Author Topic: Grave Problem with SSPX Policy  (Read 1261 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Ecclesia Militans

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 984
  • Reputation: +14/-35
Grave Problem with SSPX Policy
« on: August 04, 2013, 12:50:43 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Bishop Bernard Fellay’s Doctrinal Declaration of April 15, 2012 is the worst act of His Excellency as Superior General of the Society of St. Pius X. With this Declaration, he was willing to sell the farm to Modernist Rome; however, for some reason or another, Rome refused. Against those of the Resistance who claim that the mindset of this Declaration has infected the SSPX from the top down (and it certainly has) and therefore one cannot remain silent, many priests and faithful who remain within the SSPX and refuse to speak out against the Declaration counterclaim that the Declaration has not become SSPX policy; therefore, there is no need to speak out. Since principle seems to be so important to these priests and faithful (and it should very well be), let us then look at what has indeed become official SSPX policy.

    The SSPX General Chapter Statement of July 14, 2012 states that the SSPX superiors have “determined and approved the necessary conditions for an eventual canonical normalization”. The Statement itself does not outline these necessary conditions; rather, Fr. Christian Thouvenot, Secretary General of the SSPX, sent an internal letter to all SSPX priests in which the necessary conditions (and unnecessary conditions???) were outlined. The first condition is as follows:

    “Freedom to keep, to transmit and to teach the sane doctrine of the unchanging magisterium of the Church and of the unchangeable truth of Divine Tradition ; freedom to defend, to correct and to reprove, even in public, those responsible for the errors or novelties of modernism, of liberalism, of The Second Vatican Council and their consequences.”

    This necessary condition is the only one directly related to doctrine; hence, it is the most important. With this first condition, the SSPX is basically willing to set its doctrinal differences with Rome aside, so long as Rome gives the SSPX the right to teach the Faith and condemn the errors of Vatican II against the same Faith. The first fundamental problem with this position (while overlooking the fact that to ask for the right to do what is commanded by God is itself nonsensical) is that doctrine here is not given primacy; hence, what we have is a non-Catholic variant of ecumenism. The second fundamental problem is that since the SSPX does not demand from Rome the same as part of the agreement (that is, to teach the Faith and condemn the errors of Vatican II against the same Faith), contained within this position is an implicit but intrinsic proposition that Rome has the right to teach those errors it currently holds; hence, what we have is a non-Catholic variant of religious liberty. These two problems reduce the Faith to the level of opinion as is evident within the conciliar church and in its relations with the world. Unity for the sake of unity, whether intended or not, becomes the primary focus; however, a unity not based on the Faith is not of God.

    Given the serious flaws with the first necessary condition, the SSPX leaders and the priests who explicitly consent to it are co-operating in objective grave sin against the Faith, at least on the level of principle. For those SSPX priests who remain silent, we can conclude without rash judgement that they let the SSPX leaders speak for them; therefore, they too co-operate in objective grave sin.

    Let us pray and hope that good-willed priests come to realize the grave position of their society’s official policy and take the necessary course of action, that is, to speak out against it no matter the consequences.

    http://www.ecclesiamilitans.com/2013/08/04/okay-to-a-canonical-regularization-without-romes-conversion/

    Offline Viva Cristo Rey

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7434
    • Reputation: +2091/-262
    • Gender: Female
    Grave Problem with SSPX Policy
    « Reply #1 on: August 04, 2013, 08:01:44 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • The novus ordo made a Lutheran minister with wife and children.  He was quickly made pastor of one the biggest parishes in the area.  
     
    And a Anglican bishop with wife was made Catholic priest with voting rights on us conference of catholic bishops.

    They are all allowed to keep part of their original religion
    No one even knows if the wife and kids fully converted to novus ordo.


    To live with the Saints in Heaven is all bliss and glory....To live with the saints on Earth is just another story!  (unknown)


    Offline Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 18160
    • Reputation: +8250/-634
    • Gender: Male
    Grave Problem with SSPX Policy
    « Reply #2 on: August 06, 2013, 03:43:51 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • .

    I saw this post yesterday and I presumed that someone would
    reply substantively, and now, I'm a bit surprised that no one has.



    Quote from: Ecclesia Militans
    Bishop Bernard Fellay’s Doctrinal Declaration of April 15, 2012 is the worst act of His Excellency as Superior General of the Society of St. Pius X.



    Yes, this AFD is pretty bad stuff.  And it's actually
    understandable that +Fellay would want it to be kept from
    publication and from public view.  I had actually wondered if
    he would even dare to deny that it was authentic.  But he
    has not, even though he has expressed great disapproval
    of its unauthorized publication.


    Quote
    With this Declaration, he was willing to sell the farm to Modernist Rome; however, for some reason or another, Rome refused.



    It was interesting that +TdM was quoted saying that he
    thought it was the intervention of Our Lady that prevented
    apostate Rome from accepting the AFD, and it was a miracle.


    Quote
    Against those of the Resistance who claim that the mindset of this Declaration has infected the SSPX from the top down (and it certainly has) and therefore one cannot remain silent, many priests and faithful who remain within the SSPX and refuse to speak out against the Declaration counterclaim that the Declaration has not become SSPX policy; therefore, there is no need to speak out.



    I have heard them say that it is very fortunate that this
    has not been made into a 'deal' with modernist Rome,
    and then without taking a breath, they say that furthermore,
    +F has "rescinded it."  Yet they are unable to explain how
    anyone can "rescind" what they believe.  This AFD is a
    declaration of what the SSPX believes.  How can the author
    claim that the Society no longer believes this?  It makes no
    sense.  It does not add up.


    Quote
    Since principle seems to be so important to these priests and faithful (and it should very well be), let us then look at what has indeed become official SSPX policy.

    The SSPX General Chapter Statement of July 14, 2012 states that the SSPX superiors have “determined and approved the necessary conditions for an eventual canonical normalization”. The Statement itself does not outline these necessary conditions; rather, Fr. Christian Thouvenot, Secretary General of the SSPX, sent an internal letter to all SSPX priests in which the necessary conditions (and unnecessary conditions???) were outlined. The first condition is as follows:



    It is noteworthy that the 6 Conditions were not made part of
    the GC Statement of July 14th.  Why would their distribution be
    delayed by weeks, and only sent out to the priests?  And were
    the priests likewise instructed not to make these Conditions
    public?  It would seem so, because no priest did publicize them.
    We on CI only learned about them because certain Resistance
    priests made them known, and +W put them in his EC (sometime
    in September or October? -before or after his illicit 'expulsion'?)


    Quote
    “Freedom to keep, to transmit and to teach the sane doctrine of the unchanging magisterium of the Church and of the unchangeable truth of Divine Tradition ; freedom to defend, to correct and to reprove, even in public, those responsible for the errors or novelties of modernism, of liberalism, of The Second Vatican Council and their consequences.”



    I find it curious that here, the phrase, "unchanging magisterium"
    is used, whereas in the AFD the phrases, "the later Pontifical
    Magisterium,"and "the truths previously taught by the
    Magisterium of the Church" and "with this Magisterium" are
    found all in one paragraph (III.5) of the AFD.


    Quote
    This necessary condition is the only one directly related to doctrine; hence, it is the most important. With this first condition, the SSPX is basically willing to set its doctrinal differences with Rome aside, so long as Rome gives the SSPX the right to teach the Faith and condemn the errors of Vatican II against the same Faith.



    The first thing that comes to mind to me with this is, that this
    "Faith" could be something very different to the Modernists
    in Rome than it is to traditional Catholics, and, if so, the whole
    content of this first "necessary Condition" collapses into nothing.


    Quote
    The first fundamental problem with this position (while overlooking the fact that to ask for the right to do what is commanded by God is itself nonsensical) is that doctrine here is not given primacy; hence, what we have is a non-Catholic variant of ecumenism.



    I would rather say, a non-Catholic variant of FALSE ecumenism.
    It's important to 'nail down' the falsehood of ecumenism,
    because the Modernists and neo-Modernists alike tend to
    forget that ecumenism is false.  We should remind them!


    Quote
    The second fundamental problem is that since the SSPX does not demand from Rome the same, as part of the agreement (that is, to teach the Faith and condemn the errors of Vatican II against the same Faith).  Contained within this position is an implicit but intrinsic proposition that Rome has the right to teach those errors it currently holds; hence, what we have is a non-Catholic variant of religious liberty.



    This is a very good observation.  It is, by the way, related to
    my concern that the word "faith" means something else to
    the Modernists than it does to real Catholics, and the
    consequences thereof.


    Quote
    These two problems reduce the Faith to the level of opinion as is evident within the conciliar church and in its relations with the world. Unity for the sake of unity, whether intended or not, becomes the primary focus; however, a unity not based on the Faith is not of God.



    I would say "a unity not based on the one, true Faith is not
    of God." Again, Modernists need to be reminded of the
    uniqueness of the Catholic Faith, for they are prone to
    deconstruct that for their nefarious purposes, and they must
    be stopped in their tracks.


    Quote
    Given the serious flaws with the first necessary condition, the SSPX leaders and the priests who explicitly consent to it are co-operating in objective grave sin against the Faith, at least on the level of principle.



    While this term "objective grave sin against the Faith" might
    be well enough stated, it should not be overlooked that this
    is, according to the Angelic Doctor, the most serious of all
    sins, for it is sin against faith that separates us from God,
    and separation from God is the essence of eternal
    damnation.  Therefore, objective grave sin against the Faith
    is the essential cause of anyone in the depths of hell forever.


    Quote
    For those SSPX priests who remain silent, we can conclude without rash judgement that they let the SSPX leaders speak for them; therefore, they too co-operate in objective grave sin.



    It would seem that any good priest who adequately thinks
    about this warning would have much less scruples about
    standing up to do the right thing, come what may!


    Quote
    Let us pray and hope that good-willed priests come to realize the grave position of their Society’s official policy and take the necessary course of action, that is, to speak out against it no matter the consequences.

    http://www.ecclesiamilitans.com/2013/08/04/okay-to-a-canonical-regularization-without-romes-conversion/


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

    Offline Ecclesia Militans

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 984
    • Reputation: +14/-35
    Grave Problem with SSPX Policy
    « Reply #3 on: August 06, 2013, 06:34:44 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Neil Obstat
    I would rather say, a non-Catholic variant of FALSE ecumenism.

    Neil, thank you for your comments.  There is such a thing as true ecumenism and that would be the conversion of those in false religions to Catholicism.  By placing the term "false" in front of ecumenism is not necessary because I stated that it is a "non-Catholic" variant.



    Offline Ecclesia Militans

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 984
    • Reputation: +14/-35
    Grave Problem with SSPX Policy
    « Reply #5 on: August 20, 2013, 02:00:38 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Due to technical problems, I have had to change the link to the article of this thread.

    http://www.ecclesiamilitans.com/2013/08/20/okay-to-a-canonical-regularization-without-romes-conversiongrave-problem/

     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16