Author Topic: Father M. Johnson, SSPX sermon on "So, what about Vatican II?" (Read 3516 times)

Mr G · « **on:** December 04, 2019, 01:02:54 PM »

https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/4691-carthago-delenda-est-so-what-about-vatican-ii

NOTE: Fr. Johnson admits there was a change in the SSPX, that the SSPX was softening its tone against VII.
“Carthago delenda est! (So, what about Vatican II?)
Written by By Father Michael Johnson, FSSPX

Editor’s Note: We’re very grateful to Father Johnson for this excellent, if quite provocative, sermon on the fundamental problems with the Second Vatican Council. Father was kind enough to send this sermon transcript to us in the wake of our RTV program The Amazon Papacy (#ToHellwithVaticanII). I’m happy to say that I would be hard pressed to refute a single argument made herein. #UniteTheClans! MJM

Dearly beloved in Christ: I first preached this sermon in 2012 in all of the chapels over which I had charge in the United States. I also preached it two years ago in Adelaide, South Australia, and last year in Wanganui. It seems not to have lost its relevance as recent circuмstances compel me to preach it once again, this time here in Tawa.

Cato the Elder

There are those among you who will perhaps recognize what I have just quoted as coming from Cato the Elder, who held the post as Censor of Rome (essentially the overseer of Roman public morality) during the middle of the second century B.C. Cato’s hatred for Carthage (which was in modern Tunisia) and the phrase “Carthago delenda est!” with which he ended every speech in the Roman senate, whether or not his speech had anything to do with Carthage, have become iconic.

Carthage had long been Rome’s competitor and rival in commerce and trade, and had, during the first two of the Punic Wars (which, incidentally, Rome won), inflicted a series of setbacks and humiliations on Rome which Rome neither forgave nor forgot; and so Cato’s invariable conclusion to all of his speeches became a forceful reminder to his audiences of the perceived threat Carthage posed to the peace, the stability and even the continued existence of the Roman republic.

Cato, as the guardian of the public moral consciousness, had no tolerance whatever for pacifists – opportunists, quislings and traitors, as he termed them – who advocated striking a deal with Carthage, arguing that a negotiated compromise with her was more to Rome’s benefit than apparent ceaseless warfare. Thus Cato made “Carthago delenda est!” the rallying cry to Romans to do their duty, and utterly to exterminate the pest that was Carthage; and which Rome finally did during the third Punic war, going so far in their victory as to salt Carthage’s fields, and to sell her surviving citizens into slavery.

Cato’s phrase, “Carthago delenda est!” has survived its author to this day, principally as an expression which vigorously underscores the correctness of one's conviction regarding a necessary course of action. Perhaps not surprisingly, then or today, Cato was regarded, even in his own time, by many of his fellow Romans, as a bigot, which is why one rarely hears his signature phrase quoted anymore. Today, rather than Cato’s “Carthago delenda est!” we are more likely to hear the now equally iconic plea, “Can’t we all just get along?”

October of three years ago marked two events of special significance: the 50^th anniversary of the close of the Second Vatican Council; and, deliberately timed to coincide with that anniversary, the second synod on marriage and the family, called by Pope Francis, the bitter fruits of which are only now being realized in another nefarious docuмent, Amoris Laetitia – The Joy of Luv, which is the illegitimate child of that synod.

At the end of the day, however, we may point to the Second Vatican Council itself, as the grandmother of the child – as the baneful root of all of the evils of our present already too long post-conciliar age – and well it should be identified as such since the Second Vatican Council is the Magna Carta of all which the conciliarists and their allies (the Zionists and the Freemasons) hold near and dear. One thing made quite clear from the failed negotiations in 2012 between the Society and Rome was that, whatever else may have been brought up for discussion, the Council was off the table, full stop.

At the end of it all, Cardinal Gerhard Müller, fired last year by Pope Francis from his position as Prefect of the CDF, whether intentionally or unintentionally, did us – did the Society – a huge favor. As he departed his post, his Eminence reinforced by reiterating in a letter addressed personally to Bp. Fellay what he had said in 2012, namely that, before any so-called “regularization” of the status of the SSPX could be possible, the Society must accept the Second Vatican Council, as well as all of the docuмents subsequent and consequent to that council; and we must also accept both the liceity and validity of the Novus Ordo Mass and of all the reformed Sacraments. This has effectively ended the quest (on both sides) for rapprochement between the Society and Rome, at least for the foreseeable future.

It must be admitted, however, that one of consequences of this quest has been a fair amount of softening on the Society’s attitude towards the ongoing modernist devolution of Holy Mother Church, and towards that devolution’s chief engine, the Second Vatican Council. In attempting to make the Council more palatable, some on our side have even taken to slicing and dicing it, identifying 95% of it as more or less acceptable, but the remaining 5% contrary to what the Church has always taught; and, therefore, to be rejected. The 95% deemed more or less acceptable was then further dissected into two more parts: the larger part said to be comprised of direct quotations of earlier orthodox magisterial docuмents; while the remaining smaller part was deemed ambiguous, and in need of clarification to bring it into line with traditionally accepted doctrine.

And so, at the end of the day we are left with what might be called the good, the bad, and the ugly: the good allegedly comprising the bulk of the Council, and being perfectly orthodox, therefore, to be assented to with supernatural faith, failure to do so implying heresy, or at least schism on the part of the one dissenting. The bad, of course, is to be passed over entirely, while the ugly must somehow be beautified. If this sounds like “making a silk purse out of a sow’s ear”, who could blame you for thinking it?

But is this proper? If the Council is indeed an authentic expression of the Magisterium; if it is truly doctrinally and historically contiguous with all that makes up the deposit of Faith before it (as Benedict XVI, the current Pope emeritus, once asserted it to be), who are we to pick and choose what of it we will accept, what we will re-interpret, and what we will reject? Is this not precisely the essence of heresy? In her condemnation of this tactic, at least, if in nothing else, Rome is both consistent and even Catholic. We must look then at this curious notion of “dissecting the Council”.

It is asserted by those who would pick and choose what they see to be good in the Council docuмents that we must likewise acknowledge in these docuмents the presence, even the preponderance, of orthodox magisterial statements and teaching. That being so, the argument continues, we are not free to question these, even less may we reject them, as this would be tantamount to heresy. This is what those say who would dissect the Council into mostly good, and just a little bad. Whether or not this be true, suffice it to say, there are no quotations in any of the so-called good parts of the Council docuмents from the so-called “harder” traditional magisterial sources, such as the “Syllabus of Errors”, Mirari Vos, Immortale Dei, Pascendi, or Lamentablili, to name a few, all of which so urgently warn against the modern and modernist errors which flourish today even in Rome as the fruits of that same Vatican Council II.

Fine. Conceding their argument – conceding the argument of the dissectors – can we at least ask why these supposed traditional, orthodox, even infallible Catholic doctrines might have been salted in among the bad and the ugly? In doing this, did the Council intend thereby to clarify, to re-emphasize, to highlight, to reaffirm these allegedly Catholic dogmas? Is this in fact what has happened? Are the faithful – is the Body of Christ – as a consequence of the Council, more knowledgeable and better informed about their faith? Are they holier, more devout, more charitable, more authentically Catholic thanks to the Council? Can we say that the four marks of the Church – One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic – are more gloriously evident today than they were before the Council? Rhetorical questions, all. You know well the answers.

So, presuming that such authentic traditional Catholic doctrine is indeed present throughout the Council docuмents, what was the purpose of including them with the bad and the ugly, these latter two being asserted by the dissectors to compose but a miniscule portion of the Council? The Gospel of today’s Mass could not be more dead on in answering this question: “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. By their fruits you shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit, and the evil tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can an evil tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit, shall be cut down, and shall be cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits you shall know them.” (Mt. 7:15 – 20)

So, let’s back away a bit to look at the bigger picture. What are the fruits of the Second Vatican Council? What did the conciliarists celebrate in 2015 during the golden anniversary of the Council’s close in 1965? Does Rome rejoice in the abundance of flourishing religious orders; of overflowing seminaries; in the plenitude of Catholic institutions dedicated to the performance of the corporal works of mercy – Catholic hospitals, orphanages, schools, etc.? Do they celebrate mass conversions to the Faith; is holy mother the Church honored by prominent Catholic social, political, commercial and cultural leaders who are actively building a vibrant Christendom? Are these the fruits of the Council? That my questions mock the actual tragic reality should be answer enough, and we may conclude from this that the Council is a bad tree, a tree that (in the words of today’s Gospel) must be cut down entirely and cast into the fire.

Thus, again we must ask, why the good doctrine alleged to be in the Council since it is not that which is being promoted, clarified or realized, even if it is known by its promoters to be there? I’ll tell you why. This good among the bad and the ugly in the Council, which the dissectors insist we accept under pain of being judged unfaithful and heretic, has been planted there so “as to deceive (if possible) even the elect.” (Mt. 24:24)

We may say, therefore, that, whatever good doctrine might be in the Council, was put there to a bad use; and of this St. Gregory of Nyssa, who lived during the 4^th century of the Christian era, who was also the brother of St. Basil the Great (whose feast day we recently celebrated), in speaking of that infamous tree of the knowledge of good and evil which was the downfall of our first parents, and, consequently of us, St. Gregory says, “[Genesis] speaks of the fruit of the forbidden tree not as a thing absolutely evil (because it appears very good); nor as a thing purely good (because there is real evil hidden in it); but as a thing compounded of both, and thus, the tasting of it brings death to those who touch it.” To paraphrase St. Gregory then, may we not therefore say of the Council, it is a “thing compounded of both good and evil, and thus, the tasting of it brings death to those who touch it?”

St. Peter Damien

St. Peter Damien, another Doctor of the Church, echoing St. Gregory in speaking of the corruption of ecclesiastical law which was rampant in his day, could have just as well been speaking of the Second Vatican Council when he said, “I ask, to what pages of sacred eloquence coincide these tiresome frivolities, which so evidently contradict even themselves. Who does not consider, who does not clearly see, that these and others like them which have been falsely mixed with sacred canons are devilish inventions and have been created to deceive the minds of the simple by clever machinations? For like honey [. . . ], the poison is fraudulently infused, so that, while the sweetness of the food entices one to eat, the poison, which lies hidden, enters more easily into the entrails.

“And so”, St. Peter Damien concludes, “these deceitful and erroneous inventions are slipped in with sacred texts so as to escape the suspicion of fraud; and they are smeared, as it were, with a certain kind of honey, and flavored with the sweetness of a false piety. Avoid these things, whoever you may be, lest the Sirens’ song charm you with false sweetness, and the soul of your ship plunge into the pit.”

St. Gregory elaborates further, “This fact also clearly demonstrates the reality – the doctrine – that whatever is purely good is always so, simply and uniformly, free from all duplicity or ambiguity; while, on the other hand, whatever is evil is chameleon-like, and ever beautifully adorned, cherished as one thing, but shown by experience to be another; and the knowledge of which is the beginning and antecedent of death and destruction.”

He continues, “Knowing this about the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, the serpent cleverly masked the evil fruit of sin under the glamour of a certain beauty, and conjuring into its taste the seduction of sensual pleasure, he seemed to Eve to speak convincingly, ‘and’ as the Scripture tells us, ‘the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes to behold, and fair to see; and she took of the fruit thereof and did eat,’ and in that eating became the mother of death to men.

From this St. Gregory draws the conclusion, “This, then, is that fruit of mixed character, where the passage clearly expresses the sense in which the tree was identified as capable of the knowledge of good and evil, because, like the evil nature of poisons that are prepared with honey, it seems to be good in so far as it affects the senses with sweetness. But in so far as it destroys him who touches it, it is the worst of all evils.”

Do we not, then, see in St. Gregory’s commentary on the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; and in St. Peter Damien’s commentary on corrupt ecclesiastical law, how perfectly, we may even say, how prophetically, 1,650 years before the fact, they condemn the Second Vatican Council as the masterpiece of duplicitous and poisonous heresy which it is?

And so, to conclude, we may judge, using the universal solvent which our Lord enunciated in today’s Gospel, “By their fruits you shall know them,” we may conclude that the Second Vatican Council, being compounded of good and evil, inasmuch as it bears entirely evil fruits, must itself be judged and reprobated as entirely evil. In saying this, we are far from rejecting whatever authentic Catholic doctrine may be in that Council, since, in rejecting the Council, we do not reject anything good, but rather the abuse of that good for the purpose of deceiving “(if possible) even the elect.”

Can we not also conclude that the Second Vatican Council was therefore a false council, a robber council, neither an ecuмenical council, nor, therefore, was it an act or exercise of the authentic Magisterium? My dear friends, our Divine Savior certainly has not given any of us the competence or the authority to make such judgments, but only the grace to judge when the wolf is about, and our own salvation be in peril. These other matters we must leave to those competent by their office, and specifically called by our Lord to judge them; and these have not yet been revealed to us.

In the meantime, to paraphrase Cato the Elder, we may – nay, we must insist, Concilium Vaticanum Secundum delendum est – The Second Vatican Council must be destroyed! Amen.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #1 on:** December 04, 2019, 02:09:06 PM »

Dear Fr. Johnson-

Could it be that you are misrepresenting the facts to your readers (a misrepresentation which surely has the approval of your superior general, since the ralliement to modernist Rome has for several years been facilitated by Menzingen’s policy that nobody may speak on Roman relations except the superior general...or his cadre of ralliement apologists)?

You claim that, in the wake of Cardinal Muller’s insistence that the SSPX accept Vatican II and all the post-conciliar “reforms:”

“This has effectively ended the quest (on both sides) for rapprochement between the Society and Rome, at least for the foreseeable future.”

Whatever in the world are you talking about?

It was your own superior general who announced earlier this year that it was imperative that doctrinal discussions resume, and in that same communique, even that it no longer matters whether the SSPX convinces the Roman modernists of Catholic doctrine!

It seems your empty and deceptive words are nothing more than a rehash of Bishop Fellay’s “we are back to square one” strategy, used to resettle the troops.

Your congregation suffers a scrupulous mania, stemming from the illicit juxtaposition of legality and doctrine, which irreversibly impels them to barter for a practical accord (already 95% completed).

I do, however, appreciate your candid admission that the SSPX has softened on Vatican II, thereby weakening in the confession of faith. The Resistance has made this observation for nearly a decade, and I have written an entire book highlighting this softening, only to have that softening denied by your brothers and apologists acting on the SSPX’s behalf.

As for your defense of the Council as 95% orthodox, it seems you imitate the liberalism of your previous superior general. The benefit of you coming out and repeating that position is that it shows the world the common opinion in the SSPX today (recalling that you can only say such things with the support of Menzingen) is that the Council is nearly entirely acceptable. But what us not heard from Menzingen is a restatement that the Council was entirely poisoned and pervaded with liberalism and modernism.

At least deign to reconsider the words of your founder regarding the extent of the rot pervading the conciliar docuмents:

“The more one analyzes the docuмents of Vatican II, and the more one analyzes their interpretation by the authorities of the Church, the more one realizes that what is at stake is not merely superficial errors, a few mistakes, ecuмenism, religious liberty, collegiality, a certain Liberalism, but rather a wholesale perversion of the mind, a whole new philosophy based on modern philosophy, on subjectivism… A wholly different version of Revelation, of Faith, of philosophy! Very grave! A total perversion! How we are going to get out of all this, I have no idea, but in any case it is a fact, and as this German theologian shows (who has, I believe, another two parts of his book to write on the Holy Father's thought), it is truly frightening. So, they are no small errors. We are not dealing in trifles. We are into a line of philosophical thinking that goes back to Kant, Descartes, the whole line of modern philosophers who paved the way for the Revolution.” (Two Years After the Consecrations, September 6, 1990)

If The Remnant is now captured by the rallying SSPX just as Catholic Family News was (ie., it is not only the clerical opposition Menzingen wants to capture), I would say there is little if any value left in readingvthat periodical:

The salt has lost its savor.

More later...

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #2 on:** December 04, 2019, 02:55:13 PM »

Leaving aside the problem of Fr. Johnson’s attempt to convince you that Rome’s insistence on the SSPX accepting the entire conciliar “reform” killed the ralliement (and the implications following from his admission that the SSPX has softened on Vatican II), the primary danger of his article lay in his attempt to refashion a new perception regarding the conciliar docuмents:

He analyzes the position of Bishop Fellay (without naming him), that the docs are 95% good and 5% bad or ambiguous, but then proceeds to concede (even as he criticizes) the method of those he calls “dissectors.”

His conclusion that the whole council must be cast into the fire only follows upon what appears to be a concession that it is 95% good, but must be thrown into the fire because of the bad 5%.

And this, not because of the errors and heresies in the docs, but because of the bad fruits (apparently contained in the 5%).

He even accepts that traditional Catholic doctrine is contained throughout the docuмents (Really? Where is the traditional doctrine in Article 2 of Dignitatis Humanae?), such that the conclusion almost follows as a non-sequitur:

Why cast the whole thing into the fire if 95% is good and traditional? A couple tweaks of Nostra Aetate and Gaudium et Spes or Lumen Gentium should suffice to save the whole edifice!

What is this argument but a veiled and re-presented condemnation of the spirit of the council, but not the docuмents?

In the final analysis, what has happened here is that the unsuspecting reader will come away believing that the SSPX still opposes Vatican II (despite the admitted softening which began the article!), but also that it is 95% acceptable, and we have no right to pick and choose (and also that traditional doctrine is contained throughout, forgetting that, to the extent it is, it is nullified by equivocated modernism).

Dear Fr. Johnson: When did the SSPX lose the ability (and duty) to pick and choose between modernism and Catholicism? The entirety of the former vigor of its apostolate was derived from it doing precisely that, helping us navigate between orthodoxy and modernism to preserve the faith.

This is the duty of every Catholic, and you ought not be weakening their resistance to modern errors by inculcating eithin them a sense of guilt for doing so.

Meg · « **Reply #3 on:** December 04, 2019, 03:20:37 PM »

Quote from: Mr G on December 04, 2019, 01:02:54 PM

We may say, therefore, that, whatever good doctrine might be in the Council, was put there to a bad use; and of this St. Gregory of Nyssa, who lived during the 4^th century of the Christian era, who was also the brother of St. Basil the Great (whose feast day we recently celebrated), in speaking of that infamous tree of the knowledge of good and evil which was the downfall of our first parents, and, consequently of us, St. Gregory says, “[Genesis] speaks of the fruit of the forbidden tree not as a thing absolutely evil (because it appears very good); nor as a thing purely good (because there is real evil hidden in it); but as a thing compounded of both, and thus, the tasting of it brings death to those who touch it.” To paraphrase St. Gregory then, may we not therefore say of the Council, it is a “thing compounded of both good and evil, and thus, the tasting of it brings death to those who touch it?”

Good assessment, Sean, of the problematic aspects of Fr. Johnson's sermon. Or article.

I notice that Fr. Johnson mentions the tree of the knowledge of good and evil several times in the later part of his sermon. When I attended an SSPX chapel where Fr. Johnson was prior (many years ago), I recall he was a bit too focused at that time on the tree of knowledge of good and evil, in his sermons then.

Now he's trying to relate the tree of knowledge of good and evil to the Council. It's a bit odd.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #4 on:** December 04, 2019, 03:32:58 PM »

Quote from: Meg on December 04, 2019, 03:20:37 PM

Good assessment, Sean, of the problematic aspects of Fr. Johnson's sermon. Or article.

I notice that Fr. Johnson mentions the tree of the knowledge of good and evil several times in the later part of his sermon. When I attended an SSPX chapel where Fr. Johnson was prior (many years ago), I recall he was a bit too focused at that time on the tree of knowledge of good and evil, in his sermons then.

Now he's trying to relate the tree of knowledge of good and evil to the Council. It's a bit odd.

Thank you Meg.

I am also wondering if the publication of Fr. Johnson’s sermon/article in The Remnant was intended to signal Rome:

“Look, we are telling our priests and faithful that the Council is 95% good; that we have softened our opposition to it; that we are inculcating in our people a guilt and aversion for “dissecting” or “picking/choosing.”

And of course, that little bit about throwing the whole conciliar tree into the fire, well, we are really just speaking about the “spirit of the Council,” not the docuмents we believe are 95% correct.

Meg · « **Reply #5 on:** December 04, 2019, 03:55:29 PM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson on December 04, 2019, 03:32:58 PM

Thank you Meg.

I am also wondering if the publication of Fr. Johnson’s sermon/article in The Remnant was intended to signal Rome:

“Look, we are telling our priests and faithful that the Council is 95% good; that we have softened our opposition to it; that we are inculcating in our people a guilt and aversion for “dissecting” or “picking/choosing.”

And of course, that little bit about throwing the whole conciliar tree into the fire, well, we are really just speaking about the “spirit of the Council,” not the docuмents we believe are 95% correct.

The sermon/article could indeed be intended to signal Rome. The Remnant tends to focus a lot on the Council, and that's not a bad thing, but of course Fr. Johnson's sermon/article will be welcomed there. Indeed, as you say, it may be used to signal Rome that the SSPX has softened its position, and that picking and choosing is not okay. Except that we of course should pick apart those heretical/error ridden parts of the Council; as +ABL did. It could indeed be that Fr. Johnson means to salvage the council docuмents themselves, but not the "spirit of the Council."

I'm still left wondering about Fr. Johnson's interest in the tree of knowledge of good and evil in relation to the council. According to Scripture, God told Adam and Eve to not eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, or they would 'die the death.' But the false council isn't a tree of knowledge of good and evil. And we aren't going to die if we judge it as bad, or point out the errors/heresies, and refuse to follow it. The false council is a work of men who were intent on revolutionizing the Church.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #6 on:** December 04, 2019, 04:29:28 PM »

Well, 95% is a little bit high, IMO, but it's true that the bulk of statements in V2 do echo Traditional Catholic teaching. Unfortunately, the 5% (or whatever) is deadly, and it poisons the rest. When you subjectivize and relativize truth in principle, then the statements that happen to be true in V2 must also then be viewed from the relativistic perspective.

Last Tradhican · « **Reply #7 on:** December 04, 2019, 05:53:42 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on December 04, 2019, 04:29:28 PM

Well, 95% is a little bit high, IMO, but it's true that the bulk of statements in V2 do echo Traditional Catholic teaching. Unfortunately, the 5% (or whatever) is deadly, and it poisons the rest. When you subjectivize and relativize truth in principle, then the statements that happen to be true in V2 must also then be viewed from the relativistic perspective.

Pius IX said that if you take a bottle of wine, 99.99% perfectly good wine, and add one drop of poison, it'll kill you just the same. Rat poison is 99% nutritious food. The problem is that the poison is dispersed in every molecule, you can't separate it out. The same goes for anything coming from Rome since John XXIII took over, it must all be flushed down the toilet and one day it will be done.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #8 on:** December 04, 2019, 09:46:00 PM »

Ad an aside, “Joseph” of the French Resistance forum is reporting that

Fr. Gregoire Celier is among the three SSPX representatives assigned to negotiate for an accord-Er, conduct doctrinal discussions- with Rome

alongside Fr. Gleize and Fr. Gaud:

http://resistance.vraiforum.com/t1077-Pourparlers-avec-Rome.htm

klasG4e · « **Reply #9 on:** December 05, 2019, 03:27:31 AM »

It's one thing -- and certainly not a good thing -- for the neo-SSPX to soften it's position against Vatican II. Ha, it's quite another, however, to ever dare softening its position against "h0Ɩ0cαųst" deniers. (F.. f... o. t.. J...!)

klasG4e · « **Reply #10 on:** December 05, 2019, 03:30:03 AM »

Quote from: klasG4e on December 05, 2019, 03:27:31 AM

It's one thing -- and certainly not a good thing -- for the neo-SSPX to soften it's position against Vatican II. Ha, it's quite another, however, to ever dare softening its position against "h0Ɩ0cαųst" deniers. (F.. f... o. t.. J...!)

P.S. Don't expect The Remnant to ever soften it's position against "h0Ɩ0cαųst" denial.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #11 on:** December 05, 2019, 06:54:27 AM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson on December 04, 2019, 09:46:00 PM

Ad an aside, “Joseph” of the French Resistance forum is reporting that

Fr. Gregoire Celier is among the three SSPX representatives assigned to negotiate for an accord-Er, conduct doctrinal discussions- with Rome

alongside Fr. Gleize and Fr. Gaud:

http://resistance.vraiforum.com/t1077-Pourparlers-avec-Rome.htm

A new post on the French forum corrects this previously posted information:

It is Fr. Selegny, and not Fr. Celier, who is assigned to the bargaining team:

http://resistance.vraiforum.com/t1077-Pourparlers-avec-Rome.htm

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #12 on:** December 05, 2019, 07:52:58 AM »

From the French Resistance blog Reconquista: https://cristiadatradicinalista.blogspot.com/2019/12/labbe-pagliarani-reprend-les.html?m=1

“Discussions are resuming between Rome and the current FSSPX.

Fr. de Jorna confirmed with French priests the creation of a commission for discussions with Rome. Discussions will take place in writing.

The three priests appointed for these written discussions are Fathers Gleize, Sélégny (currently in charge of communication for the FSSPX) and Gaud (director of the Flavigny seminary).

The three priests in question did not react in 2012 to the reversal of the FSSPX's positions on its relations with Rome (possibility now of making a canonical agreement with Rome without its conversion) and clearly expressed their opposition to the "letter from the deans" which denounced the canonical agreements on marriages.

While the current Roman context manifests the apostasy of the highest authorities of the Church (Amazonian synod, repeated doctrinal and moral scandal around the Pope), these private doctrinal discussions (the discussions will never be published, just as the previous ones weren’t) appear more like a political game than a practical and logical denunciation of this apostasy to the disoriented faithful.

The journalist questions a Roman prelate - "What about the FSSPX?"

The Roman prelate replied: - "Oh, don't worry, we're in discussion."

The journalist questions Menzingen - "What about Rome?"

Menzingen answers the journalist: "Oh, don't worry, we're in discussion."

In practice, canonical agreements concluded on confessions and marriages will remain, Bishop Huonder will remain within the FSSPX and opponents of canonical agreements will always be excluded from the positions of responsibility of the current FSSPX, or even dismissed. In his last will to the four bishops, Archbishop Lefebvre invited his successors to denounce apostasy and to wait until the day when "the Pope had become perfectly Catholic again to hand over their episcopacy to him.”

Meg · « **Reply #13 on:** December 05, 2019, 02:51:05 PM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson on December 05, 2019, 07:52:58 AM

In his last will to the four bishops, Archbishop Lefebvre invited his successors to denounce apostasy and to wait until the day when "the Pope had become perfectly Catholic again to hand over their episcopacy to him.”

Well, it's obvious that three of the four bishops, whom +ABL invited to denounce apostasy, and to wait until the Pope became perfectly Catholic again in order to hand their episcopacy over to them, have not accepted +ABL's invitation. They think they know better than the founder of the SSPX.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #14 on:** December 05, 2019, 03:07:03 PM »

Quote from: Meg on December 05, 2019, 02:51:05 PM

Well, it's obvious that three of the four bishops, whom +ABL invited to denounce apostasy, and to wait until the Pope became perfectly Catholic again in order to hand their episcopacy over to them, have not accepted +ABL's invitation. They think they know better than the founder of the SSPX.

They are all traitors.

To the last man.

Priests included.

Author Topic: Father M. Johnson, SSPX sermon on "So, what about Vatican II?" (Read 3516 times)

Mr G

Father M. Johnson, SSPX sermon on "So, what about Vatican II?"

SeanJohnson

Re: Father M. Johnson, SSPX sermon on "So, what about Vatican II?"

SeanJohnson

Re: Father M. Johnson, SSPX sermon on "So, what about Vatican II?"

Meg

Re: Father M. Johnson, SSPX sermon on "So, what about Vatican II?"

SeanJohnson

Re: Father M. Johnson, SSPX sermon on "So, what about Vatican II?"

Meg

Re: Father M. Johnson, SSPX sermon on "So, what about Vatican II?"

Ladislaus

Re: Father M. Johnson, SSPX sermon on "So, what about Vatican II?"

Last Tradhican

Re: Father M. Johnson, SSPX sermon on "So, what about Vatican II?"

SeanJohnson

Re: Father M. Johnson, SSPX sermon on "So, what about Vatican II?"

klasG4e

Re: Father M. Johnson, SSPX sermon on "So, what about Vatican II?"

klasG4e

Re: Father M. Johnson, SSPX sermon on "So, what about Vatican II?"

SeanJohnson

Re: Father M. Johnson, SSPX sermon on "So, what about Vatican II?"

SeanJohnson

Re: Father M. Johnson, SSPX sermon on "So, what about Vatican II?"

Meg

Re: Father M. Johnson, SSPX sermon on "So, what about Vatican II?"

SeanJohnson

Re: Father M. Johnson, SSPX sermon on "So, what about Vatican II?"