Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: cosmas on October 23, 2019, 11:30:40 AM
-
I found this open letter written by Bishop Fellay to Pope John Paul II, 10-27-1999. Here’s the beginning:
“Most Holy Father,
In 1986 Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop de Castro Mayer considered that it was their duty to publicly reprimand You, according to the example of St. Paul (Gal. 2:11), on account of the Assisi prayer meeting, to which You invited the principal world “religions”. This public sin against the first commandment of God and against the first article of the Creed, this great offense against the Sovereign Majesty of the only true God, One and Three, caused an immense scandal to the faithful.
How could You, Vicar of Christ, Vicar of the solus Sanctus, solus Dominus, solus Altissimus, place Yourself as one among the representatives of the “religions” which deny His divinity? How could You humiliate the Catholic Church, the only Spouse of Our Lord Jesus Christ (Eph 5:26, 27) by bringing it down to the level of organizations founded not by God, but by the will of man (Jn 1:13)? How could You invite the followers of “religions” which refuse the only Mediator between God and men, Christ Jesus (I Tim 2:5) or which, by denying the existence of one only, personal God are nothing more than atheism and idolatry? How could You justify this invitation by affirming that the Holy Spirit dwells mysteriously in every man, whereas St. Paul teaches the contrary (Rm 8:9)?
At the same time as You are going to renew the Assisi scandal, on October 28, at St. Peter’s Square in Rome, we dare to solemnly protest against this sin and, invoking the authority of Your quite recent predecessors, and to confront You with the condemnation that they made of this, as well as of the underlying errors: Pius IX in the Syllabus (Propositions 16-18); Leo XIII condemning the Paris Congress of Religions (Letter
of September 15, 1899) and Pius XI in Mortalium animos. By these “inter-religious” meetings You do not confirm Your brethren in the Faith. Much to the contrary, You promote an immense indifferentism and You provoke division within the bosom of the Church. Moreover, the humanist, earthly and naturalist themes taken up at these meetings cause the Church to fall down from its entirely divine, eternal and supernatural mission to the level of the Freemasonic ideals of world peace outside of the only Prince of Peace, Our Lord Jesus Christ…”
-
Whew! Pretty withering alright. I don't think +Fellay does those kinds of open letters anymore. That's +Fellay twenty years ago. He did call Francis a "genuine modernist" in 2014(?) But he walked that phrase back a month later. Francis provides fodder for dozens of 'open letters' since that time. But either he's lost his nerve, or he's hellbent on pursuing the current rebranding program. Obviously he has chosen the latter. Yet, of all his anti-pope predecessors, Francis outperforms each by a mile.
-
An educated guess as to why the relative silence could be that the conservatives are stepping up to the plate (people like Taylor Marshall, LifeSite News, Michael Matt etc) and it is perhaps more effective coming from them in getting people off the fence.
There's some sense in this. Nobody can accuse Taylor Marshall, LifeSite News, John Smeaton, Michael Voris of being "rad Traditionalists" or "quasi-schismatics", since the SSPX occupies that space and they are not SSPX supporters.
If the SSPX stays relatively quiet it makes the argument (now coming from what used to be conservative novus-ordo Catholics) that much more noticeable and impactful, just as you would listen and give greater weight to the arguments of other resistance members more than novus-ordinarians or SSPX loyalists.
In 1986 the SSPX were a voice crying in the wilderness. In 2019 there are many more and some of them have significant internet media presence and large following.
-
An educated guess as to why the relative silence could be that the conservatives are stepping up to the plate (people like Taylor Marshall, LifeSite News, Michael Matt etc) and it is perhaps more effective coming from them in getting people off the fence.
There's some sense in this. Nobody can accuse Taylor Marshall, LifeSite News, John Smeaton, Michael Voris of being "rad Traditionalists" or "quasi-schismatics", since the SSPX occupies that space and they are not SSPX supporters.
If the SSPX stays relatively quiet it makes the argument (now coming from what used to be conservative novus-ordo Catholics) that much more noticeable and impactful, just as you would listen and give greater weight to the arguments of other resistance members more than novus-ordinarians or SSPX loyalists.
In 1986 the SSPX were a voice crying in the wilderness. In 2019 there are many more and some of them have significant internet media presence and large following.
Nice try, but no.
The SSPX wants a deal, and now it remains silent (Just like Lefebvre said the FSSP had to be, or it risked losing its approval).
Likewise, the SSPX wants its own deal, and fears to have its jurisdiction revoked.
Shhhhhhh!
-
An educated guess as to why the relative silence could be that the conservatives are stepping up to the plate (people like Taylor Marshall, LifeSite News, Michael Matt etc) and it is perhaps more effective coming from them in getting people off the fence.
There's some sense in this. Nobody can accuse Taylor Marshall, LifeSite News, John Smeaton, Michael Voris of being "rad Traditionalists" or "quasi-schismatics", since the SSPX occupies that space and they are not SSPX supporters.
If the SSPX stays relatively quiet it makes the argument (now coming from what used to be conservative novus-ordo Catholics) that much more noticeable and impactful, just as you would listen and give greater weight to the arguments of other resistance members more than novus-ordinarians or SSPX loyalists.
In 1986 the SSPX were a voice crying in the wilderness. In 2019 there are many more and some of them have significant internet media presence and large following.
I agree with some of what you wrote above. Indeed, nobody can accuse the conservatives you listed as being rad traditionalists or quasi-schismatics, since they do not support the SSPX. And it's a good thing that laymen are speaking out against what is going on today.
However, the SSPX differ from the men you listed, in that the SSPX are Catholic clergy. It's a different kettle of fish for the clergy to speak out against error, which, if they did so, ought to carry more weight than that of a layperson. But few Catholic clergy in the conciliar church are speaking out against error, since they could jeopardize their status by doing so. That's why it's important for the SSPX to condemn error, as Archbishop Lefebvre did. The Archbishop didn't let it bother him that he was called a schismatic. He took it in stride, because defending Our Lord and His Church requires sacrifice.
You may be right about an argument being more impactful and noticeable, if one stays relatively quiet. The problem is, when the SSPX does eventually say something about the errors that plague the Francis papacy, they do so in an imprecise manner, in that they do not address the problem clearly and directly. Error needs to be clearly defined and condemned, and also shown how it goes against Church teaching. The SSPX shies away from this nowadays.
-
Nothing from SSPX, so they'll haul out Sarah to do their dirty work for them ...
https://fsspx.news/en/news-events/news/criticism-synod-structurally-neutralized-truths-51896 (https://fsspx.news/en/news-events/news/criticism-synod-structurally-neutralized-truths-51896)
Just generically about the synod though.
-
Nothing from SSPX, so they'll haul out Sarah to do their dirty work for them ...
https://fsspx.news/en/news-events/news/criticism-synod-structurally-neutralized-truths-51896 (https://fsspx.news/en/news-events/news/criticism-synod-structurally-neutralized-truths-51896)
Just generically about the synod though.
Cowards and traitors: "Here's what OTHER people are saying. But us, well, we are just impartially reporting the news! After all, the SSPX is a pius union of impartial journalists!"
-
Nothing from SSPX, so they'll haul out Sarah to do their dirty work for them ...
https://fsspx.news/en/news-events/news/criticism-synod-structurally-neutralized-truths-51896 (https://fsspx.news/en/news-events/news/criticism-synod-structurally-neutralized-truths-51896)
Just generically about the synod though.
Cardinal Sarah's last interview. The SSPX should read it:
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/cardinal-sarah-interview
-
Cardinal Sarah's last interview. The SSPX should read it:
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/cardinal-sarah-interview
I had no idea the Cardinal was a comedian.
-
Cowards and traitors: "Here's what OTHER people are saying. But us, well, we are just impartially reporting the news! After all, the SSPX is a pius union of impartial journalists!"
:laugh1: ... exactly.
-
I had no idea the Cardinal was a comedian.
Bergoglio could explicitly deny the Holy Trinity, and these men would be too cowardly to reject him as a non-Catholic.
-
Bergoglio could explicitly deny the Holy Trinity, and these men would be too cowardly to reject him as a non-Catholic.
Ain’t that the truth!
-
Bergoglio could explicitly deny the Holy Trinity, and these men would be too cowardly to reject him as a non-Catholic.
Who exactly are "these men?"
You're saying, I think, that these men are the sspx hierarchy. Would these men, perhaps, include, also, members of the R & R and other traditional folks? If Bergoglio denied the Holy Trinity in even more explicit language than he has already done, (and he seems to draw pretty close at times), would Bp. Willamson himself reject Bergoglio? Would he then declare publicly that Francis is not a Catholic, and by extension, not a real pope? Because by their actions, three of the last popes have done this. Each time they stepped into a ѕуηαgσgυє at the side of its chief rabbi, or entered barefoot into the interior of a mosque, accompanied by an iman, they were doing just that. They were denying the Holy Trinity, and essentially worshiping a false god.
-
Well, technically speaking, nobody can reject his papacy, regardless of what he says or does, according to Bellarmine and JST (both said a declaration of the Church was required declaring the fact of his heresy, with the only dispute being whether or not a second declaration was necessary to declare Christ had deposed him, or whether the first declaration of heresy did this ipso facto).
Anyone who rejects him prior to at least the declaration of the fact of his heresy by the bishops is striking out on his own personal theory (which won’t have the backing of any pre-conciliar theologians).
-
Well, technically speaking, nobody can reject his papacy, regardless of what he says or does, according to Bellarmine and JST (both said a declaration of the Church was required declaring the fact of his heresy, with the only dispute being whether or not a second declaration was necessary to declare Christ had deposed him, or whether the first declaration of heresy did this ipso facto).
Anyone who rejects him prior to at least the declaration of the fact of his heresy by the bishops is striking out on his own personal theory (which won’t have the backing of any pre-conciliar theologians).
anyone who still thinks this Jewgorglio freak from hell is their Catholic pope is striking out
In cuм ex Apostolatus Officio” does it state a declaration of the Church is required?
(vi) those thus promoted or elevated shall be deprived automatically, and without need for any further declaration, of all dignity, position, honour, title, authority, office and power.
does Salza agree with you?
John Salza, Second Article, p. 5: “Ability to Recognize a Formal Heretic: Catholics are able to recognize a formal heretic without a declaration from the Church. See canon 188.4 and cuм Ex Apostolatus. While Dimond and I agree with this statement, Dimond (as you will see) repeatedly claims that I don’t believe Catholics can recognize a formal heretic, and that is simply not true (I have never held such an error). This is a deliberate or negligent mischaracterization of my position.”
-
Cardinal Sarah's last interview. The SSPX should read it:
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/cardinal-sarah-interview
https://fatima.org/news-views/fatima-perspectives-1345/
Disturbing Dissimulation from Cardinal Sarah
by Chris Ferrara (https://fatima.org/author/fatima-ferrara/)
Fatima Perspectives #1345
As Pope Francis relentlessly implements his expressed ambition of “transforming everything (http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/apost_exhortations/docuмents/papa-francesco_esortazione-ap_20131124_evangelii-gaudium.html)” in the Church — he has already introduced Holy Communion for certain public adulterers, which John Paul II denounced as “intrinsically impossible,” and has also purported to reverse 2,000 years of Church teaching on the moral liceity of the death penalty — we find that the supposed staunch conservative Cardinal Sarah is determined to maintain the pretense that Francis has nothing to do with the spread of the errors he himself deplores.
As LifeSiteNews reports (https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/cardinal-sarah-interview), in a recent interview with Corriere della Sera (October 7), Sarah “proceeded to enumerate a number of concerns and denunciations of errors that are often openly linked to Pope Francis’ governance and confusing statements but that he prefers to attribute to priests, bishops, and cardinals…”
In the same interview, Sarah issues the glaring non sequitur that “The truth is that the Church is represented on earth by the Vicar of Christ, that is, the Pope. And whoever is against the Pope is ipso facto outside the Church.”
Of course, the conclusion that to oppose the Pope is to be outside the Church does not follow from the premise that the Pope is Vicar of Christ. The entire history of the Church is to the contrary, beginning with Saint Paul’s opposition to Peter at Antioch (“I withstood him to the face” – Gal 2:11) and continuing through various instances of opposition down the centuries to wayward Popes who acted or taught in ways that were contrary to tradition. For example, the furious opposition (https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2015/01/a-pope-who-fell-into-heresy-church-that.html) to the insistence by John XXII that the blessed departed will not enter into beatitude until the end of time, which opposition led to his retraction of the error literally on his deathbed.
Now, Cardinal Sarah cannot be unaware that his “concerns and denunciations of errors” arise from Pope Francis’ governance of the Church and that it is the results of that governance he now decries. So it is sad to see this eminent prelate adopt what can only be seen as a rhetorical pose: “The truth is that those who oppose me to the Holy Father cannot present a single word of mine, a single phrase of mine, or a single attitude of mine to support their absurd, and I would say diabolical statements.”
Opposition to Francis? Moi? One has the right to expect absolute candor from a Prince of the Church. But that is hardly what we are getting here.
The Cardinal descends to patent absurdity when he further declares as follows:
“[E]very Pope is ‘right’ [giusto] for his time, Providence sees us very well, you know?… [W]e are called to rediscover, both with the unparalleled analysis of Benedict’s thought and with the great and luminous industriousness of Francis. While there is an obvious difference of sensibilities, there is a great harmony and a great continuity between them [!], as everyone has been able to see in these years. We must always interpret the words of Pope Francis with the hermeneutics of continuity.”
Here we go again with the never-explained “hermeneutic of continuity.” Benedict and John Paul II alike affirmed the Church’s bimillennial refusal to permit the divorced and “remarried” to receive Holy Communion, but Francis has now permitted it. For 2,000 years the Church taught, based directly on divine revelation (cf. Gen 9:6 (https://biblehub.com/drb/genesis/9.htm)), that capital punishment is morally justified in defense of the sanctity of life, but Francis now declares that it is “inadmissible” as “an attack on human dignity” and has ordered that the Catechism of John Paul II be “changed” to forbid what the Church has always approved. Francis evidently disagrees with God on this point.
[size={defaultattr}]By what sort of “hermeneutic” can one reconcile proposition X with proposition not-X? And why is a “hermeneutic of continuity” even necessary in the first place if what Francis says is in perfect continuity with the Church’s constant teaching? Here, yet again, we see that the “hermeneutic of continuity” is nonsense, invented to explain away an entire epoch of destructive revolutionary changes in the Church: everything you see going wrong in the Church simply must be in continuity with what was right in the Church before Vatican II. Don’t believe your lying eyes!
[/size]
The Cardinal can complain all he likes about the state of the Church today. But until he recognizes publicly what he surely knows privately — that the current ecclesial crisis ultimately emanates from papal acts and omissions — his protests, his books, his interviews all amount to nothing but elaborate dissimulation that only conceals the truth about our situation. And the truth is that precisely because the current crisis is a crisis of the papacy, it is the worst crisis the Church has ever endured. It is, as the Third Secret warns, an apostasy that “begins at the top.”
[size={defaultattr}]Cardinal Sarah owes it to the Church to say what he knows.[/size]
-
...in which case Mr. Ferrara also owes it to the Church to say what HE knows:
Cardinal Sarah is a liar and a deceiver.