Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: poche on September 26, 2017, 11:32:33 PM
-
FSSPX.News: Why did you support the Correctio Filialis?
Bishop Fellay: This filial approach on the part of clerics and lay scholars, troubled by the heterodox propositions in Amoris Laetitia, is very important. Christ’s teaching on marriage can not be surreptitiously changed on the pretext that the times have changed and that pastoral care should adapt by offering ways to bypass doctrine.
I understand that the authors of the Correctio Filialis are overwhelmed by the division caused by Amoris Laetitia, by the pope’s explanations of this docuмent in recent declarations, and by his statements on Luther. In some countries, the bishops now allow communion for the divorced and civilly remarried, while in others they refuse it. Is Catholic morality variable? Can it be subject to contradictory interpretations?
Since September 2016, four cardinals have been respectfully asking the pope to “clarify” his Exhortation; this year they requested an audience. The only answer they received was silence, but silence is not an answer. On a question this serious and faced with the current divisions, the Holy Father must give a clear answer on the substance of the Exhortation.
In this sad situation of confusion, it is very important that the debate on these important questions grows, in order that the truth may be re-established and error condemned.
That is why I supported this approach, but it is not so much the names of those who signed the Correctio Filialis as the objective value of the arguments presented that must be taken into account.
http://fsspx.news/en/news-events/news/bishop-fellay-why-i-signed-correctio-filialis-32240 (http://fsspx.news/en/news-events/news/bishop-fellay-why-i-signed-correctio-filialis-32240)
-
And yet people will still say he is "selling out"...
-
And yet people will still say he is "selling out"...
What principle formerly maintained would he be betraying?
-
I find it a little suspicious that Poche started this thread. If he has ever previously posted anything regarding Bergoglio that wasn't 98 - 110% ass-kissing, I have certainly overlooked it.
-
And only now, after newRome and the German bishops kicked him in the pants on VII and marriage, did Msgr. Fellay publicly complain about Amoris Laetitia.
That's not the behavior of a true leader and fighter for the Faith.
Imagine in the middle of all Francis's spewed heresies, "God is not Catholic", Bp. was trying his best to do a deal with him ?
The Superior General is trying to pull-off another political marketing stunt to re-brand himself.
Don't fall for it.
-
And only now, after newRome and the German bishops kicked him in the pants on VII and marriage, did Msgr. Fellay publicly complain about Amoris Laetitia.
That's not the behavior of a true leader and fighter for the Faith.
Imagine in the middle of all Francis's spewed heresies, "God is not Catholic", Bp. was trying his best to do a deal with him ?
The Superior General is trying to pull-off another political marketing stunt to re-brand himself.
Don't fall for it.
I'm sure glad I jumped ship when I did, just reading the OP makes me seasick...
It's hard enough to make heads or tails of these events from more solid ground, can't imagine trying to see straight being tossed side to side aboard this flimsy barge of +F's...
-
Taken from http://sodalitium-pianum.com/making-sense-of-bishop-fellays-signature-to-the-filial-correction/
V. Conclusion:
We have offered one possible explanation for Bishop Fellay’s signature to the Filial Correction of Pope Francis. We do not declare our hypothesis a fact. We are simply unable to reconcile Bishop Fellay’s silence in the face of Roman errors, and the 20 year ralliement of the Society, with the face value of his signature ostensibly calling Francis a heretic.
Accepting his signature at face value, we would be forced to acknowledge Bishop Fellay has converted to Tradition, yet there is no other evidence to support such a conversion.
As Fr. Francois Pivert is reported to have observed here (http://resistance.vraiforum.com/t410-Correctio-filialis.htm):
“With his remonstrances to the Pope, has Mgr Fellay converted?
…
Every revolution requires its conservatives. After going away, you have to be reassured. This text does not call into question the modernist revolution, but only one of its most visible consequences. And then the signatories will continue to confess under the authority of this pope whom they accuse of favoring heresy, to marry under the authority of the bishops his accomplices. How can one honestly denounce the destruction of the family by the modernists and at the same time subject all the marriages of Tradition to the modernist authorities and, therefore, to the rules that are theirs? Bishop Fellay denounces the Bishops of Buenos Aires; has he given the order not to submit to them the marriages of Tradition?
And also, Bishop Fellay will continue to inscribe in Rome all the new priests (and possibly even all new deacons).
He would continue to condemn the “Resistance” who had dared to send him a fraternal correction, and to condemn the Abbe Pivert, who had dared to publish the teachings of Archbishop Lefebvre on the subject of relations with Rome.”
Meanwhile, Bishop Fellay has given his reasons for signing to FSSPX.News (http://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/bishop-fellay-why-i-signed-correctio-filialis-32240).
While still absorbing the contents of His Excellency’s response, another on the French Resistance forum (http://resistance.vraiforum.com/t410-Correctio-filialis.htm) offers this preliminary assessment:
“Bishop Fellay took a running train, that of the healthy reaction of some Conservatives internal to the Conciliar Church. At the same time, he does not want to lose what he has already acquired on the road to the prelature.
Hence: He participates in a reaction (which does not attack VII) to reassure his right wing and at the same time, he relativizes this participation to reassure the left wing … And the turn is played!”
Time will tell, but what remains clear is this:
That Francis would grant canonical approval to an uncompromised, virile and vigorous enemy (i.e., the SSPX of old) is manifestly irrational and illogical. Therefore, if the SSPX has gained privileges, concessions, and incremental regularization and partial jurisdiction, it is the clearest sign that the SSPX is not the same animal it once was.
Conversely, if Bishop Fellay has gone to such extreme measures as those mentioned above to ensure he (or his priests and bishops) do not offend modernist Rome, his explanation remains an enigma:
Why does Bishop Fellay perceive a duty to proclaim the truth in this matter of Amoris Laetitia, yet say in the CNS interview that religious liberty was very limited (and therefore implicitly acceptable); that Vatican II belongs to the tradition of the Church; that 95% of Vatican II is acceptable; or shrink from condemning an offense against the First Commandment at Assisi?
We return to the tongue-in-cheek rhetorical question of Fr. Pivert: Has Bishop Fellay converted?
There is no corroborating evidence to suggest it, and much to oppose such a conclusion.
-
Although I agree with Bishop Williamson a lot more often, I am somewhat glad Bishop Fellay had the courage to sign the "Filial Correction". I doubt he expects to be "reconciled" with Rome under Francis's papacy, but maybe he expects he will under the next papacy. As a side note, I do not believe "reconciliation" with Rome would be a good idea even if Cardinal Burke were to become pope.
-
Although I agree with Bishop Williamson a lot more often, I am somewhat glad Bishop Fellay had the courage to sign the "Filial Correction". I doubt he expects to be "reconciled" with Rome under Francis's papacy, but maybe he expects he will under the next papacy. As a side note, I do not believe "reconciliation" with Rome would be a good idea even if Cardinal Burke were to become pope.
Bishop Fellay, Archbishop Lefebvre, his Bishops, all of the neo-Traditional bishops and Catholic scholars could have and should have employed mechanisms such as this decades ago to legitimately combat the conciliar revolution, but they did not. That level of courage in defense of True Catholic orthodoxy was not in them.
The horse was allowed to leave the barn long ago, it will not be returning anytime soon.
The plague of conciliar clerics were given the time to grow and embed themselves within the wall of the Citidel, parasites on the souls of good men.
And a man's enemies shall be they of his own household.
-
Bishop Fellay, Archbishop Lefebvre, his Bishops, all of the neo-Traditional bishops and Catholic scholars could have and should have employed mechanisms such as this decades ago to legitimately combat the conciliar revolution, but they did not. That level of courage in defense of True Catholic orthodoxy was not in them.
The horse was allowed to leave the barn long ago, it will not be returning anytime soon.
The plague of conciliar clerics were given the time to grow and embed themselves within the wall of the Citidel, parasites on the souls of good men.
It is docuмented that +ABL did not want his Bishops to be Superior Generals, involved in administrative tasks.
The reason behind this was that the Bishop's spiritual work was much more important, especially when
the Order was acting as the Church militant against the Vatican II schism.
But then we see the plot unfold.
The SSPX "bursar priest", is elevated to Bishop and then he goes on to take the Superior General position for how
many years (29) ? This wasn't an accident. It was planned.
And Bishop Fellay has gradually and methodically put the SSPX in a weakened position, exactly where the enemies of the Church
want them to be. They are now too paralyzed, compromised and effeminate to lead the fight against newChurch.
After 19 years of failed dialogue with the modernists, the only credible option for Msgr. Fellay is to step down as Superior General.
-
Incred
especially when
the Order was acting as the Church militant against the Vatican II schism.
I would perhaps disagree about this.
Did they ever condemn the Second Vatican council unequivocally ?
Did they condemn the Novus Ordo unequivocally?
No, I believe that all of their protestations have always been selective and conditional.
Did they try to collaborate with other Traditional Bishops to formulate some meaningful opposition to the above? For example such as this current dubia or the filial correction letter?
Not in any serious way that I am aware of.
No matter what the office of a cleric or a layman, there are certain moral and ethical principles which must be adhered to without exception to maintain the integrity of the Holy Christian Religion. The daily reading of the Martyrology gives us a clear and undeniable picture and manual of the Church Militant. That is a standard of unswerving principle in the face of the Devil and his agents, the conciliarists being one of the latest incarnations threof.
You can say they were militant in the fact that they just continued to do their own thing in defiance of the Novus Ordo authorities and Church Law, but from that one cannot conclude that they represented a stand against the Revolution that was truly Militant. And by their continuing on and off dalliances with the heretics, they gave them an undeserved credibility. What the conciliar entity most needed to have for consolidating their evil designs was time, and most Traditionalists so called, gave them just that and a lot of it. From the Remnant/indult crowd to the Society and even the Sedevacantists bear some of the blame.
It has always been rock the boat, but not too much.
A passive militancy might best describe it or better yet a benign militancy which would never be a serious threat to the modernist establishment. And so we have what we have today, or more aptly we have what we have left from what we have lost.
We have lost, but they have prospered along with the conciliar revolution.
We should not spare expense, fatigue, nor even our life, when there is a question of accomplishing the holy will of God. St. Vincent De Paul
-
IncredI would perhaps disagree about this.
Did they ever condemn the Second Vatican council unequivocally ?
Did they condemn the Novus Ordo unequivocally?
No, I believe that all of their protestations have always been selective and conditional.
Did they try to collaborate with other Traditional Bishops to formulate some meaningful opposition to the above? For example such as this current dubia or the filial correction letter?
Not in any serious way that I am aware of.
No matter what the office of a cleric or a layman, there are certain moral and ethical principles which must be adhered to without exception to maintain the integrity of the Holy Christian Religion. The daily reading of the Martyrology gives us a clear and undeniable picture and manual of the Church Militant. That is a standard of unswerving principle in the face of the Devil and his agents, the conciliarists being one of the latest incarnations threof.
You can say they were militant in the fact that they just continued to do their own thing in defiance of the Novus Ordo authorities and Church Law, but from that one cannot conclude that they represented a stand against the Revolution that was truly Militant. And by their continuing on and off dalliances with the heretics, they gave them an undeserved credibility. What the conciliar entity most needed to have for consolidating their evil designs was time, and most Traditionalists so called, gave them just that and a lot of it. From the Remnant/indult crowd to the Society and even the Sedevacantists bear some of the blame.
It has always been rock the boat, but not too much.
A passive militancy might best describe it or better yet a benign militancy which would never be a serious threat to the modernist establishment. And so we have what we have today, or more aptly we have what we have left from what we have lost.
We have lost, but they have prospered along with the conciliar revolution.
I agree to your analysis.
The SSPX is Trad-lite.
They never maintained the intellectual firepower or had the will to coherently analyze and refute the Council docuмents.
But they protected a good semblance of priestly formation, and staunchly defended the Tridentine Mass.
For 40 years, this was an effective, public rebuff of Vatican II's demon-child, the Novus ordo missae.
-
I agree to your analysis.
The SSPX is Trad-lite.
They never maintained the intellectual firepower or had the will to coherently analyze and refute the Council docuмents.
But they protected a good semblance of priestly formation, and staunchly defended the Tridentine Mass.
For 40 years, this was an effective, public rebuff of Vatican II's demon-child, the Novus ordo missae.
Archbishop Lefebvre did sign all the docuмents.
-
Archbishop Lefebvre did sign all the docuмents.
Right, and never repudiated those signatures. They were a success in their mission to help save and propagate the Catholic priesthood, but as far as opposing the Revolution, they were ineffective and in some cases harmed the cause.
-
Right, and never repudiated those signatures. They were a success in their mission to help save and propagate the Catholic priesthood, but as far as opposing the Revolution, they were ineffective and in some cases harmed the cause.
Archbishop Lefebvre later stated that he regretted signing the docuмents. Back then, it was hard to believe that a true successor of Peter could err so gravely. Also, it seemed impossible that a council of the church could put out so many heresies and be so revolutionary. The Archbishop was probably still trying to get his bearings and figure out what was going on and what was the proper action to take. He knew that if he took a stand, he would be standing alone. He saw hundreds of other bishops going along with the changes. I'm sure he prayed fervently to Our Lord and Our Lady to make sure that his decision was good and not rooted in pride or any other disillusionment. To oppose the church's movement was no light matter. There is more than one piece of evidence that he was chosen (perhaps even prophesied) to do this essential work of preserving the priesthood by his "operation survival". One event is a letter which he wrote as a young boy to Pius X which was read and after which he was able to receive first communion at a young age.
-
Granted, +ABL was caught-up in the mass confusion of the Council perpetrated by Paul VI and a league of modernist infiltrators.
He lacked the time or resources to fully understand what was happening?
It took a while to sort it all out, and dissect the theology.
It was Dr. Plinio Correa de Oliveira who commissioned Atila Sinke Guimaraes to get to the root of the theology.
After years of scholarly research, interviewing many of the key players, he determined it was not Catholic.
Vatican II Exposed (ELI, LAMA SABACTHANI" ) (http://Plineo Correira de Oliveirra)
-
Granted, +ABL was caught-up in the mass confusion of the Council perpetrated by Paul VI and a league of modernist infiltrators.
He lacked the time or resources to fully understand what was happening?
It took a while to sort it all out, and dissect the theology.
It was Dr. Plinio Correa de Oliveira who commissioned Atila Sinke Guimaraes to get to the root of the theology.
After years of scholarly research, interviewing many of the key players, he determined it was not Catholic.
Vatican II Exposed (ELI, LAMA SABACTHANI" ) (http://Plineo Correira de Oliveirra)
Bishops rarely have the time to theologize. It takes time and lots of concentration.
Guimaraes had the time and the intellect to make sense of Vatican II and to determine that it was definitely not Catholic.
-
Bishops rarely have the time to theologize. It takes time and lots of concentration.
Guimaraes had the time and the intellect to make sense of Vatican II and to determine that it was definitely not Catholic.
With all due ma'am:
1. Exactly how, by whom and what were the producers of said docs?
2. Really think about what you assert, namely that Catholic(?) BISHOPS rarely have time to THEOLOGIZE.
1. Who ORDINARily teaches the faith?
2. Who ORDINARily oversees the formation of priests?
Who and what exactly forms the Ecclesia DOCENS again?
Who ORDINARily approves LOCAL Catechisms?
Just what, exactly, is a bishop's job description again?
What are those colors on their duds again? What do they mean?
How can they CONFIRM us in a faith that they can't even ID?
How can they expect us to know what they don't?
TL;DR- Who is responsible, who accountable regardless of excuse?
Just where does the buck stop then?
How can they have a RIGHT and POWER to rule without the corresponding DUTIES and OBLIGATIONS?
If they "don't have time" and "just don't understand", then how dare they claim that we don't? How would they know then if they "don't have the time to theologize"?
I'm not trying to beat you up or down miss/ma'am, but the soft soap is EXACTLY how we got here.
We did not insist.
-
With all due ma'am:
1. Exactly how, by whom and what were the producers of said docs?
2. Really think about what you assert, namely that Catholic(?) BISHOPS rarely have time to THEOLOGIZE.
1. Who ORDINARily teaches the faith?
2. Who ORDINARily oversees the formation of priests?
Who and what exactly forms the Ecclesia DOCENS again?
Who ORDINARily approves LOCAL Catechisms?
Just what, exactly, is a bishop's job description again?
What are those colors on their duds again? What do they mean?
How can they CONFIRM us in a faith that they can't even ID?
How can they expect us to know what they don't?
Bishops form committees made of lay theologians and priestly canon lawyers to handle theological matters. Note the U.S. Bishops' Conference commissions committees to write docuмents. Yes, the bishops may meet in committees to read and approve said docuмents.
Even the Pope commissions someone to write his encyclicals. Rarely does a pope pen such a docuмent. Yes, he may read it, or he may ask a theologian to read it for him.
Bishops have to oversee their parishes, and that takes a lot of time. They must learn to delegate or they will burn out.
-
Bishops form committees made of lay theologians and priestly canon lawyers to handle theological matters. Note the U.S. Bishop's Conference commissions committees to write docuмents. Yes, the bishops may meet in committees to read and approve said docuмents.
Even the Pope commissions someone to write his encyclicals. Rarely does a pope pen such a docuмent. Yes, he may read it, or he may ask a theologian to read it for him.
Bishop have to oversee their parishes, and that takes a lot of time. They delegate.
Been nice talking.
take care.
-
Maria Regina, even my mentally retarded brother (now in heaven) knew enough theology tknow what is Catholic and what is not. It's sheer nonsensense to say that bishop's don't have time. THey've got all the time God gave them, weighty responsibility to protect the faithful from error.They are our shepherds you know. Nothing complicated about reading and checking what your glorified secretary writes. If there's something wrong you send it back. You don't approve.
-
Maria Regina, even my mentally retarded brother (now in heaven) knew enough theology tknow what is Catholic and what is not. It's sheer nonsensense to say that bishop's don't have time. THey've got all the time God gave them, weighty responsibility to protect the faithful from error.They are our shepherds you know. Nothing complicated about reading and checking what your glorified secretary writes. If there's something wrong you send it back. You don't approve.
RIP
-
Maria Regina, even my mentally retarded brother (now in heaven) knew enough theology tknow what is Catholic and what is not. It's sheer nonsensense to say that bishop's don't have time. THey've got all the time God gave them, weighty responsibility to protect the faithful from error.They are our shepherds you know. Nothing complicated about reading and checking what your glorified secretary writes. If there's something wrong you send it back. You don't approve.
Nadir, I studied theology in college. We had to take a course every semester.
Today's bishops are not Catholic, neither do they know what is Catholic.
See Father Paul Kramer's paper on Pope Francis being a formal heretic.
Today's Vatican II bishops are not bishops. They just delegate, so that they have more time to take the wide road to hell.
Dante said that the roads in hell are paved with the skulls of priests and the bishops are the lampposts.
I might add that the lampposts do not give forth light.
-
Granted, +ABL was caught-up in the mass confusion of the Council perpetrated by Paul VI and a league of modernist infiltrators.
He lacked the time or resources to fully understand what was happening?
It took a while to sort it all out, and dissect the theology.
It was Dr. Plinio Correa de Oliveira who commissioned Atila Sinke Guimaraes to get to the root of the theology.
After years of scholarly research, interviewing many of the key players, he determined it was not Catholic.
Vatican II Exposed (ELI, LAMA SABACTHANI" ) (http://Plineo Correira de Oliveirra)
Bishops rarely have the time to theologize. ...
Today's bishops are not Catholic, ...
(emph. DZP)
-
Nadir, I studied theology in college. We had to take a course every semester.
Today's bishops are not Catholic, neither do they know what is Catholic.
See Father Paul Kramer's paper on Pope Francis being a formal heretic.
Today's Vatican II bishops are not bishops. They just delegate, so that they have more time to take the wide road to hell.
Dante said that the roads in hell are paved with the skulls of priests and the bishops are the lampposts.
I might add that the lampposts do not give forth light.
Even so, the bishops are still responsible for what is done in their name.
-
Even so, the bishops are still responsible for what is done in their name.
Of course, and that is why many will go to hell.
A bishop's responsibilities before God is much greater, and this is why some saints have declined to be consecrated as a bishop.
-
Bishops rarely have the time to theologize. It takes time and lots of concentration.
This is the statement that you made and that my post was a response to. What has your theology study to do with it. Besides if they are not bishops why are referring to them as bishops? And making the above statement? Curiouser and curiouser!
-
Few Bishops have the ability to be theologians, so time would not help them.
The training of modern Bishops and priests is very thin compared to past times when a lot of priests would continue their studies for twelve years or more. This produced clerics with theological depth and comprehension which is rare today.
Since the council it is usually four to six years and then off to the altar and the pulpit.
-
Few Bishops have the ability to be theologians, so time would not help them.
The training of modern Bishops and priests is very thin compared to past times when a lot of priests would continue their studies for twelve years or more. This produced clerics with theological depth and comprehension which is rare today.
Since the council it is usually four to six years and then off to the altar and the pulpit.
Then it remains as to what this "four to six years" consists of; ideology isn't theology.
-
Then it remains as to what this "four to six years" consists of; ideology isn't theology.
Yes, another unpleasant fact. The days of erudition are pretty much behind us now.
-
Yes, another unpleasant fact. The days of erudition are pretty much behind us now.
With all due sir, I'm opting out of this particular "us" if it includes the likes of non-Catholic, disordered, modern lay-bishops.
-
Few Bishops have the ability to be theologians, so time would not help them.
The training of modern Bishops and priests is very thin compared to past times when a lot of priests would continue their studies for twelve years or more. This produced clerics with theological depth and comprehension which is rare today.
Since the council it is usually four to six years and then off to the altar and the pulpit.
The theology offered in seminaries has been deficient even before Vatican II.
In the past, priests and bishops had more of a spiritual training akin to being in a monastery, with the monastic priests and bishops having a better grasp of theology because they prayed, not because they studied. God reveals Himself to those who love Him. Hence the greatness of St. Dominic, St. Teresa of Avila, and St. Therese of Liseaux.
Jesuits receive mainly a secular education, with emphasis on obtaining a secular degree during their formative years as well as taking the mandatory two years of philosophy and two years of theology. Their persistent philosophizing infected society at large, especially in Europe and in Russia, which led not only the secularization of Europe, but also to the downfall of the Russian Orthodox society and their church even before Soviet times. The Renaissance was not a rebirth, but the beginning of the end of society.
While I was a Dominican Tertiary studying in college, the seminarians at the local Dominican college struggled with advanced philosophy, many leaving the seminary as atheists with inane "logical" questions like: Why is this a chair? Does a chair have existence? They told me that they felt like they were dissecting God and had destroyed Him in the process. Some of the priests struggled with agnosticism for years, so it was not surprising that they eventually fell into temptation and left the church to marry. It was a severe crisis of faith brought on by the incessant questioning of philosophy instead of unceasing prayer before God.
-
Yes, another unpleasant fact. The days of erudition are pretty much behind us now.
You know, it only takes a bit of reflection and observation to see that these are "Bizarro World" anti-bishops whose job it is not to "do" Theology, but to undo it and to get others to follow suit.
It's a return to the days when nothing is, with all "being" being an unbecoming becoming.
There's no room for the likes of Aquinas in this "non-possimus", perpetual place of potential.
This also means that there is no room for Pure Act, for God.
This is "change" that we can't believe in, if for no other reason than that there can be no "we", or "here" to be.
Clever, diabolic bastards.
-
You know, it only takes a bit of reflection and observation to see that these are "Bizarro World" anti-bishops whose job it is not to "do" Theology, but to undo it and to get others to follow suit.
It's a return to the days when nothing is, with all "being" being an unbecoming becoming.
There's no room for the likes of Aquinas in this "non-possimus", perpetual place of potential.
This also means that there is no room for Pure Act, for God.
This is "change" that we can't believe in, if for no other reason than that there can be no "we", or "here" to be.
Clever, diabolic bastards.
You are no doubt describing that Jesuit heretic, Teilhard de Chardin, who had a tremendous but diabolical influence upon Pope Francis.
-
You are no doubt describing that Jesuit heretic, Teilhard de Chardin, who had a tremendous but diabolical influence upon Pope Francis.
I refer to him, and to his likewise bastard kin; none of these critters were formed whole cloth 'ex nihilo', though all seem eager to return there.
As to this "other" creature "Pope Francis", speaking of "non-being" and specifically of non-entity, I am unaware of any such ma'am.
-
I refer to him, and to his likewise bastard kin; none of these critters were formed whole cloth 'ex nihilo', though all seem eager to return there.
As to this "other" creature "Pope Francis", speaking of "non-being" and specifically of non-entity, I am unaware of any such ma'am.
LIke Teilhard de Chardin, Francis has become a formal heretic, worshiping with heretics and declaring that we should not evangelize non-Christians against the admonition of Christ Who commanded that we are to evangelize the entire world, baptizing all.
-
LIke Teilhard de Chardin, Francis has become a formal heretic, worshiping with heretics and declaring that we should not evangelize non-Christians against the admonition of Christ Who commanded that we are to evangelize the entire world, baptizing all.
This is enough, as such to conclude that the man is acting as a public heretic but there are many other instances of this. Where are our clerics who should be pointing out this truth of fact?
Sadly, the sedevacantists and non-Catholics are the only ones at present, who will admit to this.
And in fact, all of the conciliar popes have been equally guilty of these religious crimes in teaching and promoting the false conciliar religion. Instead we hear our shepherds telling us that these men do not know what they are doing, or that they are invincibly blind to their errors. For God's honor and sake, these men were Bishops and Cardinals of the Church! No excuse can be found that they do not know that they have defected from the Faith that they were brought up in, and trained in for many years.
-
This is enough, as such to conclude that the man is acting as a public heretic but there are many other instances of this. Where are our clerics who should be pointing out this truth of fact?
Sadly, the sedevacantists and non-Catholics are the only ones at present, who will admit to this.
Well, there is the correctiofilialis the signatories of which are neither sedevacantists nor non-catholic.
Www.correctiofilalis.org
-
Archbishop Lefebvre did sign all the docuмents.
Correction, he signed all but two: Dignitatus Humane and Gaudium et Spes.
-
I thought Archbishop Lefebvre did reject publicly the signing of the Vll docuмents after the fact.
Please excuse the coarse analogy, but the Filial Correction is like picking at a pimple when the boil that needs to be lanced (Vll) feeding the pimple right next to it is left alone. it was written without addressing the root problem of Vll, and the assumption is that the signers agree there were no heresies prior to Francis worth addressing. It appears that if they could go back to the Church of 2013, they would all be fine with it.
I find that by signing this docuмent Bishop Fellay, joins this faulty attitude, rather than distinguish himself from it.
-
I thought Archbishop Lefebvre did reject publicly the signing of the Vll docuмents after the fact.
Please excuse the coarse analogy, but the Filial Correction is like picking at a pimple when the boil that needs to be lanced (Vll) feeding the pimple right next to it is left alone. it was written without addressing the root problem of Vll, and the assumption is that the signers agree there were no heresies prior to Francis worth addressing. It appears that if they could go back to the Church of 2013, they would all be fine with it.
I find that by signing this docuмent Bishop Fellay, joins this faulty attitude, rather than distinguish himself from it.
You could be right. Maybe ++Lefebvre did reject them post-VII. I don't really keep up with all the latest dope on who's doing what. I have enough to do just keeping body and soul together. And, for me, that's a job in itself. I'm sure you understand.
Dduw bendithia chi!
-
God bless you, too!
-
Maria Regina:
Jesuits receive mainly a secular education, with emphasis on obtaining a secular degree during their formative years as well as taking the mandatory two years of philosophy and two years of theology. Their persistent philosophizing infected society at large, especially in Europe and in Russia, which led not only the secularization of Europe, but also to the downfall of the Russian Orthodox society and their church even before Soviet times. The Renaissance was not a rebirth, but the beginning of the end of society.
I'm really interested in this, Maria. I'd PM you privately for more information, but am not sure the PM feature even exists on this new format, (which I don't care for, BTW).
Anyway, your comments about the Jesuits are fascinating. The sspx employs the 'Ignatian Silent Retreat' formula almost exclusively at their various retreat centers world wide, and have done so since the early 70s. I'm not sure that ABL was responible for introducing the Ignatian Retreat scheme initially, but he seemed to have bought into it whole hog thereafter. It seems that an old priest, Fr. Barrielle,(now dead) made it a permanent part of the Society's operational fabric. Loyoya's "Spiritual Exercises" form the basis of the Society's Ignatian Retreats. Each retreatant gets a copy of SE at the close of each week long retreat event.
Do you imply by your comments that the Spiritual Exercises themselves may be under some kind of "secular" influence?
-
Bishop Felay thinks he is defending the faith when he signs a docuмent with many who accept Vatican II (see the sources of the docuмent)
He and the neo sspx commit grave sins of omission by not correcting the heresies of this anti pope. And it is a sin of omission to cower behind
this conciliar docuмent so as not to offend his humbleness the anti pope :cussing:!
-
I agree to your analysis.
The SSPX is Trad-lite.
They never maintained the intellectual firepower or had the will to coherently analyze and refute the Council docuмents.
But they protected a good semblance of priestly formation, and staunchly defended the Tridentine Mass.
For 40 years, this was an effective, public rebuff of Vatican II's demon-child, the Novus ordo missae.
Well Said I agree, History unfolds the way it does. Not always the way we would like it to, even with Pious Intentions.