Author Topic: Neo-SSPX and the "Spirit of Vatican II" (Read 2578 times)

bowler · « **on:** November 20, 2012, 12:55:56 PM »

From the book: Animus Delendi I (Desire to Destroy), by Atila Guimaraes:

The analysis of the spirit of the Council in Volumes II to V will consider the expression in an analogical sense, that is, it will consider less the body of doctrine that inspired it, and much more the state of spirit that it inspired and the mentality that has become increasingly manifest within the Church ever since. That is, this study will attempt to under¬stand its spirit in its analogical sense.

Although, in theory, it can be a simplification to understand "spirit" to mean "state of spirit," it seems that in the specific case of the Council, the first and most important thing to do is to determine its state of spirit or mentality. Far more than being a mere codification of rules or laws, the conciliar docuмents have propitiated the greatest change in the Holy Church and in the religious mentality of Catholics as a whole that History has ever seen. Therefore, to determine the broader meaning of these docuмents, they must be considered together with the changes to which they gave rise. To know these two things, it is indispensable to become familiar with the conciliar mentality.

How can this mentality, or state of spirit, be defined?

First, this state of spirit can be defined as the assumption of an attitude of tolerance toward error and evil, as well as toward their agents, by conciliar and postconciliar ecclesiastical leaders.

In the Council's opening speech, John XXIII described    this new position as one that "shows mercy" for those in error   and that "spreads everywhere" the Church's love for the "brotherly unity of all" that is, the world and false religions.

Inevitably, tolerance for error and evil generated hostility toward pre conciliar Catholic militancy. That is, it created hostility toward the main characteristic of the Holy Catholic Church, which forms the perfect likeness of Our Lord who said: "I came not to bring peace, but the sword." (Mt 10:34; Lk 12:51)

Second, the state of spirit born at the Council can be defined as the adoption of a generally hostile attitude toward the militancy of the Catholic Church both past and present.

Once tolerance toward error and evil have been admitted, it is simple to see why the meaning of aggiornamento, the adaptation of the Church to the world, would no longer imply combating the fundamental errors of the world. On the contrary, it implies a combat with the sacral and hierarchical characteristics of the Holy Church, qualities diametrically opposed the vulgarity and egalitarianism of the modern world.

Third, the state of spirit born at the Council can be defined as the adoption of a general hostility toward the sacral and hierarchical characteristics of the Holy Catholic

This description of the state of spirit of the Council - tolerance for evil and hostility toward Catholic militancy and the sacral and hierarchical characteristics of the Church is in my view the best possible definition of the spirit of the Council.

This will be confirmed by the following general arguments that will be analyzed over the course of this Collection:

1. It is consistent with the general orientation of the pontificate of John XXIII, which was faithfully followed by Pual VI and John Paul II;

2. It explains the dogmatic relativism and moral laxity have pervaded the interpretation of Catholic doctrine since Council;

3. It explains the general climate of the conciliar reforms with regard to both the de sacralization of the Church and he dissolution of her hierarchical structure;

4. It explains ecuмenism and secularization the adaption of the Church to the world and other religions both notable characteristics of the conciliar era;

5. It sheds light on innumerable ambiguities in the official docuмents of Vatican II.

For these reasons, the Author has adopted this definition of spirit of the Council: tolerance toward evil, and hostility toward Catholic militancy, and hostility toward sacred and hierarchical characteristics of the Church.

bowler · « **Reply #1 on:** November 20, 2012, 01:09:53 PM »

Quote

First, this state of spirit can be defined as the assumption of an attitude of tolerance toward error and evil, as well as toward their agents, by conciliar and postconciliar ecclesiastical leaders.

This quote by the author can easily be changed to say indifference, rather than tolerance. Indifference is the error to which all the clergy and the faithful have succuмbed. It is the error of all of the "conservative" Novus Ordos, the Indult Mass "tradtionalists", and the Ecclesia Dei Communities (like Fraternity of St. Peter, Institiute of Christ the King, etc)

It is exactly what the SSPX accordistas have done! The SSPX accordistas have "assumed an attitude of tolerance toward error and evil, as well as toward their agents".

The Neo-SSPX has assumed a spirit of indifference toward error and evil, as well as toward their agents, the pope himself and all the other conciliar progressivists.

Someone on CI said it very succinctly, what you people fail to understand, is that Bishop Fellay and his cohorts now believe that they are outside of the Church. He is trying to get back in.

Anthony Benedict · « **Reply #2 on:** November 20, 2012, 01:33:22 PM »

Slight quibble: Toleration can imply permitting, for a greater good, a present evil to exist ( something God does. )

Indifference, ultimately, may not care at all ( something God NEVER does. )

Does it seem more accurate to describe the liberally-drowned minds among the Nervous Ordeal establishment as those who consider themselves to be "tolerant" but which are, in the objective order, simply "indifferent", even if they would vehemently protest at the very suggestion?

bowler · « **Reply #3 on:** November 20, 2012, 01:55:04 PM »

Quote from: Anthony Benedict

Slight quibble: Toleration can imply permitting, for a greater good, a present evil to exist ( something God does. )

Indifference, ultimately, may not care at all ( something God NEVER does. )

Does it seem more accurate to describe the liberally-drowned minds among the Nervous Ordeal establishment as those who consider themselves to be "tolerant" but which are, in the objective order, simply "indifferent", even if they would vehemently protest at the very suggestion?

Atila Guimaraes was using the term tolerance, as what the progressivist think of themselves. If you read the rest of what he wrote, you will see it for what it is, indifference to error and evil, and a spirit to destroy all memory of the Church of the past.

The Neo-SSPX (just like all the Ecclesia Dei Communities) has become indifferent to error and evil, and to those who propagate error and evil.

Quote

Someone on CI said it very succinctly, what you people fail to understand, is that Bishop Fellay and his cohorts now believe that they are outside of the Church. He is trying to get back in.

And become like all of the other Ecclesia Dei Communities, indifferent to error and evil, and indifferent to the pope and all those who propagate error and evil.

.

Anthony Benedict · « **Reply #4 on:** November 20, 2012, 02:05:57 PM »

Slightly more intense quibble: From experience, not ALL Ecclesia Dei members are unaware, uninformed or indifferent. A number are deeply Traditional in their sentiments, practices and pronouncements. And, a GREAT number have no access to the SSPX for the TLM, as well.

You are correct in the main, but there is a segment to which a general castigation may not fairly apply.

As to the equation you mention, I note that it was your own second post that made the equation.

Btw, I admire a great deal of Guimares' output. He has his problems, I am told, but in the main he has done truly yeoman work.

Anthony Benedict · « **Reply #5 on:** November 20, 2012, 02:12:53 PM »

To wit: Guimares' comments on the attitude of the council, points 2 & 3 in the first post are, I believe, eminently observsable to this day and copiously docuмented.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #6 on:** November 20, 2012, 03:06:09 PM »

Quote from: Atila Sinke-Guimaraes

Therefore, to determine the broader meaning of these docuмents, they must be considered together with the changes to which they gave rise. To know these two things, it is indispensable to become familiar with the conciliar mentality.

How can this mentality, or state of spirit, be defined?

First, this state of spirit can be defined as the assumption of an attitude of tolerance toward error and evil, as well as toward their agents, by conciliar and postconciliar ecclesiastical leaders.

In the Council's opening speech, John XXIII described this new position as one that "shows mercy" for those in error and that "spreads everywhere" the Church's love for the "brotherly unity of all" that is, the world and false religions.

Inevitably, tolerance for error and evil generated hostility toward pre-conciliar Catholic militancy. That is, it created hostility toward the main characteristic of the Holy Catholic Church, which forms the perfect likeness of Our Lord who said: "I came not to bring peace, but the sword." (Mt 10:34; Lk 12:51)

As for "How can this mentality, or state of spirit, be defined?" it seems to me
that a lot of clarity is jump-started at the opening gate by the addition of one
word to the phrase:

The unclean spirit of Vatican II.

This phrase, unclean spirit ought to strike fear in the heart of anyone familiar
with the Old Testament, for it is a most important principle in the writings of
all the ancient prophets. We ignore their words at our own peril, for that is
what happened to them who ignored their words in those days. Why would it
be any different today?

To that end, does this question not get to the point a little faster? :

How can this mentality, this unclean spirit, be defined?

Wessex · « **Reply #7 on:** November 20, 2012, 03:51:26 PM »

The key to 'getting back inside the Church' for Bp. F would be to return to the early days of the Society before the 'suspensions' and for there to be mutual toleration of doctrinal differences. But this would be a different kind of SSPX to the subsequent one where there appeared to be a hardline approach on doctrine, now abandoned. It seems strange that Bp. F would ever entertain the notion of the Church housing doctrinal contradiction unless he now sees the Council as a minor problem. This would be for him quite a conversion and the basis of some kind of revolutionary change in the Society with all the consequences now unfolding.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #8 on:** November 20, 2012, 04:03:02 PM »

Quote

It seems strange that Bp. F would ever entertain the notion of the Church housing doctrinal contradiction

The neo-SSPX now speaks of "errors in the Church" now in such a way that it really violates the notion of indefectability. They've moved away from the idea of the "conciliar Church" to the idea of the Catholic Church that is forever ridden with errors.

Quote

Moreover, one has to realize how much false doctrines have spread throughout the Church. Even if a theological conciliation between Rome and the Fraternity would have been achieved, it could not be expected that by a word of command from the Pope all false doctrines would suddenly disappear from the face of the earth.

http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2012/05/rome-sspx-important-fr-pfluger-speaks.html

So it really doesn't matter what the Pope says, it's not as though him condemning error would free the world from errors, so it really doesn't matter that his view of the Catholic Faith is diametrically opposed to Catholic Tradition!

Rorate-Caeli, btw, has clearly been under the influence of a certain notorious pro-Jєωιѕн fanatic. It can easily be seen by the kind of expressions that are used.

Quote from: Pope Pius XI Mortalium Animos

10. So, Venerable Brethren, it is clear why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics: for the union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it, for in the past they have unhappily left it. To the one true Church of Christ, we say, which is visible to all, and which is to remain, according to the will of its Author, exactly the same as He instituted it. During the lapse of centuries, the mystical Spouse of Christ has never been contaminated, nor can she ever in the future be contaminated, as Cyprian bears witness: "The Bride of Christ cannot be made false to her Spouse: she is incorrupt and modest. She knows but one dwelling, she guards the sanctity of the nuptial chamber chastely and modestly."

bowler · « **Reply #9 on:** November 20, 2012, 07:21:53 PM »

Quote from: Wessex

The key to 'getting back inside the Church' for Bp. F would be to return to the early days of the Society before the 'suspensions' and for there to be mutual toleration of doctrinal differences. ... It seems strange that Bp. F would ever entertain the notion of the Church housing doctrinal contradiction unless he now sees the Council as a minor problem.

Ironically, Bp. Fellay wants seeks mutual toleration of doctrinal differences, indifference to doctrine, from/with the progressivist, but he is intollerant to Bp. Wiiliamson slight difference of opinion.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #10 on:** November 20, 2012, 07:45:11 PM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2012/05/rome-sspx-important-fr-pfluger-speaks.html

So it really doesn't matter what the Pope says, it's not as though him condemning error would free the world from errors, so it really doesn't matter that his view of the Catholic Faith is diametrically opposed to Catholic Tradition!

Okay, go ahead and accuse me of quoting you out of context if you like, but
this is what your post says. I'm sorry, but it just doesn't sound like you.

Are you sure you didn't mean to have this(?):

Quote from: Tele's post could have

Quote
It seems strange that Bp. F would ever entertain the notion of the Church housing doctrinal contradiction

The neo-SSPX now speaks of "errors in the Church" ~~now~~ in such a way that it really violates the notion of indefectability. They've moved away from the idea of the "conciliar Church" to the idea of the Catholic Church that is forever ridden with errors.

Quote from: Rorate-Caeli
Moreover, one has to realize how much false doctrines have spread throughout the Church. Even if a theological conciliation between Rome and the Fraternity would have been achieved, it could not be expected that by a word of command from the Pope all false doctrines would suddenly disappear from the face of the earth.

...[Translation by "The Anonymous Translator®"]

http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2012/05/rome-sspx-important-fr-pfluger-speaks.html

So [they would lead you to believe that] it really doesn't matter what the Pope says, it's not as though him condemning error would free the world from errors, so it really doesn't matter that his view of the Catholic Faith is diametrically opposed to Catholic Tradition!

Rorate-Caeli, btw, has clearly been under the influence of a certain notorious pro-Jєωιѕн fanatic. It can easily be seen by the kind of expressions that are used.

Quote from: Pope Pius XI Mortalium Animos
10. So, Venerable Brethren, it is clear why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics: for the union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it, for in the past they have unhappily left it. To the one true Church of Christ, we say, which is visible to all, and which is to remain, according to the will of its Author, exactly the same as He instituted it. During the lapse of centuries, the mystical Spouse of Christ has never been contaminated, nor can she ever in the future be contaminated, as Cyprian bears witness: "The Bride of Christ cannot be made false to her Spouse: she is incorrupt and modest. She knows but one dwelling, she guards the sanctity of the nuptial chamber chastely and modestly."

No?

I mean, when I first read it, it sounded pretty confused -- :confused1:

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #11 on:** November 20, 2012, 07:59:59 PM »

Quote from: bowler

Quote from: Wessex
The key to 'getting back inside the Church' for Bp. F would be to return to the early days of the Society before the 'suspensions' and for there to be mutual toleration of doctrinal differences. ... It seems strange that Bp. F would ever entertain the notion of the Church housing doctrinal contradiction unless he now sees the Council as a minor problem.

Ironically, Bp. Fellay wants seeks mutual toleration of doctrinal differences, indifference to doctrine, from/with the progressivist, but he is intollerant to Bp. Wiiliamson slight difference of opinion.

Excellent observation, bowler! Ironic indeed! We really need to be picking up on
this stuff because they seem to think they can run roughshod over right reason
with their illogical and inside-out injustices.

It goes back to the error of religious indifferentism and false ecuмenism, whereby
all manner of apostasy and error are tolerated or even praised, but the One True
Faith alone becomes anathema, as if it were kryptonite to Superman!

+Fellay might not be openly acting that way yet, but he seems to have it in him,
for otherwise he wouldn't be slipping gradually into the pattern that he is. And
he wouldn't have had to dare make the move of 'excluding' +W.

I watched his sermon in French at St. Nicholas du Chardonnet in Paris. It's almost
worth it to learn French just to get a grasp
of the connotations. But as it is, the inflections are sufficient for the moment!

bowler · « **Reply #12 on:** November 21, 2012, 01:27:02 PM »

Quote from: bowler

Someone on CI said it very succinctly, what you people fail to understand, is that Bishop Fellay and his cohorts now believe that they are outside of the Church. He is trying to get back in.

Here it is in a Fr. Pfeiffer sermon, all comments by him, nothing added by me:

Quote

[So the interviewer says, Okay,] "Since you seem so little disposed to compromise, why do you still hold discussions with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith?"

The answer of Fr. Pfluger: "Because the pope and Rome are realities inseparable from the Faith. The loss of faith in the Church's structures—a loss of faith from which we have been spared, thanks be to God—is only one aspect of the crisis in the Church. For our part, we suffer also from a defect: the fact of our canonical irregularity. The status of the post-conciliar Church is imperfect, nor is our status the ideal."

So Fr. Pfluger says another new teaching of the Society: There are two parts of the crisis in the Church. One part is the loss of Faith of the Romans. The loss of Faith. Now it's interesting how it's said. "Loss of Faith." "Loss of Faith" and not "heresy." We are agnostics who walk away from the Faith but maybe have no specific heresies that we can point to. "Loss of Faith." We're dealing with more than the loss of Faith, somebody who has walked away from the Faith. We're dealing with Modernist heresy in Rome. We're dealing with an active teaching of grave evils against the teaching of the Catholic Church. We're not dealing with simply a "loss of Faith." But Fr. Pfluger refers to it as: 'The first part of the crisis is a kind of loss of Faith. The second part is our irregularity.'

It's a bit like a wife. A man is married and the wife leaves the husband. The wife goes and lives with another man. The wife kicks the husband out of the house a then she says, "You're a bad husband. You don't even live with me!"

"Well, you kicked me out of the house! You're living with some other guy!"

"Don't change the subject! You're a bad husband because you're not living with me. Don't just say I'm a bad wife because I've living in adultery and because I'm living with another man, and because I took all your things!"

You know, you have a Divorced Barbie. She comes along with Ken's stuff. So, you know, "I've got all your things. I drive your truck. I've got your house. I've got a new husband. Stop complaining about all that stuff! You're not bringing home a paycheck. You're not coming home
and taking care of me. You're not living we me and THAT's irregular. You're a BAD husband. Don't just say I'm a bad wife!"

And so the husband says, "You're right. I should be living with you. Just because you won't let me live with you; just because you're living with somebody else, it's still no excuse. You're right. You're right." That guy is a fruitcake!

The fact is that the irregularity of the Society of Saint Pius X is NOT a problem. Archbishop Lefebvre was angry in 1990. He said, 'I'm angry with these people. I'm upset with these people who say it's so sad we're not approved. It's so sad that we're in an irregular situation. It's so sad that they call us 'excommunicated.''' Well, if you think it's so sad, you've got to make up your mind! It is not sad to be persecuted for the truth! Our Lord Jesus Christ said at the end of the eighth beatitude: "Blessed are you when men persecute and revile you for My Name's sake. It is an honor."

Have you ever seen a picture of St. Paul? He's pictured with a sword. Why is he pictured with a sword? Because it was a sword that was used to cut off his head. St. Peter is with a cross, upside down because he was crucified upside down, and each martyr is pictured with the cause of their martyrdom because it is their glory.

With us, we would say, "Look, I, I don't like lightning." -- One of our parishioners here got struck by lightning. Whenever the lightning would come--I was a priest and the lightning would come and he goes and hides in the corner. "I don't like lightning!" When in the Church, when the lightning comes--we got struck by lightning and we go looking for it.

Whatever is the cause of our persecution for Christ's sake is our glory! It is NOT something to be disturbed about. It is NOT a problem and if we begin to think it's a problem, we're starting to act like foolish women and no man can do that, even in our modern feminist society in which women run everything. We can't do that.

There is not a problem with our canonical irregularity. And if there IS a problem, it's a problem of those idiots that made us irregular! It is the problem of those who decided that we are not approved!

Once, I was meeting with the Bishop of Phoenix, Arizona, Bishop Olmsted, the new bishop at the time. He said, "You know what my problem is with you?" And I said, "What? What Bishop? What is your problem?" "My problem is you're not approved!" and I said, "Okay. All you have to do is approve of us and the problem is solved!" And he goes, "Well, ah, can't do that." I told him, "Okay. There's nothing I can do about it."

If I was a bishop, one of the first things I would do would be to approve of me, but I'm not the bishop, so it's not my problem. MY problem is to preach the Faith, live the Faith, and go by the Faith and if you approve of it, fine. I'm happy! And if you don't, I'm still happy.

We don't care about irregularity. Absolute foolishness. And yet the new teaching of the Society of St. Pius X is our irregularity and it is a sad and tragic thing.

What is tragic is the loss of Faith. What is tragic is the abuse of authority. What is tragic is the evil that is going on inside of Rome and inside of the bishops and now inside of the authorities of the Society of Saint Pius X who are using their authority to threaten, using their authority to drive people away from the Sacraments, using their authority to drive people with an iron fist and a whip back into the arms of Rome who are the wolves that will destroy us and our sheep. That's what's happening now, and that's a tragedy but it's THEIR tragedy; it's not ours.

Viva Cristo Rey · « **Reply #13 on:** November 21, 2012, 08:29:20 PM »

Quote from: Anthony Benedict

Slightly more intense quibble: From experience, not ALL Ecclesia Dei members are unaware, uninformed or indifferent. A number are deeply Traditional in their sentiments, practices and pronouncements. And, a GREAT number have no access to the SSPX for the TLM, as well.

You are correct in the main, but there is a segment to which a general castigation may not fairly apply.

As to the equation you mention, I note that it was your own second post that made the equation.

Btw, I admire a great deal of Guimares' output. He has his problems, I am told, but in the main he has done truly yeoman work.

they are well aware of the errors within their diocese because they read in their diocesan newspapers and do nothing to correct these errors. A couple of days ago, I was chatting with one vatican II traditional catholic who is well aware of sspx and is hoping they "rejoin" the Church. There are traditional catholics who are married to athesists.

And obviously many of them voted for abortion candidates

Viva Cristo Rey · « **Reply #14 on:** November 21, 2012, 08:35:51 PM »

Yes, on a "traditional" catholic facebook wall, I was debating with an athesist who is married to "traditional" catholic. Not one "traditional vatican II" catholic even commented on the fact that this athesist was putting down Jesus Christ saying it was a fairtale. I had to try to correct this blashemy. Then finally a protestant jumped in and defended Jesus too. Yet, the facebook wall owner never did anything to defend our Lord or our Catholic faith. It takes more then attending a latin mass to be Catholic.

(the protestants are more "catholic" then the vatican II catholics.

while in our area, there will be "holiday" trees on parade" sponsor by vatican II church while the protestants will have live Nativity which was started by St Francis of Assisi.

And yes, I have wrote letters and made comments about the holiday trees on parade. And yes, I'm not well liked in my community because of my Catholic Faith.