I wanted to post a follow-up.
Fr. Rostand was recently at our chapel in NY. No one stayed to chat.
Here is the bulletin from yesterday. I circled the relevant selection in red crayon. :wink:
Excuse me if I misunderstand this, but it seems you are somehow proud for not
having bothered to speak with Fr. Rostand. If this is the case, then you should know
that I entirely disagree. You missed your chance.
If you don't let him know what you are thinking, then you leave it up to him to
figure it out, or worse, to go away thinking that you are misinformed and afraid of
him. You are therefore giving him power by not staying to talk.
He made the gesture of coming to speak with parishoners and you gave him the
response of rudeness. That makes no sense to me.
Are you afraid you won't know what to say?
Do you have no questions?
Are you able to think on your feet?
Are you entirely satisfied with what he said during the Sermon, if anything?
If Fr. Rostand was critical of the fact that there were docuмents "leaked" to the
Internet, then get copies of the docuмents, and find out what there is in them
that he thinks should not have been made public! What's his problem??
Get down to brass tacks. Don't be satisfied with platitudes. Hit the nail on the
head.
If Fr. Rostand were to come to my area and I couldn't be bothered to stay and
talk to him, then I would not have anything to complain about. In my case, I
would be "an outsider," and in reaction to my asking any questions I have for him,
he could later say, "The parishoners were very polite to me, but one outsider had
a contentious attitude, which is not a reflection on the faithful, and they should not
be concerned that I will hold that against them."
So if regular parishoners are informed and stay later to ask Rostand questions,
they would be doing a good work because they would be gaining information, and
they would be giving a good representation of what is on our minds.
DO NOT PRESUME THAT WHAT SHOWS UP ON WEBSITES LIKE THIS COUNTS FOR
ANYTHING. When we're happy with the content of a forum, these guys can say
that isn't important because it isn't reality. It's just the Internet.
And, if someone asks you, "Where did you get that idea?" and you tell them you
read it on the Internet, what are you going to say when they scoff at you and say,
"Well, you can't believe everything you see on the
Internet! I have seen a lot of this lately. It's a form of attacking the messenger instead of
the message.
Fr. Pfeiffer and Fr. Chazal have both warned us that WE ARE NOW IN THE MOST
CRITICAL JUNCTURE IN THE HISTORY OF THE SOCIETY. The Church is at a major
crossroads today, and we're right in the middle of it. If we turn our backs and
don't bother to talk with the OPPOSITION, then we are basically giving up the
fort. If we do not stick around for a few minutes to speak with the guys who are
"working this program," then when we get the news that our chapel is now going
to have Novus Ordo liturgy, we have only ourselves to blame. NOW IS THE TIME!
If there was a way to go back in time and ask critical questions when the Novus
Ordo Demolition Derby was getting started, wouldn't you want to show up for
that? Well, that was then and this is now. We can't change what happened 45
years ago. But we can change what's happening today.
We have copies of docuмents.
We should all print these out and
carry them
with us to Mass tomorrow, the
Feast of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary:
TODAY'S SITUATION and DECLARATION --
COPY BELOWAttached file:
Letter of the Three Bishops to Bishop Fellay.pdf (455 downloads, 21 KB) -- That's in French, if you prefer the original.
Attached file:
Bishop Fellay's Letter to the Three Bishops.pdf (424 downloads, 3043 KB) -- 4pp in French
Attached file:
Letter of the Three Bishops - English translation.doc (536 downloads, 23 KB) --
COPY BELOW: +“ONLY SHE CAN HELP YOU”+
Vienna, Virginia, 10th August 2012 Priest Meeting
TODAY'S SITUATION
1. The Society of St. Pius X declaration of July 14th, 2012, while proclaiming the notion of the Divinity of Christ and His Kingship, actually moves in the opposite direction by using ambiguous language and by preparing to place the SSPX under the authorities of “the Rome of neo-Modernist and neo-Protestant tendencies.” (1974 Declaration)
2. There has been a longtime slide in the SSPX towards Vatican II and a growing silence about Novus Ordo scandals against the Faith.
3. There is an illusion that one can join the Vatican II Church without accepting Vatican II.
4. There is a need to assure souls that the combat for Catholic Tradition, maintained by Archbishop Lefebvre against Modernist Rome, will continue.
5. A new attitude favoring compromise has infected the leadership of the SSPX.
6. This new attitude now prevails in publications, websites, seminaries and pulpits.
7. The priests who resist this new attitude are being punished or threatened with punishment and in all cases are being silenced. The present crisis demands a public response of priests and faithful against this compromise with Modernist Rome.
8. Many priests are personally disillusioned with Menzingen for doctrinal reasons but are unsure, cowed or do not know what to do.
9. Many independent priests trust the SSPX less and less. They hope to pass on their parishes to doctrinally reliable priests.
10. There is a replacement of the original Fatima solution, which is the consecration of Russia by the pope united with the bishops, by a belief that the SSPX can negotiate Modernist Rome back to the Catholic Faith.
11. The imprudent and reckless willingness to agree to a “suitable condition” of abandoning the flock to the “wolves” of the diocesan bishops.
DECLARATION
The heart of the Faith is the Divinity of Christ and his Kingship over all nations: “Oportet illum regnare”. The errors of Vatican II are an indirect attack against his Divinity and a direct attack on his Social Kingship. They will forever remain the Revolution of 1789 within the Church.
Today's Vatican has only changed for the worse since the Council (more damage, more new heresies, more effective semi-modernism), to such an extent that we can repeat the Archbishop's words of 1974 and 1976: “The Church that affirms such errors is at once schismatic and heretical. This Conciliar Church is therefore not Catholic. To whatever extent Pope, bishops, priests or faithful adhere to this new Church, they separate themselves from the Catholic Church.” (June 29, 1976)
The Pope has allowed the True Mass, but only within the Pantheon of modernist liturgies. Further, he has made clear his espousing of the false doctrine of Religious Liberty by preaching it to be the model of how the Church and State are to relate one to another. Lastly the doctrine of Ecuмenism has been widely and consistently professed by the Pontiff in his visits to protestant temples, ѕуηαgσgυєs and mosques and Assisi III confirms that the spirit of Assisi is alive and well. It was this spirit that moved the Archbishop to undertake an “Operation Survival”, that is now itself in great peril.
Today's SSPX clearly wants to place itself under this Conciliar Church, mitigates the poison of Vatican II, is more and more silent in face of the abuses by the conciliar hierarchy, uses ambiguous language referring to two opposite Magisteria. At the same time that it is ever ready to believe in a constant debate with obdurate Roman officials, it uses strong arm tactics toward those standing against wicked reconciliation.
We must wait for Our Lady to convert the Pope and inspire him to consecrate Russia to her Immaculate Heart in union with all the bishops and we must persevere in the Charity of the Truth and the Truth of Charity, organized in a united corps of priests faithful to the position always maintained by Archbishop Lefebvre.
Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer, Fr. Ronald J. Ringrose, Fr. Richard Voigt, Fr. David Hewko, Fr. François Chazal
Letter of the Three Bishops to +Fellay, Fr. Pfluger and Fr. Nely
Reverend Superior General,
Reverend First Assistant,
Reverend Second Assistant,
For several months, as many people know, the General Council of the FSSPX is seriously considering Roman proposals for a practical agreement, after the doctrinal discussions of 2009 to 2011 proved that a doctrinal agreement is impossible with current Rome. By this letter, the three bishops of the FSSPX who do not form part of the General Council wish to let him know, with all due respect, of the unanimity of their formal opposition to any such agreement.
Of course, on the two sides of current division between the Counciliar Church and the FSSPX much wish that the Catholic unity be restored. Honor to those on both sides. But reality governs everything, and to the reality all these sincere desires must yield; namely, that since Vatican II, the official authorities of the Church have deviated from the Catholic truth, and today they are shown to be quite given to always remaining faithful to the Counciliar doctrines and practices.
The Roman discussions, the “doctrinal preamble” and Assisi III are bright examples of this.
The problems arising for Catholics by way of the Second Vatican Council are profound. In a conference, which seems like the last doctrinal will of Msgr. Lefebvre, which was given to priests of the Society at Ecône a half year before his death, after having briefly summarized the history of liberal Catholicism resulting from the French Revolution, he recalled how the Popes have always fought this attempt at
a reconciliation between the Church and the modern world, and he declared that
the combat of the Society of St. Pius X against Vatican II was
exactly the same combat. He concluded:
“The more one analyzes the docuмents of Vatican II and their interpretation by the authorities of the Church, and the more one realizes that they are neither superficial errors nor a few particular errors such as ecuмenism, religious freedom and collegial structure, but rather, a total perversion of the spirit, a whole new philosophy founded upon Subjectivism… It is very serious! A total perversion! … That is really alarming.”
But, is the thinking of Benedict XVI better in this respect than that of John Paul II? It is enough to read the study made by one of us three,
The Faith in Peril from Reason, to realize that the thought of the current Pope is also impregnated with subjectivism. It is all the subjective imagination of man in the place of the objective reality of God. It is all the Catholic religion, subjected to the modern world. How can one believe that a practical agreement can re-arrange such a problem?
But, some will say to us, Benedict XVI is really well-disposed towards the Society and its teaching. As a subjectivist, this can easily be the case, because liberal subjectivists can tolerate even the truth, but not if one refuses to tolerate error.
He would accept us within the framework of relativistic and dialectical pluralism, with the proviso that we would remain in “full communion,” in relation to authority and to other “ecclesiastical entities.” For this reason the Roman authorities can tolerate that the Society continue to teach Catholic doctrine, but they will absolutely not permit that it condemns Counciliar teachings.
That is why
even a purely practical agreement would necessarily silence the Society little by little: [incapacitating] a full critique of the Council or the New Mass. By ceasing to attack the most important of all the victories of the Revolution [of 1789],
the poor Society would necessarily cease being opposed to the universal apostasy of our sad times and would get bogged down. Ultimately, what will guarantee that we will remain protected from the Roman curia and the bishops? Pope Benedict XVI?
One denies it in vain: this slip is inevitable! Doesn't one see already in the Fraternity symptoms of a lessening in its confession of the Faith? Today, alas, the contrary has become “abnormal.”
Just before the consecration of the bishops in 1988 when many good people insisted to Msgr. Lefebvre, that he reach a practical agreement with Rome to open a large field of apostolate, he communicated his thoughts to the four new bishops:
“A large field of apostolate perhaps, but in ambiguity, and while following two directions opposed at the same time. This would finish by us rotting.” How to obey and continue to preach all the truth? How would we reach an agreement without the Society “having rotted” on the contrary?
And when one year later, Rome seemed to make true gestures of benevolence towards Tradition, Archbishop Lefebvre was always wary. He feared that they are only “maneuvers to separate us from the largest number of faithful possible. This is the perspective in which they seem to be always giving a little more and even going very far. We must absolutely convince our faithful that
it is no more than a maneuver, that it is dangerous to put oneself into the hands of Counciliar bishops and Modernist Rome. It is the greatest danger threatening our people. If we have struggled for twenty years to avoid the Counciliar errors, it was not in order, now, to put ourselves in the hands of those professing these errors.”
According to Archbishop Lefebvre the characteristic of the Society is, more than to just denounce the errors by their name, but rather to effectively and publicly oppose the Roman authorities which have spread them. How will one be able to make an agreement and make this public resistance to the authorities, including the Pope? And after having fought during more than forty years, will the Society now have to be put into the hands of the modernists and liberals whose pertinacity we have just come to observe?
Your Excellency, Fathers, take care! You want to lead the Society to a point where it will no longer be able to turn back, to a profound division of no return and, if you end up with such an agreement, it will be a powerfully destroying influence for who will not keep it.
If up until now, the bishops of the Society have protected the Society, it is precisely because Msgr. Lefebvre refused a practical agreement. Since the situation has not changed substantially, since the condition prescribed by the Chapter of 2006 was by no means carried out (a doctrinal change in Rome which would permit a practical agreement), at least listen to your Founder. He was right 25 years ago. He is right still today. On his behalf, we entreat you: do not engage the Society in a purely practical agreement.
With our most cordial and fraternal greetings,
In Christo and Maria,
Msgr. Alfonso de Galarreta
Msgr. Bernard Tissier de Mallerais
Msgr. Richard Williamson
Topic: Fr Rostand visits San Antonio (Read 27732 times)