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.

You seem to forget how presumptuous, entitled and rash the laity who attend these chapels can be.

In order to make this clear once again: until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers – even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty – do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church.

So then the Pope says the SSPX has no legitimate ministry until doctrinal questions are clarified.  Now the SSPX priests say these doctrinal questions in the so-called "doctrinal preamble" are not the laity's business?

That is fatal arrogance.

Dear Wessex, thanks for your words. I think the following information is good news:


In the beginning of this week there was a SSPX' meeting of all priests working or staying in Federal Republic of Germany, with their district superior Fr Schmidberger. That's a bare 50 priests or so.

The special speaker was Bp Fellay's first assistant, Fr Pfluger from Menzingen.
He's a Swiss-German priest and the mentor of Zionist Krah (or the other way round). Some say he's the most dangerous cleric in the entire SSPX. Verifiable he's one of the clerics who hate Bishop Williamson the most.

On this meeting Fr Pfluger tried for about two hours to advocate a SSPX agreement with Newrome. He mentioned that they want a contract with Newrome, basing on an edited version of Newrome's offer.
He's being fully supported by Fr Schmidberger's assistant and public relation man Fr Steiner, who also edits the messy official SSPX newsletter where for example he wrote that crazy Big-Bang propagation in spring 2010.
Although Fr Schmidberger doesn't speak as openly as Fr Pfluger on this matter, good sources tell me that considering a contract with Newrome Fr Schmidberger is in the same boat with Pfluger and Steiner.


After Fr Pfluger's Newrome speech, the old father Franz-Josef Maeßen stood up and gave a short but intense five minute speech. With his specious arguments he completely swept away in five minutes what Fr Pfluger said in two hours.
The speechless Fr Pfluger didn't reply anything, which is a rare moment!
Fr Maeßen's underlined as the crux of the matter, that Newrome was modernist at the time of Archbishop Lefebvre and is absolutely modernist today, so no agreement is possible.

As an additional information: Fr Maeßen was a former German SSPX district superior, he's uncompromisingly pro Archbishop Lefebvre, and by now he usually stays in an old people's home and is just working sometimes in SSPX chapels (where he gives very ardent sermons with an immense love for Archbishop Lefebvre). In contrast to some younger priests he's not in fear of certain superiors.


Now comes the crowning moment:
After his short speech, about three-quarters of the priests applauded Fr Maeßen !

(And I know of priests who liked to applaud too, but didn't dare because of potential sanctions against them.)



I think this is good news concerning certain superiors' sell-out to Newrome.
Of course the battle is not over yet, because the superiors could do what they want. However, there's also the Bishops Williamson, Galarreta and Tissier with their influence on a whole series of priests.

It looks like the powerful Newrome friends in the SSPX will have a hard time! May God prevent their betrayal of Archbishop Lefebvre's work and bless the clerics who're loyal to him!

Ethelred:

Quote

After Fr Pfluger's Newrome speech, the old father Franz-Josef Maeßen stood up and gave a short but intense five minute speech. With his specious arguments he completely swept away in five minutes what Fr Pfluger said in two hours.

Ethelred, I put "specious" in bold type.  Did you mean that Fr. Mae(b)en's arguments were specious?  I tend to think you didn't.  Please clarify.  Thanks.

Dear Hollingsworth, thank you for your point! That word was indeed a complete mistake by me. I meant the exact opposite! I'm very sorry.

So, in order to correct it:

After Fr Pfluger's "we want a contract with Newrome" speech, the elder former German district superior Fr Franz-Josef Maeßen stood up and gave a short but intense 3-4 minute speech.

With his impressive arguments ("bestechende Argumente" in German) Fr Maeßen completely swept away in a few minutes what Fr Pfluger said in two hours.

After Fr Maeßen's counterattack, Fr Pfluger was not only silent but pale. He was unable to reply anything.


As I wrote in the other related thread, please dear German-speaking Cathinfo users: If you happen to know other SSPX priests in the German district, please ask them about the German SSPX priest meeting which took place last Monday/Tuesday and then please confirm or correct what I wrote. Thank you!

Good bless all SSPX clerics who're still loyal to Archbishop Lefebvre!

Also, the contents of the Doctrinal Preamble are not the laity's business - not at this juncture in any case. Too many of us often forget that the SSPX is a *religious congregation* that has a right to its privacy regarding its private affairs just like any other religious order of the Catholic Church.

Let me get this straight - "the right to privacy" regarding the doctrines that Catholics must believe?  That their followers will have to accept?  "Right to privacy" - sounds like something from the pro-choice camp really.  Differing views on religious liberty are a "choice."  

The SSPX has no legitimate ministry in the Church according to Benedict XVI.  They deny that, saying that they are standing for the Faith.  Yet they won't talk about what they're negotiating, so that they can spring this thing pertaining to Faithful as a fait accompli.  Putrid arrogance.

One other thing, if people are not satisfied with what has just been said above (and thus the basis for Fr. Rostand's comments, which were not cavalier, but said in his typical French candor style), then WHAT THEY LACK IS TRUST AND HOPE which is completely unfounded considering the SSPX has never departed from the same path as set by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.

That must be why they suppressed the publication of his sermons.  Bishop "elder brothers" Fellay has certainly said and done many things we can be certain Archbishop Lefebvre would never have done.

Quote from: romanitaspress

Also, the contents of the Doctrinal Preamble are not the laity's business - not at this juncture in any case. Too many of us often forget that the SSPX is a *religious congregation* that has a right to its privacy regarding its private affairs just like any other religious order of the Catholic Church.

Let me get this straight - "the right to privacy" regarding the doctrines that Catholics must believe?  That their followers will have to accept?  "Right to privacy" - sounds like something from the pro-choice camp really.  Differing views on religious liberty are a "choice."  

The SSPX has no legitimate ministry in the Church according to Benedict XVI.  They deny that, saying that they are standing for the Faith.  Yet they won't talk about what they're negotiating, so that they can spring this thing pertaining to Faithful as a fait accompli.  Putrid arrogance.

Quote

One other thing, if people are not satisfied with what has just been said above (and thus the basis for Fr. Rostand's comments, which were not cavalier, but said in his typical French candor style), then WHAT THEY LACK IS TRUST AND HOPE which is completely unfounded considering the SSPX has never departed from the same path as set by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.

That must be why they suppressed the publication of his sermons.  Bishop "elder brothers" Fellay has certainly said and done many things we can be certain Archbishop Lefebvre would never have done.

This entire post sounds like something a Communist would post. Using pure rhetoric and trying to compare things that are unrelated to produce a point that has no basis in logic. Shame on you Tele.

Negotiations are kept secret.  There's no need to keep one's doctrinal positions secret, or the doctrinal positions of one's adversaries.  There's only a need to keep negotiations secret, so people can't object until it's too late.

The whole religious liberty angle is closely connected in fact to the issue of government tolerance of contraception which in turn is connected to the legalization of abortion.  Fr. John Courtney Murray who authored Dignitatis Humanae argued that freely available contraception was a matter of religious liberty.  And Benedict XVI has said the use of such devices could be a "first step towards morality."  I suppose when you advocate things like that or start making agreements with people like that, you argue for a "right to privacy" when it comes to what your position is on Catholic doctrine.