.


The message of penance is never popular.

.


It seems to me that it is one of the most difficult things to do, to turn
your heart toward love of your enemy.

"To turn the other cheek" is not a natural action.  It defies our fallen
human nature.  

When someone plans, plots, endeavors to destroy you, and you then
do what Our Lord asked us to do, and proceed to do penance for the
conversion of that 'someone' - that is not an act in accord with human
nature.  But it is exactly what the saints have all done.  

When St. Maria Goretti lay dying in the hospital with a dozen or more
stab wounds inflicted by her assailant, Alessandro, she told the priest
who came to hear her confession and give her last rites, that she
forgave Alessandro.  He was sent to prison and there, he had a vision
of his victim, who by her appearing to him implored him to repent and
to give up his life of vice.

In her cause for canonization her voluntary act of expiation by which
she offered her torment and agony as reparation and atonement for
the sin of the man who assaulted her was a key element in the
approval of her as a saint of Holy Mother Church.

He did abandon his evil ways, and was then released from prison, and
he was later seated next to St. Maria's mother at the saint's own
canonization in Rome.  It was the first time in history when the man
who murdered a girl was privileged to attend the girl's canonization
seated next to the girl's own mother.  

What St. Maria Goretti did was not natural.  She was not following the
spirit of the world.  Nor were any of the saints. This is what sets them
apart.  Saint Joan of Arc was afraid of the fire that would be her own
demise, and that is a natural fear.  But what is not natural is that she
accepted this terror as her own voluntary penance for the sins of her
assailants, including those who were occupants of offices of the
Church at the time.  

A saint is not one who always seeks out such oppression (although
some have done so!), but the key is that when it comes to him, he
does not reject it - as would be expected by any natural man. The
fact that it comes is then recognized by the saint as being the will of
God, for if it were not the will of God, it would not come in the first
place.  It takes wisdom and knowledge, gifts of the Holy Ghost, to
recognize the will of God when it arrives in your life.

What about the quote below?

All the beautiful gifts coming from Rome, we are not prepared to accept them without examination, without considering the circuмstances in which this gift would be made. We demand to be able to maintain our public and entire profession of the Catholic Faith. We cannot receive poisoned gifts that would condemn us to compromise with Modernism. This is the example of Saint Hermenegild, inspired by the Holy Ghost.

This quote can't be justified by any context. All the other quotes are simply weak (in my opinion). But this one is not weak. It contains falsehoods.



1. The quoted passage implies, firstly, that the Catholic Church and the Conciliar Church may not really be two separate and distinct churches, after all, because it refers only to "Rome," blurring the distinction between "Eternal Rome" and the "Rome of Neo-Modernist and Neo-Protestant tendencies." Eternal Rome is at the head of the Catholic Church, and Modernist Rome is at the head of the Conciliar Church. In a context where no ambiguous language is used, the term "Rome" can be used without ambiguity. But combined with the ambiguities that accompany it in this quote, it is ambiguous.



2. It implies, secondly and as a consequence, that "beautiful gifts" have been offered to us by Conciliar Rome. That is false. No beautiful gifts have ever come from Conciliar Rome. The only "gifts" that Conciliar Rome has offered have been rotten ones.



3. It implies, thirdly, that the offer of a canonical status within the Conciliar Church was a "beautiful gift." The quote implies this because the "beautiful gifts" referred to would have been ones that "condemn[ed] us to compromise with modernism." The only "poisoned gift" that would do that would be a canonical status in the Modernist Church.



4. It implies, fourthly, that an agreement with the Conciliar Church would be possible in certain circuмstances. If it is impossible in all circuмstances, then clearly there is no need for "examination." There is no need to "consider circuмstances." Conversely, if there is a need to examine and consider the circuмstances, that means that an agreement with Modernist Rome is not automatically excluded. In this, the author of the quote goes directly against Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.



5. It implies, fifthly, that "maintain[ing] our public and entire profession of the Catholic Faith" is first and foremost a right to be "demanded," and only secondarily a duty to be performed. The subtle shift of emphasis from "duty" to "right" implies that man is more important than God.



6. It implies, sixthly, that we need permission to "maintain our public and entire profession of the Catholic Faith." Otherwise, why should we need to "demand to be able" to do so? No one can stop us! If "maintain[ing] our public and entire profession of the Catholic Faith" is a duty, then we obviously have the "right" to perform it!



7. It implies, in the seventh place, that the reason we are should be allowed to "maintain our public and entire profession of the Catholic Faith" is that we are the ones who are demanding it. "We demand...! We cannot receive poisoned gifts...!"



6. Lastly - and this is perhaps the most serious problem of all - the words in this quote are ambiguous. The fact that he refers to a canonical status as a "beautiful gift" and a "poisoned gift" in the same breath only testifies to the change in his language, which used to be clear and is now just the opposite. (The poor bishop is clearly catching Menzingenitis!) Whoever speaks of doctrine in ambiguous language, let him be anathema.



Regardless of His Excellency's personal position, accordistas are sure to interpret his ambiguous language in an accordista way. Let us not make the mistake of interpreting it in a Catholic way. Most of the Council Fathers interpreted the texts in a Catholic way during the Council, and they nonetheless became Conciliar. By the grace of God, let us continue to call a spade a spade.



If Bishop Fellay had come out with this quote, we would have shot him down immediately.


Since someone mentioned "context," let's look at the context of silence that has characterized poor Bishop Tissier over the past few months.


Like everybody else on this forum, I hope that His Excellency turns around. But the solution is not to say that he doesn't need to turn around! Let us not read his ambiguous language with pink glasses!

Claudel, it was in war aims .

Thank you, IDS, for the extended reply to my query. Sad stuff, indeed.

Sorry for the mistakes, I'm French, but I'll try to explain.

I'm not French, but as my pseudonym should indicate, I'm a fan!