Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: Matthew on June 03, 2012, 11:55:41 PM
-
As the moderator of this Catholic message board, I have to be very careful not to allow errors and heresies to be posted here.
Sure, I allow Sedevacantism and Sedeplenism, but neither of those positions are dogmatic. No Pope or Council has declared on the occupancy of the Chair of Peter during the past few decades.
So it's a matter for doubt -- a matter of private opinion and prudence. So I allow both sides to enjoy membership on CathInfo -- as long as they don't make it an issue of dogma.
But what about +Fellay supporters, a.k.a. "soft-liners", a.k.a. Accordistas?
That's different. They are objectively in error, and since the SSPX is in great turmoil, flux, and confusion right now, injecting a bit more error into the mix might mean a few more souls going astray into Modernist Rome.
I can't allow that. As a lay Catholic media owner, I have a responsibility to help maintain the entire Catholic Faith without compromise. I have to do my small part, whatever I can, to help preserve Tradition.
I have researched this SSPX-Rome deal about as well as anyone could. I've looked at the main arguments of both sides, spoken to countless laymen, spoken with a few priests and even one SSPX bishop, and received many PMs and e-mails in confidence that can't be posted publicly.
I am firmly convinced that Bishop Williamson, Bishop Tissier de Mallerais, Bishop Alfonso de Gallareta, Fr. Pfeiffer, Fr. Chazal, et al. are on the right side, and that Bishop Fellay and his cabal are on the wrong side.
In other words, while I'll allow all legitimate viewpoints on the Crisis in the Church, I'm not going to allow a similar latitude on the Crisis in the SSPX.
The Crisis in the SSPX is, unfortunately, quite cut and dried.
Those on the side of an "agreement" with Rome might not be malicious -- at least not all of them -- but they are at least ignorant, and will cause confusion either way.
If you are willing to keep an open mind at least, you can stay on CathInfo. I'm not going to conduct a witch hunt or anything. Consider it, "Don't ask, don't tell!"
I'm also not going to post one of those "Everyone on CathInfo agrees to this: Bishop Fellay is in the wrong. Continued membership implies consent."
I don't think that's necessary. In fact, you can be very much pro-agreement as long as you don't post anything to that effect. Just keep it to yourself and we'll get along just fine.
God bless,
Matthew
-
I'd like to add one thing --
The various "flavors" of tradition that are allowed here all must agree that the SSPX is a legitimate position to hold; in other worse, they can't treat SSPX-attending Catholics like they are non-Catholic or Schismatic.
So the CathInfo position is that the SSPX has a right to exist.
But doesn't it also follow that the *true* SSPX -- the SSPX following Archbishop Lefebvre's original position -- has a right to exist?
After all, what did I mean by "SSPX"?
I said the SSPX has a right to exist, not FSSP Part 2: The Revenge which was formerly known as the SSPX.
So it's really no change to my existing moderation policy.
-
This is sad to hear. I don't know what to think anymore. I cannot believe that you would allow sedevacantists to spew their vile doctrines, and yet treat good-willed people who support Bishop Fellay- or who at least give him the benefit of the doubt, until we know more- like moral lepers.
All of this is very confusing.....
Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
-
So it's really no change to my existing moderation policy.
Yes, you ban strident Novus Ordites, so it only stands to reason to ban strident Fellayites.
-
So it's really no change to my existing moderation policy.
Yes, you ban strident Novus Ordites, so it only stands to reason to ban strident Fellayites.
Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer, SSPX (still), found even stronger words for them -- and for Bp. Fellay, betrayer of the Faith. Keyword "satanic disorientation".
Can't wait to get that transcript, because the low MP3 quality gave us non-English-speakers a hard time.... but it was well worth it. :-)
-
As the moderator of this Catholic message board, I have to be very careful not to allow errors and heresies to be posted here.
Sure, I allow Sedevacantism and Sedeplenism, but neither of those positions are dogmatic. No Pope or Council has declared on the occupancy of the Chair of Peter during the past few decades.
So it's a matter for doubt -- a matter of private opinion and prudence. So I allow both sides to enjoy membership on CathInfo -- as long as they don't make it an issue of dogma.
But what about +Fellay supporters, a.k.a. "soft-liners", a.k.a. Accordistas?
That's different. They are objectively in error, and since the SSPX is in great turmoil, flux, and confusion right now, injecting a bit more error into the mix might mean a few more souls going astray into Modernist Rome.
I can't allow that. As a lay Catholic media owner, I have a responsibility to help maintain the entire Catholic Faith without compromise. I have to do my small part, whatever I can, to help preserve Tradition.
I have researched this SSPX-Rome deal about as well as anyone could. I've looked at the main arguments of both sides, spoken to countless laymen, spoken with a few priests and even one SSPX bishop, and received many PMs and e-mails in confidence that can't be posted publicly.
I am firmly convinced that Bishop Williamson, Bishop Tissier de Mallerais, Bishop Alfonso de Gallareta, Fr. Pfeiffer, Fr. Chazal, et al. are on the right side, and that Bishop Fellay and his cabal are on the wrong side.
In other words, while I'll allow all legitimate viewpoints on the Crisis in the Church, I'm not going to allow a similar latitude on the Crisis in the SSPX.
The Crisis in the SSPX is, unfortunately, quite cut and dried.
Those on the side of an "agreement" with Rome might not be malicious -- at least not all of them -- but they are at least ignorant, and will cause confusion either way.
If you are willing to keep an open mind at least, you can stay on CathInfo. I'm not going to conduct a witch hunt or anything. Consider it, "Don't ask, don't tell!"
I'm also not going to post one of those "Everyone on CathInfo agrees to this: Bishop Fellay is in the wrong. Continued membership implies consent."
I don't think that's necessary. In fact, you can be very much pro-agreement as long as you don't post anything to that effect. Just keep it to yourself and we'll get along just fine.
God bless,
Matthew
I volunteer to be banned then, Pope Matthew.
I only hope that those against rapproachment with Rome do the honest thing : declare themselves sedevacantists and go off into schism.
Ironic that most trads, at their core, are ardent ultramontanists......yet when in comes to accepting visible union with the Vicar of Christ, even if full liberty is granted to the SSPX, they prefer schism.
Adios.
-
I only hope that those against rapproachment with Rome do the honest thing : declare themselves sedevacantists and go off into schism.
Baloney. You obviously aren't aware that the Society resisted Rome for 20 years.
-
even if full liberty is granted to the SSPX, they prefer schism.
A premise that can easily be recognized to be false by anyone who examines the issue with a modicuм of effort.
-
As the moderator of this Catholic message board, I have to be very careful not to allow errors and heresies to be posted here.
Sure, I allow Sedevacantism and Sedeplenism, but neither of those positions are dogmatic. No Pope or Council has declared on the occupancy of the Chair of Peter during the past few decades.
So it's a matter for doubt -- a matter of private opinion and prudence. So I allow both sides to enjoy membership on CathInfo -- as long as they don't make it an issue of dogma.
But what about +Fellay supporters, a.k.a. "soft-liners", a.k.a. Accordistas?
That's different. They are objectively in error, and since the SSPX is in great turmoil, flux, and confusion right now, injecting a bit more error into the mix might mean a few more souls going astray into Modernist Rome.
I can't allow that. As a lay Catholic media owner, I have a responsibility to help maintain the entire Catholic Faith without compromise. I have to do my small part, whatever I can, to help preserve Tradition.
I have researched this SSPX-Rome deal about as well as anyone could. I've looked at the main arguments of both sides, spoken to countless laymen, spoken with a few priests and even one SSPX bishop, and received many PMs and e-mails in confidence that can't be posted publicly.
I am firmly convinced that Bishop Williamson, Bishop Tissier de Mallerais, Bishop Alfonso de Gallareta, Fr. Pfeiffer, Fr. Chazal, et al. are on the right side, and that Bishop Fellay and his cabal are on the wrong side.
In other words, while I'll allow all legitimate viewpoints on the Crisis in the Church, I'm not going to allow a similar latitude on the Crisis in the SSPX.
The Crisis in the SSPX is, unfortunately, quite cut and dried.
Those on the side of an "agreement" with Rome might not be malicious -- at least not all of them -- but they are at least ignorant, and will cause confusion either way.
If you are willing to keep an open mind at least, you can stay on CathInfo. I'm not going to conduct a witch hunt or anything. Consider it, "Don't ask, don't tell!"
I'm also not going to post one of those "Everyone on CathInfo agrees to this: Bishop Fellay is in the wrong. Continued membership implies consent."
I don't think that's necessary. In fact, you can be very much pro-agreement as long as you don't post anything to that effect. Just keep it to yourself and we'll get along just fine.
God bless,
Matthew
I volunteer to be banned then, Pope Matthew.
I only hope that those against rapproachment with Rome do the honest thing : declare themselves sedevacantists and go off into schism.
Ironic that most trads, at their core, are ardent ultramontanists......yet when in comes to accepting visible union with the Vicar of Christ, even if full liberty is granted to the SSPX, they prefer schism.
Adios.
In order for Schism to exist - lawful authority must likewise exist.
Since The Vatican II Itself was Pastoral (Not a single Anathema) enforcing it as lawful authority is likewise nonexistant.
Therefore the charge of Schism is groundless at best and at worst laughable.
Its like saying that Arius had the power to excommunicate St Athanasius because he refused to accept the Arian heresy and used his power as a Bishop to see it through with Liberias. Somehow , I do not think St Athanasius was all that worried , nor are we.
Pax
-
As the moderator of this Catholic message board, I have to be very careful not to allow errors and heresies to be posted here.
Sure, I allow Sedevacantism and Sedeplenism, but neither of those positions are dogmatic. No Pope or Council has declared on the occupancy of the Chair of Peter during the past few decades.
So it's a matter for doubt -- a matter of private opinion and prudence. So I allow both sides to enjoy membership on CathInfo -- as long as they don't make it an issue of dogma.
But what about +Fellay supporters, a.k.a. "soft-liners", a.k.a. Accordistas?
That's different. They are objectively in error, and since the SSPX is in great turmoil, flux, and confusion right now, injecting a bit more error into the mix might mean a few more souls going astray into Modernist Rome.
I can't allow that. As a lay Catholic media owner, I have a responsibility to help maintain the entire Catholic Faith without compromise. I have to do my small part, whatever I can, to help preserve Tradition.
I have researched this SSPX-Rome deal about as well as anyone could. I've looked at the main arguments of both sides, spoken to countless laymen, spoken with a few priests and even one SSPX bishop, and received many PMs and e-mails in confidence that can't be posted publicly.
I am firmly convinced that Bishop Williamson, Bishop Tissier de Mallerais, Bishop Alfonso de Gallareta, Fr. Pfeiffer, Fr. Chazal, et al. are on the right side, and that Bishop Fellay and his cabal are on the wrong side.
In other words, while I'll allow all legitimate viewpoints on the Crisis in the Church, I'm not going to allow a similar latitude on the Crisis in the SSPX.
The Crisis in the SSPX is, unfortunately, quite cut and dried.
Those on the side of an "agreement" with Rome might not be malicious -- at least not all of them -- but they are at least ignorant, and will cause confusion either way.
If you are willing to keep an open mind at least, you can stay on CathInfo. I'm not going to conduct a witch hunt or anything. Consider it, "Don't ask, don't tell!"
I'm also not going to post one of those "Everyone on CathInfo agrees to this: Bishop Fellay is in the wrong. Continued membership implies consent."
I don't think that's necessary. In fact, you can be very much pro-agreement as long as you don't post anything to that effect. Just keep it to yourself and we'll get along just fine.
God bless,
Matthew
I volunteer to be banned then, Pope Matthew.
I only hope that those against rapproachment with Rome do the honest thing : declare themselves sedevacantists and go off into schism.
Ironic that most trads, at their core, are ardent ultramontanists......yet when in comes to accepting visible union with the Vicar of Christ, even if full liberty is granted to the SSPX, they prefer schism.
Adios.
In order for Schism to exist - lawful authority must likewise exist.
Since The Vatican II Itself was Pastoral (Not a single Anathema) enforcing it as lawful authority is likewise nonexistant.
Therefore the charge of Schism is groundless at best and at worst laughable.
Its like saying that Arius had the power to excommunicate St Athanasius because he refused to accept the Arian heresy and used his power as a Bishop to see it through with Liberias. Somehow , I do not think St Athanasius was all that worried , nor are we.
Pax
I agree with your point, but I will make a factual correction if I may,
Arius was not and never was a Bishop. He was a Priest. St. Athanasius was a Bishop and Patriarch of the Coptic rite. Arius' buddy Eusebius of Nicomedia was a Bishop and I believe he became Patriarch of the Greeks aswell. Eusebius was the main enemy of St. Athanasius during the times we normally talk about regarding St. Athanasius, Arius was dead.
I know it gets confusing, but like Bishop Tissier de Mallarias was saying in his recent speech, that crisis was very long and took many turns.
-
Ethelred,
On YouTube, there are two copies of Fr Pfeiffer's sermon, which have quite good audio quality.
Have you tried them? They are at:
Sermon by Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer - SSPX (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vD9r1FsJdyE&feature=related)
Faith above Obedience. Fr. Pfeiffer, SSPX (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIVlQQTk8tE&feature=related)
-
I volunteer to be banned then, Pope Matthew.
I only hope that those against rapproachment with Rome do the honest thing : declare themselves sedevacantists and go off into schism.
Ironic that most trads, at their core, are ardent ultramontanists......yet when in comes to accepting visible union with the Vicar of Christ, even if full liberty is granted to the SSPX, they prefer schism.
Adios.
Oh please. I'm sure there's space for another cheerleader over on Rorate (aka, "the Full Communion Gazette").
-
I volunteer to be banned then, Pope Matthew.
I only hope that those against rapproachment with Rome do the honest thing : declare themselves sedevacantists and go off into schism.
Ironic that most trads, at their core, are ardent ultramontanists......yet when in comes to accepting visible union with the Vicar of Christ, even if full liberty is granted to the SSPX, they prefer schism.
Adios.
Oh please. I'm sure there's space for another cheerleader over on Rorate (aka, "the Full Communion Gazette").
All I ask is to see the agreement that everybody else here has been privy to so that I may make an informed decision. That is all.
-
Roland Deschain you are missing the point completely, others have already pointed this out to you, but giving you the benefit of the doubt that you are not maliciously being obtuse I will make an effort to answer your objection…
No one here has claimed to have seen any written agreement, what we are objecting to is what we HAVE seen, just a few examples …
An article by Fr Iscara has been put out trying to persuade Traditional Catholics to remain silent in the face of modern errors…how could you not have read Bishop DeMallerais’ sermon where he explicitly, in detail, explains how this article is wrong, wrong, wrong. There are no signs that Rome is presently converting and we must not cease condemning the errors of Vatican II. Bishop DeMallerais HAS seen the doctrinal preamble and he says unmistakably in his sermon that its ambiguity is unacceptable for a Catholic, that a Catholic must profess the Faith clearly in the face of error…
Bishop Fellay has already changed his position to say Vatican II doesn’t contain error, it’s the “interpretation” that can be in error. Bishops DeMallerais and Williamson have re-iterated that the docuмents of Vatican II themselves contain errors that must be reversed…
An article is put out “interpreting” the writings/sayings of Archbishop Lefebvre according to the principles of historical modernism…
Numerous articles and statements by Bishop Fellay and his inner circle have appeared assuring us that somehow, secretly Benedict XVI wants Tradition restored…though Benedict has changed nothing of his teaching or practice in favor of ecuмenism, religious liberty and the new theology condemned by Pope Pius XII…
Articles expressing Church teachings critical of Jews have been expunged from SSPX websites…
I say again…We do not object to a mythical written agreement that we have not seen but to public attempts to change from the position of Archbishop Lefebvre and the positions of the Society before talk of an imminent agreement started to circulate.
Obviously you may continue to disagree with us but I believe you are required in Catholic justice to cease misrepresenting our position.
-
Ethelred,
On YouTube, there are two copies of Fr Pfeiffer's sermon, which have quite good audio quality.
Have you tried them? They are at:
Sermon by Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer - SSPX (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vD9r1FsJdyE&feature=related)
Faith above Obedience. Fr. Pfeiffer, SSPX (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIVlQQTk8tE&feature=related)
Thanks, I checked them out and it sounds (to me) that they all base on the same low quality MP3, which Matthew put on Cathinfo, too: www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/SSPX-Rome-sermon-by-Fr-Joseph-Pfeiffer (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/SSPX-Rome-sermon-by-Fr-Joseph-Pfeiffer)
But when hearing it a several times, and when we together guess some not so clear words, we can figure out what the good father says.
-
Roland Deschain you are missing the point completely, others have already pointed this out to you, but giving you the benefit of the doubt that you are not maliciously being obtuse I will make an effort to answer your objection…
No one here has claimed to have seen any written agreement, what we are objecting to is what we HAVE seen, just a few examples …
An article by Fr Iscara has been put out trying to persuade Traditional Catholics to remain silent in the face of modern errors…how could you not have read Bishop DeMallerais’ sermon where he explicitly, in detail, explains how this article is wrong, wrong, wrong. There are no signs that Rome is presently converting and we must not cease condemning the errors of Vatican II. Bishop DeMallerais HAS seen the doctrinal preamble and he says unmistakably in his sermon that its ambiguity is unacceptable for a Catholic, that a Catholic must profess the Faith clearly in the face of error…
Bishop Fellay has already changed his position to say Vatican II doesn’t contain error, it’s the “interpretation” that can be in error. Bishops DeMallerais and Williamson have re-iterated that the docuмents of Vatican II themselves contain errors that must be reversed…
An article is put out “interpreting” the writings/sayings of Archbishop Lefebvre according to the principles of historical modernism…
Numerous articles and statements by Bishop Fellay and his inner circle have appeared assuring us that somehow, secretly Benedict XVI wants Tradition restored…though Benedict has changed nothing of his teaching or practice in favor of ecuмenism, religious liberty and the new theology condemned by Pope Pius XII…
Articles expressing Church teachings critical of Jews have been expunged from SSPX websites…
I say again…We do not object to a mythical written agreement that we have not seen but to public attempts to change from the position of Archbishop Lefebvre and the positions of the Society before talk of an imminent agreement started to circulate.
Obviously you may continue to disagree with us but I believe you are required in Catholic justice to cease misrepresenting our position.
I thank you for taking the time to explain that; and also not assuming that I am just acting in bad faith. I will look over the sermon you referenced.
If I seem to be mis-representing your position then I apologize. I do not agree with everything above but at least it helps me understand better where you are coming from. I still believe prudence and prayer are much needed before anything is official.
Thanks.
-
Ethelred said:
But when hearing it a several times, and when we together guess some not so clear words, we can figure out what the good father says.
It sounds then as if you are having difficulty in understanding Fr Pfeiffer’s pronunciation, because of the difference between his native language and yours. I had exactly this problem with Fr Chazal’s sermon – a problem overcome once the transcript became available.
Likewise, if you haven’t already noticed it, you will be helped by the transcript of Fr Pfeiffer’s sermon kindly provided by Neil Obstat here:
Transcript of Fr Prieffer's sermon on Pentecost Sunday (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=19019&min=30&num=10)
-
Sunbeam, thanks for your support. You're right with the pronunciation bit. I'm used to British English.
Neil's shortened transcript is good. Still waiting for J.Paul's complete one.
The real problem of the MP3 audio file of Fr. Pfeiffer's sermon is however the bad MP3 quality. Matthew noticed it first (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/SSPX-Rome-sermon-by-Fr-Joseph-Pfeiffer) :
http://www.cathinfo.com/FrJosephPfeifferMay272012.mp3
I wish the laymen who make these recordings would realize that you aren't just "saving some hard drive space -- the more the better!" when choosing a bitrate for these recordings.
For me, at least, the recording is almost un-listenable because of all the MP3 artifacts due to the high compression rate they chose.
You don't get something for nothing, come on!
When you go from 20 MB to 10 MB you DO give up something.
Even so.
I checked your (Sunbeam's) Youtube-links and it looks like they're the very same MP3 source as Matthew's file.
But, of course this is true:
Nevertheless, I'm guessing the content is very, very good, so I might have to listen to this sermon anyhow.
So: Whoever has ears ought to hear.
-
This is sad to hear. I don't know what to think anymore. I cannot believe that you would allow sedevacantists to spew their vile doctrines, and yet treat good-willed people who support Bishop Fellay- or who at least give him the benefit of the doubt, until we know more- like moral lepers.
All of this is very confusing.....
Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
Brainglitch. How apropos an appellation.
-
...In order for Schism to exist - lawful authority must likewise exist.
Since The Vatican II Itself was Pastoral (Not a single Anathema) enforcing it as lawful authority is likewise nonexistant.
Therefore the charge of Schism is groundless at best and at worst laughable.
Its like saying that Arius had the power to excommunicate St Athanasius because he refused to accept the Arian heresy and used his power as a Bishop to see it through with Liberias. Somehow , I do not think St Athanasius was all that worried , nor are we. ...
This is the key example for us all. Were the Arians who held the buildings and ecclesiastical titles Catholics?
Hell no!
Neither are the perverse and heretical modernists Catholics—not even the one "subsisting in" the Chair of Peter.
-
...Arius was dead. ...
To be more specific, struck dead on a latrine floor.
-
Oh please. I'm sure there's space for another cheerleader over on Rorate (aka, "the Full Communion Gazette").
a.k.a. The Elder Brothers' Gazette.
-
So it's really no change to my existing moderation policy.
Yes, you ban strident Novus Ordites, so it only stands to reason to ban strident Fellayites.
Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer, SSPX (still), found even stronger words for them -- and for Bp. Fellay, betrayer of the Faith. Keyword "satanic disorientation".
Can't wait to get that transcript, because the low MP3 quality gave us non-English-speakers a hard time.... but it was well worth it. :-)
Looks like you got your "keyword" term a bit wrong, if you're referring to the Pentecost Sunday sermon.
Check the first post on page 3 of the SSPX Rome sermon Fr Joseph Pfeiffer (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=19019&min=20&num=10) thread:
Pope Benedict XVI is a master of disaster. [1:00:55]
He has been destroying and dividing Tradition for the past 20 years, 30 years. Now he has Bishop Fellay in a diabolical disorientation. He has the bishop believing that the new friends in Rome are going to help him, and he's going to help them become good Catholics. He doesn't need his old friends anymore. He doesn't need his 3 bishops anymore. And you will see a PURGE, barring a MIRACLE, you will see a purge: this priest was expelled from the Society because he's disobedient, that one because he's crazy, this one because, well, we can't tell you: you don't want to know!
We must stand firm in the Faith. Many souls are in grave jeopardy today, because Bishop Fellay has decided to play with fire, with a smile.
I know, "satanic disorientation" is 2 syllables shorter than diabolical disorientation, but the latter are the words quoted from Sister Lucia of The Immaculate Conception (popularly referred to as Sister Lucy of Fatima). It is most likely that these two words, diabolical disorientation, are to be found in the Third Secret of Fatima, but like the Doctrinal Preamble, we haven't seen it yet!
I had a friend who refused to learn the phrase, diabolical disorientation, and kept saying "demonic disorientation," but I think he was merely confused. Whenever I mentioned it to him, he didn't seem to be able to recognize the difference, and soon thereafter would revert to his habitual phraseology. Old habits are hard to break. I say I "had" a friend, because he died about 3 years ago, from complications of diabetes.
Fr. Pfeiffer's use of this term is rather telling. He is evidently a serious student of Church history and a devoted son of Our Blessed Mother. It gives me great consolation to hear his tone of voice when he mentions Our Lady in his sermon. If only more priests would be so kind as to risk the wrath of the devil by publicly upholding their own loyalty to the Blessed Virgin, our Mother.
-
As the moderator of this Catholic message board, I have to be very careful not to allow errors and heresies to be posted here.
Sure, I allow Sedevacantism and Sedeplenism, but neither of those positions are dogmatic. No Pope or Council has declared on the occupancy of the Chair of Peter during the past few decades.
So it's a matter for doubt -- a matter of private opinion and prudence. So I allow both sides to enjoy membership on CathInfo -- as long as they don't make it an issue of dogma.
But what about +Fellay supporters, a.k.a. "soft-liners", a.k.a. Accordistas?
That's different. They are objectively in error, and since the SSPX is in great turmoil, flux, and confusion right now, injecting a bit more error into the mix might mean a few more souls going astray into Modernist Rome.
I can't allow that. As a lay Catholic media owner, I have a responsibility to help maintain the entire Catholic Faith without compromise. I have to do my small part, whatever I can, to help preserve Tradition.
I have researched this SSPX-Rome deal about as well as anyone could. I've looked at the main arguments of both sides, spoken to countless laymen, spoken with a few priests and even one SSPX bishop, and received many PMs and e-mails in confidence that can't be posted publicly.
I am firmly convinced that Bishop Williamson, Bishop Tissier de Mallerais, Bishop Alfonso de Gallareta, Fr. Pfeiffer, Fr. Chazal, et al. are on the right side, and that Bishop Fellay and his cabal are on the wrong side.
In other words, while I'll allow all legitimate viewpoints on the Crisis in the Church, I'm not going to allow a similar latitude on the Crisis in the SSPX.
The Crisis in the SSPX is, unfortunately, quite cut and dried.
Those on the side of an "agreement" with Rome might not be malicious -- at least not all of them -- but they are at least ignorant, and will cause confusion either way.
If you are willing to keep an open mind at least, you can stay on CathInfo. I'm not going to conduct a witch hunt or anything. Consider it, "Don't ask, don't tell!"
I'm also not going to post one of those "Everyone on CathInfo agrees to this: Bishop Fellay is in the wrong. Continued membership implies consent."
I don't think that's necessary. In fact, you can be very much pro-agreement as long as you don't post anything to that effect. Just keep it to yourself and we'll get along just fine.
God bless,
Matthew
I volunteer to be banned then, Pope Matthew.
I only hope that those against rapproachment with Rome do the honest thing : declare themselves sedevacantists and go off into schism.
Ironic that most trads, at their core, are ardent ultramontanists......yet when in comes to accepting visible union with the Vicar of Christ, even if full liberty is granted to the SSPX, they prefer schism.
Adios.
And good riddance!
Roland looked very dangerous and threatening with those guns.
:rolleyes:
-
I'm also not going to post one of those "Everyone on CathInfo agrees to this: Bishop Fellay is in the wrong. Continued membership implies consent."
I don't think that's necessary. In fact, you can be very much pro-agreement as long as you don't post anything to that effect. Just keep it to yourself and we'll get along just fine.
God bless,
Matthew
[/quote]
Matthew,
I think the Fellayites or accordistas should have a little corner on this forum,
so for pleasure and pratice we can go there...
to beat them up.
:boxer:
-
"diabolical disorientation"
Thanks for the correction, Neil.
I appreciate your love for your native language. It is important. Our languages influence our thinking.
-
As the moderator of this Catholic message board, I have to be very careful not to allow errors and heresies to be posted here.
Sure, I allow Sedevacantism and Sedeplenism, but neither of those positions are dogmatic. No Pope or Council has declared on the occupancy of the Chair of Peter during the past few decades.
They may not be dogmatic, but still errors and heresies, nonetheless. You state rather unambiguously that you must be careful not to allow errors or heresies but actually allow them? :confused1:
So it's a matter for doubt -- a matter of private opinion and prudence. So I allow both sides to enjoy membership on CathInfo -- as long as they don't make it an issue of dogma.
You also have a duty of care as a forum owner not to allow the Catholics registered here to be exposed to errors and heresies and refute and oppose them as much as you can - but you don't seem to.
But what about +Fellay supporters, a.k.a. "soft-liners", a.k.a. Accordistas?
That's different. They are objectively in error, and since the SSPX is in great turmoil, flux, and confusion right now, injecting a bit more error into the mix might mean a few more souls going astray into Modernist Rome.
Same is true of allowing Sedevacantists and Sede-plenists - they too are in error, their private opinions become published publicly and this forum is a platform for it - the SSPX is in turmoil but it's ok to inject more error into the mix and a few more souls going astray into the wilderness of Sedeland - ie up the proverbial creek without a paddle or land in sight, just so long as those nasty "Accordistas" who, despite what your opinion is, and it is only an opinion, are still Catholics who, just as you do, recognize that the Chair of Peter is not vacant and in common with you, are Catholic Traditionalists, don't get to air their views, right or wrong may they be.
I can't allow that. As a lay Catholic media owner, I have a responsibility to help maintain the entire Catholic Faith without compromise. I have to do my small part, whatever I can, to help preserve Tradition.
The entire Catholic Faith includes recognizing the Pope as a valid and legitimate successor of St Peter. You compromise the Faith of your fellow Catholics by allowing Sedes their platform and exposing the very people you have claimed a responsibility for.
I have researched this SSPX-Rome deal about as well as anyone could. I've looked at the main arguments of both sides, spoken to countless laymen, spoken with a few priests and even one SSPX bishop, and received many PMs and e-mails in confidence that can't be posted publicly.
I am firmly convinced that Bishop Williamson, Bishop Tissier de Mallerais, Bishop Alfonso de Gallareta, Fr. Pfeiffer, Fr. Chazal, et al. are on the right side, and that Bishop Fellay and his cabal are on the wrong side.
You may well be right, Matthew. But allowing the Fellayites a platform the same you do others does not amount to compromising anyones Catholic faith, nor will it lead people into error.
In other words, while I'll allow all legitimate viewpoints on the Crisis in the Church, I'm not going to allow a similar latitude on the Crisis in the SSPX.
The Crisis in the SSPX is, unfortunately, quite cut and dried.
By allowing them to air their views, you can possibly change their position. You owe that to them, too.
Those on the side of an "agreement" with Rome might not be malicious -- at least not all of them -- but they are at least ignorant, and will cause confusion either way.
I doubt any Fellayite will be able to cause confusion with people here.
-
You compromise the Faith of your fellow Catholics by allowing Sedes their platform and exposing the very people you have claimed a responsibility for.
Nonsense.
-
But allowing the Fellayites a platform the same you do others does not amount to compromising anyones Catholic faith, nor will it lead people into error.
Oh yeah?
"We, I may say in the discussions, I think we see that many things which we would have condemned as being from the Council are in fact not from the Council. But the common understanding of it."
That's leading people into error about Vatican II.
Claiming on the other hand, that sedevacantism is certainly an error, is not in harmony with what Archbishop Lefebvre said about it.
-
But allowing the Fellayites a platform the same you do others does not amount to compromising anyones Catholic faith, nor will it lead people into error.
Oh yeah?
"We, I may say in the discussions, I think we see that many things which we would have condemned as being from the Council are in fact not from the Council. But the common understanding of it."
That's leading people into error about Vatican II.
It certainly raised my brows when I heard it said, admittedly, and I'd have to agree with you. But can you be sure all the Pro-Dealers believe Msgr Fellay's words there?
Claiming on the other hand, that sedevacantism is certainly an error, is not in harmony with what Archbishop Lefebvre said about it.
[/quote]
Unfortunately Telesphorus, it is true that the saintly Archbishop's view on Sedevacantism wasn't reflected in his actions.
-
Also, I have been drinking so I am in a controntatrional mood. Please forgive me.
:cheers:
Why thank you. cheers to you as well.
-
Also, I have been drinking so I am in a controntatrional mood. Please forgive me.
Temperate, I presume.
-
Also, I have been drinking so I am in a controntatrional mood. Please forgive me.
Temperate, I presume.
Yes. I was not drunk at all. For the record it was just a few drinks and I am big man (300 pounds) so it had minimal effects. However, nobody follow my example. One or two drinks is enough for most.
-
Also, I have been drinking so I am in a controntatrional mood. Please forgive me.
Temperate, I presume.
Yes. I was not drunk at all. For the record it was just a few drinks and I am big man (300 pounds) so it had minimal effects. However, nobody follow my example. One or two drinks is enough for most.
Not that it is anyone's business.
-
I have been drinking so I am in a controntatrional [sic -- or should that be hic?] mood.
Try that again, Antony, but go carefully, lest you finish up like Arius. (q.v. top of page 3.)
-
This thread is getting buried -- not that I'm wild about the last half-dozen posts or so...
-
This thread is getting buried -- not that I'm wild about the last half-dozen posts or so...
And a hearty cheers to you as well Matthew! :cheers:
-
Sure, I allow Sedevacantism and Sedeplenism, but neither of those positions are dogmatic.
(snip)
So it's a matter for doubt -- a matter of private opinion and prudence. So I allow both sides to enjoy membership on CathInfo -- as long as they don't make it an issue of dogma.
But what about +Fellay supporters, a.k.a. "soft-liners", a.k.a. Accordistas?
That's different. They are objectively in error...
I am a new member, just found the site when googling some traditional catholic stuff and signed up.
I run a Catholic email list on Yahoo Groups, and a traditional web site for the TLM community in my city.
I have attended the TLM that is offered within my diocese, but also have a great deal of respect for the SSPX.
I was thankful when Cardinal Ratzinger became Pope and stated that the TLM was never abrogated, and lifted the excommunications of his predecessor.
I suppose I am a "Fellay-ite" or "soft-liner" in the sense that I do think Bishop Fellay is right to talk to Rome given that they have shown, under Pope Benedict XVI, that they are steering the ship back in the right direction.
If sede-vacantists are welcome here but supporters of the agreement are not, then go ahead and delete my account.
This looked like a nice forum to me, with lots of good traditional resources, but I do not want to post where I am not welcome. I do believe that the Church needs the SSPX though, and I pray that an agreement can be reached.
-
Sure, I allow Sedevacantism and Sedeplenism, but neither of those positions are dogmatic.
(snip)
So it's a matter for doubt -- a matter of private opinion and prudence. So I allow both sides to enjoy membership on CathInfo -- as long as they don't make it an issue of dogma.
But what about +Fellay supporters, a.k.a. "soft-liners", a.k.a. Accordistas?
That's different. They are objectively in error...
I am a new member, just found the site when googling some traditional catholic stuff and signed up.
I run a Catholic email list on Yahoo Groups, and a traditional web site for the TLM community in my city.
I have attended the TLM that is offered within my diocese, but also have a great deal of respect for the SSPX.
I was thankful when Cardinal Ratzinger became Pope and stated that the TLM was never abrogated, and lifted the excommunications of his predecessor.
I suppose I am a "Fellay-ite" or "soft-liner" in the sense that I do think Bishop Fellay is right to talk to Rome given that they have shown, under Pope Benedict XVI, that they are steering the ship back in the right direction.
If sede-vacantists are welcome here but supporters of the agreement are not, then go ahead and delete my account.
This looked like a nice forum to me, with lots of good traditional resources, but I do not want to post where I am not welcome. I do believe that the Church needs the SSPX though, and I pray that an agreement can be reached.
Do I hear a lone, mournful violin in the distance?? :farmer:
There shouldn't be anything wrong with supporting +Fellay, provided he does
not intend harm to the SSPX or the Church. The problem is, intention is always
difficult to judge. Therefore, we have to base our opinions on his words and his
actions.
To say the Church needs the SSPX is true, as far as it goes. The question at hand
is more probing, for needing the SSPX does not necessarily mean that making
a "deal" at this time would support this need.
What do you mean by "need"? A lot hangs on one word's definition. And Rome
in this perverse generation, abhors the very principle of definition!
If by NEED you mean that for the good of the Church, the SSPX represents a
bastion of preservation of Sacred Tradition handed down from the Apostles, then fine.
But if by NEED you mean that the Modernist Juggernaut which has somehow
managed to devour like a BEAST OF THE APOCALYPSE all the Sacred Tradition in
sight, hungers and pines to subsume the Society as well, and this NEED must be
satisfied because the BEAST has passions and appetites that must be given
its due, like the abominable stone serpent of Aztec Mexico before the Virgin of
Guadalupe crushed his ugly stone face with her immaculate heel, then NO.
BTW if the former, there are not a few of us here who contend that the SSPX is
much safer and effective at maintaining the Traditions handed down to us from
the Apostles (read the headstone on the grave of ABL!) if it remains as it is,
and no "deal" is made until such time as Rome abjures her errors and returns
to the Faith of our Fathers.
-
If by NEED you mean that for the good of the Church, the SSPX represents a
bastion of preservation of Sacred Tradition handed down from the Apostles, then fine.
Yes, that is what I meant (and I think you know that's what I meant).
There shouldn't be anything wrong with supporting +Fellay, provided he does
not intend harm to the SSPX or the Church.
Well thank you.
-
If by NEED you mean that for the good of the Church, the SSPX represents a
bastion of preservation of Sacred Tradition handed down from the Apostles, then fine.
Yes, that is what I meant (and I think you know that's what I meant).
There shouldn't be anything wrong with supporting +Fellay, provided he does
not intend harm to the SSPX or the Church.
Well thank you.
U-R-welcome. . . . :wink: