CathInfo.com

As much as we laity think we have issues, I am concerned about the priests who have vowed their lives to the Society. That adds an extra dilemma of conscience for them. It will not be an easy trial for them. We must redouble our prayers for them.

As unfortunate as it is to see +Fellay swaying, the deal is not done yet (or at least not announced) and perhaps this feedback will serve as a necessary wake-up call for him. That is my hope.

We ALL desire unity with Rome, those who accuse otherwise are just looking to pick a fight, however, it cannot be under these circuмstances. The history of these superficial deals has repeated itself too many times. I don't  understand why "deals" need to be made anyway. This isn't a business proposition. We are Catholics within the flock what more do we need that is worth a compromise?

I don't even need to get into nitty gritty of the doctrinal talks. Just the reminder that this is the Pope who is planning to canonize Pope John Paul II is all I need to know where his heart and mind truly are. Canonize. Pope John Paul II. A pro-tradition gesture here and there can't minimize the clear signs that he is still modernist at heart.

+Williamson was already preaching 15 years ago (and maybe longer, the sermon I heard was 15 years ago) that the SSPX is only a vehicle and we had to keep our eyes and ears open at all times because we never knew when/if it would be taken away. It's hard to believe we are on that precipice. Time will tell but the fear that the Society will be handcuffed, weakened and swallowed up just like all the others is very warranted.

+Williamson was already preaching 15 years ago (and maybe longer, the sermon I heard was 15 years ago) that the SSPX is only a vehicle and we had to keep our eyes and ears open at all times because we never knew when/if it would be taken away. It's hard to believe we are on that precipice. Time will tell but the fear that the Society will be handcuffed, weakened and swallowed up just like all the others is very warranted.

Yes, I remember reading this and at that time I thought it was far fetched. BpW obviously had his finger on the pulse a long time ago!

The latest "Eleison Comments" from Bishop Williamson

Number CCLII (252)
    
12 May 2012
FAITH KILLERS
But if Rome offers the Society of St Pius X all that it wants, why should the SSPX still refuse ? Apparently there are Catholics still believing that if a practical agreement fulfilled all the SSPX’s practical demands, it should be accepted. So why not ? Because the SSPX was brought into existence by Archbishop Lefebvre not for its own sake, but for the sake of the true Catholic Faith, endangered by Vatican II as it has never been endangered before. But let us see here why the Newchurch authorities will seek any practical agreement as much as the SSPX must refuse it.

The reason is because the Newchurch is subjectivist, and any merely practical agreement implies that subjectivism is true. According to the new Conciliar religion, dogmas of Faith are not objective truths but symbols that serve subjective needs (Pascendi, 11-13, 21). For instance if my psychological insecurity is calmed by the conviction that God became man, then for me the Incarnation is true, in the only sense of the word “true”. So if Traditionalists have their need of the old religion, then that is what is true for them, and one can even admire how they cling to their truth. But in justice they must agree to let us Romans have our Conciliar truth, and if they cannot make that concession, then they are insufferably arrogant and intolerant, and we cannot allow such divisiveness within our Church of luv.

Thus Neo-modernist Rome would be happy with any practical agreement by which the SSPX would even only implicitly renounce its radical claim to the universality and obligation of “its” truths. On the contrary the SSPX cannot be happy with any agreement that in an action speaking louder than words would deny the objectivity of “its” religion of 20 centuries. It is not “its” religion at all. To come to an agreement with subjectivists, I have to stop insisting on objectivity. To insist on objectivity, I cannot accept any terms at all proposed by subjectivists, unless they renounce their subjectivism.

These Romans are doing no such thing. Yet another proof of their crusading insistence upon their new religion came in the form of their recent “Note on the conclusions of the canonical visit to the Institute of the Good Shepherd” in France. Readers will remember that this Institute was one of several founded after the Council to enable Traditional Catholicism to be practised under Roman authority. Rome can wait for a few years before closing in, to make sure that the poor fish is well on the hook, but then -

The “Note” requires that Vatican II and the 1992 Catechism of the Newchurch must be included in Institute studies. The Institute must insist on the “hermeneutic of renewal in continuity”, and it must stop treating the Tridentine rite of Mass as its “exclusive” rite of Mass. The Institute must enter into official diocesan life with a “spirit of communion”. In other words, the Traditional Institute must stop being so Traditional if it wants to belong to the Newchurch. What else did the Institute expect ? To keep to Tradition, it would have to get back out from under the Newchurch’s authority. What chance is there of that ? They wanted to be swallowed by the Conciliar monster. Now it is digesting them.

So why, in Heaven’s name, would it be any different with the SSPX ? Rome’s temptation may be rejected this time round by the SSPX, but let us be under no illusions: the subjectivists will be back and back and back to get rid of that objective truth and objective Faith which constitute a standing
rebuke to their criminal nonsense.

Kyrie eleison.