Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: SeanJohnson on May 07, 2012, 08:57:45 PM
-
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 ecuмenical dialogue. It was an ecuмenical 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 ecuмenical 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 ѕυιcιdє. 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 docuмents 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 ecuмenical 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 ѕуηαgσgυєs, 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 ecuмenical 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 ecuмenical 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
-
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
-
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....
-
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."
-
We'll take this for an example:
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.
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.
-
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
-
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?
-
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....
During Bishop Fellay’s ecuмenical 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 ѕуηαgσgυєs,
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 ecuмenical 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?
-
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 circuмstances. 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.
-
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 circuмstances. 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.
-
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.
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 Pontificuм 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 (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm) 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 docuмents 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.
-
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.
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 Pontificuм 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 (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm) 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 docuмents 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!
-
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.
Any talk of a deal while Rome is unconverted is an implicit acceptance of dogmatic pluralism in the Church.
Not necessarily, see above.
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!
-
Brainglitch, you are reacting to this very maturely. Well done.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
-
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".
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.
-
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.
-
Ok, you two! Break it up, take it to another thread, go beat each other up somewhere else.
-
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?
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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
-
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.
-
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'.
-
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.
-
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?
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?
-
Nishant2011 the broken record repeats the same arguments.
-
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?
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?
Your post of this ABL snippet is disengenuous, as proven by the context from when it was clipped:
1) Just prior, he rules out any talk of a merely practical deal
2) But then proceeds to discuss, as a theoretical exercise and afterthought, why such talk is nonsense anyway when the Romans are set against it
3) You would have this snippet evince that were the Roman not opposed at that time, ABL would sign?
4) Shame on you.
-
Anthony M, well, I had hoped to avoid casting personal aspersions, but anyway.
Your post of this ABL snippet is disengenuous, as proven by the context from when it was clipped:
Here, then, is a larger portion, two entire paragraphs, of the relevant passage, along with a link (http://www.sspx.org/archbishop_lefebvre/two_years_after_the_consecrations.htm) to the full speech.
What is going to happen? I do not know. Perhaps the coming of Elias! I was just reading this morning in Holy Scripture, Elias will return and put everything back in place! "Et omnia restituet" —"and he will restore all things." Goodness gracious, let him come straightaway! I do not know. But humanly speaking, there is no chance of any agreement between Rome and ourselves at the moment.
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. For what has been up till now the difficulty has been precisely their giving to us a Traditionalist bishop. They did not want to. It had to be a bishop according to the profile laid down by the Holy See. "Profile". You see what that means! Impossible. They knew very well that by giving us a traditional bishop they would be setting up a Traditionalist citadel able to continue. That they did not want. Nor did they give it to St. Peter's Society. When St. Peter's say they signed the sane Protocol as we did in May, 1988, it is not true because in our Protocol there was one bishop, and two members of the Roman Commission, of which their Protocol had neither. So they did not sign the same Protocol as we did. Rome took advantage of drawing up a new Protocol to remove those two concessions. At all costs they wanted to avoid that. So we had to do as we did on June 30, 1988...
There is one simple consideration that proves your position untenable in the first place - why Archbishop Lefebvre even considered signing an agreement with Rome for the removal of prior irregularities in 1988 at all.
So, on the contrary, it does indeed show that Archbishop Lefebvre did not consider accepting an offer of regularization as intrinsically evil (which contradicting the faith or "implicitly accepting doctrinal pluralism" would be).
else he would never have considered it under any circuмstances.
But he considered the offer, as he says above, because of the possibility of gaining a Bishop to continue his work. In the present day, by a regularization, Rome would de facto grant ordinary jurisdiction to, and recognize all four of the Bishops he himself chose.
-
Anthony M, well, I had hoped to avoid casting personal aspersions, but anyway.
Your post of this ABL snippet is disengenuous, as proven by the context from when it was clipped:
Here, then, is a larger portion, two entire paragraphs, of the relevant passage, along with a link (http://www.sspx.org/archbishop_lefebvre/two_years_after_the_consecrations.htm) to the full speech.
What is going to happen? I do not know. Perhaps the coming of Elias! I was just reading this morning in Holy Scripture, Elias will return and put everything back in place! "Et omnia restituet" —"and he will restore all things." Goodness gracious, let him come straightaway! I do not know. But humanly speaking, there is no chance of any agreement between Rome and ourselves at the moment.
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. For what has been up till now the difficulty has been precisely their giving to us a Traditionalist bishop. They did not want to. It had to be a bishop according to the profile laid down by the Holy See. "Profile". You see what that means! Impossible. They knew very well that by giving us a traditional bishop they would be setting up a Traditionalist citadel able to continue. That they did not want. Nor did they give it to St. Peter's Society. When St. Peter's say they signed the sane Protocol as we did in May, 1988, it is not true because in our Protocol there was one bishop, and two members of the Roman Commission, of which their Protocol had neither. So they did not sign the same Protocol as we did. Rome took advantage of drawing up a new Protocol to remove those two concessions. At all costs they wanted to avoid that. So we had to do as we did on June 30, 1988...
There is one simple consideration that proves your position untenable in the first place - why Archbishop Lefebvre even considered signing an agreement with Rome for the removal of prior irregularities in 1988 at all.
So, on the contrary, it does indeed show that Archbishop Lefebvre did not consider accepting an offer of regularization as intrinsically evil (which contradicting the faith or "implicitly accepting doctrinal pluralism" would be).
else he would never have considered it under any circuмstances.
But he considered the offer, as he says above, because of the possibility of gaining a Bishop to continue his work. In the present day, by a regularization, Rome would de facto grant ordinary jurisdiction to, and recognize all four of the Bishops he himself chose.
Not sure you are reading the same article you pasted a link to?
I would invite the faithful here to read it, and decide for themselves whether any reasonable person would conclude from it that ABL entertained the possibility of agreeing to a purely practical agreement.
-
Anthony M, well, I had hoped to avoid casting personal aspersions, but anyway.
Your post of this ABL snippet is disengenuous, as proven by the context from when it was clipped:
Here, then, is a larger portion, two entire paragraphs, of the relevant passage, along with a link (http://www.sspx.org/archbishop_lefebvre/two_years_after_the_consecrations.htm) to the full speech.
What is going to happen? I do not know. Perhaps the coming of Elias! I was just reading this morning in Holy Scripture, Elias will return and put everything back in place! "Et omnia restituet" —"and he will restore all things." Goodness gracious, let him come straightaway! I do not know. But humanly speaking, there is no chance of any agreement between Rome and ourselves at the moment.
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. For what has been up till now the difficulty has been precisely their giving to us a Traditionalist bishop. They did not want to. It had to be a bishop according to the profile laid down by the Holy See. "Profile". You see what that means! Impossible. They knew very well that by giving us a traditional bishop they would be setting up a Traditionalist citadel able to continue. That they did not want. Nor did they give it to St. Peter's Society. When St. Peter's say they signed the sane Protocol as we did in May, 1988, it is not true because in our Protocol there was one bishop, and two members of the Roman Commission, of which their Protocol had neither. So they did not sign the same Protocol as we did. Rome took advantage of drawing up a new Protocol to remove those two concessions. At all costs they wanted to avoid that. So we had to do as we did on June 30, 1988...
There is one simple consideration that proves your position untenable in the first place - why Archbishop Lefebvre even considered signing an agreement with Rome for the removal of prior irregularities in 1988 at all.
So, on the contrary, it does indeed show that Archbishop Lefebvre did not consider accepting an offer of regularization as intrinsically evil (which contradicting the faith or "implicitly accepting doctrinal pluralism" would be).
else he would never have considered it under any circuмstances.
But he considered the offer, as he says above, because of the possibility of gaining a Bishop to continue his work. In the present day, by a regularization, Rome would de facto grant ordinary jurisdiction to, and recognize all four of the Bishops he himself chose.
From the same article you are quoting, which will dispel any illusions as to whether ABL was angling here for a practical agreement:
"WE MUST NOT WAVER
"Well, we find ourselves in the same situation. We must not be under any illusions. Consequently we are in the thick of a great fight, a great fight. We are fighting a fight guaranteed by a whole line of Popes. Hence, we should have no hesitation or fear, hesitation such as, "Why should we be going on our own? After all, why not join Rome, why not join the Pope?" Yes, if Rome and the Pope were in line with Tradition, if they were carrying on the work of all the Popes of the 19th and the first half of the 20th century, of course. But they themselves admit that they have set out on a new path. They themselves admit that a new era began with Vatican II. They admit that it is a new stage in the Church's life, wholly new, based on new principles. We need not argue the point. They say it themselves. It is clear. I think that we must drive this point home with our people, in such a way that they realize their oneness with the Church's whole history, going back well beyond the Revolution. Of course. It is the fight of the City of Satan against the City of God. Clearly. So we do not have to worry. We must after all trust in the grace of God.
"What is going to happen? How is it all going to end?" That is God's secret. Mystery. But that we must fight the ideas presently fashionable in Rome, coming from the Pope's own mouth, Cardinal Ratzinger's mouth, Cardinal Casaroli's mouth, of Cardinal Willebrands and those like them, is clear, clear, for all they do is repeat the opposite of what the Popes said and solemnly stated for 150 years. We must choose, as I said to Pope Paul VI: "We have to choose between you and the Council on one side, and your predecessors on the other; either with your predecessors who stated the Church's teaching, or with the novelties of Vatican II." Reply —"Ah, this is not the moment to get into theology, we are not getting into theology now." It is clear. Hence we must not waver for one moment.
"A FALSE CHARITY
"And we must not waver for one moment either in not being with those who are in the process of betraying us. Some people are always admiring the grass in the neighbor's field. Instead of looking to their friends, to the Church's defenders, to those fighting on the battlefield, they look to our enemies on the other side. "After all, we must be charitable, we must be kind, we must not be divisive, after all, they are celebrating the Tridentine Mass, they are not as bad as everyone says" —but THEY ARE BETRAYING US —betraying us! They are shaking hands with the Church's destroyers. They are shaking hands with people holding modernist and liberal ideas condemned by the Church. So they are doing the devil's work.
"Thus those who were with us and were working with us for the rights of Our Lord, for the salvation of souls, are now saying, "So long as they grant us the old Mass, we can shake hands with Rome, no problem." But we are seeing how it works out. They are in an impossible situation. Impossible. One cannot both shake hands with modernists and keep following Tradition. Not possible. Not possible. Now, stay in touch with them to bring them back, to convert them to Tradition, yes, if you like, that's the right kind of ecuмenism! But give the impression that after all one almost regrets any break, that one likes talking to them? No way! These are people who call us corpse-like Traditionalists, they are saying that we are as rigid as corpses, ours is not a living Tradition, we are glum-faced, ours is a glum Tradition! Unbelievable! Unimaginable! What kind of relations can you have with people like that?
"This is what causes us a problem with certain layfolk, who are very nice, very good people, all for the Society, who accepted the Consecrations, but who have a kind of deep-down regret that they are no longer with the people they used to be with, people who did not accept the Consecrations and who are now against us. "It's a pity we are divided", they say, "why not meet up with them? Let's go and have a drink together, reach out a hand to them" —that's a betrayal! Those saying this give the impression that at the drop of a hat they would cross over and join those who left us. They must make up their minds.
"WE CANNOT COMPROMISE
"That is what killed Christendom, in all of Europe, not just the Church in France, but the Church in Germany, in Switzerland —that is what enabled the Revolution to get established. It was the Liberals, it was those who reached out a hand to people who did not share their Catholic principles. We must make up our minds if we too want to collaborate in the destruction of the Church and in the ruin of the Social Kingship of Christ the King, or are we resolved to continue working for the Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ? All those who wish to join us, and work with us, Deo Gratias, we welcome them, wherever they come from, that's not a problem, but let them come with us, let them not say they are going a different way in order to keep company with the liberals that left us and in order to work with them. Not possible.
-
brainglitch said:
...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 circuмstances. 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...
Well, Mgr Tissier at St Nicolas said:
...So, St. Basil didn't use ambiguous expressions with those who wanted to return to the Church. He demanded that they profess the entire Catholic Faith but using a nice way of saying it. He was prudent, very good, but in professing the true faith. He was not willing to sign ambiguous texts, dear faithful. That's what we must do today. Refuse ambiguous texts, not stop condemning error and correctly professing the Catholic Faith. And when the conciliarists come back, one day, in twenty five years, repenting of the council, when they see the continual catastrophes, the empty seminaries, the churches in ruins, apostasy everywhere, immorality everywhere, they will repent deeply, and when they do, when they begin to come back, full of repentance we can use formulae to help them. But not now; the crisis is in full swing, now we have to be firm and condemn the errors of the council, especially the denial of Christ the King, the refusal of Christ the King. That, dear faithful, is our plan of action. There's no point in deceiving ourselves, there's no way the crisis is almost over, the crisis is far from being over, the fight is going to last a long time and so we need to get organised, to last out and to continue to profess the whole Catholic Faith in full confidence in the power of Our Lord Jesus Christ. All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me, go ye therefore into the whole world, preach the truth, preach the Blessed Trinity, preach Christ the King, preach Christ the Priest, have likewise confidence in my divine Mother who has all graces, who distributes all graces, it's through her that I will triumph over my enemies, it's through her that I will bring the Catholic Faith back to my Church. Have confidence in my Mother, Immaculate Virgin in her Faith, may the Blessed Mother keep our Faith immaculate. In the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost. Amen.
Have you changed your mind yet?
-
This is a great post Seraphim. Thank you.
-
I find it rather telling that now we hear that THE THREE have the doctrinal preamble -- but still, they have not made it public. That tells me they have a reason for not making it public, a reason (since I have faith in their judgment) that is for the good of the Faith and the faithful. They would not have any reason higher than that, for the salvation of souls is the highest law of the Church.
Salus animarum lex ecclesia suprema est
...or something like that.
I'd rather not guess what the specific reason is.
Anyway, since this thread was originally about AQ and a great post there,
you may be interested to know that if Father Pfeiffer were to post comments
on AQ, he would be banned, unless the owner of AQ has changed his tune
over the past decade.
If Pfeiffer's sermons are not allowed on AQ, I would venture to guess that
AQ still marches to the same, old drummer. :sleep:
-
If Pfeiffer's sermons are not allowed on AQ, I would venture to guess that
AQ still marches to the same, old drummer. :sleep:
See Grasmeir's warning in his post today:-
http://angelqueen.org/2012/06/06/aq-editorial-nothingness-rebellion-and-the-sspx-split-fantasy/
Distilled down to its essence, he's really saying..."Don't even dream of criticizing +Fellay on AQ".
-
God knows – as does anyone who’s been here more than a day – we’ve done our share of rebelling on AQ. We’ve also had a disproportionate say in extremely crucial events affecting our Church and our fellow man. Our opinions, musings and philosophies have been heeded by authors, priests, bishops, politicians, journalists, district superiors, webmasters and undetermined VIPs at the very seat of the faith in Rome. To whatever degree possible, we’ve played our part (however large or small) in history, and if God wills it, and only if He wills it, we’ll do more of the same in the future.
Seriously??
If there’s any part of “sit down and be quiet” that is unclear, you’re welcome to attach great importance to yourself and stand up and be counted – at which point you will become nothing. At least on AQ.
On the old platform, the mods would “ban” users. On this platform, it’s far less dramatic, or at least seems so. We simply choose “no role for this site” from a drop down box. After which you will – without any drama or fanfare whatsoever –become nothing.
Seriously??
-
Why would someone give me a thumbs down when I'm QUOTING AQ?
I continue to love this feature. :laugh1:
-
God knows – as does anyone who’s been here more than a day – we’ve done our share of rebelling on AQ. We’ve also had a disproportionate say in extremely crucial events affecting our Church and our fellow man. Our opinions, musings and philosophies have been heeded by authors, priests, bishops, politicians, journalists, district superiors, webmasters and undetermined VIPs at the very seat of the faith in Rome. To whatever degree possible, we’ve played our part (however large or small) in history, and if God wills it, and only if He wills it, we’ll do more of the same in the future.
Seriously??
If there’s any part of “sit down and be quiet” that is unclear, you’re welcome to attach great importance to yourself and stand up and be counted – at which point you will become nothing. At least on AQ.
On the old platform, the mods would “ban” users. On this platform, it’s far less dramatic, or at least seems so. We simply choose “no role for this site” from a drop down box. After which you will – without any drama or fanfare whatsoever –become nothing.
Seriously??
AQ gets its totalitarian streak from the SSPX itself, sad to say.
-
If Pfeiffer's sermons are not allowed on AQ, I would venture to guess that
AQ still marches to the same, old drummer. :sleep:
See Grasmeir's warning in his post today:-
http://angelqueen.org/2012/06/06/aq-editorial-nothingness-rebellion-and-the-sspx-split-fantasy/
Distilled down to its essence, he's really saying..."Don't even dream of criticizing +Fellay on AQ".
That boy John needs a good psychiatrist. He's having delusions of grandeur that he's something he ain't. What really gives me a chuckle is the comments of the stepford aq'rs below.
Yes master, the great oz has spoken everyone sit down and shut up or John boy will dubb thee a nobody.
:roll-laugh1: :laugh2: :laugh1:
-
Why not post the whole stupid thing? It's incredibly easy to rip it apart.
Att: Rebels.
We won’t become angry with you, debate you, coddle you or criticize you. We won’t respond, react or even flinch. We won’t attempt to talk you into something, or talk you out of anything.
You see, any of the above would a tacit indication that your opinions, musings and philosophies etc. are important to Angelqueen.org, the SSPX and/or Holy Mother Church at large.
God knows – as does anyone who’s been here more than a day – we’ve done our share of rebelling on AQ. We’ve also had a disproportionate say in extremely crucial events affecting our Church and our fellow man. Our opinions, musings and philosophies have been heeded by authors, priests, bishops, politicians, journalists, district superiors, webmasters and undetermined VIPs at the very seat of the faith in Rome. To whatever degree possible, we’ve played our part (however large or small) in history, and if God wills it, and only if He wills it, we’ll do more of the same in the future.
There is a time for everything. We’ve had our time to rebel and speak out. Now, at least for the time being, we will SIT DOWN AND BE QUIET. If I can do it, anyone can. If there’s any part of “sit down and be quiet” that is unclear, you’re welcome to attach great importance to yourself and stand up and be counted – at which point you will become nothing. At least on AQ.
On the old platform, the mods would “ban” users. On this platform, it’s far less dramatic, or at least seems so. We simply choose “no role for this site” from a drop down box. After which you will – without any drama or fanfare whatsoever – become nothing.
On that note, the wiser amongst you can expand a similar nothingness out to the real world. This great “split” that certain minorities fantasize about will become nothing – or nearly nothing. “Nothing to speak of” I suppose is the term. No schools, no seminaries, no chapels, no convents, no real estate, no meaningful financing and no substantial priesthood.
There will be no massive throngs of passionate faithful gathering for ordinations to a soundtrack of Vivaldi’s joyous horn concertos – as was the case when Archbishop Lefebvre made his bold and historic step into what I and many others believe will be his sainthood.
The battlefield is far different than it was in the 1970s.
The Mass is not diminishing it is expanding. Tradition is not being pushed out the door; it’s kicking in the door. The SSPX is not being abused, ridiculed and cast out, as was the case when angelqueen.org began. The society is being honored and welcomed by church authorities and the lay faithful alike. The heretical baby-boomers aren’t occupying every facet of Holy Church, they are, praise God, dying away.
The Mass has been freed, the excomms have been lifted, the theological talks have been undertaken (they will continue in many ways) and the Holy Father is about to give to the SSPX more freedom and authority than the Archbishop himself ever wished for.
Given all of this, God gave you free will. You are free to choose rebellion over service. You can malinger at the very time Holy Church needs you most. You can remain in your foxhole or, FINALLY, emerge from it and engage as true Church Militant. Cede ground or take it. Allow fear and distrust to rule your mind or let hope and faith fill your heart. You can come home, or remain in the wilderness.
Bishops, priests and faithful, you’ve fought the good fight; as good a fight as nearly anyone at any time in history. You can claim your prize now, and quite possibly in the next life, or you can choose nothing, now and quite possibly in the next life.
Pull out all the stops. Revert to your catechism, scripture, wisdom, prayer, Solomon’s Proverbs whatever it takes. Please choose wisely. You’re needed now more than ever.
-
brainglitch said:
...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 circuмstances. 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...
Well, Mgr Tissier at St Nicolas said:
...So, St. Basil didn't use ambiguous expressions with those who wanted to return to the Church. He demanded that they profess the entire Catholic Faith but using a nice way of saying it. He was prudent, very good, but in professing the true faith. He was not willing to sign ambiguous texts, dear faithful. That's what we must do today. Refuse ambiguous texts, not stop condemning error and correctly professing the Catholic Faith. And when the conciliarists come back, one day, in twenty five years, repenting of the council, when they see the continual catastrophes, the empty seminaries, the churches in ruins, apostasy everywhere, immorality everywhere, they will repent deeply, and when they do, when they begin to come back, full of repentance we can use formulae to help them. But not now; the crisis is in full swing, now we have to be firm and condemn the errors of the council, especially the denial of Christ the King, the refusal of Christ the King. That, dear faithful, is our plan of action. There's no point in deceiving ourselves, there's no way the crisis is almost over, the crisis is far from being over, the fight is going to last a long time and so we need to get organised, to last out and to continue to profess the whole Catholic Faith in full confidence in the power of Our Lord Jesus Christ. All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me, go ye therefore into the whole world, preach the truth, preach the Blessed Trinity, preach Christ the King, preach Christ the Priest, have likewise confidence in my divine Mother who has all graces, who distributes all graces, it's through her that I will triumph over my enemies, it's through her that I will bring the Catholic Faith back to my Church. Have confidence in my Mother, Immaculate Virgin in her Faith, may the Blessed Mother keep our Faith immaculate. In the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost. Amen.
Have you changed your mind yet?
I'm not sure.....
-
Why would someone give me a thumbs down when I'm QUOTING AQ?
I continue to love this feature. :laugh1:
I don't get the thumbs down either. I got one yesterday for saying I was praying for all of us here in these uncertain times, "May we find shelter and consolation in Their Hearts"!
It makes one wonder whether a person who gives a thumbs down to a prayer, is Catholic?
-
On that note, the wiser amongst you can expand a similar nothingness out to the real world. This great “split” that certain minorities fantasize about will become nothing – or nearly nothing. “Nothing to speak of” I suppose is the term. No schools, no seminaries, no chapels, no convents, no real estate, no meaningful financing and no substantial priesthood.
Mr. Grasmeier's sense of being depends on his going along with the majority, being on the "winning" side, the side that has the properties, the majority of priests and laity, the Zionist lawyer, Vatican II, the approval of a modernist hierarchy. etc.
He thinks of priests like Father Chazal as being "nothing" - what does that say about his Faith? The priority he puts on Faith?
Is there even the slightest effort, attempt, to answer criticism in this statement?
-
It's very interesting that he uses this term "nothingness" to describe his enemies. It's very similar to what the neocons like David P. Goldman (editor of First Things say about non-Jєωιѕн nationalities.
All the gentiles are doomed to death (he literally labels them "zombies", "the walking dead" from time to time in his pieces), Goldman smugly says, but if you want to be "saved", the only salvation is via some sort of non-nationalistic, universalistic, pro-Jєωιѕн/Israel Christianity or secular imperial neoconservatism acceptable to Goldman.
Stevens seems to argue similarly that all societies are doomed to death, that borders, laws, families etc. are futile attempts to escape it, and that the only salvation is via some sort of global, unitary leftist world state
This Goldman guy is the editor of First Things, a magazine many "conservatives" read. Supposedly Santorum reads it?
-
Why not post the whole stupid thing? It's incredibly easy to rip it apart.
Att: Rebels.
We won’t become angry with you, debate you, coddle you or criticize you. We won’t respond, react or even flinch. We won’t attempt to talk you into something, or talk you out of anything....Please choose wisely. You’re needed now more than ever.
I find it rather amusing that there are two kinds of posts following servitium's monologue: 1) bravo! and 2) REDACTED. IOW, you either AGREE or you BECOME NOTHING.
The question remains, however, which one "chose wisely?"
-
Why not post the whole stupid thing? It's incredibly easy to rip it apart.
Att: Rebels.
We won’t become angry with you, debate you, coddle you or criticize you. We won’t respond, react or even flinch. We won’t attempt to talk you into something, or talk you out of anything....Please choose wisely. You’re needed now more than ever.
I find it rather amusing that there are two kinds of posts following servitium's monologue: 1) bravo! and 2) REDACTED. IOW, you either AGREE or you BECOME NOTHING.
The question remains, however, which one "chose wisely?"
REDACTED=nananana I can't hear you. Fingers placed firmly in ears. :facepalm:
Is it remotely possible for him to show greater immaturity?
I guess all the events of late are bringing out people's true colors. they are showing themselves to be just what they are.
-
Actually, "REDACTED" is only one of their tactics. They can also make comments completely disappear. I posted some very mild constructive criticism on the thread rating the new AQ format and I verified that it did in fact get posted. But when I checked the next day it was completely gone without a trace. They are terribly sensitive over there and the quality of the site has deteriorated very noticeably. And now Mr. Grasmier has stooped to the level of criticizing other forums which he characterizes as "blabfests" or "chats" run by women. As I mentioned in my criticism I am spending less and less time on AQ and now I think I will just abandon it altogether. It is a waste of time.
-
Mr. Grasmeier:
Re: "Att. Rebels"
If you are reading these posts remember that in times of general apostacy which have never been as bad as now, usually the rebels are the ones that end up with the title of Saints.
-
Mr. Grasmeier:
Re: "Att. Rebels"
If you are reading these posts remember that in times of general apostacy which have never been as bad as now, usually the rebels are the ones that end up with the title of Saints.
:applause:
-
It is funny how AQ and FE are both bad for entirely different reasons.
FE is similar to a socialist state. Liberalism disguised as Tradition is the party line, and the site is run on emotion and feelings. So you get random bans based on if the owners were having a bad day or you happened to say the wrong thing. Of course the "wrong thing" was always in the Traditional direction. Either that or you hurt the feelings of one of the cheerleaders. Its management is all over the place, skipping from one emotion based decision to another while the quality of the site spirals downward. Similar to Greece, or all the European socialist states, they are going down the tubes, yet still mindlessly following the policies that are sending them down the tubes.
AQ is similar to a fascist state. Unless you salute the owner and his henchmen, you will be exterminated. Before doing this, der Fuhror will try fear and intimidation tactics to force you to comply. Anyone who does not comply will be eradicated. Allegiance to the AQ agenda, heart, mind, and soul is required. If you do not agree with AQ mods 100%, you are vermin to be eliminated. Like the nαzιs, the AQ mods listen to nobody but themselves, clueless to reality, and delusionally think their website is the most powerful force on the face of the earth. They also have personal delusions of granduer (that they are the master Trads). Plus they are prone to juvenile hissy fits and temper tantrums, just like der Fuhrer, executing people in random fits of rage or otherwise sending terror messages to intimidate the people into submission. Someone should put subtitles to that Hitler video to do a satire on AQ & Grasmeier. It would be hilarious. :laugh1:
-
It is funny how AQ and FE are both bad for entirely different reasons.
FE is similar to a socialist state. Liberalism disguised as Tradition is the party line, and the site is run on emotion and feelings. So you get random bans based on if the owners were having a bad day or you happened to say the wrong thing. Of course the "wrong thing" was always in the Traditional direction. Either that or you hurt the feelings of one of the cheerleaders. Its management is all over the place, skipping from one emotion based decision to another while the quality of the site spirals downward. Similar to Greece, or all the European socialist states, they are going down the tubes, yet still mindlessly following the policies that are sending them down the tubes.
AQ is similar to a fascist state. Unless you salute the owner and his henchmen, you will be exterminated. Before doing this, der Fuhror will try fear and intimidation tactics to force you to comply. Anyone who does not comply will be eradicated. Allegiance to the AQ agenda, heart, mind, and soul is required. If you do not agree with AQ mods 100%, you are vermin to be eliminated. Like the nαzιs, the AQ mods listen to nobody but themselves, clueless to reality, and delusionally think their website is the most powerful force on the face of the earth. They also have personal delusions of granduer (that they are the master Trads). Plus they are prone to juvenile hissy fits and temper tantrums, just like der Fuhrer, executing people in random fits of rage or otherwise sending terror messages to intimidate the people into submission. Someone should put subtitles to that Hitler video to do a satire on AQ & Grasmeier. It would be hilarious. :laugh1:
I've found it difficult to write critiques of the various forums because IMO, the owners set the tone, and the personal spiritualities of those individuals directly affect the work. That said, as the above two either made their personal lives public, set themselves up as Catholic teachers or view themselves as gatekeepers for what is traditionally Catholic and what is not, their behavior is fair game (without judging their interior disposition which is for God to do).
FE devolved years ago when the owner revealed her own irregular marital status, adulterous behavior and mental health issues. I remember being shocked at the time and scandalized like many others. How can a person in her situation present herself (or himself) as a teacher when they aren't following the teachings of the Church themselves? We were all labeled prudes, a tactic still used there to this day. I am far from a prude and the bizarre things posted there still disturb me - death metal lyrics, occult symbolism, New Age material, etc. Some of the other stuff may be okay from a psychological perspective but it doesn't belong on a traditional Catholic forum. That's what the liberal N.O.s do because they lost their vertical element, not us. Anyway, the above was all posted publicly so I think it's fair game to critique and serves as a warning to Catholics to stay away. I left after the first incident and don't go back.
AQ is an irrational, unpredictable in a predictable way kind of place. The abuse of posters is cyclic. I can't add much to the above without speculating as to serv's motives which can only be a guess. Since it isn't healthy I stay away.
Free Republic is another story. The religion forum is a facade. Only the lukewarm and the deluded are allowed to stay and a Novus Ordo sociopath who harassed me still rules the roost.
I like it here so far at cathinfo. Matthew seems very balanced and fair. Running a forum is a thankless job and I'm grateful for a place to speak freely within reason and share ideas. I've stayed away from forums in past years because of above bad experiences. It's nice to be back among Trads.
-
AQ is similar to a fascist state. Unless you salute the owner and his henchmen, you will be exterminated. Before doing this, der Fuhror will try fear and intimidation tactics to force you to comply. Anyone who does not comply will be eradicated. Allegiance to the AQ agenda, heart, mind, and soul is required. If you do not agree with AQ mods 100%, you are vermin to be eliminated. Like the nαzιs, the AQ mods listen to nobody but themselves, clueless to reality, and delusionally think their website is the most powerful force on the face of the earth. They also have personal delusions of granduer (that they are the master Trads). Plus they are prone to juvenile hissy fits and temper tantrums, just like der Fuhrer, executing people in random fits of rage or otherwise sending terror messages to intimidate the people into submission. Someone should put subtitles to that Hitler video to do a satire on AQ & Grasmeier. It would be hilarious. :laugh1:
Eerily similar to Menzingen.
Take out the "AQ" and replace it with Menzingen. I don't see any difference.
-
brainglitch said:
...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 circuмstances. 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...
Well, Mgr Tissier at St Nicolas said:
...So, St. Basil didn't use ambiguous expressions with those who wanted to return to the Church. He demanded that they profess the entire Catholic Faith but using a nice way of saying it. He was prudent, very good, but in professing the true faith. He was not willing to sign ambiguous texts, dear faithful. That's what we must do today. Refuse ambiguous texts, not stop condemning error and correctly professing the Catholic Faith. And when the conciliarists come back, one day, in twenty five years, repenting of the council, when they see the continual catastrophes, the empty seminaries, the churches in ruins, apostasy everywhere, immorality everywhere, they will repent deeply, and when they do, when they begin to come back, full of repentance we can use formulae to help them. But not now; the crisis is in full swing, now we have to be firm and condemn the errors of the council, especially the denial of Christ the King, the refusal of Christ the King. That, dear faithful, is our plan of action. There's no point in deceiving ourselves, there's no way the crisis is almost over, the crisis is far from being over, the fight is going to last a long time and so we need to get organised, to last out and to continue to profess the whole Catholic Faith in full confidence in the power of Our Lord Jesus Christ. All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me, go ye therefore into the whole world, preach the truth, preach the Blessed Trinity, preach Christ the King, preach Christ the Priest, have likewise confidence in my divine Mother who has all graces, who distributes all graces, it's through her that I will triumph over my enemies, it's through her that I will bring the Catholic Faith back to my Church. Have confidence in my Mother, Immaculate Virgin in her Faith, may the Blessed Mother keep our Faith immaculate. In the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost. Amen.
Have you changed your mind yet?
I'm not sure.....
brainglitch,
I don't mean to embarass you but you came so strongly in defense of bishop Fellay that I had to ask you again. Is your mind clear now after the Winona ordinations?