Author Topic: Great Post on AQ Condemns Bishop Fellay (Read 11524 times)

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #15 on:** May 09, 2012, 12:09:10 PM »

Quote

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.

You're taking as a premise the presumption that the "doctrinal Preamble"
addresses doctrine. And you proceed ahead from that foundation.

It's an exercise in thinking, I'll give you that.
However, what if the doctrinal Preamble does not really address Church doctrine?

What if it kicks around heretical doctrine, under the guise of Church teaching, like
Vatican II did -- isn't the unclean spirit of Vatican II the problem in the first place?

It seems to me that this is more than likely, because it goes a long way
to explaining why all the secrecy.

I mean, you're willing to acknowledge that Benedict XVI is practically hog-tied
to Vatican II, so why is it such a stretch to expect that he also harbors a great
attachment to promoting the bad teachings of Vatican II? What else would
be the point of his "hermeneutic of continuity?"

This whole discussion could come down to what we mean when we say
"doctrine." The very title "doctrinal Preamble" would seem to be a docuмent
that addresses doctrine, and we presume it means good doctrine.
(Abp. Lefebvre made that mistake in 1965.)

But doctrine can be erroneous: if it were Buddhist doctrine, or Mohammedan
doctrine or Zoroastrian doctrine, for example. And take a second look at
the lineup of characters at Assisi III ... what about their doctrine?

When you rub elbows with axle grease, don't be surprised if your elbows
get greasy. You might still have your authority, but you'll have authority
with greasy elbows.

s2srea · « **Reply #16 on:** May 09, 2012, 01:47:10 PM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat

Quote

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.

You're taking as a premise the presumption that the "doctrinal Preamble"
addresses doctrine. And you proceed ahead from that foundation.

Was that a wild position to take? What other position should one take? That doctrine is not addressed in the doctrine preamble?

Quote

It's an exercise in thinking, I'll give you that.
However, what if the doctrinal Preamble does not really address Church doctrine?
What if it kicks around heretical doctrine, under the guise of Church teaching, like
Vatican II did -- isn't the unclean spirit of Vatican II the problem in the first place?

What if the sky turns purple? What if you grow an extra leg out of your chest?

When that time comes, we can say for sure, but why play with what if's, and get excited and flushed?

Quote

It seems to me that this is more than likely, because it goes a long way
to explaining why all the secrecy.

And if what's likely to you or I or the thousands of other interested Catholics is worth fretting over?

How about we wait to see what actually happens?

Quote

I mean, you're willing to acknowledge that Benedict XVI is practically hog-tied to Vatican II, so why is it such a stretch to expect that he also harbors a great attachment to promoting the bad teachings of Vatican II? What else would be the point of his "hermeneutic of continuity?"

Its not a stretch; its just that a position has not been taken either way, from either side. When a decision is made, don't you think all of us will be on top of it? Wouldn't it be better to discuss actual facts, as opposed to suppositions, as is being done now?

Quote

This whole discussion could come down to what we mean when we say "doctrine." The very title "doctrinal Preamble" would seem to be a docuмent that addresses doctrine, and we presume it means good doctrine.
(Abp. Lefebvre made that mistake in 1965.)

But doctrine can be erroneous: if it were Buddhist doctrine, or Mohammedan doctrine or Zoroastrian doctrine, for example. And take a second look at the lineup of characters at Assisi III ... what about their doctrine?

Huh? What about them? Now you've heard that this is what was included in the doctrinal preamble?

Quote

When you rub elbows with axle grease, don't be surprised if your elbows get greasy. You might still have your authority, but you'll have authority with greasy elbows.

True. Lets wait to see whose elbows have been rubbed with whose, no?

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #17 on:** May 09, 2012, 05:43:03 PM »

Quote from: brainglitch

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.

You apparently aren't aware of your own contradiction. There can be no pharisees in the Traditional movement because there is no such thing as a pharisee that is a Traditional Catholic.

Your "wait and see" line is a typical load of hogwash that is used by certain SSPXers who are either misinformed of the facts or who are just plain neo-cons. I commend Seraphim for starting this thread, now THERE is a good SSPX Traditional Catholic. Someone who knows the truth and warns people about the dangers of a "reconciliation".

Quote from: s2srea

Brainglitch, you are reacting to this very maturely. Well done.

I don't think it's very mature to call people who oppose a deal "pharisees" or to whine because people rightfully voice their concern over certain things that Bishop Fellay has done. Interesting how Bishop Williamson didn't receive this kind of support when he was thrown under the bus by Fellay.

s2srea · « **Reply #18 on:** May 09, 2012, 05:53:34 PM »

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus

Quote from: s2srea
Brainglitch, you are reacting to this very maturely. Well done.

I don't think it's very mature to call people who oppose a deal "pharisees" or to whine because people rightfully voice their concern over certain things that Bishop Fellay has done. Interesting how Bishop Williamson didn't receive this kind of support when he was thrown under the bus by Fellay.

Voicing opinion over what Bishop Fellay has done is one thing. Creating a mountain of information, where there is only a seed is another.

Plenty of people have supported Bishop Williamson, including I. And especially on this forum.

Matthew · « **Reply #19 on:** May 09, 2012, 08:15:38 PM »

Ok, you two! Break it up, take it to another thread, go beat each other up somewhere else.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #20 on:** May 09, 2012, 08:31:13 PM »

Well, getting back on track...

We can debate all we like about whether or not the letter of the 3 bishops to Bishop Fellay ought to have been leaked or not.

But, presuming the authenticity of the letter is verified, some things are now clear:

1) It is established there is a great divide within the SSPX on the matter;

2) Resistence to the deal with Rome has been communicated to Menzingen from within;

3) Bishop Fellay has been made aware, from his own, that he is contradicting the path laid out for him by Archbishop Lefebvre, and why that path was so sound all these years;

4) And that nothing has changed in Rome to justify this new course.

Hearing it from his own confreres will do more than a million letters from the faithful.

But will it have any effect?

bobbyva2001 · « **Reply #21 on:** May 10, 2012, 12:36:30 PM »

Quote from: Seraphim

Well, getting back on track...

We can debate all we like about whether or not the letter of the 3 bishops to Bishop Fellay ought to have been leaked or not.

But, presuming the authenticity of the letter is verified, some things are now clear:

1) It is established there is a great divide within the SSPX on the matter;

2) Resistence to the deal with Rome has been communicated to Menzingen from within;

3) Bishop Fellay has been made aware, from his own, that he is contradicting the path laid out for him by Archbishop Lefebvre, and why that path was so sound all these years;

4) And that nothing has changed in Rome to justify this new course.

Hearing it from his own confreres will do more than a million letters from the faithful.

But will it have any effect?

Who has the authority to declare Fellay is contradicting the path of Lefebvre? Not that this matters to any of you but in 82 Schmidberger was appointed by Lefebvre as Vicar general and he supports the deal. I think he has a pretty good idea of the path laid out by Lefebvre; far better than anyone on this forum.

What authority do you claim that enables you to say the new course can't be justified?

Anthony M · « **Reply #22 on:** May 10, 2012, 08:33:33 PM »

Yes, there is, better known as the rejection of the Catholic teaching which is part of the deposit of the faith of the Baptism of Desire . Feeney and co reject it - hence known as the feeneyite heresy - look it up some time.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #23 on:** May 10, 2012, 08:36:47 PM »

Quote from: Anthony M

Who has the authority to declare Fellay is contradicting the path of Lefebvre? Not that this matters to any of you but in 82 Schmidberger was appointed by Lefebvre as Vicar general and he supports the deal. I think he has a pretty good idea of the path laid out by Lefebvre; far better than anyone on this forum.

Who the heck needs authority to make any such statement? No one needs authority to make that statement, the fact the Fellay is contradicting the path of ABL is plain as day.

There are a few people who have signed up here the last few days who I think are just people from the Fellay camp who like to criticize those who are against a deal. You're one of them.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #24 on:** May 11, 2012, 02:44:22 PM »

Quote from: Seraphim

Well, getting back on track...

We can debate all we like about whether or not the letter of the 3 bishops to Bishop Fellay ought to have been leaked or not.

But, presuming the authenticity of the letter is verified, some things are now clear:

1) It is established there is a great divide within the SSPX on the matter;

2) Resistance to the deal with Rome has been communicated to Menzingen from within;

3) Bishop Fellay has been made aware, from his own, that he is contradicting the path laid out for him by Archbishop Lefebvre, and why that path was so sound all these years;

4) And that nothing has changed in Rome to justify this new course.

Hearing it from his own confreres will do more than a million letters from the faithful.

But will it have any effect?

In the past +Fellay has shown talent for being a shrewd leader and strong
advocate of Tradition, but it seems to me that he has always been the weakest
of the 4 bishops when it comes to keeping Tradition intact. He's a little too
enamored with the thought of reconciliation with "Rome." And he isn't afraid
to say so. He's been singing that tune for at least 15 years, already.

Maybe longer.

Since this letter came out, other things have surfaced to give this letter credibility.
It isn't "right out of left field," therefore, and ought not be disregarded.

A lot hangs in the balance, and this time is critical.

I have several friends who believe that if a "deal" is struck with Rome, all the
SSPX real estate will be turned over to the local diocesan bishops, and some
sold off to pay for pederasty lawsuits. How about them apples?

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #25 on:** May 11, 2012, 02:49:24 PM »

Quote from: bobbyva2001

Quote from: Seraphim
Well, getting back on track...

We can debate all we like about whether or not the letter of the 3 bishops to Bishop Fellay ought to have been leaked or not.

But, presuming the authenticity of the letter is verified, some things are now clear:

1) It is established there is a great divide within the SSPX on the matter;

2) Resistence to the deal with Rome has been communicated to Menzingen from within;

3) Bishop Fellay has been made aware, from his own, that he is contradicting the path laid out for him by Archbishop Lefebvre, and why that path was so sound all these years;

4) And that nothing has changed in Rome to justify this new course.

Hearing it from his own confreres will do more than a million letters from the faithful.

But will it have any effect?

Who has the authority to declare Fellay is contradicting the path of Lefebvre? Not that this matters to any of you but in 82 Schmidberger was appointed by Lefebvre as Vicar general and he supports the deal. I think he has a pretty good idea of the path laid out by Lefebvre; far better than anyone on this forum.

What authority do you claim that enables you to say the new course can't be justified?

What does authority have to do with it?

Do you think authority is required to read the archbishop and observe who is following his plan?

Or, do you appeal to the argument from authority, like your new friends in the Vatican, as a maneuver to avoid a substantive response, and quash the argument?

The more you soft-liners talk, the more you resemble Campos.

It reminds me of watching Luke Skywalker turn into Darth Vader

Matthew · « **Reply #26 on:** May 11, 2012, 06:39:22 PM »

Ok, if you want to debate Feenyism

TAKE IT TO ANOTHER THREAD

Any future posts about Baptism of Desire or Feeneyism will be instantly deleted with no remorse or feeling (except perhaps satisfaction!).

Please respect the topic subjects, and do not hijack threads! It's very poor Internet manners to say the least.

Anthony M · « **Reply #27 on:** May 11, 2012, 06:40:07 PM »

No it is not a question of hijacking the thread. I will respond to the other issues shortly.

However the fact remains, if nutcases and self appointed popes want to accuse the SSPX or Bishop Fellay of being a Judas, they need to look in the mirror first !

Now, back to the point. To respond to Seraphim.

1). As to the great divide in the SSPX - No contrary to what many want you to think. There isn't the greater number of superiors and priests are united with Bishop Fellay. The reason for the letter getting out is to try to muster support for opposition, but that isn't going to happen.

2). Granted.

3) I would say the contrary, even the Archbishop himself appealed to Rome to recognize his work. If that plea is being heard today, the Archbishop would gladly accept that. The never saw himself as above or independent from the Holy See. He simply did what he could given the fact the authorities turned a blind eye to his work.

4). If a legitimate authority asks you to accept or do something which is not contrary to the faith; on what basis can you reject it without falling into the sin of true disobedience?

What is more is that it is sad to see so many on this forum who show total disrespect and ingratitude for the work of the SSPX and seem to make themselves it's judge. It kind of reminds me of what the Archbishop said in his time regarding this attitude - 'Contrary to what they say, the SSPX will simply follow the path of providence and not the false fancy of every man'.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #28 on:** May 12, 2012, 06:37:19 PM »

Quote from: Anthony M

No it is not a question of hijacking the thread. I will respond to the other issues shortly.

However the fact remains, if nutcases and self appointed popes want to accuse the SSPX or Bishop Fellay of being a Judas, they need to look in the mirror first !

Now, back to the point. To respond to Seraphim.

1). As to the great divide in the SSPX - No contrary to what many want you to think. There isn't the greater number of superiors and priests are united with Bishop Fellay. The reason for the letter getting out is to try to muster support for opposition, but that isn't going to happen.

2). Granted.

3) I would say the contrary, even the Archbishop himself appealed to Rome to recognize his work. If that plea is being heard today, the Archbishop would gladly accept that. The never saw himself as above or independent from the Holy See. He simply did what he could given the fact the authorities turned a blind eye to his work.

4). If a legitimate authority asks you to accept or do something which is not contrary to the faith; on what basis can you reject it without falling into the sin of true disobedience?

What is more is that it is sad to see so many on this forum who show total disrespect and ingratitude for the work of the SSPX and seem to make themselves it's judge. It kind of reminds me of what the Archbishop said in his time regarding this attitude - 'Contrary to what they say, the SSPX will simply follow the path of providence and not the false fancy of every man'.

1) Archbishop Lefebvre did not appeal to Rome will to recognize a purely practical solution. His well known Figaro interview laid out his post-1988 position. On this point, you are a receiver if your intent is to convince people hr would have taken a practical solution, when his plain words say exactly the opposite.

2) Much as bishop fellay would like to pretend that he has no choice but to accept a practical solution because there is nothing contrary yo the faith in doing so, the truth of the matter is that accepting such a deal does in fact contradict the faith, inasmuch as collaborating with the enemies of Christ represents an implicit acceptance of doctrinal pluralism.

3) It is not sad, but inspiring, to see so many Catholics recall that Archbishop Lefebvre was not about fighting for the rights of the Sspx, but about preserving the faith and restoring it to the universal Church. What is sad is to see bishop fellay turn his back on that and take a seat at the table alongside the apostate.

4) The hell with your assertion that we are showing ingratitude and disrespect for the work of the Sspx. Unlike you, who features an obedience to a personality, our obedience is contingent on Bishop Fellay's obedience to three Faith. It is he who shows ingratitude to archbishop Lefebvre, his own Sspx, and 40 years of struggle.

You have the effrontery to pretend it is us who are leaving the straight and narrow path?

Wow.

Nishant · « **Reply #29 on:** May 13, 2012, 11:06:06 AM »

Quote from: Seraphim

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!

Dear Seraphim, well, I really don't mean to be contentious here, but are you sure the Archbishop would have rejected a priori any offer whatsoever of canonical regularization?

Quote from: On 6 Sept, 1990, Archbishop Lefebvre

Someone was saying to me yesterday, "But what if Rome accepted your bishops and then you were completely exempted from the other bishops' jurisdiction?" But firstly, they are a long way right now from accepting any such thing, and then, let them first make us such an offer! But I do not think they are anywhere near doing so.

This is Bishop Fellay's own justification for being open to the possibility, through prayer and prudence, that this may be God's will - i.e. there are no prior grounds to think that it absolutely cannot be, nor did Archbishop Lefebvre say that he would absolutely refuse to consider it, even at that time. He merely said he would put the discussion on the doctrinal level, and this the SSPX under Bishop Fellay has done, and done, in my humble opinion, very well.

I think the virtue of prudence also calls for heeding the advice of one's confreres, and reasonable honesty with those souls under your pastoral care, and in this regard I feel Bishop Fellay should do more, without simply resorting to threats or appeals to obedience, to state plainly and clearly why he believes this is the course God is laying out for the Society.

Also, when you say again that nothing has changed regarding doctrine, I ask, what of the works of Msgr. Gherardini, Bishop Athanasius Schneider et al? Is the present environment at the least not a vast improvement from the Archbishop's day when many persons and groups were simply uninterested in discussing or considering doctrine at all?