Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: FSPX on May 09, 2012, 02:21:36 PM
-
Not all the SSPX bishops are as eager as Bishop Fellay to give away the store of the SSPX to the now friendly modernists in Rome. See the letter of the Three SSPX Bishops who stand firmly behind the principles of Archbishop Lefebvre lest there be a major split within the SSPX. A pivot has more leverage the further it is away from the fulchrum, so the SSPX would lose its punch if it joined the Ecclesia Dei traitors of Tradition for a seat in the Assisi Conciliar church born of the French Revolution. St. Archbishop Lefebvre, save your little Society from certain self-destruction if a deal is made with a neo-Modernist, Pope Benedict XVI!
Moderator note:
To download these files, simply sign up (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=register) for a free CathInfo account.
-
Whilst unity was emphasised in 1988, it is clear only three of the four Bishops stand firmly behind the principles of Archbishop Lefebvre.
Moderator: Here is the translation, supplied to me by a helpful member.
Menzingen 14 April 2012
To their Excellencies Tissier de Mallerais, Williamson and de Galarreta.
Your Excellencies,
To your collective letter addressed to the members of the General Council we have given our full attention. We thank you for your concern and for your charity.
Allow us in turn with the same concern for charity and justice to make the following observations.
Firstly, the letter gives a good account of the gravity of the crisis shaking the Church and analyses with precision the nature of the errors flying all around. However, the description suffers from two faults with regard to the reality of the Church: it is lacking both in supernatural spirit and in realism.
It lacks supernatural spirit. Reading your letter one seriously wonders if you still believe that the visible Church with its seat in Rome is truly the Church of Our Lord Jesus Christ, a Church horribly disfigured for sure from head to foot, but a Church which nevertheless still has for its head Our Lord Jesus Christ. One has the impression that you are so scandalised that you no longer accept that that could still be true. It Benedict XVI still the legitimate pope for you? If he is, can Jesus Christ still speak through his mouth? If the pope expresses a legitimate desire concerning ourselves which is a good desire and gives no command contrary to the commandments of God, has one the right to pay no attention and to simply dismiss his desire? If not, on what principle do you base your acting in this way? Do you not think that, if Our Lord gives a command, He will also give us the means to continue our work? Well, the Pope has let us know that his concern to settle our affair for the good of the Church was at the very heart of his pontificate, and that he also knew that it would be easier both for him and for ourselves to leave things as they presently stand. Hence it is a firm and just desire to which he is giving expression. Given the attitude that you put forward there is no further place for Gideons or for Davids or for anyone counting on the help of the Lord. You blame us for being naïve or fearful, but it is your vision of the Church that is too human and even fatalistic; you see dangers, plots, difficulties, you now longer see the help of grace and the Holy Ghost. If one is ready to grant that divine providence conducts the affairs of men, while leaving them their liberty, then one must also accept that the gestures in our favour of the last few years come from Providence. Now, these gestures indicate a line - not always a straight line - but a line clearly in favour of Tradition. Why should this line suddenly come to an end when we are doing all we can to remain faithful and when our efforts are being accompanied by no few prayers on our part? Would the Good Lord drop us at the most decisive moment? That makes no sense. Especially if we are not trying to impose on Him any will of our own but we are trying to discern amidst events what God wants and we are ready to act as He wishes.
At the same time your attitude lacks realism both as to the depth and the breadth of the errors.
Depth: within the Society, we are in the process of making the Council's errors into super-heresies, as though it is becoming absolute evil, worse than anything, in the same way that Liberals have dogmatised this pastoral council. The evils are already dramatic enough so that one not need to exaggerate them any further. (Cf. Roberto de Mattei, A History never written, p. 22; Msgr. Gherardini, A Debate to be begun, p. 53, etc.) No more distinctions are being made. Whereas Archbishop Lefebvre more than once made the necessary distinctions concerning Liberals. This failure to distinguish leads one or the other of you three to an "absolute hardening". This is serious because such a caricature no longer corresponds to reality and logically it will in the future finish up in a true schism. And it may well be that this fact is one of the arguments pushing me to delay no longer in responding to the pressure from Rome.
Breadth: on the one hand the present authorities are blamed for all the errors and evils to be found in the Church leaving out the fact that they are trying at least partly to free themselves from the worst of them (the pope's condemning of the "hermeneutic of rupture" denounces very real errors). On the other hand it is claimed that everybody is firmly rooted in this pertinacity ("all modernists", "all rotten"). Now that is obviously false. A great majority may still be carried away by the movement, but not everybody.
So that as for the most crucial question of all, that of whether we can survive in the case of the Society being recognised by Rome, we do not arrive at the same conclusion as you do.
Let it be noted in passing that we did not look for a practical agreement. That is false. All we have done is not refuse a priori, as you ask us to do, to consider the Popes offer. For the common good of the Society, we would far prefer the present solution of the intermediary status quo but it is clear that Rome will put up with it no longer.
In itself, the proposed solution of a personal Prelature is not a trap. That is clear firstly from the fact that the present situation in April of 2012 is very different from that of 1988. To claim that nothing has changed is a historic error. The same evils are making the Church suffer, the consequences are even more serious and obvious than ever; but at the same time one may observe a change of attitude in the Church, helped by the gestures and acts of Benedict XVI towards Tradition. This new movement which started about ten years ago is growing stronger. It includes a good number (still a minority) of young priests, seminarians and even a small number now of young bishops who are clearly to be distinguished from their predecessors, who tell us of their sympathy and support, but who are still somewhat stifled by the dominant line in the hierarchy in favour of Vatican II. This hierarchy is loosing speed. That is an objective fact and shows that it is no longer an illusion to think of a fight arising within the Church, even if we are well aware of how long and difficult it will be. I have been able to observe in Rome that even if the glories of Vatican II are still in the mouths of many, and are pushed down our throats, is nevertheless not in all the heads. Fewer and fewer Romans believe in Vatican II.
This concrete situation, together with the canonical solution being proposed, is very different from that of 1988 and when we compare the arguments given by Archbishop Lefebvre at that time we draw the conclusion that he would not have hesitated to accept what is being proposed to us. Let us not loose that sense of the Church, which was so strong in our venerated founder.
Church history shows that the curing of evils afflicting it normally happens gradually and slowly. And when one problem is over, there is another that begins... oportet haereses esse. It is not realistic to require that everything be settled to arrive at what you call a practical agreement. When one watches how events are unfolding it is highly likely that the end of this crisis will take tens of years yet. But to refuse to work in the vineyard because there are still many weeds that risk stifling and obstructing the vine runs up against a notable lesson from the Bible: it Our Lord himself who gives us to understand with His parable of the chaff that there will always be in one form or another weeds to be pulled up and fought against in His Church.
You cannot know how much your attitude over the last few months - quite different for each of you - has been hard for us. It has prevented the Superior General from sharing with you these great concerns, which he would gladly have brought you in to, had he not found himself faced with such a strong and passionate lack of understanding. How much he would have loved to be able to count on you, on your advice to undergo this so delicate moment in our history. It is a great trial, perhaps the greatest of all 18 years of his being superior. Our venerable founder gave to the Society bishops a task and precise duties. He made clear that the principle of unity in our Society is the Superior General. But for a certain time now, you have been trying - each one of you in his own way - to impose on him your point of view, even in the form of threats, and even in public. This dialectic between the truth and the faith on the one side and authority on the other is contrary to the spirit of the priesthood. He might at least have hoped that you were trying to understand the arguments driving him to act as he has acted these last few years in accordance with the will of divine Providence.
We are praying hard for each of you that we may find ourselves all together once again in this fight which is far from over, for the greater glory of God and for love of dear Society.
May Our risen Lord and Our Lady deign to protect and bless you,
+Bernard Fellay
Niklaus Pfluger+
Alain-Marc Nély+
-
http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=9360
It is to show that there is unity in the Society.
This is true. The vast majority of priests and those attending the SSPX would support the position as outlined in this letter of the three Bishops. Their position is the position of Archbishop Lefebvre, whom I pray will one day be canonised.
-
I think the first thing, that no one is discussing, is how this docuмent was leaked? These are internal matters of the Society (the letter from the three bishops was a month ago) and it doesn't seem there can be any legitimate aim besides that of striking disunity into the heart of the SSPX. This idea running around American traditionalist blogs that we all have a right to know everything is not from Christ.
The sentiments here, that the other bishops are standing strong for Truth against Bishop Fellay who according to one of you, "put himself in a position to be leaned on" is insane. Look at the evident respect and deference by which the three bishops approach their Superior. They're not in open rebellion; this isn't speaking truth to power. This is a respectful, deferential letter written by three members of a religious order to their legitimate superior. Again, it was a private letter sent by those three bishops, so why in the world someone would decide to leak it, and why this webmaster would be so imprudent as to publish it is beyond me.
As to the content of Bishop Fellay's letter itself, it doesn't say what people here have said, "He had pressure put by Rome to accept that or nothing" is ridiculous. What he says is: "The solution proposed, a personal prelature is not a trap." And then he gives, calmly and rationally his reasons for doing so. He alone is given the discretion and authority to make this decision, and it is absurd for all of us to give our armchair judgments considering A. we don't know what the docuмent says, and B. it seems to involve absolutely no compromise.
-
Our venerable Founder gave the bishops of the Fraternity a specific charge and responsibility. It shows well that the uniting principle of our Society is the Superior General. However, for a certain time now, you have tried, in each his different way, to impose your opinions - even in the form of threats, in public at that. This dialectic between truth/faith and authority is contrary to the sacerdotal spirit. At least he would hope that you try to understand the arguments that prompted to act as he did in recent years, according to the will of Divine Providence.
"... the masterstroke of satan was to sow disobedience to Catholic tradition through obedience."
- Archbishop Lefebvre
If such a manuver succeeded so well before, why not try it again?
-
Yes, a PDF taken in isolation could be created by anyone.
But if you look at all the other pieces of the puzzle on the table, this PDF clearly fits.
You have to be willing to acknowledge the truth, whatever it looks like.
I'm quite used to that personally, but others have difficulty swallowing such a bitter pill.
-
Is it possible to now take this down, in accordance with what must be the desires of the four bishops?
One gets the impression that you joined this list for no other purpose than to try plugging the leak. How precisely do you know what the "four" bishops would desire? Methinks "three" aren't unduly upset that these proceedings are finally getting a wider audience, given Bp. Fellay's rather facile response.
-
From "Dumb Ox" over at Ignis Ardens:
Dear SpiritusSanctus,
I can not access the docuмents at CathInfo.
If you are able to post the texts here I will be able to confirm if the Letter of the three to the one is genuine.
The response of Bishop Fellay I have not seen and so can not guarantee its authenticity although if the Letter of the three to the one is genuine I would have no doubt that the other Letter is genuine as well.
He later followed up with:
Dear Cristera,
I have checked the French-language Letter of the three to the one posted here almost word for word. It is genuine.
He also told us explicitly that the "leaker" wasn't Bishop Williamson:
Dear Gregorio,
Before the thread is archived, if that is what should happen, people are naturally going to make all sorts of assumptions regarding the original source of the Letters being leaked.
Naturally, I will not indicate who provided me with a copy of the Letter of the Three to the One, but I will state that it was not the One of the Three who people will naturally assume it to be.
For the public record it was not Bishop Williamson who provided to me my copy of the Letter.
-
In reading the various forums, it seems that people who chide others for discussing this issue in an open and public manner are almost always in favor of an SSPX "reconciliation" with Rome. Would they be so scrupulous if the shoe were on the other foot?
Today, we're told to wait for an actual agreement before discussing a possible outcome. Tomorrow, after a "deal" is in place, they'll ask us to hold off on speculating about the future. They'll say, "Give it a fair chance." If the reconciliation goes badly, they'll accuse us of playing "Monday Morning Quarterback." They'll say "it is what it is" and suggest that we make the best of the situation without complaining too much.
As I recall, this is the way things worked out around the time of Vatican II. :facepalm:
-
Ultrarigorist,
On what grounds would you hold that? When the letter to Bishop Williamson was leaked, he himself expressed frustration and disapproval. Why would that not be so no?
Oh, I should think Bp. Fellay is expressing frustration at the moment, for this exposes, what may prove to be a back-room sellout. He'll not be able to explain it away now.
Of course Bp. Williamson didn't like a "disciplinary" letter intended for him being published. Though it was yet more unjust and shameful treatment of him, he doesn't seem the sort wishing for a pity party on his behalf. Now I suspect however, he thinks back on that "leak" with a wry grin, for it, like this example, is bringing everything into focus.
-
I still don't see an answer to my question that it is unreasonable and unfair to print private correspondence.
Your assertion that it's "unreasonable and unfair". That assertion is false. It is manifestly reasonable and fair that ANY and ALL such "negotiations" are shared with the faithful without concealment of essential details, and most certainly when such negotiations are at variance with what had been Abp. LeFebvre's, and the Society's position for 30-odd years.
-
And now -- a translation of Bishop Fellay's response to the 3 Bishops!
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=18681&min=0&num=10
(The 2nd post in the thread)
-
"Does this pass for a reasoned argument? Where in here is the principle that we have any right to discuss, let alone publish these letters.
I'll let others judge the reasoning of my argument. But I'm old enough to have lived through Vatican II, and I recall similar arguments being used to fend off disagreement from "traditionalists" at that time. Am I accusing "SSPX deal" supporters of the same calculated approach? No. However, I do think they're getting too familiar with the modernist way of doing business, which causes some of us to wonder about their true intentions.
-
Actually, I can confirm the PDF is not a scan of an original. You can highlight and select the text, which is an indication that it was created electronically. Anyone could have altered these, and we would never know it.
My HP Officejet scans hard copy, and converts it to digital text in the produced PDF file.
So we have two copies inside the PDF file: the image of the hard copy, and digital text that it is keyed to.
Also, the letter might have originally been transmitted as a PDF file with a physical letter to follow later.
Well, the original letter from the Three to Fellay might be an OCR scan, but the response from Fellay is clearly a scanned-image PDF of an actual letter. You can clearly see the creases in the paper where it's been folded, and there's a letterhead of an entirely different font to the text. More to the point it's irrelevant; we can, by the content of Fellay's response, easily divine the arguments put forth by the Three against reconciliation. I'm very inclined to view the content as genuine.
I'd also like to take the opportunity to thank the intrepid soul that brought the docuмents to the attention of the traditional community, and Matthew for not only permitting their dissemination but for his rational consideration of their contents and possible consequences.
-
Has anyone noticed how the official statements have started to be very fuzzy about the nature of the doctrinal disagreements? First they started saying you couldn't call them heretics because they were using language you couldn't pin down. They they said they had to keep the discussions secret. Then they had to keep the doctrinal preamble secret. Then they said they agreed with 95% of Vatican II. Just what is it they don't agree with anymore? Where are the clear criticisms? Why do they just make vague references to disagreements without pointing out explicitly the errors they are supposed to have trouble with?
They are playing this same game that has been played from the beginning. The setting up of "the Pope" as somehow being the one who wishes to help us. The same way they set him up as the "good cop" for conservative NO types to cling to. They've set up this "good cop" "bad cop" system of propaganda to keep devout people clinging in support of those who are really determined to ruin the Church. And now the SSPX leadership is playing its part in the same game. Taking advantage of the tendency to cling to "the Pope" - refusing to restate the old criticisms. Stifling the publication of Archbishop Lefebvre's sermons with perfidious resort to dubious copyright claims.
They think the people in the pews are stupid sheep who won't see that the wool is being pulled over their eyes.
Give these people another 20 years and most "traditional" chapels will be a joke just like the NO.
-
The fact of the matter, no matter how much disimulation and unwillingness to address the issues head on you may bring, is this: The Pope is the Pope. He does govern the Universal Church. Sadly, he is imbued with a spirit of Vatican II and modernistic thinking. That being said, if he asks Bishop Fellay to accept a canonical solution, while giving real, definable guarantees that the Faith is not to be compromised and that the Society does not have to compromise on the question of the Mass, then on what grounds can you resist him?
This height of private judgment, as if any of us (including any of the three other bishops) have been given the grace of state to make these decisions is astounding.
So if Vatican II were happening, you'd just say,
"The Pope has the graces of state, and he is promulgating this New Mass, so it must be ok...who am I to resist? Even priests and bishops have no right to question the wisdom of the Pope and Cardinals, who have the graces of state from God to rule the Church..."
Once again, it's Vatican II all over again, with all the same arguments.
And since when can the graces of state involve contradicting:
* Common sense
* Yourself 10 years ago
* The founder of your order
Sorry, but "little old us" can certainly be right in a case like this.
And the 3 other SSPX bishops aren't chopped liver -- graces of state or no. Actually, they DO have graces of state as Bishops to preach and defend the Faith. They are part of the Ecclesia Docens. And let's not forget that +Fellay is the *youngest* of the three.
Prelates have been making bad decisions, selling out, committing crimes, going astray, etc. all throughout Church history. Nothing new under the sun.
-
Menzingen 14 April 2012
To their Excellencies Tissier de Mallerais, Williamson and de Galarreta.
Your Excellencies,
...
You cannot know how much your attitude over the last few months - quite different for each of you - has been hard for us. It has prevented the Superior General from sharing with you these great concerns, which he would gladly have brought you in to, had he not found himself faced with such a strong and passionate lack of understanding. How much he would have loved to be able to count on you, on your advice to undergo this so delicate moment in our history. It is a great trial, perhaps the greatest of all 18 years of his being superior. Our venerable founder gave to the Society bishops a task and precise duties. He made clear that the principle of unity in our Society is the Superior General. But for a certain time now, you have been trying - each one of you in his own way - to impose on him your point of view, even in the form of threats, and even in public. This dialectic between the truth and the faith on the one side and authority on the other is contrary to the spirit of the priesthood. He might at least have hoped that you were trying to understand the arguments driving him to act as he has acted these last few years in accordance with the will of divine Providence.
We are praying hard for each of you that we may find ourselves all together once again in this fight which is far from over, for the greater glory of God and for love of dear Society.
May Our risen Lord and Our Lady deign to protect and bless you,
+Bernard Fellay
Niklaus Pfluger+
Alain-Marc Nély+
Truly unbelievable!
Like deja vu all over again!; vis a vis Compos, Papa Stronsay, et al...
Sure sounds like a perfect candidate to head the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei... :facepalm:
-
Gregorio Sarto made an excellent post on IA on this matter. :applause:
1. What is alarming is that Bishop Fellay is even considering putting his trust, and the future of the SSPX into the hands of these Modernists in Rome. What is alarming is that the SSPX is in grave danger due to Bishop Fellay's conduct, as the letter says.
2. As mentioned before, how it was leaked is really beside the point and is, I suspect, a half-hearted, badly disguised attempt to draw attention and discussion away from the unanswerable argumens put forth by the three Bishops.
The crude attempt to insinuate dishonesty and scheming on the part of "one of" the correspondents (and we all know who is being insinuated there) is particularly poor form, and belies the author's veneer of pious sounding language.
3. What is more, the very fact that pro-agreement arguments cannot be "leaked" since they are publicised by their authors with mo sign of any fear whatever that they will be in trouble for talking on a sensitive matter, etc. One rule for one lot, another for others. This is not just, and to my mind reflects poorly on +Fellay. He would reprimand anyone opposing a deal for speaking out of turn as he has reprimanded +BW before now for speaking out of turn. But when his partisans speak up on a sensitive matter, not only giving their opinion, but new previously-unheard information too, that's just fine.
-
What the soft-line reconcilliationists need to understand is this:
1) We hard-liners are not opposed to a deal with Rome in perpetuity no matter what.
2) We simply need Rome to desire the return of tradition, and the demise of modernism.
3) But today, Rome wants Tradition to take a seat alongside modernism.
4) Rome does not desire the demise of modernism, but the snuffing out of the lone voice in the wilderness that points out to the world that the emperror is wearing no clothes
5) If the Pope had contacted Bishop Fellay and said, "We desire your help in snuffing out modernism, and returning the Church to her immutable doctrines" I would be leading the charge to accept a deal.
6) But does anyone pretend this is what the Pope hopes to gain by "regularizing" the SSPX????!!!!
-
Of course not. But Bishop Fellay's point is that no compromise on the Faith is being asked for. Surely you can't equate a prudential decision of the head of a religious order with a question of a clear compromise on the Faith? And even if you were right on this, wouldn't the Catholic response be to sit and wait and see what the docuмent says? Right now, you're equating this deal with Vatican II, the fabrication of the New Mass, etc. and you've never seen the docuмent.
No, that is not a Catholic response. Not when you have a bunch of modernists occupying Rome. The fact that three of the four Bishops of the SSPX are against a deal speaks large volume, yet some people seem to only care what Bishop Fellay thinks and says.
-
Actually, I can confirm the PDF is not a scan of an original. You can highlight and select the text, which is an indication that it was created electronically. Anyone could have altered these, and we would never know it.
My HP Officejet scans hard copy, and converts it to digital text in the produced PDF file.
So we have two copies inside the PDF file: the image of the hard copy, and digital text that it is keyed to.
Also, the letter might have originally been transmitted as a PDF file with a physical letter to follow later.
Well, the original letter from the Three to Fellay might be an OCR scan, but the response from Fellay is clearly a scanned-image PDF of an actual letter. You can clearly see the creases in the paper where it's been folded, and there's a letterhead of an entirely different font to the text. More to the point it's irrelevant; we can, by the content of Fellay's response, easily divine the arguments put forth by the Three against reconciliation. I'm very inclined to view the content as genuine.
I'd also like to take the opportunity to thank the intrepid soul that brought the docuмents to the attention of the traditional community, and Matthew for not only permitting their dissemination but for his rational consideration of their contents and possible consequences.
I have been selling business grade, freestanding copiers for 5 years, so when I say what I am about to say, I know what I am talking about:
1) The technology now exists to manipulate PDF docuмents;
2) That a docuмent is formatted in PDF format is no longer a guarantee of originality;
3) The point being that the authenticity of the letter cannot be proven by whether or not it has been posted here in PDF format.
But as an aside, I think there is little doubt, given the tenor, style, content, and recent post of Bishop Williamson (i.e., 3 against 1), as to its authenticity.
-
Matthew,
You asked:
"So if Vatican II were happening, you'd just say,
"The Pope has the graces of state, and he is promulgating this New Mass, so it must be ok...who am I to resist? Even priests and bishops have no right to question the wisdom of the Pope and Cardinals, who have the graces of state from God to rule the Church..."
Of course not. But Bishop Fellay's point is that no compromise on the Faith is being asked for. Surely you can't equate a prudential decision of the head of a religious order with a question of a clear compromise on the Faith? And even if you were right on this, wouldn't the Catholic response be to sit and wait and see what the docuмent says? Right now, you're equating this deal with Vatican II, the fabrication of the New Mass, etc. and you've never seen the docuмent.
On what grounds do you protest?
WRONG!!!!
HUGE COMPROMISES AGAINST THE FAITH ARE BEING REQUIRED!!!!
1) Acceptance of a purely practical deal while all the doctrinal issues remain is implicit recognition of doctrinal pluralism!
2) Shees! Do I have to say anything more than what the 3 bishops wrote to Bishop Fellay???
3) Could you please explain why these 3 bishops are erring simpletons who just don't get it?
Some people just don't know when to quit.
Here the 3 bishops lay out exactly their objections, and you callously overlook the whole of their rationales, and revert to "there is no compromise asked" without so much as a reference to their arguments?
Of wait, I forgot, "Ours is not to question why; ours is but to do or die?"
-
Bishop Fellay's point is that no compromise on the Faith is being asked for.
Surely you can't equate a prudential decision of the head of a religious order with a question of a clear compromise on the Faith?
you've never seen the docuмent.
On what grounds do you protest?
But a comprimise will happen, already demonstrated by his willingness to conceal things from the faithful.
I've not seen any prudential decisions from the head of SSPX lately, with regard to peers, subordinates, finances, or negotiations with all those swell chaps who truly hate his flock and everything they represent.
We've seen his vapid docuмent to his fellow bishops, and that's bad enough.
But enough of that Melchior, I'm still stuck at the bit where you turned up on the C.I. list today, only a few hours after this most enlightening correspondence was posted. Coincidence? Pray, fill us in?
-
Melchior, as several other members have pointed out, you are obviously a damage control shill, sent here to mislead and confuse the Faithful.
I note that you showed up within hours after the PDFs were posted here on CathInfo.
Since then, you've worked with a single purpose, ignoring all rational arguments and trying desperately to salvage the situation.
You are quite obvious, at least to me.
-
What the soft-line reconcilliationists need to understand is this:
1) We hard-liners are not opposed to a deal with Rome in perpetuity no matter what.
2) We simply need Rome to desire the return of tradition, and the demise of modernism.
3) But today, Rome wants Tradition to take a seat alongside modernism.
4) Rome does not desire the demise of modernism, but the snuffing out of the lone voice in the wilderness that points out to the world that the emperror is wearing no clothes
5) If the Pope had contacted Bishop Fellay and said, "We desire your help in snuffing out modernism, and returning the Church to her immutable doctrines" I would be leading the charge to accept a deal.
6) But does anyone pretend this is what the Pope hopes to gain by "regularizing" the SSPX????!!!!
This is a very devastating argument. We're supposed to put 50 years of experience with the Novus Ordo aside in favor of blind trust in the proposed agreement? I'm sorry, but history has meaning. I'm no theologian, but I can't find a reason to believe this reconciliation is anything but a "divide and conquer strategy" on the part of Rome. In his letter, Bishop Fellay indicates Benedict XVI wants the SSPX to lead a counter-renewal of sorts. Really? Then why hasn't the Pope publicly celebrated the TLM? Why did he go to Assisi? Why does he defend the disaster that is VII? Perhaps the Society leadership knows something we lay people fail to grasp. If so, it might be time to put real evidence on the table.
-
To be totally honest, the only reason I joined this site was so that I could download the pdfs, not to comment; that was (in hindsight) an imprudent action on my part as you are not really interested in debating these topics.
Yet you tried to dissuade everyone else from downloading them, and further, tried desperately to get the mods to remove them post haste. Your first comment in fact was an enquiry as to how they got leaked, followed by a pro-Fellay stump and an accusation of the mods "imprudence" for allowing these letters to stay. So getting back to "totally honest"?
-
Actually, I can confirm the PDF is not a scan of an original. You can highlight and select the text, which is an indication that it was created electronically. Anyone could have altered these, and we would never know it.
My HP Officejet scans hard copy, and converts it to digital text in the produced PDF file.
So we have two copies inside the PDF file: the image of the hard copy, and digital text that it is keyed to.
Also, the letter might have originally been transmitted as a PDF file with a physical letter to follow later.
Well, the original letter from the Three to Fellay might be an OCR scan, but the response from Fellay is clearly a scanned-image PDF of an actual letter. You can clearly see the creases in the paper where it's been folded, and there's a letterhead of an entirely different font to the text. More to the point it's irrelevant; we can, by the content of Fellay's response, easily divine the arguments put forth by the Three against reconciliation. I'm very inclined to view the content as genuine.
I'd also like to take the opportunity to thank the intrepid soul that brought the docuмents to the attention of the traditional community, and Matthew for not only permitting their dissemination but for his rational consideration of their contents and possible consequences.
I have been selling business grade, freestanding copiers for 5 years, so when I say what I am about to say, I know what I am talking about:
1) The technology now exists to manipulate PDF docuмents;
2) That a docuмent is formatted in PDF format is no longer a guarantee of originality;
3) The point being that the authenticity of the letter cannot be proven by whether or not it has been posted here in PDF format.
Nor did my post make any assertions to the contrary. All I stated was that the file ostensibly containing a litter from Bp. Fellay was not an OCR generated docuмent, and that visual artifacts within the file are consistent with scanned image of a letter that had been folded. Moreover, the size (data size, not dimensions) of the docuмent vs. the one purported to be a letter by the three essentially guarantees that it's image-based.
Having worked as both a software engineer and a graphic artist, I know very well that images can be manipulated and that PDFs are not by their nature secure. However, I see nothing in the docuмent that points to it being fake. Having done an ELA of the first page, there was no out-of-place banding, rainbowing or other chromatic aberration that would suggest that the image itself was manipulated in any way. I'm almost certain that, should this letter not be genuine, then the fabrication came in the actual writing, not after it was digitized.
But as an aside, I think there is little doubt, given the tenor, style, content, and recent post of Bishop Williamson (i.e., 3 against 1), as to its authenticity.
There we agree.
-
Menzingen 14 April 2012
To their Excellencies Tissier de Mallerais, Williamson and de Galarreta.
Your Excellencies,
To your collective letter addressed to the members of the General Council we have given our full attention. We thank you for your concern and for your charity.
Allow us in turn with the same concern for charity and justice to make the following observations.
Firstly, the letter gives a good account of the gravity of the crisis shaking the Church and analyses with precision the nature of the errors flying all around. However, the description suffers from two faults with regard to the reality of the Church: it is lacking both in supernatural spirit and in realism.
It lacks supernatural spirit. Reading your letter one seriously wonders if you still believe that the visible Church with its seat in Rome is truly the Church of Our Lord Jesus Christ, a Church horribly disfigured for sure from head to foot, but a Church which nevertheless still has for its head Our Lord Jesus Christ. One has the impression that you are so scandalised that you no longer accept that that could still be true. It Benedict XVI still the legitimate pope for you? If he is, can Jesus Christ still speak through his mouth? If the pope expresses a legitimate desire concerning ourselves which is a good desire and gives no command contrary to the commandments of God, has one the right to pay no attention and to simply dismiss his desire? If not, on what principle do you base your acting in this way? Do you not think that, if Our Lord gives a command, He will also give us the means to continue our work? Well, the Pope has let us know that his concern to settle our affair for the good of the Church was at the very heart of his pontificate, and that he also knew that it would be easier both for him and for ourselves to leave things as they presently stand. Hence it is a firm and just desire to which he is giving expression. Given the attitude that you put forward there is no further place for Gideons or for Davids or for anyone counting on the help of the Lord. You blame us for being naïve or fearful, but it is your vision of the Church that is too human and even fatalistic; you see dangers, plots, difficulties, you now longer see the help of grace and the Holy Ghost. If one is ready to grant that divine providence conducts the affairs of men, while leaving them their liberty, then one must also accept that the gestures in our favour of the last few years come from Providence. Now, these gestures indicate a line - not always a straight line - but a line clearly in favour of Tradition. Why should this line suddenly come to an end when we are doing all we can to remain faithful and when our efforts are being accompanied by no few prayers on our part? Would the Good Lord drop us at the most decisive moment? That makes no sense. Especially if we are not trying to impose on Him any will of our own but we are trying to discern amidst events what God wants and we are ready to act as He wishes.
At the same time your attitude lacks realism both as to the depth and the breadth of the errors.
Depth: within the Society, we are in the process of making the Council's errors into super-heresies, as though it is becoming absolute evil, worse than anything, in the same way that Liberals have dogmatised this pastoral council. The evils are already dramatic enough so that one not need to exaggerate them any further. (Cf. Roberto de Mattei, A History never written, p. 22; Msgr. Gherardini, A Debate to be begun, p. 53, etc.) No more distinctions are being made. Whereas Archbishop Lefebvre more than once made the necessary distinctions concerning Liberals. This failure to distinguish leads one or the other of you three to an "absolute hardening". This is serious because such a caricature no longer corresponds to reality and logically it will in the future finish up in a true schism. And it may well be that this fact is one of the arguments pushing me to delay no longer in responding to the pressure from Rome.
Breadth: on the one hand the present authorities are blamed for all the errors and evils to be found in the Church leaving out the fact that they are trying at least partly to free themselves from the worst of them (the pope's condemning of the "hermeneutic of rupture" denounces very real errors). On the other hand it is claimed that everybody is firmly rooted in this pertinacity ("all modernists", "all rotten"). Now that is obviously false. A great majority may still be carried away by the movement, but not everybody.
So that as for the most crucial question of all, that of whether we can survive in the case of the Society being recognised by Rome, we do not arrive at the same conclusion as you do.
Let it be noted in passing that we did not look for a practical agreement. That is false. All we have done is not refuse a priori, as you ask us to do, to consider the Popes offer. For the common good of the Society, we would far prefer the present solution of the intermediary status quo but it is clear that Rome will put up with it no longer.
In itself, the proposed solution of a personal Prelature is not a trap. That is clear firstly from the fact that the present situation in April of 2012 is very different from that of 1988. To claim that nothing has changed is a historic error. The same evils are making the Church suffer, the consequences are even more serious and obvious than ever; but at the same time one may observe a change of attitude in the Church, helped by the gestures and acts of Benedict XVI towards Tradition. This new movement which started about ten years ago is growing stronger. It includes a good number (still a minority) of young priests, seminarians and even a small number now of young bishops who are clearly to be distinguished from their predecessors, who tell us of their sympathy and support, but who are still somewhat stifled by the dominant line in the hierarchy in favour of Vatican II. This hierarchy is loosing speed. That is an objective fact and shows that it is no longer an illusion to think of a fight arising within the Church, even if we are well aware of how long and difficult it will be. I have been able to observe in Rome that even if the glories of Vatican II are still in the mouths of many, and are pushed down our throats, is nevertheless not in all the heads. Fewer and fewer Romans believe in Vatican II.
This concrete situation, together with the canonical solution being proposed, is very different from that of 1988 and when we compare the arguments given by Archbishop Lefebvre at that time we draw the conclusion that he would not have hesitated to accept what is being proposed to us. Let us not loose that sense of the Church, which was so strong in our venerated founder.
Church history shows that the curing of evils afflicting it normally happens gradually and slowly. And when one problem is over, there is another that begins... oportet haereses esse. It is not realistic to require that everything be settled to arrive at what you call a practical agreement. When one watches how events are unfolding it is highly likely that the end of this crisis will take tens of years yet. But to refuse to work in the vineyard because there are still many weeds that risk stifling and obstructing the vine runs up against a notable lesson from the Bible: it Our Lord himself who gives us to understand with His parable of the chaff that there will always be in one form or another weeds to be pulled up and fought against in His Church.
You cannot know how much your attitude over the last few months - quite different for each of you - has been hard for us. It has prevented the Superior General from sharing with you these great concerns, which he would gladly have brought you in to, had he not found himself faced with such a strong and passionate lack of understanding. How much he would have loved to be able to count on you, on your advice to undergo this so delicate moment in our history. It is a great trial, perhaps the greatest of all 18 years of his being superior. Our venerable founder gave to the Society bishops a task and precise duties. He made clear that the principle of unity in our Society is the Superior General. But for a certain time now, you have been trying - each one of you in his own way - to impose on him your point of view, even in the form of threats, and even in public. This dialectic between the truth and the faith on the one side and authority on the other is contrary to the spirit of the priesthood. He might at least have hoped that you were trying to understand the arguments driving him to act as he has acted these last few years in accordance with the will of divine Providence.
We are praying hard for each of you that we may find ourselves all together once again in this fight which is far from over, for the greater glory of God and for love of dear Society.
May Our risen Lord and Our Lady deign to protect and bless you,
+Bernard Fellay
Niklaus Pfluger+
Alain-Marc Nély+
Truly unbelievable!
Like deja vu all over again!; vis a vis Compos, Papa Stronsay, et al...
Sure sounds like a perfect candidate to head the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei... :facepalm:
I am shocked to read this response by Bishop Fellay:
It implies the following:
1) Opposition to taking a seat alongside the modernists necessarily means we are sedevacantists?
2) If so, what happened to the distinction between true and false obedience?
3) And if it should come to pass that we must resist 95% of what comes from Rome, how is this all of the sudden practical sedevacantism?
4) "Can Jesus Christ still speak through the Pope's mouth?" we are asked. Answer: Not if the Pope does not allow it! Or is Bishop Fellay the same Jansenist he accuses his brethren of by implying that Jesus can overpower the will of the Pope to make his will known through him, when the Pope opposes it???
You know what?
I can't even continue reading this canned response!
I'm getting too upset to go through this drivel point by point.
Unvelievable.
Well, I will say this much: It is clear to me that Bishop Fellay has gone beyond the point of no return.
He cannot be brought back.
The only hope for the SSPX is that Rome refuses the deal Bishop Fellay is willing to lose everything to take (and then takes countermeasures to negate the influence they can exert in the future).
I never thought I would see the day that a sifting on this magnitude would hit my beloved SSPX!
Never thought it could come to this!
-
Let it be noted in passing that we did not look for a practical agreement. That is false. All we have done is not refuse a priori, as you ask us to do, to consider the Popes offer. For the common good of the Society, we would far prefer the present solution of the intermediary status quo but it is clear that Rome will put up with it no longer.
This is a very strange paragraph. IOW, it would be better, for the common good of the Society, to maintain the status quo, but we consider the offer because "is clear that Rome will put up with it no longer."
What does this mean, "it is clear that Rome will put up with it no longer?"
-
]This is a very strange paragraph. IOW, it would be better, for the common good of the Society, to maintain the status quo, but we consider the offer because "is clear that Rome will put up with it no longer."
What does this mean, "it is clear that Rome will put up with it no longer?"
I don't know, but it's astounding that heretics, ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs and other apostates get a free ride from the Vatican, while traditional Catholics are threatened with severe disciplinary measures for their "schism." For those in doubt about the situation, it's worth reading the letter to Rome penned by ABL and many other Society leaders in the aftermath of the '88 "excommunications."
-
Let it be noted in passing that we did not look for a practical agreement. That is false. All we have done is not refuse a priori, as you ask us to do, to consider the Popes offer. For the common good of the Society, we would far prefer the present solution of the intermediary status quo but it is clear that Rome will put up with it no longer.
This is a very strange paragraph. IOW, it would be better, for the common good of the Society, to maintain the status quo, but we consider the offer because "is clear that Rome will put up with it no longer."
What does this mean, "it is clear that Rome will put up with it no longer?"
Why would a Catholic care that Rome will no longer tolerate authentic Catholicism?
Has he lost his grip on the doctrine of necessity?
Is he now attacked by scruples?
-
Menzingen 14 April 2012
To their Excellencies Tissier de Mallerais, Williamson and de Galarreta.
Your Excellencies,
To your collective letter addressed to the members of the General Council we have given our full attention. We thank you for your concern and for your charity.
Allow us in turn with the same concern for charity and justice to make the following observations.
Firstly, the letter gives a good account of the gravity of the crisis shaking the Church and analyses with precision the nature of the errors flying all around. However, the description suffers from two faults with regard to the reality of the Church: it is lacking both in supernatural spirit and in realism.
It lacks supernatural spirit. Reading your letter one seriously wonders if you still believe that the visible Church with its seat in Rome is truly the Church of Our Lord Jesus Christ, a Church horribly disfigured for sure from head to foot, but a Church which nevertheless still has for its head Our Lord Jesus Christ. One has the impression that you are so scandalised that you no longer accept that that could still be true. It Benedict XVI still the legitimate pope for you? If he is, can Jesus Christ still speak through his mouth? If the pope expresses a legitimate desire concerning ourselves which is a good desire and gives no command contrary to the commandments of God, has one the right to pay no attention and to simply dismiss his desire? If not, on what principle do you base your acting in this way? Do you not think that, if Our Lord gives a command, He will also give us the means to continue our work? Well, the Pope has let us know that his concern to settle our affair for the good of the Church was at the very heart of his pontificate, and that he also knew that it would be easier both for him and for ourselves to leave things as they presently stand. Hence it is a firm and just desire to which he is giving expression. Given the attitude that you put forward there is no further place for Gideons or for Davids or for anyone counting on the help of the Lord. You blame us for being naïve or fearful, but it is your vision of the Church that is too human and even fatalistic; you see dangers, plots, difficulties, you now longer see the help of grace and the Holy Ghost. If one is ready to grant that divine providence conducts the affairs of men, while leaving them their liberty, then one must also accept that the gestures in our favour of the last few years come from Providence. Now, these gestures indicate a line - not always a straight line - but a line clearly in favour of Tradition. Why should this line suddenly come to an end when we are doing all we can to remain faithful and when our efforts are being accompanied by no few prayers on our part? Would the Good Lord drop us at the most decisive moment? That makes no sense. Especially if we are not trying to impose on Him any will of our own but we are trying to discern amidst events what God wants and we are ready to act as He wishes.
At the same time your attitude lacks realism both as to the depth and the breadth of the errors.
Depth: within the Society, we are in the process of making the Council's errors into super-heresies, as though it is becoming absolute evil, worse than anything, in the same way that Liberals have dogmatised this pastoral council. The evils are already dramatic enough so that one not need to exaggerate them any further. (Cf. Roberto de Mattei, A History never written, p. 22; Msgr. Gherardini, A Debate to be begun, p. 53, etc.) No more distinctions are being made. Whereas Archbishop Lefebvre more than once made the necessary distinctions concerning Liberals. This failure to distinguish leads one or the other of you three to an "absolute hardening". This is serious because such a caricature no longer corresponds to reality and logically it will in the future finish up in a true schism. And it may well be that this fact is one of the arguments pushing me to delay no longer in responding to the pressure from Rome.
Breadth: on the one hand the present authorities are blamed for all the errors and evils to be found in the Church leaving out the fact that they are trying at least partly to free themselves from the worst of them (the pope's condemning of the "hermeneutic of rupture" denounces very real errors). On the other hand it is claimed that everybody is firmly rooted in this pertinacity ("all modernists", "all rotten"). Now that is obviously false. A great majority may still be carried away by the movement, but not everybody.
So that as for the most crucial question of all, that of whether we can survive in the case of the Society being recognised by Rome, we do not arrive at the same conclusion as you do.
Let it be noted in passing that we did not look for a practical agreement. That is false. All we have done is not refuse a priori, as you ask us to do, to consider the Popes offer. For the common good of the Society, we would far prefer the present solution of the intermediary status quo but it is clear that Rome will put up with it no longer.
In itself, the proposed solution of a personal Prelature is not a trap. That is clear firstly from the fact that the present situation in April of 2012 is very different from that of 1988. To claim that nothing has changed is a historic error. The same evils are making the Church suffer, the consequences are even more serious and obvious than ever; but at the same time one may observe a change of attitude in the Church, helped by the gestures and acts of Benedict XVI towards Tradition. This new movement which started about ten years ago is growing stronger. It includes a good number (still a minority) of young priests, seminarians and even a small number now of young bishops who are clearly to be distinguished from their predecessors, who tell us of their sympathy and support, but who are still somewhat stifled by the dominant line in the hierarchy in favour of Vatican II. This hierarchy is loosing speed. That is an objective fact and shows that it is no longer an illusion to think of a fight arising within the Church, even if we are well aware of how long and difficult it will be. I have been able to observe in Rome that even if the glories of Vatican II are still in the mouths of many, and are pushed down our throats, is nevertheless not in all the heads. Fewer and fewer Romans believe in Vatican II.
This concrete situation, together with the canonical solution being proposed, is very different from that of 1988 and when we compare the arguments given by Archbishop Lefebvre at that time we draw the conclusion that he would not have hesitated to accept what is being proposed to us. Let us not loose that sense of the Church, which was so strong in our venerated founder.
Church history shows that the curing of evils afflicting it normally happens gradually and slowly. And when one problem is over, there is another that begins... oportet haereses esse. It is not realistic to require that everything be settled to arrive at what you call a practical agreement. When one watches how events are unfolding it is highly likely that the end of this crisis will take tens of years yet. But to refuse to work in the vineyard because there are still many weeds that risk stifling and obstructing the vine runs up against a notable lesson from the Bible: it Our Lord himself who gives us to understand with His parable of the chaff that there will always be in one form or another weeds to be pulled up and fought against in His Church.
You cannot know how much your attitude over the last few months - quite different for each of you - has been hard for us. It has prevented the Superior General from sharing with you these great concerns, which he would gladly have brought you in to, had he not found himself faced with such a strong and passionate lack of understanding. How much he would have loved to be able to count on you, on your advice to undergo this so delicate moment in our history. It is a great trial, perhaps the greatest of all 18 years of his being superior. Our venerable founder gave to the Society bishops a task and precise duties. He made clear that the principle of unity in our Society is the Superior General. But for a certain time now, you have been trying - each one of you in his own way - to impose on him your point of view, even in the form of threats, and even in public. This dialectic between the truth and the faith on the one side and authority on the other is contrary to the spirit of the priesthood. He might at least have hoped that you were trying to understand the arguments driving him to act as he has acted these last few years in accordance with the will of divine Providence.
We are praying hard for each of you that we may find ourselves all together once again in this fight which is far from over, for the greater glory of God and for love of dear Society.
May Our risen Lord and Our Lady deign to protect and bless you,
+Bernard Fellay
Niklaus Pfluger+
Alain-Marc Nély+
Truly unbelievable!
Like deja vu all over again!; vis a vis Compos, Papa Stronsay, et al...
Sure sounds like a perfect candidate to head the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei... :facepalm:
I am shocked to read this response by Bishop Fellay:
It implies the following:
1) Opposition to taking a seat alongside the modernists necessarily means we are sedevacantists?
2) If so, what happened to the distinction between true and false obedience?
3) And if it should come to pass that we must resist 95% of what comes from Rome, how is this all of the sudden practical sedevacantism?
4) "Can Jesus Christ still speak through the Pope's mouth?" we are asked. Answer: Not if the Pope does not allow it! Or is Bishop Fellay the same Jansenist he accuses his brethren of by implying that Jesus can overpower the will of the Pope to make his will known through him, when the Pope opposes it???
You know what?
I can't even continue reading this canned response!
I'm getting too upset to go through this drivel point by point.
Unvelievable.
Well, I will say this much: It is clear to me that Bishop Fellay has gone beyond the point of no return.
He cannot be brought back.
The only hope for the SSPX is that Rome refuses the deal Bishop Fellay is willing to lose everything to take (and then takes countermeasures to negate the influence they can exert in the future).
I never thought I would see the day that a sifting on this magnitude would hit my beloved SSPX!
Never thought it could come to this!
I remember Bsp Williamson warning us that despite the faithful's perception of the SSPX as the vanguard for Tradition,
the Society is by no means insulated from being infiltrated itself...
If it could happen to the Jesuits, the Franciscans, Dominicans, etc... it could certainly happen to the Society as well.
Should Bsp Fellay be determinded to follow thru, I believe a "profoud division" (split) is inevitable.
Perhaps God wills to humble His little Society by a deep spiritual pruning.
Lovingly chastising to weed out the insincere.
Bringing us full circle to a renewed persecution of polarising "labels," hotel rooms, garages and basements, etc. etc...
I know one thing, I have complete trust those 3 Bishops are hand picked to guide us through this mess!
-
This is a very strange paragraph. IOW, it would be better, for the common good of the Society, to maintain the status quo, but we consider the offer because "is clear that Rome will put up with it no longer."
What does this mean, "it is clear that Rome will put up with it no longer?"
I don't know, but it's astounding that heretics, ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs and other apostates get a free ride from the Vatican, while traditional Catholics are threatened with severe disciplinary measures for their "schism." For those in doubt about the situation, it's worth reading the letter to Rome penned by ABL and many other Society leaders in the aftermath of the '88 "excommunications."
Nothing astounding about it, as I've stated the reason several times. Heretics, ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs and apostates, like the modernists themselves, hate truth, especially when the truth naturally and necessarily affirms its singularity. The truth is a dividing line of all though, all action, all belief and all hope, that defines good from evil. It gives no thought to appearances, no expediency to the moment, no sacrifice to the spirit of the world which, by its nebulous and deceitful nature, is its antithesis. Liars and haters of truth seek to enslave; the body, the mind, the will. The Truth that is Jesus Christ liberates men: in mind, to know and accept Him; in body, the means to defend Him; in will, the faculty to give His faith action. This is why Ratzinger hates us. And why Wojtyla, and Luciano, and Montini, and Roncalli all did. Not simply because we cling to the truth whatever the cost, but because their apostasy is made all the more painful to them by our example.
-
I pray that these letters are forgeries. Everyone is jumping up and down in glee over them, but if they are real (a big if IMO), it apparently means that Fellay is pulling a Rifan on us- a terrible thought. I hope and pray that it is not true. But if it is....instead of bashing the man, pray for him, that he can be convinced by the three to turn back from this course.
If it comes down to three vs. one, I think I will follow the three. I wanted to give Fellay the benefit of the doubt. I still will, if it is proven that these letters are fakes. But if they are true......I am so disappointed.
:pray: for
+Fellay
+Williamson
+Galarreta
+Mallerais
-
I never thought I would see the day that a sifting on this magnitude would hit my beloved SSPX!
Never thought it could come to this!
[/quote]
It is very very distasteful. In my opinion, it has an air of superiority, or even arrogance. I find it almost insulting to the Bishops. Essentially telling them that they do not know what they are talking about. Also laying the not so subtle groundwork to declare them sede vacantist if the refuse to accept.
This response also has the character of a press release. Its courtesies superficial, while its content is colored with hostlity.
Krah is likely to be involved in the formulation of such correspondence.
Another night of worry. May our Lord and our Mother help us and His Church.
-
Any translation forthcoming of Bishop Fellay's response? Whilst unity was emphasised in 1988, it is clear only three of the four Bishops stand firmly behind the principles of Archbishop Lefebvre.
Moderator: Here is the translation, supplied to me by a helpful member.
Menzingen 14 April 2012 ...You cannot know how much your attitude over the last few months - quite different for each of you - has been hard for us. It has prevented the Superior General from sharing with you these great concerns, which he would gladly have brought you in to, had he not found himself faced with such a strong and passionate lack of understanding. How much he would have loved to be able to count on you, on your advice to undergo this so delicate moment in our history. It is a great trial, perhaps the greatest of all 18 years of his being superior. Our venerable founder gave to the Society bishops a task and precise duties. He made clear that the principle of unity in our Society is the Superior General. But for a certain time now, you have been trying - each one of you in his own way - to impose on him your point of view, even in the form of threats, and even in public. This dialectic between the truth and the faith on the one side and authority on the other is contrary to the spirit of the priesthood. He might at least have hoped that you were trying to understand the arguments driving him to act as he has acted these last few years in accordance with the will of divine Providence....
+Bernard Fellay
Niklaus Pfluger+
Alain-Marc Nély+
"The Jєω cries out in pain as he strikes you."
The perpetrators have learned ill from their "Elder Brothers" how to play victims.
-
...They've set up this "good cop" "bad cop" system of propaganda to keep devout people clinging in support of those who are really determined to ruin the Church. ....
This is again a manifestation of the trickery of the rabbis, the constant movement of "the pillar of chesed (mercy, good cop)" and "the pillar of gevurah (severity, bad cop)" to corral the goyim at "the middle pillar" (the sticking place where the devil will finish you off).
At this point who is foolish enough to imagine that the SSPX has not been infiltrated by Satan's change agents? The publication of "Saint of the Sanhedrin" in the SSPX's flagship English language publication was your first clue; Krah-gate was your second clue; the scrubbing of SSPX websites of the traditional Magisterium on the ѕуηαgσgυє of Satan was your third clue; and the mention of "Elder Brothers" while enforcing the h0Ɩ0h0αx dogma was your fourth clue.
-
Menzingen 14 April 2012
To their Excellencies Tissier de Mallerais, Williamson and de Galarreta.
Your Excellencies,
[..]
+Bernard Fellay
Niklaus Pfluger+
Alain-Marc Nély+
I am shocked to read this response by Bishop Fellay:
Yes, the word "shocked" is suitable.
Actually the letter sounds a bit like Krah (concerning its insolent tone and its twisted content). J Paul noticed it before.
When you read "Niklaus Pfluger" somewhere you can be sure that his teleprompter Krah is near. I don't know if Krah helped with this letter or if the authors just harmonise with Krah over the years. If you lie down with dogs, you will get up with fleas.
It implies the following:
1) Opposition to taking a seat alongside the modernists necessarily means we are sedevacantists?
2) If so, what happened to the distinction between true and false obedience?
3) And if it should come to pass that we must resist 95% of what comes from Rome, how is this all of the sudden practical sedevacantism?
4) "Can Jesus Christ still speak through the Pope's mouth?" we are asked. Answer: Not if the Pope does not allow it! Or is Bishop Fellay the same Jansenist he accuses his brethren of by implying that Jesus can overpower the will of the Pope to make his will known through him, when the Pope opposes it???
You know what?
I can't even continue reading this canned response!
I'm getting too upset to go through this drivel point by point.
Unvelievable.
Well, I will say this much: It is clear to me that Bishop Fellay has gone beyond the point of no return.
He cannot be brought back.
The only hope for the SSPX is that Rome refuses the deal Bishop Fellay is willing to lose everything to take (and then takes countermeasures to negate the influence they can exert in the future).
I never thought I would see the day that a sifting on this magnitude would hit my beloved SSPX!
Never thought it could come to this!
I understand you and the other traditional catholics here in the forum well. It's a kind of "Damascus experience": to be thrown from one's horse. Such a betrayal amidst our beloved SSPX. Like Diego said, we however have been sleeping too long. Why did we except Satan to spare our SSPX? We ignored his subversive activities all the years (Krahgate woke up some of us) and now they're brought to light and look immense to us.
However, we faithful may see now the front line. That helps. The invisible enemy is the worst and you can hardly battle him. Now we see three bishops however: Bishop Williamson, Bishop Tissier de Mallerais and Bishop de Galarreta. They're standing united in the line of Sanct Archbishop Lefebvre to fight the modernistic beast.
What a wonderful number three is. All that can be desired in these terrible times. These three bishops and their many allies will guarantee that the good fight of Archbishop Lefebvre for the Church is continued until God intervenes directly (and nothing else can solve this crisis anymore).
Since I read the three bishop's good letter I know that all will be well. Fight? Split SSPX? Spiritual war? Anyhow. The front lines are clear now and God will continue to lead these three bishops and their allied priests and faithful. Christus vincit, Christus regnat, Christus imperat.
-
Reverend Superior General, Reverend First Assistant, Reverend Second Assistant,
For several months, as many people know, the General Council of the FSSPX is seriously considering Roman proposals for a practical agreement, after the doctrinal discussions of 2009 to 2011 proved that a doctrinal agreement is impossible with current Rome. By this letter the three bishops of the FSSPX who do not form part of the General Council wish to let him know, with all due respect, of the unanimity of their formal opposition to any such agreement.
Of course, on the two sides of current division between the Counciliar Church and the FSSPX much wish that the Catholic unity be restored. Honor to those on both sides. But since reality governs everything, and to the reality all these sincere desires must yield, namely that since Vatican II the official authorities of the Church have deviated from the Catholic truth, and today they are shown to be quite given to always remaining faithful to the Counciliar doctrines and practices. The Roman discussions, the “doctrinal preamble” and Assisi III are bright examples of this.
The problems arising to the Catholics by the Second Vatican Council are profound. In a conference, which seems like the last doctrinal will of Mgr Lefebvre, which was given to priests of the Society at Ecône a half year before his death, after having briefly summarized the history of the liberal Catholicism resulting from the French Revolution, he recalled how the Popes have always fought this attempt at a reconciliation between the Church and the modern world, and he declared that the combat of Society of St. Pius X against the Vatican II was exactly the same combat. He concluded:
“The more one analyzes the docuмents of the Vatican II and their interpretation by the authorities of the Church, and the more one realizes that they are neither superficial errors nor a few particular errors such as ecuмenism, religious freedom, collegial structure, but rather a total perversion of the spirit, a whole new philosophy founded upon Subjectivism… It is very serious! A total perversion! … That is really alarming.”
But, is the thinking of Benedict XVI is better in this respect than that of John Paul II? It is enough to read the study made by one of us three, The Faith in Peril from Reason, to realize that the thought of the current Pope is also impregnated of subjectivism. It is all the subjective imagination of the man in the place of the objective reality of God. It is all the Catholic religion subjected to the modern world. How can one believe that a practical agreement can arrange such a problem?
But, some will say to us, Benedict XVI is really well disposed towards the Society and its teaching. As a subjectivist this can easily be the case, because liberals subjectivists can tolerate even the truth, but not if one refuses to tolerate error. He would accept us within the framework of relativistic and dialectical pluralism, with the proviso that we would remain in “full communion,” in relation to the authority and to other “ecclesiastical entities .” For this reason the Roman authorities can tolerate that the Society continue to teach Catholic doctrine, but they will absolutely not permit that it condemn Counciliar teachings. That is why an even purely practical agreement would necessarily silence little by little the Society, a full critique of the Council or the New Mass. By ceasing to attack the most important of all the victories of the Revolution, the poor Society would necessarily cease being opposed to the universal apostasy of our sad times and would get bogged down. Ultimately, what will guarantee that we will remain protected from the Roman curia and the bishops? Pope Benoit XVI?
One denies it in vain, this slip is inevitable. Doesn't one see already in the Fraternity symptoms of a lessening in its confession of the Faith? Today, alas, the contrary has become “abnormal”. Just before the consecration of the bishops in 1988 when many good people insisted to Mgr Lefebvre so that he reach a practical agreement with Rome that would open a large field of apostolate, he said his thoughts to the four new bishops: “A large field of apostolate perhaps, but in ambiguity, and while following two directions opposed at the same time, and this would finish by us rotting.” How to obey and continue to preach all the truth? How to reach an agreement without Society “having rotted” on the contrary?
And when one year later, Rome seemed to make true gestures of benevolence towards Tradition, Archbishop Lefebvre was always wary. He feared that they are only “maneuvers to separate us from the largest number of faithful possible. This is the perspective in which they seem to be always giving a little more and even going very far. We must absolutely convince our faithful that it is no more than a maneuvers, that it is dangerous to put oneself into the hands of Conciliar bishops and Modernist Rome. It is the greatest danger threatening our people. If we have struggled for twenty years to avoid the Conciliar errors, it was not in order, now, to put ourselves in the hands of those professing these errors.” According to Archbishop Lefebvre the characteristic of the Society is, more than to just denounce the errors by their name, but rather to effectively and publicly oppose the Roman authorities which has spread them. How will one be able to make an agreement and make this public resistance to the authorities, including the Pope? And after having fought during more than forty years, will the Society now have to be put into the hands of the modernists and liberals whose pertinacity we have just come to observe?
Your Excellency, Fathers, take care! You want to lead the Society to a point where it will no longer be able to turn back, to a profound division of no return and, if you end up to such an agreement, it will be with powerful destroying influences who will not keep it. If up until now the bishops of the Society have protected it, it is precisely because Mgr Lefebvre refused a practical agreement. Since the situation has not changed substantially, since the condition prescribed by the Chapter of 2006 was by no means carried out (a doctrinal change in Rome which would permit a practical agreement), at least listen to your Founder. It was right 25 years ago. It is right still today. On his behalf, we entreat you: do not engage the Society in a purely practical agreement.
With our most cordial and fraternal greetings,
In Christo and Maria,
Mgr. Alfonso de Galarreta
Mgr. Bernard Tissier de Mallerais
Mgr. Richard Williamson
-
The following is a "Bonus Issue" (April 30th) of Bishop Williamson's Eleison Comments. The only way that I'm allowed to post it (according to my reading of the non-exclusive license) is to post it in its entirety along with the license notification. So my apologies for the length.
The reason that I'm posting this is because it seems to confirm the veracity of the words of the two letters that are the subject of thread. Bishop Williamson and the "other two" would be the "Hard Liners" (HL). Bishop Fellay and his supporters would be the "Soft Liners" (SL).
DRAMATIC STICHOMYTHIA.
Stichomythia comes from the Greek dramatists, where it is a sharp dispute conducted in a dialogue of alternate lines. Now there is not much real drama left in a world where the truth is almost extinguished, but the lies have not yet quite taken over in the Catholic Church, as they will virtually do at world’s end, so where there is still some truth, there is still some occasion for stichomythia. We listen in on an SSPX soft-liner (SL) trying to give a hard time to an SSPX hard-liner (HL):–
SL Outside the Church is not where we should be!
HL Who left the Church? Vatican II! Not we!
SL Once in the Church, we could do so much more!
HL If we detested error, as before.
SL Why should we stop detesting error, pray?
HL Because we would be joining in their fray.
SL We need to live within the Church’s law.
HL Not if it is not serving God any more.
SL The Catholic Church is visible. We’re not there.
HL The Church is holy. Do we see that? Where?
SL But things have changed since the Archbishop’s day.
HL The modernists still hold exclusive sway.
SL What Rome now offers, he would have approved.
HL Never, once Benedict to Assisi moved!
SL The SSPX stands strong, need fear no fall.
HL Let all who stand fear falling, says St. Paul.
SL But our Superiors have grace of state.
HL Did leading churchmen never prevaricate?
SL Our leaders to the SSPX belong!
HL And does that mean they never can do wrong?
SL But, Pre-condition One, Rome freed the Mass.
HL And left in place the “bastard rite”, so crass.
SL Rome also lifted the ban on bishops four.
HL But did that make them more free than before?
SL Yet Benedict is calling for our aid.
HL To make Truth prosper, or to help it fade?
SL Of harming Truth, how can the Pope be accused?
HL His modernist mind is hopelessly confused.
SL Yet truly, Benedict wants us all back in.
HL As a modernist, yes, but modernism is a sin.
SL Then do you still believe that he is Pope?
HL Yes, but we must for his conversion hope.
SL What can you mean by, “As a modernist, yes”?
HL Our true Faith he can only harm, not bless.
SL Our welfare is his genuine concern.
HL Not our true welfare, if our true Faith he spurn.
SL A lack of supernatural spirit you show!
HL If woe I say there is, where there is woe?
SL Not everything in the Church is gloomy, dark!
HL Where do you see of true revival a spark?
SL A movement towards Tradition is under way!
HL While fully in control the modernists stay?
SL Then is the official Church still God’s own Church?
HL Yes, it’s the churchmen left us in the lurch.
SL But surely Pope and Rome have both meant well.
HL So? – “Good intentions pave the way to Hell.”
SL But evils worse that Vatican Two can be.
HL The Archbíshop – remember? – called it World War Three.
SL You’re harsh. Your attitude to schism will lead.
HL Better than undermine the entire creed!
SL Not all the Church authorities are bad.
HL The good ones have no power. It’s very sad.
SL Priests should not say, authority is untrue.
HL But bishops were the cause of Vatican II!
SL Still, Catholic instincts seek their Catholic home.
HL Today, for Catholics, that’s no longer Rome.
SL Then where is the Church? Just in Tradition? Where?
HL “One, holy, catholic, apostolic” – there.
SL You want to solve this problem overnight!
HL No, just that a start be made to set it right.
SL We trust in God. We trust in his Sacred Heart.
HL Bravo! But humans too must play their part.
SL That part is not for us just to complain.
HL Tradcats work hard, Tradition to maintain.
SL If we went in with Rome, we could turn back.
HL No. More and more we’d follow in Rome’s track.
SL Why stop the Romans making restitution?
HL Because they’re set upon our destitution.
SL Back in the mainstream Church we’d set to work!
HL Rather we’d lose our way in all their murk.
SL But we are strong, with bishops one and three.
HL Alas, the three with the one do not agree.
SL We’re firm in the Faith. Modernists are no threat!
HL We’d easily slide. You want to take a bet?
SL Strong in the Faith, we can afford to agree!
HL But that Faith says, from heretics to flee.
SL But “Gott mit uns”! We are the SSPX!
HL Not if we choose to ignore all prudent checks.
SL Were we approved, Romans would learn from us!
HL O Heavens, no! They’d throw us under the bus.
SL Were we approved, the earth of Rome could quake.
HL But not before to pieces we would shake.
SL Our leader has graces of state. We must obey.
HL Was Paul the Sixth given graces to betray?
SL Rome is now weak, meaning, we could stay strong.
HL For right, Rome’s feeble. Mighty it is for wrong.
SL So what’s the answer, if you’re always right?
How can the Church be rescued from its plight?
HL The Church belongs to God. In his good time
We’ll see his answer, stunning and sublime.
Till then we grieve, and thirst for right, and trust.
That which we cannot cure, endure we must.
From error and the erring stay away,
Even while for their immortal souls we pray.
And tell God’s truth, however few will hear –
As close as the nearest door, his help is near.
© 2012 Richard N. Williamson. All Rights Reserved.
A non-exclusive license to print out, forward by email, and/or post this article to the Internet is granted to users who wish to do so provided that no changes are made to the content so reproduced or distributed, to include the retention of this notice with any and all reproductions of content as authorized hereby. Aside from this limited, non-exclusive license, no portion of this article may be reproduced in any other form or by any other electronic or mechanical means without permission in writing from the publisher, except by a reviewer who may quote brief passages in a review, or except in cases where rights to content reproduced herein are retained by its original author(s) or other rights holder(s), and further reproduction is subject to permission otherwise granted thereby.
Permissions inquiries should be directed to editorial@dinoscopus.org.
www.dinoscopus.org
As you can see, this dramatic stichomythia seems to deal directly with the points made in the two letters. Apparently this was published before the two letters were leaked.
-
The following is a "Bonus Issue" (April 30th) of Bishop Williamson's Eleison Comments. [..]
The reason that I'm posting this is because it seems to confirm the veracity of the words of the two letters that are the subject of thread. Bishop Williamson and the "other two" would be the "Hard Liners" (HL). Bishop Fellay and his supporters would be the "Soft Liners" (SL).
[..]
As you can see, this dramatic stichomythia seems to deal directly with the points made in the two letters. Apparently this was published before the two letters were leaked.
Well said, thank you. Indeed the Stichomythia is even better understandable when you know both letters! Now everything fits perfectly.
P.S. to Matthew: Could you please paste the English translation posted by FSPX some minutes ago (here, and in another thread) into your 2nd post of this thread?
So ideally, when people open this thread they see FSPX's original article, followed by your post containing the English translation of the 3 bishops' letter, followed by John's post containing the English translation of Menzingen's shocking reply?
Just a thought, whilst it's still night in USA...
-
This quotation was included in the Letter from Menzingen.
*"It is not because a Pope is liberal that he is not the Pope [literally: that he
does not exist]. (...) We must remain in a firm line and not lose our way,
over the difficulties in which we live. We would be tempted precisely by the
extreme solutions, and to say, "No, no, the Pope is not only liberal, the Pope
is a heretic! The Pope is perhaps possibly more than a heretic, therefore
there is no pope!" This, this is not true. It is not because someone is liberal
that he is necessarily a heretic and as a consequence that he is necessarily
outside the Church. One must know how to make the necessary distinctions.
This is very important to stay in a safe way, to stay well in the Church.
Otherwise, where would we go? There is no more a Pope, there are no more
cardinals, because if the Pope was not Pope when he appointed the cardinals,
the cardinals can not elect a Pope anymore because they are not cardinals.
What then? Is it an angel from Heaven who will give us a pope? It is absurd!
And not only absurd, dangerous! Because then we shall be led, perhaps, by
solutions that are truly schismatic."
(Conference in Angers, 1980) See also Fideliter No. 57, p. 17
-
A post on another forum highlights the letters have been translated into Spanish. Radio Cristiandad, who have had over 6 million blog visits have the following.
http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=9363&st=50
Radio Cristiandad, based in Argentina, has translated and published both Letters in Spanish.
CARTA DE LOS TRES OBISPOS A MONS. FELLAY – TRADUCCIÓN COMPLETA DE RADIO CRISTIANDAD
http://radiocristiandad.wordpress.com/2012...io-cristiandad/
RESPUESTA DE MONS. FELLAY A LA CARTA DE LOS TRES OBISPOS – TRADUCCIÓN COMPLETA DE RADIO CRISTIANDAD
http://radiocristiandad.wordpress.com/2012...s-tres-obispos/
Strangely enough, when google translate is used the Letter of the Three to the One is addressed as follows:
http://translate.google.co.uk/translate?hl...%26prmd%3Dimvns
Lord Superior General
Prime Wizard
Mr. Second Assistant
-
Truly unbelievable!
Like deja vu all over again!; vis a vis Compos, Papa Stronsay, et al...
Sure sounds like a perfect candidate to head the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei... :facepalm:
Atila Guimaraes the Editor of TIA has written that an SSPX bishop once came to their premises to purchase some of their literature. In the course of the conversation he had with this bishop, Guimaraes was told that the Campos Deal was really a trial balloon for the real thing - SSPX-Rome. You can find this statement on the TIA site, I'm sure, or Guimaraes will possibly confirm this for you.
-
Any translation forthcoming of Bishop Fellay's response? Whilst unity was emphasised in 1988, it is clear only three of the four Bishops stand firmly behind the principles of Archbishop Lefebvre.
Moderator: Here is the translation, supplied to me by a helpful member.
Menzingen 14 April 2012 ...You cannot know how much your attitude over the last few months - quite different for each of you - has been hard for us. It has prevented the Superior General from sharing with you these great concerns, which he would gladly have brought you in to, had he not found himself faced with such a strong and passionate lack of understanding. How much he would have loved to be able to count on you, on your advice to undergo this so delicate moment in our history. It is a great trial, perhaps the greatest of all 18 years of his being superior. Our venerable founder gave to the Society bishops a task and precise duties. He made clear that the principle of unity in our Society is the Superior General. But for a certain time now, you have been trying - each one of you in his own way - to impose on him your point of view, even in the form of threats, and even in public. This dialectic between the truth and the faith on the one side and authority on the other is contrary to the spirit of the priesthood. He might at least have hoped that you were trying to understand the arguments driving him to act as he has acted these last few years in accordance with the will of divine Providence....
+Bernard Fellay
Niklaus Pfluger+
Alain-Marc Nély+
"The Jєω cries out in pain as he strikes you."
The perpetrators have learned ill from their "Elder Brothers" how to play victims.
Yes, that about spells it out. The long infiltration is bearing its poisoned fruit.
Interestingly, blinded by their hostility and the need to pour it forth, a startling admission is made here. Bishop Fellay admits that he has deliberately witheld critical information from these Bishops and Priests to protect his desire to act without encuмbrance. This is a clear admission of unethical and unjust behaviour.
Four Bishops were made, not one. The adversary is in the Citidel and readies to bar the gates against us.
-
Rorate has chimed in on Cath Info:
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2012/05/notice-leaks-leakers-and-standing-ones.html
-
Rorate has chimed in on Cath Info:
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2012/05/notice-leaks-leakers-and-standing-ones.html
They have indeed, and whilst expounding on their own "integrity", have threatened the source. How disingenuous. They further say that 1 bishop only had the "apparent" agreement of the other 2.
Thank you NC, for your public diss of Bp. Wiiliamson.
Apparently also, this is one of those "unsanitary and hellish places which a Catholic should never be called to visit"
Methinks that wins the cheap shot award for May.
-
The arrogant secrecy of the false ecuмenists is unfortunately something that has become pervasive in the behavior of the SSPX. The double dealing, the double talking, the raising of false expectations, the bait and switching.
They lead you to think they're doing one thing, when they plan another, and then they baldly pretend the past was different than what it was.
rorate caeli can't explain how a modernist is a Catholic. They can find effete ways to hiss about those who help Catholics who really care about the religion understand what's really happening, so they won't be led by the nose by domineering clerics who try to maintain a cult mentality to better exploit and manipulate their followers.
-
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2012/05/notice-leaks-leakers-and-standing-ones.html
What a bunch of sanctimonious nonsense.
I, on the contrary, would say that it's the SG's response which exposes for all to see who the "good side" is.
The other bishops, on the other hand, are staying their ground, holding to their principles, and remaining quite calm.
Rorate Caeli's little post (above) is pure politics and posturing. It is subtle, I'll give it that -- but it's taking advantage of a situation (one priest taking matters into his own hands) to blacken the other "team".
You can tell whose "team" Rorate Caeli is on.
I like how they consider CathInfo one or two steps above a strip joint.
I also like how they consider themselves a major publishing source, but CathInfo is not. Note that this thread has received 6200+ views in just 24 hours.
I'd say when it comes to getting information out, CathInfo "gets the job done". Maybe we don't have the readership of Rorate Caeli, but that doesn't mean we're completely insignificant.
Sorry, but I deny them the moral high ground.
We traditional Catholics have a RIGHT TO KNOW that the SSPX is about to be sold up the river -- by someone we all trusted. Not because of any "freedom of the press", "democracy" or any of that nonsense, but because we traditional Catholics have supported the SSPX for years, paying for all their buildings, churches, and living expenses. Moreover, we have donated countless hours of our time and prayers for their cause. We Faithful have given the SSPX everything they have.
The SG admits he is keeping the other 3 bishops in the dark because he knows they're not on his side. Is that how a good guy acts?
Archbishop Lefebvre didn't keep the Faithful in the dark like this. He didn't operate in secret -- in darkness. That's not how GOOD GUYS act.
-
I know that you dont want postings from Traditio.com, Matthew.
Today the site covers the letter from the three bishops. ;
Looks like a split in the society is imminent.
I'm sure they don't have any "additional news" or information that we don't have here.
All they can "add" is their own hysterics and twisted viewpoint.
So yes, I don't want any posts from Traditio posted here, even now.
-
The tact being taken by RC is actually quite amusing -- and instructive. I'm in the public relations business, and from my perspective, RC has been serving as a de-facto mouthpiece for the Society leadership for some time now. In PR, what you DON'T say can be as revealing as what you DO talk about. RC is very careful to avoid stories which might cast Menzingen in an unfavorable light, while rushing to publish any "positive" news about +Fellay's activities and the impending reconciliation. The moderator also serves as an unabashed cheerleader for posters who support the party line. :rahrah:
To me, RC is a somewhat milder, less pompous version of Fr. Z's blog.
-
I am skeptical about the authenticity of these letters. If you do an internet search, you will find that they only exist here. That is suspicious since there are so many who would really make hay with these letters that I would expect to see it covered by all of the secular SSPX-haters. That hasn't happened.
It also does not seem within the character of the three bishops themselves to jointly pen a letter to obtain a greater "effect" on Bishop Fellay. A private individual letter from each of them would probably have a more profound effect and would be much less likely to be leaked. It is not beyond belief that the three bishops would decide that each would write a private letter to Bp Fellay stating the exact points contained here. It would certainly be a poignant moment for Bp. Fellay. This feels more like grandstanding and not typical of these men.
I have met and spent time with each of these bishops and this does not seem to be something I would expect them to get together on. This just feeds the public frenzy.
I also would expect that, had they written such a letter jointly, they would have done their utmost to protect the confidentiality of the letter. None of these Bishops would want the resulting public spectacle that letters such as these would create.
I will be with Bp Tissier in a few weeks and I will ask him about the veracity of these letters and I'm sure he will be truthful with me and I promise to post back on his response.
:detective:
I believe RC also mentioned that the letters are posted on some French website.
I also think IA's "Dumb Ox" was the source of the leak (?), and if so, only leaked them yesterday.
AQ and RC will not publish them on principle.
IA alredy has, via Dumb Ox.
The point is, I'm not sure how much internet exposure you think the letters ought to have in a mere 24 hours.
I suppose you could be right, but then why no denunciation by any of the 3 bishops on this score? Perhaps they also have not been made aware of the leak?
Anyway, just thinking out loud...
-
I like how the Rorate post brays for paragraphs about how they are taking the moral high ground and not publishing this leak, this gossip, evil story, etc. like the publican Cath Info website who stoops to such levels.
Then they go on ad nauseum telling people where they can go to get the info, admitting they downloaded it themselves, allowing comments discussing the matter, yet put all the sundry blame on CI for allowing the docuмents to be posted on the site. They even apparently subtly threaten the apparent Society priest who posted the docs, hinting they know who he is and can expose him if need be.
-
I am skeptical about the authenticity of these letters. If you do an internet search, you will find that they only exist here. That is suspicious since there are so many who would really make hay with these letters that I would expect to see it covered by all of the secular SSPX-haters. That hasn't happened.
:detective:
I understand that denial is the first stage of grief, and that some people NEED to believe something like this.
But, with all due respect, Bishop Williamson has put forward essentially the same content in his own official blog.
The content of the leaked letters harmonizes completely with the content of the latest Eleison Comments.
Do you think the same "bad guys" hacked Bishop Williamson's blog as well (nevermind the fact that +W has said nothing about such a hack)?
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Bishop-Williamson-The-Three-with-the-One-do-not-Agree
-
They even apparently subtly threaten the apparent Society priest who posted the docs, hinting they know who he is and can expose him if need be.
That caught my eye, too. It sounds like they checked the properties of the Word docuмent containing the letter.
The veiled threat to the priest-in-question really reflects the self-importance of the RC blog owner. He's not just reporting and discussing the news of this matter -- he's invested in outcome.
-
These letters are so bogus that I am amazed that anyone would take them seriously - unless you relish the prospect of SSPX in-fighting. They only exist on one trad-board. That is suspicious since there are so many who would really make hay with these letters that I would expect to see it covered by all of the secular SSPX-haters.
A private individual letter from each of them would probably have a more profound effect and would be much less likely to be leaked.
If you believe these to be authentic then you have never met the three bishops.
Actually, I've met all 4 bishops. Your son might be a seminarian now, but I was a seminarian several years ago.
Again, Vinny, you're denying the latest Eleison Comments from Bishop Williamson. He says essentially the same thing in his latest issue.
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Bishop-Williamson-The-Three-with-the-One-do-not-Agree
Please show me some contradictions between THAT post, which we know is genuine, and the contents of the letters. I dare you.
-
What the soft-line reconcilliationists need to understand is this:
1) We hard-liners are not opposed to a deal with Rome in perpetuity no matter what.
A) Assume that Rome is out of patience and has decided to end the matter one way or another. What happens if the Society is formally declared to be schismatic and has no further grounds to claim the necessity defence of disobedience?
B) The Catholic Church and the SSPX were both founded on the principle of unity. Not rebellion or discord. 'Us" and 'Them' rhetoric is profoundly uncatholic.
2) We simply need Rome to desire the return of tradition, and the demise of modernism.
(A) Who's 'we'? The Society has certain governing principles. Not least that the General Council decides the course of the SSPX - in consultation with the District Superiors and the Bishops, but ultimately, the General Superior decides. Rebelliousness and pride might delude individuals outside the Society that they should have a say, but they don't.
3) But today, Rome wants Tradition to take a seat alongside modernism.
(A) Yes. If any deal is carefully concluded, there is no reason that the fight for Tradition should not continue inside the Church.
(B) If the Society waits for the perfect tomorrow, they are waiting in vain. The Church is a mess; Benedict likely won't live too many more years and the next Pope may be less ready to conclude a deal. It could be decades more before the budding rejection of VII within the Church gains sufficient momentum to roll back VII. By that time, the SSPX will be in formal schism and the attitudes of the faithful will be permanently hardened against any return to Rome.
4) Rome does not desire the demise of modernism, but the snuffing out of the lone voice in the wilderness that points out to the world that the emperror is wearing no clothes
Maybe, maybe not. It's up to the Society to structure any agreement to make sure that it is protected from the wolves with complete autonomy in how it runs its affairs, as at present. Rome has made clear that the alternative is re-excommunication and schism. If the Society takes that path, it will not survive in its present form. This is not 1988 and we don't have ABL any more.
5) If the Pope had contacted Bishop Fellay and said, "We desire your help in snuffing out modernism, and returning the Church to her immutable doctrines" I would be leading the charge to accept a deal.
(A) How do we know that he didn't? The whole point is that we don't know - speculation is pointless and destructive.
(B) According to Fr. Cekada's rumor mill, the Vatican will pronounce next Wednesday. Even that will still be an intermediate stage, although reliable sources reported yesterday that there are "no doctrinal obstacles" to full reincommunion.
6) But does anyone pretend this is what the Pope hopes to gain by "regularizing" the SSPX????!!!!
(A) Who knows what the Pope thinks or hopes to gain? Or whether endless speculation will make any of us any the wiser? Prayer would be a more constructive response at this point.
-
Who cares about being "excommunicated" from a masonic lodge?
http://gloria.tv/?media=142663
-
The "White Donkey" drinking game!
Every time White Donkey utters a gratuitous affirmation or non-sequitur, take a drink!
See if you can make it to the bottom of his post without falling over.
Seriously, I have scarcely ever seen so many propaganda points and gratuitous affirmations in a single post!
What happens if the Society is formally declared to be schismatic and has no further grounds to claim the necessity defence of disobedience?
The Catholic Church and the SSPX were both founded on the principle of unity. Not rebellion or discord. 'Us" and 'Them' rhetoric is profoundly uncatholic.
By that time, the SSPX will be in formal schism and the attitudes of the faithful will be permanently hardened against any return to Rome.
If the Society takes that path, it will not survive in its present form.
:alcohol:
-
1. What happens if the Society is formally declared to be schismatic and has no further grounds to claim the necessity defence of disobedience?
2. The Catholic Church and the SSPX were both founded on the principle of unity. Not rebellion or discord. 'Us" and 'Them' rhetoric is profoundly uncatholic.
3. By that time, the SSPX will be in formal schism and the attitudes of the faithful will be permanently hardened against any return to Rome.
4. If the Society takes that path, it will not survive in its present form.
1. Who says the SSPX can't continue doing what they've been doing for decades? So-called excommunications, censures, etc. are of no consequence if the SSPX is in-the-right in its defense of Catholic Tradition. Nothing has changed. So here we have another completely groundless assertion.
2. What are you talking about? So I can't talk about the Jєωs infiltrating governments, the Masons infiltrating the Church, etc. because that would create an "us" and "them" situation? I can't pinpoint any enemies, because that would necessarily deny unity? Ridiculous.
3. Says you. I gratuitously deny your gratuitous assertion.
4. See #3.
-
Who knows what the Pope thinks or hopes to gain? Or whether endless speculation will make any of us any the wiser?
Ah, yes, the old, reliable "no use speculating" argument. I'm not sure if discussions on Internet forums are doing any good, but they're certainly no less productive than the "hide-and-go-seek" games being played by Menzingen and Rome. Those of us attached to Tradition believe our souls are at stake in this matter; you can't blame us too much for wondering what's going on and seeking information wherever we can find it.
After the deal is done, I'm sure there will be posters saying "move on, nothing to see here, quit belly-aching, life goes on, yada yada..." :sign-surrender:
-
A man (Maxence) who writes articles for a journal of Grand Orient writes the foreword to a book written by an SSPX priest called "Benedict XVI and the Traditionalists."
It's pretty clear who is guiding this process. The Masonic Lodge, that is the Vatican, Masonic Rome, and its tools in the SSPX.
-
Fellay will obviously try to hook as many traditional Catholics as possible, in order to lead them back into the conciliar Church when he is informed by Ratzinger that the time is right.
-
I am skeptical about the authenticity of these letters.
It also does not seem within the character of the three bishops themselves to jointly pen a letter to obtain a greater "effect" on Bishop Fellay. ...
I will be with Bp Tissier in a few weeks and I will ask him about the veracity of these letters and I'm sure he will be truthful with me and I promise to post back on his response.
:detective:
I believe RC also mentioned that the letters are posted on some French website.
I also think IA's "Dumb Ox" was the source of the leak (?), and if so, only leaked them yesterday.
AQ and RC will not publish them on principle. IA alredy has, via Dumb Ox.
The point is, I'm not sure how much internet exposure you think the letters ought to have in a mere 24 hours.
I suppose you could be right, but then why no denunciation by any of the 3 bishops on this score? Perhaps they also have not been made aware of the leak?
The letters are authentic. I do not believe they were leaked by Dumb Ox.
http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/homepage/world-news/detail/articolo/lefebvriani-lefebvrians-lefebviranos-vaticano-vatican-15021/
05/10/2012 Lefebvrians: The internal battle
The Lefebvrians
Following the exchange of letters addressed to the leaders of the Society of St. Pius X in recent weeks, three bishops have expressed their opposition to the agreement
Andrea Tornielli
vatican city
A website has reported on the letters exchanged a month ago between bishops Tissier de Mallerays, Alfonso de Gallareta, Richard Williamson and the leader of the Society of St. Pius X, Bernard Fellay. The letter which the three bishops sent Fellay on 7 April contains a final appeal asking the superior not to sign the doctrinal preamble or accept the agreement proposed by the Holy See. As readers will recall, the agreement aims to assign the Lefebvrians a personal prelature.
The three bishops wrote against Fellay: “Doctrinal discussions have proven that it is impossible for an agreement to be reached with Rome at the moment” because “after the Second Vatican Council the Church’s official authorities separated themselves from the Catholic truth and now they seem determined, as before, to remain faithful to conciliar doctrine and practice.” Tissier, de Gallareta and Williamson recall that during a conference a few months before dying, Mgr. Lefebvre said the problem is not with single errors on individual conciliar docuмents, but the complete perversion of the spirit, of an entirely new philosophy based on subjectivism.”
The three bishops also pointed out that “the Pope’s current thinking is steeped in subjectivism. It is full of the subjective fantasy of man instead of God’s objective reality. The entire Catholic religion has been subdued by the modern world.
How can we believe - they asked themselves - that a practical agreement will resolve this problem?” “They accept us in the name of a relativist and dialectical pluralism; - the three prelates continued - Rome can tolerate the Fraternity continuing to teach Catholic doctrine but they refuse to condemn conciliar doctrine.”
In their letter, the three bishops also referred to an expression used by Lefebvre, claiming that “it is dangerous to put oneself in the hands of conciliar bishops and modernist Rome.” They concluded with a warning to Fellay: “You are leading the Fraternity to a point of no return, a deep division,” claiming that the agreement would end up destroying it.
Ten days later Fellay responded with an equally long and articulate letter. The answer he gave was very interesting and significant in understanding what is about to happen to the Society of St. Pius X now that an agreement with the Holy See is just around the corner. The Fraternity’s superior recalled that “today’s Church still has Jesus as its head. You give the impression of being so scandalised that you can no longer accept this is still true.” Fellay’s question to the three bishops who, like him, were consecrated illegitimately by Lefebvre in 1988, was: “Do you still see Benedict XVI as the legitimate Pope? If he is, can Jesus Christ still speak through him? If the Pope expresses a legitimate wish that is relevant to us, that is good and does not order us to do anything that is contrary to God’s commandments, do we have the right to return this wish back to its sender? Do you not believe as our guide the Lord will give us the means to continue our work?”
“The Pope has let us know that legitimising our position for the good of the Church is a concern that lies at the very heart of his pontificate,” the Fraternity’s superior wrote. Benedict XVI “was well aware of the fact that it would have been easier for him and for us to leave things as they were.”
“Your conception of the Church – Fellay went on to say – is too human and fatalistic; you see the dangers, the scheming and the difficulties but you no longer see the help offered by grace and the Holy Spirit.” The Fraternity’s leader invited his three fellow bishops not to transform “some of the mistakes of the Second Vatican Council into super heresies, turning them into absolute evil, in the same way the liberals have dogmatised a pastoral council. The “nevers” that have already been pronounced are already dramatic enough and we should not blow them out of proportion.”
Finally, Fellay invited Tissier de Mallerais, de Gallareta and Williamson to admit that the proposal put forward by the personal prelature is very different from the agreement proposals received by Lefebvre in 1988: “to pretend that nothing has changed would be a mistake.” He asked them to take into account that problems in the Church, including serious ones cannot be resolved from one day to the next, but slowly and gradually.
What is the significance of these letters and, above all, can they interfere in the process that is currently under way? It would seem not. Instead, they illustrate the well known fact that profoundly different positions exist within the Society of St. Pius X. The decision has been made but it will take another day or so before the cardinals’ and the Pope’s final decisions are announced. Everything, however, points to the likelihood of an agreement being announced by the end of May. Only then will it become clear as to whether and in what way other bishops will comply.
-
A great critique of the Rorate Caeli blog by "gregj" at Ignis Ardens:
Rorate Caeli is pathetic.
The performance of that blog over the release of these letters is so packed with bad thinking, theological error, and hypocrisy, that it almost beggars analysis.
Rorate Caeli clearly doesn't like being scooped. But even in the act of posing as morally superior to those who scooped it, Rorate Caeli cannot resist self-praise, pointing out that on a previous occasion it acted with (in its own objective opinion) superb self-restraint, and didn't publish when it could have. Of course, Rorate Caeli doesn't actually say that it had the letters and could have published them. But that's the suggestion that the reader might take from beholding the vainglorious posture adopted by Rorate Caeli.
When a letter is sent to another, it becomes the property of the receiver. He can publish it if he likes. This right is evidently limited by the moral law, so one would not have a right to publish something which would detract, defame, etc.
I doubt anybody would dispute the right of the sender of a letter to publish a copy of his own work.
In the present case, the only conceivable complaint could be that Bishop Fellay's letter was published. What grounds are given? None - just a lack of "permission" without saying whose was required and was lacking. Does the letter defame him? How could it, since he wrote it? Does it constitute detraction? Not at all. No sin of his is revealed, no alleged character flaw which was not already evident (i.e. he wants a deal, and he is unhappy that others express opposition).
In any case, when Bishop Fellay is unhappy that a docuмent has been shared, he complains. He hasn't complained about this, and for the obvious reason that his letter was written with the knowledge that it would receive some level of circulation. After all, he has never given out the Preamble precisely because he knew it would end up being published. If he really wanted this letter kept secret, he'd have read it to the bishops and not given them a copy. Does Rorate Caeli pretend that Bishop Fellay hadn't thought of that?
Rorate Caeli is a political blog, doing political work in favour of the principles it espouses. It should stick to that and not pose as though it knows the slightest thing about moral theology, which it evidently doesn't. And it would be good if those running it learned to think before peering down from their castle of moral superiority on the lesser beings who happen not to agree with them about disputed matters.
If this were not sufficient to condemn the owners of that blog as moral imbeciles, the treatment they meet out to the priest who apparently provided a translation in Word format is beneath contempt. They publicly announce that they have a copy of his Word file, with his name in it. What a despicable approach to such a delicate matter, exquisitely done in the context of officious moralising to the rest of us!
Yes, Rorate Caeli, your confirmation that an enemy has proof that a certain priest was involved in translating the letter is likely to have given him a few bad moments, if not hours, days, or weeks. Well done.
Of course, Rorate Caeli now has published the letter from Bishop Fellay and the two Assistants, claiming to have "implicit approval." But that's what the original leaker had, in my opinion, as explained above. But Rorate Caeli now uses the lack of explicit approval of the authors to withhold the letter of the three bishops. A more clear example of politics posing as moral rectitude it would be difficult to imagine. As if the bishops, who have not complained either, would wish the reply to be published and their own letter kept secret. Such is the thorough intellectual and moral shabbiness of liberals.
Liberals who pretend to be conservatives, praising their own refusal to use methods only liberals would use, whilst using even worse ones, are something else again. Hypocrisy is the special mark of Satan, as Our Blessed Redeemer pointed out on numerous occasions.
None of this may prove which side is right, but it certainly helps to see which side has no principles, nor shame.
-
Now Angelus Press is getting in on the act.
Or, the SSPX has taken notice of "the lights being turned on" and is now in full damage control mode. They're not Tinkering around:
Get the Latest Information on Official News and Commentary from the U.S. District of the Society of St. Pius X
As many of you know, there is a lot of news coming out in both national and Catholic media outlets about discussions between Rome and the Society. Too often these blog posts and news reports take the form of sensationalism, gossip, rumor-mongering, etc. and seem to have as an aim to put undue pressure on those charged with leading the Society, or to foster division within the Society.
This is not the truly Catholic spirit; which brings me to my main point: the U.S. District has an email list set-up as the first conduit for official news and stories relating to the Society in general and the Rome/Society question specifically.
To sign up, click here!
-
I don't normally post over here at CathInfo, but I was curious to get a non-FE glimpse on this.
I haven't read the entire thread, but I didn't notice anyone directly reference +Fellay's optimism regarding the current state of the Church. While all of us will agree that chaff has been present at even the Church's healthiest moments, +Fellay seems to be sold on the existence of a minority of closet-trads (or at least trad-friendly) young priests and seminarians. He even mentions that there are a small number among the episcopate who support the Society.
If this is the case, I can understand his optimism (though it doesn't necessarily mean an eventual end to the crisis). Of course, +Fellay is in a much more knowledgable position than the rest of us, but I find some of this a bit hard to believe. It seems highly unlikely that there could be more than maybe one bishop in the world who truly supports the Society. And, while I'm sure there are a number of diocesan priests who support the SSPX, I can't imagine it's a significant number. Why would clerics so supportive of the SSPX remain within their rotten diocese?
I trust +Fellay and pray that he is right. I wouldn't venture to dispute his authority on this issue, but I did find it very surprising.
-
Institute of the Good Shepherd told to align with Vatican II
GUIMARAES: The Vatican’s Ecclesia Dei Commission sent a letter last month to the Institute of the Good Shepherd in France giving instructions on how it should adapt to the Conciliar Church. This letter somehow leaked out and ended in the hands of the editor of Radio Cristiandad (Buenos Aires, Argentina), who translated it to Spanish and posted it online. TIA found it there and, in turn, translated it from Spanish to English to make it available to our readers.
Since an agreement between the Vatican and SSPX is now on its way and the priests of this organization are telling their followers that they are accepting the accord “in order to convert Benedict XVI and the Vatican,” it seems quite opportune to remind those followers that several other traditionalist associations made similar agreements with the Vatican and, in the initial steps of the process, they told their grassroots similar stories.
One of these organizations was the Institute of the Good Shepherd in France, founded in September 2006. Today, this Institute is forced to comply with every progressivist orientation the Vatican tells it to take. The letter below is an eloquent example of how any legitimate intent to maintain the Tradition of the Church is strangled by the increasingly grasping embrace of today’s progressivist Vatican.
The Editor - A.S. Guimarães
______________________
Letter from the Secretary of the Ecclesia Dei Commission
To the Institute of the Good Shepherd in France
March 23, 2012
Conclusions of the Canonical Visit
To the Institute of the Good Shepherd
Generally speaking, it is necessary to develop the founding charisma of the Institute by thinking more on the future than on the past. To prepare for the next General Chapter, it will be useful to meditate on Christ as Pastor.
Anyone who wants to develop the characteristics of a society of apostolic life must avoid any form of individualism. For this, it would be good to enter into contact with other societies of apostolic life capable of helping in this meditation on communitarian life.
The question of the practice of the extraordinary form [of the Mass], such as it is formulated in the Bylaws, must be delineated in the spirit of Summorum Pontificuм. It would be suitable to simply define this form as the “rite proper” to the Institute without speaking of “exclusivity.”
The founders of Institute of Good Shepherd Fr. Philippe Laguerie, left, and Fr. Paul Aulagnier with Card. Hoyos Regarding the Seminary of Courtalan, the evaluation is positive, but it would be suitable to include the teaching of the present day Popes and of Vatican II. The pastoral formation should be made under the light of Pastores dabo vobis and the doctrinal formation should include a careful study of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
To resolve the question of the establishment of the seminary [in other places], unless it is just an extension of the Courtalan seminary itself, the French Conference of Bishops can be asked to suggest the names of the dioceses where it can be installed.
Rather than maintaining a critique of Vatican Council II, even a “serious and constructive” one, the efforts of your teachers must point out the transmission of the integrity of the patrimony of the Church, insisting on the hermeneutics of renewal in its continuity and using as support the integrity of Catholic doctrine expounded by the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
To improve the functioning of the Council and to prepare for the General Chapter, it would be suitable to ask the advice of a canonist. The names of Rev. Fathers Pocquet de Haut-Jussé and Le Bot, OP are suggested. A monthly meeting of the Council seems opportune.
It is desirable to carefully discern the vocations coming from Brazil, as well as to reflect upon the reception of the Institute priests in the different dioceses. It is important that the Bishop accepts and valorizes the special charisma of the Institute for the good of the whole diocese and, at the same time, that the priests of the Institute, with a spirit of communion, insert themselves in the ensemble of the ecclesial life of the Diocese.
The creation of an economic Council will help St. Eloi parish to better conform juridically with the other parishes of the Archdiocese of Bordeaux.
The Angelus school in the Diocese of Bourges must pay more attention to the General Superior. We recommend that it seek to acquire diocesan recognition.
Monsignor Guido Pozzo
Taken from Radio Cristiandad
Entry of Monday April 16, 2012
Maybe this thread should have been titled: "After PCED, IBS for IBP."
The visitation letter is a foretaste of what SSPX could expect five years down the road, should Bp. Fellay sign on for the Doctrinal Preamble and come to an agreement with "Rome" over SSPX's canonical arrangements.
None of Pozzo's requests is really out of line, if you accept the fundamental principle that all religious institutes in the Church are subject to the Roman Pontiff and to the norms of Code of Canon Law.
The upper management of SSPX surely understands both the fundamental principle and its ultimate consequences, which is why I am still inclined to think the SSPX will not finally do a deal.
If SSPX can still get the milk for free (claim they "recognize" the Pope, but remain completely free to ignore his laws and commands, and then sell people on the idea this is OK), why buy the cow, which SSPX will forever after have to feed and then clean up after?
-
Everyone on Rorate Caeli in the comments is fawning and getting misty-eyed at the "beautiful" response by Bishop Fellay to the other 3 Bishops.
Here is one commenter that actually has a bit of sense:
Rub those misty eyes and take a fresh look at that letter again. Is everyone so bewitched as to no longer see? Ask yourselves : "Is this a superior of the SSPX or the Fraternity of Saint Peter writing these lines? It really is difficult to tell. Since when does the SSPX coo so gently to minimise the evils of Vatican II? The impression is given that Vatican II is not so bad after all, the Pope really wants the best for us and that a great revival is just around the corner.
The three bishops are told that they are wrong in practically everything they have said about the Pope, the Church and the Society of St Pius X.
What is astonishing in this letter is the tone : to accuse all three of a lack of supernatural spirit, loss of realism, latent sedevacantism and a schismatic mentality, all in a few lines, surely borders on the insulting. These are bishops, not school children!
-
What the soft-line reconcilliationists need to understand is this:
1) We hard-liners are not opposed to a deal with Rome in perpetuity no matter what.
(A) Who knows what the Pope thinks or hopes to gain? Or whether endless speculation will make any of us any the wiser? Prayer would be a more constructive response at this point.
Hello Fr-
Then with all respect, could you please attempt a point by point refutation of the letter of the 3 bishops?
It is pretty unanimous that Bishop Fellay's response did not trump their arguments.
-
I simply signed up here to see the letters, and do not intend to get involved in a debate I do not really understand. i will however, comment one one point.
It has been stated that the receipient of a letter has ownership of it, and a riight to publish it. i do not know about US law (freedom of speach and all that), but in English Law copyright remains with the author, and publication without the author's permission, even by the reciepeint, is breach of copyright.
This, of course, is academic, as Rorate have now published, claiming permssion.
Ian
-
It has been stated that the receipient of a letter has ownership of it, and a riight to publish it. i do not know about US law (freedom of speach and all that), but in English Law copyright remains with the author, and publication without the author's permission, even by the reciepeint, is breach of copyright.
You mean Cathinfo the new Megaupload? :shocked:
I hope that Matthew is better armed than Mr Schmitz was... :scratchchin:
P.S. A country lore says: If you don't want to get involved, don't start to get involved.
P.P.S. Those pro BpF liberals pop up in legion now and their distractions are impressive.
-
Glad to hear from you again, Ethelred. All is fair in love and war .... and religion! It seems like it is going to be a hard slog to take control of the Society if one is to take note of the saying that possession is nine-tenths of the law. The real question is knowing the amount of damage the liberals are prepared to do by forcing through a pact with Rome instead of withdrawing graciously from a generally unpopular initiative. But how unpopular is it? As with V2, loud voices against can be few in number. The majority in their pews can be docile, indifferent or happy to go along with their familiar parish priest. Within such an hierarchy as the church, the laity are disposed to letting management manage and the faithful be faithful! Are we to see history repeating itself with the world of tradition having its own reformation and counte-reformation of uncertain magnitude? A derivative of a derivative.
-
Who imagines that the Zionist liker of nude photos has not had the foresight to ensure control of properties and monies by the"Elder Brother" faction?
-
This is the corrected English version of the letter. I posted it in another thread but not sure if people noticed it. This thread has had more views.
Reverend Superior General, Reverend First Assistant, Reverend Second Assistant,
For several months, as many people know, the General Council of the FSSPX has seriously been considering Roman proposals for a practical agreement, after the doctrinal discussions of 2009 to 2011 proved that a doctrinal agreement is impossible with current Rome. By this letter the three bishops of the FSSPX – who do not form part of the General Council – wish to let him know, with all due respect, of the unanimity of their formal opposition to any such agreement.
Of course, on the two sides of current division between the Conciliar Church and the FSSPX many wish that Catholic unity be restored. Honor to those on both sides. But reality governs everything, and all these sincere desires must yield to the reality that since Vatican II the official authorities of the Church have deviated from the Catholic truth, and today they are shown to be quite determined to always remain faithful to the Conciliar doctrines and practices. The Roman discussions, the “doctrinal preamble” and Assisi III are clear examples of this.
The problems arising from the Second Vatican Council to Catholics are profound. Six months before his death, Mgr Lefebvre gave a conference at Ecône to the priests of the Society, which seems like his last doctrinal will. After having briefly summarized the history of liberal Catholicism resulting from the French Revolution, he recalled how the Popes have always fought this attempt at reconciliation between the Church and the modern world, and he declared that the combat of the Society of St. Pius X against Vatican II was exactly the same combat. He concluded:
“The more one analyzes the docuмents of Vatican II and their interpretation by the authorities of the Church, the more one realizes that they are neither superficial errors nor a few particular errors such as ecuмenism, religious freedom, collegial structure, but rather a total perversion of the spirit, a whole new philosophy founded upon Subjectivism… It is very serious! A total perversion! … That is really alarming.”
But, is the thinking of Benedict XVI better in this respect than that of John Paul II? It is enough to read the study made by one of us three, Faith Imperiled by Reason, to realize that the thought of the current Pope is also impregnated with subjectivism. It is the subjective fantasy of man instead of the objective reality of God. It is the Catholic religion subjected to the modern world. How can one believe that a practical agreement can solve such a problem?
But, some will say to us, Benedict XVI is really well disposed towards the Society and its teaching. As a subjectivist this can easily be the case, because liberal subjectivists can tolerate even the truth, but not if one refuses to tolerate error. He would accept us within the framework of relativistic and dialectical pluralism, with the proviso that we would remain in “full communion”, in relation to the authority and to other “ecclesiastical entities”. For this reason the Roman authorities can tolerate that the Society continue to teach Catholic doctrine, but they will absolutely not permit that it condemn Conciliar teachings. That is why an even purely practical agreement would necessarily silence, little by little, the Society, and any critique of the Council or the New Mass by the Society. By ceasing to attack the most important of all the victories of the Revolution, the poor Society would necessarily cease being opposed to the universal apostasy of our sad times and would get bogged down. Ultimately, who will guarantee that we will remain protected from the Roman curia and the bishops? Pope Benedict XVI?
One denies it in vain, this slide is inevitable. Doesn’t one see already in the Society symptoms of a lessening in its confession of the Faith? Today, alas, the contrary has become “abnormal”. Just before the consecration of the bishops in 1988 when many good people insisted to Mgr Lefebvre that he reach a practical agreement with Rome that would open a large field of apostolate, he said his thoughts to the four new bishops: “A large field of apostolate perhaps, but in ambiguity, and while following two opposing directions at the same time, this would result in rotting us.” How to obey and continue to preach the truth? How to reach an agreement without the Society “having rotted” in such contradiction?
And when one year later, Rome seemed to make true gestures of benevolence towards Tradition, Archbishop Lefebvre was still wary. He feared that they are only “maneuvers to separate us from the largest number of faithful possible. This is the perspective in which they seem to be always giving a little more and even going very far. We must absolutely convince our faithful that it is no more than a maneuver, that it is dangerous to put oneself into the hands of Conciliar bishops and Modernist Rome. It is the greatest danger threatening our people. If we have struggled for twenty years to avoid the Conciliar errors, it was not in order, now, to put ourselves in the hands of those professing these errors.” According to Archbishop Lefebvre, the aim of the Society is more than to just denounce the errors by their name, but rather to effectively and publicly oppose the Roman authorities which have spread them. How can one reconcile making an agreement with public resistance to the authorities, including the Pope? And after having fought for more than forty years, will the Society now have to be put into the hands of the modernists and liberals whose pertinacity we have just come to observe?
Your Excellency, Fathers, do be careful! You are leading the Society to a point from which it will no longer be able to turn back, to a deep division of no return and to destructive, powerful influences with which the Society will not be able to cope, if you come to such an agreement. If up to now the bishops of the Society have protected it, it is precisely because Mgr Lefebvre refused a practical agreement. Since the situation has not changed substantially, and since the condition laid down by the Chapter of 2006 has not come to realization (a doctrinal change in Rome which would permit a practical agreement), listen again to your Founder. He was right 25 years ago. He is still right today. On his behalf, we entreat you: do not engage the Society in a purely practical agreement.
With our most cordial and fraternal greetings,
In Christo and Maria,
Mgr. Alfonso de Galarreta
Mgr. Bernard Tissier de Mallerais
Mgr. Richard Williamson
-
Rome has been long captured by Jєωιѕн thinking, and now so, the Society leadership. This does not happen from the outside. There must be an interloper who undoes the latch and subverts from within.
The complete divergence of the thoughts of the three and the one show that this has been done. What was concieved in unity has been divided.
We know that the Archbishop had the correct intentions and sowed good seed in his little Society in 1988,
"And when the blade was sprung up, and had brought forth fruit, then appeared also the cockle. And the servants of the goodman of the house coming said to him: Sir, didst thou not sow good seed in thy field? whence then hath it cockle? And he said to them: An enemy hath done this."
-
Querite (http://queritedominum.blogspot.com/2012/05/letter-of-three-bishops.html)
Letter of the Three Bishops
When I first heard about them, I found it really hard to believe they were authentic. It did not seem like something the three bishops would do .. that is, write a joint letter as opposed to individual private letters that would be much less prone to a leak. However, after speaking to some folks who would know, I now believe they are authentic.
It has caused a lot of anxiety among the clergy, not so much in the content, but in the fact that it has become public and has made a spectacle of something so delicate and important. And, absent any information to the contrary, Bp Williamson will probably get the credit for the leak, assuming the same sort of thing happened as with his “leaked” communication with Bp Fellay last year.
That said, I was moved by Bp Fellay’s justification of moving forward.
To read your letter, one seriously wonders if you still believe that the visible Church whose seat is at Rome is indeed the Church of Our Lord Jesus Christ, a Church horribly disfigured, to be sure, a planta pedis usque ad verticem capitis, but a Church that in spite of all still has as its head Our Lord Jesus Christ. One gets the impression that you have been so scandalized that you no longer accept that it can still be the true Church. For you, it would seem to be a question whether Benedict XVI is still the legitimate pope. And if he is, there is a question as to whether Jesus Christ can still speak through him. If the pope expresses a legitimate will concerning us which is good and which does not order anything contrary to the commandments of God, have we the right to neglect or to dismiss this will? Otherwise, on what principle do you base your actions? Do you not believe that if Our Lord commands us, He will also give us the means to carry on our work?
In essence, if you don’t believe that Benedict is the pope, you have no horse in this race. If you do, then you must believe that Christ may still speak through him and that he is the Vicar of Christ’s church. So if the SSPX wants to be successful in its mission to restore the faith, it may best do that using some of the tools that church may provide a canonically recognized Society, while holding firm to the weapons it has always used to combat modernism. If the “deal” leads to a compromise of the faith, then we need to go where the true faith is, wherever that may be.
-
Querite (http://queritedominum.blogspot.com/2012/05/letter-of-three-bishops.html)
Letter of the Three Bishops
When I first heard about them, I found it really hard to believe they were authentic. It did not seem like something the three bishops would do .. that is, write a joint letter as opposed to individual private letters that would be much less prone to a leak. However, after speaking to some folks who would know, I now believe they are authentic.
It has caused a lot of anxiety among the clergy, not so much in the content, but in the fact that it has become public and has made a spectacle of something so delicate and important. And, absent any information to the contrary, Bp Williamson will probably get the credit for the leak, assuming the same sort of thing happened as with his “leaked” communication with Bp Fellay last year.
That said, I was moved by Bp Fellay’s justification of moving forward.
To read your letter, one seriously wonders if you still believe that the visible Church whose seat is at Rome is indeed the Church of Our Lord Jesus Christ, a Church horribly disfigured, to be sure, a planta pedis usque ad verticem capitis, but a Church that in spite of all still has as its head Our Lord Jesus Christ. One gets the impression that you have been so scandalized that you no longer accept that it can still be the true Church. For you, it would seem to be a question whether Benedict XVI is still the legitimate pope. And if he is, there is a question as to whether Jesus Christ can still speak through him. If the pope expresses a legitimate will concerning us which is good and which does not order anything contrary to the commandments of God, have we the right to neglect or to dismiss this will? Otherwise, on what principle do you base your actions? Do you not believe that if Our Lord commands us, He will also give us the means to carry on our work?
In essence, if you don’t believe that Benedict is the pope, you have no horse in this race. If you do, then you must believe that Christ may still speak through him and that he is the Vicar of Christ’s church. So if the SSPX wants to be successful in its mission to restore the faith, it may best do that using some of the tools that church may provide a canonically recognized Society, while holding firm to the weapons it has always used to combat modernism. If the “deal” leads to a compromise of the faith, then we need to go where the true faith is, wherever that may be.
The arguments defending Bishop Fellay are old and rather boring at this stage. Can 'Querite' substantiate an allegation just made? This 'blogger' alleges Bishop Williamson "leaked" a communication with Bishop last year.
VinnyF is attempting 'damage control' here.
-
The arguments defending Bishop Fellay are old and rather boring at this stage. Can 'Querite' substantiate an allegation just made? This 'blogger' alleges Bishop Williamson "leaked" a communication with Bishop last year.
VinnyF is attempting 'damage control' here.
John,
You misread the blog. It states that Bishop Williamson will "probably" be blamed for it since he has done it in the past.
-
The arguments defending Bishop Fellay are old and rather boring at this stage. Can 'Querite' substantiate an allegation just made? This 'blogger' alleges Bishop Williamson "leaked" a communication with Bishop last year.
VinnyF is attempting 'damage control' here.
John,
You misread the blog. It states that Bishop Williamson will "probably" be blamed for it since he has done it in the past.
Has he? I will pray for you as you appear to be in denial as you are attempting this damage control. I realise you are upset. You didn't believe the letters were authentic a few days ago. Now, you link us to a blog that alleges that Bishop Williamson 'leaked' the letters.
I'm not interested in your damage control or your naive defence of Bishop Fellay.
-
Querite (http://queritedominum.blogspot.com/2012/05/letter-of-three-bishops.html)
Letter of the Three Bishops
When I first heard about them, I found it really hard to believe they were authentic. It did not seem like something the three bishops would do .. that is, write a joint letter as opposed to individual private letters that would be much less prone to a leak. However, after speaking to some folks who would know, I now believe they are authentic.
It has caused a lot of anxiety among the clergy, not so much in the content, but in the fact that it has become public and has made a spectacle of something so delicate and important. And, absent any information to the contrary, Bp Williamson will probably get the credit for the leak, assuming the same sort of thing happened as with his “leaked” communication with Bp Fellay last year.
That said, I was moved by Bp Fellay’s justification of moving forward.
To read your letter, one seriously wonders if you still believe that the visible Church whose seat is at Rome is indeed the Church of Our Lord Jesus Christ, a Church horribly disfigured, to be sure, a planta pedis usque ad verticem capitis, but a Church that in spite of all still has as its head Our Lord Jesus Christ. One gets the impression that you have been so scandalized that you no longer accept that it can still be the true Church. For you, it would seem to be a question whether Benedict XVI is still the legitimate pope. And if he is, there is a question as to whether Jesus Christ can still speak through him. If the pope expresses a legitimate will concerning us which is good and which does not order anything contrary to the commandments of God, have we the right to neglect or to dismiss this will? Otherwise, on what principle do you base your actions? Do you not believe that if Our Lord commands us, He will also give us the means to carry on our work?
In essence, if you don’t believe that Benedict is the pope, you have no horse in this race. If you do, then you must believe that Christ may still speak through him and that he is the Vicar of Christ’s church. So if the SSPX wants to be successful in its mission to restore the faith, it may best do that using some of the tools that church may provide a canonically recognized Society, while holding firm to the weapons it has always used to combat modernism. If the “deal” leads to a compromise of the faith, then we need to go where the true faith is, wherever that may be.
If you and Bishop Fellay are saying that Jesus Christ comes down and physically possesses the Pope to speak something new that has never been heard before then the two of you would be in heresy.
If you are saying that in his duty as Apostolic Successor of Peter he 'speaks for' figureatively by faithfully upholding tradition(When he actually does this, the current Pope has not) then that would be accurate.
This sounds quite like Popalatry.
Schism means you say "The Pope is not my leader" or "I am not in communion with THOSE(Another group of Catholics) Catholics!"
Obedience is a totally seperate issue. You cannot be in Schism for disobeying any order. The Pope cannot change this, it's origins are theological not Canonical. Though this is the way it is in Canon Law aswell.
If you never commit a mortal sin, you cannot be excommunicated, nor schismatic.
So long as you are in the right, you cannot be a schismatic or excommunicated. Any canonical punishment becomes null and void ipso facto. Archbishop Lefebre knew this.
It is a danger to my faith to have anything to do with the modernist heretics or to be influenced by them in any way whatsoever.
When you and Bishop Fellay, with all due respect if he should as it looks like he will, make a deal, I will pity you when the Cardinals come to visit, and they will because they CAN!
Cardinals have Jurisdiction EVERYWHERE. Any Chapel at any time they may enter and say mass. For now they would not dare enter our chapels.
Also I should note that under Canon Law the Pope can change at his whim any Canonical Structure.
-
If you and Bishop Fellay are saying that Jesus Christ comes down and physically possesses the Pope to speak something new that has never been heard before then the two of you would be in heresy.
If you are saying that in his duty as Apostolic Successor of Peter he 'speaks for' figureatively by faithfully upholding tradition(When he actually does this, the current Pope has not) then that would be accurate.
This sounds quite like Popalatry.
Dear Lord,
While I certainly cannot speak for Bp Fellay, I'm not insinuating that Christ "comes down" from anywhere. The reference here is to the simple and basic belief that we all as Catholics share that the Pope possesses the charism of infallibility when exercised according to the norms as declared in the First Vatican Council. That is how Christ MAY speak through the Pope. Nothing heretic or popalatric was intended.
-
http://www.dici.org/en/news/communique-from-the-general-house-of-the-society-of-saint-pius-x-may-11-2012/
Communiqué from the General House of the Society of Saint Pius X (May 11, 2012)
11-05-2012
Filed under From Tradition, News
An exchange of private letters between the Superior General of the Society of Saint Pius X and the three other bishops was circulated on the Internet on May 9, 2012. This behavior is reprehensible. The person who breached the confidentiality of this internal correspondence committed a serious sin.
Its publication will encourage those who are fomenting division; the Society of Saint Pius X asks its priests and lay faithful not to respond except by redoubling their prayers, so that only the will of God may be done, for the good of the Church and the salvation of souls.
Menzingen, May 11, 2012
A fight back from the Lord Superior General, Prime Wizard and Mr. Second Assistant.
Three of the four Bishops have remained faithful to Archbishop Lefebvre so where is this division? There is unity against a sell out.
-
My Friend Nicholas has made a very good post on the blog Durendal and given me permission to post it on CathInfo.
S.S.P.X Regularization?
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.
Archbishop Lefebvre's address to his priests given in Econe, Switzerland on September 6, 1990
Little by little one gives up the fight and ends by accepting the situation. Everything in Campos still looks traditional, no doubt, so that the people see nothing different. The shrewder ones among them, however, note the tendency of the priests to speak more often and respectfully about news from Rome, omitting their past warnings and ignoring the present day deviations. To become accustomed to this situation and to cease to correct it is a great danger.
Bp. Fellay - Superior General's Letter to Friends & Benefactors #63. January 6, 2003
I started writing this post in September 2010, but decided to set it aside, deciding that it was all rumour and innuendo. Yet it seems to me that all the speculation and rumour having currency in traditionalist circles this time is different, and therefore does warrant some commentary for the precise reason that Bp. Fellay elucidated in 2003: "to become accustomed to this situation and cease to correct it is a great danger."
And indeed, setting aside the speculation for a moment, can anyone honestly say that even absent a deal, the S.S.P.X has had a tendency to "speak more often and respectfully about news from Rome" in recent years? Can anyone honestly say that the leaders of the Society have not "prudently" softened their rhetoric when it came to speaking against "present day deviations"? So even if there is not a "deal" before the end of May, as is the latest rumour, in my view it is appropriate to partake of sounding the alarm bells in this re-enactment of the 1960s and 70s (as it seems to me things are playing out)?
I've not had time to read a tenth of what is out there on the impending "deal" with Rome, but what I have read makes it clear beyond any reasonable doubt in my mind that the sellout is finally here. All the recent communiqués and conferences given by those in power certainly lead to this conclusion. Certainly the weak "denial" from Menzingen that this is "a process" gives one little hope that a purely practical agreement is NOT in the offing. Fr. Rostand's recent letter stating "Let us remember that it is to our Superior General, and only to him, that has been entrusted by the law of the Church and the will of Archbishop Lefebvre the delicate task of our relations with Rome" perhaps does not indicate in itself that there will be a regularization -- but it certainly indicates that such a thing can happen suddenly and without input or objection from anyone.
Reasders may or may not have seen the translation of Fr. Pfluger's recent conference: http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=9296&st=0 the summary at Rorate Caeli seems to be accurate, and the salient points would be that:
(1) Events of the past year have prompted Bishop Fellay to place aside the principle of “No practical solution without doctrinal agreement”;
(2) Recent weeks have revealed that the Pope is so much interested in a canonical solution for the Society that he is ready to seal a deal, even if the Society does not recognize the disputed texts of Vatican II and the New Mass ... Under these circuмstances the Superior General, Bishop Bernard Fellay, does not consider it possible to reject the Pope’s proposal. It would be tantamount to a lapse into Sedevacantism (i.e. anyone who disagrees is a sedevacantist);
(3) The crisis is over ... the wish of young priests to say the Old Mass – has become unstoppable, despite intimidation and oppression. In fact, this movement is now so strong that the Fraternity will be able to resist attacks on Tradition from modernist Bishops.
It seems inescapable that Bp. Fellay is intent on raising the white flag. We have seen this play out in Le Barroux, F.S.S.P., Campos, Institut du Bon Pasteur, etc. etc. ad nauseum. We know what will happen. Again, I would point out how the S.S.P.X has already softened its position before even being "accepted" ... are we to believe that the S.S.P.X will become MORE hardline and more openly so after being given its gilded cage? It will be a huge disaster for the Faith and tradition precisely because ALMOST EVERYONE WILL GO ALONG WITH IT. This truly is a replay in miniature of the 1950s/60s/70s. Catholics will again have their faith taken away bit by bit and who will stand against it?
Many have been arguing that to raise such concerns and "indulge" in speculation is wrong, and only leads to divisions. No doubt, those who were uncomfortable with changes in the 1960s were accused of the same. Is it better to sit and do nothing? Maybe sounding the alarms will do no good, but I would rather know that I did SOMETHING no matter how insignificant. What else can we do other than complain? I am open to suggestions ...
Posted by Nicholas D.C. Wansbutter
http://rencesvals.blogspot.ca/
-
'Pius XII' A Google translation from the original in German. Evidence suggests 'Pius XII' is the Menzingen lawyer, Maximilian Krah.
http://www.kreuz.net/article.15174.html
# 5 Pius XII 18:09:57 | Friday, 11 May 2012
Murx, that you can benefit. Based on your Sedisvakantismus you must be against the agreement. But - Hare, you are wrong! - The SSPX has always claimed to be Pope and Pope recognized the ordinations of the rest of the church forever. Now it's about the internal coherence of the argument: If Pope is the Pope and the Church, the Church, then you can reject an offer for regularization, provided that no deviation from the faith demands? No, can not you. Unless it is also the Sedisvakantisten. Bishop Fellay is not exactly the wants and the other three do not seem to understand. Bishop Fellay is so coherent and consistent, the other three do not. Therefore, he will prevail in the end.
http://www.kreuz.net/reader.2954.html
The SSPX has never been sedisvakantistisch. Therefore they can not refuse regularization, if it is not associated with a call for an abandonment of the faith. An argument that the "orthodoxy" of the Holy See, but the condition is one of subordination makes the SSPX to the Super Holy See, which is addressed to the Pope. This is schismatic or sedisvakantistisch, but not Catholic. The General of the SSPX sees the very precise, while the three bishops argue, unfortunately as Protestants.
-
Am sure you are aware Max has a blog. This is the latest.Few extracts below. Check out those flags on it.
http://maximiliankrah.wordpress.com/2012/05/06/krass-der-grass/#more-211
This logic is certainly not western values. For us it's a misogynist, the other anti-Semitic. We stand for the right of women to look unveiled to the public, just as we defend the right of self determination of the Israelis. There can be no middle ground. Islamism wants a world without music, without a mini skirt without wine and without Israel.
the Christian Jєωιѕн cultural identity. Also has a comprehensive system of values. And so it goes to Jerusalem, not only in Israel but to the freedom of Europe.
I have full sympathy for Israel
-
Its downright painful to read the quotes from kreuz.net
It seems too bizarre for words. Some kid lawyer whose primary concerns seem to be "liking" impure websites and raising funds for Jєωιѕн causes is telling me, baptized Roman Catholic at 16 days old (yes I know, kind of late, but they didn't ask me) and confessing adherence to all the Church's teachings, that I am a Protestant!
-
Its downright painful to read the quotes from kreuz.net
It seems too bizarre for words. Some kid lawyer whose primary concerns seem to be "liking" impure websites and raising funds for Jєωιѕн causes is telling me, baptized Roman Catholic at 16 days old (yes I know, kind of late, but they didn't ask me) and confessing adherence to all the Church's teachings, that I am a Protestant!
As 'Freshwater' reminded us several days ago
Controversial in that a lay person has been appointed with single signature authority and is a member of the Administrative board, and sole member of the Management board. Furthermore, that lay person has very close business ties to another person who represents a company that is auditor to Dello Sarto. Yes, he is the same person who appears to have gone out of his way to destroy Bishop Williamson’s reputation. The other person with single signature authority is +BF, and the other two Priests – Frs. Pfluger and Baudot require each of their respective signatures. Conjecture: The lawyer layman, it appears, is more trustworthy than the two Priests to be have been given single signatory authority.
It has to be remembered that 'William of Norwich' posted 'Maximilian Krah and Menzingen: A Cause for Serious Concern?' back in November 2010. It is now 11th May 2012. I don't accept that SSPX clerics and faithful were not aware of these facts based on information available in the public domain.
It's a bit late now for faithful to be shedding crocodile tears.
-
Great post from Sarto.
http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=9378
QUOTE
Menzingen lie machine:
...Its publication will encourage those who are fomenting division; ...
Bishop Fellay and his pro-sellout cabal are in a minority, in the wrong, haven't a leg to stand on, and stand condemned by the words of Archbishop Lefebvre himself, and yet they press ahead with the sell-out, even though they know it will cause a split and damage the cause of Tradition.
And yet: it's not Bishop Fellay who's responsible for "fomenting division", oh no. It's people who actually have the nerve to let others know that not everyone agrees with the sell out!!! They're the baddies!!
:applause:
-
http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=9378
It is also hypocritical in the extreme.
Does anyone seriously believe that Bishop Fellay would not have provided any of his closest collaborators, for example the members of his General Council and the German-based Fr. Schmidberger, with copy of the exchange of letters for their own information?
As the letter of the Three to the One was not addressed to anyone other than Bishop Fellay and his First and Second Assistant, Bishop Fellay by his own lack of reasoning is condemning himself for breaching the confidentiality of the Letter and has, according to himself, "committed a serious sin".
http://thesensiblebond.blogspot.com/2012/05/letters-between-sspx-bishops-and-sspx.html
I am sure these letters are authentic, but it is not yet clear how these letters were leaked. The first might have been leaked by one of its authors before the second one was counter-leaked. Maybe they were both leaked by Menzingen because this opposition was already becoming clear and was alluded to by Bishop Williamson in a recent newsletter (although, I was curious to discover that his reference to 'the bishops one and three' was interpreted by some to mean that he was out of step with the rest!).
-
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.
-
Here is a corrected English translation, supplied to me by a helpful member.
-
+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!
-
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.
Unfortunately, I don't think he really cares. If his response to the other three Bishops is any indication, he will do a deal no matter what.
-
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.
-
My Friend Nicholas has made a very good post on the blog Durendal and given me permission to post it on CathInfo.
S.S.P.X Regularization?
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.
Archbishop Lefebvre's address to his priests given in Econe, Switzerland on September 6, 1990
Little by little one gives up the fight and ends by accepting the situation. Everything in Campos still looks traditional, no doubt, so that the people see nothing different. The shrewder ones among them, however, note the tendency of the priests to speak more often and respectfully about news from Rome, omitting their past warnings and ignoring the present day deviations. To become accustomed to this situation and to cease to correct it is a great danger.
Bp. Fellay - Superior General's Letter to Friends & Benefactors #63. January 6, 2003
I started writing this post in September 2010, but decided to set it aside, deciding that it was all rumour and innuendo. Yet it seems to me that all the speculation and rumour having currency in traditionalist circles this time is different, and therefore does warrant some commentary for the precise reason that Bp. Fellay elucidated in 2003: "to become accustomed to this situation and cease to correct it is a great danger."
And indeed, setting aside the speculation for a moment, can anyone honestly say that even absent a deal, the S.S.P.X has had a tendency to "speak more often and respectfully about news from Rome" in recent years? Can anyone honestly say that the leaders of the Society have not "prudently" softened their rhetoric when it came to speaking against "present day deviations"? So even if there is not a "deal" before the end of May, as is the latest rumour, in my view it is appropriate to partake of sounding the alarm bells in this re-enactment of the 1960s and 70s (as it seems to me things are playing out)?
I've not had time to read a tenth of what is out there on the impending "deal" with Rome, but what I have read makes it clear beyond any reasonable doubt in my mind that the sellout is finally here. All the recent communiqués and conferences given by those in power certainly lead to this conclusion. Certainly the weak "denial" from Menzingen that this is "a process" gives one little hope that a purely practical agreement is NOT in the offing. Fr. Rostand's recent letter stating "Let us remember that it is to our Superior General, and only to him, that has been entrusted by the law of the Church and the will of Archbishop Lefebvre the delicate task of our relations with Rome" perhaps does not indicate in itself that there will be a regularization -- but it certainly indicates that such a thing can happen suddenly and without input or objection from anyone.
Reasders may or may not have seen the translation of Fr. Pfluger's recent conference: http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=9296&st=0 the summary at Rorate Caeli seems to be accurate, and the salient points would be that:
(1) Events of the past year have prompted Bishop Fellay to place aside the principle of “No practical solution without doctrinal agreement”;
(2) Recent weeks have revealed that the Pope is so much interested in a canonical solution for the Society that he is ready to seal a deal, even if the Society does not recognize the disputed texts of Vatican II and the New Mass ... Under these circuмstances the Superior General, Bishop Bernard Fellay, does not consider it possible to reject the Pope’s proposal. It would be tantamount to a lapse into Sedevacantism (i.e. anyone who disagrees is a sedevacantist);
(3) The crisis is over ... the wish of young priests to say the Old Mass – has become unstoppable, despite intimidation and oppression. In fact, this movement is now so strong that the Fraternity will be able to resist attacks on Tradition from modernist Bishops.
It seems inescapable that Bp. Fellay is intent on raising the white flag. We have seen this play out in Le Barroux, F.S.S.P., Campos, Institut du Bon Pasteur, etc. etc. ad nauseum. We know what will happen. Again, I would point out how the S.S.P.X has already softened its position before even being "accepted" ... are we to believe that the S.S.P.X will become MORE hardline and more openly so after being given its gilded cage? It will be a huge disaster for the Faith and tradition precisely because ALMOST EVERYONE WILL GO ALONG WITH IT. This truly is a replay in miniature of the 1950s/60s/70s. Catholics will again have their faith taken away bit by bit and who will stand against it?
Many have been arguing that to raise such concerns and "indulge" in speculation is wrong, and only leads to divisions. No doubt, those who were uncomfortable with changes in the 1960s were accused of the same. Is it better to sit and do nothing? Maybe sounding the alarms will do no good, but I would rather know that I did SOMETHING no matter how insignificant. What else can we do other than complain? I am open to suggestions ...
Posted by Nicholas D.C. Wansbutter
http://rencesvals.blogspot.ca/
Typical of Mr. Wansbutter to be "open to suggestions." If I can think of any, I'll certainly try to send it his way. This whole thing is making my head swim. I am very grateful that we are given these materials in advance so we have time to take it all in. It would be absolutely overwhelming to be hit with it all at once, rather like an avalanche.
Maybe that's why Rome demands secrecy. They want the power of an avalanche, to wipe out Tradition!
Thanks for this, LordPhan. (I enlarged it so I could read it more easily, and perhaps others can too.) I recognize the name from the old Dinoscopus days, when I learned to always appreciated what dear Mr. Wansbutter had to contribute. This is no different.
How true. If Catholics had resisted the innovations at Vatican II from the start, the revolution wouldn't have succeeded as it did. And so too, today. Why should we have to give away our Faith in small slices?
***************************
(from the second post in this thread)
...It lacks supernatural spirit ... If one is ready to grant that divine providence conducts the affairs of men, while leaving them their liberty, then one must also accept that the gestures in our favour of the last few years come from Providence. Now, these gestures indicate a line - not always a straight line - but a line clearly in favour of Tradition. Why should this line suddenly come to an end when we are doing all we can to remain faithful and when our efforts are being accompanied by no few prayers on our part? Would the Good Lord drop us at the most decisive moment? That makes no sense. ...to act as He wishes...
Whose fantasy is this? The line doesn't "come to an end" just because Catholics hold fast to the Faith they have received. This is stupid. Of course it "makes no sense," because it's founded on a big lie!
To presume that the Good Lord is dropping us if we don't comply with Rome's latest subjectivism scheme is sheer nonsense.
This was the refrain in 1976, 1988 and later, that the SSPX simply must knuckle under to the wacko demands of Rome "or ELSE, it's OVER."
Well, it isn't "over," is it!
No, it's not.
It's still going on. And the "line" doesn't "suddenly come to an end," either.
+Fellay exposes his hand here. He is so personally invested in making SOME KIND of "deal" happen with Rome during his lifetime, he's willing to bet the farm on his long time buddy Ratzinger being the guy who will give him the opportunity; and Benedict XVI fears he's going to die before he can make his one lasting mark, with a "deal" for the SSPX. These are two birds of a feather.
We don't have to sign any deal with Rome if Rome persists in it's subjectivist apostasy and continues to refuse to discuss doctrine in the same sense and in the same meaning held by the Fathers and Doctors of the Church throughout the ages.
So it's a "Mexican stand-off?" So be it. The world won't come to an end.
Rather, even if the world does come to an end, we will have kept the Faith as we have received it. We will have fought the good fight. All will be well.
As for "the 3" and "the 1" -- if +Fellay persists in his headstrong dealmaking-at-any-cost, then it's evident that "the 3" are prepared to do what needs to be done. And they will certainly have vociferous support from the rank-and-file Catholics, among whom are many who rarely get the opportunity to assist at an SSPX Mass site.
-
John Grace said:
...It lacks supernatural spirit ... If one is ready to grant that divine providence conducts the affairs of men, while leaving them their liberty, then one must also accept that the gestures in our favour of the last few years come from Providence. Now, these gestures indicate a line - not always a straight line - but a line clearly in favour of Tradition. Why should this line suddenly come to an end when we are doing all we can to remain faithful and when our efforts are being accompanied by no few prayers on our part? Would the Good Lord drop us at the most decisive moment? That makes no sense. ...to act as He wishes...
I didn't write this.
-
Revealing private correspondence can be justified for a sufficient cause, such as a state of emergency within the Society of St. Pius X as is currently the case. The Popes had no scrupple in revealing the private docuмent of the Alta Vendita to protect the Church against Masonic idealogy from entering the Church.
-
Revealing private correspondence can be justified for a sufficient cause, such as a state of emergency within the Society of St. Pius X as is currently the case. The Popes had no scrupple in revealing the private docuмent of the Alta Vendita to protect the Church against Masonic idealogy from entering the Church.
Exactly.
The reactions from Menzingen show that the betrayers are being touched to the quick by the revelation.
From our human point of view I don't think the SSPX (or FSSPX as we non English speakers say) can be saved anymore because the betrayers control nearly everything of the SSPX formally.
But because all catholics can now see the true colours of the betrayers, the catholics of good will can prepare for the crash and focus their prayers and material help on the remaining clerics who keep the faith. Only with drawn battle lines you can enter the battle.
-
But because all catholics can now see the true colours of the betrayers, the catholics of good will can prepare for the crash and focus their prayers and material help on the remaining clerics who keep the faith. Only with drawn battle lines you can enter the battle.
A topic on helping the faithful SSPX priests has been started in the Anonymous Posts section.
-
Am sure you are aware Max has a blog. This is the latest.Few extracts below. Check out those flags on it.
http://maximiliankrah.wordpress.com/2012/05/06/krass-der-grass/#more-211
This logic is certainly not western values. For us it's a misogynist, the other anti-Semitic. We stand for the right of women to look unveiled to the public, just as we defend the right of self determination of the Israelis. There can be no middle ground. Islamism wants a world without music, without a mini skirt without wine and without Israel.
the Christian Jєωιѕн cultural identity. Also has a comprehensive system of values. And so it goes to Jerusalem, not only in Israel but to the freedom of Europe.
I have full sympathy for Israel
Thanks John. The Crow is unbearable.
-
I'm glad that this thread about the recent sspx correspondence is a sticky thread.
This latest turn of SSPX events has the potential to affect many non- SSPX Catholics as well.
If several hundred thousand traditional Catholics are tricked into the conciliar Church, there will be far fewer of us left to oppose Vatican II.
-
I'm glad that this thread about the recent sspx correspondence is a sticky thread.
This latest turn of SSPX events has the potential to affect many non- SSPX Catholics as well.
If several hundred thousand traditional Catholics are tricked into the conciliar Church, there will be far fewer of us left to oppose Vatican II.
HA! I thought it had been removed, because I never notice the sticky threads! I looked and looked in all categories before I found it finally. :laugh1:
-
I'm glad that this thread about the recent sspx correspondence is a sticky thread.
This latest turn of SSPX events has the potential to affect many non- SSPX Catholics as well.
If several hundred thousand traditional Catholics are tricked into the conciliar Church, there will be far fewer of us left to oppose Vatican II.
HA! I thought it had been removed, because I never notice the sticky threads! I looked and looked in all categories before I found it finally. :laugh1:
I wish that there was a way to keep it more prominent.
But as a sticky, it is a least at the top of the pile.
-
I'm glad that this thread about the recent sspx correspondence is a sticky thread.
This latest turn of SSPX events has the potential to affect many non- SSPX Catholics as well.
If several hundred thousand traditional Catholics are tricked into the conciliar Church, there will be far fewer of us left to oppose Vatican II.
HA! I thought it had been removed, because I never notice the sticky threads! I looked and looked in all categories before I found it finally. :laugh1:
HAHAHA me too.
Now I have some catching up to do............. (read the old posts here)
-
I don´t know if this is been discused some where else in this forum, but I wonder if you saw this?
http://wordpress.catholicapedia.net/?p=2121
Nous vous l’annoncions depuis deux mois… Tout était signé en Mars…
la fraternité c’est fini !
l’œuvre de mgr lefebvre est détruite !
Le fax aurait été envoyé à tous les Supérieurs de District :
La Fraternité change de nom !
Les statuts sont changés !
Tout était signé en mars, et il a fallu ces deux mois pour les transferts de propriété.
L’annonce sera officialisée demain matin sur le site La Porte Latine.
Tous les prêtres qui ne sont pas d’accord, seront exclus et chassés de suite ! Nous ne savons rien sur la position des Évêques mais leur inaction depuis deux mois (à part une lettre sans aucun effet) nous amène à nous poser cette question :
Pourquoi aucune réaction sérieuse ?
Pour empêcher toute réaction ?
Si nous étions informés de cette trahison, est-il pensable qu’eux aussi n’aient pas été informés eux-mêmes !
La trahison et l’apostasie sont achevées !
Nous sommes entrés dans l’heure des ténèbres… et les châtiments vont affluer !
-
Incredible if true. It would be the most diabolical thievery.
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trahison
-
Well, I'm willing to entertain words of caution from the bishops and priests, I'm willing to see the difference in Bishop Fellay, but I do have limits and that website is one of them. Some people are claiming the deal is done already but that's where I draw a line and need to hear it from the horse's mouth.
-
I don't speak French. Can someone summarize Cristian's link?
Sure, this is my translation:
We have announced it to you since two months ago... everything was signed on March. The SSPX is over.
The work of Arch. Lefebvre is destroyed.
It seems the fax was already sent to all the district superiors:
The SSPX changes its name!
The statutes have changed.
Everything was arranged (signed) on March, and these two months were necessary in order to transfer the properties.
The anounce will be made public tomorrow in the site “La Porte Latine”.
Every priest who disagrees will be inmediately fired. We don´t know the reaction of the Bishops but their inaction since two months ago (except one letter who had no effect at all) lead us to ask this question:
Why there was no serious reaction?
In order to prevent any reaction?
If we were informed about this treachery, is it possible that they were not aware of it?
Treachery and apostasy are accomplished.
We are in the hours of darkness and the chastisemnts will pour in.
-
Thank you Cristian. That is depressing. I guess we will have more answers tomorrow.
-
Thank you Cristian. That is depressing. I guess we will have more answers tomorrow.
You are welcome... yes, we will. I don´t think something will happen tomorrow though.
-
If this is true the priests should refuse to agree and force these usurpers to call the police.
They are persecuting the Catholic Faith. With their Zionist henchman lawyer and their masonic collaborators, who write forewords for the books of men like Father Celier. It was the same when our Lord was seized in the Garden of Gethsemane.
-
Well, if this is true, we'll know soon enough. If it's a complete made-up piece of nonsense, we should know that too in a couple days when no announcement is made. I guess we'll have to "wait and see" on this one...
We announced two months ago ... Everything was signed in March ...
the brotherhood is finished !
archbishop lefebvre's work is destroyed !
The fax was sent to all District Superiors:
The Brotherhood is changing its name!
The statutes are changed!
Everything was signed in March, and it took two months for property transfers.
The announcement will be made ​​official tomorrow morning on the site The Latin Gate .
All priests who do not agree, will be excluded and driven away! We know nothing about the position of Bishops but inaction for two months (except for a letter of no effect) leads us to ask ourselves this question:
Why no serious response?
To prevent any reaction?
If we were informed of this treachery, is it conceivable that they also were not informed themselves!
Betrayal and apostasy are completed!
We entered the hour of darkness ... and the punishment will flock!
-
Excellet, Matthew! (Not a brownie, either!!!)
:dancing-banana: :jumping2: :applause: :dancing: :alcohol: :nunchaku: :rahrah:
-
Let it be noted in passing that we did not look for a practical agreement. That is false. All we have done is not refuse a priori, as you ask us to do, to consider the Popes offer. For the common good of the Society, we would far prefer the present solution of the intermediary status quo but it is clear that Rome will put up with it no longer.
This is a very strange paragraph. IOW, it would be better, for the common good of the Society, to maintain the status quo, but we consider the offer because "is clear that Rome will put up with it no longer."
What does this mean, "it is clear that Rome will put up with it no longer?"
SJB,
That portion of Bishop Fellay's letter stuck out to me, too!
In fact I wondered if that wasn't what has prompted the SSPX's work with the Curia on this "reconciliation".
From the quote, particularly the Bolded portion, it looks like the Vatican in general and His Holiness in particular may have pressured the SSPX to come to the table now or face a serious censure, such as formal declaration of schism and/or excommunication.
If that's not what that quote means, I look forward to reading someone's more enlightened view.
-
Let it be noted in passing that we did not look for a practical agreement. That is false. All we have done is not refuse a priori, as you ask us to do, to consider the Popes offer. For the common good of the Society, we would far prefer the present solution of the intermediary status quo but it is clear that Rome will put up with it no longer.
This is a very strange paragraph. IOW, it would be better, for the common good of the Society, to maintain the status quo, but we consider the offer because "is clear that Rome will put up with it no longer."
What does this mean, "it is clear that Rome will put up with it no longer?"
SJB,
That portion of Bishop Fellay's letter stuck out to me, too!
In fact I wondered if that wasn't what has prompted the SSPX's work with the Curia on this "reconciliation".
From the quote, particularly the Bolded portion, it looks like the Vatican in general and His Holiness in particular may have pressured the SSPX to come to the table now or face a serious censure, such as formal declaration of schism and/or excommunication.
If that's not what that quote means, I look forward to reading someone's more enlightened view.
There isn't anything new about the Vatican's threats. ABL stood up to them and
the Society has been keeping it up, until perhaps the past year, under the weakness
of +Fellay. So what's a "formal declaration of schism?" They wore out the word long
ago, and it's a joke now. And what would more so-called excommunications
accomplish? They just "lifted" the previous (non-existent) excoms, so now they're
going to post them again, what, like sticky notes? The Vatican Bulletin Board?
"When Rome speaks, well..." (it used to be "the discussion is over," but now it
would be) "...well, just check again tomorrow: it could all change again."
-
Why is it that these novus ordo bishops and the hierarchy in Rome fails to this day to excommunicate the many pedophiles, rapists, perverts, breaker of vows, theives, hypocrits, etc and yet they are so quick to take action against those of SSPX and even other independent chapels and ostracize and excommunicate them?
Also, they have allowed married ministers of various faiths to celebrate vatican II Mass while keeping aspects of their religion without fully converting to Catholicism. One of them was even allowed to become priest and to have voting powers within US Conference of catholic bishops.
Also, how can the Maronite catholics be allowed to be in a vatican II diocese and yet don't have to answer to the local bishop. In fact, the diocese sold one of its properties off to Maronites for one million dollars to 7 members of Maronite. Do they answer to the Pope???
I hope this info helps out...
-
Society of Jesus adn the Legion of Christ which are under Vatican II have made international news with their sex scandlas and sins. And yet Rome has failed to disband and rename them..
Maybe sspx will be merged to one of these socieity along with the properties.
Churches and schools are closed and merged along with real estate adn mony...like embezzling..
-
Now they can sell your property to settle law suits..
http://www.bishopaccountability.org show this to Bishop Fellay
-
ALL PART OF THE "SILENT APOSTACIES" THAT WILL SOON INVOLVE SSPX
-
The apostacy goes right up the ladder.
http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=46227
-
Who will aid Malta Cattolicissima?
Abandoned by all, we need your help SSPX Bishops!!
http://pro-tridentina-malta.blogspot.com/2012/07/a-blocked-agreement.html
-
Not all the SSPX bishops are as eager as Bishop Fellay to give away the store of the SSPX to the now friendly modernists in Rome. See the letter of the Three SSPX Bishops who stand firmly behind the principles of Archbishop Lefebvre lest there be a major split within the SSPX. A pivot has more leverage the further it is away from the fulchrum, so the SSPX would lose its punch if it joined the Ecclesia Dei traitors of Tradition for a seat in the Assisi Conciliar church born of the French Revolution. St. Archbishop Lefebvre, save your little Society from certain self-destruction if a deal is made with a neo-Modernist, Pope Benedict XVI!
[was B16's abdication an answer to your prayer, FSPX??????? ~Nl.Obs.]
Moderator note:
To download these files, simply sign up (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=register) for a free CathInfo account.
I find it noteworthy that the number of downloads for this sticky thread's
OP attachments is going rather well!
For the record, here is a copy of what the counters read today. (These
numbers are visible in the OP itself, but they do not copy when you
use the QUOTE feature on the same OP, as seen above!):
Attached file:
Letter of the Three Bishops to Bishop Fellay.pdf (540 downloads, 21 KB)
Attached file:
Bishop Fellay's Letter to the Three Bishops.pdf (476 downloads, 3043 KB)
Attached file:
Letter of the Three Bishops - English translation.doc (631 downloads, 23 KB)
This is GOOD NEWS FOR THE RESISTANCE - which, please keep in mind,
is nothing other than the Catholic Church. And therefore, the growing
number of downloads is good news for the Catholic Church!!
-
The letter of the 3 bishops has a historical significance, but I hardly find it encouraging now that they've all pretty much caved in. Bishop de Galarreta's recent letter talks about how cozy things are in the Society now, and how lovely the unity is.
-
Who will remain faithful in our current dillemna.
Also even the elect will be deceived in these
dark times. Who can we trust and where will be
able find those loyal true priests. I pray here much
and await for the graces from Heaven to aid me in
my daily existence and search always for the truth.
-
I hope everyone has read this at some point.
-
Hey, already going on 5 years! Those were the days.
We should have a 5 year anniversary!!