Author Topic: Response to Fr. Simoulin (Read 6530 times)

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #15 on:** April 14, 2014, 09:02:55 PM »

.

Quote from: SeanJohnson

Thirdly, is the troubling equivocation so prevalent in this article: On the one hand, you assert we cannot go the way of the Ecclesia Dei communities, but on the other hand, you assert that “the only thing we can hope for is the freedom to discuss Vatican II” (i.e., the same deal given to the Institute of the Good Shepherd, which was later predictably revoked). You appear to have embraced the writing style of the modernists (which is not to accuse you of being a modernist), who love to include phrases which appear to hold the line, only to negate them in the next sentence with a contradictory proposition.

If Fr. Simoulin has written with "troubling equivocation" and has really adopted "the style of the Modernists, who love to include phrases which appear to hold the line, only to negate them in the next sentence with a contradictory proposition," then why do you feel obliged to qualify your observation with "(which is not to accuse you of being a modernist)?"

Why does it appear you feel obliged to walk on eggs and tiptoe through heresy?

Have you ever heard of a neo-Modernist, SeanJohnson?

.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #16 on:** April 14, 2014, 09:14:11 PM »

Quote from: ultrarigorist

Quote from: SeanJohnson
Quote from: Ekim
Great letter Sean. It has been over a month since it was written. I'm guessing he never replied?

Hi Ekim-

Actually, I only wrote/posted it on April 3, but thus far there has been no response.

I am guessing Fr. Simoulin does not frequent this website, and therefore will likely remain unaware of it.

Ohh if it had his name on it, you can rest assured he's seen it.

This is reasonable, considering the power of search engines. Of course, this thread with all the views it's had and the number of times the name 'Fr. Simoulin' has been repeated, adds to the likelihood.

Hey, petwerp probably has an RSS feed on the thing -- otherwise, how can he expect his secretary to fill out his invoices, to the Menzingen-denizens-with-enquiring-minds-that-want-to-know?

As for the expectation of any reply: Join the queue of the dozens of priests and hundreds of laity whose respectful letters to the Menzingen-denizens have gone unanswered for decades.

Here is the de facto rule: What You Write In Such A Letter Can And Will Be Used Against You At The First Opportunity.

.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #17 on:** April 15, 2014, 08:34:23 AM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat

.

Quote from: SeanJohnson

Thirdly, is the troubling equivocation so prevalent in this article: On the one hand, you assert we cannot go the way of the Ecclesia Dei communities, but on the other hand, you assert that “the only thing we can hope for is the freedom to discuss Vatican II” (i.e., the same deal given to the Institute of the Good Shepherd, which was later predictably revoked). You appear to have embraced the writing style of the modernists (which is not to accuse you of being a modernist), who love to include phrases which appear to hold the line, only to negate them in the next sentence with a contradictory proposition.

If Fr. Simoulin has written with "troubling equivocation" and has really adopted "the style of the Modernists, who love to include phrases which appear to hold the line, only to negate them in the next sentence with a contradictory proposition," then why do you feel obliged to qualify your observation with "(which is not to accuse you of being a modernist)?"

Why does it appear you feel obliged to walk on eggs and tiptoe through heresy?

Have you ever heard of a neo-Modernist, SeanJohnson?

.

Hello Neil-

I am answering your question in the form of a new thread, as it leads into another topic that has been on my mind lately.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #18 on:** April 16, 2014, 03:52:11 AM »

.

You know, if you have a half ounce of concern for anyone, especially a reader who sees this after a week or two, you would provide a link to the new thread, SeanJohnson, so that they could find what you're talking about.

Alternatively, you wouldn't care if anyone knows what you're talking about.

Your choice.

Now, presuming I read the thread to which you refer (it seems to be the same topic), your reply above which says you've started a thread to answer my question, it's glaringly odd to me that after nine posts already, you have not yet answered my question.

So you started a thread to answer a question that you're not going to answer in the thread that you started for that purpose, and maybe that's why you're not providing any links between threads so that nobody will ever put 2 and 2 together, like I'm doing here, correct? or not?

That makes two questions, BTW.

.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #19 on:** April 16, 2014, 04:04:56 AM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat

.

You know, if you have a half ounce of concern for anyone, especially a reader who sees this after a week or two, you would provide a link to the new thread, SeanJohnson, so that they could find what you're talking about.

Alternatively, you wouldn't care if anyone knows what you're talking about.

Your choice.

Now, presuming I read the thread to which you refer (it seems to be the same topic), your reply above which says you've started a thread to answer my question, it's glaringly odd to me that after nine posts already, you have not yet answered my question.

So you started a thread to answer a question that you're not going to answer in the thread that you started for that purpose, and maybe that's why you're not providing any links between threads so that nobody will ever put 2 and 2 together, like I'm doing here, correct? or not?

That makes two questions, BTW.

.

I think you may be the only one struggling to find my response, which is odd, since you have responded to it several times.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #20 on:** April 16, 2014, 04:15:55 AM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson

I think you may be the only one struggling to find my response, which is odd, since you have responded to it several times.

Struggling? Who said I'm struggling? I asked a question, "Have you ever heard of a neo-Modernist, SeanJohnson?" And you have not answered it.

Or do you think you did, somewhere?

.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #21 on:** April 16, 2014, 05:07:05 AM »

Hi Neil-

No, I have never heard of neo-modernism.

Could you please explain it to me?

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #22 on:** April 18, 2014, 08:32:42 AM »

Had I the opportunity to revise this letter, I would have found a way to observe that at least in the March 2012 Cor Unum, Bishop Fellay was trying to justify a merely practical accord on the basis of alleged changes in Rome favorable to tradition, such that a new response from the SSPX regarding an agreement was demanded.

But here in 2014, a practical agreement is being sought by Fr. Simoulin without even the pretext of claiming improved conditions in Rome.

This is a slide, from:

1) No canonical solution until the doctrinal issues are resolved, to

2) A practical solution without solving the doctrinal issues because things have changed in favor of tradition, to

3) Nothing has changed in Rome (Bishop Fellay, Letter #86), but we need an accord as soon as possible anyway.

And since Bishop Fellay has stated that only Menzingen can speak on relations with Rome, it stands to reason Bishop Fellay endorses the position of Fr. Simoulin, insofar as the latter has not been disciplined for speaking out of place (unless that is no longer policy).

The point is that Bishop Fellay in his recent "We must care for souls" interview on SSPX.org expressed his amazement that there are still people who think he is desparate for a deal.

Yet, following the chronology in 1-3 (above), in combination with the fact that the 6 conditions are left intact (without any justification beside those Fr. Simoulin attempts in his letter), it is not clear to me why he does not find the concern reasonable, or at least understandable.

If he would have us be reassured, why not annul the 6 conditions and General Chapter Declaration, since the justifications he gave in 2012 (according to his own words in letter #86) are no longer applicable?

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #23 on:** April 19, 2014, 12:14:01 PM »

Fr. Simoulin's latter appears in the current issue of The Angelus.

There can no be no doubt, therefore, as to Menzingen's sponsorship of his view.

cosmas · « **Reply #24 on:** April 22, 2014, 10:54:33 AM »

Dear FR. Simoulin,
After reading your article, "Avoiding a false spirit of Resistance " I was wondering if you went to a seminary or were instructed by priests that were the offspring of the infamous "BELLA DODD " as you probably know she helped place over one thousand communist infiltrators into seminaries in the Catholic Church. You priests and Bishop Fellay still don't seem to get it. "WE ARE IN THE END TIMES " The Pius X Society doesn't need to go anywhere. We never left Rome, Rome apostasized, this has been foretold "ROME WILL LOSE THE FAITH " So the Catholics that have held the faith ie; Traditionals, should not be in a rush to throw "pearls among the swine " . We should protect our faith ,it was given to us at great price. It is indeed absolutely important to protect our faith from the modernists even the Pope if he threatens it. At what point in time does a Pius x parishoner or priest go into schism ?? Is there a time limit ? The NOVUS ORDO went into schism the very day they threw out the Traditional Schema that Archbishop Lefebre and the other Cardinals had presented to be read and worked on at vatican II. With the POPE in the lead. Each successive Pope hasn't missed a beat. You talk about Archbishop lefebre getting his suitcase and walking meekly away etc... AT that point in time the majority of catholic 's didn't realize the destruction coming around the corner. We have that history to try to prevent it from happening again. This is why there is a resistance to try to wake up sleeping catholics before Bishop Fellay finishes off the last vestiges of the HOLY ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH. So Fr. Simoulin , we wait for Our Lord to come , and we continue to receive the sacraments and we live and die in our Pius X Churches. And yes Fr. Simoulin, we can get to heaven in our present situation. You want to help ,Get a Rosary Crusade going for Rome to come to its senses and to once again embrace Tradition !

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #25 on:** May 18, 2014, 09:53:30 AM »

Quote from: Ekim

Great letter Sean. It has been over a month since it was written. I'm guessing he never replied?

No.

No reply.

Apparently, this letter of Fr. Simoulin also appeared in The Angelus.