Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: Marlelar on March 29, 2015, 11:38:37 PM
-
In Father Pfeiffer's sermon where he spoke about the consecration of Fr. Faure as a bishop he said that the SSPX had stated that they would not consecrate any new bishops that are not approved of by Rome. link (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Fr-Pfeiffer-about-the-consecration-and-bishop-Faure) (approx minute 25:54) Does anyone know where I can find that in writing? Was it a statement by Menzingen or quoted in a written article?
As Father rightly points out, that would mean the death of the SSPX.
-
This is no surprise for two reasons. He has one foot on Rome and he was more than willing to demote the other two in his 6 conditions to the Romans. Like the other indult communities, he will only be able to have another bishop approved by the Romans that they can trust to take the SSPX all the way home.
-
In Father Pfeiffer's sermon where he spoke about the consecration of Fr. Faure as a bishop he said that the SSPX had stated that they would not consecrate any new bishops that are not approved of by Rome. link (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Fr-Pfeiffer-about-the-consecration-and-bishop-Faure) (approx minute 25:54) Does anyone know where I can find that in writing? Was it a statement by Menzingen or quoted in a written article?
As Father rightly points out, that would mean the death of the SSPX.
I just listened to it and he says: "(+Fellay) admits in the press release (communique), makes it very clear..."
I had not thought about it that way but it is safe to assume that from the communique specially in view of the "6 conditions".
-
In Father Pfeiffer's sermon where he spoke about the consecration of Fr. Faure as a bishop he said that the SSPX had stated that they would not consecrate any new bishops that are not approved of by Rome. link (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Fr-Pfeiffer-about-the-consecration-and-bishop-Faure) (approx minute 25:54) Does anyone know where I can find that in writing? Was it a statement by Menzingen or quoted in a written article?
As Father rightly points out, that would mean the death of the SSPX.
It's more of a logical consequence.
The FACT is that the SSPX condemned the +Faure consecration -- a consecration that was IN EVERY MEASURABLE WAY identical to the 1988 consecrations. Done without the permission of Rome, because of necessity, intending to confer no jurisdiction, in public with plenty of witnesses, etc.
If they condemn such a consecration, emphasizing how the 1988 consecrations were a "special" or "one time thing" -- it follows that they won't be able to do the same thing next week, next year, or 5 years from now. They've tied their own hands.
So yes, in so many words they've committed themselves to two possible outcomes:
A) a deal with Rome, Rome's selection of one (compromised) bishop for the SSPX, etc. (crashing into the rocks)
or
B) annihilation (sinking to be bottom of the sea)
Either way, I want off of that boat!
Like I said -- human hope for the SSPX is *long gone*
Prepare your alternatives now, while you still have time.
Remember, the FSSP might not have a bishop, but they at least have "union with Rome" so all those who feel they need to be approved by the Conciliar Church will patronize this group.
But the SSPX has no such permission. Any "outside the Conciliar structures" traditional group had better have its own bishop, or the group is doomed.
-
This is indeed scary. Looks like we are in the end times. No matter what happens, God has commanded that the Immacualte Heart of Mary will triumph. The consecration of Russia will take place
-
Just the usual conjecture from Father Pfeiffer. SSPX would "ASK" for permission but would then do it once refused. They would leverage that alone to claim that these were not "at all" alike.
-
Just the usual conjecture from Father Pfeiffer. SSPX would "ASK" for permission but would then do it once refused. They would leverage that alone to claim that these were not "at all" alike.
Yes, I could see that happening.
Nevertheless, such a course of action would be disingenuous.
I agree with Sean Johnson on this point -- when the Pope himself is personally responsible for the ongoing progress of the Modernism heresy (and, in general, he is responsible for the continued nature of the Crisis in the Church), it's not necessary to ask him for a Trad bishop or two to help fight Modernism.
One can assume in this case. I don't think moral laws ever require that one "go through the motions" -- they only require that essential things take place.
When a man N is responsible for Crisis X, one can presume that man N will not do anything to oppose Crisis X. It's a question of moral certainty.
I mean, if a couple marries each other on a deserted island, does Church law require that they at least dress up a couple of cacti to be witnesses? No, the Church simply dispenses them. The Church generally believes in (and practices) common sense.
Can you safely assume that the head of Planned Parenthood, or a notorious abortion doctor, would speak at your pro-life rally? Is it even necessary to ask?
Or can we assume the answer...
-
Nevertheless, such a course of action would be disingenuous.
That's never stopped them before.
-
Just the usual conjecture from Father Pfeiffer. SSPX would "ASK" for permission but would then do it once refused. They would leverage that alone to claim that these were not "at all" alike.
At this point, unless something changes internally, the SSPX will never perform another consecration without Rome's approval. If they did, they would set back any progress toward "unity and understanding" by 20 years.
There will be an agreement long before the thought of consecrations even becomes a glimmer in the mind of +Fellay.
-
Marie Auxiliadora:
I just listened to it and he says:(+Fellay)admits in the press release (communique), makes it very clear...
I had not thought about it that way but it is safe to assume that from the communique specially in view of the "6 conditions".
===========================================================
What press release is Fr. Pfeiffer referring to? I cannot find it on the SSPX website.
[/quote]
-
In Father Pfeiffer's sermon where he spoke about the consecration of Fr. Faure as a bishop he said that the SSPX had stated that they would not consecrate any new bishops that are not approved of by Rome. link (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Fr-Pfeiffer-about-the-consecration-and-bishop-Faure) (approx minute 25:54) Does anyone know where I can find that in writing? Was it a statement by Menzingen or quoted in a written article?
As Father rightly points out, that would mean the death of the SSPX.
It's more of a logical consequence.
The FACT is that the SSPX condemned the +Faure consecration -- a consecration that was IN EVERY MEASURABLE WAY identical to the 1988 consecrations. Done without the permission of Rome, because of necessity, intending to confer no jurisdiction, in public with plenty of witnesses, etc.
If they condemn such a consecration, emphasizing how the 1988 consecrations were a "special" or "one time thing" -- it follows that they won't be able to do the same thing next week, next year, or 5 years from now. They've tied their own hands.
So yes, in so many words they've committed themselves to two possible outcomes:
A) a deal with Rome, Rome's selection of one (compromised) bishop for the SSPX, etc. (crashing into the rocks)
or
B) annihilation (sinking to be bottom of the sea)
Either way, I want off of that boat!
Like I said -- human hope for the SSPX is *long gone*
Prepare your alternatives now, while you still have time.
Remember, the FSSP might not have a bishop, but they at least have "union with Rome" so all those who feel they need to be approved by the Conciliar Church will patronize this group.
But the SSPX has no such permission. Any "outside the Conciliar structures" traditional group had better have its own bishop, or the group is doomed.
Exactly!
Well stated Matthew.
-
Nevertheless, such a course of action would be disingenuous.
That's never stopped them before.
True, but if in fact SSPX ever did consecrate another bishop without permission from Rome, they would necessarily have to publicly admit that they were wrong in condemning +Williamson's consecration.
I mean to say that would be the proper thing for them to do if they ever decided to consecrate other bishops, whether they actually would admit such a thing, is not something that I'd hold my breath for.
-
Nevertheless, such a course of action would be disingenuous.
That's never stopped them before.
True, but if in fact SSPX ever did consecrate another bishop without permission from Rome, they would necessarily have to publicly admit that they were wrong in condemning +Williamson's consecration.
I mean to say that would be the proper thing for them to do if they ever decided to consecrate other bishops, whether they actually would admit such a thing, is not something that I'd hold my breath for.
Indeed, time for the Menzingen status quo is running out. They must eventually choose to
1. Compromise with Vatican modernists to obtain their permission for consecration,
2. Definitively break from Rome with Williamson-Faure-style consecrations, or
3. Discontinue ordination when the last bishop dies or leaves.
Would it be insubordinate for SSPX followers to petition their leadership about which of these three possible directions the SSPX is heading? It is only insubordinate to the extent there is a "Church of Fellay" with requirements that go beyond those required of a Catholic.
Is there a forth option? Menzingen might grit its teeth to hold out for the miraculous or chastisement-induced election of a traditionalist pope. This would be flirting with suicidal SSPX extinction for the sake of false piety while spitefully condemning those choosing to live. Williamson-Faure-style consecrations will not prevent the future elections of traditionalist popes and may in fact be instrumental in laying the foundation for such future glory.
-
Nevertheless, such a course of action would be disingenuous.
That's never stopped them before.
True, but if in fact SSPX ever did consecrate another bishop without permission from Rome, they would necessarily have to publicly admit that they were wrong in condemning +Williamson's consecration.
I mean to say that would be the proper thing for them to do if they ever decided to consecrate other bishops, whether they actually would admit such a thing, is not something that I'd hold my breath for.
Indeed, time for the Menzingen status quo is running out. They must eventually choose to
1. Compromise with Vatican modernists to obtain their permission for consecration,
2. Definitively break from Rome with Williamson-Faure-style consecrations, or
3. Discontinue ordination when the last bishop dies or leaves.
Would it be insubordinate for SSPX followers to petition their leadership about which of these three possible directions the SSPX is heading? It is only insubordinate to the extent there is a "Church of Fellay" with requirements that go beyond those required of a Catholic.
Is there a forth option? Menzingen might grit its teeth to hold out for the miraculous or chastisement-induced election of a traditionalist pope. This would be flirting with suicidal SSPX extinction for the sake of false piety while spitefully condemning those choosing to live. Williamson-Faure-style consecrations will not prevent the future elections of traditionalist popes and may in fact be instrumental in laying the foundation for such future glory.
"Would it be insubordinate for SSPX followers to petition their leadership about which of these three possible directions the SSPX is heading?"
No, it would not. As faithful who attend the Masses of the SSPX, except
Third Order Members, are not subordinate to the superiors of the SSPX in any way.
-
What press release is Fr. Pfeiffer referring to? I cannot find it on the SSPX website.
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Communiqu-of-the-General-House-of-the-Society-of-St-Pius-X
-
faithful who attend the Masses of the SSPX, except
Third Order Members, are not subordinate to the superiors of the SSPX in any way.
The ad hoc condition and state-of-necessity status of the SSPX leaves its faithful unbound under the official laws of subordination but Society governing structure is nevertheless easily recognized as hierarchical. Within any group of human beings, those not governing are considered to be among the governed. SSPX faithful are de facto subordinate and among the governed to the degree they participate in institutions governed by the SSPX.
The de facto condition of their subordination exempts SSPX faithful from official punishment for disobedience that might otherwise apply under de jure subordination. However, SSPX faithful can still be justly punished by unofficial means such as social ostracization.
My point is that even such unofficial punishment would be unjust if applied against concerned faithful urging the SSPX to realistically safeguard its own survival by adapting to the likelihood of Rome remaining unconverted for the foreseeable future.
-
Ok, I admit it. I'm dense as a doorknob. I don't see anything in that statement that says SSPX will not consecrate any new bishops. It doesn't open the door to any, but neither does it close it.
What am I missing?
-
Ok, I admit it. I'm dense as a doorknob. I don't see anything in that statement that says SSPX will not consecrate any new bishops. It doesn't open the door to any, but neither does it close it.
What am I missing?
Re-read my post on page 1, which starts off, "It's more of a logical consequence."
Put simply, SSPX would be transparently hypocritical (so blatant that not even their biggest fanboys could justify it) if it condemned the Faure consecration but then at some point in the future consecrated a bishop without Rome's permission. Pot calling the kettle black? Hypocrisy? You get the idea.
What could the SSPX possibly say to the Resistance?
"Your valid bishop's publicly-witnessed consecration, without papal approval, of an auxiliary bishop-without-jurisdiction for the sake of maintaining Tradition is naughty and schismatic. See you in hell...from heaven! Being excommunicated is a bummer, isn't it?
--- but ---
Our valid bishop's publicly-witnessed consecration, without papal approval, of an auxiliary bishop-without-jurisdiction for the sake of maintaining Tradition is a beautiful thing. *sigh* Now get out your checkbook. Just remember, we're SSPX and we're awesome."
Who would buy that? Only those whose minds were befuddled by years of cult propaganda. But certainly no one with a sane mind!
-
Yes, I get the "reading between the lines" now. From some of the other posts I thought a specific statement had been made and that I had missed it.
:fryingpan:
-
Since the Society has three hale and hearty Bishops, it is unlikely that there will be any need for further episcopal consecrations any time soon, probably not for another 15 years at least (Bishop Fellay, for example, is only 57, while Bishop Williamson is around 75 by comparison), and the situation in the Church may well have improved by that time. Besides, one essential requirement laid down as such by the General Chapter is the perpetual guarantee of at least one bishop. So, in the case of any new canonical structure offered by Rome and accepted by the Society, a Personal Prelacy or more preferably, an Apostolic Administration, the guarantee of bishops to head the society will be part of the constitutions of the new structure. Also, bishops who have ordinary power can do things auxiliary bishops cannot, for example, convene marriage tribunals to pass juridical declarations on annulments and other such things. That was one of the reasons for the desirable condition, “ecclesiastical tribunals in the first instance” beside "“exemption of the houses of the Society of Saint Pius X in relation to the diocesan bishops”. It is divine law that no bishop becomes an Ordinary save through appointment or confirmation by the Pope. All in all, there remains no reason in principle why such an offer should be refused, in the unlikely event that Rome at some future time becomes ready and willing to make and honor them according to the six conditions. Contrary to Fr. Pfeiffer's claim, the SSPX has not stated it will not consecrate new bishops. Archbishop Lefebvre's position - in 1973, in 1988, and beyond - was that it is preferable to have canonical approval and do everything within that structure, and only if that is unjustly denied to us, we disregard the unlawful command and carry on anyway, and that's what the Society's approach still is.
-
It is divine law that no bishop becomes an Ordinary save through appointment or confirmation by the Pope. All in all, there remains no reason in principle why such an offer should be refused, in the unlikely event that Rome at some future time becomes ready and willing to make and honor them according to the six conditions. [...]
If an SSPX bishop judges that Society leadership is sabotaging doctrine in what he suspects is a quid pro quo arrangement to cultivate the offer you describe, is he not conscience-bound to follow the example of ABL's Operation Survival? One might question the said bishop's subjective judgement, but if his judgement was informed and honestly made, is he not obligated to act?
Menzingen's scatter-shot criticism went beyond questioning the subjective judgement behind of Bp Williamson's renewed Operation Survival and thereby undermined any future justification for their own Operation Survival. However, Menzingen has proven it can bend and mold reality with a skill matching the most adroit of modernists so I agree there is nothing really preventing a reversal justifying their own unapproved consecration if it suited their purpose. Perhaps objective-minded resistors naively imagine that constraints of reality applying to them might also apply to Menzingen. This very fluidity of Menzingen is the hallmark of St. Pius X-defined modernism and clearly exposes an internal compromise to those with eyes to see.
Williamson's greatest "sin" was not doubting the h0Ɩ0h0αx, but exposing the subjectivism behind otherwise seemingly orthodox trad movements. Even an apparently flawless theology falls short when built atop a false philosophical framework.
The Menzingen criticism is un-serious from a theological standpoint but it does provide opportunity for playing the white hat against Williamson's black hat in that fictional narrative which labels itself "world news." Well played Menzingen, well played.
Oops! Wait a minute! A growing number of people consider a negative media slant to be a badge of credibility and media favor as evidence of compromise. Maybe not so well played after all.
-
Menzingen's scatter-shot criticism went beyond questioning the subjective judgement behind of Bp Williamson's renewed Operation Survival and thereby undermined any future justification for their own Operation Survival. However, Menzingen has proven it can bend and mold reality with a skill matching the most adroit of modernists so I agree there is nothing really preventing a reversal justifying their own unapproved consecration if it suited their purpose. Perhaps objective-minded resistors naively imagine that constraints of reality applying to them might also apply to Menzingen. This very fluidity of Menzingen is the hallmark of St. Pius X-defined modernism and clearly exposes an internal compromise to those with eyes to see.
Williamson's greatest "sin" was not doubting the h0Ɩ0h0αx, but exposing the subjectivism behind otherwise seemingly orthodox trad movements. Even an apparently flawless theology falls short when built atop a false philosophical framework.
Very good point. It appears to be evidence that Modernism has found a crack and poured in to the SSPX itself.
I have often pointed out the similarity between the words/actions of the Freemasonic world governments and those of the SSPX.
When the SSPX starts acting/sounding like the Modernism-infused, ʝʊdɛօ-Freemason-controlled conciliar church, you know you have a problem.
-
If you understand and see that Rome was taken over/infiltrated after Pius XII, then what follows? Do you not have Communists and they are clergy in wolves clothing, correct? Pope Pius reminded the Church, ANYONE, Clergy who are in supporting Socialism (as they did in Europe 1947-) are excommunicated. You do not need a tribunal to excommunicate and these clergy, according to Pope Pius XII stated their sacraments were no good and anyone going to them for sacraments were excommunicated as well.
Is Rome, Rome or Communists? Trying to align oneself would not be aligned with Christ's Church.
The only way would be Epikea for authority to make Bishops and clergy.
Question: Pius X groups was founded on? jurisdiction of Rome, that was already taken over by communist. Is there such a thing as jurisdiction in Christ's eyes as oK with communist? No way.
Can a bishop be made in Pius the X group, when we know, it is Not Rome, but communist? No bishop will be made.
Sure, we all would like to be united with the Church that Christ founded, but we can not align ourselves with those we know, are not united themselves to Christ Church.
-
One might question the said bishop's subjective judgement, but if his judgement was informed and honestly made, is he not obligated to act?
Sure, but by the same token, if not one bishop, but three, several district superiors, and essentially over 500 priests now formed the informed and sincere judgment that Archbishop Lefebvre would have accepted the proposal of a canonical structure under the General Chapter Norms, are they not likewise obligated in good conscience to act on that judgment? And if in the same measure, you say that you judge that and are subjectively convinced that there is a need for more bishops today - which I do not doubt - the SSPX is likewise subjectively convinced, and consistently so, that there is not an urgent and pressing need for more bishops at this moment in time. So, who is right? That will depend on who is ultimately right on relations with the Roman authorities according to Catholic principles and in fidelity to Archbishop Lefebvre. This is +ABL in 1990, “Someone was saying to me yesterday, ‘But what if Rome accepted your bishops and then you were completely exempted from the other bishops’ jurisdiction?’ But firstly, they are a long way right now from accepting any such thing, and then, let them first make us such an offer! But i do not think they are anywhere near doing so. For what has been till now the difficulty is precisely their giving us a traditionalist bishop.” and that is exactly the same principle the Society still operates on. With regard to Bishop Williamson, I actually think the Society leadership was imprudent on this one, they should have ignored it and said nothing.
But, it couldn't be more clear that Fr. Pfeiffer's distaste for the Society leadership comes from emotional repugnance to the SSPX more than it does from intellectual conviction. He's said the SSPX is worse than the FSSP in the past, and some posters here seem to think the SSPX is worse than Rome, worse than the Freemasons, worse than anything. That isn't a balanced judgment by any means! Disagree with the Society if you must, but the SSPX remains a group of traditional Catholics. The SSPX has not said it will not consecrate new bishops, that is Fr. Pfeiffer's vivid imagination running wild. Should the real need arise in the future (consecrations can only be justified in a real state of necessity), there is no reason why the SSPX will not consecrate more bishops.