We're going to try to gain entry. It may be a problem, however, since I'm known to the ICC faithful and to Fr. Rostand. I may not get beyond the door. I think maybe that "public meeting" will have a definite Menzingen spin put on it. In any case, if the Dec. 6 meeting is anything like the previous Rostand fiasco there, no more than 15% of the congregation will attend anyway.
I suppose the tone has to be set for the Bergoglio era.
It will be a waste of time, good money after bad.
The good Father is not going to be there to have discussions. He will be there to repeat Menzingen's version and justifications for events and to defend the King and the King's authority.
It matters not if he is verbally bested or made to look the fool by his own accord, in the end, nothing will change.
I'd rather stick pins into my eyes than have to go through the TORTURE ofreading Kant or any other philosopherlistening to any neo-SSPX apologist priest trying to figure out things as he writes/lives (JPII, BV16, Francis). .... Maybe it is because I'm a man of action, preferring to spend my time outdoors doing physical activities, but now, knowing what I know, I think God had provided me with the gift of abhorring nonsense.
When I came back to the Church, I read more books during my first year than I had read all my previous life. I read them because they were the truth, and I knew it as I read it. Conservative Novus Ordo books like what comes out of The Rock and The Wanderer, I read like a few pages and then dropped, because they were not the same, they were not of the full truth, they were beating around the bush, not a good sign (like Bp. Fellay and any neo-SSPX apologist priest writes now). I didn't finish one of those "conservative" Catholic books.
Bottom line, maybe either you have it or you don't, the protection I had. At the very least I simply do not have the curiosity to go through the TORTURE of reading theory and nonsense. PERIOD!
Yes, I believe Fr. Rostand's tone will be on those type of lines as well.
With that said, I thought perhaps we can take the opportunity to draw up some honest questions to ask him. Even if he keeps up on Cathinfo, I am sure that he does, and reads these honest questions being posed from people within his District, it may also guide his conscience in the right direction to see that there are still viable questions out there, before God, that he needs to [honestly] answer; regardless if he does, tries to avoid them, or if he wants to; they still exist to be answered.
Using a number system, I will begin:
1 - Is the SSPX still perusing an arraignment for a practical deal with Rome?
2 - Is there anything in the works at present, in spite of the new Pope's "modernism" that Bishop Fellay mentioned?
3 - If so, is the outline of the 2012 General Chapter still in effect to facilitate a deal with Rome?
4 - If not, then does the General Chapter reconvene to make another outline for the SSPX?
5 - The District Superior from Canada, Father Jürgen Wegner, had mentioned that the SSPX had begun a new image through a branding company from Holland, is that true? If so, has that been completed yet? And, what is the new image that Bishop Fellay is looking for?
I'm going. Assuming they let me in the door, I'll try to get a summary of the event for everyone. I have a feeling, however, that it will be just more neo-sspx bs from the hardworking Fr. R. :rolleyes:
It will be to imitate his master, and show off his new found Traditionalist credentials. Bishop Fellay broke the 6-month silence on Francis, so now we can expect all his understudies to do the same. Only perhaps not quite as articulately nor as convincingly. Fr. Rostand is a "poor man's Fellay". He does his best, but it's never quite the real thing...
Quote from: J.PaulIt will be a waste of time, good money after bad.
The good Father is not going to be there to have discussions. He will be there to repeat Menzingen's version and justifications for events and to defend the King and the King's authority.
It matters not if he is verbally bested or made to look the fool by his own accord, in the end, nothing will change.
I agree that it's a waste of time, however, ... someone could start laughing at what he says.
Quote from: TheRecusantIt will be to imitate his master, and show off his new found Traditionalist credentials. Bishop Fellay broke the 6-month silence on Francis, so now we can expect all his understudies to do the same. Only perhaps not quite as articulately nor as convincingly. Fr. Rostand is a "poor man's Fellay". He does his best, but it's never quite the real thing...
Yes, I expect it will be that Bishop Fellay is Traditional again. All is ok.
Quote from: MachabeesYes, I believe Fr. Rostand's tone will be on those type of lines as well.
With that said, I thought perhaps we can take the opportunity to draw up some honest questions to ask him. Even if he keeps up on Cathinfo, I am sure that he does, and reads these honest questions being posed from people within his District, it may also guide his conscience in the right direction to see that there are still viable questions out there, before God, that he needs to [honestly] answer; regardless if he does, tries to avoid them, or if he wants to; they still exist to be answered.
Using a number system, I will begin:
1 - Is the SSPX still perusing an arraignment for a practical deal with Rome?
2 - Is there anything in the works at present, in spite of the new Pope's "modernism" that Bishop Fellay mentioned?
3 - If so, is the outline of the 2012 General Chapter still in effect to facilitate a deal with Rome?
4 - If not, then does the General Chapter reconvene to make another outline for the SSPX?
5 - The District Superior from Canada, Father Jürgen Wegner, had mentioned that the SSPX had begun a new image through a branding company from Holland, is that true? If so, has that been completed yet? And, what is the new image that Bishop Fellay is looking for?
Dear Machabees,
Fr. Rostand probably does more work in his average day than you or I in his average week, so let me help save Father's valuable time by giving you the honest answers to your honest questions, following your number system:
1 - No
2 - Assuming that there is some difference between 2 and 1, No
3 - Yes
4 - N/A
5 - You can see the rebranding in the publications of the SSPX in the U.S. and Canada. They all have consistent logos, layouts, typefaces, etc. There are no plans to roll out the rebranding worldwide. It involves no "image" issue in the political or marketing sense.
Anything else I can help you with?
Keeping the flock docile and generous will be Fr. R's main mission. His script will predictably emphasise how well they are being served, the costs of the operation (on doomed projects or otherwise), having trust in the leader and avoiding schism (meaning those nasty independents, excluding himself, of course). Bergoglio bashing, I am not so sure. Father is a bureaucrat, so do not expect much there.
wessex:QuoteKeeping the flock docile and generous will be Fr. R's main mission. His script will predictably emphasise how well they are being served, the costs of the operation (on doomed projects or otherwise), having trust in the leader and avoiding schism (meaning those nasty independents, excluding himself, of course). Bergoglio bashing, I am not so sure. Father is a bureaucrat, so do not expect much there.
Yes, I'm sure the event will be carefully scripted. There will probably be little if any Q & A. And I would imagine that most questions will have to be submitted in writing beforehand. That's normally the way potentially unpleasant incidents can be avoided. They will undoubtedly leave nothing to chance. The party line will be clearly stated once again in broken Frenchlish, and any would-be detractors will be dealt with summarily. I could only wish that neo-sspxism might breed a less cynical attitude. But unfortunately some of us have been conditioned by the environment which they created.
Quote from: MachabeesYes, I believe Fr. Rostand's tone will be on those type of lines as well.
With that said, I thought perhaps we can take the opportunity to draw up some honest questions to ask him. Even if he keeps up on Cathinfo, I am sure that he does, and reads these honest questions being posed from people within his District, it may also guide his conscience in the right direction to see that there are still viable questions out there, before God, that he needs to [honestly] answer; regardless if he does, tries to avoid them, or if he wants to; they still exist to be answered.
Using a number system, I will begin:
1 - Is the SSPX still perusing an arraignment for a practical deal with Rome?
2 - Is there anything in the works at present, in spite of the new Pope's "modernism" that Bishop Fellay mentioned?
3 - If so, is the outline of the 2012 General Chapter still in effect to facilitate a deal with Rome?
4 - If not, then does the General Chapter reconvene to make another outline for the SSPX?
5 - The District Superior from Canada, Father Jürgen Wegner, had mentioned that the SSPX had begun a new image through a branding company from Holland, is that true? If so, has that been completed yet? And, what is the new image that Bishop Fellay is looking for?
Dear Machabees,
Fr. Rostand probably does more work in his average day than you or I in his average week, so let me help save Father's valuable time by giving you the honest answers to your honest questions, following your number system:
1 - No
2 - Assuming that there is some difference between 2 and 1, No
3 - Yes
4 - N/A
5 - You can see the rebranding in the publications of the SSPX in the U.S. and Canada. They all have consistent logos, layouts, typefaces, etc. There are no plans to roll out the rebranding worldwide. It involves no "image" issue in the political or marketing sense.
Anything else I can help you with?
So last night at in the Q&A, one gentleman asked Fr. R. to explain the inconsistency of Bishop Fellay telling us last month that Francis is a "genuine modernist", and then saying in a recent interview that he only meant that Francis' is a modernist in his actions. Father's reply was not too clear and didn't explain the inconsistency to me, but more or less said that the pope can't be understood to be an actual modernist because that would lead to a sedevacantist position. Father also said that Francis has not used the charism of infallibility to pronounce any heresies. So apparently, to say that this pope is not the pope, he would have to attempt to infallibly proclaim a heresy as dogma.
So last night at in the Q&A, one gentleman asked Fr. R. to explain the inconsistency of Bishop Fellay telling us last month that Francis is a "genuine modernist", and then saying in a recent interview that he only meant that Francis' is a modernist in his actions. Father's reply was not too clear and didn't explain the inconsistency to me, but more or less said that the pope can't be understood to be an actual modernist because that would lead to a sedevacantist position. Father also said that Francis has not used the charism of infallibility to pronounce any heresies. So apparently, to say that this pope is not the pope, he would have to attempt to infallibly proclaim a heresy as dogma.
So last night at in the Q&A, one gentleman asked Fr. R. to explain the inconsistency of Bishop Fellay telling us last month that Francis is a "genuine modernist", and then saying in a recent interview that he only meant that Francis' is a modernist in his actions. Father's reply was not too clear and didn't explain the inconsistency to me, but more or less said that the pope can't be understood to be an actual modernist because that would lead to a sedevacantist position. Father also said that Francis has not used the charism of infallibility to pronounce any heresies. So apparently, to say that this pope is not the pope, he would have to attempt to infallibly proclaim a heresy as dogma.
We're going to try to gain entry. It may be a problem, however, since I'm known to the ICC faithful and to Fr. Rostand. I may not get beyond the door. I think maybe that "public meeting" will have a definite Menzingen spin put on it. In any case, if the Dec. 6 meeting is anything like the previous Rostand fiasco there, no more than 15% of the congregation will attend anyway.
The nSSPX probably would have mistaken you for being Jєωιѕн
Quote from: John AnthonyQuote from: MachabeesYes, I believe Fr. Rostand's tone will be on those type of lines as well.
With that said, I thought perhaps we can take the opportunity to draw up some honest questions to ask him. Even if he keeps up on Cathinfo, I am sure that he does, and reads these honest questions being posed from people within his District, it may also guide his conscience in the right direction to see that there are still viable questions out there, before God, that he needs to [honestly] answer; regardless if he does, tries to avoid them, or if he wants to; they still exist to be answered.
Using a number system, I will begin:
1 - Is the SSPX still perusing an arraignment for a practical deal with Rome?
2 - Is there anything in the works at present, in spite of the new Pope's "modernism" that Bishop Fellay mentioned?
3 - If so, is the outline of the 2012 General Chapter still in effect to facilitate a deal with Rome?
4 - If not, then does the General Chapter reconvene to make another outline for the SSPX?
5 - The District Superior from Canada, Father Jürgen Wegner, had mentioned that the SSPX had begun a new image through a branding company from Holland, is that true? If so, has that been completed yet? And, what is the new image that Bishop Fellay is looking for?
Dear Machabees,
Fr. Rostand probably does more work in his average day than you or I in his average week, so let me help save Father's valuable time by giving you the honest answers to your honest questions, following your number system:
1 - No
2 - Assuming that there is some difference between 2 and 1, No
3 - Yes
4 - N/A
5 - You can see the rebranding in the publications of the SSPX in the U.S. and Canada. They all have consistent logos, layouts, typefaces, etc. There are no plans to roll out the rebranding worldwide. It involves no "image" issue in the political or marketing sense.
Anything else I can help you with?
John-
That is an amazing understatement and misrepresentation, with regard to the acknowledged scope and intent of the banding campaign, per Fr. Wegner!
It seems your metaphysics are: The SSPX must be defended, and it matters not what we say and do toward that end.
The implication being that the SSPX is indefectible, and cannot fail in its mission.
We have always been at war with Eurasia!
Gerard Brady | October 15, 2013 at 10:43 pm
Bishop Fellay has made it clear on previous occasions what he means by evil. The classic definition of evil is “the deprivation of a good which is due”. He pointed out to Cardinal Hoyos (when Hoyos had stated that both he and Pope Benedict thought that the new rite was lacking in various respects) that it was Cardinal Hoyos and Benedict who were admitting that the new rite was evil according to the classical definition. Cardinal Hoyos was unable to reply and castigated his aides for not coming to his assistance. I do believe that the word evil is an emotive one which makes people react and therefore I prefer defective when describing the new rite (although of course it can be much worse)
Sean Johnson stated: "It seems your metaphysics are: The SSPX must be defended, and it matters not what we say and do toward that end."
This is a perfect description of JAM's posts. ( His mind is made up. Don't confuse him with the facts.) How long, O Lord, how long before we are again freed from them?
Quote from: SeanJohnsonQuote from: John AnthonyQuote from: MachabeesYes, I believe Fr. Rostand's tone will be on those type of lines as well.
With that said, I thought perhaps we can take the opportunity to draw up some honest questions to ask him. Even if he keeps up on Cathinfo, I am sure that he does, and reads these honest questions being posed from people within his District, it may also guide his conscience in the right direction to see that there are still viable questions out there, before God, that he needs to [honestly] answer; regardless if he does, tries to avoid them, or if he wants to; they still exist to be answered.
Using a number system, I will begin:
1 - Is the SSPX still perusing an arraignment for a practical deal with Rome?
2 - Is there anything in the works at present, in spite of the new Pope's "modernism" that Bishop Fellay mentioned?
3 - If so, is the outline of the 2012 General Chapter still in effect to facilitate a deal with Rome?
4 - If not, then does the General Chapter reconvene to make another outline for the SSPX?
5 - The District Superior from Canada, Father Jürgen Wegner, had mentioned that the SSPX had begun a new image through a branding company from Holland, is that true? If so, has that been completed yet? And, what is the new image that Bishop Fellay is looking for?
Dear Machabees,
Fr. Rostand probably does more work in his average day than you or I in his average week, so let me help save Father's valuable time by giving you the honest answers to your honest questions, following your number system:
1 - No
2 - Assuming that there is some difference between 2 and 1, No
3 - Yes
4 - N/A
5 - You can see the rebranding in the publications of the SSPX in the U.S. and Canada. They all have consistent logos, layouts, typefaces, etc. There are no plans to roll out the rebranding worldwide. It involves no "image" issue in the political or marketing sense.
Anything else I can help you with?
John-
That is an amazing understatement and misrepresentation, with regard to the acknowledged scope and intent of the banding campaign, per Fr. Wegner!
It seems your metaphysics are: The SSPX must be defended, and it matters not what we say and do toward that end.
The implication being that the SSPX is indefectible, and cannot fail in its mission.
We have always been at war with Eurasia!
I've read Fr. Wegner's remarks.
Am I correct in assuming that you do the Resistance usual: take the consultant's advice about accentuating the positive as having been accepted by Fr. Wegner, and then taking the advice as meaning that the Society needs to sell out?
The Resistance, individually and collectively, needs to reflect on the following remarks of Our Lord:
"The lamp of the body is the eye. If thy eye is sound, your whole body will be full of light. But if thy eye is evil, then thy whole body will be full of darkness. Therefore if the light that is in thee is darkness, how great is the darkness itself."
The eye of the Resistance is darkness.
Its conclusions are the creations of its suspicions. No sophism is too clumsy, no fabrication too implausible, no denunciation or mockery too puerile, no mote too small to call a beam, no beam too large to call a mote, if the cause of hating Bishop Fellay be served.
Recall also that the "evil eye" is the eye of envy. As the paterfamilias says to the laborer, is your eye evil because I am good?
And where in the Resistance might we find that evil eye?
As my mother (RIP) used to say when pointing out the obvious: you look and I'll whistle.
God have Mercy on them…
The leadership of the SSPX are wilfully pursuing a new direction and a new agenda, remaking the Society in their own image with reckless disregard for the souls which Divine Providence has placed in their care. Every month, sometimes it seems every week, some new, fresh piece of evidence emerges of the liberalism at the top which is being forced downwards upon the lower members and faithful of the Society. We have heard not one single convincing explanation, nothing to put our minds at rest, although it is not uncommon for Menzingen or DICI to issue “clarifications” or for Bishop Fellay to claim that his words have been misrepresented in some way.
What concerns us especially is that we see what amounts to a new direction officially enshrined in the SSPX.
Bishop Richard Williamson accuses the SSPX Superior General of "weaselling around" on religious liberty. From a June address to English supporters in anticipation of 2012's General Chapter.
It is not true that calling Francis a genuine modernist necessitates assenting to sedevacantism.
No credible theologian asserts that material heretics lose membership in the Church.
Therefore, Bishop Fellay need not have backtracked from his words, contrary to the assertion of Machabees and Fr. Cekada.
Bishop Williamson and the SSPX have rightly been teaching that the V2 and post-V2 popes are modernists for 40 years, and nobody ever thought making such an admission necessitated sedevacantism.
More likely, sedvacantists want to paint this picture, as they have tried to for decades, and to do it, much as they like to refer to the manuals, they conveniently omit the distinction between material and formal heretics, or even between covert material and public material heretics.
Dear John Anthony-
As usual, ... I say your starting point in assessing any related questions is not, "what is the truth," but rather, "what must I say to defend the SSPX?"
Such mindless loyalty is how good men become the partisans of error, and my loyalty has always been only to the truth.
Insofar as the SSPX was a faithful promulgator of that truth, it had my secondary loyalty (i.e., my real loyalty being to the truth whose custodian they were).
Yet for all this, these concerns seem to be primarily contained within the Fr. Pfeiffer strain of the resistance.
...
How is that?
PS: Have you read Fr. Rioult's "The Impossible Reconciliation?"
He explains how this revolution was agreed upon by Bishop Fellay and Rome many years ago, and how it was agreed to "proceed in stages." Seems they all read Michael Davies' "Cranmer's Godly Order" and learned from Cranmer that, unlike the Anglican revolt, Vatican II failed to convert all the trads because it was too abrupt a change; the capitulation of traditionalism will have to be much more gradual....it may even require a branding campaign to prepare minds over 10-20 years.
PPS: But if you will still maintain this is all a delusional construct, can you explain why Bishop de Galarreta warned Bishop Fellay at the October, 2011 meeting of superiors in Albano, Italy that pursuing a practical accord with Rome would have precisely the results which have come to pass?
Thomas TV1 7 months ago | reply
Left to right; Fr. Régis Babinet, Fr. Paul Morgan (District Superior), Bishop Fellay, Fr. Paul Biérer and Very Rev. Ramon Anglés.
Bishop Fellay relaxing with friends just before his lecture referring to the recent negotiations with Rome, and the false allegations made against him.
brianhope said:
So last night at in the Q&A, one gentleman asked Fr. R. to explain the inconsistency of Bishop Fellay telling us last month that Francis is a "genuine modernist", and then saying in a recent interview that he only meant that Francis' is a modernist in his actions. Father's reply was not too clear and didn't explain the inconsistency to me, but more or less said that the pope can't be understood to be an actual modernist because that would lead to a sedevacantist position. Father also said that Francis has not used the charism of infallibility to pronounce any heresies. So apparently, to say that this pope is not the pope, he would have to attempt to infallibly proclaim a heresy as dogma.
brianhope said:
So last night at in the Q&A, one gentleman asked Fr. R. to explain the inconsistency of Bishop Fellay telling us last month that Francis is a "genuine modernist", and then saying in a recent interview that he only meant that Francis' is a modernist in his actions. Father's reply was not too clear and didn't explain the inconsistency to me, but more or less said that the pope can't be understood to be an actual modernist because that would lead to a sedevacantist position. Father also said that Francis has not used the charism of infallibility to pronounce any heresies. So apparently, to say that this pope is not the pope, he would have to attempt to infallibly proclaim a heresy as dogma.
So apparently, to say that this pope is not the pope, he would have to attempt to infallibly proclaim a heresy as dogma.
QuoteSo apparently, to say that this pope is not the pope, he would have to attempt to infallibly proclaim a heresy as dogma.
Is this not the same legalist argument used to defend the Council's heresy and apostasy? It matters not to those who have used it that the Council and the Conciliar popes teach, speak and write heresy, as long as the don't use a dogmatic formula to do so.
All of the false religions never use such a means to proclaim their errors and yet we have no problem calling them heretics.
I'm going. Assuming they let me in the door, I'll try to get a summary of the event for everyone. I have a feeling, however, that it will be just more neo-sspx bs from the hardworking Fr. R. :rolleyes:
Then Fellay drops this astonishing oxymoron on us:
“Once again, he (Francis) is not a modernist in the absolute, theoretical sense.” That ejaculation needs to be done in needlepoint and hung on the wall. Then every time we get a little downcast and gloomy, we simply look at that ridiculous utterance and have a good laugh. Laughing can be therapeutic.
Quotebrianhope said:
So last night at in the Q&A, one gentleman asked Fr. R. to explain the inconsistency of Bishop Fellay telling us last month that Francis is a "genuine modernist", and then saying in a recent interview that he only meant that Francis' is a modernist in his actions. Father's reply was not too clear and didn't explain the inconsistency to me, but more or less said that the pope can't be understood to be an actual modernist because that would lead to a sedevacantist position. Father also said that Francis has not used the charism of infallibility to pronounce any heresies. So apparently, to say that this pope is not the pope, he would have to attempt to infallibly proclaim a heresy as dogma.
Brian Hope, I do not know you personally, undless of course, you're using a pseudonym. However, I remember only "one gentleman" who raised the question you cite at the Fr. R. meeting in Post Falls. That "gentleman" was me, or moi, as you prefer. Please give me a call. My name is in the Post Falls phone book. I have revealed it several times online in the past. But if I do so again, some forum members may feel that I'm trying to attract too much attention to myself, and will take umbrage.
Hollingsworth,
Yes, Brian Hope is a pseudonym, but you know me. Hint: I'm one of your Belloc Club bretheren
Machabees,
The Rostand conference was, on balance, pretty subdued. 150 or so folks were present at the meeting. They were the true believers. The other 1400 or so faithful from ICC stayed home.
But no one was snarly and hostile towards me as some were the last time Father visited. Fr. Rostand even greeted me warmly and publicly across the room as I strode in late to the event. Father was playing ‘good cop’ this time, vs. the ‘bad cop’ role he played on his previous visit. He did not accuse or berate me or anyone else that I can remember.
Father recognized that with the ascension of Francis, the “game (had) changed.” Now the Society is forced to help with the “restoration” using different tactics, I guess. That’s what I heard him saying anyway. The Society just has to continue moving forward as it can, as it did under the direction of the Archbishop in earlier years.
“We think it can not get worse,” said Fr. Rostand, “but it does.” So what do we do. We just plod ahead as we can. That seemed to be the basic message Rostand brought, in a nutshell.
Francis forces Sedevacantism back on the table, says Father. We have to deal with that position now, as it is liable to gather more momentum with a Francis in the Chair. But, he assures the people, SSPX will not fall into SVism. Do we have a real pope in Francis, Rostand asks rhetorically? Well, we’ll have to see. But, he adds, SVism, though it may be a “temptation,” it is not a “solution.”
As for modernism, and the pope being a modernist: That presents a problem for Fr. R and the Society. Because once you call him a “modernist,” you are as much as saying that he is not the pope, and with such an admission, you are by default dumped into the SV camp.
I tried to get Father to admit publicly that Francis is a modernist. But he wouldn’t bite. “He’s the pope,” was all that Father was willing to state for the record.
We all of course have Fellay’s October 13 “genuine modernist” remark burned deeply into our memory banks. Then we recall that only a month later, in a November 12, 2013 interview, he made a clumsy attempt to correct this now famous earlier remark.
“I think that it was not understood by everybody,” said the SG. But maybe, for the very reason that it was understood by everybody, Fr. Rostand decided to show up in Post Falls, and probably other sspx centers, as well, in order to correct our earlier perceptions.
Then of course, Fellay goes into his patented bs mode and out comes:
Perhaps I should have said (that Francis is) a modernist in his actions.”That’s the Fellay we all recognize and deplore. That is the Fellay who totally discredits his holy profession.
Then Fellay drops this astonishing oxymoron on us:
“Once again, he (Francis) is not a modernist in the absolute, theoretical sense.”That ejaculation needs to be done in needlepoint and hung on the wall. Then every time we get a little downcast and gloomy, we simply look at that ridiculous utterance and have a good laugh. Laughing can be therapeutic.
Francis is a modernist.
And he is the Pope.
And there is no tension/conflict between the two statements
SJ:QuoteFrancis is a modernist.
And he is the Pope.
And there is no tension/conflict between the two statements
I've never thought there was either. For some reason now, however, it appears that sspx can't hang the "modernist" tag on Francis for fear that by extension it will mean that he is not the pope.
But didn't sspx call his predecessors modernists? Seems to me they did.
Q: What do you think would be Archbishop Lefebvre’s assessment of the crisis as things stand in 2008?
Tissier de Mallerais: He would denounce not only liberalism — that was the case with Paul VI — but modernism, which is the case of Benedict XVI: a true modernist with the whole theory of up-to-date modernism! It is so serious that I cannot express my horror.
It was going to be business as usual.
At this Post Falls conference of Fr Rostand, I was just given to know that not only did Fr. Rostand state right in the beginning that no one is allowed to tape record or video record his [Catholic] talk, that there was from his organizers two distinct video recorders that were used: one that pointed on himself and one that pointed on the crowd.
Machabees:QuoteAt this Post Falls conference of Fr Rostand, I was just given to know that not only did Fr. Rostand state right in the beginning that no one is allowed to tape record or video record his [Catholic] talk, that there was from his organizers two distinct video recorders that were used: one that pointed on himself and one that pointed on the crowd.
I wasn't present in the beginning, so I don't know what ground rules were laid by Fr. R. However, I don't recall any pointed at the audience. There may have been, but I didn't see it.
The video recorder was in front of the person who told me of it.