Author Topic: E. C. XLVII -- Last Cartridge -- May 2008  (Read 1230 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Neil Obstat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18173
  • Reputation: +8255/-635
  • Gender: Male
E. C. XLVII -- Last Cartridge -- May 2008
« on: June 22, 2012, 01:28:05 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Ethelred
    Quote from: Clint
    Bishop Williamson there again, above,  says it all in a few words. If I had that article I would have posted it instead of my words. Thanks for the posting, this is what a Catholic forum is for. Made my day!

    Quote
    Bishop Williamson: the SSPX has neither great numbers nor great theologians nor great writers.

    I know few Catholic writers today that can communicate so well as the bishop. He always goes to the heart, explains it simply and succintly. A first class communicator.

    I once commented to a relative that I had read a book and it went in one ear and out the other, that it was a difficult read. He told me that it was because the writer was not a good one. That a good writer makes the complicated, easy to comprehend. The bad writer can even make the easy to understand complicated.

    You hit the nail right on the head.
    Many thanks also for your good description of Bishop Williamson.

    Yes, Bishop Williamson is a master of the catholic word. He really knows how to apply the Faith in such a short but "action-packed" text like his Eleison Comments. That's why these are so great. Many priests and laymen read them with benefit, and Menzingen with teeth-gnashing.

    (I sometimes quip: The worst part of the coming Chastisement with its total black-out will be our inability to access the Eleison Comments via Internet anymore... Hopefully there will be some brave Englishman who's prepared to spread it via letter in a bottle!)


    P.S: You or somebody else could post that Eleison Comment into [its] own thread, so it doesn't sink in a long discussion.


    Okay. Here it is:

    Quote from: Ethelred
    Clint, you're right. But the SSPX leaders don't want to hear the truth. They have some illusions of grandeur and really think they could save the Church and the world! But Pride will have a fall. And what happens now, the split and hence destruction of the SSPX, is some kind of punishment.

    One wise SSPX bishop already in 2008 wrote to the world how small and humble the SSPX is, and that it should be thankful for the grace of God to be traditional catholic at all. Please let me quote this Bishop because his comment matches your observation well I think. He should have been (and should still be) general superior! But we don't deserved it... On the other side, only so the people all over the world can have the wonderful weekly Eleison Comments. Maybe that's more important.


    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    24 May 2008
    Eleison Comments XLVII
    Last Cartridge

    A priestly colleague of the Society of St. Pius X has just written (or maybe adopted) a parable whereby the Society is the last cartridge of a hunter who must shoot to kill the monster of neo-modernism entrenched within the structures of the Catholic Church. Since it is the last cartridge, the hunter cannot afford to miss! Well, the „hunter“ may be burdened, but let me attempt to assure him that he is not burdened that much!

    First and foremost, the Catholic Church belongs to Almighty God who has numerous possible ways of coming to its rescue that we men cannot even imagine. „Is my arm shortened because you men are wicked?“ asks the Lord God (Isaias 50:2). To imagine that the Lord God depends upon the SSPX to deal with the monster of neo-modernism is gravely to underestimate His powers!

    Secondly, neo-modernism is surely far too entrenched in Catholics (or former Catholics) for a little Congregation of some 450 priests to be able to dislodge it! Just as the crime of abortion has become more and more normal and accepted over the last 40 years, so too has the heresy of neo-modernism more and more established itself over the same time-period in the hearts and minds of the mass of Catholics (or once Catholics). By the grace of God, the SSPX may still have the Truth, but what grip or leverage does truth still have on diabolically disoriented minds, starting with those of today’s leading churchmen?

    Thirdly, what power does the SSPX have other than the – today – powerless Truth? Besides the Faith, the SSPX has neither great numbers nor great theologians nor great writers. It is holding its own all over the world, which is already a miracle, but it is fragile and in worldly terms it is advancing surely no more than one little step at a time, whereas the worldwide Revolution is advancing by leaps and bounds.

    No, dear colleague. The humble mission of the SSPX is surely not to kill the storm dead (as only Our Lord could do), but to ride it out. Not to overwhelm the lies, but to sustain the Truth. Not to conquer, but to give witness. Not to be in a hurry, but to wait for God’s good time. It is His Church, and He is certainly looking after it by, amongst other things, sustaining thus far the SSPX. But He is never short of cartridges!

    Bishop Richard Williamson
    La Reja, Argentina
    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.

    Offline Ethelred

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1222
    • Reputation: +2266/-0
    • Gender: Male
    E. C. XLVII -- Last Cartridge -- May 2008
    « Reply #1 on: June 22, 2012, 05:43:14 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Neil Obstat
    Quote from: Ethelred
    [..]
    P.S: You or somebody else could post that Eleison Comment into [its] own thread, so it doesn't sink in a long discussion.

    Okay. Here it is:
    [..]

    24 May 2008
    Eleison Comments XLVII
    Last Cartridge


    Now, that's really great. Thank you, Neil. We just have to get rid of my blah-blah in your quotation, so that the Bishop's excellent words stand there alone.

    So, if you approved of it, we could ask some kind moderator to edit the thread-opening post to just hold the actual EC. You know, I want it pure. :-)


    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4771
    • Reputation: +4155/-1452
    • Gender: Male
    E. C. XLVII -- Last Cartridge -- May 2008
    « Reply #2 on: June 22, 2012, 07:23:04 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Neil Obstat
    Quote from: Ethelred
    Quote from: Clint
    Bishop Williamson there again, above,  says it all in a few words. If I had that article I would have posted it instead of my words. Thanks for the posting, this is what a Catholic forum is for. Made my day!

    Quote
    Bishop Williamson: the SSPX has neither great numbers nor great theologians nor great writers.

    I know few Catholic writers today that can communicate so well as the bishop. He always goes to the heart, explains it simply and succintly. A first class communicator.

    I once commented to a relative that I had read a book and it went in one ear and out the other, that it was a difficult read. He told me that it was because the writer was not a good one. That a good writer makes the complicated, easy to comprehend. The bad writer can even make the easy to understand complicated.

    You hit the nail right on the head.
    Many thanks also for your good description of Bishop Williamson.

    Yes, Bishop Williamson is a master of the catholic word. He really knows how to apply the Faith in such a short but "action-packed" text like his Eleison Comments. That's why these are so great. Many priests and laymen read them with benefit, and Menzingen with teeth-gnashing.

    (I sometimes quip: The worst part of the coming Chastisement with its total black-out will be our inability to access the Eleison Comments via Internet anymore... Hopefully there will be some brave Englishman who's prepared to spread it via letter in a bottle!)


    P.S: You or somebody else could post that Eleison Comment into [its] own thread, so it doesn't sink in a long discussion.


    Okay. Here it is:

    Quote from: Ethelred
    Clint, you're right. But the SSPX leaders don't want to hear the truth. They have some illusions of grandeur and really think they could save the Church and the world! But Pride will have a fall. And what happens now, the split and hence destruction of the SSPX, is some kind of punishment.

    One wise SSPX bishop already in 2008 wrote to the world how small and humble the SSPX is, and that it should be thankful for the grace of God to be traditional catholic at all. Please let me quote this Bishop because his comment matches your observation well I think. He should have been (and should still be) general superior! But we don't deserved it... On the other side, only so the people all over the world can have the wonderful weekly Eleison Comments. Maybe that's more important.


    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    24 May 2008
    Eleison Comments XLVII
    Last Cartridge

    A priestly colleague of the Society of St. Pius X has just written (or maybe adopted) a parable whereby the Society is the last cartridge of a hunter who must shoot to kill the monster of neo-modernism entrenched within the structures of the Catholic Church. Since it is the last cartridge, the hunter cannot afford to miss! Well, the „hunter“ may be burdened, but let me attempt to assure him that he is not burdened that much!

    First and foremost, the Catholic Church belongs to Almighty God who has numerous possible ways of coming to its rescue that we men cannot even imagine. „Is my arm shortened because you men are wicked?“ asks the Lord God (Isaias 50:2). To imagine that the Lord God depends upon the SSPX to deal with the monster of neo-modernism is gravely to underestimate His powers!

    Secondly, neo-modernism is surely far too entrenched in Catholics (or former Catholics) for a little Congregation of some 450 priests to be able to dislodge it! Just as the crime of abortion has become more and more normal and accepted over the last 40 years, so too has the heresy of neo-modernism more and more established itself over the same time-period in the hearts and minds of the mass of Catholics (or once Catholics). By the grace of God, the SSPX may still have the Truth, but what grip or leverage does truth still have on diabolically disoriented minds, starting with those of today’s leading churchmen?

    Thirdly, what power does the SSPX have other than the – today – powerless Truth? Besides the Faith, the SSPX has neither great numbers nor great theologians nor great writers. It is holding its own all over the world, which is already a miracle, but it is fragile and in worldly terms it is advancing surely no more than one little step at a time, whereas the worldwide Revolution is advancing by leaps and bounds.

    No, dear colleague. The humble mission of the SSPX is surely not to kill the storm dead (as only Our Lord could do), but to ride it out. Not to overwhelm the lies, but to sustain the Truth. Not to conquer, but to give witness. Not to be in a hurry, but to wait for God’s good time. It is His Church, and He is certainly looking after it by, amongst other things, sustaining thus far the SSPX. But He is never short of cartridges!

    Bishop Richard Williamson
    La Reja, Argentina




    R: So how do you solve this disagreement between the SSPX and Benedict XVI, considered scandalous by many?

    Bishop Tissier: It is true that the SSPX is a "stumbling block" for those who resist the truth
    (1 Peter 2: 8) and this is good for the Church. If we were "reintegrated," we would, by that act, cease being the thorn in the side of the conciliar church, cease being a living reproach to the loss of faith in Jesus Christ, in His divinity, in His kingship.
    Romans 5:20 "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

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

    Offline Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 18173
    • Reputation: +8255/-635
    • Gender: Male
    E. C. XLVII -- Last Cartridge -- May 2008
    « Reply #3 on: June 22, 2012, 09:02:31 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0


  • 24 May 2008
    Eleison Comments XLVII
    Last Cartridge

    A priestly colleague of the Society of St. Pius X has just written (or maybe adopted) a parable whereby the Society is the last cartridge of a hunter who must shoot to kill the monster of neo-modernism entrenched within the structures of the Catholic Church. Since it is the last cartridge, the hunter cannot afford to miss! Well, the „hunter“ may be burdened, but let me attempt to assure him that he is not burdened that much!

    First and foremost, the Catholic Church belongs to Almighty God who has numerous possible ways of coming to its rescue that we men cannot even imagine. „Is my arm shortened because you men are wicked?“ asks the Lord God (Isaias 50:2). To imagine that the Lord God depends upon the SSPX to deal with the monster of neo-modernism is gravely to underestimate His powers!

    Secondly, neo-modernism is surely far too entrenched in Catholics (or former Catholics) for a little Congregation of some 450 priests to be able to dislodge it! Just as the crime of abortion has become more and more normal and accepted over the last 40 years, so too has the heresy of neo-modernism more and more established itself over the same time-period in the hearts and minds of the mass of Catholics (or once Catholics). By the grace of God, the SSPX may still have the Truth, but what grip or leverage does truth still have on diabolically disoriented minds, starting with those of today’s leading churchmen?

    Thirdly, what power does the SSPX have other than the – today – powerless Truth? Besides the Faith, the SSPX has neither great numbers nor great theologians nor great writers. It is holding its own all over the world, which is already a miracle, but it is fragile and in worldly terms it is advancing surely no more than one little step at a time, whereas the worldwide Revolution is advancing by leaps and bounds.

    No, dear colleague. The humble mission of the SSPX is surely not to kill the storm dead (as only Our Lord could do), but to ride it out. Not to overwhelm the lies, but to sustain the Truth. Not to conquer, but to give witness. Not to be in a hurry, but to wait for God’s good time. It is His Church, and He is certainly looking after it by, amongst other things, sustaining thus far the SSPX. But He is never short of cartridges!

    Bishop Richard Williamson
    La Reja, Argentina
    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.

    Offline Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 18173
    • Reputation: +8255/-635
    • Gender: Male
    E. C. XLVII -- Last Cartridge -- May 2008
    « Reply #4 on: June 22, 2012, 09:35:59 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Seraphim
    R: So how do you solve this disagreement between the SSPX and Benedict XVI, considered scandalous by many?

    Bishop Tissier: It is true that the SSPX is a "stumbling block" for those who resist the truth
    (1 Peter 2: 8) and this is good for the Church. If we were "reintegrated," we would, by that act, cease being the thorn in the side of the conciliar church, cease being a living reproach to the loss of faith in Jesus Christ, in His divinity, in His kingship.


    I can see it already: there are narrow-minded critics who are just stuck in the
    mindset that the SSPX is schismatic and needs to be "brought back into the
    Church" etc.

    They'll take such quotes from the august +de Mallerais and say, "See! This proves
    that he's outside the Church!" or whatever. Oh, remember LG 8 and all its
    consequential rhetoric -- inside, outside, doesn't matter? It only matters for you
    if you "stand fast :and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by
    word or our epistle" (II Thes. ii. 14). If you're on the side of Saint Paul, that makes
    you an outcast! Talk about diabolical disorientation!!

    The good bishop probably left it out because he's tired of saying it over and over
    again, as though the ammunition supply is dwindling because he feels like a
    broken record. The point is that Rome has defected. Rome has lost the Faith.

    Rome needs to convert.
    Rome refuses to discuss doctrine.
    Rome is the problem.

    So long as Rome dances around the mulberry bush, pocket full of posies and
    all that, so long as they find another one of the infinite excuses to NOT enter
    into an honest discussion about what the Church teaches dogmatically and
    how their actions over the past 50 years are in conflict with that, there will
    be nothing good come of any discussions.

    They have even spent the past 50 years trying to establish a new "tradition" of a
    denial of the principle of non-contradiction, so as to circumvent any good outcome
    of such a discussion on the basis that they don't have to act according to right
    reason: their actions can be in conflict with Church dogma, and that's okay,
    because it's traditional, the hermeneutic of continuity!

    This mess is really beyond the capacity of any human being any more. We're
    frankly out of bullets.

    It's in God's hands. And he's never short of cartridges!

    Rome will eat the Society Alive link removed
    Fellay leads the SSPX "Over the Rainbow!" link removed
    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.


    Offline MaterDominici

    • Owner's Wife
    • Mod
    • *****
    • Posts: 4940
    • Reputation: +3674/-69
    • Gender: Female
    E. C. XLVII -- Last Cartridge -- May 2008
    « Reply #5 on: June 22, 2012, 11:37:45 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Neil Obstat
    Rome will eat the Society Alive
    Fellay leads the SSPX "Over the Rainbow!"


    Do we really need to link to such nonsense?
    If someone has such time on their hands, they should make something serious and effective.
    "If I could only make the faithful sing the Kyrie, the Gloria, the Credo, the Sanctus and the Agnus Dei ... that would be to me the finest triumph sacred music could have, for it is in really taking part in the liturgy that the faithful will preserve their devotion. I would take the Tantum ...

    Offline Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 18173
    • Reputation: +8255/-635
    • Gender: Male
    E. C. XLVII -- Last Cartridge -- May 2008
    « Reply #6 on: June 23, 2012, 01:58:09 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: MaterDominici
    Quote from: Neil Obstat
    Rome will eat the Society Alive
    Fellay leads the SSPX "Over the Rainbow!"


    Do we really need to link to such nonsense?
    If someone has such time on their hands, they should make something serious and effective.


    And to think that it was a software issue -- was it?

    The videos are really corny, but sometimes you have to lighten up to keep your sanity.

    These days are spiritually grueling. But we ain't seen nothin' yet!
    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.

    Offline Clint

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 161
    • Reputation: +299/-0
    • Gender: Male
    E. C. XLVII -- Last Cartridge -- May 2008
    « Reply #7 on: June 23, 2012, 02:01:26 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • A relevant quote:

    Quote from: Sunbeam
    ....

    Explanation:
    Words and phrases in braces {} are my interpolitions.
    Words and phrases that are set between question marks are ones of which I am less certain as to the intended meaning.
    A dash inside braces represents a minor omission.
    Words and phrases that are underlined are those in which I have either changed the word order according to English usage, or I have substituted one or more words that seemed to make better sense (eg: “he” in place of “it”).

    -----------------------------------------------------------

    ABOUT THE RESPONSE OF BISHOP FELLAY {TO}
    THE OTHER THREE BISHOPS OF THE FRATERNITY

    The unprecedented response of Bishop Fellay {to the} letter {of} his three brothers in the episcopate in which they expressed their disagreement {with} him, surprises by the stupidity of the charge, and betrays, {in} the author, an intellectual myopia preventing him from seeing beyond illusions.

    In his letter, Bishop Fellay, in effect, assumes {the} power of truth itself, since this infallible guru attempts to impose himself at all cost{s}, as if invested in a divine mission for which, in his naïve ignorance, he cultivates the ambition to overthrow the {-} anti-Catholic revolution and the apostate adultery today {coming} from Rome.

    Bishop Fellay, flattered by a corrupt Rome and wrapped up in the promise of a personal prelature, dares to emphasize its meaningless standard, by which it would confer a legal and canonical status in the religion of the Great Scarlet Prostitute -- {a} vision of whom was caught {by} the Apostle St. John the Evangelist when he saw her dressed in gold and purple (attributes of royal power and prestige) and straddling the beast from the sea -- or in antichristian craftiness.

    He displayed a weak theological and intellectual background and a false mysticism, as demonstrated by the fact of having been dazzled and duped a few years ago by a Swiss prophetess {-} seeking to reform the spirituality of the Fraternity left by his founder, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. This complete illuminist found fertile ground in the weak sensitivity of Bishop Fellay, but it seems to have prevailed at the time, despite strong opposition from other members of the Fraternity, which, in any case, blindly and naively leaned towards the bishop because of the wonderful apparition.

    He now claims to be the unique and special envoy able to resolve the current crisis, whose dimensions exceed the same apocalyptic and eschatological {terminus} that he ignores.

    Bishop Fellay charges the other three bishops with two serious errors, according to this myopically-enlightened guru {-} believing himself to be invested with a mandate and authority over the whole of Tradition and driving it into bankruptcy as well as formal public {apostasy}.

    According to him, these two errors would be: in face of the current crisis in the Church, the three bishops in question -- Mgrs Tissier de Mallerais, Williamson and de Galarreta -- sin by lack of both supernatural vision and realism. They lack supernatural vision, because they do not see in the present official Church, the visible Church which holds Benedict XVI to be a legitimate Pope, and because they do not realize {a} that Jesus Christ Himself can speak through the mouth of Joseph Ratzinger, {b} that the will of the latter is legitimate and -- also -- is kind to Tradition, and finally, {c} that our Lord Jesus Christ will give the means and the necessary graces.

    According to him, the Pope always wanted to solve the problem, which is a {major} concern of his papacy, and {which} manifests itself immediately and irrevocably in his will. So they have a vision of the Church {that is} too human or too fatalistic. They do not see {the} assistance of grace and the Holy Spirit: they perceive only the dangers, conspiracies and difficulties. And as if that were not enough, they lack -- according to Bishop Fellay -- realism : on the one hand, they make {the} errors of Vatican II {into} super-heresies. This caricature of reality, leads to a hardening; leads to an absolute and real Schism {yet} on the other hand, not everyone in Rome is modernist, not everyone in Rome is rotten.

    Not only {is} the outlook of Bishop Fellay naïve and unrealistic, but it is hyper-supernatural, as would {be} that of a visionary who did not know the theological principle {of the} supernatural and {the} natural that he is talking about: grace (supernatural) builds on nature, because it is about human nature and the angelic nature (intelligent and free). It is not able to act on a stone or an animal {which are} without reason or will.

    Archbishop Lefebvre was the first to report clearly and categorically that the official (post-conciliar) Church is not necessarily identifiable with the visible Church of God. He writes, "Where is the visible Church? The visible Church is recognized by the signs that it has always given to {its} visibility: it is one, holy, catholic and apostolic. I ask: where are the true marks of the Church? Are they more in the official Church. (This is not the visible church: this is the official church) or here, in what we represent; {in} what we are? Clearly it is we who keep the unity of {the} faith, which has disappeared from the official Church." And he stresses that: "Of course, it can be objected: ‘Is it necessarily gone from the visible Church {...}?" It's not us, but the modernists who leave the Church. As for saying "gone from the visible Church,": {this} is to {be} mistaken in equating {the} official church and {the} visible Church." (No. 66 Fideliter November-December 1988).

    This is what Bishop Fellay, Father Schmidberger and their unconditional supporters do {?not?} want to see or {to} hear, they are walled up in {the} blindness and {the} deafness of their error.

    Bishop Fellay gives the most complete illusion, as is evidenced by the remarks made by Archbishop Lefebvre himself during an interview with Fideliter one year after the consecrations:

    Fideliter -- Some say: "Yes, but the Archbishop should have accepted an agreement with Rome, because once the Fraternity has been recognized and the sanctions have been lifted, it could act more effectively within the Church, than outside, as it is today."
    "Msgr Lefebvre -- These are easy things to say. Getting inside the church, what does that mean? And first, of what church do we speak? If this is the Conciliar church, should we, who have fought against it for twenty years because we want the Catholic Church, return to this Conciliar church calling it Catholic? This is a total illusion."
    (Fideliter No. 70, July-August 1989).

    These words of Archbishop Lefebvre clearly show that Bishop Fellay and his clique {-} are utopians. In fact, for them {to} persist in this business under a total illusion is a sign of mental retardation or connotes an attitude of {the} guru and {the mystic}, elated by what he believes is his divine mission of "Superman" of the Church and {of} Tradition, {who} is about to reverse the anti-Catholic Revolution. Only a dreamer or ?a lunatic? can {make} such a claim, while accusing those who seriously oppose him of lacking realism and supernatural spirit. Has anyone ever seen such illusions and such pride? What animates Bishop Fellay other than a form of religious paranoia? Bishop Fellay's supernatural spirit based on the fervent and dogmatic idea that Benedict XVI is certainly and absolutely Pope; that his will is legitimate; and {that} God can speak through his mouth.

    However, this is {the} theological error of taking as a matter of faith {-} something that does not {exist}: it is here in the present theological dogmatism of the ignorant, which makes {-} an article of faith (or considered as such) {out of} that which does not {exist} in reality. Do not forget that {according to the Biblical} account God can also express {Himself} by the mouth of Balaam's mule, or make the stones speak.

    St. Thomas Aquinas on the subject provides a very significant example when he talks about faith as an inherent divine certainty and he highlights the case of a wafer that the faithful worship, when it has not been consecrated, as might occur with a particular host. Answer: What is {of} faith, is that any valid host really and substantially consecrated contains the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ, but it is not of faith that this particular host (here and now) contains the divine presence, because there may have been a voluntary or involuntary {fault}, which has prevented the consecration, {but} there was no desire to expose the error to the faith in the Church of believers.

    It would be the same with the Pope: every legitimate pontiff is really and truly {the} Pope, but it is not of faith that any pontiff in particular -- for example, Benedict XVI -- is indeed {the} Pope. It is precisely because his legitimacy is in question -- because, indeed, {of} his acts that contradict {the} faith of the Church -- {that} he may not actually and truly be {the} Pope, without drawing away the faithful from their faith in the Church.  Remember the case of St. Vincent Ferrer, who {recognized as} the genuine and legitimate Pope, the antipope Benedict XIII (Pedro de Luna, or Moonstone), and who was then wrong, but without sin against the faith, by considering as false, him who really was {the} Pope.

    Bishop Fellay has fallen into the falsely-based dialectic {that it is} an a priori {requirement} of faith to believe that this pontiff -- John Paul II or Benedict XVI -- is the genuine and legitimate Pope, {so that} anyone, who does not agree with the above or doubts {it}, sins against the faith and {is} making a big mistake by not knowing exactly {how to} distinguish {between} what is {?the subject and the object?} of faith

    If this were so, Archbishop Lefebvre (or all theologians, except Pighi the Dutch{man}) never would have considered the possibility of Sede Vacante. So it is obvious that this position can not be regarded as schismatic, heretic{al} or apostate. The same discussion that takes place on the ground about theological doctrinal differences confirms that this theory is entirely possible, but modernist and apostate Rome has very cleverly and subtly created a Machiavellian dialectic on this subject {so} that no one can question the legitimacy of the conciliar Popes, {and} whereby anyone who dares to do {so} is disqualified as {a} contemptible pariah; the question becomes {a} theological taboo then allowing Rome to continue -- unimpeded -- to pontificate in {its} error and violate the immaculate virginal faith.

    At {his} conference in Econe {on} 15 April 1986, Archbishop Lefebvre returned to what he said in his Easter sermon stressing that: "Is the Pope always the Pope when he is a heretic? Frankly, I do not know! But you yourself can {ask the} question. I think in any sensible man, the question must be asked. I do not know {why} not. Now, it is urgent to talk about this? ... We can not talk {in public}, obviously ... We can talk amongst ourselves, privately, in our institutions, our private conversations between seminarians, priests between ... Is it necessary to speak to the faithful? Many say ‘No, do not tell the faithful, they will be scandalized. It will be terrible, it will go away ...’ Fine. I said {to} the priests, in Paris, when I met {them}, and then to yourself ({to whom} I'd already spoken), I told them: "I think, nevertheless, it is necessary to very carefully illuminate just the faithful. I'm not saying that we should do it and launch it brutally in the face of {the} faithful to scare them ... no, but I still think it is precisely a matter of {the} faith. It is necessary that the faithful do not lose {the} faith."

    However, it was forbidden and repressed in many ways within the Fraternity: First by Father Schmidberger when he was Superior General, and now it is done by Bishop Fellay, and the faithful are kept in the dark. {To} discuss this theory was and is worse {than} contracting leprosy or AIDS: there is a taboo that cannot be violated by discrediting {the legitimacy of the Pope}. For nothing can shake the apostate Rome more than seeing {put} in doubt {or} publicly attacked the legitimacy or authority she brings to the Conciliar-Church, the Synagogue of Satan, thus fulfilling the prophecy of La Salette: "Rome will lose {the} faith and become the seat of the Antichrist" (?Apparition?)

    Bishop Fellay is so unrealistic that it was he who accused the other three bishops of unreality because they perceive, in the errors of Vatican II, super-heresies, as if heresies were not enough in spite of their already {being} disastrous. Of course, why would he not say that, he said that he accepted 95% of Vatican II and that {he would} hasten to (the modernist) Rome if he is called?

    All this fails to surprise, but as he himself admits, not receiving any support from {the} three other bishops, he put them away. At the same time, he pursued his purpose, so that the case is now in the public square, while {he} wanted to continue to keep {it} under wraps. Furthermore, he issued a statement in which he states that his brother bishops have sinned grievously, yet in fact grave and mortal sin, but rather {it is} he who is guilty and who remains there in sowing discord and destruction in the work of Archbishop Lefebvre, but this sleepy illuminated guru puts {on} his blinkers. He hides behind his authority {as} Superior General {which} he brandishes, trying to make believe that {he} only is suitable for deciding the fate of the Fraternity, as if he could do and undo everything at will.

    His concept of authority is neither Catholic nor Thomistic and is pagan and proactive. He believes himself capable of exercising power in defiance of goodness and of truth. However, any authority is perverted and distorted (is delegitimized) if it is exercised against justice and truth and the service for which it was instituted.

    This is Bishop Fellay who creates from scratch a vile and unacceptable dialectic between truth and authority, between faith and authority, while the best that remains to him to do would be to resign for having shown {himself} abusive and inept, incapable of governing his subordinates in the sense of {the} mission that was assigned to the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X, {by} Archbishop Lefebvre {and} conceived by him as a bastion of faith and Catholic tradition, and {for} the fight against the modernists who occupy Rome.

    To believe {what} Bishop Fellay says now, {that} with Benedict XVI things {-} have changed, and {that} there seems to {be} a trend in favor of faith and tradition: "In itself, the solution of the proposed Personal Prelature is not a trap. {It} is evident first of all that the present situation in April 2012 is very different from that of 1988. {To} claim that nothing has changed is a historic mistake. The same problems are hurting the Church, {the} consequences are more serious and obvious {than} then, but at the same time we can see a change in attitude in the Church, aided by gestures and acts of Benedict XVI towards Tradition. This new movement {that} was born there at least a decade {ago}, will {be} strengthening."
    (Bishop Fellay's response to the three Bishops of April 14, 2012).

    This is absurd and illogical. This is from a blind {and} stubborn {individual} who takes us all for complacent fools and does not realize that he yields to the error that Monsignor Lefebvre had denounced, in his time, in a letter to Jean Madiran: "We cannot, without seriously failing in truth and charity, suggest, to those whose {words} we listen {to} or read, that the Pope is untouchable; that he is full of desires to return to Tradition; and {that} it's his entourage {that} is guilty ..." (Letter of 29 January 1986).

    Bishop Fellay cannot deny the theological authority of his three brothers in the Episcopate, as bishops are the successors of the Apostles -- that is to say the guardians of the Doctrine of the Faith. And he should reflect {on the fact} that they have more weight than his sole opinion.

    {May} God illuminate {him with} His divine grace so that he finds in himself the courage and {the} humility necessary to realize what he is about to do by destroying the only bastion of resistance that the Fraternity of St. Pius X, as an international institution, {poses} against the heresy of Rome {and} the apostate, heretical modernists, whom Archbishop Lefebvre treated {as} antichrists by writing in his letter of August 29, 1987 to the future bishops whom he would consecrate: "The Chair of Peter and {the} positions of authority in Rome are occupied by antichrists."

    Father Basilio Méramo
    Bogota, May 21, 20


    Offline Clint

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 161
    • Reputation: +299/-0
    • Gender: Male
    E. C. XLVII -- Last Cartridge -- May 2008
    « Reply #8 on: June 23, 2012, 02:21:31 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Relevant to this thread quotes from Fr. Meramo about Bishop Fellay:

    - an intellectual myopia preventing him from seeing beyond illusions.

    - Bishop Fellay, in effect, assumes the power of truth itself, since this infallible guru attempts to impose himself at all cost, as if invested in a divine mission for which, in his naïve ignorance, he cultivates the ambition to overthrow the anti-Catholic revolution
    - Bishop Fellay, flattered by a corrupt Rome


    - He now claims to be the unique and special envoy able to resolve the current crisis, ...according to this myopically-enlightened guru  believing himself to be invested with a mandate and authority over the whole of Tradition

    - Bishop Fellay and his clique are utopians. In fact, for them persist in this business under a total illusion is a sign of mental retardation or connotes an attitude of the guru and the mystic, elated by what he believes is his divine mission of "Superman" of the Church and of Tradition, who is about to reverse the anti-Catholic Revolution. Only a dreamer or a lunatic can make such a claim, while accusing those who seriously oppose him of lacking realism and supernatural spirit.

    - Has anyone ever seen such illusions and such pride? What animates Bishop Fellay other than a form of religious paranoia?

    - this sleepy illuminated guru puts on his blinkers.

    - This is absurd and illogical. This is from a blind and stubborn individual who takes us all for complacent fools

    Offline Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 18173
    • Reputation: +8255/-635
    • Gender: Male
    E. C. XLVII -- Last Cartridge -- May 2008
    « Reply #9 on: June 23, 2012, 10:18:58 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Please compare this Eleison Comments XLVII from May of 2008 to

    this Superior General's Letter to Friends and Benefactors #72 from April 2008.
    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.

     

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