Author Topic: Italy: Meeting of Superiors of the Society of St. Pius X (Read 35821 times)

John Grace · « **Reply #10 on:** September 26, 2011, 02:35:59 PM »

Dawn Marie related the following elsewhere online.

Quote

I just saw this posted on another forum:

Fr. Rostand celebrated Mass this morning in St. Marys. In his homily he touched upon the issue of the preamble. The impression I got was that without some wildly unrealistic concessions on Rome's part, the preamble has about a snowball in hell's chance of being signed. I thought Fr. Rostand made it very clear that a purely practical agreement, such as a personal prelature, was completely off the table. Basically he said that they will follow the example of Archbishop Lefebvre and not sign a practical agreement; that the SSPX's sole purpose is to preserve the Faith. Most notably in my opinion, he used very Bishop Williamson-esque language in speaking of the "new faith" that the Council introduced. And this is the United States District Superior!

May it please God to be accurate.

Hollingsworth then replied

Quote

I'm not certain when Fr. R was at St. Mary's saying these things, and whether he visited Post Falls before visiting SM's. Fr. R. held a well-attended meeting at PF, I know for certain. We were away on vacation and did not get the opportunity to hear him. But good friends inform us he got pretty arrogant and cavalier when the subject of the preamble came up. Our friends report that at least twenty people walked out of the meeting in disgust. Fr R. is reported to have told the assembled that the preamble and the present dealings with Rome were none of the laity's business; that none of us should bother to write SSPX headquarters, or text, or phone them with inquiries or complaints; that, in a word, we should all just buzz off and let the big boys handle it! This may not be a totally accurate reflection of his attitude and demeanor, but we got it from people whom we trust. I'll be happy to offer any corrections as more information becomes available. I would like to think that ICC's new pastor might explain the situation from the pulpit for those of us who entertain grave misgivings. But, alas, he does not apparently speak much English. Go figure.

Dawn Marie

Quote

Well I don't know whether that is accurate or not but if it is, that way of thinking is of course ridiculous as many people's lives will be affected by the outcome of this situation and it is the business of many souls what happens.

On the other side of the coin, I do understand that they are probably inundated with "texts", "faxes", "emails" "letters" and "phone calls" and that can drive anyone to be snippy in a sense when they feel like they are under so much pressure.

Bishop Fellay is big on wanting people to trust him, and to trust that he will not do anything which would put the SSPX in danger.

Everyone is very on edge about all of this, priests and faithful alike. It would be helpful if Bp. Fellay and "others" like Father Rostand, would be kind and generous of heart to remember that, and to take into consideration that the results WILL affect many, many lives now and in the future, not just theirs.

We are all a feisty bunch, the whole lot, but being dismissive to peoples concerns is not helpful.

Everything is at stake here and people are worried.

But I think it all comes down to trusting in God.

Lord Thy will be done, whatever that may be.

Wessex · « **Reply #11 on:** September 26, 2011, 04:28:44 PM »

Ethelred, you are a mine of information. Alas, so many people are now openly sidelining Bp. Williamson in conformity with leadership policy. He is the trade-off in getting the world to believe the Society is no longer a reactionary force.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #12 on:** September 26, 2011, 05:45:29 PM »

Quote

But good friends inform us he got pretty arrogant and cavalier when the subject of the preamble came up. Our friends report that at least twenty people walked out of the meeting in disgust. Fr R. is reported to have told the assembled that the preamble and the present dealings with Rome were none of the laity's business

These supercilious priests are a disgrace to the priesthood.

Ethelred · « **Reply #13 on:** September 27, 2011, 03:34:49 AM »

Quote from: Wessex

Ethelred, you are a mine of information. Alas, so many people are now openly sidelining Bp. Williamson in conformity with leadership policy. He is the trade-off in getting the world to believe the Society is no longer a reactionary force.

Thank you Wessex for your words and your wise judgement on the SSPX' sad dealing with Bishop Williamson. Clearly, Menzingen can't wait to get rid of the hated Bishop Williamson who's "just" a truth-teller. However, the SSPX leaders will have to give account for their years of injustice against Bishop Williamson and the truth, and they shouldn't forget: Menzingen proposes, God disposes!

(We too should not forget this. It may look like the Pfluger-Krah-Fellay fraction is victorious on most fronts, but still God has the last word. Let's also remember that Bishop Williamson is with God.)

Since Bishop Fellay has said he will consult the SSPX leaders, that would normally mean a General Chapter. So, in case he wants to sign Newrome's offer (I think he would like to), he would have to bring the General Chapter around to his point of view.

Then what part will the three other bishops have in this? In theory no special part, but in practice the three other bishops would carry special weight with their priestly colleagues. And if all three bishops were against the agreement with Newrome, Bishop Fellay would have a hard time in swinging the General Council behind it. As an experienced diplomat and politician with good knowledge in double-thinking, he would rather find a way of making it appear that the three bishops' opinion had been his own opinion all along...

So what are the other three bishops going to do with their special role in practice?
1. I'm sure from Bishop Williamson's statements and EC sermons, that he would never accept an agreement with the modernist Newrome.
2. If we look at Bishop Galarreta's recent Ecône sermon, we see that he several times attacked the Newpope B16 in a sharp way, a little bit like Archbishop Lefebvre did. The Bishop underlined it by letting his "ammunition" being served on a silver tablet, i.e. the quotes from Ratzinger which the bishop then read and attacked. Personally I don't think he would agree with a Newrome agreement.
3. Bishop Tissier is known to be theologically very anti Newrome and anti Newpope B16. However, from my observation (his script on B16's thinking, his treatment of Fr Merano, etc) I think that courage is a weak point. Still, considering the importance of the Newrome's offer, I think that with a higher probability the bishop would join the first-mentioned two bishops.

Let's wait and see.

Wessex · « **Reply #14 on:** September 27, 2011, 02:18:04 PM »

I am sure that Bp. Fellay would like to be remembered for ending the 'rebellion' and could in time eclipse ABL in the eyes of all those endlessly wishing and praying to be united with Rome if he were to succeed. To what extent is Bp. de Castro Mayer now remembered?

The bishops of the Society are already in auxiliary positions and could be gently put out to grass with a new structure. But I have always maintained that as the 'rebellion' largely started in France, it will end there and that Bp. Tissier may be more important in shaping the future that we realise.