Author Topic: more quotes from A Necessary Reconciliation (Read 1652 times)

ancien regime · « **on:** November 16, 2012, 01:52:26 PM »

Gentiloup sent me some more quotes from the book:

Page 44-45:
In March 2003, I [Fr. Lelong] went to Rome with Father La Brosse and we were both received by Cardinal Catrillon Hoyos, Prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy. . . . I was struck by one of his remarks: we observed that in our country the misunderstandings and tensions between the episcopate and the SSPX are often politically motivated, more so than for truly theological reasons. This observation seemed to be a fair but just one because, in the '70s, I had often heard the French bishops reproaching Catholics who were attached to the Latin Mass for being of the “extreme right.” And recently, Cardinal Lustiger told me one day: “We will never agree with the Lefebvristes because they are anti-Semitic.” . . .

It is not possible for me to quote here all the letters that were exchanged between GREC and several important persons in the Vatican.

During the early years, with the exception of the days they had organized a colloquium . . . GREC did not host meetings for more than a dozen people. . . . But in 2004, we decided to invite a greater number of participants to our meetings—participants representing the most diverse currents of the Church in France.

Pages: 55-57
Father de la Brosse . . . wrote down the schema of the themes we would address before such a large gathering:
•   What are the issues that really divide us?
•   Who are those within the Catholic Church that we would consider to be our brothers?
•   Vatican II : a communal re-reading of several of the major texts for which our interpretation is different.
•   Ecuмenism, Judaism, Islam, interfaith dialogue: these forms of encounters of the Catholic Church with other expressions of religious reality divide us. How can we remedy this to arrive at a healthy concept of dialogue, in charity and truth?
•   Unity of worship and plurality of forms of prayer: the Mass, its past, present and future.
. . .

To support this perspective, a “theological group” was formed within GREC and met for the first time on September 18, 2004. The participants included Bishop Breton, Fr. Barthe, Fr. Lorans, Fr. de la Brosse, Fr. Charles Morerod, Fr. de La Rocque, Mrs. Perol, Miss Doutrebente and me[Fr. Lelong]. What made this meeting important was that among the participants were two priests with significant responsibilities within the SSPX and two theologians who were very close to the Holy See, one of whom, Fr. Morerod, had come to Rome to participate in GREC. . . .

The second meeting of the “theological group” created within GREC took place several months later at the Nunciature, where Bishop Baldelli greeted us and had us sit at his table at the dinner which followed the work session.

During the following year, these exchanges continued between the conciliarist and traditional theologians in Rome and Paris. However, while continuing to support this doctrinal dialogue and remaining very discreet, GREC stopped actually organizing it when they noted, with joy and hope, that it had taken on a more official character.

Columba · « **Reply #1 on:** November 16, 2012, 02:33:01 PM »

Quote from: ancien regime

During the following year, these exchanges continued between the conciliarist and traditional theologians in Rome and Paris. However, while continuing to support this doctrinal dialogue and remaining very discreet, GREC stopped actually organizing it when they noted, with joy and hope, that it had taken on a more official character.

So GREC was like a submerged iceberg that broke the water's surface at the start of the doctrinal discussions. Does Fr. Lelong's book mention the Rosary Crusades? Whose idea were they?

ancien regime · « **Reply #2 on:** November 16, 2012, 03:08:32 PM »

This is another post from Un évêque s’est levé ! by different poster who has read the book (my translation):

Reproduced at the beginning of the book is the spiritual testament sent by John Paul II to Ambassador Pérol whose wife, Huguette Pérol, was the instigator of GREC. This testament (1996) was to be read, understood and disseminated. It simply traces the roadmap that both the Vatican that the Society should follow to arrive at a “reconciliation:” the Motu Proprio and the lifting of the excommunications on the part of the Holy Father and more discretion in criticizing any current scandals by the SSPX . . . and they must recognize the current Magisterium in one way or another and partially accept the hermeneutic of continuity. Everything is there, they only needed to start the process of reconciliation, which the members of GREC refer to as INEVITABLE:

On October 20, 2008 GREC officials sent a letter to the Holy Father asking for “the lifting of the excommunications which are weighing on the four bishops consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre in 1988 . . . In addition, we believe that the lifting of the excommunications will set in motion an inevitable process of progress towards an accord between the Holy See and the SSPX, or at least accords with a large number of SSPX priests and faithful![/b]
(cf : Pour une nécessaire réconciliation du Père Lelong, p. 52, éd. : NEL)

Telesphorus · « **Reply #3 on:** November 16, 2012, 03:10:59 PM »

Quote from: ancien regime

an inevitable process of progress towards an accord between the Holy See and the SSPX, or at least accords with a large number of SSPX priests and faithful![/i]
(cf : Pour une nécessaire réconciliation du Père Lelong, p. 52, éd. : NEL)

Many of them want to be liberal. Yes, many of them look forward to being comfortable liberals. Poor souls.

Domitilla · « **Reply #4 on:** November 16, 2012, 03:11:52 PM »

It would appear that we now have official confirmation that +Fellay is indeed a liar.

I hope this book will be quickly translated into English and widely distributed. Thank you, ancien regime, for the above translated excerpt. Your efforts are greatly appreciated.

Mea Culpa · « **Reply #5 on:** November 16, 2012, 03:20:41 PM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

Quote from: ancien regime
an inevitable process of progress towards an accord between the Holy See and the SSPX, or at least accords with a large number of SSPX priests and faithful![/i]
(cf : Pour une nécessaire réconciliation du Père Lelong, p. 52, éd. : NEL)

Many of them want to be liberal. Yes, many of them look forward to being comfortable liberals. Poor souls.

Is this the moment to jump in with "Enter ye in at the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there are who go in thereat."?

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #6 on:** November 16, 2012, 04:30:36 PM »

Quote from: Mea Culpa

Quote from: Telesphorus
Quote from: ancien regime
an inevitable process of progress towards an accord between the Holy See and the SSPX, or at least accords with a large number of SSPX priests and faithful![/i]
(cf : Pour une nécessaire réconciliation du Père Lelong, p. 52, éd. : NEL)

Many of them want to be liberal. Yes, many of them look forward to being comfortable liberals. Poor souls.

Is this the moment to jump in with "Enter ye in at the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there are who go in thereat."?

Well, let's see here (checking watch) ........ Yep, it's just about that time!

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #7 on:** November 16, 2012, 04:34:03 PM »

Shouldn't this thread be glued onto the the first one of the same topic,
only an hour apart from each other????

:confused1:

magdalena · « **Reply #8 on:** November 16, 2012, 04:51:31 PM »

Quote from: Domitilla

It would appear that we now have official confirmation that +Fellay is indeed a liar.

I hope this book will be quickly translated into English and widely distributed. Thank you, ancien regime, for the above translated excerpt. Your efforts are greatly appreciated.

And +Fellay continues to do so if you look at his sermon at St. Nicolas du Chardonnet.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #9 on:** November 16, 2012, 04:52:00 PM »

Quote from: ancien regime

Gentiloup sent me some more quotes from the book:

Page 44-45:
In March 2003, I [Fr. Lelong] went to Rome with Father La Brosse and we were both received by Cardinal Catrillon Hoyos, Prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy. . . . I was struck by one of his remarks: we observed that in our country the misunderstandings and tensions between the episcopate and the SSPX are often politically motivated, more so than for truly theological reasons. This observation seemed to be a fair but just one because, in the '70s, I had often heard the French bishops reproaching Catholics who were attached to the Latin Mass for being of the “extreme right.” And recently, Cardinal Lustiger told me one day: “We will never agree with the Lefebvristes because they are anti-Semitic.” . . .

Before a new reader goes any further with this topic, he might be well-advised
to read this first, and think about it in context:

(from another thread)

Quote from: Neil Obstat

Quote from: Columba
Quote from: Telesphorus
trying to brand people as "antisemites" for pointing out that it's insane for someone with Zionist sympathies to hire a leftist lawyer to defend a society bishop in trouble for taking a revisionist position) who see the very definite departure from the teachings of the Archbishop.

Words such as "antisemite" have no fixed definition and trigger a state of panic or incapacitation among the brainwashed yet have no legitimate use in thoughtful discussion.

When a definition touches on the truth, it does what it ought to do. The
antithesis of this is, when a definition fails to touch on the truth, it induces
confusion, disorientation (perhaps diabolical!), and in advanced cases,
incapacitation, and in the most extreme cases, triggers a state of panic,
especially in the brainwashed.

Why do you suppose the following definitions are not found in the dictionary? :

anti-Semitism n. something the Jєωs don't like.

anti-Semitic adj. describes something the Jєωs don't like.

αnтι-ѕємιтє n. a person who says or does anything the Jєωs don't
like; it only takes one thing done or one statement made for such a
person to become an αnтι-ѕємιтє. The more prominent the
reputation or public visibility of the offender, the more rapid and
large his epithet becomes; it is all a matter of public perception and
popular opinion, especially that of prominent Jєωs, who are the
unquestioned arbiters of international anti-Semitism, which see.

If you find your "thoughtful discussion" somehow infringed, perhaps you should
read these two definitions, and start trying to apply them when you see these
words, and think about the words in this context, then re-assess your
erstwhile infringement. You might be surprised to find that it has disappeared.

Such is the effect of truth: it sets you free.

BTW: the question stands: Why are these definitions not found in the dictionary?

And if you "feel" the answer is because they are "not true," guess again. And
this time, leave your "feelings" out of the equation!

Viva Cristo Rey · « **Reply #10 on:** November 16, 2012, 06:51:55 PM »

there is more Anti-Catholicism by Jєωιѕн liberals then any anti-semiticism. They use the TV and movies to promote their hatred of Catholics and Jesus Christ, Catholic Church.

When are the World Jєωιѕн Congress going to clean their pedophiles, and anti-Catholics from within their own religion. Many of them are really athesists and refuse to follow any of God's ten commandments.