* He said Bishop Williamson has changed in the past 5 or 10 years, on topics such as the lifting of the excommunications and Summorum Pontificuм. He never cited any details -- docuмents, "Eleison Comments" issue numbers, etc.
Quote from: MaterDominici* He said Bishop Williamson has changed in the past 5 or 10 years, on topics such as the lifting of the excommunications and Summorum Pontificuм. He never cited any details -- docuмents, "Eleison Comments" issue numbers, etc.
"The Jєω cries out in pain as he strikes you."
Fr. Rostand tries to obfuscate Bishop Fellay's change of position with a false accusation that +Williamson has done the same. +Williamson has remained steadfast contra mundo while +Fellay clearly admitted to changing his position on the Religious Liberty text of Vatican II:
http://thesensiblebond.blogspot.com/2012/05/rorate-already-passed-this-on-as-have.html
Previously, +Rostand cried "dishonest" against those acknowledging +Fellay's undeniable admission of changing his position.
Say what you will about +Williamson's "imprudence." Nobody can accuse him of practicing the deceit we now regularly witness from +Fellay, +Rostand, and company.
Assuming this report is accurate, +Rostand is morally obligated to withdraw his false charge against +Williamson (or back it up.)
It was mentioned that the Society leadership is dissatisfied with wishing only to be Catholic and yet not enjoying the recognition of being part of the Church.
It appears to me that they are preparing the faithful for the expulsion of +Williamson....visiting chapels and laying the groundwork.
Did either of you ask any questions at the Q&A?
Quote from: MaterDominiciIt was mentioned that the Society leadership is dissatisfied with wishing only to be Catholic and yet not enjoying the recognition of being part of the Church.
I believe this statement goes to the crux of the matter. The current SSPX leadership is tired of being "outside of the Church." They want the prestige that comes with "official" recognition as a Catholic bishop, priest, etc. As such, they've lost their will to resist modernist Rome. Father Rostand's statement is the most telling one I've heard to date. I think it explains most of their recent actions.
Quote from: ElizabethDid either of you ask any questions at the Q&A?
If you have traceable family members in the seminary, they will suffer and may be denied ordination for any indication on your part of "disloyalty." When Bishop Fellay ousted +Williamson from Winona a few years ago, almost the entire graduating class of that year was massacred. Only one seminarian was ordained to the priesthood in the following June.
When Bishop Fellay ousted +Williamson from Winona a few years ago, almost the entire graduating class of that year was massacred. Only one seminarian was ordained to the priesthood in the following June.
Never let reality get in the way of a good rumor. Is Bishop Tissier de Mallerais still under house arrest in Chicago?
Never let reality get in the way of a good rumor. Is Bishop Tissier de Mallerais still under house arrest in Chicago?
Quote from: ElizabethDid either of you ask any questions at the Q&A?
If you have traceable family members in the seminary, they will suffer and may be denied ordination for any indication on your part of "disloyalty." When Bishop Fellay ousted +Williamson from Winona a few years ago, almost the entire graduating class of that year was massacred. Only one seminarian was ordained to the priesthood in the following June.
Quote from: ColumbaWhen Bishop Fellay ousted +Williamson from Winona a few years ago, almost the entire graduating class of that year was massacred. Only one seminarian was ordained to the priesthood in the following June.
What you say is true in spirit, but not quite factually correct. When +Williamson was reassigned, there were already four young men who were deacons. They were not removed from orders and they were elevated to the priesthood in June 2004 (Frs. Lester, Goldade, Magana, and Thomas). 2005 saw the first of the low counts with Fr. Asher alone being ordained. In 2006-2008, there were 4, 1, and 0 priests ordained, respectively.
2009 was a large group of new priests, many of whom would have only been at the seminary under +Williamson for one year or none at all.
(While the numbers do a pretty good job, even 2003 ordinations had only 2 priests, so you'd really need more than strict numbers to make the case for this purging which I do believe took place.)
When did Bishop Fellay decide that his cult was going to start smearing Bishop Williamson as mentally ill?
Quote from: SSPXCrisisNever let reality get in the way of a good rumor. Is Bishop Tissier de Mallerais still under house arrest in Chicago?
What good rumor? That there was a purge in the American SSPX seminary after +W was exiled to Argentina?
Because *I was there*. It's no rumor.
And actually, Pablo the Mexican's "rumor" about +Tissier being under house arrest in Chicago has turned out to be largely true -- he's being stationed there. Of course it's going to be distorted a *bit* as it travels from mouth to ear (the famous game of "telephone")
Quote from: MaterDominiciQuote from: ColumbaWhen Bishop Fellay ousted +Williamson from Winona a few years ago, almost the entire graduating class of that year was massacred. Only one seminarian was ordained to the priesthood in the following June.
What you say is true in spirit, but not quite factually correct. When +Williamson was reassigned, there were already four young men who were deacons. They were not removed from orders and they were elevated to the priesthood in June 2004 (Frs. Lester, Goldade, Magana, and Thomas). 2005 saw the first of the low counts with Fr. Asher alone being ordained. In 2006-2008, there were 4, 1, and 0 priests ordained, respectively.
2009 was a large group of new priests, many of whom would have only been at the seminary under +Williamson for one year or none at all.
(While the numbers do a pretty good job, even 2003 ordinations had only 2 priests, so you'd really need more than strict numbers to make the case for this purging which I do believe took place.)
I know one of the seminarians removed after Bishop Williamson was exiled. He described a politically-motivated mass expulsion of +Williamson followers. He was very bitter, having dedicated many years and many thousands of dollars to becoming a priest of the Society. I was very pro-Fellay at the time so I took what the ex-seminarian said with a grain of salt. The following June there was only one priest ordained and I remembered the harrowing tale of expulsion (apparently told to me in after the June 2004.) Since that time, both my suspicion of +Fellay and my belief in the the credibility of that disappointed ex-seminarian has continued to increase.
It does seem, then that Fr. Rostand is making rounds for some reason.
Fr. Rostand will be at our chapel in NY on Sunday. I suspect that means he is already at the Priory in Syracuse.
Interestingly, Bishop Williamson was a priest at the chapel where I attend for quite sometime when he was just Fr. Williamson. He is much loved by many people and they speak of him fondly. I think there may even be one or two people who actually keep in contact with him in some way.
I am not certain if we will be there or not. We may be planning to assist at Mass at an independent chapel that morning instead of attend Mass at the SSPX chapel.
If I do, though, I will follow up.
It does seem, then that Fr. Rostand is making rounds for some reason.
Well, I hope he Father Rostand or Bishop Fellay comes back to Los Gatos soon for a visit as there are some questions I would like ask them. No one likes to create a scene and embarrass our families, however, these are extra ordinary times and the future of the Traditional Catholic Church is in the lurch. Each of us must not refrain from placing ourselves in the direct line of potential ridicule by others by asking the tough questions at the right time. We don't have to wait for their visit. We can and should write to the Society district offices regarding our stance on the ongoing crisis.
The enemy relies on intimidation and our human reluctance to be shamed in public. Therefore, when folks such as Father Rostand do visit, we are polite, gracious, and ask softball questions so as to not create a commotion. The devil himself relies on this. We must have questions in hand, asked in a respectful and courteous way that command a response. We must have counter questions for the expected soft answers that politicians tend give.
Our priests and bishops were not ordained as politicians. They were ordained in Holy Orders as apostles and priests of the Church. Let us give them our respect, but in doing so, command they respond in a way that glorifies our Lord, not political endeavors.
I would like to develop a list of questions to to ask the District Superior and +Fellay should he visit our chapel in the next several months while Rome ponders the future of the SSPX. I put this out on IA also. We should all have some good questions at the ready even for our priest who may be pro-agreement. Any suggestions?
Likewise, the contacts made from time to time with the authorities in Rome have no other purpose than to help them embrace once again that Tradition which the Church cannot repudiate without losing her identity. The purpose is not just to benefit the Society, nor to arrive at some merely practical impossible agreement. When Tradition comes back into its own, "reconciliation will no longer be a problem, and the Church will spring back to life".
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?
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 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.”
Quote from: Neil ObstatA 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.)
QuoteThe 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.
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.
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.
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 is right on the money.
...
Quote from: Neil Obstat
...
Sede Catholic is right on the money.
...
Thank you, Neil.
Quote from: PAT317QuoteThe Dubia
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.
Please know I don't expect anyone should send this list of questions to Fr. Rostand.
He probably has them already anyway. HAHAHAHA
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.
That is a dumb post
I've noticed, Gertrude, that your posts tend to be rubbish.
Quote from: Sede CatholicI've noticed, Gertrude, that your posts tend to be rubbish.
They're supposed to be rubbish, he's the resident CI troll.
Quote from: Sede CatholicI've noticed, Gertrude, that your posts tend to be rubbish.
They're supposed to be rubbish, he's the resident CI troll.
Quote from: ultrarigoristQuote from: Sede CatholicI've noticed, Gertrude, that your posts tend to be rubbish.
They're supposed to be rubbish, he's the resident CI troll.
:applause:
Yes, I agree with you.
gertrude's posts are rubbish.
And he is a troll.
First off, you need to explain your lengthy threatening PM's regarding your strange obsession with a condemned devotion.
Quote from: SJBFirst off, you need to explain your lengthy threatening PM's regarding your strange obsession with a condemned devotion.
Or perhaps John Lane needs to explain his threatening PMs with long, slanderous (not to mention sinful) rants against his own family members.
I'm just saying...
SJB is the Iago to Eamon's Othello. That has become very clear to me now. Egging him on, flattering him, buttering him up, encouraging him to do the wrong thing... Eamon, drop this guy. Do it fast.
…
SJB, it's funny how, for a professed sede, you seem to be doing everything in your power to discredit sedevacantism. People in the sede community recognize when they suspect Eamon of working against us. I actually think it's you more than Eamon. I don't think Eamon has any intention of working against us, but you have always struck me more as an SSPX-er in sede clothes than a real sede. I have yet to see any other sede talk or think like you.
SJB said:
You have an agenda now and you've hidden it among all your complaints about those who "haven't cultivated the interior life."
Hell yes he has an agenda you bafoon. But it isn't hidden:
Hobbledehoy said:
This "New Lay Movement" is inherently inimical to the hierarchical structure of the Church, and it takes advantage of the current crisis in order to aggrandize certain individuals and protect their "assets" to the detriment of the faithful's tranquility and stability.
And to you, or anyone, who calls into doubt the sincerity of Hobble helping others foster a life of prayer, I advise anyone to look at the history of posts made of Hobbledehoy vs
SJB. http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=search&id=522
Go ahead people. Click on the names.
Hobbledehoy: 1000 posts of mostly spiritual uploads, and intelligent discussion
SJB: 3000+ Posts of womanly gossip and bickering.
s2srea said:QuoteSJB said:
You have an agenda now and you've hidden it among all your complaints about those who "haven't cultivated the interior life."
…yes he has an agenda you bafoon. But it isn't hidden:
Hobbledehoy said:
This "New Lay Movement" is inherently inimical to the hierarchical structure of the Church, and it takes advantage of the current crisis in order to aggrandize certain individuals and protect their "assets" to the detriment of the faithful's tranquility and stability.
And to you, or anyone, who calls into doubt the sincerity of Hobble helping others foster a life of prayer, I advise anyone to look at the history of posts made of
Hobbledehoy http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=search&id=1432
vs
SJB http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=search&id=522
.
Go ahead people. Click on the names.
Hobbledehoy: 1000 posts of mostly spiritual uploads, and intelligent discussion
SJB: 3000+ Posts of womanly gossip and bickering.
That's how I see it, S2S.
If I had to pick a side, knowing nothing about the situation in Ohio or any of the individuals personally, assuming Hobbledehoy's sincerity/goodness would be a very safe bet.
After this problem became public, I phoned the man [SJB] who handled the money and church maintenance for us at St. Clare’s in Columbus. He had his child hang up on me, didn’t pick up when I called again and then didn’t return my call. Another man in Columbus tried to walk off with some books that were church property.
So, I froze the bank accounts and had the church locks changed. Otherwise, what? Risk someone declaring open season on church assets?
...Cekada cleaned out the bank accounts at St. Clare Church, and then publicly printed slander against Bob ----, my family, stating that Bob would have taken St. Clare’s money if Father Cekada had not taken it himself.
SJC, Sedecatholic, and others, I have noticed often on forums they go off track when two or more folks start insulting and bickering with each other. You two in particular seem to know each other. Why don't you two take your fight outside and leave us out of it....that is unless this whole argument thing is an attempt to pour water on the topic at hand.
And you say you believe Fr. Cekada? That's funny considering what you wrote in your PMs to me.
You're just an opportunist, playing to your immediate needs, like some scuмmy politician.
I challenge SJB to answer all of my questions about his financial conduct,
why the bank account was frozen by Cekada., etc.
Guys, other than seeing prayer is needed, we really don't care about your personal arguments or your bickering like kids. Its ugly, slanderous, and without grace. Your eruptions only erode your credibility on issues where your comments are on point. Again, it appears one or both of you are attempting to hijack the thread.
No, I am not a bully.
YOU, SJB, are both vindictive and malicious.
Some readers might think I should be offended that someone found a problem in
one of my ideas. On the contrary, I am delighted! This is the whole point here.
Let's talk about these things, and make our mistakes NOW, when it doesn't matter.
Let's hash it out! Let's come up with some wild new, out-of-the-box zingers!
You just know that these men are huddled in dark rooms wishing and hoping
that they can pull a fast one. They want secrecy and they thrive on it. That's
because they have some deep, dark secrets that they don't want to be known
and they don't want them to be brought up in a Q&A setting. Sede Catholic is
right on the money. Let's get ready for the task of reading between the lines.
If they come a-visiting and find that even 5% of the crowd is armed to the
teeth, it can't help but have an effect on what they have to say. Be ever-vigilant
to discover the real reason he's showing up at this time: what's he trying to
accomplish here?
Be ready for the smokescreen, for the "ack-ack." Watch out for conspicuous
drifting off topic by way of telling cute stories. I doubt that Fr. Rostand can be
as clever or as slick as +Fellay, but you know he's going to try. Be ready for it.
As I explained before, think proactively. Have several well-built men posted at
the exit doors so the speaker can't make a hasty escape. Someone should
guard the back door past the bathroom so he can't say, "I'll be right back," and
try to run off instead of using the loo. Be wise as serpents and gentle as doves.
SJB, please answer all of the questions that I have raised in the last few posts.
A failure to do so, will perhaps indicate your guilt on any question that you leave unanswered.
Quote from: Sede CatholicSJB, please answer all of the questions that I have raised in the last few posts.
A failure to do so, will perhaps indicate your guilt on any question that you leave unanswered.
SC,
This was a good topic, but you guys are spoiling it with your bickering.
Can't you take it to email?
Its boring. Please stay on topic. Thanks!
As I presume you can see from my contretemps with John Gregory, when I wish to expose someone's faults- I can be very effective.
Fr. Rostand visited us yesterday.
We did not have a scheduled dinner afterwards and almost no one came to speak to him after Mass.
I suspected as much, since +Williamson was a priest at my chapel in the early days, and almost all of the early members are still there.
In his sermon he did not mention +Williamson by name at all. I suspect someone at the priory filled him in on the history of the chapel.
He mentioned "attacks" from within, but was not specific.
I heard him mention the sedevacantists several times.
He said "We will continue to fight modernism and defend tradition from within the church as we always have done." (Not exact quote.) Take that for however you want.
For most people, Fr. Rostand's presence was uneventful.
SJC, Sedecatholic, and others, I have noticed often on forums they go off track when two or more folks start insulting and bickering with each other...
After this problem became public, I phoned the man [SJB] who handled the money and church maintenance for us at St. Clare’s in Columbus. He had his child hang up on me, didn’t pick up when I called again and then didn’t return my call. Another man in Columbus tried to walk off with some books that were church property.
So, I froze the bank accounts and had the church locks changed. Otherwise, what? Risk someone declaring open season on church assets?
Quote from: NickolasSJC, Sedecatholic, and others, I have noticed often on forums they go off track when two or more folks start insulting and bickering with each other...
Dear Nickolas,
Please try to see the facts.
I joined this thread and made a post that was on topic.
Then a troll antagonized me.
So I responded.
I came onto this thread with a post that was completely on topic.
SJB joined this thread to provoke me.
Anyone can see that.
So then I had to respond.
It is entirely his fault.
Also, he has goaded me on several different threads.
This time, I did not let it go.
As I presume you can see from my contretemps with John Gregory, when I wish to expose someone's faults- I can be very effective.
I try to forgive those who oppose me.
I nearly lost my temper and posted some confidential matter about you.
I do not wish to do that to you.
Please do not criticize The Divine Mercy ever again.
I informed you that if you insulted The Divine Mercy, I would put you on ignore.
I will do that on Tuesday.
Quote from: Anthony CekadaAfter this problem became public, I phoned the man [SJB] who handled the money and church maintenance for us at St. Clare’s in Columbus. He had his child hang up on me, didn’t pick up when I called again and then didn’t return my call. Another man in Columbus tried to walk off with some books that were church property.
So, I froze the bank accounts and had the church locks changed. Otherwise, what? Risk someone declaring open season on church assets?
SJB, Perhaps you might attempt to explain why the man you consider your former priest, froze the bank account that you "handled".
Quote from: Neil ObstatSome readers might think I should be offended that someone found a problem in
one of my ideas. On the contrary, I am delighted! This is the whole point here.
Let's talk about these things, and make our mistakes NOW, when it doesn't matter.
Let's hash it out! Let's come up with some wild new, out-of-the-box zingers!
You just know that these men are huddled in dark rooms wishing and hoping
that they can pull a fast one. They want secrecy and they thrive on it. That's
because they have some deep, dark secrets that they don't want to be known
and they don't want them to be brought up in a Q&A setting. Sede Catholic is
right on the money. Let's get ready for the task of reading between the lines.
If they come a-visiting and find that even 5% of the crowd is armed to the
teeth, it can't help but have an effect on what they have to say. Be ever-vigilant
to discover the real reason he's showing up at this time: what's he trying to
accomplish here?
Be ready for the smokescreen, for the "ack-ack." Watch out for conspicuous
drifting off topic by way of telling cute stories. I doubt that Fr. Rostand can be
as clever or as slick as +Fellay, but you know he's going to try. Be ready for it.
As I explained before, think proactively. Have several well-built men posted at
the exit doors so the speaker can't make a hasty escape. Someone should
guard the back door past the bathroom so he can't say, "I'll be right back," and
try to run off instead of using the loo. Be wise as serpents and gentle as doves.
Something in your post reminded me of Luther tacking his articles on the Church
door.
Well, getting the "truth" from the SSPX's controlled media has deteriorated to such an extent, that maybe the Chapel coordinators should tack our questions on the front door when Fr. Rostand or Msgr. Fellay visit?
This reflects the absurdity of SSPX Europeans trying to manage the "spin" in a world of internet communications. They will never be able to do it.
Bp. Fellay and Fr. Rostand are fighting a losing battle if they think we're going to swallow their Menzingen propaganda.
PS The "loo" what state are you from? Is that a Canadian expression?
Quote from: IncredulousQuote from: Neil ObstatSome readers might think I should be offended that someone found a problem in
one of my ideas. On the contrary, I am delighted! This is the whole point here.
Let's talk about these things, and make our mistakes NOW, when it doesn't matter.
Let's hash it out! Let's come up with some wild new, out-of-the-box zingers!
You just know that these men are huddled in dark rooms wishing and hoping
that they can pull a fast one. They want secrecy and they thrive on it. That's
because they have some deep, dark secrets that they don't want to be known
and they don't want them to be brought up in a Q&A setting. Sede Catholic is
right on the money. Let's get ready for the task of reading between the lines.
If they come a-visiting and find that even 5% of the crowd is armed to the
teeth, it can't help but have an effect on what they have to say. Be ever-vigilant
to discover the real reason he's showing up at this time: what's he trying to
accomplish here?
Be ready for the smokescreen, for the "ack-ack." Watch out for conspicuous
drifting off topic by way of telling cute stories. I doubt that Fr. Rostand can be
as clever or as slick as +Fellay, but you know he's going to try. Be ready for it.
As I explained before, think proactively. Have several well-built men posted at
the exit doors so the speaker can't make a hasty escape. Someone should
guard the back door past the bathroom so he can't say, "I'll be right back," and
try to run off instead of using the loo. Be wise as serpents and gentle as doves.
Something in your post reminded me of Luther tacking his articles on the Church
door.
Well, getting the "truth" from the SSPX's controlled media has deteriorated to such an extent, that maybe the Chapel coordinators should tack our questions on the front door when Fr. Rostand or Msgr. Fellay visit?
This reflects the absurdity of SSPX Europeans trying to manage the "spin" in a world of internet communications. They will never be able to do it.
Bp. Fellay and Fr. Rostand are fighting a losing battle if they think we're going to swallow their Menzingen propaganda.
PS The "loo" what state are you from? Is that a Canadian expression?
Sorry, I didn't notice your post after all these unrelated, off-topic entries in the
past 5 pages (50 posts).
My intention was to evoke a sense of preparedness. By having sample questions
under review, one can be better prepared to ask one or two of his own in a live
situation. You have to make your question fit the topic, otherwise you look like a
space case with an agenda, e.g., take a look at the past 50 posts on this thread.
The word, loo, is a fairly well-known term. It isn't used much in my area, but
people with literary experience know what it is. I am aware that it is a colloquial
term used in England. But we do speak English, you know.
Most importantly, I believe it's an honorable (or honourable) endeavor to raise
the awareness of SSPX faithful so that they might become familiar with how
the SSPX leadership has been conducting a Modernism plan. Far too many don't
really know what Modernism is in the first place, so it's a bit challenging to bring
to their attention what's happening.
There isn't any excuse for that. The SSPX was named after the only Pope-Saint in
the past 4 centuries. Oh, but notice, the recent push to "con-anize" JPII and J23,
and even P6. Regardless, the only legitimate pope saint in the past 400 years,
whose motto was to Restore All Things in Christ, made one prominent
contribution to the history of the Church, which was to openly and decisively
combat Modernism. With the assistance of his saintly Secretary of State, Cardinal
Merry del Val, who probably was the actual author thereof, he published his
landmark encyclical, Pascendi dominici gregis, which took Modernism and
sliced it, diced it, and hung it out to dry. He followed that up with Sacrorum
Antistitum, the Oath Against Modernism, which was required of every cleric
of every order and every congregation, and of every candidate for Holy Orders.
We Catholics today are obliged to know the facts of this history, and what took
place regarding this heresy, the "synthesis of all heresies." What could be more
important for understanding what it means to be Catholic today?
Fr. Rostand could be showing up next week or next month at your local parish.
It takes a year or two to learn what you need to learn about Modernism and its
history so that you can effectively apply it to a live situation in the presence of
a Modernist, so as to adequately put him to task on his errors, or worse, his
heresy. But you probably should not accuse him of "heresy" in front of everyone,
unless he says something most obvious, like Jesus did not rise from the dead,
or the Blessed Virgin Mary was not immaculately conceived, or there is no such
thing as original sin. I'm not saying it's impossible for him to do that, but only
dare to call him out on "heresy" if he does so. Otherwise, he might find a way
to cut short the whole affair, and then you'll find out how much trouble he can
make with your "problematic parish."
You don't have a year or two to prepare for a meeting with Fr. Rostand.
Therefore, I'm suggesting that we ought to kick around some ideas to come up
with a sample list of questions that you can have in mind, so that when you go to
one of these Q&A sessions, you can get some real discussion going on instead
of a milquetoast session of no substance, and a waste of everyone's time. Also,
this might be an opportunity to learn how important it is to find out about Pascendi
and to learn a few things about standing up for the Faith of our Fathers in a
climate of ambient Modernism everywhere you look, even in the superiors of
the SSPX.
It seems to me that fighting against Modernism is one of the most important
things a Catholic today can do. But before you can fight against it, you have to
know what it is. And you can't really know what it is unless you study Pascendi.
It is not enough to just read it. You have to study it. An excellent little book takes
you through the steps systematically; it's called A Catechism of Modernism, by
Fr. Lemius. It has been available through TAN Books for several decades. But
since TAN is now run by Protestants, they're letting the Catholic titles run out and
then they're not reprinting them. So you could find it's not so easy to get copies of
A Catechism of Modernism anymore. This would be an excellent textbook for a
local pastor to run a class on Modernism. That would be a very good thing to do.
But only a very holy and inspired priest would dare to embark on such a theme. I
have never heard of one, myself.
Have you?
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.
Both sides are thoroughly schooled in how to use people.
We are all like children by comparison.
Quote from: Sede CatholicBoth sides are thoroughly schooled in how to use people.
We are all like children by comparison.
Yes they are extremely manipulative and since they doing the Devil's work ...
Quote from: Sede CatholicBoth sides are thoroughly schooled in how to use people.
We are all like children by comparison.
... it is very likely they are highly unscrupulous, and have the resources of the Prince of this World at their disposal.
Quote from: IncredulousQuote from: Neil ObstatSome readers might think I should be offended that someone found a problem in
one of my ideas. On the contrary, I am delighted! This is the whole point here.
Let's talk about these things, and make our mistakes NOW, when it doesn't matter.
Let's hash it out! Let's come up with some wild new, out-of-the-box zingers!
You just know that these men are huddled in dark rooms wishing and hoping
that they can pull a fast one. They want secrecy and they thrive on it. That's
because they have some deep, dark secrets that they don't want to be known
and they don't want them to be brought up in a Q&A setting. Sede Catholic is
right on the money. Let's get ready for the task of reading between the lines.
If they come a-visiting and find that even 5% of the crowd is armed to the
teeth, it can't help but have an effect on what they have to say. Be ever-vigilant
to discover the real reason he's showing up at this time: what's he trying to
accomplish here?
Be ready for the smokescreen, for the "ack-ack." Watch out for conspicuous
drifting off topic by way of telling cute stories. I doubt that Fr. Rostand can be
as clever or as slick as +Fellay, but you know he's going to try. Be ready for it.
As I explained before, think proactively. Have several well-built men posted at
the exit doors so the speaker can't make a hasty escape. Someone should
guard the back door past the bathroom so he can't say, "I'll be right back," and
try to run off instead of using the loo. Be wise as serpents and gentle as doves.
Something in your post reminded me of Luther tacking his articles on the Church
door.
Well, getting the "truth" from the SSPX's controlled media has deteriorated to such an extent, that maybe the Chapel coordinators should tack our questions on the front door when Fr. Rostand or Msgr. Fellay visit?
This reflects the absurdity of SSPX Europeans trying to manage the "spin" in a world of internet communications. They will never be able to do it.
Bp. Fellay and Fr. Rostand are fighting a losing battle if they think we're going to swallow their Menzingen propaganda.
PS The "loo" what state are you from? Is that a Canadian expression?
Sorry, I didn't notice your post after all these unrelated, off-topic entries in the
past 5 pages (50 posts).
My intention was to evoke a sense of preparedness. By having sample questions
under review, one can be better prepared to ask one or two of his own in a live
situation. You have to make your question fit the topic, otherwise you look like a
space case with an agenda, e.g., take a look at the past 50 posts on this thread.
The word, loo, is a fairly well-known term. It isn't used much in my area, but
people with literary experience know what it is. I am aware that it is a colloquial
term used in England. But we do speak English, you know.
Most importantly, I believe it's an honorable (or honourable) endeavor to raise
the awareness of SSPX faithful so that they might become familiar with how
the SSPX leadership has been conducting a Modernism plan. Far too many don't
really know what Modernism is in the first place, so it's a bit challenging to bring
to their attention what's happening.
There isn't any excuse for that. The SSPX was named after the only Pope-Saint in
the past 4 centuries. Oh, but notice, the recent push to "con-anize" JPII and J23,
and even P6. Regardless, the only legitimate pope saint in the past 400 years,
whose motto was to Restore All Things in Christ, made one prominent
contribution to the history of the Church, which was to openly and decisively
combat Modernism. With the assistance of his saintly Secretary of State, Cardinal
Merry del Val, who probably was the actual author thereof, he published his
landmark encyclical, Pascendi dominici gregis, which took Modernism and
sliced it, diced it, and hung it out to dry. He followed that up with Sacrorum
Antistitum, the Oath Against Modernism, which was required of every cleric
of every order and every congregation, and of every candidate for Holy Orders.
We Catholics today are obliged to know the facts of this history, and what took
place regarding this heresy, the "synthesis of all heresies." What could be more
important for understanding what it means to be Catholic today?
Fr. Rostand could be showing up next week or next month at your local parish.
It takes a year or two to learn what you need to learn about Modernism and its
history so that you can effectively apply it to a live situation in the presence of
a Modernist, so as to adequately put him to task on his errors, or worse, his
heresy. But you probably should not accuse him of "heresy" in front of everyone,
unless he says something most obvious, like Jesus did not rise from the dead,
or the Blessed Virgin Mary was not immaculately conceived, or there is no such
thing as original sin. I'm not saying it's impossible for him to do that, but only
dare to call him out on "heresy" if he does so. Otherwise, he might find a way
to cut short the whole affair, and then you'll find out how much trouble he can
make with your "problematic parish."
You don't have a year or two to prepare for a meeting with Fr. Rostand.
Therefore, I'm suggesting that we ought to kick around some ideas to come up
with a sample list of questions that you can have in mind, so that when you go to
one of these Q&A sessions, you can get some real discussion going on instead
of a milquetoast session of no substance, and a waste of everyone's time. Also,
this might be an opportunity to learn how important it is to find out about Pascendi
and to learn a few things about standing up for the Faith of our Fathers in a
climate of ambient Modernism everywhere you look, even in the superiors of
the SSPX.
It seems to me that fighting against Modernism is one of the most important
things a Catholic today can do. But before you can fight against it, you have to
know what it is. And you can't really know what it is unless you study Pascendi.
It is not enough to just read it. You have to study it. An excellent little book takes
you through the steps systematically; it's called A Catechism of Modernism, by
Fr. Lemius. It has been available through TAN Books for several decades. But
since TAN is now run by Protestants, they're letting the Catholic titles run out and
then they're not reprinting them. So you could find it's not so easy to get copies of
A Catechism of Modernism anymore. This would be an excellent textbook for a
local pastor to run a class on Modernism. That would be a very good thing to do.
But only a very holy and inspired priest would dare to embark on such a theme. I
have never heard of one, myself.
Have you?
They like new buildings and real estate. Most schools and churches that have been closed have been built before vatican II and are historical.
The novus ordo is doing away with the blessed Mother too. Statues have place in trash and or auctions.
Most novus ordo don't pray the Rosary in their parishes and they have done away with altar and Rosary socieities, and even Legion of Mary and replacing it with Protestant like "new Ministries" which are opened to all religions too.
Quote from: Viva Cristo ReyThey like new buildings and real estate. Most schools and churches that have been closed have been built before vatican II and are historical.
Yes, I thought the crystal cathedral they purchased recently in CA is most fitting for the new church. it reflects the world around it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Crys-ext.jpg
The novus ordo is doing away with the blessed Mother too. Statues have place in trash and or auctions.
Most novus ordo don't pray the Rosary in their parishes and they have done away with altar and Rosary socieities, and even Legion of Mary and replacing it with Protestant like "new Ministries" which are opened to all religions too.
It is terrible what they did to further destroy the Catholic. I don't want to see it happen to SSPX.
The SSPX needs to grow and expand in order to save more souls and lead them to be in Heaven with God. We need more new seminarians and new chapels.
It is a sin to God to not ordain new seminarians too or build new chapels.
This Sunday the 5 of August Fr. Rostand said Mass in Boston as part of his US damage control clean up tour. He basically said that we should be humble and obey and those who are speaking out are not being humble and obedient. He said that there is an "apparent divide" in the SSPX and that it is caused by sedevacantist spreading rumors and trying to divide them. That's the biggest load of nonsense if I ever heard one. What a cop out and a denial of a problem that well and truly exists. They won't admit that Fellay was in the wrong to try and make a deal with Rome and it was the other district superiors at the General Chapter that steered the ship away from the rocks for now and so to cover it up they are now blaming the problems on a third party(sedevacantists)
It's painfully clear that Menzingen plays a hands-on role in the messaging disseminated at the chapel level. This Superior General seems to have a fetish for public relations and micro-management. IMHO, weekly "talking points" wouldn't be necessary if the Society leadership truly respected and trusted the priests in the field.
In recent years, the SSPX has been run more like a corporation than a religious society. I wonder is this has anything to do with Bishop Fellay's background in accounting, or his attorney's familiarity with the Jєωιѕн financial community? :scratchchin:
It's painfully clear that Menzingen plays a hands-on role in the messaging disseminated at the chapel level. This Superior General seems to have a fetish for public relations and micro-management. IMHO, weekly "talking points" wouldn't be necessary if the Society leadership truly respected and trusted the priests in the field.
In recent years, the SSPX has been run more like a corporation than a religious society. I wonder is this has anything to do with Bishop Fellay's background in accounting, or his attorney's familiarity with the Jєωιѕн financial community? :scratchchin:
Yes, interesting thought Finegan.
"Micro-management" and "media" relations are Jєωιѕн specialities.
The relatively recent SSPX PR program certainly has an alien feel to it.
It would make sense that an imposter, a faux Catholic, would be behind it.
According to Ethelred's take, that description fits "Tel Aviv Max" to a tee.[/color]
Quote from: fineganIt's painfully clear that Menzingen plays a hands-on role in the messaging disseminated at the chapel level. This Superior General seems to have a fetish for public relations and micro-management. IMHO, weekly "talking points" wouldn't be necessary if the Society leadership truly respected and trusted the priests in the field.
In recent years, the SSPX has been run more like a corporation than a religious society. I wonder is this has anything to do with Bishop Fellay's background in accounting, or his attorney's familiarity with the Jєωιѕн financial community? :scratchchin:
I LOVE IT. You must be Irish, finegan. This talking point scam smacks of a big con.
It's a snow job they're perpetrating, and to control the buildup, they have to get
the points in order. When they demand talking points it accomplishes two things:
They can control the gist of the sermons in America from across the Atlantic Ocean,
and if any priest doesn't comply with the "points" they have grounds to punish him.
There's a word for this: tyranny.
...Bishop Fellay's background in accounting...
Fellay was born in Sierre, Switzerland in 1958. In October 1977, at the age of nineteen, Fellay began studies for the priesthood at the International Seminary of Saint Pius X at Écône, Switzerland. On 29 June 1982 he was ordained a priest..
they are now blaming the problems on a third party(sedevacantists)
This Sunday the 5 of August Fr. Rostand said Mass in Boston as part of his US damage control clean up tour. He basically said that we should be humble and obey and those who are speaking out are not being humble and obedient. He said that there is an "apparent divide" in the SSPX and that it is caused by sedevacantist spreading rumors and trying to divide them. That's the biggest load of nonsense if I ever heard one. What a cop out and a denial of a problem that well and truly exists. They won't admit that Fellay was in the wrong to try and make a deal with Rome and it was the other district superiors at the General Chapter that steered the ship away from the rocks for now and so to cover it up they are now blaming the problems on a third party(sedevacantists)
I also was attending Fr. Rostand's Mass in Boston. I remember he specifically accused sede-vacantist websites (plural) of leaking confidential letters. So I was left to believe that he was implying that Cathinfo and IA are sede-vacantist websites. Maybe he has a different opinion about what constitutes a sede-vacantist website than I have? Or the more likely scenario is that he has been informed by someone that CI and IA are sede-vacantist. In any case, as you say, he is attempting to deflect scrutiny away from SSPX leadership and find a scapegoat to take all the blame. The SSPX leadership seems to be in damage control mode. John Lane and Dawn Marie on IA have now posted new information that seems to portray Bishop Fellay as the victim of misunderstandings or the political maneuvers of others. Bishop Fellay has also tried to blame the Pope ("he desires it"). The truth that they are unwilling to admit is that Bishop Fellay is solely responsible for this crisis. It isn't the Pope's fault, it isn't the "sede websites", it isn't Bishop Williamson. The crisis is a 100% creation of Bishop Fellay. He should man-up and publicly take responsibility.
[
the SSPX.
It seems to me that fighting against Modernism is one of the most important
things a Catholic today can do. But before you can fight against it, you have to
know what it is. And you can't really know what it is unless you study Pascendi.
It is not enough to just read it. You have to study it. An excellent little book takes
you through the steps systematically; it's called A Catechism of Modernism, by
Fr. Lemius. It has been available through TAN Books for several decades. But
since TAN is now run by Protestants, they're letting the Catholic titles run out and
then they're not reprinting them. So you could find it's not so easy to get copies of
A Catechism of Modernism anymore. This would be an excellent textbook for a
local pastor to run a class on Modernism. That would be a very good thing to do.
But only a very holy and inspired priest would dare to embark on such a theme. I
have never heard of one, myself.
Have you?
Father claimed this disruption was initiated on SV websites by leaking the 3-Bsp's Letter & Response.
I concur with fellow Servant of Mary & parishioner, Clemens Maria.
Fr Rostand seemed besieged with unrest. Throughout his sermon, he conveyed a great consternation.
Father awkwardly danced around known public statements & facts.
To the informed listener, his maneuvers came across as being deliberately deceptive, if not blatantly untrue.
His central point was a call to unity...
A unity, he reports, that was unanimously confirmed in the recent General Chapter.
A unity that's been disrupted by influences outside the Society, who seek only its destruction.
As Clemens Maria stated, Father claimed this disruption was initiated on SV websites by leaking the 3-Bsp's Letter & Response.
The faithful were then instructed with the usual admonition to disregard all the rumors!
From what I understand, compared to the largers Chapels, we received the shortened version... DEO GRATIAS!
The US District Superior is on a mission of disinformation.
But the Chapel Mind Control Tour sure looks like its taking quite the toll!
Please pray for Fr Rostand & all our misguided priests.
Quote from: KelleyFather claimed this disruption was initiated on SV websites by leaking the 3-Bsp's Letter & Response.
No matter where these letters were or were not posted, it certainly took an SSPXer to get access to them in the first place. Certainly not a case of "attack from the outside" as he's repeatedly suggesting.
But the Chapter was serious business. What did it produce? Above all, a Declaration, made public a few days later, and six conditions for any future Rome-SSPX agreement, leaked on the Internet soon after that (given how many souls are presently entrusting their faith and their salvation to the guidance of the SSPX, I find such a leak not unreasonable).
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:
Quote from: MaterDominiciQuote from: KelleyFather claimed this disruption was initiated on SV websites by leaking the 3-Bsp's Letter & Response.
No matter where these letters were or were not posted, it certainly took an SSPXer to get access to them in the first place. Certainly not a case of "attack from the outside" as he's repeatedly suggesting.
a) That's the point.
b) Another point is what some Cathinfo users already pointed out: these two letters from April (the three bishop's smart letter to Bp Fellay, and the latter's delusional answer to the three bishops) are not private in their nature but public because the religion of God (and attacks against it) is always a public matter.
The good Bishop Richard "Lionheart" Williamson recently wrote about this matter (bold by me) :Quote from: Bishop Williamson in his Eleison Comment "A Chapter"
But the Chapter was serious business. What did it produce? Above all, a Declaration, made public a few days later, and six conditions for any future Rome-SSPX agreement, leaked on the Internet soon after that (given how many souls are presently entrusting their faith and their salvation to the guidance of the SSPX, I find such a leak not unreasonable).
What you, dear US-American Catholics now experience with Fr. Rostand and his delusional "Public Relations gag tour", we German speaking Catholics experience since a few years due to our closer range to the home of "Bp Fellay and his gang" (© Bishop Williamson). So, maybe some of you now do understand in a better way what I've been talking about the last years here on Cathinfo.
There's a word for what the Neo-SSPX does (via Fr Rostand and the equivalent persons in Europe): brain-washing, or if that is too harsh for some: re-education. Two words, same method. Not a Catholic method for sure!
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:
Quote from: Viva Cristo ReyThe novus ordo is doing away with the blessed Mother too. Statues have place in trash and or auctions.
Most novus ordo don't pray the Rosary in their parishes and they have done away with altar and Rosary socieities, and even Legion of Mary and replacing it with Protestant like "new Ministries" which are opened to all religions too.
Yes, many years ago I went to a funeral at a NO church and before the mass, a deacon lead the congregation in praying the rosary. He had to read the mysteries off a "cheat sheet" he held in his hand because he did not know them by heart! I was shocked. :idea:
This Sunday the 5 of August Fr. Rostand said Mass in Boston as part of his US damage control clean up tour. He basically said that we should be humble and obey and those who are speaking out are not being humble and obedient. He said that there is an "apparent divide" in the SSPX and that it is caused by sedevacantist spreading rumors and trying to divide them. That's the biggest load of nonsense if I ever heard one. What a cop out and a denial of a problem that well and truly exists. They won't admit that Fellay was in the wrong to try and make a deal with Rome and it was the other district superiors at the General Chapter that steered the ship away from the rocks for now and so to cover it up they are now blaming the problems on a third party(sedevacantists)
Quote from: CathMomof7I 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:
What the manipulators don't understand is that they are supposed to offer good faith preaching as a condition of their collection of tithes.
You can't treat your parishioners as dumb cattle who exist to be fed adulterated sustenance while you seek to maximize earnings with your Zionist money manager.
The SSPX leaders have cast out the honest men, now they are surprised to be treated coldly?
Maybe that is what you should do when Bishop Rostand comes to visit any of your chapels chat with him honestly about your concerns. That way it is face to face instead of online. If you express your concerns, he might even see things differently.
Maybe that is what you should do when Bishop Rostand comes to visit any of your chapels chat with him honestly about your concerns. That way it is face to face instead of online. If you express your concerns, he might even see things differently.
I think the people in my chapel were justified. They love +Williamson and are real aware of how he has been treated. They see this as injustice.
These are people who were personally ministered to by +Williamson. They know him. These are amazing people. And they believe they are being betrayed.
Why would they want to stay and hear more propaganda?
No, they opted to ignore the Superior. I think that spoke volumes, personally.
I believe he left our chapel understanding that we, the lay people, are paying attention to what is happening in the Society. We are rightly worried about our chapels and the souls of the people who attend them.
Many of these chapels were built by the hard work and sacrifices of people who have been with the SSPX since the beginning. They have been in the trenches. These are people who sat for weeks or months WITHOUT even one Mass, without sponsors for their children's baptisms and confirmations, without recognition.
Then to have the Superior come and patronize them in the very chapel that +Williamson preached the True Faith to them.
He is lucky they even allowed him in the chapel in the first place.
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:
Quote from: Neil Obstat[
the SSPX.
It seems to me that fighting against Modernism is one of the most important
things a Catholic today can do. But before you can fight against it, you have to
know what it is. And you can't really know what it is unless you study Pascendi.
It is not enough to just read it. You have to study it. An excellent little book takes
you through the steps systematically; it's called A Catechism of Modernism, by
Fr. Lemius. It has been available through TAN Books for several decades. But
since TAN is now run by Protestants, they're letting the Catholic titles run out and
then they're not reprinting them. So you could find it's not so easy to get copies of
A Catechism of Modernism anymore. This would be an excellent textbook for a
local pastor to run a class on Modernism. That would be a very good thing to do.
But only a very holy and inspired priest would dare to embark on such a theme. I
have never heard of one, myself.
Have you?
Ordered this little gem the day I read your post. Thank you for the recommendation- our family is reading it and learning much.
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.
Quote from: Viva Cristo ReyMaybe that is what you should do when Bishop Rostand comes to visit any of your chapels chat with him honestly about your concerns. That way it is face to face instead of online. If you express your concerns, he might even see things differently.
I think the people in my chapel were justified. They love +Williamson and are real aware of how he has been treated. They see this as injustice.
These are people who were personally ministered to by +Williamson. They know him. These are amazing people. And they believe they are being betrayed.
Why would they want to stay and hear more propaganda?
No, they opted to ignore the Superior. I think that spoke volumes, personally.
I believe he left our chapel understanding that we, the lay people, are paying attention to what is happening in the Society. We are rightly worried about our chapels and the souls of the people who attend them.
Many of these chapels were built by the hard work and sacrifices of people who have been with the SSPX since the beginning. They have been in the trenches. These are people who sat for weeks or months WITHOUT even one Mass, without sponsors for their children's baptisms and confirmations, without recognition.
Then to have the Superior come and patronize them in the very chapel that +Williamson preached the True Faith to them.
He is lucky they even allowed him in the chapel in the first place.
Quote from: Viva Cristo ReyMaybe that is what you should do when Bishop Rostand comes to visit any of your chapels chat with him honestly about your concerns. That way it is face to face instead of online. If you express your concerns, he might even see things differently.
I think the people in my chapel were justified. They love +Williamson and are real aware of how he has been treated. They see this as injustice.
These are people who were personally ministered to by +Williamson. They know him. These are amazing people. And they believe they are being betrayed.
Why would they want to stay and hear more propaganda?
No, they opted to ignore the Superior. I think that spoke volumes, personally.
I believe he left our chapel understanding that we, the lay people, are paying attention to what is happening in the Society. We are rightly worried about our chapels and the souls of the people who attend them.
Many of these chapels were built by the hard work and sacrifices of people who have been with the SSPX since the beginning. They have been in the trenches. These are people who sat for weeks or months WITHOUT even one Mass, without sponsors for their children's baptisms and confirmations, without recognition.
Then to have the Superior come and patronize them in the very chapel that +Williamson preached the True Faith to them.
He is lucky they even allowed him in the chapel in the first place.
Quote from: CathMomof7I 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 (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=20061&min=50#p5) -- COPY BELOW
Attached file: Letter of the Three Bishops to Bishop Fellay.pdf (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&s=attach&id=2622) (455 downloads, 21 KB) -- That's in French, if you prefer the original.
Attached file: Bishop Fellay's Letter to the Three Bishops.pdf (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&s=attach&id=2624) (424 downloads, 3043 KB) -- 4pp in French
Attached file: Letter of the Three Bishops - English translation.doc (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&s=attach&id=2623) (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 ChazalLetter 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
:farmer:Quote from: CathMomof7Quote from: Viva Cristo ReyMaybe that is what you should do when Bishop Rostand comes to visit any of your chapels chat with him honestly about your concerns. That way it is face to face instead of online. If you express your concerns, he might even see things differently.
I think the people in my chapel were justified. They love +Williamson and are real aware of how he has been treated. They see this as injustice.
These are people who were personally ministered to by +Williamson. They know him. These are amazing people. And they believe they are being betrayed.
Why would they want to stay and hear more propaganda?
No, they opted to ignore the Superior. I think that spoke volumes, personally.
I believe he left our chapel understanding that we, the lay people, are paying attention to what is happening in the Society. We are rightly worried about our chapels and the souls of the people who attend them.
Many of these chapels were built by the hard work and sacrifices of people who have been with the SSPX since the beginning. They have been in the trenches. These are people who sat for weeks or months WITHOUT even one Mass, without sponsors for their children's baptisms and confirmations, without recognition.
Then to have the Superior come and patronize them in the very chapel that +Williamson preached the True Faith to them.
He is lucky they even allowed him in the chapel in the first place.
We all have had our share of hardships when it come to our Catholic faith. However, we are supposed to offer up our sufferings to God.
Then why couldn't you or anyone else say that to Bishop Rostand. Instead, you all remained silent and ran out the door. You all took the easy way out. Shame on you. Especially those who personally knew Bishop Williamson. You only proved how easy it will be to close down your chapel in the future with no resistance..
It takes courage to stand up for what is right by God and the Catholic Church. I don't know Bishop Williamson personally. I only know him from his sermons and newsletters and his emails that he sent me. Had I been there at your chapel that day God would have given me the courage to face Bishop Rostand face to face in a polite charitable manner while defending God, the Catholic Church and Bishop Williamson. I am not afraid of speaking the Truth which is Christ.
!Viva Cristo Rey!
It is all about the God, OUr Blessed Mother and the true Catholic Faith.
Bishop Williamson isn't afraid of speaking the truth which is of Christ.
Quote from: Viva Cristo ReyMaybe that is what you should do when Bishop Rostand comes to visit any of your chapels chat with him honestly about your concerns. That way it is face to face instead of online. If you express your concerns, he might even see things differently.
I agree. In Asia, we have so-called Traditional Catholics who even skips Sunday Mass just because they don't agree with the priests concerning the current SSPX crisis. In my opinion, they are doing a disservice to the resistance. To me this is plain Protestantism. I'd like to hear more thoughts about this.
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.
....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, ...
Quote from: Neil Obstat....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, ...
I talked to him when he came to our parish. It was a waste of time.
Now I have nothing polite to say to any of those #$%^&.
Quote from: DiegoQuote from: Neil Obstat....Excuse me if I misunderstand this, but it seems you are somehow proud for not having bothered to speak with Fr. Rostand. If this is the case, then you should know that I entirely disagree. You missed your chance.
If you don't let him know what you are thinking, ...
I talked to him when he came to our parish. It was a waste of time.
Now I have nothing polite to say to any of those #$%^&.
I understand Neil Obstat's point, but I don't agree with her.
Reasons:
1. Fr. Rostand has been trying to feed us horse manure for months.
He has lost a lot of credibility.
2. He has not demonstrated that he's willing to make use of his
intellect for any logicall discussion on the SSPX betrayal issues.
He just comes off as a Menzingen "spin-meister"
3. I actually liked the way the New York chapel gave him the cold shoulder.
It was an appropriate response, especially when he's mouthing-off at the
chapel about "sedes".
:cowboy:
I understand Neil Obstat's point, but I don't agree with her.
Reasons:
1. Fr. Rostand has been trying to feed us horse manure for months.
He has lost a lot of credibility.
2. He has not demonstrated that he's willing to make use of his
intellect for any logicall discussion on the SSPX betrayal issues.
He just comes off as a Menzingen "spin-meister"
3. I actually liked the way the New York chapel gave him the cold shoulder.
It was an appropriate response, especially when he's mouthing-off at the
chapel about "sedes".
:cowboy:
Quote from: Neil Obstat....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, ...
I talked to him when he came to our parish. It was a waste of time.
Now I have nothing polite to say to any of those #$%^&.
You can't be silent. Write letters to theseBishopRostand and Bishop Fellay. Have your children in their own words and pictures send letters to these bishops. Many of these children are our future nuns and priests.
But with what effect? ZERO in the handful of cases I personally know of, but we can extrapolate this. And these priests wrote excellent letters, much better than a any layman like Neil, Ethelred, etc could have done.
If these brave priests got answers at all, it was always the same nonsensical non-answers.
Absolutely ZERO effect!
.......
The thing about not showing up is, then you can be SURE you won't make a difference.