Author Topic: Eleison Comments - Discussions Renewed? III (no 596) (Read 1089 times)

Matthew · « **on:** December 15, 2018, 01:34:05 PM »

Number DXCVI (596)

December 15, 2018

Discussions Renewed? – III
”To sup with the Devil calls for one long spoon” –
Not to be had by innocents any time soon!
Many readers of these “Comments” may not be content if for the third time in succession they deal with what can seem to them mere arguments between priests, namely the meeting on November 22 in Rome between Cardinal Ladaria and Fr Davide Pagliarani. But every human being, Catholic or not, must suffer eternally in Hell if he does not save his soul. This can only be done in accordance with Catholic doctrine, and so that doctrine must be kept pure. Since the 1970’s the staunchest defender of Catholic doctrine against Vatican II confusion inside the Catholic Church, was the Society of St Pius X. But since 2012 the Society too has been wavering in its faithfulness to that doctrine. Therefore it is a matter of concern to every human being alive whether discussions with Rome today will or will not put an end to the Society’s faithfulness to the Church and to the doctrine of the one and only Saviour of men, Our Lord Jesus Christ.
Two weeks ago these “Comments” (EC 594) presented in general the press release of November 23 in which Society Headquarters in Menzingen, Switzerland, described the meeting on the previous day between the Society’s new Superior General, Fr David Pagliarani, and Rome’s head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Ladaria. One week ago the “Comments” (EC 595) presented the full text of the third and fourth paragraphs of that press release, with their glimmer of hope that the Society will come back on its Founder’s track to defend the doctrine of the Faith. But when the fifth paragraph concluded that doctrinal discussions with Rome should be re-opened, the glimmer grew dark, not only because doctrinal discussions between Rome and the Society were already held between 2009 and 2011 (EC 594); not only because neo-modernists like today’s Romans cannot think straight (EC 595); but also because Rome has only one purpose in discussing with the Society, and that is to put a final end to the Society’s historic resistance to their own sell-out to Satan’s nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr.
Thus whenever Communists wanted to take over a country, the main obstacle in their way was always the Catholic Church, which utterly rejects – doctrinally – the atheistic materialism of Communists. But Communists learned not to fight Catholics on doctrine, where faithful Catholics are too strong. Instead they invited Catholics to join them in a joint action, supposedly on behalf of the people, because once Catholics and Communists were collaborating in action, the Communists would exploit the practical contact to get around the doctrinal blockage. The one thing that the Communists did not want was for the Catholics to break off all contact. Then they no longer had the means of working on them.
Similarly, when Cardinal Castrillón was Rome’s man to deal with the Society ten years ago, he used basically the same tactic -- “Let us first get together, and we will sort out all the doctrinal problems afterwards, once we are together. The important thing is first a practical agreement,” he said. On the contrary Archbishop Lefebvre always insisted on Catholic doctrine coming first. His successors thought that they knew better, and have time and again sought contact with the Roman apostates, who have been, logically, only too happy to oblige, with the result that the Society’s defence of the Faith has grown steadily weaker since 2000. The salt is losing its savour. Unless the Society seriously changes course it will become fit only to be thrown out and trampled underfoot (Mt. V, 13).
Another problem is if the Society is wanting discussions in order to obtain official permission for the consecration of the new generation of bishops that it needs for its worldwide apostolate. But if it does not want to consecrate them without Rome’s permission, then it can only agree to Rome’s terms, because i t is making itself the beggar and Rome the chooser. But thereby the Society is putting the Conciliar Romans firmly in the driving-seat, where for the defence of the Faith, they absolutely do not belong. So is the new Superior General wanting to re-open discussions with a view to obtaining a Roman permission? God knows. But in any case, discussing with Rome means that the Superior General will be dancing with wolves. A dangerous occupation.
Kyrie eleison.

hollingsworth · « **Reply #1 on:** December 16, 2018, 02:04:45 PM »

Nota bene: Since the publication of EC596 24 hours ago, a whole day, not one CI member has responded. That indicates to me little more than a collective 'Ho-hum!' The Society and Rome will continue on their petty pace from day to day. The tiresome "discussions" will go forward once again, with the same results. I think the bishop knows this, as well as all of us.
The archbishop is dead. The salt is not in the process of losing its savor. That salt lost its savor, probably even before many of us here ever associated with the Society. Let's move on.

2Vermont · « **Reply #2 on:** December 16, 2018, 05:08:16 PM »

Once again, the mistake is in thinking that the apostates in Rome are the legitimate authority of the Roman Catholic Church. In this, both the Society and the Resistance are in agreement.

hollingsworth · « **Reply #3 on:** December 18, 2018, 05:56:41 AM »

I must apologize for the offense my last post must have caused some. I was dismissive and disrespectful towards one of the few traditional bishops or priests for whom I have left any real respect. Bishop Williamson is, and has always been, an admirable cleric and a courageous Christian gentleman. True, I disagree with his idea that any “glimmer of hope” may remain for the SSX. Nevertheless, I am persuaded that the good bishop consults his nobler instincts by holding out some slight hope.

Alas, it may be that Our Lady has already spoken from Heaven on the matter, indicating, in effect, that +Fellay’s Society was weighed in the balance after 2006 and found wanting. It really depends on whether one believes the words of a certain visionary.

In any case, Bishop Williamson deserves honor and respect. He is one of the few Cathholic clerics, IMO, who tries always to stand for the truth in the midst of the modern church’s almost utter ruin and resulting chaos.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #4 on:** December 18, 2018, 08:20:46 AM »

.
+W manages to generate language without peer, time and again.
.

Quote

Rome has only one purpose in discussing [anything] with the Society, and that is to put a final end to the Society’s historic resistance to their own sell-out to Satan’s nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr.

Thus whenever Communists wanted to take over a country, the main obstacle in their way was always the Catholic Church, which utterly rejects – doctrinally – the atheistic materialism of Communists. But Communists learned not to fight Catholics on doctrine, where faithful Catholics are too strong. Instead they invited Catholics to join them in a joint action, supposedly on behalf of the people, because once Catholics and Communists were collaborating in action, the Communists would exploit the practical contact to get around the doctrinal blockage. The one thing that the Communists did not want was for the Catholics to break off all contact. Then they no longer had the means of working on them. [And the one thing the Newromans do not want is for the SSPX to break off all contact, for then Newrome would not have the means of working on them.]

Similarly, when Cardinal Castrillón was Rome’s man to deal with the Society ten years ago, he used basically the same tactic -- “Let us first get together, and we will sort out all the doctrinal problems afterwards, once we are together. The important thing is first a practical agreement,” he said. On the contrary, Archbishop Lefebvre always insisted on Catholic doctrine coming first.

.
This concept of getting together first, without discussing doctrine, was the basis of GREC.
In fact, this concept has its roots in Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ (and therefore it's a Jєωιѕн thing), and is entirely foreign to Catholic tradition.
.
It is very important to keep in mind the context of "a practical agreement."
And not to forget, it was the term of choice of Hoyos, a snake!
This term gets passed around like hors d'oeuvres among polite company, while the salt loses its savor.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #5 on:** December 18, 2018, 09:11:20 AM »

Quote

I must apologize for the offense my last post must have caused some. I was dismissive and disrespectful towards one of the few traditional bishops or priests for whom I have left any real respect. Bishop Williamson is, and has always been, an admirable cleric and a courageous Christian gentleman. True, I disagree with his idea that any “glimmer of hope” may remain for the SSX. Nevertheless, I am persuaded that the good bishop consults his nobler instincts by holding out some slight hope.

Alas, it may be that Our Lady has already spoken from Heaven on the matter, indicating, in effect, that +Fellay’s Society was weighed in the balance after 2006 and found wanting. It really depends on whether one believes the words of a certain visionary.

In any case, Bishop Williamson deserves honor and respect. He is one of the few Cathholic clerics, IMO, who tries always to stand for the truth in the midst of the modern church’s almost utter ruin and resulting chaos.

I think many, many people share your frustration at the ruination of the neo-sspx by +Fellay and ALSO the (perceived) lack of acceptance of this ruination by +W. But you make a good point in that +W is probably holding out hope for patience's sake. These are trying times we live in and it seems to continue to get worse and worse by the day. Certainly that is what Our Lady told us to expect at Fatima and also what Our Lord told us in the gospels on the last sundays of Pentacost. Let us take solice in the fact that God knows our troubles and our long-suffering will be rewarded and will be a glorious merit we shall display at our judgement.
But he that shall persevere to the end, he shall be saved. (Matt 24:13)

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #6 on:** December 19, 2018, 09:00:37 AM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on December 18, 2018, 09:11:20 AM

.
Certainly that is what Our Lady told us to expect at Fatima and also what Our Lord told us in the gospels on the last [Sundays] of Pentacost.

.
Make that Pentecost..... not "Pentacost." Penta- is a Greek root, found in pentagram, pentagon and pentagonal, something with 5 parts.
Pente- is a Latin root, referring to 50 of something, in this case, 50 days after Our Lord's Resurrection.
.
Don't worry, the St. Gregory Hymnal and Catholic Choir Book, Complete Edition, has been in print for close to a century, with "Penticost" prominently heading one page of the music. It was even reprinted in the 1980's by Newman Press without the correction being made.
Penti- is not a root of anything, it's just a mistake.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #7 on:** December 19, 2018, 09:10:29 AM »

mea culpa.

Author Topic: Eleison Comments - Discussions Renewed? III (no 596) (Read 1089 times)

Matthew

Eleison Comments - Discussions Renewed? III (no 596)

hollingsworth

Re: Eleison Comments - Discussions Renewed? III (no 596)

2Vermont

Re: Eleison Comments - Discussions Renewed? III (no 596)

hollingsworth

Re: Eleison Comments - Discussions Renewed? III (no 596)

Neil Obstat

Re: Eleison Comments - Discussions Renewed? III (no 596)

Pax Vobis

Re: Eleison Comments - Discussions Renewed? III (no 596)

Neil Obstat

Re: Eleison Comments - Discussions Renewed? III (no 596)

Pax Vobis

Re: Eleison Comments - Discussions Renewed? III (no 596)