For what it's worth, some of the struggles that the Resistance is dealing with now, are not all that much different from what the SSPX went through 45 years ago. One difference between then and now is there was no internet back then. Another difference is that +ABL was the final authority.
-
S2Srea,
I don't think you read my post clearly enough. I wasn't excommunicating conservatives (conservative Novus Ordo, Indult), nor was I "virtually" or "subconsciously" excommunicating them.
They aren't Traditional. If they don't believe in the right of the Traditional movement to exist (setting up chapels with no permission from Rome, the supplied jurisdiction to go to confession to ANY priest, even those not approve by Rome, and the right of +ABL and other Trad bishops to consecrate other bishops without papal approval -- all for the preservation of the Faith), and if they act like there is no Crisis in the Church serious enough to do these things, then they aren't Trad.
That's an objective fact.
But they are Catholic, and I said that in my post. There are two kinds of people in the Conciliar Church today. Those that tolerate (if that) the Catholicism remaining in the Conciliar Church, and those who seek it out. Obviously Indulters would be in the second category. But, objectively speaking, they aren't part of the Traditional movement. They are just "conservative Catholics".
Perhaps they have found an air pocket in the sinking ship (the Church). But they aren't awake to the danger, they don't have a bright future, and they aren't in the lifeboats, so they're not Traditional Catholics.
Words mean things. "The Traditional movement" has a definition. I believe I gave an objective one, not just tailored to my own views and opinions.
The Trad movement pre-dates Ecclesia Dei, it pre-dates the FSSP, and it pre-dates Summorum Pontificuм. My parents were Trads in the 1970's. For them and all their fellow Trads, being a Trad meant "leaving your novus ordo parish so you can keep the Faith, and attend the Latin Mass wherever you can find a Traditional priest willing to say it". They didn't scruple about jurisdiction for confession, and they avoided the Conciliar Church altogether since it was obviously contaminated beyond hope with modernism. They steered clear. They also spoke with certainty that the Church had been taken over and transformed from within by Freemasons.
I am incorporating these fundamental beliefs into my definition of "Traditional Catholic". Now Rome has cleverly given permission to some groups to say the Latin Mass, as long as certain compromises are made. Very diabolically clever of them. But although the PEOPLE attending these Masses aren't to be castigated, ROME is to be castigated for being so evil and shrewd in this matter. Rome is OBVIOUSLY trying to undermine the true Traditional movement by throwing Tradition-seeking Catholics a proverbial bone.
Do Indulters believe that there is a Crisis in the Church? Do they believe that Freemasons infiltrated the Catholic Church? That's a central belief of Traditional Catholics. And it's the first belief to be rejected when a person begins to leave Tradition -- as the pro-Rome SSPX priests are doing. They have stopped believing in the Crisis -- that's why they aren't terrified of being under Conciliar Rome. If they believed Rome was firmly in the grip of the Freemasons, they would talk more like +ABL in his sermons from 1988 - 1991. (Hint: very negative on Rome, very negative on a practical agreement)
-
But they are Catholic...
I hate to quibble here (well, actually, I don't hate to, it's just an expression), but the Catholicity of any person attached to the Conciliar church, even if he goes to the indult, has to be qualified with the caveat that they are Catholic insofar as they adhere to the Catholic Faith and reject the heresies that are rampant in Conciliar circles.
-
...+Fellay wants to make a deal, it's just a matter of what price he is willing to pay. One minute it seems he has lost sight of why the SSPX even exists, the next minute it seems he sees clear why it exists.
Agreed. That's why, IMO, it's going to depend entirely on what's in this proposed deal. If it's almost unilateral with merely some lip-service profession of subjection to the Magisterium (without taking away their right to respectfully disagree with certain things about V2), then I think +Fellay would take it in a heartbeat. But if there's a lot more in there that implies the illegitimacy of any form of resistance, then +Fellay probably wouldn't take it.
Ah Yes, Ladislaus, but what about Fr. Laguerie and the other former SSPX priests who set up the Institute of the Good Shepherd and were offered as part of their mission to "loyally" criticize the Second Vatican Council but who, a few months later was writing on his "blog" questioning how they could criticize the Council, when to do so would be to criticize the Church and who is our Mother, and the Pope who is the Vicar of Christ". ?
I'm only saying what I think it would take for +Fellay to sign it.
The Vatican knows what was rejected by +Fellay in 2012 so, if indeed they have some new proposal, it must at least accommodate those points. +Fellay has stated that the 2012 docuмent can no longer be supported, so if this new docuмent even looks like the old one, that will present a further problem for him.
Now, if Rome were smart, they would offer a no-strings proposal which is perhaps one sentence long, affirming that the SSPX recognizes Francis as the Vicar of Christ and starting Monday, +Fellay reports to Cardinal So-and-So ... or Pope So-and-So. Period. Then, +Fellay will have a very hard time rejecting a docuмent that is fundamentally Catholic.
If that were the case, I can see how the 3 Bishops could be united.
This is only speculation of course. But it may be what is needed to forgive and forget Pfeiffergate.
-
I must say, these "fruits" of the resistance do cause one to take pause.
Don't judge the actions of the SSPX based on the "fruits" of the resistance. The two are mutually exclusive. One must look at the idea of a practical agreement on its own merits.
I do not. I'm very much (still)against the actions and deceit of +Fellay.
-
IMO, if they accept Francis' "year of mercy", they will have to sign the agreement before the start (8th December). Give 2-3 weeks!
I believe this will happen, also, either before or on Dec. 8th. First of all because it is the start of this so-called "year of mercy". Secondly, because Dec. 8th is significant to the SSPX because on Dec. 8, 1984 the SSPX was Consecrated to the Immaculate Mother of God which is renewed each year on that date.
And the 50th anniversary of the close of Vatican 2, and the start of the Great Apostasy.
-
S2Srea,
I don't think you read my post clearly enough. I wasn't excommunicating conservatives (conservative Novus Ordo, Indult), nor was I "virtually" or "subconsciously" excommunicating them.
They aren't Traditional. If they don't believe in the right of the Traditional movement to exist (setting up chapels with no permission from Rome, the supplied jurisdiction to go to confession to ANY priest, even those not approve by Rome, and the right of +ABL and other Trad bishops to consecrate other bishops without papal approval -- all for the preservation of the Faith), and if they act like there is no Crisis in the Church serious enough to do these things, then they aren't Trad.
That's an objective fact.
But they are Catholic, and I said that in my post. There are two kinds of people in the Conciliar Church today. Those that tolerate (if that) the Catholicism remaining in the Conciliar Church, and those who seek it out. Obviously Indulters would be in the second category. But, objectively speaking, they aren't part of the Traditional movement. They are just "conservative Catholics".
Perhaps they have found an air pocket in the sinking ship (the Church). But they aren't awake to the danger, they don't have a bright future, and they aren't in the lifeboats, so they're not Traditional Catholics.
Words mean things. "The Traditional movement" has a definition. I believe I gave an objective one, not just tailored to my own views and opinions.
The Trad movement pre-dates Ecclesia Dei, it pre-dates the FSSP, and it pre-dates Summorum Pontificuм. My parents were Trads in the 1970's. For them and all their fellow Trads, being a Trad meant "leaving your novus ordo parish so you can keep the Faith, and attend the Latin Mass wherever you can find a Traditional priest willing to say it". They didn't scruple about jurisdiction for confession, and they avoided the Conciliar Church altogether since it was obviously contaminated beyond hope with modernism. They steered clear. They also spoke with certainty that the Church had been taken over and transformed from within by Freemasons.
I am incorporating these fundamental beliefs into my definition of "Traditional Catholic". Now Rome has cleverly given permission to some groups to say the Latin Mass, as long as certain compromises are made. Very diabolically clever of them. But although the PEOPLE attending these Masses aren't to be castigated, ROME is to be castigated for being so evil and shrewd in this matter. Rome is OBVIOUSLY trying to undermine the true Traditional movement by throwing Tradition-seeking Catholics a proverbial bone.
Do Indulters believe that there is a Crisis in the Church? Do they believe that Freemasons infiltrated the Catholic Church? That's a central belief of Traditional Catholics. And it's the first belief to be rejected when a person begins to leave Tradition -- as the pro-Rome SSPX priests are doing. They have stopped believing in the Crisis -- that's why they aren't terrified of being under Conciliar Rome. If they believed Rome was firmly in the grip of the Freemasons, they would talk more like +ABL in his sermons from 1988 - 1991. (Hint: very negative on Rome, very negative on a practical agreement)
Thank you for the clarification. God bless you and all of us.
-
If they believed Rome was firmly in the grip of the Freemasons, they would talk more like +ABL in his sermons from 1988 - 1991. (Hint: very negative on Rome, very negative on a practical agreement)
You mean like this?:
...the basic problem remains unchanged: Rome means to exterminate Tradition...
- Archbishop Lefebvre 12 June 1988
-
The Catholic faith starts with the family.
It is up to parents to teach children.
It is up to us to correct our family members. It is up to us to make sure our priests are priests...
-
Christoph Cardinal Schönborn is a Freemason who marked the passing of his father with words only a Mason could use.
A person would likely be able to enumerate other examples.
Although Fr Bugini, author of the Novus Ordo Service, the pretended New Mass, always angrily denied it, there is reasonable evidence that he was a Free Mason. Paul VI suddenly in 1976 sent his leading liturgist, Secretary for the Congregation for Divine Worship since 1948, as Pro Nuncio to Iran, after strong claims started to appear.
I do hope Bishop Fellay will have the sense, or circuмstances will somehow halt any reconciliation with Rome in its present state of heterodoxy. Maybe Pope Francis has agreed to be validly consecrated.....
-
.
I'm glad I didn't include any Post links in this thread previously because 2 pages of posts have been deleted and that would have rendered the links inaccurate. For the record, this (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=38816&min=90#p2) was the URL of this post, below, when I posted it just now. (If more posts are later deleted above this, that would render this URL obsolete.)
Post (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=38816&min=70#p0)
No surprises here. The mindset of the new Society has existed for a couple of decades. Its leaders no longer believe in a state of emergency and therefore want rid of any suggestion of schism...
I have seen this new mindset in action for several years, even while so many of the SSPX regular faithful have not noticed anything questionable going on. It's quite often nearly impossible to broach the topic with them because they immediately revert to accusations of "Internet rumour" or the like.
I know one priest who isn't SSPX but independent/Trad, and he sandbags any discussion of what's going on in the Society based on whether one has obtained any information whatsoever from online sources. For him, if you have not seen it with your own two eyes in person, it CANNOT be real.
For me, to see Wessex say that "Its leaders no longer believe in a state of emergency" makes me stop and think. Have you, Wessex, heard the leaders say that they no longer believe in a state of emergency, or is that what you deduce from their mannerisms and evasions and conspicuous omissions when they speak? I would like to know what the points of proof are, because I don't doubt your assessment, but I know that I won't get to "square one" with certain people if I can't come up with a SOURCE other than "I read this online the other day."
If I can put together solid PROOF based on direct quotes that objectively expose individuals by name of no longer believing that a state of emergency exists, that might be the last straw that is necessary to open the door to clear thinking. For after that's a done deal, it's like pushing over a rotten mailbox to say "and therefore they want rid of any suggestion of schism."
... The will to resist evaporated a long time ago if it ever existed and the only interest has been to find a special place within the pantheon away from the great unwashed where the membership can indulge in classical ritual and please an audience at the same time.
That opens a can of worms.
The post that follows this one above, is too much to deal with in one response.
.
-
Maybe Pope Francis has agreed to be validly consecrated.....
Now THERE'S a pipe dream if I've ever heard one.
It's not beyond the pale to question whether he really believes that episcopal consecrations per se are anything to be concerned with. Remember: "Who am I to judge?" If he thought he had been validly consecrated or that a valid consecration makes any difference at all, he would never have asked about his ability to judge something regarding faith or morals like he did there.
I asked a good priest if anyone knows: Who is Pope Francis' confessor? And his response floored me. But it woke me up.
.
-
.
There is going to be someone who vociferously fumes over my post, above.
Before you come pointing fingers, though, whoever you are, take a moment to think about this:
When Pope St. Pius X disseminated his landmark encyclical Pascendi he did NOT SAY that the heresy of Modernism (WHICH IS INFALLIBLY DEFINED IN PASCENDI FOR ALL TIME AND ETERNITY) would one day invalidate any claimant to the papal throne or any holder of ecclesiasitcal office. However, he immediately began to "throw the bums out" because he found clerics holding office who were tainted with Modernism. Heads rolled. Those were the days. Then came World War I.
His great concern was that if left unchecked, Modernism would eventually find its way to the papacy itself and would render the Church unable to function. Well guess what? His fears were not unfounded, were they.
.
-
I asked a good priest if anyone knows: Who is Pope Francis' confessor? And his response floored me. But it woke me up.
Are you going to tell us what the answer was that floored you and woke you up?
-
But they are Catholic...
I hate to quibble here (well, actually, I don't hate to, it's just an expression), but the Catholicity of any person attached to the Conciliar church, even if he goes to the indult, has to be qualified with the caveat that they are Catholic insofar as they adhere to the Catholic Faith and reject the heresies that are rampant in Conciliar circles.
ITA. I was not Catholic when I was a Novus Ordite/attended the diocesan TLM. I used to balk at that insinuation, but looking back it was correct. I may have sincerely believed I was Catholic, but I was not.
Although there are exceptions, from what I have seen those who attend the diocesan TLM will also attend the indult but not because of any doctrinal issues. For these folks it is merely the mass and nothing more. Most of these folks do not know the Catholic Faith pre-Vatican II and I would not consider them Catholic.
-
I asked a good priest if anyone knows: Who is Pope Francis' confessor? And his response floored me. But it woke me up.
Are you going to tell us what the answer was that floored you and woke you up?
Popes confess to another priest, like any other priest. Pope Francis' long-standing confessor is a Croatian Franciscan priest in Argentina, Fr Berislav Ostojic.
People get to choose their own confessor whom they are comfortable with and trust to give good advice. The Pope is no different to anyone else.
http://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/19288/to-whom-does-pope-francis-confess
-
...+Fellay wants to make a deal, it's just a matter of what price he is willing to pay. One minute it seems he has lost sight of why the SSPX even exists, the next minute it seems he sees clear why it exists.
"The errors of Russia will spread throughout the world..." This logically inexcusable flip-flopping from A to Not A and back again panders to the hermeneutic of continuity of B16 (a Modernist with a thin Trad wrap) and is reminiscent of the Cold War rhetoric of Communist leaders. Recall, they had said it was "restructuring" but never did they say WHAT was being restructured. Well, they were restructuring your way of thinking, that's what.
Agreed. That's why, IMO, it's going to depend entirely on what's in this proposed deal. If it's almost unilateral with merely some lip-service profession of subjection to the Magisterium (without taking away their right to respectfully disagree with certain things about V2), then I think +Fellay would take it in a heartbeat. But if there's a lot more in there that implies the illegitimacy of any form of resistance, then +Fellay probably wouldn't take it.
Whatever is in this proposed deal, it can't be anything good.
How could this proposed deal dispense with any requirement of the Society to capitulate and acquiesce to the false "council" Vat.II? Answer: it cannot.
The authors of the proposed deal are staunch believers in Vat.II as a "council" of the Church, which it was not. Therein lies the rub.
.
-
I asked a good priest if anyone knows: Who is Pope Francis' confessor? And his response floored me. But it woke me up.
Are you going to tell us what the answer was that floored you and woke you up?
Popes confess to another priest, like any other priest. Pope Francis' long-standing confessor is a Croatian Franciscan priest in Argentina, Fr Berislav Ostojic.
People get to choose their own confessor whom they are comfortable with and trust to give good advice. The Pope is no different to anyone else.
http://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/19288/to-whom-does-pope-francis-confess
First, is this what the priest told Neil?
Second....Bergoglio, who lives in Italy, confesses to a priest who lives in Argentina? I guess he doesn't go to confession very often. Of course, I doubt that he's conscious of committing any sins...ever.
-
I asked a good priest if anyone knows: Who is Pope Francis' confessor? And his response floored me. But it woke me up.
Are you going to tell us what the answer was that floored you and woke you up?
Popes confess to another priest, like any other priest. Pope Francis' long-standing confessor is a Croatian Franciscan priest in Argentina, Fr Berislav Ostojic.
People get to choose their own confessor whom they are comfortable with and trust to give good advice. The Pope is no different to anyone else.
http://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/19288/to-whom-does-pope-francis-confess
First, is this what the priest told Neil?
Second....Bergoglio, who lives in Italy, confesses to a priest who lives in Argentina? I guess he doesn't go to confession very often. Of course, I doubt that he's conscious of committing any sins...ever.
If this is what the priest told Neil, then I'm not getting what "floored him and woke him up".
As to your second, this can't be accurate (or at least not always the case) because I remember him receiving communion one time....all televised and stuff.
-
Whatever is in this proposed deal, it can't be anything good.
Again, I wasn't arguing about the merits or lack thereof of any hypothetical proposal, just speculating about what it would take to have +Fellay sign it.
-
I asked a good priest if anyone knows: Who is Pope Francis' confessor? And his response floored me. But it woke me up.
Are you going to tell us what the answer was that floored you and woke you up?
Yours is a reasonable question. Thank you for asking, TKGS. I hope you don't mind if I wait a while before I tell you what the answer was, because it might be worth waiting for. For now, I'd like to say that he explained that Popes don't have a spiritual director but they generally do have a confessor, like anyone else (see below).
Popes confess to another priest, like any other priest. Pope Francis' long-standing confessor is a Croatian Franciscan priest in Argentina, Fr Berislav Ostojic.
People get to choose their own confessor whom they are comfortable with and trust to give good advice. The Pope is no different to anyone else.
http://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/19288/to-whom-does-pope-francis-confess
And thank you, MaterDominici for supplying an objective answer. Now, I haven't checked on it, but it would be nice to know if anyone here knows this Croatian Franciscan priest in Argentina, Fr. Berislav Ostojic, and furthermore, if Fr. Ostojic has written any books or articles, or whether his sermons are published. It might be interesting to see what he has to say about key Church teachings.
Regarding the quote above, it is curious to me that improper grammar would be employed for something so crucial, for when has been the last time you have heard someone say that "The Pope is no different to anyone else?"
I hope this isn't too far off topic here.
I'm not playing any games here, and I'm not going to change what the priest told me regarding Pope Francis' sacramental habits. But I think it's worth finding out first what other members know about this topic (which could be another thread, I suppose) before I explain what I was told. It is important enough for us to stop and think about the implications: what difference does it make whether a Pope does one thing or another in regards to confessing his own sins? Not that we would want to know what the actual content of his confessions would be, for it's well known that such content is not to be divulged or discussed about ANYONE'S confession, and in that manner, truly the Pope is no different from any other Catholic.
Incidentally, the linked answer above is incorrect due to one nuance, namely, that one of the things that any priest ascertains from the start of hearing a confession is whether the penitent is Catholic, and/or has been baptized. Therefore it is objectively incorrect to say that "The Pope is no different to anyone else," whatever that might really mean (since it's improper grammar might be due to something being amiss that we have not recognized -- which word or words were a mistake, if any? and if there is no difference "to" a Pope and anyone else, then what makes him Pope at all?), since the words "anyone else" must necessarily not exclude non-Catholics, and in defiance of Fr. Pfeiffer's recent infamous guffaw, it must not exclude the unbaptized. Whether the author of the grammatically incorrect sentence above MEANT it that way is another question. Don't forget that Francis has personally said that this new "Year of Mercy excludes no one." Did he mean by that the unbaptized are now to become recipients of God's mercy by their sins being forgiven without any sacrament this Year (which has a duration of about 350 days) for the first time in history, or what?
You know, the implications of this are ominous. Is it implied that this "Year of Mercy" nobody need bother with going to confession, and, if so, what difference does it make for the SSPX to suddenly have power to validly absolve sins when nobody needs any absolution this year at all? HUH?
In any case, an unbaptized person confessing his sins to a priest cannot receive valid absolution because a priest is not able to absolve original sin without Holy Baptism.
You know, a lot of times you can't find certain things online that you can get immediately by asking a priest one specific question, because priests know other priests, who know people in the Church and what they do, and these things quite often don't make it into e-mails or Internet websites.
.
-
Whatever is in this proposed deal, it can't be anything good.
Again, I wasn't arguing about the merits or lack thereof of any hypothetical proposal, just speculating about what it would take to have +Fellay sign it.
How about...secrecy! His MO :)
-
I asked a good priest if anyone knows: Who is Pope Francis' confessor? And his response floored me. But it woke me up.
Are you going to tell us what the answer was that floored you and woke you up?
Popes confess to another priest, like any other priest. Pope Francis' long-standing confessor is a Croatian Franciscan priest in Argentina, Fr Berislav Ostojic.
People get to choose their own confessor whom they are comfortable with and trust to give good advice. The Pope is no different to anyone else.
http://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/19288/to-whom-does-pope-francis-confess
First, is this what the priest told Neil?
Second....Bergoglio, who lives in Italy, confesses to a priest who lives in Argentina? I guess he doesn't go to confession very often. Of course, I doubt that he's conscious of committing any sins...ever.
If this is what the priest told Neil, then I'm not getting what "floored him and woke him up".
As to your second, this can't be accurate (or at least not always the case) because I remember him receiving communion one time....all televised and stuff.
I'm already beginning to see that it's a good thing you have not yet heard what the answer was, because the facts obtained elsewhere are pointing in the same direction.
Furthermore, since a pope doesn't have a spiritual director, how does he manage to keep his same confessor after he becomes Pope, when this confessor HAD BEEN his spiritual director in previous years? How does a confessor suddenly stop long established habits, like making moral recommendations under the seal of confession when he had been doing so for so long in the past toward the same penitent? Or, are there some spiritual directors today who have nothing important to tell their subject? For example, "That's not a sin!"
.
-
Whatever is in this proposed deal, it can't be anything good.
Again, I wasn't arguing about the merits or lack thereof of any hypothetical proposal, just speculating about what it would take to have +Fellay sign it.
How about...secrecy! His MO :)
Speculating over what it would take to have +F sign the proposal seems to be overshadowed by the unquestionable impossibility of Rome caving in to their demand that the SSPX would henceforth accept Vat.II and all that implies.
All the Modernists in Rome have to hold on to is their erstwhile Vat.II victory. Take that away and their house of cards crumbles. IOW Our Lady's heel crushes the serpent's head.
.
-
Neil you are making no sense. If you're not going to tell us what you mean you shouldn't have said it in the first place.
Exactly, you're like a child with a secret, Neil, "but I'm not going to tell you yet!" Put up or shut up.
-
Just a thought.... I heard that part of a previous deal was that the SSPX would only be allowed one (1) bishop. I assume Rome would have to make that stipulation because they never approved the consecration of the 4. To accept all, (now 3) would make them look like hipocrites.
As +Williamson is no longer in the picture, I assume +Fellay would insist upon it being him.
Where does that leave the other 2 Bishops? Can you un-Consecrate a Bishop when he hasn't done anything wrong?
Mod Edit: Um...a bishop can't be un-consecrated even if he were caught red-handed worshiping satan. It simply cannot be done. You also can't un-ordain a priest, or un-baptize a layman who has been baptized. Some things are permanent.
Would a deal put priests under the local Bishop like the Transalpine Redemptorists?
So many questions.
:facepalm:
-
I just received an important e-mail. Possibly the most important e-mail CathInfo has received since May 2012!
3 1/2 years ago, the Resistance was born thanks to the "outing" of the SSPX Bishops' correspondence by Fr. ____, an SSPX priest. He posted the Letter of the Three to the One and the Letter of the One to the Three here on CathInfo. The subsequent bright light shed on the secret dealings of Bp. Fellay and a large pro-Rome cabal within the SSPX caused the deal to be scuttled, or at least postponed.
The rest is history...
I am a Traditional Catholic [...] Yes there are a lot of Resistance supporters and strong opponents of a practical agreement with Conciliar Rome "within" the SSPX - priests as well as laymen. I am pretty sure that you are aware of that fact. "We" are waiting for the upcoming agreement and then we will split.
Since your forum Cathinfo.com is one of the most important platforms for resistance supporters, I am sending you the following news:
Rome has sent an agreement proposal to Menzingen a few days ago. +Fellay is currently considering the final signing.
I have this information from our priests who are also against this Operation ѕυιcιdє and they have three sources:
1. The district leader of Switzerland F. Henry Wuilloud has told his priests that Menzingen received the agreement proposal at their last meeting.
2. [...]
3. F. Franz Schmidberger, currently head of the seminary at Zaitzkofen, has told a layman that Menzingen has now the proposal on the table and that it will only take a short while that all will be settled with Rome. They only have to solve a "few minor issues".
You do not know me in person and I am only a passive reader of Cathinfo.com, but I am begging you: Spread the word that the deal is now on the table!
Matthew, there are still many good but extremely naive laymen out there. They cannot imagine +Fellay negotiating with Conciliar Rome. They still hope that there will be no sellout of our beloved Society. But the sooner they are hit by reality the better.
We will also try our best to get the word out there.
My wife and I will pray for you and your important work within the Resistance! May God bless you, your family and your good work!
Many thanks and best wishes!
The Ambrose Affair may turn out to be a blessing in disguise because if priests do leave after the agreement they will not be in a hurry to head to Pfeifferville!
-
:shocked:
Wow. I wonder if another benchmark moment is coming for me. I originally started going to Society Mass this Fall because of a scheduling problem.
But this is a bit more hardcore.
I like the fact that Society priests know and tell us that the Novus Ordo Mass is a modernist abuse. To be prevented from saying that? Hmmm. Sort of a game changer.
I haven't been fully on board with the Society. But as things progress and I become more involved, I find myself leaning towards hesitation at the idea of a reconciliation without Rome repenting of their modernism.
A lot to think about, this.
Laramie, the most compelling reason why one would oppose a deal is if you look at what happened to all those once Traditional groups who made a deal. (To that we can add the story of the 'conservative' FFI and what happened to them under Francis). A very good docuмentation of the former can be found in this pdf...a must read for those in situations like yourself.
https://isthisoperationѕυιcιdє.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/operation-ѕυιcιdє-published-20121029.pdf
Thanks for sharing the link, centroamerica
-
Just a thought.... I heard that part of a previous deal was that the SSPX would only be allowed one (1) bishop. I assume Rome would have to make that stipulation because they never approved the consecration of the 4. To accept all, (now 3) would make them look like hipocrites.
As +Williamson is no longer in the picture, I assume +Fellay would insist upon it being him.
Where does that leave the other 2 Bishops? Can you un-Consecrate a Bishop when he hasn't done anything wrong?
Would a deal put priests under the local Bishop like the Transalpine Redemptorists?
So many questions.
:facepalm:
That was the stillborn deal +Lefebvre crafted with Ratzinger in 1988. You cannot un-consecrate a Bishop.
-
Just a thought.... I heard that part of a previous deal was that the SSPX would only be allowed one (1) bishop. I assume Rome would have to make that stipulation because they never approved the consecration of the 4. To accept all, (now 3) would make them look like hipocrites.
As +Williamson is no longer in the picture, I assume +Fellay would insist upon it being him.
Where does that leave the other 2 Bishops? Can you un-Consecrate a Bishop when he hasn't done anything wrong?
Would a deal put priests under the local Bishop like the Transalpine Redemptorists?
So many questions.
:facepalm:
That was the stillborn deal +Lefebvre crafted with Ratzinger in 1988. You cannot un-consecrate a Bishop.
No, but you can limit his function: mass and confession.
-
Just a thought.... I heard that part of a previous deal was that the SSPX would only be allowed one (1) bishop. I assume Rome would have to make that stipulation because they never approved the consecration of the 4. To accept all, (now 3) would make them look like hipocrites.
As +Williamson is no longer in the picture, I assume +Fellay would insist upon it being him.
Where does that leave the other 2 Bishops? Can you un-Consecrate a Bishop when he hasn't done anything wrong?
Would a deal put priests under the local Bishop like the Transalpine Redemptorists?
So many questions.
:facepalm:
That was the stillborn deal +Lefebvre crafted with Ratzinger in 1988. You cannot un-consecrate a Bishop.
Excess bishops could be "retired" or given a diocese in some God forsaken corner of this world.
-
You mean like Bp T de M......?
-
I don't think it's open for debate whether this was worth posting. 4,000 votes say "Yes". I think the traffic to this thread has already confirmed and vindicated my gut feeling that this was important news.
If you aren't interested until I can produce a picture of Bishop Fellay signing a deal with Rome with a notary's seal on the bottom, well... What can I say? Feel free to browse other threads that do interest you.
People vote with their clicks "what's worthwhile" and what constitutes interesting news.
No one is forcing anyone to follow this news story. Feel free to ignore it, go look at cat jokes on the Internet, or whatever suits your fancy. It's a free country (err...at least it used to be).
With a title like that, who would not click it? That doesn't mean the post is important news only that you chose a titillating title and subject. It might only be a baseless rumor. The generation of traffic signifies nothing. It will only be important if it turns out to be true. Otherwise a lot of folks will be getting upset for no reason at all. God forbid it and Our Holy Mother protect the Society!
Let's not forget the words of Father Wegner in his conference in Texas on Oct. 31 when he said, "Do not be surprised to wake up one morning and hear that Pope Francis has accepted us"! Why would he say that if not to prepare the people for what is coming? Not only that but his admonition to be charitable to all those who will come but will not know the Catholic Faith and how we must help them and not be scandalized by the way they dress or act in church, etc. His whole conference was to prepare people for what's coming and to assure how wonderful it will be for the Society and its followers. To me, this leaves little room for doubt; only the timing still remains in question. Watch as Dec. 8th draws closer.
-
Actually I wasn't thinking about any one in particular nor any place in particular. Just musing about what might happen if the unthinkable comes to pass and the SSPX does surrender to the NO.
Right now I think of the Society as a leaky ship, they are listing to port but have not capsized yet, much of the crew is doing their job and haven't jumped into a life raft abandoning all hope of getting to safe harbor; I continue to bail.
However if they do capsize I will not cling to the upturned hull waiting for the NO sharks to swim by and bite my legs off, I'll start swimming to the nearest island.
-
I know people who go to several different SSPX chapels and they tell me that the number people attending is growing,looks to me like the NO is already moving in.
-
I know people who go to several different SSPX chapels and they tell me that the number people attending is growing,looks to me like the NO is already moving in.
This would usually be a good thing, if the SSPX was as critical before, but if they are going to pander to them it won't be good.
-
Actually I wasn't thinking about any one in particular nor any place in particular. Just musing about what might happen if the unthinkable comes to pass and the SSPX does surrender to the NO.
Right now I think of the Society as a leaky ship, they are listing to port but have not capsized yet, much of the crew is doing their job and haven't jumped into a life raft abandoning all hope of getting to safe harbor; I continue to bail.
However if they do capsize I will not cling to the upturned hull waiting for the NO sharks to swim by and bite my legs off, I'll start swimming to the nearest island.
What might happen if the unthinkable comes to pass is the following:
All the SSPX real estate will change hands to the local bishop. Then comes the remodeling, as in good-bye tabernacles, communion rails, confessionals and choir lofts.
-
I know people who go to several different SSPX chapels and they tell me that the number people attending is growing,looks to me like the NO is already moving in.
Who's to say there won't be a concerted effort from various groups within the N.O. to move in expressly for the purpose of taking over or, at the very least, causing dissension. It opens the door for all kinds of interaction which will be encouraged by the SSPX, as Fr. Wegner talked about in his conference as "tolerance" becomes the new mantra in the chapels.
-
I don't think it's open for debate whether this was worth posting. 4,000 votes say "Yes". I think the traffic to this thread has already confirmed and vindicated my gut feeling that this was important news.
If you aren't interested until I can produce a picture of Bishop Fellay signing a deal with Rome with a notary's seal on the bottom, well... What can I say? Feel free to browse other threads that do interest you.
People vote with their clicks "what's worthwhile" and what constitutes interesting news.
No one is forcing anyone to follow this news story. Feel free to ignore it, go look at cat jokes on the Internet, or whatever suits your fancy. It's a free country (err...at least it used to be).
With a title like that, who would not click it? That doesn't mean the post is important news only that you chose a titillating title and subject. It might only be a baseless rumor. The generation of traffic signifies nothing. It will only be important if it turns out to be true. Otherwise a lot of folks will be getting upset for no reason at all. God forbid it and Our Holy Mother protect the Society!
Let's not forget the words of Father Wegner in his conference in Texas on Oct. 31 when he said, "Do not be surprised to wake up one morning and hear that Pope Francis has accepted us"! Why would he say that if not to prepare the people for what is coming? Not only that but his admonition to be charitable to all those who will come but will not know the Catholic Faith and how we must help them and not be scandalized by the way they dress or act in church, etc. His whole conference was to prepare people for what's coming and to assure how wonderful it will be for the Society and its followers. To me, this leaves little room for doubt; only the timing still remains in question. Watch as Dec. 8th draws closer.
Sure, it may be, but maybe not. God prevented it before and He may do again. The words attributed to Fr. Wegner make me nervous, but I didn't hear him say them so I can't be sure he did. Too many times there have been things reported all over the internet that were inaccurate either by accident or by design. Right now I am taking comfort in the words that I did hear with my own ears, when Bishop Tissier and Father Cyprian OSB said they were not going with Rome. December 8th would be a real good time for Our Lady to help us.
As far as our being encouraged to be tolerant, that's nothing new for Kansas City or St. Mary's faithful. There are always new and sometimes strange folk who either just wander in passing through or are just curious and know nothing about the Faith. We have always been encouraged to be patient and tolerant with them so as not to drive them away. What else? Which one of us would like to explain that we prevented a soul from reaching out to God? I love the approach of those who realize we don't really know what is going on or what God has in store and so we should pray as if everything depended upon it.
-
Sure, it may be, but maybe not. God prevented it before and He may do again. The words attributed to Fr. Wegner make me nervous, but I didn't hear him say them so I can't be sure he did. Too many times there have been things reported all over the internet that were inaccurate either by accident or by design. Right now I am taking comfort in the words that I did hear with my own ears, when Bishop Tissier and Father Cyprian OSB said they were not going with Rome. December 8th would be a real good time for Our Lady to help us.
I can assure you without hesitation that he said it at my former parish. All who attended heard it and can attest to it, including the priests.
-
As far as our being encouraged to be tolerant, that's nothing new for Kansas City or St. Mary's faithful. There are always new and sometimes strange folk who either just wander in passing through or are just curious and know nothing about the Faith. We have always been encouraged to be patient and tolerant with them so as not to drive them away. What else? Which one of us would like to explain that we prevented a soul from reaching out to God? I love the approach of those who realize we don't really know what is going on or what God has in store and so we should pray as if everything depended upon it.
Every chapel experiences newcomers and, of course, as Catholics it is only right to welcome them and try to make them feel at ease. Fr. Wegner was not talking about a few people coming but "many people" which no chapel has ever had to deal with before. He emphasized the point as though he knew it was going to be a difficult situation for chapels to deal with.
-
Sure, it may be, but maybe not. God prevented it before and He may do again. The words attributed to Fr. Wegner make me nervous, but I didn't hear him say them so I can't be sure he did. Too many times there have been things reported all over the internet that were inaccurate either by accident or by design.
Oh yeah? Name one.
Better yet, name two. I bet you can't. You're just repeating the worn-out propaganda of the neo-SSPX that the Resistance is "all rumor" and no substance.
Which, of course, is total BS.
-
Matthew, did your correspondant give you a timetable as to when Menzingen would sign or reject the proposed agreement?
-
Matthew, did your correspondant give you a timetable as to when Menzingen would sign or reject the proposed agreement?
Whether true or not, it isn't far from the realm of possibility. It's like when kids would pull the fire alarm. Just because there were a few false alarms doesn't mean you should ignore it when someone pulls the alarm and you smell smoke.
-
Matthew, did your correspondant give you a timetable as to when Menzingen would sign or reject the proposed agreement?
No, he didn't.
I didn't get a chance to comment further on this (I wanted to on Sunday, Monday but then life intervened), but I wanted to say:
The big question here is how many agreement(s) has the SSPX received from Rome in this manner? Is this an every month or every week occurrence? Or is it the first or second time in the last 3 years?
That's the element we don't know. How significant is this "proposed deal".
For all we know +Fellay has rejected dozens of "proposed deals" from Rome in the past 3 years.
Like I said -- I'm just passing on the news.
-
As someone already pointed out, a big problem with the sspx is that once a deal is made, all the property changes hands, (this happens even if they are given the utmost independence and, from a "Faith" standpoint it's not a dangerous deal). So all the hard work, time, money, etc that was put into these chapels (and is still being put into them) goes to Rome and/or your local Bishop. I know many people have been harping on this for years, but it's troubling that the society owns all the property (and made a concerted effort to get their hands on it).
On the negative side, if the deal is "bad" and people have to stop going to mass where they've always gone, then many people will be back to having mass in hotel rooms. This isn't wrong, it will just be a big sacrifice. Even if 99% of the priests and laity join the "resistance" overnight, all the property will be gone and into the hands of Rome. Surely, God will provide, and surely, this type of persecution will bring many graces, but traditional catholics are in for a wild ride if any deal happens, just from a material standpoint alone.
Kyrie Elieson!
-
As someone already pointed out, a big problem with the sspx is that once a deal is made, all the property changes hands, (this happens even if they are given the utmost independence and, from a "Faith" standpoint it's not a dangerous deal). So all the hard work, time, money, etc that was put into these chapels (and is still being put into them) goes to Rome and/or your local Bishop. I know many people have been harping on this for years, but it's troubling that the society owns all the property (and made a concerted effort to get their hands on it).
On the negative side, if the deal is "bad" and people have to stop going to mass where they've always gone, then many people will be back to having mass in hotel rooms. This isn't wrong, it will just be a big sacrifice. Even if 99% of the priests and laity join the "resistance" overnight, all the property will be gone and into the hands of Rome. Surely, God will provide, and surely, this type of persecution will bring many graces, but traditional catholics are in for a wild ride if any deal happens, just from a material standpoint alone.
Kyrie Elieson!
True on every point (except for those chapels where the laity were prescient enough to keep property title in the hands of the laity).
I would like to add this—Whether it is in our lifetimes or not, we know exactly where this is going. Our Blessed Mother warned us that eventually we would have only her Rosary and scapular. Perhaps we are closing in on that time sooner than we would want.
-
Gloria.TV News on the 19th of November 2015
EXCLUSIVE: An American sedevacantist website has spread the rumor that an agreement between the SSPX and the Vatican is imminent. But Father Franz Schmidberger, the rector of the Society’s seminary in Germany, declared before Gloria.tv that an agreement was not in sight. But he confirmed that there exists a Vatican proposal in which – quote – “a lot still needs to be clarified."
-
Gloria.TV News on the 19th of November 2015
EXCLUSIVE: An American sedevacantist website has spread the rumor that an agreement between the SSPX and the Vatican is imminent. But Father Franz Schmidberger, the rector of the Society’s seminary in Germany, declared before Gloria.tv that an agreement was not in sight. But he confirmed that there exists a Vatican proposal in which – quote – “a lot still needs to be clarified."
What sedevacantist website is spreading this rumor? I've only seen it discussed here on CathInfo.
The reference was to GaJєωski, apparently.
See how famous you can get when you buy subscribers. Surely, he is on cloud nine after seeing this.
http://gloria.tv/media/p9BiR97nA1e
-
The reference was to GaJєωski, apparently.
I didn't think he was sedevacantist, just an egomaniac, i.e., the one who thinks God has called upon him to give the orders.
He recently interviewed John Salza on his website. Surely John Salza, who is extremely anti-sedevacantist, wouldn't be interviewed by this fellow if he were a sedevacantist.
-
I got an update today:
Dear Matthew,
And update from Switzerland and a correction:
Apparently the agreement proposal was sent to Menzingen this past summer. There are contradictory statements about the date. But it seems to be a fact now that the proposal has been on the table for quite a bit longer than "a few days".
+Fellay will decide on the proposal until the end of 2015.
Unfortunately there is currently no information about the content of the proposal.
P.S.: As you can see, SSPX leaders are already in confusion. Fr. Schmidberger confirmed at Gloria TV the receiving of a proposal. I assume Menzingen is not very happy about the crappy communication. Bye-bye "one voice" strategy...
-
So the "facts" are already being double-guessed, eh?
If it's been sitting there that long, there must be something in there that they really need to think through.
-
The reference was to GaJєωski, apparently.
I didn't think he was sedevacantist, just an egomaniac, i.e., the one who thinks God has called upon him to give the orders.
He recently interviewed John Salza on his website. Surely John Salza, who is extremely anti-sedevacantist, wouldn't be interviewed by this fellow if he were a sedevacantist.
He's not sedevacantist. I just looked at his FB profile (https://www.facebook.com/eric.gaJєωski.71?fref=ts), which is public, and he says, "It amazes me how many people like GloriaTV still label us Sedevacantist when I have publicly said at least hundred plus times we are not. Sedevacantists declare themselves as such....I do not and NEVER HAVE BEEN A SEDEVACANTIST."
-
This does put the "Year of Mercy" Confession jurisdiction announcement into some perspective though. Perhaps that was done as a gesture of good will in wake of this proposal, a "See, we're sincere about the proposal and really mean it" kind of thing.
-
This does put the "Year of Mercy" Confession jurisdiction announcement into some perspective though. Perhaps that was done as a gesture of good will in wake of this proposal, a "See, we're sincere about the proposal and really mean it" kind of thing.
There's also this:
http://www.novusordowatch.org/wire/fellay-eve-important-events.htm
-
Indeed, they are far from well-informed or right on the button, as evidenced by confusion such as this:
This also explains why a number of clerics have left the SSPX in order to found the “Resistance”, otherwise known as the SSPX-Marian Corps or SSPX of the Strict Observance (including such prominent names as Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer, Fr. Francois Chazal, and Bp. Richard Williamson).
The SSPX-Marian Corps is the name for TWO priests (Frs. Pfeiffer and Hewko) at their Boston, KY headquarters. Fr. Chazal is no longer with them.
What percent of the Resistance do they represent? 3%? Maybe as high as 5%?
I like how they put Fr. Pfeiffer's name first. They are obviously big time Internet media consumers, with minds that are easily led.
-
And what they proffer as evidence that "the SSPX is a living contradiction", I would merely point out as two distortions of the same virtue.
Of course you have people leaning more towards the recognize, and more towards the resist. Just like some people violate this or that virtue to excess or to defect.
We're talking about human beings here.
If anything, the fact that some SSPX leave to join the Conciliar Church and others leave to become sedevacantist shows how well-balanced the SSPX position is.
Some people practice false obedience (excess, such as obeying a command to commit murder) or disobedience (defect, or not following a legitimate command). The same with all the other virtues.
There is always a "not enough" and "too far" for ANY correct position out there.
How about private ownership of property? There is laissez-faire capitalism (the 1%ers) on the excess end, and Communism on the defect end.
-
As someone already pointed out, a big problem with the sspx is that once a deal is made, all the property changes hands, (this happens even if they are given the utmost independence and, from a "Faith" standpoint it's not a dangerous deal). So all the hard work, time, money, etc that was put into these chapels (and is still being put into them) goes to Rome and/or your local Bishop. I know many people have been harping on this for years, but it's troubling that the society owns all the property (and made a concerted effort to get their hands on it).
On the negative side, if the deal is "bad" and people have to stop going to mass where they've always gone, then many people will be back to having mass in hotel rooms. This isn't wrong, it will just be a big sacrifice. Even if 99% of the priests and laity join the "resistance" overnight, all the property will be gone and into the hands of Rome. Surely, God will provide, and surely, this type of persecution will bring many graces, but traditional catholics are in for a wild ride if any deal happens, just from a material standpoint alone.
Kyrie Elieson!
True on every point (except for those chapels where the laity were prescient enough to keep property title in the hands of the laity).
I would like to add this—Whether it is in our lifetimes or not, we know exactly where this is going. Our Blessed Mother warned us that eventually we would have only her Rosary and scapular. Perhaps we are closing in on that time sooner than we would want.
Actually, not true on every point, nor universally true throughout the Church. In the United States, Religious Orders can and do incorporate property outside of the jurisdiction of the diocese. How church property is owned or incorporated also varies from State to State. These days, there are very few churches which do not have their origin as a property of the diocese, but some do exist that were erected as a property of a religious order. Aside from some Monasteries, St. Mary's in Annapolis MD is an example of a parish started in the 18th Century by the Redemptorists and remaining a Redemptorist property.
There were also terms, both in 1988 and in 2012, granting 'recognition' of the friends of the Society, like Silver City, whose property the Society does not necessarily own or control.
I am sure this is a significantly sensitive point for +Fellay in considering any proposal. I would bet a lobster dinner that he would hold out for property rights as a part of any deal. Remember, he was the bursar.
-
This does put the "Year of Mercy" Confession jurisdiction announcement into some perspective though. Perhaps that was done as a gesture of good will in wake of this proposal, a "See, we're sincere about the proposal and really mean it" kind of thing.
This does indeed explain a purpose behind the Vatican "gesture". Very astute observation.
-
Did Matthew encounter (a great Novus Ordo word) any update on what he mentioned in his opening post? Thank you in advance.
-
As someone already pointed out, a big problem with the sspx is that once a deal is made, all the property changes hands, (this happens even if they are given the utmost independence and, from a "Faith" standpoint it's not a dangerous deal). So all the hard work, time, money, etc that was put into these chapels (and is still being put into them) goes to Rome and/or your local Bishop. I know many people have been harping on this for years, but it's troubling that the society owns all the property (and made a concerted effort to get their hands on it).
On the negative side, if the deal is "bad" and people have to stop going to mass where they've always gone, then many people will be back to having mass in hotel rooms. This isn't wrong, it will just be a big sacrifice. Even if 99% of the priests and laity join the "resistance" overnight, all the property will be gone and into the hands of Rome. Surely, God will provide, and surely, this type of persecution will bring many graces, but traditional catholics are in for a wild ride if any deal happens, just from a material standpoint alone.
Kyrie Elieson!
True on every point (except for those chapels where the laity were prescient enough to keep property title in the hands of the laity).
I would like to add this—Whether it is in our lifetimes or not, we know exactly where this is going. Our Blessed Mother warned us that eventually we would have only her Rosary and scapular. Perhaps we are closing in on that time sooner than we would want.
Actually, not true on every point, nor universally true throughout the Church. In the United States, Religious Orders can and do incorporate property outside of the jurisdiction of the diocese. How church property is owned or incorporated also varies from State to State. These days, there are very few churches which do not have their origin as a property of the diocese, but some do exist that were erected as a property of a religious order. Aside from some Monasteries, St. Mary's in Annapolis MD is an example of a parish started in the 18th Century by the Redemptorists and remaining a Redemptorist property.
There were also terms, both in 1988 and in 2012, granting 'recognition' of the friends of the Society, like Silver City, whose property the Society does not necessarily own or control.
I am sure this is a significantly sensitive point for +Fellay in considering any proposal. I would bet a lobster dinner that he would hold out for property rights as a part of any deal. Remember, he was the bursar.
Thank you! Very edifying.
-
So the "facts" are already being double-guessed, eh?
If it's been sitting there that long, there must be something in there that they really need to think through.
Perhaps they are waiting on the real results (ie. Francis' final comments) of the Synod. If Francis allows divorced ad remarried to receive communion, they don't sign. If he does, they do.
-
http://www.adelantelafe.com/es-cierto-roma-ha-enviado-una-propuesta-a-la-fsspxsspx/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=facebook
This Portugese article is a possible confirmation, but everytime I visit, AVG says there's something called JS/Dropper on the site, adware most likely. Now there are false positives with av software, but it makes me a little wary.
JS/Dropper is a malicious software that once it is executed has the capability of replicating itself and infect other files and programs. These type of malware, called Viruses, can steal hard disk space and memory that slows down or completely halts your PC. It can also corrupt or delete data, erase your hard drive, steal personal information, hijack your screen and spam your contacts to spread itself to other users. Usually, a Virus is received as an attachment on an email or instant message.
-
OK, lets suppose Bishop Fellay will sign a deal. I wonder how it would play out within the SSPX. I attend the SSPX chapel in England and I got to know number of SSPX priests in Britain - there are no signs of any surrender here, all of them strongly condemn Vatican II and current course of the Church (last Sunday sermon was about errors and dangerous statements in Relatio from the Synod, two weeks ago our priest condemned religious liberty as a heresy which will lead millions of souls to hell). I am sure that if a deal compromising the faith will be signed they will not go for it, they won't compromise the faith and won't let the work of Archbishop Lefebvre to be destroyed. However, if a deal itself will be good (no strings attached, no compromise on doctrine) but modernist Rome will try to destroy the SSPX later (as they did to many other traditionalist groups after signing deals), it might be a more difficult situation.
-
The deal is done. It was done years ago. We have bigger problems.
These terrorists are worldwide. As Churches being sold off, they are building mosques.
We need to rid the Church of Sodomists and communists.
The 4 Marks of the Church is one holy Catholic apostolic church.
-
OK, lets suppose Bishop Fellay will sign a deal. I wonder how it would play out within the SSPX. I attend the SSPX chapel in England and I got to know number of SSPX priests in Britain - there are no signs of any surrender here, all of them strongly condemn Vatican II and current course of the Church (last Sunday sermon was about errors and dangerous statements in Relatio from the Synod, two weeks ago our priest condemned religious liberty as a heresy which will lead millions of souls to hell). I am sure that if a deal compromising the faith will be signed they will not go for it, they won't compromise the faith and won't let the work of Archbishop Lefebvre to be destroyed. However, if a deal itself will be good (no strings attached, no compromise on doctrine) but modernist Rome will try to destroy the SSPX later (as they did to many other traditionalist groups after signing deals), it might be a more difficult situation.
Since you're in Britain, have you been reading The Recusant?
Have you been to any of the Resistance Masses organized by that group?
-
So the "facts" are already being double-guessed, eh?
If it's been sitting there that long, there must be something in there that they really need to think through.
Perhaps they are waiting on the real results (ie. Francis' final comments) of the Synod. If Francis allows divorced ad remarried to receive communion, they don't sign. If he does, they do.
Could you perhaps have meant to say:
Perhaps they are waiting on the real results (i.e., Francis' final comments) of the Synod. If Francis allows divorced and remarried to receive communion, they don't sign. If he does not allow it, they do. (?)
-
Did Matthew encounter (a great Novus Ordo word) any update on what he mentioned in his opening post? Thank you in advance.
Just go back a few pages:
Post (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=38816&min=140&#p0)
I got an update today:
Dear Matthew,
[An] update from Switzerland and a correction:
Apparently the agreement proposal was sent to Menzingen this past summer. There are contradictory statements about the date. But it seems to be a fact now that the proposal has been on the table for quite a bit longer than "a few days".
+Fellay will [wait to?] decide on the proposal until the end of 2015.
Unfortunately there is currently no information about the content of the proposal.
P.S.: As you can see, SSPX leaders are already in confusion. Fr. Schmidberger confirmed at Gloria TV the receiving of a proposal. I assume Menzingen is not very happy about the crappy communication. Bye-bye "one voice" strategy...
-
I should have said something earlier --
Please take the Sede debate to the Crisis subforum. It is not on-topic for this thread.
-
So the "facts" are already being double-guessed, eh?
If it's been sitting there that long, there must be something in there that they really need to think through.
Perhaps they are waiting on the real results (ie. Francis' final comments) of the Synod. If Francis allows divorced ad remarried to receive communion, they don't sign. If he does, they do.
Could you perhaps have meant to say:
Perhaps they are waiting on the real results (i.e., Francis' final comments) of the Synod. If Francis allows divorced and remarried to receive communion, they don't sign. If he does not allow it, they do. (?)
Yes, thank you. Sorry about that. I think the fingers were working faster than the mind.
-
Just FYI, this has NOT, by any means, been proven false. As a matter of fact, it's practically a done deal already.
This thread needs to be bumped.
-
Also attached to this was this tidbit... "Fr. Wegner was in Houston 2 weeks ago, he told the SSPX faithful, 'Don't be surprised if one day you wake up and you are in Rome.'"
This.
This tends to corroborate this pending deal with Rome. Why would Fr. Wegner say this in Houston JUST TWO WEEKS AGO to get us all ready?
This visit of Fr. Wegner occurred about 3 1/2 months ago.
Mod edit: I know. Just look at the date on the post in which I said it was 2 weeks ago.
In the meantime, some of my SSPX friends are no longer attending the SSPX but are now attending the FSSP. A friend in Italy tells me that few attend the SSPX parishes and that the faithful are unusually quiet and afraid to say anything lest they be reprimanded.
-
I am sure that if a deal compromising the faith will be signed they will not go for it, they won't compromise the faith and won't let the work of Archbishop Lefebvre to be destroyed. However, if a deal itself will be good (no strings attached, no compromise on doctrine) but modernist Rome will try to destroy the SSPX later (as they did to many other traditionalist groups after signing deals), it might be a more difficult situation.
I think that's precisely what will happen: the more difficult situation you envision.
Only those with clarity of thought and a strong prudence will see the danger. Everyone else will be lulled into a false sense of security, and convinced to join the "celebration" of the SSPX's acceptance by Rome.
The wise, however, look at the track record of other groups which have made a deal with Modernist Rome -- which, for the record, is still as Modernist as ever!
Go to TrueTrad.com and look at the heading "The Dead" to see all the groups who have made a deal with Rome, unto their own destruction.
Contents[Hide]
1. The Good Shepherd Institute
2. The Fraternity (Society) of Saint Peter
3. The Society of St. John Marie Vianney in Campos, Brazil (in Portuguese)
3.1. Bishop Rifan: A perfect example of the slippery slope of compromise:
4. The Institute of St. Phillip Neri
5. The Institute of Christ the King
6. Dom Gerard and the Benedictine Monastery of Le Barroux
7. "The Redemptorists"
8. "Mater Ecclesiae"
9. The Sisters of the "Oasis de Jesus Sacerdote"
10. We could actually include another group...
11. Do you see the pattern of Rome's gameplan?
1. The Good Shepherd Institute
Formed in 2006 by some SSPX priests who left to make an agreement with modernist Rome,the Institute is now feeling the iron fist of that same lying Rome. Here are some examples of what Rome (the Ecclesia Dei Commission) has now done to the Institute, as the result of a canonical visit:
Rome demanded that the "Good Shepherd Institute integrate into its studies the magisterium of Vatican II and of recent/current Popes."
Rome also warned them: "It should suffice simply to define this form [i.e. the Traditional Mass] as 'the rite proper to the Institute', without speaking of 'exclusivity'"
Rome also added: "...more than merely criticizing the Second Vatican Council, even when done in a 'serious and constructive' way, the efforts of teachers should focus on the transmission of the entire patrimony of the Church, emphasizing the hermeneutics of renewal in continuity and taking for supporting the integrity of Catholic doctrine expounded by the Catechism of the Catholic Church"
(English source for the above quotes here; French original: here)
Read more about the murder of the Good Shepherd Institute in this great article. Seeing the demise of his organization after foolishly trusting Rome, its superior general was honest enough to warn the SSPX:
"The Society of Saint Pius X must know instinctively that it will be treated tomorrow as we are treated today."
We put the Good Shepherd Institute first in this list not because it is the largest "traditional" organization to have made a deal, but because it is the most recent example of Rome showing how consistently it breaks agreements and finally destroys Tradition. Rome has still not changed one bit since the days of Vatican II; its Modernism has perhaps become more subtle and smooth under Pope Benedict, but it is just as strong as ever.
2. The Fraternity (Society) of Saint Peter
It was formed in 1988 by 16 priests who left the SSPX because they disagreed with Arch. Lefebvre's consecration of four bishops without papal approval. These men thought they could have "Catholic Tradition" at the same time as being in "full communion with Rome" (exactly what Bishop Fellay is now claiming the SSPX should do). Well, the FSSP has now experienced how Rome inevitably treats those who are foolish enough to make a compromise deal with it. Since the days of the FSSP's founding, Rome has done the following to them:
Demanded that the FSSP priests concelebrate the novus ordo Mass at least once per year (on Holy Thursday's chrismal Mass)
Demanded eleven years after its founding that the FSSP's priests “must celebrate with the postconciliar [novus ordo] missal if, by chance, a celebration takes place in a community which uses the modern Roman Rite” (http://latinmassmagazine.com/articles/articles_1999_FA_Woods.html). This was demanded even though at the time of its founding in 1988, the FSSP was granted the "exclusive use" of the traditional Mass! (Ibid) Notice: eleven years. It may take time, it may not - but eventually modernist Rome will make all its sheep fall in line.
Demanded that the FSSP allow its priests the right to say the novus ordo Mass if they so desire (agreement made in 2000). Because of the deterioration of the formation of Society of St. Peter priests, some of its priests wanted to say the new mass on other occasions also, and Cardinal Hoyos forbade the society’s leadership from preventing this. (http://www.catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/defense/negotiations.htm)
Demanded that the FSSP not criticize the New Mass, and even admit that the New Mass is the official rite of the Church - something that a traditional Catholic would never agree to.
Removed and replaced the FSSP's superiors with men who were more to its liking: About twelve years after the FSSP's founding and initial agreement with Rome, Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos, acting as head of Ecclesia Dei, imposed his own choice of superior general on that society and his own choice of rectors to replace the two that the same cardinal ordered removed from their positions in charge of that society’s two seminaries. (http://www.catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/defense/negotiations.htm)
Here is a revealing quote from Fr. Gabet, former North American District Superior of the FSSP, which reveals the all but novus ordo mentality:
"We see Vatican II, and we look at those docuмents, and we see them, like Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, in light of Tradition. It is not just Vatican II, but it is all the councils. Vatican II is certainly one of them — from Nicea all the way to Vatican II." Source: This interview at http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1610361/posts
These and other forced concessions by the FSSP were a result of the compromise mentality it had since its very beginning - a compromise mentality which Rome fully took advantage of. This great article by some of their own seminarians, written just 5 years after the Fraternity of St. Peter founding, shows the tremendous problems that arise from a compromise mentality. What would they have written now, 20+ years later! Dear Lord, please prevent the SSPX from such a fate!
3. The Society of St. John Marie Vianney in Campos, Brazil (in Portuguese)
The Dominican "theologian of the papal household," Fr. Georges Cottier, regarding the fact that the Campos priests were not being required to offer the new mass at the time they made their agreement with Rome, candidly commented that: “Little by little we must expect [the Campos priests to take] other steps: for example, that they also participate in the reformed rite. However, we must not be in a hurry.” Quoting an interview by Avvenire (Jan. 19, 2002), quoted in Si Si No No, September 2002 (here)
3.1. Bishop Rifan: A perfect example of the slippery slope of compromise:
(To read more about the gradual fall of Bishop Rifan, read this interview at the Angelus website, from the days when Bishop Fellay still spoke fairly clearly and strongly. The Angelus article is still available even as of June 8, 2012)
A few months before his consecration, Bishop Rifan said: "I have no problem with celebrating the New Mass, but I don't do it because it would cause trouble to the faithful." (from that same nterview with Bishop Fellay) Well, a short time later, Bishop Rifan began to (and still does) concelebrate the new mass. http://gloria.tv/?media=166615
Bishop Rifan defends concelebrating the new mass as “normal, correct, and good” and, according to Bishop Rifan, concelebrating the new mass is required by “doctrinal principles”. http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2011/08/note-on-concelebration-of-holy-mass-in.html
(The Society of St. John Marie Vianney's webpage is Portugeese, but you can at least read the English Wikipedia page for whatever that's worth...)
Dr. David Allen White, the traditional Catholic professor who is a famed master of literature, wrote this excellent letter to the compromising priests of Campos, pleading with them to not trust Rome. They ignored him.
4. The Institute of St. Phillip Neri
Homepage: http://www.institut-philipp-neri.de/ Founded in 2003 by ex-SSPX members and a priest who had come to the SSPX and worked with them for six years. Their seminarians have been trained in conciliar (novus ordo) church universities such as the Angelicuм in Rome. http://www.ecclesiadei.nl/docs/fiuv03_neri.html.
We will add more about this Institute in the future.
5. The Institute of Christ the King
Msgr. Michael Schmitz, who is vicar general and provincial superior of the Institute of Christ the King, Sovereign Priest (ICKSP) in the U.S, says that the Institute teaches that all of Vatican II’s teachings, including concerning religious liberty and ecuмenism, are in harmony with the traditional teaching of the Catholic Church. We quote him:
"So, it is not possible that there is a contradiction between Church docuмents that have a high official character. We try to train our seminarians to understand that."
An interview asked Msgr Schmitz, "[So] what you ... are saying is that if an individual cannot come to harmonize the teachings of religious liberty and ecuмenism, then the problem is not with the Church, but with your lack of understanding? ". Msgr. Schmitz answered, "Yes. Exactly."
(Source for these quotes: this article or this one)
Institute of Christ the King priests are willing to concelebrate the new mass with local bishops who ask them to do so. See, SSPX Canadian District Magazine, Convictions, Issue 16, March 2009, p.26, quoting Institute founder and Prior General, Msgr. Gilles Wach, from Fideliter #187.
6. Dom Gerard and the Benedictine Monastery of Le Barroux
“[T]he monastery of Le Barroux [which made its agreement with the Vatican in 1988] … today defends the false religious liberty it attacked yesterday”. Si Si No No, September 2002, at http://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/SiSiNoNo/2002_September/Ambiguous_Accord.htm
The new mass (as well as the Traditional Mass) is now said at the former-Traditionalist monastery of Le Barroux. http://www.ecclesiadei.nl/docs/fiuv03_neri.html
7. "The Redemptorists"
The former "Redemptorists" of Papa Stronsay, Scotland began in 1987 when Archbishop Lefebvre had officially blessed the undertaking of the foundation. They worked in full cooperation with the SSPX, until their compromising superior quietly made a deal with Rome so that they would be "recognized" by Rome. Only a few brave Redemptorists refused the compromise, and the SSPX keeps these few under its wing. As for the rest of the compromisers who "went with Rome":
They have begun using the new Good Friday prayer for the Jєωs which was written by Pope Benedict XVI in order to avoid offending the Jєωs. http://papastronsay.blogspot.com/2008/02/solemn-prayers-of-good-friday.html
They now send their seminarians to the Society of St. Peter, to receive an seriously compromised indult-mentality formation. http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.269653879753163.81399.161482623903623&type=3
When they made their agreement with Rome, the Transalpine Redemptorists were told that they can no longer call themselves "Redemptorists" or "the Congregation of the Most Holy Redeemer" but instead, "The Sons of the Most Holy Redeemer (F.SS.R.)" http://papastronsay.blogspot.com/2008/07/interview-update-i.html
On August 15, 2012, this group was granted a clerical institute of diocesan right. While this sounds like a great thing, what this actually does is to put the group under the control of the local bishop in the same way that other religous orders are. This is a far cry from the very special protections needed if a "traditionalist" order hopes to survive the attacks of the rabidly liberal diocesan bishops. The needed protection would be one which would make the order completely exempt from interference of (at least) the local bishops. (Source: here)
8. "Mater Ecclesiae"
Materi Ecclesia was set up back in the 1980's by Pope JPII, in order to lure seminarians away from Econe. Unfortunately, some of them took the bait and left. Here is an excerpt which describes the fate of all those who did so. It is taken from the end of this article:
"...[W]e are giving here below the extracts from a letter written by a seminarian who left Ecône to join the seminary Mater Ecclesiae, at Rome, an establishment desired by the Holy Father and opened by him on October 15th, 1986, and protected by a commission of Cardinals. Mater Ecclesiae was designed, you will remember, to be a Seminary to receive seminarians who left Ecône and 'any others who felt like them.' [Here is his letter:]
How sorry I am! Yes! I have everything, absolutely everything to be sorry about in this 'enterprise' of Mater Ecclesiae. Firstly my being sent away for having made insistent requests in favour; for example, of more frequent Tridentine Masses, the wearing of ecclesiastical dress, the correction within the seminary of the errors of the courses being taught us at the Angelicuм University...
"The reply to these requests, repeated many times, was silence, and above all, the steady and by now complete realigning of the House and of each of the seminarians on Modernist Rome. The whole enterprise is the laughing-stock of the progressives, with the French bishops at their head, including some of the most traditional!
"Day by day we saw the situation growing worse, the seminarians taking off their habit, seminarians getting themselves accepted by the bishops by renouncing everything, being ready for anything…Then there came the time of sanctions when all those who had been given the task of helping us were ordered by the authorities to look after us no longer…Henceforth for anyone who wanted nothing to do with the bishops of France or anywhere else, there is absolutely no further solution…Vagus…we are from now on wandering clerics, left hanging in the void.
“And the Pope did nothing, and no doubt next year the House Mater Ecclesiae will be closed, which may well be no bad thing.
"Several times I had the occasion to say either to Cardinal Ratzinger or to certain Monsignori of the Curia that, alas, we were forced to admit that Archbishop: Lefebvre was right on most questions and that I was wrong.
"It causes me much suffering to write you these lines as I think of my idiocy in having abandoned Ecône despite your advice, the cowardice of the authorities (I am weighing my words) when it comes to Tradition and their similar cowardice when it comes to 'ecuмenism' towards the others, the abandoning and denial on the part of almost all those who had undertaken never to let go…everything, yes, absolutely everything, fills me with regret!"
Letter from an ex-SSPX seminarian. Rome June 2. 1988.
9. The Sisters of the "Oasis de Jesus Sacerdote"
The Oasis de Jesus Sacerdote was a group of Traditionalist sisters gathered together by a certain Fr. Munoz, who had apparently given the sisters the mission to be victim souls in suffering for the good of priests. The group, including Munoz, were for a long time very friendly with the SSPX and 100% traditional. Around 2007, a novus ordo bishop convinced this Fr. Munoz to bring the organization under his "protection", promising they would not have to change anything. Some of the sisters, smelling trouble, refused to go along with the new organization and thankfully put themselves under Bishop de Galarreta. The others who went with the novus ordo bishop are now saying the "Luminous Mysteries" of the Rosary; although this is a tiny compromise, Rome's foot is "in the door". They are undoubtedly making other compromises; we will add more information about this organization in the future.
10. We could actually include another group...
One of readers mentioned that one could add a 10th group to the above list: those groups who have entered the Catholic Church, trusting to learn the Faith and become solid Catholics, but who were then betrayed by Modern Rome and instead, made into little modernists. This group would include, for example, the "Traditional Anglican Communion" - a group of Anglicans who knocked on Rome's door in 1991. This group really contained Anglicans who wanted to imbible True Catholic Tradition. However, it is a long story that the true Catholics amongst this group have been absorbed by the NewModernistChurch and their tradition and their attachment to True Roman tradition has been smashed. There have been other groups as well who have approached Rome and wanted to convert, to whom Rome responded with, "Oh no, it is no longer necessary to convert!"
11. Do you see the pattern of Rome's gameplan?
By reading the above list of compromised organizations, a pattern is clearly seen.
An organization either begins with a "compromise mentality", or else develops one (such as the SSPX leadership, many priests, and many faithful are now doing!)
This mentality progresses into the desire to be in "full communion" with Rome even if it means concessions on important matters. The organization's leaders develop an overconfidence in their ability to defend against the crushing power of modernist Rome, as well as a misplaced trust in Rome's sincerity. They forget the last 20 years of history.
An agreement is made. Concessions are made by the organization.
There is a waiting period before Rome does anything. Rome is patient. It might be 10 years!
Demands begin to be made. Changes. A backing down from the former "hardliner" stance. New leadership is put in. The new leaders lack the spirit of the founders. Softening on condemnations of the errors of Vatican II, the New Mass, etc.
The organization begins to lose its focus, zeal, and begins to crumble.
Eventually there will is very little substantial difference between it and the New Church.
We hope that you see this pattern, because Pope Benedict and the modernist hierachy certainly do! In his March 10, 2009 letter to the world’s bishops, the pope stated:
"I myself saw, in the years after 1988, how the return of communities which had been separated from Rome changed their interior attitudes; I saw how returning to the bigger and broader Church enabled them to move beyond one-sided positions and broke down rigidity so that positive energies could emerge for the whole." (read the article on the Vatican website)
Again: We at TrueTrad believe the root cause of all of this weakness and foolishness by these "traditionalist" organizations is the compromise mentality". We trads either simply forget that Rome has not and will not change its Modernism. We forget what we are fighting for, and/or fail to teach our children the situation we are in. Eventually, we let Rome's patience win: "I must finally give in on some (important) points, in order to convince Rome to 'let me back into the Church'."
-
Also attached to this was this tidbit... "Fr. Wegner was in Houston 2 weeks ago, he told the SSPX faithful, 'Don't be surprised if one day you wake up and you are in Rome.'"
This.
This tends to corroborate this pending deal with Rome. Why would Fr. Wegner say this in Houston JUST TWO WEEKS AGO to get us all ready?
This visit of Fr. Wegner occurred about 3 1/2 months ago.
Mod edit: I know. Just look at the date on the post in which I said it was 2 weeks ago.
In the meantime, some of my SSPX friends are no longer attending the SSPX but are now attending the FSSP. A friend in Italy tells me that few attend the SSPX parishes and that the faithful are unusually quiet and afraid to say anything lest they be reprimanded.
Sorry, I was not correcting you, instead I was emphasizing the DELIBERATE DELAY, which probably means that more liberalizing and modernizing factors will be at work, so more time is needed to finalize the deal. Already, devout SSPX parishioners are going elsewhere, even to the FSSP, because they have been deceived into believing that everything is okay with Rome.
When the final deal is done, the SSPX as we knew it will no longer exist, all memories of it will be erased, and ABL will be consigned to the dust bin of history.
:facepalm:
-
People never learn:
Historia magistra vitae et testis temporum - History is the teacher and witness of times (Cicero)
-
Maybe Pope Francis has agreed to be validly consecrated.....
Now THERE'S a pipe dream if I've ever heard one.
It's not beyond the pale to question whether he really believes that episcopal consecrations per se are anything to be concerned with. Remember: "Who am I to judge?" If he thought he had been validly consecrated or that a valid consecration makes any difference at all, he would never have asked about his ability to judge something regarding faith or morals like he did there.
I asked a good priest if anyone knows: Who is Pope Francis' confessor? And his response floored me. But it woke me up.
.
Pope Pius XII confessor was Fr. Bea, who was raised to a Cardinal by
JXXIII. He was the prime mover of Vatican 2. He was also a German Jєω.
See what Wikipedia says about him:
Impact and legacy[edit]
Bea was highly influential at the Vatican II Council in the 1960s as a decisive force in the drafting of Nostra aetate, which repudiated anti-Semitism. In 1963, he held secret talks with Abraham Joshua Heschel, promoting Catholic-Jєωιѕн dialogue.[3] John Borelli, a Vatican II historian, has observed that, "It took the will of John XXIII and the perseverance of Cardinal Bea to impose the declaration on the Council".[4] During a session of the Central Preparatory Commission, he also rejected the proposition that the Council Fathers take an oath composed of the Nicene Creed and the Anti-Modernist Oath.[5] After Alfredo Ottaviani, the heavily conservative head of the Holy Office, presented his draft of the schema on the sources of Divine Revelation, Bea claimed that it "would close the door to intellectual Europe and the outstretched hands of friendship in the old and new world".[6] He served on numerous ecuмenical bodies and was the author of nine works, including The Church and the Jєωιѕн People (New York: Harper & Row, 1966).
Bea was a confessor to Pope Pius XII for a short time. The encyclical Divino afflante Spiritu was very much shaped by Bea and Jacques-Marie Voste, O.P. (secretary of the Pontifical Biblical Commission).[7][8]
When Pius XII proposed appointing Bea to the College of Cardinals in 1946, Superior General Jean-Baptiste Janssens spoke out against it, as many felt the Holy See was showing preferential treatment to the Jesuits.[9] He had for some time, among his theological advisers, Jesuit priest Malachi Martin.[10] Among the other offices, Bea was a consultor to several Roman congregations.
-
Waiting for it to be verified....
If true, then it shows the SSPX's utter lack of understanding of the Crisis! Archbishop Lefebvre will be relegated to the nostalgic bin where his memory will be venerated of course but where his doctrine (nothing other than Catholic doctrine) will be more or less forgotten.
Did you see what happened to Bishop De Castro Mayer after the Campos priests made a deal? Their websites were purged of any memory of him. Their faithful think that he went schismatic at the end. His tomb is in a church kept by the third order Carmelites, whom he strengthened greatly in his diocese. The Campos priests do not visit his tomb or pray for him on the Commemoration of the Faithful Departed.
That isn't right. In our area, they name school after sinful bishops.
May Bishop de Castro Mayer RIP.
-
Waiting for it to be verified....
If true, then it shows the SSPX's utter lack of understanding of the Crisis! Archbishop Lefebvre will be relegated to the nostalgic bin where his memory will be venerated of course but where his doctrine (nothing other than Catholic doctrine) will be more or less forgotten.
Imagine ''Pope'' Francis going on a statement to say during the ceremonial of SSPX-Vatican II reconciliation:
"+Lefebvre was a Bishop of the Catholic Church who loved the Church Tradition, loved the Old Mass, loved the old buildings and he was scared of the revolutions. But as we've learned my dear brothers, the changes were for the better of the Church, the Vatican II was a Council of love and teaching, the Council tried to imitate [sic] the life of Our Lord and preach to everyone, no one should be considered outside the Church. +Lefebvre was a man who was very obedient to the Pope and the Holy Spirit assisted the Church during this sad time of separation. "
"Dear brothers, lesbians, gαys, and every heretic that is hearing us: I'm so happy the good and soldier of Christ Archbishop Lefebvre have united back with the Catholic Church, the eternal and loving Rome which loves all."
Note: these people, theologians and priests who are going to write books about +Lefebvre were quiet for the past 25 years if not long, they will only write as long as Francis say anything good about +Lefebvre. Even if "a good thing" means Francis making a joke about +Lefebvre. Also these theologians and priests are going to write about +Lefebvre so they will be regarded as "priests friends of Tradition" by the layman.
There are many many many theologians waiting for this opportunity put a seal on the question "Vatican II was a Council of the Church" and "Vatican II must be interpreted in the light of Tradition".
I'm sorry but I don't remember Pope Francis talking about St John Neumann or even St Katherine Drexel. He won't even mention Archbishop Lefebvre.
Now Pope Francis will talk Abe anti Catholic Lincoln, Mlk, Dorothy Day and Thomas Merton.
-
.
Someone looking for a quick read might not make it to the summary at the bottom:
Post (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=38816&min=145&#p3)
11. Do you see the pattern of Rome's gameplan?
By reading the above list of compromised organizations, a pattern is clearly seen.
An organization either begins with a "compromise mentality", or else develops one (such as the SSPX leadership, many priests, and many faithful are now doing!)
This mentality progresses into the desire to be in "full communion" with Rome even if it means concessions on important matters. The organization's leaders develop an overconfidence in their ability to defend against the crushing power of modernist Rome, as well as a misplaced trust in Rome's sincerity. They forget the last 20 years of history.
An agreement is made. Concessions are made by the organization.
There is a waiting period before Rome does anything. Rome is patient. It might be 10 years!
Demands begin to be made. Changes. A backing down from the former "hardliner" stance. New leadership is put in. The new leaders lack the spirit of the founders. Softening on condemnations of the errors of Vatican II, the New Mass, etc.
The organization begins to lose its focus, zeal, and begins to crumble.
Eventually there will is very little substantial difference between it and the New Church.
We hope that you see this pattern, because Pope Benedict and the modernist hierachy certainly do! In his March 10, 2009 letter to the world’s bishops, the pope stated:
"I myself saw, in the years after 1988, how the return of communities which had been separated from Rome changed their interior attitudes; I saw how returning to the bigger and broader Church enabled them to move beyond one-sided positions and broke down rigidity so that positive energies could emerge for the whole." (read the article on the Vatican website)
Again: We at TrueTrad believe the root cause of all of this weakness and foolishness by these "traditionalist" organizations is the compromise mentality". We trads either simply forget that Rome has not and will not change its Modernism. We forget what we are fighting for, and/or fail to teach our children the situation we are in.
Eventually, we let Rome's patience win: "I must finally give in on some (important) points, in order to convince Rome to 'let me back into the Church'."
Eventually, we let Rome's patience win: "I must finally give in on some (important) points, in order to convince Rome to 'let me back into the Church'."
Isn't that the essence of GREC in the first place?!?!
.
-
That isn't right. In our area, they name school after sinful bishops.
Which is worse: being an alumnus of Rampolla High or Bugnini Academy?
Maybe Miss Bernadin's Day School for Girls?
-
Now Pope Francis will talk Abe (anti Catholic) Lincoln, Mlk, Dorothy Day and Thomas Merton.
Thomas Merton. HAHAHAHAHA
.
-
Seriously, during his visit to America , the Pope mentions creepy Abe Lincoln, dorothy Day, Mlk and Thomas Merton....
-
Seriously, during his visit to America , the Pope mentions creepy Abe Lincoln, dorothy Day, Mlk and Thomas Merton....
I once knew a Novus Ordo priest who rubbed me the wrong way and I couldn't put my finger on the problem, until I attended one of his lectures. He was giving a mission, supposedly on the sacraments, but when I attended I found out it was a promo job for encouraging us to read Merton. He spoke of Merton with glowing terms as though he was profound or whatever. I only needed about 1/2 hour of that garbage before I walked out and had no more quandary to cope with. It all adds up.
That was about 25 years ago.
-
To be honest I do not know what these modern priests are; their function in life. They seem to have found a comfortable place where they can indulge their own personal appetites to those bothered to listen. They may play around with Christian themes but that is cover for displaying a rather strange way of life and a range of personality problems. A psychological retreat, in fact. A church containing so many of of this kind is in deep trouble!
-
I wish there were a way of automatically removing the word "BREAKING!" from headlines after a certain amount of time has elapsed!
-
As a matter of fact, it's practically a done deal already.
And based on what do you say this? Is there new information or is this just speculation (based on connecting various dots of information)?
-
Seriously, during his visit to America , the Pope mentions creepy Abe Lincoln, dorothy Day, Mlk and Thomas Merton....
I once knew a Novus Ordo priest who rubbed me the wrong way and I couldn't put my finger on the problem, until I attended one of his lectures. He was giving a mission, supposedly on the sacraments, but when I attended I found out it was a promo job for encouraging us to read Merton. He spoke of Merton with glowing terms as though he was profound or whatever. I only needed about 1/2 hour of that garbage before I walked out and had no more quandary to cope with. It all adds up.
That was about 25 years ago.
Thanks to Pope Francis, Merton is making a come back. They want to make Dorothy Day and Thomas Merton saints. Did Merton have affair with woman and even fathered child. He even wrote books on zen and buddism.
It seems that NO is into hippies and free love. Merton wrote articles dorothy days Newspaper. She had a good gig going on.
No wonder Pope didn't make time to go to
Katherine Drexel's shrine.
-
Generally, Rome is behind the times in terms of following trends. Thus, the modernism and progressive thought she now pursues is of yesterday. Free love in the world has now become perverted love and Rome will take a decade or two to embrace this. Hippies have now become technology freaks in a permanent state of childhood. It is hard to imagine how any religious entity could penetrate their electronic bedrooms!
My brother keeps reminding me what the Vatican is au fait with though is the drug culture, money laundering and the concealment of clerical abuse of minors. Maybe a naivety towards cultural change is a cover for some very questionable activities!