[JPaul]

Quote:

"I just heard a rumor from a reliable source in Europe, that one of the three bishops is now joining B. Fellay. That to me explains this petition by the french District. The devil will not rest. I don't agree with the silence, we must speak and open eyes but we must pray every moment we can.

And I heard from one of them, the e-mail timed at 2pm GMT, Thursday 17th May, that they were united.

We're grateful to hear this affirmation from you. Especially since, as you say, your source is first hand.
Deo gratias.

And was that from Bishop Fellay asserting unity?

Or one of the others?

Well, since AJNC wrote "them" and directly replied to the other poster who talked about the bishops in plural and from being united (and only the three brave bishops were respectively are united in their letter), AJNC can only mean one of three bishops (who don't sellout to Newrome) confirmed to him that the three stand united.

But maybe AJNC would like to write it more directly?  :scratchchin:

I think this is a good news. In particular because AJNC received the word directly from one of the three bishops and not from some rumour.

It is critical that they remain inseparably united. As we see the Roman plan is to divide them into individuals and dispatch each one and hence break the  resistance.  If they are united and grounded in that unity by true Catholic doctrine then Rome may not be able to overcome that. They will be a core around which those true faithful will rally and be strengthened to defend Catholic truth.

[finegan]

Let me see if I have this straight: the Society indicates that their dealings with Rome are no business of the faithful, and our opinion will not matter in their decisions, but at the same time, they tell us to stop visiting internet forums to discuss the matter since our "speculation" might cause "grave harm." Okaaaaaay.  :wink:

[Neil Obstat]

From Traditio yesterday (under "May 20, 2012"):

Fellay, who has admitted that he won't talk to his traditional bishops and other clergy, has dropped everything to hightail it off to Newrome's Modernist leaders because he was summoned like Ratzinger's dog. The publication of the letter from the three bishops has frightened Ratzinger, because it brought to public light the existence of considerable opposition within the Neo-SSPX to Fellay's dictatorial sellout. Already Neo-SSPX clergy, as well as laity, are lining up with the three bishops against Fellay. Fr. Javier Cardozo, for example, wrote in an Open Letter: "My absolute support is to the three bishops who remain faithful to the work of Archbishop Lefebvre, in whom I place my obedience."

Another piece of information on Fellay's double-dealing has also came out. As reported here on the TRADITIO Network at the time, Fellay, several months ago, had called an extraordinary General Chapter of the Neo-SSPX for early July 2012. It now appears that Fellay had expected his sellout to have become a fait accompli by that time and intended the Chapter to rubber stamp the sellout. Instead, as at the District Superiors' meeting at Albano, Italy, on October 6, 2012 [typo -- 2011?], at which the District Superiors rejected Fellay's sellout and sent him packing back to his Menzingen bunker, the Chapter could turn into a deposition of Felly himself!

Traditio makes numerous typos and sometimes it makes their message unintelligible.

Sending them a message *never* makes any difference!

[AJNC]

Quote:

"I just heard a rumor from a reliable source in Europe, that one of the three bishops is now joining B. Fellay. That to me explains this petition by the french District. The devil will not rest. I don't agree with the silence, we must speak and open eyes but we must pray every moment we can.

And I heard from one of them, the e-mail timed at 2pm GMT, Thursday 17th May, that they were united.

We're grateful to hear this affirmation from you. Especially since, as you say, your source is first hand.
Deo gratias.

And was that from Bishop Fellay asserting unity?

Or one of the others?

Well, since AJNC wrote "them" and directly replied to the other poster who talked about the bishops in plural and from being united (and only the three brave bishops were respectively are united in their letter), AJNC can only mean one of three bishops (who don't sellout to Newrome) confirmed to him that the three stand united.

But maybe AJNC would like to write it more directly?  :scratchchin:

I think this is a good news. In particular because AJNC received the word directly from one of the three bishops and not from some rumour.

It was not Bp Fellay but one of the other three bishops. I cannot say if this is the latest news. I have a Yahoo account, but I dont know whether the time given on the email is when it was sent or when it came into my account.

[Diego]

Yes, that caught my eye also.

I also thought to myself that more than anything I have seen, Rorate's behavior exhibits the cultic behavior you have chided.
Their works require darkness and they know it.

You'll notice on the RC thread in question, "New Catholic" himself just took a stab at Fr. Cekada. The masks are coming off all around us.

Yes, in the past I frequently crossed swords with "New Catholic" (newcatholic@gmail.com) and "Jordanes" (likely Prof. Ralph Mathisen ralphwm@illinois.edu) but they contumaciously cling to their false obedience and  Judaizing super-dogma. Once they started moderating every single post, except for an occasional token post from Peter Perkins and Fr. Cekada (upon whom the most sarcastic opprobrium readily passes Rorate's "moderation") only the most oblique criticism of their super-dogma and other errors was allowed.

[Diego]

...This French website hasn't removed it's "offensive" publication of some days ago:

http://resistance-catholique.org/

Here is a Google Translation of a prominently placed article there:

"Bishop Fellay HAS NEVER wrong! "


NOTE ON THE SERMON OF A REGULAR PRIEST
(April 2012)

Monsieur l'Abbe X is neither a polemic nor a maker of plots of GREEK [1], nor a theologian proclaimed purporting to lead his superiors in the mysteries of his "inspired thought". He is a priest that we might call "ordinary" if this term was pejorative charge. Ordered Écône there are over 15 years, he seeks to do good wherever he is, trying to retain some and convert others. Its only peculiarity? Being part of this small minority within the SSPX who endorsed the "open policy" of Bishop Fellay.

On this Sunday of April 2012, the tone is set early in the sermon: "I fully agree with the bold policy of Bishop Fellay, which aims to sign an agreement with Rome" (in essence). Because "It changes in the Church"!

And the Abbe X to stand up a litany of contacts he was able to establish with the conciliar clergy, mainly in Italy, which contacts emanates a spirit of reconciliation typing: a parish priest asking the priest of the SSPX to ensure the Sunday Mass in his parish, another claimant to the priory closest to ensure the Sunday evening Mass every two weeks, until the diocesan bishop does not authorize every week, a priest openly expressing conciliar against ecuмenism in the presence of a cardinal who dares not answer ...

Following the presentation of this dramatic tale, Father X urges faithful to the trust, "Bishop Fellay has never made a mistake in its relations with Rome, so why not trust him now to move towards an agreement? "

Far from challenging the veracity of testimony reported by the Abbe X, or even a priori, the sincerity of these, however, force is to consider the current situation with more objectivity and perspective.

Besides these few interlocutors 'traditional', one could indeed cite examples-strings of cons, priests inspired by a revolutionary spirit and opposed to all that breathes Catholicism, and which are not found only in the dioceses ultra-modern France, but even in the Vatican under Pope Benedict XVI. The scandals that occur in the Conciliar Church is daily. Some even directly responsible for Benedict XVI. Let us remember such common prayer with imams in the Blue Mosque in Istanbul November 30, 2006, his cordial meeting with a "woman priest" Anglican Westminster Abbey 17 September 2010, the invitation to the Vatican a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ group called "gαy Circus" December 15, 2010, who performed before him a choreography of inverts. And finally let's not forget that this same Pope refused to kiss the crucifix on Good Friday, during the liturgy of the "worship" of the cross, in 2009, 2010 and 2011 [2] (we do not know what happened in 2012)! To track the true evolution of the Conciliar Church, in Rome and the world, we refer with profit to the site: Church Revolution in Pictures.

Then we come to a logical problem: how the presence of few people less revolutionary than others [3] be sufficient to exempt the sect of the conciliar spirit of Vatican II, and to justify our inclusion in this one ?

If, indeed, there are a few persons attached to the constant teaching of the Catholic Church strongly opposed to ecuмenism and religious freedom, but rather to leave them in the Conciliar Church [4], and not up to us to join them!

If these priests / bishops / cardinals are so attached to the Truth of the Church always taught to always, if they have at heart to proclaim the salvation of souls, they then have the opportunity to condemn the contrary errors within the Conciliar Church? Abbe X itself explained that seminarians were dissimiler their commitment to the tradition not to be punished - and yet it is only an attachment to certain brands outside traditional. And we should integrate this conciliar sect in which he must hide to stay Catholic?

 

The proclamation of the truth without the condemnation of error.

On this occasion include the alteration of the concept of truth in the minds of supporters of "rallying" [5]: two schools of thought in fact within the SSPX. The first arises as a prerequisite to any agreement resolving doctrinal differences. At this point, there is unanimous agreement that the radical impossibility of this solution. The formulation is equivalent to reject any agreement and, logically, any dialogue with people who know and refuse the constant teaching of the Church - "Quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus", "take as truth of faith which been believed everywhere, always and by all "(Commonitorium of St. Vincent of Lerins) - and therefore that it is both useless and dangerous to discuss. The second school is applying for recognition by Rome of a profession of faith, which would allow its signatories to be "reinstated" in the Conciliar Church.

Thus, as these few priests / bishops / cardinals, we may profess the Catholic faith in peace within the Conciliar Church ..., provided they do not condemn the errors taught by the "Holy Father", to condition not be aggressive towards him and his superiors! We would have a right to truth amputated condemnation of error and its promoters. May there be no defense of truth denunciation of error [6]? Can there be termination of the error without denouncing its promoters [7]? Asking the question answers itself: those who doubt can refer to the work of Dom Sarda there Salvani, Liberalism is a sin, and the following chapter XXIII.

We can notice in support of this observation that for many years now, moult pilgrimages organized by the SSPX end in triumph in churches or basilicas kindly provided by the conciliar clergy. Is it conceivable that one of these occasions, the preacher of the SSPX attacks the errors of his guests? So how priests "reconciled" to the sect blandly conciliar be able to publicly denounce a "Seated IV 'or umpteenth visit to mosque or ѕуηαgσgυє?

Abbe X rejoiced on Sunday that, contrary to what was happening in the past, are now attached to Tradition seminarians who infiltrate the seminaries, to take the cassock and return traditional use after their ordination. But how horrible! And to be faithful to the Church "Mother and Teacher of Truth," should therefore live a lie?? Lying is the prerogative of Satan, and if the truth is not allowed in the Conciliar Church, there is no alternative but to flee! The son of light and the son of darkness can not fight with the same weapons, lies against lies, but truth against lies.

 

In the pantheon of conciliar religious sensibilities.

What about this other information provided by the Abbe X that the priests of the SSPX in Italy celebrate every second Sunday Mass in a parish where conciliar practice of course the usual "mass Luther" according the definition given by Archbishop Lefebvre himself [8]?

How to interpret this attitude as anything but a de facto recognition of the New Mass? The same altar on which is practiced this cult that is abomination in God he also receive the holy sacrifice of the true mass? The Church does not she prescribed ceremonies of reconciliation, not only for the altars desecrated, but even for churches that have been the scene of unholy worship? One place of worship can be used for the true worship of God and to worship a sacrilege [9]? SSPX would be satisfied now she pantheons - whose exact meaning is home of the gods [10] - that the early Christians had refused to risk their lives? The true Catholic doctrine could she find her place in the pantheon of conciliar "religious sensitivities"? [11] The dimension of the New Mass, renamed "ordinary rite", would she have been revised upwards over the mysterious theological discussions we do not want to tell us anything officially?

In addition to this vital aspect, there must also wonder how a priest of the SSPX could condemn the errors and the new conciliar Mass in this context!

 

"Bishop Fellay has never cheated."

At this point, it is legitimate to ask whether the contacts of the Abbe X reveal a new reality in the Conciliar Church, or rather they do not distort the perception of reality. When was issued the motu proprio of July 7, 2007 "liberalizing" the Tridentine Mass, cautious minds had promised to judge the sincerity of its author, observing his actions to come. The main acts of Benedict that followed the famous motu proprio:

- 21.10.2007: Interfaith Meeting of Naples;

- 28.04.2008: Visit to the ѕуηαgσgυє of New York;

- 15.07.2008: J.M.J. Sydney with its liturgy "enculturated" and pagan rituals;

- 12.05.2009: Visit to the Dome of Jerusalem;

- 12.05.2009: Jєωιѕн Ritual at the Wailing Wall;

- 17.01.2010: Visit to the ѕуηαgσgυє of Rome;

- 14.03.2010: Active participation in the Lutheran worship in Rome;

- 01.05.2011: Beatification of John Paul II;

- 27.10.2011: Reiteration of the scandal of Assisi;

Abbe X urged us to trust Bishop Fellay because he had "never been wrong in the past in its relations with Rome." Really?

Then, facing the anthology (incomplete, unfortunately) of Benedict the above include the following words of Mgr:

- 07.05.2010: "Since Vatican II, a wave seems to take everything down, leaving only a heap of ruins, a spiritual desert that the popes themselves have called an apostasy (...). Returning to our image, it seems that for some time, more or less since the accession to the pontificate of Pope Benedict XVI, is a new wave appeared much smaller than the first, but persistent enough that one can nevertheless point out the . Against all odds, it seems to go in the opposite direction of the first. The indices are sufficiently varied and numerous to say that this new movement of reform or restoration is real. " (Letter to Friends and Benefactors No. 76)

- 27.12.2010: In fact, the Pope returns to traditional ideas. It is quite clear that there is a deviation and it must be corrected. It may be much closer to the Pope than it seems. (The New Caledonian).

If we insert these words of Bishop Fellay in the chronology ratzingerienne above, one is tempted to smile at the naivety of the Superior General of SSPX, if the subject was not as severe. So no, it is not reasonable to trust Bishop Fellay! Yes, Bishop Fellay has grossly mistaken!

And that's not all ...

When Bishop Fellay has inaugurated its "political prerequisites", he took the chance to overcome the recommendation of Christian prudence true that Archbishop Lefebvre had made following recent talks in 1988: "If we take language, c ' I would ask is that my conditions "[12].

While these were prerequisites?

The Mass of Saint Pius V deposed.

"Liberalization" of the mass.

On July 7, 2007, Pope published the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificuм in restoring the Tridentine Mass right. In any case, and the Bishop Fellay presented. The reality is different!

First, the motu proprio "canonized" the New Mass by giving it a status of "ordinary rite" in recognizing the "value" and "holiness". Who accepts it recognizes ipso facto the new mass [13]. To quote the official statement: "The total exclusion of the new rite would not be consistent with the recognition of its value and holiness." And when the Abbe X attended the first of these Masses celebrated in the diocese of Italy where he was, he endorsed this motu proprio and everything in it, so the recognition of the new mass. One really wonders how Bishop Fellay could declare that the first prerequisite was obtained ...

But there is worse! This is the Abbe-Juan Carlos Ceriani, a priest who had to leave the SSPX - and for good reason - that was unmasked in 2009 the Machiavellianism of the motu proprio "legally and legitimately, the Traditional Mass had always remained mandatory ( and therefore allowed) as the only official and ordinary Mass of Roman Rite of the Latin Church, since the bull Quo primum tempore of St. Pius V who made it mandatory and authorized him to life imprisonment had never been repealed. "

And Benedict XVI took the reckless application of Bishop Fellay to update the conciliar magisterium replacing the Mass of St. Pius V by that of Paul VI. Hocus-pocus Machiavellian that nobody before had unmasked the Abbe Ceriani. Bishop Fellay has fallen into the trap without blinking. And, after him, most priests of the SSPX. So when the Abbe X boasts that "it is through us that this motu proprio was granted," we can indeed clarify: it is thanks to Bishop Fellay that the traditional Mass was repealed as Ordinary Form of the Roman rite. [14] There was really nothing to sing Te Deum and Magnificat in priories ...

 

Fight of faith or clerical diplomacy?

The lifting of the excommunications.

In order not to recognize the validity of the excommunications which struck our four bishops, Bishop Fellay asked, not the lifting of the excommunications, but the withdrawal of the decree of the latter: "You're confusing withdraw a decree of excommunication excommunication with a lift (...) In any official docuмent or important I am very careful not to mention or say "lift the excommunication. '" (Letter from Bishop Bernard Fellay to Father Ceriani, August 3, 2004).

 Confess that these subtleties of language does not change much in reality as it is in both cases to plead an authority to reconsider his punishment. But finally, if our bishops are sensitive to these distinctions - after all it is they who are concerned - recognize them this right.

So now read the text of "withdrawal" of 21 January 2009:

"By letter dated December 15, 2008 addressed to His Eminence, Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos, President of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, Bishop Bernard Fellay, in his name and on behalf of three other bishops consecrated June 30, 1988, seeking again lifting the excommunication latae sententiae formally declared by decree of the Prefect of that Congregation for Bishops, dated 1 July 1988 (...) According to faculty who have been expressly granted by the Holy Father Benedict XVI, in under this Decree, I commit to Bishops Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta the censure of excommunication latae sententiae declared by this Congregation on July 1, 1988, and I declare deprived of legal effects, with from today's date, the Decree published at that time. "

On the one hand, the decree says that Bishop Fellay had requested the "lifting of the excommunication," not the "withdrawal of the decree," that is to say it does not match what Bishop Fellay affirmed before. So the decree contains an error or a lie (to whom);

On the other hand, it does not withdraw the decree of 1988, but "remits a censure of excommunication," thereby recognizing the validity of it until that date, and therefore not satisfying the request of Bishop Fellay, who seemed so far so picky about the phraseology used.

Reassure us, the semantic subtleties were therefore less important, because the official announcement of Bishop Fellay, dated January 24, 2009, no longer formed state: "The excommunication of the bishops consecrated by His Exc. Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre June 30, 1988 (...) has been withdrawn by another decree of the Congregation. "

Here is an example of "clerical diplomacy" where the subtleties of language serve to advance the compromises, before being abandoned as soon as you no longer need. These maneuvers are not the fight of faith and therefore not binding. Let us remember simply that Archbishop Lefebvre, him, felt honored to be "excommunicated" by the Conciliar Church. It was clear!

The fact remains that the lifting of the excommunications was during a misunderstanding which, besides the ridicule that was covered Bishop Fellay, has revealed the depths of his thought. Upon publication of this measure, and he issued a preliminary statement - dated January 24, 2009 - citing the following sentence: "We accept and endorse all the councils up to Vatican II about which we have reservations!" Faced with the outcry caused by its acceptance with reservations of course, but nevertheless acceptance of Vatican II, a second release appeared a few days later, still dated January 24, but with the corrected sentence follows: "We accept and endorse all councils up to Vatican I. But we can only reservations about Vatican II, who wanted a council is "different from others. '"

Here is an additional error of Bishop Fellay "who has never made a mistake", which reveals the compromises that he was ready in 2009.

To conclude on this lamentable episode include what Archbishop Lefebvre wrote on the eve of the coronation to understand the contrast between the two bishops: "Being so publicly associated with the sanction that strikes all six Catholic bishops, defenders of the faith in its integrity and comprehensiveness, would be for us a sign of honor and a sign of orthodoxy before the faithful. They indeed have a legal right to know that the priests whom they speak are not the communion of a counterfeit Church, scalable, Pentecostal, and syncretistic (...) ". [15]

 

Errare humanum is perseverare ...

Doctrinal discussions:

As for doctrinal discussions, they have, as expected, revealed the gaping hole between the conciliar Catholic. But as noted by the Abbe Gleize, one of the "theologians" of the SSPX, these discussions have helped to clarify the principles of disagreement. And it is on the very notion of the Magisterium of the most intractable disputes have arisen.

The Church has a doctrine intangible, when Pope solemnly defines a dogma or an article accurate to believe, it is impossible for another pope to contradict his predecessor. Thus the Magisterium is objective, it consists of what is to be believed, regardless of the time or place [16]. For conciliar Magisterium lies in the authority who provides instruction. Thus, Benedict XVI may well return to a definitive teaching of the Church and change according to times and places [17]. The conciliar Magisterium within the meaning will be made by the new teaching of the reigning pope, until the same or a successor pope decides otherwise. This is why Benedict XVI may well rent Pius IX, Pope of the Syllabus: This publication met the requirements of his time!

These discussions have shown the radical impossibility to agree, each party having a different conception of the Magisterium.

Well guess what: after a Machiavellian Motu Proprio, after the lifting of the deceptive "excommunications", after fruitless doctrinal discussions, Bishop Fellay "who has never made a mistake" continues today to want to sign an agreement with the conciliar! We would do better to ask when Bishop Fellay [18] does not make a mistake!

Errare humanum is perseverare Diabolicuм ...!

 

Proof by I. B.P.

For proof that nothing has changed in the conciliar sect, also include the treatment at the Institute of the Good Shepherd founded September 8, 2006 by the Abbe Philippe Laguérie. The statutes stipulate that work among other things the two following points:

̶ The members of the Institute of the Good Shepherd are allowed to celebrate Mass "only" according to the traditional liturgy of the 1962 missal, called St. Pius V. The traditional Mass is not only a permission;

̶ The Institute of the Good Shepherd for constructive criticism of the Second Vatican Council to allow the Apostolic See to give an authentic interpretation.

However, following his canonical visit of Wednesday, March 21, 2012, Father Laguérie received a letter from Archbishop of Pozzo Congregation Ecclesia Dei, asking:

̶ to consider the "extraordinary form" as an "own rite," and forget the notion of "exclusivity". Does that mean it? A rite exclusive prohibits exceptions, not its own rite. So, abandoning the exclusivity, if accepted by the Abbe Laguérie, ipso facto acceptance in principle of the new rite;

̶ to "integrate the current study of the Magisterium of the Popes and the Vatican II" in the curriculum of the seminar Courtalain [19], and "insert a careful study of the Catechism of the Catholic Church";

̶ "More than a critique, even" serious and constructive ", the Second Vatican Council, the efforts of teachers should focus on the transmission of the entire patrimony of the Church [bold in the text!], Emphasizing on the hermeneutics of renewal in continuity [20] and taking for supporting the integrity of Catholic doctrine expounded by the Catechism of the Catholic Church ";

̶ To organize weekly meetings with canon [which he imposes names], "to improve the functioning of the board and prepare the general chapter." In other words, bring back the wolf in sheep;

̶ "the priests of the Institute really fit with a spirit of communion in the whole of ecclesial life of the diocese."

But to be fair to the Abbe Laguérie, the Superior General of the IBP, have been honest with the SSPX: wherever he meets people affiliated with it, he warns: "Do not sign no, I have done! ". He even crossed the Abbe de Cacqueray on the station platform back from Rome, and he said the same thing: "Do not sign! "[21].

That all changes with Modernist Rome is able! After the carrot, the stick [22]! So the changes captured by the Abbe X are they reality or misleading impressions?

The "forgetfulness" of Bishop Fellay.

Before concluding, it remains to discuss the "oversights" of the SSPX whose two most important are:

1 - The Bishop Fellay silences about the work of Michel Laurigan (edited by the Dominicans of Avrillé), whether the church and the ѕуηαgσgυє since Vatican II, which gives the key study of the metamorphosis of Catholic Church in the Conciliar Church, or Chronology of a gear, study that explains the creation of a new doctrine, whereas the Jєωιѕн people can save themselves by being faithful to the "first covenant." Note also the novelty of that term which replaces the traditional "old covenant", which reveals its transience, gone. But this doctrine is not a technicality, it opposes the keystone of Catholic doctrine that "it is under heaven given to men other name than Jesus by which we must be saved "(Acts iv, 12). We know that Bishop Fellay has read these studies. Why ignore them? Why not draw conclusions? Why not have demanded Benedict developed a public and solemn on this crucial issue, before any "prior"? That tells us that we now agree that while blurring the most absolute reign on this point. But perhaps it is the (first) price to pay to re-enter the Pantheon conciliar?

2 - Another, and perhaps most important point that has always been overshadowed by the SSPX is the issue of disability conciliar reformed the sacraments, especially the transmission of the Episcopate which is the key all the other sacraments (except baptism and marriage). Recall that after Vatican II, all the sacraments have been changed, so much so that Archbishop Lefebvre called them "bastards" at the Mass of Lille in 1976. These theological questions, despite their aridity affect us because they determine nothing less than our salvation and that of our loved ones! The clergymen - or who want the Catholic Church - should not hide them. So before any discussion with the conciliar Rome, this is work that would have had to devote a theological commission. Let us recall very briefly the state of affairs:

a-The sacraments are the very reason the Church is also defined as the S. Thomas Aquinas. No doubt is permitted in this area. The Church, in case of doubt on the validity of a sacrament, is tutioriste, that is to say that when in doubt, it restores said sacrament.

b-Because it is intended to transmit the priesthood, thus marking an ontological character of the future priest episcopal consecration (material, shape and Minister) was invariably described and defined by Pius XII in 1947 in its constitution "Sacramentum ordinis "[23]. This act of infallible Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff - which codifies, as the Mass, ancient practices and proven, that the Church is still in its wisdom, after mature consideration - fixed the matter and form of episcopal consecration, which gives bishops the power to transmit in turn a true priesthood. But Paul VI had "reformed" in 1968 (Romani Pontificalis constitution of 18 June 1968, therefore prior to the "reform of the Mass" of 1969 [24]. A pope, as we have seen, can not recover At issue was finally settled by one of his predecessors. "reform" of Paul VI is in itself very suspicious;

The c-form of episcopal consecration adopted by Paul VI is strangely similar to that used in the Anglican episcopate, the priesthood form that makes the "priests" and "bishops" Anglican "absolutely null and completely pointless", as judged infallibly Pope Leo XIII in his Apostolic Letter Apostolicae Curae on Anglican ordinations of September 15, 1896.

These three factors point heavily against the certainty of the validity of the sacraments conciliar. We can now consider that it has been hitherto the practice of the SSPX on this issue:

a-During the sermon the ceremony of episcopal consecrations, Archbishop Lefebvre himself has said explicitly: "all their sacraments are doubtful";

b-The question was asked in an open seminar Écône in 95-97 years, according to the testimony of a seminarian, but remained at the disputation. No clear answer was given;

c-Twice, the journal of the Dominicans of Avrillé, The Salt of the Earth (No. 5 in 1992 and No. 40 in 2002) has questioned the validity of the episcopal consecration of Cal. Ratzinger, in two articles by the Abbe Mura, then a professor at the seminary of the SSPX in Germany;

d-Bishop Fellay himself has used the expression "probable a priori valid priests" speaking of priests conciliar, thus admitting doubts about their validity;

The e-SSPX reordination proceeded to "conditionally" many priests. So it is that there is any doubt on their validity.

So we can see that a general doubt on the validity of the sacraments conciliar. How can we then justify the attitude of the Abbe X to go to the "masses" of "priests probable" ignoring their possible disability? Consider in this connection a case in point: the SSPX has finally rallied unconditionally conciliar Rome, a Roman cardinal comes administer the sacrament of Holy Orders deacons in Econe: is it or not priest and bishop, marked for their ontological transmit the power to order? Can we confess or tomorrow to attend Masses celebrated by priests come from Econe without questioning the validity of their priesthood? Such is the terrible uncertainty that will weigh tomorrow, in a few weeks or months, the faithful and seminarians of the "Tradition". There has been no definite answer and exact a Catholic Bishop Fellay and final ...

 

"Gnostic sect", "super anti-Church", or "non-religion."

In conclusion, if one wants to remain a Catholic despite the "bad time", it is impossible not to ask the question of the nature of the Conciliar Church:

̶ A "Church" that transmits doubtful sacraments can it be the holy Catholic Church, assisted by the Holy Spirit until the end of time?

̶ A "church" that teaches doctrines condemned by the Catholic Church can it be that same Catholic Church?

̶ A "Church" that has no notes of the Catholic Church - unity, holiness, universality, apostolicity - can it be the Catholic Church?

I can hear the invective of supporters of the agreement, citing the subterfuge subversive "Sedevacantism" [25] to nip in the bud any debate [26]. Let us then turn to Bishop Tissier de Mallerais the last word:

̶ "Currently heresies continued to be professed in Rome! Real heresies on the mystery of redemption, where Benedict does not believe in the Redemption "(Sermon in Strasbourg, October 12, 1988);

̶ "The conciliar form a Gnostic sect" (sermon ordinations, Econe, 2001);

̶ "Thus religious freedom, human dignity, equality and universal brotherhood will be the three pillars of world government, which will be a universal democracy. The Church would become the spiritual animator of universal democracy, or rather there would be a super anti-Church, guaranteed religious hegemony of high finance ... "(The Spiritual Unity of mankind, Proceedings of the 3rd Symposium in Paris, October 2004)

̶ "parallel Church is the New Church of Vatican II: his mind, his new religion or non-religion" (The Angelus, July 2008);

 

Epilogue: Beato of Liebana

This saint, one of the greatest saints of Spanish language, contemporary of Charlemagne, often nicknamed The Saint Hilaire of Spain, prophesied in a Commentary on the Apocalypse of St. John [27], there are more than twelve centuries, the terrible crisis we are experiencing:

"The land they are bishops, priests and false religion which, under the guise of holiness seem to work quietly, without stirring, posing as ministers of the Church and not being developed ..." (page 403 )

"The snake gave power to the beast, with false brethren within the Church, which seem to be part of it, but he objected. It is through these that the devil makes his plots against those they seduce and claims that they belong to the Church (...), who, by simulating holiness seems to be part of the Church but not belong in reality, the devil invented this trick in order to achieve better impress the religious name of religion. (...) It keeps in the Church all those who, in sheep's clothing, seem virtuous but inwardly they are ravening wolves. That's why they are not discovered as other men are downright bad, but still considers them as does one of the saints; co-interested in the same plot, they are held by the devil in the Church, among the multitude, in an apparent holiness "(page 487).

Jean-Christian BERNARD

jchristian.bernard @ gmail.com


[1] Between Catholic Reflection Group: Masonic splinter group methods aimed at absorbing the SSPX in the Conciliar Church. See:

[2] Link to the videos available on

[3] Less revolutionary does not mean non-revolutionary, let alone anti-revolutionary. Girondins and Jacobins had, for example, the same goals, only their methods differ (and again): Any revolutionary eventually find a more hard that the sketch.

[4] We call it as she calls herself, according to the qualification that gave Archbishop Benelli, during the appearance of Archbishop Lefebvre before the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith in 1975. Jean Guitton himself said that since the opening of Vatican II, the Catholic Church should be called the Ecuмenical Church. It's the same idea: the Catholic Church or is defined by its "four notes" one holy catholic and apostolic. To call it another name, it is implicitly recognize the Church in Rome today ... is no longer Catholic and that his authorities had also ceased to be.

[5] Enter the connotation is that, in France, particularly unfortunate ... but that clearly outlines the background: it is well to join the enemy of Truth or the Good, that is to say, to choose sides , as called S. Ignatius in his Exercises: now there are only two camps, that of Jesus or Satan's. "Let your yes be yes, your no, no, everything else comes from the evil one."

[6] In pure logic, contrary to common belief (false), the error may contain some truth. But as it does not contain the whole truth and nothing but the truth, and it is still wrong.

[7] hypothesis obviously absurd, as if justice was confined to prosecute the crime without putting out of harm's way the criminal!

[8] Florence Conference, February 15, 1975, text to be published by the SSPX bears mention: "Forces will come from him (the Antichrist) desecrate the sanctuary fortress; they will abolish the daily sacrifice and the abomination will be of desolation "(Daniel XI, 31).

[9] Location sadly verified by the celebrations made, for example, during pilgrimages to Lourdes, Lisieux or elsewhere, contrary to canon 823 § 1 of 1917: "It is not permitted to celebrate Mass in a temple heretics or schismatics, even though it was once dedicated or blessed. " This does not he the "collector sewer of all heresies"?

[10] Omnes dii gentium Daemonia: All the gods of the pagans are demons (Ps. 95, 5).

[11] Within the Conciliar Church, the option "Tradition" can only be reduced to a "sensitivity", not a question of faith: Faith is the intelligible, not sensible. Faith is not a human opinion or belief, but the objective condition of salvation for an intelligence illuminated by it, as requested by the Catholic Church called the future "- What do you want to Church? Faith. - What gives you faith? Eternal life. "

[12] This "policy" (horrible word, far from the church that has its eyes to heaven, not on land arrangements: "I confound the wisdom of the wise and learned men of intelligence," Isaiah, XXIX, 14 and S. Paul, 1 Corinthians, I, 19) and these prerequisites are at odds with the Catholic spirit, (as if trading had its place in the fight of faith!).

[13] This is where the subtle evil of the Motu Proprio: "reintegration" of former hides the sacred rite of the new rite. "They have swallowed the word, they swallow the thing," said aptly laïcards Republicans about the "Rally" of Catholics to the Republic in 1892. Nihil novi sub sole.

[14] It looks like motu proprio, relatively speaking, of agreements for the Jaunaye (February 17, 1795), by which what was left of the Vendée, led by Charette, accepted the revolutionary regime in exchange for freedom of Catholic worship that the Convention hastened obviously does not apply ... The important thing is obtained: the cons-revolution had laid down their arms.

[15] Open Letter to His Eminence Cardinal Gantin, Prefect of the Congregation of Bishops. Econe, July 6, 1988 - No. 64 Fideliter. July-August 1988, pages 11-12.

[16] What makes the Catholic Church, the rock of faith and morality in a land where all is change: Stat Crux dum volvitur orbis. Cross stands as the world rolls (motto of the Carthusian monks).

[17] that the Conciliar Church, falsely interpreting Scripture, called "signs of the times", one might rather be called "signs of satan."

[18] It should be noted, not without irony, that if the SSPX accepts that the Church can err, and therefore God can deceive us through his Church (incompatible with the act of faith), it does not support, however, that it distrusts her, including his secret talks with the antichrists (expression of Archbishop Lefebvre) of conciliar Rome. Outside the Church or out of Menzingen no salvation?

[19] Eure-et-Loir, France.

[20] What nonsense! As if words could reconcile what is opposite in nature, as if a smoker formula also could reconcile the Church and the Revolution ...

[21] The articles published by Liturgical Peace site about the sincerity and generosity with which the episcopal body conciliar French applies the famous motu proprio of 2007 is, in itself, a welcome wake-up call as to what happen as the SSPX has signed ...

[22] These people are certainly revolutionary, but logically sincere with their mistakes: their goal is to destroy, not to let their enemies prosper. Only the "careful of the century" who believe in their sincerity! Saint-Just, Robespierre's friend, asked the alpha and omega of every revolution in and outside the Church: "What characterizes a revolution is the destruction of ALL that is contrary to him," including the "negotiation", "prerequisites", the "discussions" ... We need a long spoon to sup with the devil!

[23] The Pontiff was so concerned about breaking relations with the countries of the persecuted church "Iron Curtain" and soon bamboo and wanted to prevent the formation of "national churches" subject to the communist powers "intrinsically evil", as this happens with "Chinese Patriotic Church" church whose actions are now recognized by the conciliar Rome, behind the facade of diplomatic posturing.

[24] One can legitimately ask the question: what if the conciliar terrible revolution, the struggle for the true sacrifice, against "Luther's Mass" Bugnini reform of Paul VI in 1969, had obscured the "reform" yet most radical of 1968 on the priesthood and the episcopate? Somehow, the Tradition would be focused exclusively on the fruit (mass) without seeing that it was the tree (the priesthood) was destroyed. Unfortunately, these subjects remain taboo, and only communicated not always in good faith, rehashing arguments already refuted, find their place in the publications of "Tradition".

[25] Substantive who will never recover because absolutely nothing sedevacantism exists neither in moral theology (sins) nor in the history of the Church (this is not a heresy, or even an opinion debated for many years). It is, in the mouth of its propagators, as only an insult to invent the Adversary knows. Qualify for a particular sedevacantist, is to participate in the demonization of all that opposes or indirectly to the Revolution in the Church or in the country, as is called a racist patriot anxious to protect his country , as Archbishop Lefebvre was treated for a fundamentalist wanted to remain faithful to the Church and the Faith ... What always Catholics, clergy or laity, convey the terms of the opponent simply means they belong to the opponent.

[26] And to stifle the cry of conscience behind "the wisdom of the world." If the early Christians and so many others over the centuries have been looking for "practical arrangements", the Catholic Church would never have conquered the souls because "sanguis martyrum, semen christianorum": "the blood of martyrs is a seed of Christians "(Tertullian).

[27] Complete Works, Ed BAC, Madrid, 1995.

[ultrarigorist]

Yes, in the past I frequently crossed swords with "New Catholic" (newcatholic@gmail.com) and "Jordanes" (likely Prof. Ralph Mathisen ralphwm@illinois.edu) but they contumaciously cling to their false obedience and  Judaizing super-dogma. Once they started moderating every single post, except for an occasional token post from Peter Perkins and Fr. Cekada (upon whom the most sarcastic opprobrium readily passes Rorate's "moderation") only the most oblique criticism of their super-dogma and other errors was allowed.

Hmm, a heavily credentialed academic. It would explain an abundance of idle time which seems to be devoted to tweezing through all the posts. It would also explain the very secular outlook.

[Francisco]

.[/quote]

This French website hasn't removed it's "offensive" publication of some days ago:

http://resistance-catholique.org/[/quote]

And this one is pretty much alive too:

http://www.a-c-r-f.com/principal_en.html

[ultrarigorist]

Yes, it seems Ignis Ardens is the only site that reacted to de Cacqueray's presumptuous, farcical "request". But reflecting on it, I should retract my comment implying this was due to cowardice, insofar as it was more likely just a handy excuse. After all, Patricius had cast his lot with Bp. Fellay, but from what  I've seen of his commentary, he's intellectually honest and is now, docuмent by docuмent, faced with the inescapable conclusion that +Fellay is a trojan horse. Such revelations need an 'agonizing re-appraisal' which always takes time, and prayer I'm certain.

[curioustrad]

I did not know Ratzinger kept a dog. But he will now .... a St. Bernard!!!!!!!

Did you forget this ?

[Cristera]

Poland's district superior Father Karl Stehlin joins father de Cacqueray:


source

[Ethelred]

I did not know Ratzinger kept a dog. But he will now .... a St. Bernard!!!!!!!

Did you forget this ?

British humor at its best.
(In particular since it's a Swiss Bernard-iner on the photograph.)

Yes, let's not loose our humour.

[Ethelred]

Quote:

"I just heard a rumor from a reliable source in Europe, that one of the three bishops is now joining B. Fellay. That to me explains this petition by the french District. The devil will not rest. I don't agree with the silence, we must speak and open eyes but we must pray every moment we can.

And I heard from one of them, the e-mail timed at 2pm GMT, Thursday 17th May, that they were united.

We're grateful to hear this affirmation from you. Especially since, as you say, your source is first hand.
Deo gratias.

And was that from Bishop Fellay asserting unity?

Or one of the others?

Well, since AJNC wrote "them" and directly replied to the other poster who talked about the bishops in plural and from being united (and only the three brave bishops were respectively are united in their letter), AJNC can only mean one of three bishops (who don't sellout to Newrome) confirmed to him that the three stand united.

But maybe AJNC would like to write it more directly?  :scratchchin:

I think this is a good news. In particular because AJNC received the word directly from one of the three bishops and not from some rumour.

It was not Bp Fellay but one of the other three bishops. I cannot say if this is the latest news. I have a Yahoo account, but I dont know whether the time given on the email is when it was sent or when it came into my account.

Normally the e-mail header always shows the date when the e-mail was sent.

Thank you very much for the clarification, AJNC.
So it's indeed good news.
(Seraphim, you too will like it.)

[AdoramusTe]

While I do not retract my earlier position on this matter, that this is a bad move, it should be noted that Fr. RdeC is among the anti-agreement priests, who has ensured that the French district likewise hold firm on this matter... While I cannot fathom his reasons, I cannot imagine that he is doing this with the intention of helping +Fellay reach an agreement in peace.
Besides, regardless of his intentions, the appeal has not had the planned result - only one forum has shut down, those who want information will still be able to find it. We can be grateful for that. Be soft, therefore, in any criticisms of Fr. RdeC, as he is fighting the good fight, even if his tactics seem somewhat off.

[Telesphorus]

While I do not retract my earlier position on this matter, that this is a bad move, it should be noted that Fr. RdeC is among the anti-agreement priests, who has ensured that the French district likewise hold firm on this matter... While I cannot fathom his reasons, I cannot imagine that he is doing this with the intention of helping +Fellay reach an agreement in peace.
Besides, regardless of his intentions, the appeal has not had the planned result - only one forum has shut down, those who want information will still be able to find it. We can be grateful for that. Be soft, therefore, in any criticisms of Fr. RdeC, as he is fighting the good fight, even if his tactics seem somewhat off.

He might well have been asked to do it as some sort of concession or proof of loyalty.  The forums are not the problem.  The problem is the overly controlling mentality of the leadership, and Father de Cacqueray's request seems to reflect that mentality.