Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: Fr. Rostand - Prudence or Principle.  (Read 2011 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Machabees

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 826
  • Reputation: +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Fr. Rostand - Prudence or Principle.
« on: November 03, 2012, 10:25:52 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I have re-posted this article under a new title:  Fr. Rostand - Prudence or Principle.

    I hope this is ok to do.  The post is the same word for word.  For readers, the title will place more importance on what Fr. Rostand-the NSSPX compromise is now saying and why it is such a crisis.  

    The post follows:

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


    In these recordings of Fr. Rostand’s Post falls conference, there is a lot of revealing things to write about. However, there is a crucial question that was being asked here about being obliged to following the highest Law in the church –the state of emergency and the Supplied Jurisdiction (at 52:05), and followed up on by another person (at 58:50). YouTube link - SSPX District Superior "Deal with Rome is Prudent" Pt 2:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVn_y10bCo4&feature=youtu.be

    This is a serious question that I think should be brought out to light some more.  This question on the state of emergency, and the fulfillment of the Church Law of Supplied Jurisdiction is really the main argument, the central argument, of the whole SSPX-ROME “practical agreement” issue.  It is the major difference between us (the old SSPX) and FSSP, Campos, and the others.  That is, we are safe from this conciliar apostasy by being safeguarded by the Cannon Law- supplied jurisdiction and they are not!

    As much as Fr. Rostand did not answer the question, and those two people were laboring to stay on track, Fr. Rostand instead kept re-directing it into something else –prudence.

    Listen to the exchange again at those marks.  It is very telling…an insight that is really a 180 degree different position of wanting to go into a conciliar Rome accord, coming from the U.S. District superior himself, than what used to be held in the “old” SSPX.

    For those who do not understand this crucial problem and crises of the SSPX (past and present), about the state of emergency- supplied jurisdiction, there are many articles written of this that you can do a search.  (If anyone has a good link please drop it in.  But let’s stay on this subject; it is important)

    In brief, the state of emergency for a Catholic must be an objective hindrance, obstacle, eclipse, etc.  of the normal means to receive the grace and sacraments from the Church.  From this state of emergency there becomes a “state of need”- the church in her wisdom –God’s will- supplies for this need in Her Cannon Law.  In fact, it is the highest of all Church Law, for the salvation of souls, the Church gives a “supplied Jurisdiction” to overcome this obstacle to the priests, bishops, and the faithful for this emergency to allow you, or a priest, bishop etc., to receive and give the sacraments based on that need.  This is what has been taught (mind you I wrote in brief) from the Society’s pulpits and conferences for years, especially since the 1988 consecrations of the 4-bishops.

    So let’s continue what this Cannon Law really means to every baptized soul and priest in this real state of emergency that exists since the errors and consequences of Vatican II, and why it is a matter of principle and not of prudence that Fr. Rostand wishes us to believe.

    In a normal situation, the fact that anyone received the sacraments from a SSPX priest today, or yesterday, or tomorrow, including the SSPX priests and bishops administering them, is in open and direct “disobedience” to the local bishop in his jurisdiction of dioceses, and in open and direct “disobedience” to the Pope.  Period!  Ah…but a response immediately follows -it is not a normal situation, a state of emergency and supplied jurisdiction (…) -you are absolutely correct!  So then in following the higher Law of the Church, the Law of God, in this “apparent disobedience” it is done out of principle first, it is objective, for the greater good , then it is prudent to decide to follow it –correct!  First the Wisdom of Principle, then the act of prudence.  Not the other way around!

    So what does that mean in this present “practical-agreement” SSPX -crises?  Everything!

    Fr. Rostand in this audio recording (7:04) acknowledged and agreed that Rome is still apostate =state of emergency.  -Correct.

    Fr. Rostand in this audio recording (36:35)acknowledged and agreed that the state of emergency and state of necessity is objective and still remains even if the SSPX signs a practical agreement.  -Correct.

    Fr. Rostand in this audio recording (37:00) said that this practical agreement has nothing to do with a Canonical matter (which contradicts Fr. Pfluger’s interpretation in his “We are back to square one” interview -Dici Oct. 16, 2012).

    Fr. Rostand in this audio recording (52:05) in answering the question, about if the universal supplied jurisdiction of the Church Law would be hindered, from now needing permission from a conciliar bishop to open a chapel in his diocese (in one of the 6-conditions), Fr. Rostand actually affirmed, after stuttering,: “That yes it would definitely affect our growth”.  What is “growth” Fr. Rostand, if it isn’t souls coming in state of need to receive the sacraments?  And you play with this divine commission and obligation to then say: “And it would be for us a question once again of prudence…”.  No Fr. Rostand, it is not a matter of what you will decide to do with the objective Cannon Law, are you going to obey it as Archbishop Lefebvre had?  It is a matter of principle to follow the Law of the Church-especially for the salvation of souls!  If it would definitely affect the growth of souls as you said it would, is that “prudent” in your stewardship to play with these loss of souls?

    So, what is the “practical agreement” for if there is still a state of emergency?

    The SSPX leader’s stated premise to sign a practical agreement is in the General Chapters 6-conditions (Read them.  They are eye opening.), which are very superficial and pragmatic to the real crises we are undergoing of the Faith; and at (30:36) Fr. Rostand’s back peddling wishes us to believe that the agreement is to be what the SSPX always does… and speak out… like modernist Rome will take them in with loving ecuмenical arms and will not “touch” them –such was the fantasy of the other groups who said the same thing (…).

    So now the problem.  With the above being true, that when the SSPX signs a “practical/legal” agreement with conciliar Rome, the SSPX “loses for itself”, and all of the faithful under them, the protection of the Cannon Law of “universal” supplied jurisdiction -Regardless of the set-up of agreement.  So, when the SSPX signs a “practical agreement” with conciliar Rome, you cannot say that the SSPX has “supplied jurisdiction” anymore when in fact, it doesn’t?  By a stroke of a pen, the SSPX is now legally absorbed in the conciliar structure.  Like Campos and the others that have been effectively shut down and compromised = modernist’s win.  That’s what conciliar Rome really wants!  Go play chess.  Sometimes for a strategy, you can give something up –so then you can come back to “check-mate” your opponent.

    Question?  Has anyone ever heard from those groups using the platform of “supplied jurisdiction” anymore?  No!  Because by signing a practical agreement they willfully went into the (new)conciliar structure and implicitly/explicitly gave consent to a “legal normalcy” for themselves under a false premise and left behind the highest law of the church –the salvation of souls!  The NSSPX will no longer be able to go “outside” of their “new legal jurisdiction”.

    Here is the depth of this.  This Cannon Law of State of Necessity-supplied jurisdiction is there to protect you from anyone looking to destroy the faith of our fathers, knowingly or unknowingly, locally or wholesale.  Therefore, every baptized Catholic, including priests, and bishops, all over the world, are commissioned and obliged under obedience to God to follow this Good Law to protect yourselves from harms way.  Further, a baptized Catholic, including priests, and bishops, have no right to hinder themselves, or another person from attaining this protection to receive the sacraments and graces the Church wishes to give.

    Therefore, whatever practical or pragmatic “deal” with bells and whistles one wants to make with those who endanger the faith –regardless of personages: A). You have no right before God to put yourself in harm’s way.  B). You have no right before God to put others in harm’s way.  C). You have no right to put the True religion of God into another religion (conciliar/novus ordo religion).  D). When you sign you lose the protection of the Cannon Law.  E). No faithful can follow you into that danger.  F). You now no longer can help souls in the “freedom” of that protection without asking “permission” to the conciliar mechanism (…).  And so on…

    Do you get the danger of this new SSPX-crisis yet?  This is not about a pretty badge of prelature, or a pride of recognition, or even fixing an “irregularity” –THIS IS ABOUT THE FAITH.  PLAIN AND SIMPLE!

    If you do follow the NSSPX into the danger of the conciliar mechanisms of the conciliar Rome -then you are in real schism to the true faith.  Bluntly said!

    So once the NSSPX signs the accord, it cannot “disobey” the orders to relocate hear, go there, shut down there, and all of the rest of the modernist tactics (…).

    So where can the faithful go so as not to be infected by this conciliar/ecuмenical religion?

    This is another entry- into another Catacomb.  Have faith.  God will provide!


    Offline John Grace

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5521
    • Reputation: +121/-6
    • Gender: Male
    Fr. Rostand - Prudence or Principle.
    « Reply #1 on: November 03, 2012, 10:48:57 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Machabees,

    This is too much. One is not expected to think for themselves. Why are you ignoring the notice?



    Offline Ambrose

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3447
    • Reputation: +2429/-13
    • Gender: Male
    Fr. Rostand - Prudence or Principle.
    « Reply #2 on: November 03, 2012, 06:43:01 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Good analysis of the Post Falls talk, but change "cannon" law to canon law.  
    The Council of Trent, The Catechism of the Council of Trent, Papal Teaching, The Teaching of the Holy Office, The Teaching of the Church Fathers, The Code of Canon Law, Countless approved catechisms, The Doctors of the Church, The teaching of the Dogmatic

    Offline padrepio

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 177
    • Reputation: +0/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Fr. Rostand - Prudence or Principle.
    « Reply #3 on: November 03, 2012, 09:57:26 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I think this is the elephant in the room.  One of the main reasons we left the N.O. years ago was doubtful sacraments.  When we started attending Mass at the SSPX it was because of our understanding of Supplied Jurisdiction, and our families couldn't argue the point.

    If the SSPX decides to make a deal with Rome, does anyone still see it as an emergency situation?  When we approached a SSPX priest about this issue, he stated Bishop Fellay won't allow the Society to sway on its principles. :scratchchin:

    Offline Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 18177
    • Reputation: +8276/-692
    • Gender: Male
    Fr. Rostand - Prudence or Principle.
    « Reply #4 on: November 04, 2012, 09:33:30 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    I have re-posted this article under a new title:  Fr. Rostand - Prudence or Principle.

    I hope this is ok to do...


    Actually, it is not okay.  And this thread ought to be deleted.  But that's up to
    MD or M.  They might consider changing the title of the other thread, but that
    might have ominous software implications, since the system uses the thread
    title to automatically name files that link to it, or something like that.  So that's
    why you are 'prudent' to choose your best title from the very start.  

    Because you have started this second, duplicate thread, you are now looking
    ever more like a TROLL, which I suspected from the very first post you made.




    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.


    Offline Machabees

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 826
    • Reputation: +0/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Fr. Rostand - Prudence or Principle.
    « Reply #5 on: November 04, 2012, 08:05:26 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Neil O'Neil,

    Could you put your glasses on when you are “shooting your guns”.

    I debated whether to reply to your “charged” temper or not; and you know, everyone is responsible to the Good God for what one says or writes; the “internet” in not a free haven from this responsibility.

    Firstly, if you are going to be fair, then you should have quoted the rest of what was written, and it will give the context and the answer (you are trying to distort) why it was re-posted.  It was for readers like you (again) who take things out of context from the real issues.

    (Quote)
    Good morning Neil.

    I hope you are having a glass of orange juice, and cheers! I would ask that you read it again. That is not what this is about. I'm sorry that you missed the context. That conference in Post Falls is huge. Perhaps I should have entitled it: Fr. Rostand - Prudence or Principle, and that would get readers to look at more of what he said in the recordings than just on "Cannon Law" itself.

    My prayers...

    {And}:

    I have re-posted this article under a new title:  Fr. Rostand - Prudence or Principle.

    I hope this is ok to do.  The post is the same word for word.  For readers, the title will place more importance on what Fr. Rostand-the NSSPX compromise is now saying and why it is such a crisis.

    The post follows:
    (Un-quote)

    Neil, what do you not understand?  How much more clearer can one get?

    Secondly, the idea to re-post under a different title (as written above) was solely because of YOU, from your bitter post you wrote, as a reader taking things out of context (your post #1 under: Supplied jurisdiction, prudence or principle).

    Thirdly, according to your membership on Cathinfo, you have 6-months experience moving around on this blog.  Look at mine “brand new”, hence “I hope it is ok to do” addressed in a submissive question.  

    Neil, why don’t you wait for my 1-year “birthday” or anniversary on this site to understand how this works BEFORE you start blasting me and call me a “troll” for it.  

    Maybe a little of –know your place Neil- is due at this time.

    In other words, a friend of mine showed me this site a few months ago, and we both find this site an excellent resource of information.  Unfortunately, there are some who like to “take it to themselves”.  I have noticed that you spend a lot of time on the computer making posts.  Peppered throughout the many articles in this site, you have many post included which I have read, some very good, and others with a “flared temper”.  

    Also, I noticed that when there is a new person, you seem to take it as a “challenge” to your personage and you “baptize” them with a platitude of a “stick”.  Tip: if you think something is “out of sorts”, why don’t you do an internal IM to the Moderator.  I know that Mathew has some charm to take care of his own site.  In other words, STOP trying to trip him up in taking over other peoples jobs, and why don’t you STOP trying to trip up other people who are trying to figure things out in this crisis, especially any new people coming here to learn, and then get hit by your posts of a “bitter temper”.  

    If I was so new, without these past months visiting, I would think from your remarks that this site is “off the cuff”.  So Neil, don’t ruin it for others.  This is a very good site to get informed in the fight, share our experiences, and form our holistic plans –victory is to God.  Are we a part of it or not?

    Neil, what you accuse of a “troll”, is what you are doing in your bitter posts with distraction and division (…).  May I make a suggestion?  Breathe.  Take in some fresh air.  Take the tabasco sauce out of your drink and put some rum in it.

    So can we now get back to the real fight here about the faith…and souls losing their bearing in this diabolical disorientation going on out there, and focus on the battle we need to do, than from all of these distractions?  There is a lot going on out there, and this is the only (English) site out there that is more focused on what needs to be done.  Or would you rather that I, and others, go so you can keep your ego?  Look at the crucifix –the suffering Lord- and you tell me if it is worth it to keep your ego, or to really fight for our Lord –the King of Kings!

    As far as the sights on your guns, I am offering you in this reply, a “screw driver” to help you make a few adjustments and focus better.  We need everyone to do their part.  We are Catholic.  The good priests Fr. Pfieffer (and others) are making a plea for all of us to stand up and be in spirit of Archbishop Lefebvre –a true Machabee!  Are we here to in-fight -I’m not at all interested.  Are we here to learn and stand up for the Faith –then may my blood be spilled for the cause of God!

    Instaurare Omnia in Christo…

    My prayers…

    Offline Matthew

    • Mod
    • *****
    • Posts: 31202
    • Reputation: +27119/-495
    • Gender: Male
    Fr. Rostand - Prudence or Principle.
    « Reply #6 on: November 04, 2012, 08:14:59 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Neil Obstat
    Quote
    I have re-posted this article under a new title:  Fr. Rostand - Prudence or Principle.

    I hope this is ok to do...


    Actually, it is not okay.  And this thread ought to be deleted.  But that's up to
    MD or M.  They might consider changing the title of the other thread, but that
    might have ominous software implications, since the system uses the thread
    title to automatically name files that link to it, or something like that.  So that's
    why you are 'prudent' to choose your best title from the very start.  

    Because you have started this second, duplicate thread, you are now looking
    ever more like a TROLL, which I suspected from the very first post you made.


    You're right it's up to MaterDominici or Matthew.

    I don't see any problem with creating a second thread with a new title, especially when a thread diverges from its original topic, or when a new title is needed for some reason.

    For what it's worth, my troll-o-meter is completely silent (the needle doesn't move) when I stand near Maccabees.
    Want to say "thank you"? 
    You can send me a gift from my Amazon wishlist!
    https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

    Paypal donations: matthew@chantcd.com

    Offline magdalena

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2553
    • Reputation: +2032/-42
    • Gender: Female
    Fr. Rostand - Prudence or Principle.
    « Reply #7 on: November 04, 2012, 08:29:20 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Just the same, Machabees could have kept it short and sweet.  We're all a little stressed around here.  Don't you think?

     :judge:
    But one thing is necessary. Mary hath chosen the best part, which shall not be taken away from her.
    Luke 10:42


    Offline Matthew

    • Mod
    • *****
    • Posts: 31202
    • Reputation: +27119/-495
    • Gender: Male
    Fr. Rostand - Prudence or Principle.
    « Reply #8 on: November 04, 2012, 08:46:10 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Exactly.

    And what causes more stress than to take on Moderator responsibilities that aren't yours?

    I hope everyone on CathInfo realizes that when someone says, "It's not OK" it doesn't mean squat unless it comes from me or MaterDominici.

    I'm not talking about morality of course. I'm not the arbiter of good and evil :)

    As far as "what's good and what's not" on this forum, my wife and I will be the sole judges, thank you very much.

    If you think someone is up to no good, or you think they're a troll, you can always PM me and I'll look into it.

    When other moderators are added, we'll let you know.

    Our oldest is only 7, so it might be a while...
    (Yes, I'm implying that I have no intention of having non-family members help moderate this forum. I've seen how "well" that works on FE and other fora. You end up with a bunch of petty tyrants. No thanks.)

    Besides, I often say that CathInfo is a monarchy...so it would be appropriate to have a "prince" who eventually becomes "king"...
    Want to say "thank you"? 
    You can send me a gift from my Amazon wishlist!
    https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

    Paypal donations: matthew@chantcd.com

    Offline Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 18177
    • Reputation: +8276/-692
    • Gender: Male
    Fr. Rostand - Prudence or Principle.
    « Reply #9 on: November 04, 2012, 11:36:41 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I have to admit, this whole crisis has my nerves shattered.  I don't have a lot of
    experience in forum administration, but I was just trying to take some of the
    pressure off M & MD -- but it didn't work, did it?  

    I don't want this thread to be about me.  So I'll just leave it alone.  The good
    priests at ICC are suffering, and they suffer for you and for me, even though I
    don't think I'm worthy of their self-sacrifice.  I'm sure others here are, though.

    When a layman starts expounding on why a particular canon exists in the Code,
    it raises my antenna.  You have to admit that's been abused a lot lately.  There
    is no official explanation of WHY particular laws exist in the New Code.  But there
    are a lot of theories.  The theories are all over the map, some helpful for
    Tradition, some inimical to Tradition.  It isn't easy for a priest and a theologian
    to make sense of it, so how in the world could a layman?  And the experts are
    reluctant to explain what they've been thinking and theorizing because laymen
    will take fragments and run with them, drawing their own conclusions, which
    are quite often entirely fantasy.  What a mess!!

    All in all, this topic, re-posted and renamed, has me thinking.  

    I know two priests who are very much aware of the +Williamson/Frs. Pfeiffer
    & Chazal, etc. situation.  We can do some things to help our priests, but so
    often they don't want any help.  At that point, it's out of our hands and we
    get what's coming to us.  It seems something's about to happen that will
    be most ominous and regrettable for millions of souls, but there is nothing I
    can do to prevent it.  What will be will be.  Que sera sera.  


    Signing off..............
    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.