Author Topic: Great Post on AQ Condemns Bishop Fellay  (Read 10397 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline SeanJohnson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4718
  • Reputation: +4136/-1447
  • Gender: Male
Great Post on AQ Condemns Bishop Fellay
« on: May 07, 2012, 08:57:45 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Matthew-

       I hope you will allow me to paste this AQ post here, as it is sure to find the delete button over there in a matter of minutes.

       It was posted by a "Br. Joseph."

       I do not know if he is an actual religious or not......



    Br. Joseph



    Joined: 05 May 2008
    Posts: 104

    Posted: Mon May 07, 2012 8:16 pm    Post subject: Re: Society of Saint Pius X awaits “yes” answer from Pope   
    This comment on Andrea Tornielli's atricle was previously posted but deleted. I think that decision should be respectfully reconsidered. I expect that it would meet with the approval of three of the bishops of the SSPX.

    Br. Joseph

    Br. Joseph wrote:
    "Lefebvrians" await “yes” answer from Pope
    The process for the Society of St. Pius X’s return to full communion with Rome is expected to be concluded by the end of May

    andrea tornielli
    vatican city
    5/6/12
    http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/homepage/the-vatican/detail/articolo/lefebvriani-lefbvrians-lefebvrianos-14930/


    This is a shallow piece of historical revisionism that demonstrates the principle that a half truth ends up with a greater lie. If this article were true, then everything we have heard in the past from the Bishop Fellay regarding a “state of emergency” has been nothing but a bag of air.

    Then again, on what possible grounds could Bishop Fellay have believed that a “state of emergency” actually existed? In truth, the “doctrinal discussions” that were conducted between Bishop Fellay and the Vatican were never doctrinal discussions; they were an engagement in ecumenical dialogue. It was an ecumenical dialogue by the consent of both parties. It could have been nothing else because both parties in the dialogue accepted the “hermeneutic of continuity” paradigm of Pope Benedict. Under this model there can be neither real truths to define nor errors to condemn, only unfortunate misunderstandings to be ironed out. The end of ecumenical dialogue is an accommodation of error and an utterly false human hope that a mutual understanding will forge a future convergence in doctrine and worship. It has been evident for a long time that Bishop Fellay would sign the two part Doctrinal Preamble.

    The first part of the Doctrinal Preamble is an agreement not to criticize the “authentic magisterium,” that is, the person of the Pope, except in the most measured and benign terms regardless of the gravity of any doctrinal error or sin committed. The second part requires his signature to the 1989 “Profession of Faith” which includes his internal “submission of the mind and will,” or as Lumen Gentium phrases it, “submission of the soul” to any and every human judgment of the “authentic magisterium” that he has already agreed not to criticize. This is an act of idolatry because an unconditional internal submission of the mind and will, a submission of the soul, can only be given to God. If the “authentic magisterium” wants to obtain the internal submission mind and will, the submission of the soul, it can only do so to God, and this can only be done by engaging the infallible Magisterium, that is, the attribute of infallibility which God has endowed His Church.

    Bishop Felly has betrayed Archbishop Lefebvre, the priest and religious of the SSPX and all traditional Catholics by the most callous indifferentism, that is, seeking place for truth to sit at the table of errors. The great archetype of all betrayal belongs to a Catholic prelate, Bishop Judas Iscariot, and this betrayal is that to which all betrayals are necessarily measured.

    Judas had no idea about the gravity of his sin which is evidenced by his subsequent suicide. Once he had decided that his worldly ambitions would not be met by remaining in the company of our Lord, he made the prudential decision to get what he could get before moving along. He never imagined the consequences of his sin. After all, Judas had witnessed the attempt of the Nazarenes to throw Jesus off a cliff. He saw the Pharisees attempt numerous times to apprehend Jesus without success even taking up stones to cast at Him, yet they were never able to make good on their designs. Thus his advice to the Pharisees, “Whomsoever I shall kiss, that is he; lay hold on him, and lead him away carefully” (Mark 14:44). Judas thought that he could collect his 30 pieces of silver, deliver Jesus to the Jews and then slip away from Jesus as easily as Jesus would slip away from the Jews. The substance of the crime in itself is as common as a weed in a garden. What made Judas’ crime so exceptional are the accidents, that is, the person of Jesus, the Son of God, and the dignity of state to which Judas had been raised, an apostle and bishop of the Catholic Church.

    The betrayal by Bishop Fellay is similar in this regard in that the gravity of the crime is due to the nature of the offender and the subject of offense, and in both, the matter is most grave. Archbishop Lefebvre in his last communication to Cardinal Ratzinger called for necessary revisions to heretical statements in the documents of Vatican II. The proximate cause for the consecration of the four bishops in 1988 was the Prayer Meeting at Assisi. Archbishop Lefebvre’s letter to the cardinals in opposition to this blasphemy was never retracted. Nothing has changed since that time. Bishop Fellay had no business accepting the consecration in 1988 if he rejected Archbishop Lefebvre’s position on these essential points.

    During Bishop Fellay’s ecumenical dialogue over the last two years Pope Benedict has greeted Rowan Williams, the pretend Archbishop of Canterbury, and his female “priestette” in liturgical costume, prayed with Jews in synagogues, visited the monastery shrine of the Martin Luther, told Catholics that the doctrine of Religious Liberty “demands” their acceptance of Moslem mosques being built in Germany, convoked Assisi Prayer Meeting III, approved the Neo-catechumenal Way, pushed his “reform of the reform” that seeks to create a single rite of Mass by integrating the “ordinary” and the “extra-ordinary” forms of the “one Roman rite,” introduced his “new evangelization” that seeks convergence the Catholic Church and not conversion for any Jew, infidel, heretic or schismatic; a pretended “unity in diversity.” He has called for the establishment of a one-world government with “teeth” with a one-world financial and monetary institution as a necessary measure to insure world justice and peace. Not one of these acts had any bearing upon the ecumenical dialogue between Bishop Fellay and the Vatican. All these acts are objectively grave sins against the faith to which Bishop Fellay has by God’s providence been called to defend. He has defended nothing.

    Bishop Fellay was consecrated a bishop by Archbishop Lefebvre for this very purpose to defend doctrinal truth and liturgical purity of the Latin rite. Traditional Catholics have made countless sacrifices over the last fifty years to preserve the Faith and purity of liturgical practice for themselves and their families. When at last the opportunity is presented to effectively demand from Rome a formal declaration from the Chair of Peter on matters of doctrine and liturgical worship it is wasted away in ecumenical dialogue.

    A few years ago I traveled to a SSPX chapel where the sacrament of confirmation was administered by Bishop Fellay. Bishop Fellay gave a talk that was to be followed by a question and answer session. The talk began in mid-afternoon with a large crown present. After two and one-half hours of boring monologue the audience dwindled to a handful. At last, I could not stay any longer so I never learned if the question and answer session was ever done. During Bishop Fellay’s talk he made one interesting and revealing remark. He spoke about a Novus Ordo priest, “out of spite,” going into a wine cellar and saying, “This is My blood” and consecrating all the wine in the cellar, going into a bakery and saying, “This is My body,” and consecrating all the bread in the bakery. I was dumbfounded to learn that someone with such a profound ignorance of basic sacramental theology was directing the defense of traditional Catholic doctrine and worship.

    Bishop Fellay will soon learn that no one likes a traitor, not those he betrays or those who benefit from his betrayal. Our Lord’s warning is most applicable, “And unto whomsoever much is given, of him much shall be required: and to whom they have committed much, of him they will demand the more” (Luke 12-48). Dante places Judas in the very depth of hell because of the sin of ingratitude and ingratitude is the characteristic quality of betrayal. I will not be surprised to someday learn that is was Bishop Fellay who initiated the contact with Rome asking, “What will you give me, and I will deliver (them) unto you?” (Matt. 26:15).

    Br. Joseph
    Moderators   
            
    Romans 5:20 "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    -I retract any and all statements I have made that are incongruent with the True Faith, and apologize for ever having made them-

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4718
    • Reputation: +4136/-1447
    • Gender: Male
    Great Post on AQ Condemns Bishop Fellay
    « Reply #1 on: May 07, 2012, 09:40:08 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  •    One of the posters over there took offense at "Br Joseph's" plain language.

       Here is his response:


    Br. Joseph



    Joined: 05 May 2008
    Posts: 104

    Posted: Mon May 07, 2012 8:41 pm    Post subject:   
    Catherine wrote:
    Your post got removed last night and with good cause. How dare you call one of Christ's anointed a Betrayer and compare him to Judas. You disrespect a priest, not to mention your words are filled with speculation and calumny. Shame on you.


    Catherine:

    Judas was “one of Christ’s anointed” and nearly every heresy, nearly every betrayal, in the Church was started by “one of Christ’s anointed” including the mess we have in the Church today.

    Calumny is the “untruthful imputation of some fault not actually committed.” If I have lied, then point out the lie; and if I have spoken truthfully, why the complaint?

    There is little speculation in my post.

    Br. Joseph
    Romans 5:20 "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    -I retract any and all statements I have made that are incongruent with the True Faith, and apologize for ever having made them-


    Offline brainglitch

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 410
    • Reputation: +1/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Great Post on AQ Condemns Bishop Fellay
    « Reply #2 on: May 07, 2012, 09:49:06 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • The poster on AQ was correct in taking offense at Br. Joseph's calumny. Without proof, that is what his statement amounts to.

    Why can't people just wait and see.....arrrgghhhh....

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4718
    • Reputation: +4136/-1447
    • Gender: Male
    Great Post on AQ Condemns Bishop Fellay
    « Reply #3 on: May 07, 2012, 09:54:27 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: brainglitch
    The poster on AQ was correct in taking offense at Br. Joseph's calumny. Without proof, that is what his statement amounts to.

    Why can't people just wait and see.....arrrgghhhh....


      As "Br Joseph" says, "If I have lied, then point out the lie."
    Romans 5:20 "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    -I retract any and all statements I have made that are incongruent with the True Faith, and apologize for ever having made them-

    Offline brainglitch

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 410
    • Reputation: +1/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Great Post on AQ Condemns Bishop Fellay
    « Reply #4 on: May 07, 2012, 10:04:24 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • We'll take this for an example:

    Quote
    The first part of the Doctrinal Preamble is an agreement not to criticize the “authentic magisterium,” that is, the person of the Pope, except in the most measured and benign terms regardless of the gravity of any doctrinal error or sin committed.


    No one outside of senior Society and Vatican figures have ever seen the Preamble, and no info on it has been released. So I'm not really sure where this in-depth knowledge of the Preamble came from.

    Quote
    I will not be surprised to someday learn that is was Bishop Fellay who initiated the contact with Rome asking, “What will you give me, and I will deliver (them) unto you?” (Matt. 26:15).


    Since no agreement has been signed, one cannot say that Fellay is a traitor.

    He may be in the future, of course. If there is an agreement, and if it is bad, then perhaps he is. But I will suspend judgment on that until we know more. One cannot accuse someone of a sin without knowledge of the nature and extent of the sin. In this case, we're not even sure any sin has been committed. Ergo, this post constitutes rash judgment, IMHO.


    Offline Augstine Baker

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 985
    • Reputation: +274/-0
    • Gender: Male
      • h
    Great Post on AQ Condemns Bishop Fellay
    « Reply #5 on: May 07, 2012, 10:07:14 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • According to Father Pfluger, he and Archbishop Lefebvre were told in a meeting with the CDF that the Holy Father was eager for reconciliation and agreed that he would concede the Society's reservations about Vatican II and the Liturgy.

    http://eponymousflower.blogspot.com/2012/05/holy-father-ready-to-concede-societys.html

    Offline Francisco

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1101
    • Reputation: +823/-6
    • Gender: Male
    Great Post on AQ Condemns Bishop Fellay
    « Reply #6 on: May 08, 2012, 12:04:27 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Seraphim
    Quote from: brainglitch
    The poster on AQ was correct in taking offense at Br. Joseph's calumny. Without proof, that is what his statement amounts to.

    Why can't people just wait and see.....arrrgghhhh....


    As "Br Joseph" says, "If I have lied, then point out the lie."


    Well, once in the Vatican II Church they will find out that words like "calumny", "slander","detraction" ...are obsolete out there. "Don't be judgmental" one is kindly told. These hackneyed terms have been used to keep the troops in line. Look what they have been telling us over the years about the pope, the bishops, the curia ... the ones they are now running to kiss and make up with. What was that? Constructive criticism?

    Offline Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 18173
    • Reputation: +8255/-635
    • Gender: Male
    Great Post on AQ Condemns Bishop Fellay
    « Reply #7 on: May 08, 2012, 02:08:04 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: brainglitch
    Why can't people just wait and see.....arrrgghhhh....



    We don't have to "wait and see" anything to know that these things are a fact of history. They've already happened....

    Quote
    During Bishop Fellay’s ecumenical dialogue over the last two years Pope Benedict has greeted Rowan Williams, the pretend Archbishop of Canterbury, and his female “priestette” in liturgical costume,

    prayed with Jews in synagogues,

    visited the monastery shrine of Martin Luther,

    told Catholics that the doctrine of Religious Liberty “demands” their acceptance of Moslem mosques being built in Germany,

    convoked Assisi Prayer Meeting III,

    approved the Neo-catechumenal Way,

    pushed his “reform of the reform” that seeks to create a single rite of Mass by integrating the “ordinary” and the “extra-ordinary” forms of the “one Roman rite,”

    introduced his “new evangelization” that seeks convergence the Catholic Church and not conversion for any Jew, infidel, heretic or schismatic; a pretended “unity in diversity.”

    He has called for the establishment of a one-world government with “teeth” with a one-world financial and monetary institution as a necessary measure to insure world justice and peace.

    Not one of these acts had any bearing upon the ecumenical dialogue between Bishop Fellay and the Vatican.

    All these acts are objectively grave sins against the faith to which Bishop Fellay has by God’s providence been called to defend. He has defended nothing.


    I really find it impossible to imagine St. Athanasius, St. John Chrysostom, St. Ephrem, St. Dominic, St. Ignatius, or any others like them, standing by silently, and smiling for photo opps with the perpetrator, as Fellay has done.

    And of the 12 Apostles, I can only fathom Judas Iscariot doing this.

    Am I missing something?

    What is it that makes this okay?

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


    Offline brainglitch

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 410
    • Reputation: +1/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Great Post on AQ Condemns Bishop Fellay
    « Reply #8 on: May 08, 2012, 07:26:35 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    Am I missing something?

     What is it that makes this okay?


    The fact that Benedict is still the Pope, and is due the respect that his office deserves.

    Fellay was extremely critical of Assisi III: "Yes, we are deeply indignant, we vehemently protest against this repetition of the days at Assisi. Everything that we have said, everything that Archbishop Lefebvre had said at the time [of the first World Day of Prayer for Peace in Assisi in 1986], we repeat in our own name. It is evident, my dear brothers, that such a thing demands reparation........And here modern thinking makes truly bizarre sorts of projections: it pretends that all religions, ultimately, adore one and the same true God. That is absolutely false; it is even in Revelation; we find it already in the psalms, in Psalm 96:5, “All the gods of the Gentiles are devils!” They are devils. And Assisi will be full of devils! This is Revelation, this is the Faith of the Church; this is the teaching of the Church!
     Now where is continuity? "

    There are other examples, and quotes, if you will spend the time to do a simply Google search (or search with Ixquick if you would prefer not to be tracked by the NSA). It's really not that hard.

    If Bishop Williamson and Bishop de Mallerais say that the deal is bad, then I would side with them. My instinct right now is to say that a deal is a bad idea-not in principle, but considering the current circumstances. However, it may not be. We need more info in order to make a judgment like that.

    It is rash judgment to say that Fellay is a traitor. We don't know enough about his actions, that even if he has done something completely awful, we don't know and have no proof. Ergo, it would be rash judgment to say that he has betrayed us. Even if he ends up being guilty-you all have no proof. You are simply opposed to any deal with Rome, in principle, because the long years of separation have engendered a schismatic mentality, whether you admit it or not. Even if the Pope were to go celebrate a pontifical High Mass tomorrow, consecrate Russia, and announce a plan for gradually phasing out the  Novus Ordo- I believe the sedevacantists would say it was all a trap by "that dirty modernist!"


    PS.---Keep the downvotes coming. It is a privilege and an honor to defend the reputation of a bishop, being accused without sufficient evidence of wrongdoing by the pharisees of the traditionalist movement.


    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4718
    • Reputation: +4136/-1447
    • Gender: Male
    Great Post on AQ Condemns Bishop Fellay
    « Reply #9 on: May 08, 2012, 02:38:36 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: brainglitch
    Quote
    Am I missing something?

     What is it that makes this okay?


    The fact that Benedict is still the Pope, and is due the respect that his office deserves.

    Fellay was extremely critical of Assisi III: "Yes, we are deeply indignant, we vehemently protest against this repetition of the days at Assisi. Everything that we have said, everything that Archbishop Lefebvre had said at the time [of the first World Day of Prayer for Peace in Assisi in 1986], we repeat in our own name. It is evident, my dear brothers, that such a thing demands reparation........And here modern thinking makes truly bizarre sorts of projections: it pretends that all religions, ultimately, adore one and the same true God. That is absolutely false; it is even in Revelation; we find it already in the psalms, in Psalm 96:5, “All the gods of the Gentiles are devils!” They are devils. And Assisi will be full of devils! This is Revelation, this is the Faith of the Church; this is the teaching of the Church!
     Now where is continuity? "

    There are other examples, and quotes, if you will spend the time to do a simply Google search (or search with Ixquick if you would prefer not to be tracked by the NSA). It's really not that hard.

    If Bishop Williamson and Bishop de Mallerais say that the deal is bad, then I would side with them. My instinct right now is to say that a deal is a bad idea-not in principle, but considering the current circumstances. However, it may not be. We need more info in order to make a judgment like that.

    It is rash judgment to say that Fellay is a traitor. We don't know enough about his actions, that even if he has done something completely awful, we don't know and have no proof. Ergo, it would be rash judgment to say that he has betrayed us. Even if he ends up being guilty-you all have no proof. You are simply opposed to any deal with Rome, in principle, because the long years of separation have engendered a schismatic mentality, whether you admit it or not. Even if the Pope were to go celebrate a pontifical High Mass tomorrow, consecrate Russia, and announce a plan for gradually phasing out the  Novus Ordo- I believe the sedevacantists would say it was all a trap by "that dirty modernist!"


    PS.---Keep the downvotes coming. It is a privilege and an honor to defend the reputation of a bishop, being accused without sufficient evidence of wrongdoing by the pharisees of the traditionalist movement.



       Once again, you are still fixated in the quality of the imminent deal, rather than asking why we are talking about a deal at all while none of the doctrinal issues are resolved.

       At least have the honesty to admit this strategy is diametrically opposed not only to the path laid out by ABL and the post-1988 SSPX, but also to the path Bishop Fellay gave lip service to before he had enough of his men in the right places to push it through.
    Romans 5:20 "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    -I retract any and all statements I have made that are incongruent with the True Faith, and apologize for ever having made them-

    Offline Nishant

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2126
    • Reputation: +1362/-80
    • Gender: Male
    Great Post on AQ Condemns Bishop Fellay
    « Reply #10 on: May 09, 2012, 07:55:05 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • It's amazing how people are about ready to cast Bishop Fellay to the dogs. Yet, what Rome has agreed to now is nothing compared to about 20 years ago. 24 years ago Rome demanded all sorts of concessions from the Society as "preconditions" to any accord. Here is an excerpt of the May 5, 1988 letter.

    Quote
    1. Promise to be always faithful to the Catholic Church and the Roman Pontiff, her Supreme Pastor, Vicar of Christ, Successor of Blessed Peter in his primacy as Head of the Body of Bishops.

    2. We declare our acceptance of the doctrine contained in number 25 of the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium of the Second Vatican Council on the ecclesial Magisterium and the adherence which is due to that magisterium.

    3. With regard to certain points taught by the Second Vatican Council or concerning later reforms of the liturgy and law, and which seem to us able to be reconciled with the Tradition only with difficulty, we commit ourselves to have a positive attitude of study and of communication with the Holy See, avoiding all polemics.

    4. We declare in addition to recognize the validity of the Sacrifice of the Mass and of the Sacraments celebrated with the intention of doing that which the Church does and according to the rites indicated in the typical editions of the Roman Missal and the Rituals of the Sacraments promulgated by Popes Paul VI and John Paul II.

    5. Finally, we promise to respect the common discipline of the Church and ecclesiastical laws, especially those contained in the Code of Canon Law promulgated by Pope John Paul II, without prejudice to the special discipline granted to the Society by particular law.


    For the most part, particularly with regard to the validity of the new rites, this is more or less what Archbishop Lefebvre had accepted all through his life. I wonder if those who are stridently opposed to any sort of agreement with the Roman Church even in principle share Archbishop Lefebvre's position on the validity of the New Mass? Many rejected all talk with Rome altogether even at that time, and still do, and insisted that the Archbishop shouldn't engage in it at all. But Archbishop Lefebvre didn't listen to them.

    After the episcopal consecrations, Rome issued an excommunication and that was that. Archbishop Lefebvre said he would henceforth raise discussions to the doctrinal level as a precondition. But is it accurate to say the Society under Bishop Fellay has departed from this? Let's see.

    Aboutt the beginning of Pope Benedict's pontificate, Bishop Fellay laid three preconditions before he would agree to anything with Rome - 1. The recognition of every priest's right to celebrate the traditional Mass, 2. The deprivation of all judicial effect of the letter of excommunication and finally, most important of all, and as Archbishop Lefebvre had always wished, 3. Doctrinal discussions on the problems raised by the Council.

    It should have been astonishing that a group allegedly under the penalty of excommunication should lay preconditions on Rome! But more astonishing still,  was that each and every one of the preconditions were summarily granted by the Holy Father! Some like "Br.Joseph" murmur at all this in what seems to be *ingratitude*, as if this were nothing remarkable at all, and instead go all out in unreasonable comparisons and personal attacks.

    But should the SSPX do nothing else, it has already done much more for the restoration and preservation of the traditional sacraments than all other groups that say the traditional Mass put together. And since there is a provision for instruction in the extraordinary form in seminaries starting from the time Summorum Pontificum was issued, there is much hope for the future, along with the possibility of correcting possible defects of intention in priests who are offering the new Mass that Archbishop Lefebvre was gravely concerned about.

    Since Biblical analogies are flying around, let's try another. Like Daniel in the lion's den before King Darius of Babylon, Bishop Fellay stood before Pope Benedict. With detractors and naysayers on all sides, he nonetheless came out victorious and unharmed on these points, having conceded nothing and obtained much. What then? Should he demand indefinitely more preconditions?

    To those finally who object that the SSPX has implicitly or explicitly surrendered its doctrinal positions, that is again completely without foundation. They should read the public SSPX response to a Vatican appointed theologian.

    The teachings of the following Popes in these respective Encyclicals were cited.

    Gregory XVI - Mirari Vos
    Pius IX - Quanta Cura, the Syllabus, Pastor Aeternus (Vatican I)
    Leo XIII - Satis Cognitum
    Pius XI - Quas Primas, Mortalium Animos
    Pius XII - Mystici Corporis, Humani Generis.

    Four vital issues in the Council that are problematic were named and discussed in light of the doctrines laid out in the Magisterial texts of the past.

    For reference that this is the way Catholic theologians have always settled disputes on difficult questions, and to the Catholic doctrine on that intrinsic relation that exists between the teaching Church and Tradition here is the 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia on the subject.

    On the contrary, it is the Holy Father and those Roman churchmen that have actually interacted with the SSPX who now know their objections cannot be dismissed out of hand or met merely with name-calling and threats and it seems are only beginning to appreciate the scope of the problem and require serious study in answering.

    Bishop Athanasius Schneider, Msgr.Gherardini and others have begun to openly speak about some of the difficulties and ask for some sort of definitive response from the Holy Father. I am reasonably sure Archbishop Lefebvre would have been delighted with all this, which was unthinkable not too long ago. The onus is now on Rome either to show a clear continuity with these doctrines of the past, or else to issue what will be regarded either as a clarification or a correction of the documents of the Council.

    Sure, much remains to be done. But if shepherds stay away solely for fear of the wolves, what becomes of the sheep and the lambs? May the SSPX be Peter's right hand in driving back the liberal, heteredox hordes in the clergy and within the Church today to the gates of hell from whence they came.
    "Never will anyone who says his Rosary every day become a formal heretic ... This is a statement I would sign in my blood." St. Montfort, Secret of the Rosary. I support the FSSP, the SSPX and other priests who work for the restoration of doctrinal orthodoxy and liturgical orthopraxis in the Church. I accept Vatican II if interpreted in the light of Tradition and canonisations as an infallible declaration that a person is in Heaven. Sedevacantism is schismatic and Ecclesiavacantism is heretical.


    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4718
    • Reputation: +4136/-1447
    • Gender: Male
    Great Post on AQ Condemns Bishop Fellay
    « Reply #11 on: May 09, 2012, 08:37:43 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Nishant2011
    It's amazing how people are about ready to cast Bishop Fellay to the dogs. Yet, what Rome has agreed to now is nothing compared to about 20 years ago. 24 years ago Rome demanded all sorts of concessions from the Society as "preconditions" to any accord. Here is an excerpt of the May 5, 1988 letter.

    Quote
    1. Promise to be always faithful to the Catholic Church and the Roman Pontiff, her Supreme Pastor, Vicar of Christ, Successor of Blessed Peter in his primacy as Head of the Body of Bishops.

    2. We declare our acceptance of the doctrine contained in number 25 of the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium of the Second Vatican Council on the ecclesial Magisterium and the adherence which is due to that magisterium.

    3. With regard to certain points taught by the Second Vatican Council or concerning later reforms of the liturgy and law, and which seem to us able to be reconciled with the Tradition only with difficulty, we commit ourselves to have a positive attitude of study and of communication with the Holy See, avoiding all polemics.

    4. We declare in addition to recognize the validity of the Sacrifice of the Mass and of the Sacraments celebrated with the intention of doing that which the Church does and according to the rites indicated in the typical editions of the Roman Missal and the Rituals of the Sacraments promulgated by Popes Paul VI and John Paul II.

    5. Finally, we promise to respect the common discipline of the Church and ecclesiastical laws, especially those contained in the Code of Canon Law promulgated by Pope John Paul II, without prejudice to the special discipline granted to the Society by particular law.


    For the most part, particularly with regard to the validity of the new rites, this is more or less what Archbishop Lefebvre had accepted all through his life. I wonder if those who are stridently opposed to any sort of agreement with the Roman Church even in principle share Archbishop Lefebvre's position on the validity of the New Mass? Many rejected all talk with Rome altogether even at that time, and still do, and insisted that the Archbishop shouldn't engage in it at all. But Archbishop Lefebvre didn't listen to them.

    After the episcopal consecrations, Rome issued an excommunication and that was that. Archbishop Lefebvre said he would henceforth raise discussions to the doctrinal level as a precondition. But is it accurate to say the Society under Bishop Fellay has departed from this? Let's see.

    Aboutt the beginning of Pope Benedict's pontificate, Bishop Fellay laid three preconditions before he would agree to anything with Rome - 1. The recognition of every priest's right to celebrate the traditional Mass, 2. The deprivation of all judicial effect of the letter of excommunication and finally, most important of all, and as Archbishop Lefebvre had always wished, 3. Doctrinal discussions on the problems raised by the Council.

    It should have been astonishing that a group allegedly under the penalty of excommunication should lay preconditions on Rome! But more astonishing still,  was that each and every one of the preconditions were summarily granted by the Holy Father! Some like "Br.Joseph" murmur at all this in what seems to be *ingratitude*, as if this were nothing remarkable at all, and instead go all out in unreasonable comparisons and personal attacks.

    But should the SSPX do nothing else, it has already done much more for the restoration and preservation of the traditional sacraments than all other groups that say the traditional Mass put together. And since there is a provision for instruction in the extraordinary form in seminaries starting from the time Summorum Pontificum was issued, there is much hope for the future, along with the possibility of correcting possible defects of intention in priests who are offering the new Mass that Archbishop Lefebvre was gravely concerned about.

    Since Biblical analogies are flying around, let's try another. Like Daniel in the lion's den before King Darius of Babylon, Bishop Fellay stood before Pope Benedict. With detractors and naysayers on all sides, he nonetheless came out victorious and unharmed on these points, having conceded nothing and obtained much. What then? Should he demand indefinitely more preconditions?

    To those finally who object that the SSPX has implicitly or explicitly surrendered its doctrinal positions, that is again completely without foundation. They should read the public SSPX response to a Vatican appointed theologian.

    The teachings of the following Popes in these respective Encyclicals were cited.

    Gregory XVI - Mirari Vos
    Pius IX - Quanta Cura, the Syllabus, Pastor Aeternus (Vatican I)
    Leo XIII - Satis Cognitum
    Pius XI - Quas Primas, Mortalium Animos
    Pius XII - Mystici Corporis, Humani Generis.

    Four vital issues in the Council that are problematic were named and discussed in light of the doctrines laid out in the Magisterial texts of the past.

    For reference that this is the way Catholic theologians have always settled disputes on difficult questions, and to the Catholic doctrine on that intrinsic relation that exists between the teaching Church and Tradition here is the 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia on the subject.

    On the contrary, it is the Holy Father and those Roman churchmen that have actually interacted with the SSPX who now know their objections cannot be dismissed out of hand or met merely with name-calling and threats and it seems are only beginning to appreciate the scope of the problem and require serious study in answering.

    Bishop Athanasius Schneider, Msgr.Gherardini and others have begun to openly speak about some of the difficulties and ask for some sort of definitive response from the Holy Father. I am reasonably sure Archbishop Lefebvre would have been delighted with all this, which was unthinkable not too long ago. The onus is now on Rome either to show a clear continuity with these doctrines of the past, or else to issue what will be regarded either as a clarification or a correction of the documents of the Council.

    Sure, much remains to be done. But if shepherds stay away solely for fear of the wolves, what becomes of the sheep and the lambs? May the SSPX be Peter's right hand in driving back the liberal, heteredox hordes in the clergy and within the Church today to the gates of hell from whence they came.


       Still fixating on the quality of the deal, ratheer than asking why we are talking about a deal at all the doctrinal issues remain.

       Any talk of a deal while Rome is unconverted is an implicit acceptance of dogmatic pluralism in the Church.

       No Catholic, much less Archbishop Lefebvre, would stand for this!
    Romans 5:20 "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    -I retract any and all statements I have made that are incongruent with the True Faith, and apologize for ever having made them-

    Offline brainglitch

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 410
    • Reputation: +1/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Great Post on AQ Condemns Bishop Fellay
    « Reply #12 on: May 09, 2012, 10:34:03 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Everyone is asking "Why a deal with doctrinal questions unaddressed?"

    It's a good question. Instead of flying off the handle and making unfounded accusations , I started to think.....

    Fellay, Schmidberger, etc., have always been adamant that doctrinal questions needed to be addressed; that was the whole point of the doctrinal discussions with Rome. Note that, according to Bishop Fellay, those talks did not go particularly well. Then, the Pope steps in, and offers the SSPX this  "Doctrinal Preamble". What is very interesting about this is all of the  "clarifications" that the Preamble has gone through. We don't know much of the Preamble, but still less of the clarifications. Which raised an interesting question:

    What were the clarifications about? The Preamble addresses doctrine, soo..........the clarifications supplied by the SSPX, and accepted by Rome are about doctrine as well? It is an interesting possibility.

    Once the Doctrinal Premable is officially published, we may find out that the doctrinal questions have been addressed. How they have been addressed remains to be seen, but given the splendid articles by Fr. Gleize, I would think that the SSPX would be pretty happy with it.

    It may also explain the super-secrecy regarding the Preamble. Everyone has been wondering, why so secret? The faithful have the right to know! Normally, yes, they would, however.....

    If Benedict XVI is making major concessions to the SSPX (let's say, for example, he agreed to a major revision of the Vatican's stance on religious liberty, in one or more of these clarifications), what do you think the reaction would be of most of the hierarchy? A few prelates, such as Bishop Schneider and Cardinal Burke, might be OK with it, but most of them would completely freak out. It may even result in a major schism in some of the most liberal hierarchies (e.g. France, Germany, the Netherlands). Not to mention the flak the Pope wold take from the media and our "elder brothers".

    In short, do not think that the doctrinal issues have not already been addressed.

    I think it's important to remember that Benedict, while still clinging to Vatican II, knows that the "reform" is dying. The stats are there for all to see. Vatican II was a grave wound to the Church. If you read between the lines of what he says, you can see that he knows that. He, however, is so attached to the Council that he cannot bear the thought that it could have been such a terrible mistake. Like most old men, he cannot bear the thought of admitting that his life's work was in vain, that his "brilliant" idea to reconcile the Church and the modern world was a disastrous error. But he knows that things cannot continue as they are now.

    So, he invents the idea of a "hermeneutic of continuity". Take Vatican II and reinforce the decaying structure of the New order with Tradition. That is why he was such a  huge supporter of Ecclesia Dei, Opus Dei, etc.

    Now, he sees that those structures cannot save the Church....and so he is insistent on getting the authentic Tradition held by the SSPX within the Church as soon as possible, to get it "into the open" so to speak, and to get the Tradition held by the Society into the minds of the the new priest, the next generation. The Society was founded to preserve the doctrinal integrity of the priesthood......and they may be able to do just that (note the building of a very large new seminary in Virginia....hmmmm....). I don't think he is doing it because he is some sort of top-secret Traditionalist, or because he wants to destroy the SSPX. The reality is far more complicated. Rather, he sees no alternative other than the destruction of the Church. As Bishop Williamson has so often said, the mind is clouded by modern thought, which is so destructive to clear thinking and decisive actions.

    So, the quality of the deal is important;; if the SSPX can get total anonymity and the support of the Pope to say or do whatever they want-which it certainly looks like they will get-the they may have an opportunity for an end-run around the Vatican II-infected hierarchy. If not, then it would be highly premature to "make a deal". But we will see.

    PS-It would be interesting if the Pope simply recognizes the SSPX without demanding acceptance of the Preamble. There have been hints of that lately. While it would be surprising, it would, I think, only reinforce my theory. Pope Benedict is desperate, and the Society mey be able to use that desperation to it's advantage.

    Quote
      Any talk of a deal while Rome is unconverted is an implicit acceptance of dogmatic pluralism in the Church.


    Not necessarily, see above.

    Quote
      No Catholic, much less Archbishop Lefebvre, would stand for this!




    a) So, everyone who does not share your opinion about the negotiations with Rome is a non-Catholic. Right.

    b) Archbishop Lefebvre did sign a deal, but only retracted when he realized that Rome would most likely not allow him to consecrate bishops, which would have spelled doom for the Society. Ratzinger was not nearly as desperate in 1988-he believed, along with JPII, that the Vatican II experiment could still work. Now, with clerical rebellion in Europe, the rebellion of women religious in America, the statistics showing the massive decline of the Church, the threat of schism in Austria and Germany-things are far worse, and far more desperate. I doubt that the same negotiations would be going on now if it were not for the fact that Benedict is desperate, and sees the Society as a way out for Vatican II.

    PPS---I may be completely wrong on this, but I certainly hope not!


    Offline s2srea

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5020
    • Reputation: +3826/-28
    • Gender: Male
    Great Post on AQ Condemns Bishop Fellay
    « Reply #13 on: May 09, 2012, 11:00:43 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Brainglitch, you are reacting to this very maturely. Well done.


    Offline s2srea

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5020
    • Reputation: +3826/-28
    • Gender: Male
    Great Post on AQ Condemns Bishop Fellay
    « Reply #14 on: May 09, 2012, 11:19:36 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Jitpring
    So much rash judgment from these wild-eyed nuts. Sad.


    True, they're like old 'flibbertigibbets'. I'm not for a deal, but this is a bunch of womanly gossip.

    "Did you hear what (insert member's name here from ignis ardens) said they heard from so-and-so...."

    "Well, I have it on good word that..."

    "We just know that these are facts..."


    Everything about their babble begs the question, though their concern is understandable.

    Stop creating hype until something official is said. Be men, and make these important spiritual decisions for you and your families, based on solid evidence, and not mere hearsay and 2nd hand rumors, which is all I've seen until now.

     

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