Author Topic: Fr Rostand visits San Antonio (Read 23315 times)

PAT317 · « **Reply #30 on:** July 27, 2012, 08:12:56 AM »

If the SSPX accepts a deal with Rome, will they continue to do Conditional Ordinations & Confirmations? (do they still do them now?)
If not, why is this not seen as a problem? Why did they do them in the past, if they are unnecessary now? What changed to make us so sure of the N.O. Sacraments now? Why were they considered necessary before, but not now?

PAT317 · « **Reply #31 on:** July 27, 2012, 08:24:44 AM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat

A few Questions, for starters:

~ Are you aware, Fr. Rostand, that when Archbishop Lefebvre observed such
things as these two highly questionable appointments, as he did with Assisi I and
the refusal of Rome to allow a new bishop to be consecrated for the Society (the
first name for his candidate was Fr. Richard Williamson, by the way!), are you
aware, that ABL took Rome's action as a sign from God that he was to not have
anything more to do with being subject to false obedience under the apostate
Rome, apostate by its own actions in these matters?

To be precise, Archbishop Lefebvre saw as the 2 signs from Divine Providence that he needed to consecrate bishops:

1. Assisi I
2. The Vatican's reply to his objections about Vatican II's Religious Liberty

[But now we have Assisi III just last year, the beatification of the Pope of Assisi I, and now we have +BF saying the Religious Liberty of Vatican II is "very very limited." ]

Then, when he announced that he was going to consecrate bishops in 1987, Rome finally said, "hey, why don't we make a deal?" But in all his dealings with them after that (1987-1988), he finally realized they could not be trusted until they convert.

You might want to read Archbishop Lefebvre and the Vatican to brush up on all this, or the appropriate section of Marcel Lefebvre by Bp. Tissier.

(So, formulate the question accordingly.)

PAT317 · « **Reply #32 on:** July 27, 2012, 08:25:42 AM »

Quote from: PAT317

You might want to read Archbishop Lefebvre and the Vatican to brush up on all this, or the appropriate section of Marcel Lefebvre by Bp. Tissier.

The "you" here being anyone who wants to be more familiar with the history (which is a good thing), or especially anyone who is going to ask questions of Fr. Rostand.

(I meant to edit my last post, not do another one...)

PAT317 · « **Reply #33 on:** July 27, 2012, 08:50:17 AM »

Quote

The Dubia

There is another important historic fact often buried that should be brought back to the surface.

In the 1980s, as the disorientation of the Church was accelerating due to an increased application of the most radical aspects of the Council, Archbishop Lefebvre prayed for a sign from Providence whether or not to consecrate bishops for the SSPX.

He explained he received two signs that it was necessary to proceed. The first was Pope John Paul II’s prayer meeting at Assisi. The second was a doctrinal response from Cardinal Ratzinger’s office that Archbishop Lefebvre considered even more serious than Assisi.

As for the first: Pope John Paul II’s held the first interreligious prayer meeting at Assisi in 1986, wherein Protestants, Orthodox, Jєωs, Muslims, Hindus, Shintos, Jains, and various pagan religions gathered in Assisi to pray for peace, according to the rituals of their own heretical or pagan practices.

Archbishop Lefebvre denounced Assisi in strong terms. “He who now sits upon the Throne of Peter mocks publicly the first article of the Creed and the first Commandment of the Decalogue”, said the Archbishop. “The scandal given to Catholic souls cannot be measured. The Church is shaken to its very foundation.”[8]

The “second providential sign” that Archbishop saw was in the 1987 reply Cardinal Ratzinger’s office gave to Archbishop Lefebvre’s formal theological objections to the Council docuмent on Religious Liberty.
Regarding this new doctrine, Archbishop Lefebvre explained:

“The new and liberal doctrine of religious liberty was the main objective of the Council for many [progressivist] experts such as Fr. Congar, Fr. John Courtney Murray, and many others, together with the Secretariat for Christian Unity which incorporated this idea of religious liberty into its charter. Cardinal Bea, Bishop Willebrand, and Bishop de Smet were the great proponents of this thesis, with the support of the American episcopate and the encouragement of anti-Catholic associations such as the B’Nai B’rith of New York, a Jєωιѕн and Masonic group, as well as the ecuмenical Council of Churches in Geneva.”[9]

Archbishop Lefebvre quoted the progressvist Father Yves Congar, one of the most influential theologians of Vatican II and its aftermath. Father Congar admitted, “It cannot be denied that the declaration on Religious Liberty does say something else than the Syllabus of 1864; it even says just about the opposite.”[10]

Congar said further about Vatican II in general, “It is clear that the decree on ecuмenism does say, on several points something else than Pius XI’s Encyclical Mortalium Animos, and the declaration on religious Liberty says the contrary of several articles of Pius IX’s syllabus, as Lumen Gentium 16 and Ad Gentes 7 do say something else than ‘There is no salvation outside the Church’…”[11]

It is also well-known that the eminent theologian Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton, Editor of the American Ecclesiastical Review and true expert on the doctrine of the Social Kingship of Jesus Christ, had been a peritus at Vatican II. He left the Council and resigned from the American Ecclesiastical Review rather than accept the new direction of Religious Liberty.[12] As Michael Davies often noted in this regard, “Yesterday’s heresy had become today’s orthodoxy”.[13]

Perhaps the most damning indictment of the Council’s Religious Liberty came from the ѕуηαgσgυє of Satan itself. During the Council Archbishop Lefebvre noted:

“This very year [1965], Yves Marsaudon, the Freemason, has published the book L’oecuмenisme vu par un franc-macon de tradition (Ecuмenism as Seen by a Traditional Freemason). In it the author expresses hope of Freemasons that our Council will solemnly proclaim religious liberty .... What more information do we need?”[14]

In October 1985, Archbishop Lefebvre submitted to the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith a docuмent that contained thirty-nine doubts (dubia) concerning incongruities between Vatican II’s new doctrine on Religious Liberty and the consistent teaching of the Church from the past.

Rome replied to the Archbishop Lefebvre’s Dubia with a fifty-page docuмent that considered none of the doubts in particular. Cardinal Ratzinger’s office admitted that Vatican II’s doctrine of religious liberty was “inconstestably a novelty”, but claimed it was the outcome of “doctrinal development of continuity,”[15] whatever that means.

To detail Religious Liberty’s effective overthrowing of the Church’s perennial magisterium on the Social Kingship of Jesus Christ is beyond the scope of this short article.[16] Suffice to say that the Vatican’s response – which was, in effect, a principled adherence to the new doctrine – shook Archbishop Lefebvre to the bone.

Archbishop Lefebvre saw Rome’s reply to the Dubia as “the sign that I was waiting for, a more serious sign than Assisi. For it is one thing to perform a serious and scandalous act, but quite another thing to affirm false principles that in practice have disastrous consequences”, which is the practical overturning of the Social Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ and the “pantheon of all religions”.[17]

This is the background against which the doctrinal discussions between the Society of St. Pius X and the Vatican will take place. I do not pretend to forecast the outcome of these discussions, what they will accomplish or how long they will take. A conservative English-speaking Cardinal, who is glad of the lifting of the ”excommunications”, and who recently had a friendly encounter with some SSPX supporters, told them, “There is a lot that remains to discuss.”

http://www.cfnews.org/page10/page18/page18.html

Upon reflection, it appears clear that the goal of these dialogues is to reabsorb us within the Conciliar Church, the only Church to which you make allusion during these meetings."
from: Letter of Archbishop Lefebvre to Cardinal Ratzinger, May 24, 1988

QUOTE (Archbishop Lefebvre Letter to Pope John Paul II 1988)
...it being evident that the purpose of this reconciliation is not at all the same in the eyes of the Holy See as it is in our eyes, we believe it preferable to wait for times more propitious for the return of Rome to Tradition.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #34 on:** July 27, 2012, 12:08:34 PM »

Quote from: PAT317

Quote from: Neil Obstat
A few Questions, for starters:

~ Are you aware, Fr. Rostand, that when Archbishop Lefebvre observed such
things as these two highly questionable appointments, as he did with Assisi I and
the refusal of Rome to allow a new bishop to be consecrated for the Society (the
first name for his candidate was Fr. Richard Williamson, by the way!), are you
aware, that ABL took Rome's action as a sign from God that he was to not have
anything more to do with being subject to false obedience under the apostate
Rome, apostate by its own actions in these matters?

To be precise, Archbishop Lefebvre saw as the 2 signs from Divine Providence that he needed to consecrate bishops:

1. Assisi I
2. The Vatican's reply to his objections about Vatican II's Religious Liberty

[But now we have Assisi III just last year, the beatification of the Pope of Assisi I, and now we have +BF saying the Religious Liberty of Vatican II is "very very limited." ]

Then, when he announced that he was going to consecrate bishops in 1987, Rome finally said, "hey, why don't we make a deal?" But in all his dealings with them after that (1987-1988), he finally realized they could not be trusted until they convert.

You might want to read Archbishop Lefebvre and the Vatican to brush up on all this, or the appropriate section of Marcel Lefebvre by Bp. Tissier.

(So, formulate the question accordingly.)

Thank you, PAT317, for the correction. I was not familiar with the whole story.
What you have explained in these past few posts make an excellent case. In
fact, it doesn't make any sense to say ABL decided to consecrate bishops
because Rome was hesitant to allow him to consecrate a bishop. That just
sounds like obstinance.

We should be very careful getting our facts straight because the adversaries
are just waiting for a little mistake, so then they can focus on that one thing
and ignore all the other things.

Perhaps this would be better:

~ Are you aware, Fr. Rostand, that Archbishop Lefebvre observed such
things as these two highly questionable appointments, as signs from God that he
should not comply with Rome's unorthodox demands? He did so in regards to
Assisi I and the response Rome gave to his thirty-nine doubts (dubia) concerning
incongruities between Vatican II’s new doctrine on Religious Liberty and the
consistent teaching of the Church from the past. Are you aware, that ABL took
Rome's action as a sign from God that he was to not have anything more to do
with being subject to false obedience under the apostate Rome, apostate by its
own actions in these matters?

~ Do you believe, Fr. Rostand, that if Archbishop Lefebvre were still alive today,
that he would have a "new approach" to these things, and if so, on what basis do
you believe that?

My list is for discussion only. I do not claim to have all the points in order. Someone
more qualified needs to go over these things.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #35 on:** July 27, 2012, 12:18:39 PM »

Quote from: PAT317

Quote
The Dubia

There is another important historic fact often buried that should be brought back to the surface.

In the 1980s, as the disorientation of the Church was accelerating due to an increased application of the most radical aspects of the Council, Archbishop Lefebvre prayed for a sign from Providence whether or not to consecrate bishops for the SSPX.

He explained he received two signs that it was necessary to proceed. The first was Pope John Paul II’s prayer meeting at Assisi. The second was a doctrinal response from Cardinal Ratzinger’s office that Archbishop Lefebvre considered even more serious than Assisi.

As for the first: Pope John Paul II’s held the first interreligious prayer meeting at Assisi in 1986, wherein Protestants, Orthodox, Jєωs, Muslims, Hindus, Shintos, Jains, and various pagan religions gathered in Assisi to pray for peace, according to the rituals of their own heretical or pagan practices.

Archbishop Lefebvre denounced Assisi in strong terms. “He who now sits upon the Throne of Peter mocks publicly the first article of the Creed and the first Commandment of the Decalogue”, said the Archbishop. “The scandal given to Catholic souls cannot be measured. The Church is shaken to its very foundation.”[8]

The “second providential sign” that Archbishop saw was in the 1987 reply Cardinal Ratzinger’s office gave to Archbishop Lefebvre’s formal theological objections to the Council docuмent on Religious Liberty.
Regarding this new doctrine, Archbishop Lefebvre explained:

“The new and liberal doctrine of religious liberty was the main objective of the Council for many [progressivist] experts such as Fr. Congar, Fr. John Courtney Murray, and many others, together with the Secretariat for Christian Unity which incorporated this idea of religious liberty into its charter. Cardinal Bea, Bishop Willebrand, and Bishop de Smet were the great proponents of this thesis, with the support of the American episcopate and the encouragement of anti-Catholic associations such as the B’Nai B’rith of New York, a Jєωιѕн and Masonic group, as well as the ecuмenical Council of Churches in Geneva.”[9]

Archbishop Lefebvre quoted the progressvist Father Yves Congar, one of the most influential theologians of Vatican II and its aftermath. Father Congar admitted, “It cannot be denied that the declaration on Religious Liberty does say something else than the Syllabus of 1864; it even says just about the opposite.”[10]

Congar said further about Vatican II in general, “It is clear that the decree on ecuмenism does say, on several points something else than Pius XI’s Encyclical Mortalium Animos, and the declaration on religious Liberty says the contrary of several articles of Pius IX’s syllabus, as Lumen Gentium 16 and Ad Gentes 7 do say something else than ‘There is no salvation outside the Church’…”[11]

It is also well-known that the eminent theologian Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton, Editor of the American Ecclesiastical Review and true expert on the doctrine of the Social Kingship of Jesus Christ, had been a peritus at Vatican II. He left the Council and resigned from the American Ecclesiastical Review rather than accept the new direction of Religious Liberty.[12] As Michael Davies often noted in this regard, “Yesterday’s heresy had become today’s orthodoxy”.[13]

Perhaps the most damning indictment of the Council’s Religious Liberty came from the ѕуηαgσgυє of Satan itself. During the Council Archbishop Lefebvre noted:

“This very year [1965], Yves Marsaudon, the Freemason, has published the book L’oecuмenisme vu par un franc-macon de tradition (Ecuмenism as Seen by a Traditional Freemason). In it the author expresses hope of Freemasons that our Council will solemnly proclaim religious liberty .... What more information do we need?”[14]

In October 1985, Archbishop Lefebvre submitted to the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith a docuмent that contained thirty-nine doubts (dubia) concerning incongruities between Vatican II’s new doctrine on Religious Liberty and the consistent teaching of the Church from the past.

Rome replied to the Archbishop Lefebvre’s Dubia with a fifty-page docuмent that considered none of the doubts in particular. Cardinal Ratzinger’s office admitted that Vatican II’s doctrine of religious liberty was “inconstestably a novelty”, but claimed it was the outcome of “doctrinal development of continuity,”[15] whatever that means.

To detail Religious Liberty’s effective overthrowing of the Church’s perennial magisterium on the Social Kingship of Jesus Christ is beyond the scope of this short article.[16] Suffice to say that the Vatican’s response – which was, in effect, a principled adherence to the new doctrine – shook Archbishop Lefebvre to the bone.

Archbishop Lefebvre saw Rome’s reply to the Dubia as “the sign that I was waiting for, a more serious sign than Assisi. For it is one thing to perform a serious and scandalous act, but quite another thing to affirm false principles that in practice have disastrous consequences”, which is the practical overturning of the Social Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ and the “pantheon of all religions”.[17]

This is the background against which the doctrinal discussions between the Society of St. Pius X and the Vatican will take place. I do not pretend to forecast the outcome of these discussions, what they will accomplish or how long they will take. A conservative English-speaking Cardinal, who is glad of the lifting of the ”excommunications”, and who recently had a friendly encounter with some SSPX supporters, told them, “There is a lot that remains to discuss.”

http://www.cfnews.org/page10/page18/page18.html

Upon reflection, it appears clear that the goal of these dialogues is to reabsorb us within the Conciliar Church, the only Church to which you make allusion during these meetings."
from: Letter of Archbishop Lefebvre to Cardinal Ratzinger, May 24, 1988

QUOTE (Archbishop Lefebvre Letter to Pope John Paul II 1988)
...it being evident that the purpose of this reconciliation is not at all the same in the eyes of the Holy See as it is in our eyes, we believe it preferable to wait for times more propitious for the return of Rome to Tradition.

FYI: I changed nothing in this post, but perhaps your "Format MbCode" box was
not checked. It unchecks itself automatically when a new post has improper
coding, even by way of one character. So when you find the mistake, you also
have to check that box again. It's right above the Reply button.

Incredulous · « **Reply #36 on:** July 27, 2012, 01:30:12 PM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat

A few Questions, for starters:

~ Is the SSPX leadership willing to incorporate any changes that may be on the
way from Rome's authority, in the so-called "1962 Missal" -- changes including but
not limited to new Prefaces, new Collects or other new Propers?

~ If Rome demands that the SSPX start recognizing the new "feast days" of such
as JPII or Mother Teresa of Calcutta or Paul VI, will the SSPX leadership comply?
And, if so, why would the SSPX comply with that kind of requirement?

~ Is the SSPX prepared to set aside common sensus catholicus when Rome
makes any new demands on the Society? That is, does the SSPX leadership plan
on forgetting everything Archbishop Lefebvre taught about remaining true to the
traditions that have been handed down from the Apostles?

~ In your interview, Fr. Rostand, published in the Angelus website, you said that
the comments by Bishop Fellay regarding the religious liberty of Vatican II cannot
be excerpted out of an hour-long context because they were only a minute in
duration. If, then Bishop Fellay does not really think that the religious liberty of
Vatican II is "very, very limited," then what exactly does he believe, if it is
something different that that, and, most importantly, if he truly thinks otherwise,
then why did he say "it is very, very limited - a very limited liberty," in the CNS
interview?

~ Do you deny, Fr. Rostand, that the subject, that is, the topic of religious liberty,
as described in the words of Vatican II's Dignitatis Humanae, is something that
we should be prohibited from discussing? If not, are you willing to discuss it
right now?

~ When Bishop Fellay said in his CNS interview, that it is not what Vatican II
actually contains but rather the common interpretation of Vatican II that is the
problem, are you able to describe the main points of this common interpretation
that is at odds with what Vatican II ostensibly teaches? (Take note of his points, if
any, and compare them to what ABL had to say in I Accuse the Council!)

~ Why has Angelus Press decided to stop publishing I Accuse the Counicl!,
and why is Angelus Press unwilling to answer whether it can be made into an
e-book for download on the Internet?

~ Is Angelus Press interested in selling copy, or is Angelus Press only interested
in promoting the latest agenda that the Superior General comes up with?

~ Can you give a specific list of the principal things over which you believe Bishop
Williamson has changed his position over the years, so as to be held up as some
kind of separatist, as you have repeatedly said he is?

~ When Pope Benedict XVI appointed Archbishop Muller to prefect of the
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, did it occur to you that after any
regularization of the Society, the SSPX would become subject to obedience under
this man who is on public record for having extremely liberal, if not heretical
beliefs?

~ When Pope Benedict XVI appointed Bishop DiNoia to resurrect the office left
vacant for 3 years by Msgr. Perl, the erstwhile head of Ecclesia Dei Commission,
was it any concern to you that the Society faces an uncertain future of becoming
answerable to this same DiNoia, who denies the perpetual virginity of Our Lady
and the Real Presence of Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament?

~ Are you aware, Fr. Rostand, that when Archbishop Lefebvre observed such
things as these two highly questionable appointments, as he did with Assisi I and
the refusal of Rome to allow a new bishop to be consecrated for the Society (the
first name for his candidate was Fr. Richard Williamson, by the way!), are you
aware, that ABL took Rome's action as a sign from God that he was to not have
anything more to do with being subject to false obedience under the apostate
Rome, apostate by its own actions in these matters?

~ Does the Society's leadership relish the thought that the near future could very
well entail being held to obedience under the authority of several out-and-out
practitioners of the "errors of Russia?"

There are a lot of questions! These are a few that come to mind off the
top of my head. I hope Fr. Rostand can spend some time answering them. That is,
after three or four good ones, he could very well suddenly remember that he
has a previous engagement that he had almost forgotten. You know, a
manicure or a shoe shine, or an appointment with his psychiatrist?

I say this out of experience. On several occasions, when I have met progressivist
bishops in Los Angeles, including but not limited to Mahony, when I have asked
such questions, they suddenly turn and run away. They have turned on their heel
and have run away. I have noticed this odd behavior from other Modernists, as
well, such as Fr. Matthew Fox, on stage, getting ready for a Q&A from a patient
audience, when a well-spoken challenger put him on the spot, he rose from his
seat and walked out of the auditorium, leaving the whole audience with no one
to listen to.

To preclude this possibility, I recommend asking him at the very start, before
asking anything else, if he can promise two hours of his time. Tell him that the last
time Bishop Fellay came to visit, he was answering questions for two hours. Make
Fr. Rostand feel like he's obliged to follow +Fellay's example in this manner.

NO,

Your questions are meritorious and should be submitted to Fr. Rostand.
Of course, he would have to send them to Menzingen for review.
I doubt he will reciprocate and treat them with respect by answering them.

Sede Catholic · « **Reply #37 on:** July 27, 2012, 09:20:25 PM »

Dear Mater,

thank you for starting this thread.

It has shown us that there is something being organized.

If he is going from chapel to chapel, there may be a reason for it.

At least now we can try to work out the reason behind it all.

GertrudetheGreat · « **Reply #38 on:** July 27, 2012, 11:51:48 PM »

Quote from: Sede Catholic

Dear Mater,

thank you for starting this thread.

It has shown us that there is something being organized.

If he is going from chapel to chapel, there may be a reason for it.

At least now we can try to work out the reason behind it all.

What, are you going to stop attending SSPX chapels if ...? Hang on, you don't attend SSPX chapels. You're a CMRI parishioner. What exactly is your concern here?

Sede Catholic · « **Reply #39 on:** July 27, 2012, 11:53:23 PM »

That is a dumb post, from a dumb poster.

Sede Catholic · « **Reply #40 on:** July 27, 2012, 11:54:47 PM »

As a traditional Catholic, I am concerned with issues that affect traditional Catholics.

Sede Catholic · « **Reply #41 on:** July 27, 2012, 11:55:57 PM »

I've noticed, Gertrude, that your posts tend to be rubbish.

Sede Catholic · « **Reply #42 on:** July 27, 2012, 11:57:45 PM »

Also, Gertrude is a girl's name.

Sede Catholic · « **Reply #43 on:** July 28, 2012, 12:01:48 AM »

:smile:

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #44 on:** July 28, 2012, 12:02:16 AM »

Quote from: Incredulous

NO,

Your questions are meritorious and should be submitted to Fr. Rostand.
Of course, he would have to send them to Menzingen for review.
I doubt he will reciprocate and treat them with respect by answering them.

Please know I don't expect anyone should send this list of questions to Fr. Rostand.
He probably has them already anyway. HAHAHAHA

Nor would I ever expect any reply from him on these matters. It's not like him to
honor such penetrating questions. I know a priest who wrote an open letter to
+Fellay regarding his Candlemas sermon where he appeared to say that
independent priests have no jurisdiction and therefore their absolutions are null.
He did not get any response, nor did he ever get so much as an acknowledgement
of receipt of his Open Letter. Now, if +Fellay would so demean the justified
questions of an ordained priest regarding one of his own sermons that stated
things that directly affect all Traditional Latin Mass priests, how would I ever expect
his number one mini-me to behave otherwise to someone who is not even a
priest?

I am writing these questions for others who may need to compile their own, to be
ready with a clear mind when Fr. Rostand comes to town for a friendly town hall
meeting. That is the only point. If you write him a letter, then he'll know you're
thinking ahead, and maybe he won't show up at your local SSPX parish. Or he
might do a Mahony, and cancel at the last minute and go show up 100 miles away
instead, so that all the prepared inquisitors will converge on the wrong venue.
Don't laugh. Mahony used to play that game.

These questions are for discussion only. Already PAT317 had made an excellent
observation, and I do expect that any of us members who copies the list will make
the indicated correction. That is, remove the paragraph that has the error and
replace it with a better one. I have made one suggestion for two replacement
paragraphs already.

I hope other members will come in here and look for problems in my list, or
perhaps make their own list. Let's talk about them. That's what CathInfo is for.

Matthew: do you agree? (I hope so!!) :soapbox: