Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: Caminus on June 01, 2012, 11:14:00 PM
-
My goodness, what a strange thing has happened to people here. Many have fallen into borderline hysteria, fomenting discord at a feverish rate, spreading calumnies, lies, half-truths and contorted texts in support of the new mania gripping the board. I see that this has even touched Matthew. So let us calmly reason through things to arrive at a peaceful state of mind. Let us recognize the works of the flesh as detailed by St. Paul and repudiate them immediately. Let us engage is disinterested analysis formed by real virtue, not the linguistic of gossip-newspeak. Remember to think evil of your neighbor without just cause is a serious sin.
So if you must busy yourself with the relations between Rome and the SSPX, at least do so with temperance, prudence and basic common sense.
-
My goodness, what a strange thing has happened to people here. Many have fallen into borderline hysteria, fomenting discord at a feverish rate, spreading calumnies, lies, half-truths and contorted texts in support of the new mania gripping the board. I see that this has even touched Matthew. So let us calmly reason through things to arrive at a peaceful state of mind. Let us recognize the works of the flesh as detailed by St. Paul and repudiate them immediately. Let us engage is disinterested analysis formed by real virtue, not the linguistic of gossip-newspeak. Remember to think evil of your neighbor without just cause is a serious sin.
So if you must busy yourself with the relations between Rome and the SSPX, at least do so with temperance, prudence and basic common sense.
Indeed.
There is too much speculation going on. It is better just to casually observe the events as they unfold.
You are a voice of sanity here.
-
My goodness, what a strange thing has happened to people here. Many have fallen into borderline hysteria, fomenting discord at a feverish rate, spreading calumnies, lies, half-truths and contorted texts in support of the new mania gripping the board. I see that this has even touched Matthew. So let us calmly reason through things to arrive at a peaceful state of mind. Let us recognize the works of the flesh as detailed by St. Paul and repudiate them immediately. Let us engage is disinterested analysis formed by real virtue, not the linguistic of gossip-newspeak. Remember to think evil of your neighbor without just cause is a serious sin.
So if you must busy yourself with the relations between Rome and the SSPX, at least do so with temperance, prudence and basic common sense.
Indeed.
There is too much speculation going on. It is better just to casually observe the events as they unfold.
You are a voice of sanity here.
"fomenting discord" and "mania gripping the board" are perfectly natural responses when it looks to all who are paying attention that one of the three SSPX bishops is playing footsies with New Rome.
If Caminus is on the inside track and can calmly reassure us that this isn't so, then he should do precisely that and soon, please.
-
You are a voice of sanity here.
If you had placed an "in" in front of "sanity" I would agree with you.
I'm not saying Caminus is insane, but his post certainly was. Suggesting that people here - even Matthew - are participating in calumny.
-
My goodness, what a strange thing has happened to people here. Many have fallen into borderline hysteria, fomenting discord at a feverish rate, spreading calumnies, lies, half-truths and contorted texts in support of the new mania gripping the board. I see that this has even touched Matthew. So let us calmly reason through things to arrive at a peaceful state of mind. Let us recognize the works of the flesh as detailed by St. Paul and repudiate them immediately. Let us engage is disinterested analysis formed by real virtue, not the linguistic of gossip-newspeak. Remember to think evil of your neighbor without just cause is a serious sin.
So if you must busy yourself with the relations between Rome and the SSPX, at least do so with temperance, prudence and basic common sense.
Spoken like a member of the Society's ruling faction. Are you a Society priest?
-
"fomenting discord" and "mania gripping the board" are perfectly natural responses when it looks to all who are paying attention that one of the three SSPX bishops is playing footsies with New Rome.
If Caminus is on the inside track and can calmly reassure us that this isn't so, then he should do precisely that and soon, please.
People who have ears to hear can understand what Bishop Fellay has been saying. And what he's saying is that he's giving up the position of Archbishop Lefebvre - against the Council, for pontifical pottage.
If anyone is confused about, this letter (which certainly fits what I've read and heard of the Archbishop) clarifies what the SSPX bishops were commissioned to do:
My Dear Friends,
The See of Peter and posts of authority in Rome being occupied by anti-Christs, the destruction of the Kingdom of Our Lord is being rapidly carried out even within His Mystical Body here below, especially through the corruption of the Holy Mass which is both the splendid expression of the triumph of Our Lord on the Cross, Regnavit a Ligno Deus, and the source of the extension of His Kingdom over souls and over societies. Hence the absolute need appears obvious of ensuring the permanency and continuation of the adorable Sacrifice of Our Lord in order that "His Kingdom, Come." The corruption of the Holy Mass has brought the corruption of the priesthood and the universal decadence of Faith in the Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ.
God raised up the Priestly Society of St. Pius X for the maintenance and perpetuity of His glorious expiatory sacrifice within the Church. He Himself chose some true priests instructed in and convinced of these divine mysteries. God bestowed upon me the grace to prepare these Levites and to confer upon them the grace of the priesthood for the continuation of the true sacrifice according to the definition of the Council of Trent.
This is what has brought down upon our heads persecution by the Rome of the anti-Christs. Since this Rome, Modernist and Liberal, is carrying on its work of destruction of the Kingdom of Our Lord, as Assisi and the confirmation of the liberal theses of Vatican II on Religious Liberty prove, I find myself constrained by Divine Providence to pass on the grace of Catholic episcopacy which I received, I order that the Church and the Catholic priesthood continue to subsist for the glory of God and for the salvation of souls.
That is why, convinced that I am only carrying out the holy will of Our Lord, I am writing this letter to ask you to agree to receive the graces of the Catholic episcopacy, just as I have already conferred it on other priests in other circuмstances. I will bestow this grace upon you, confident that without too long a delay the See of Peter will be occupied by a successor of Peter who is perfectly Catholic, and into whose hand you will be able to put back the grace of your episcopacy so that he may confirm it.
The main purpose of my passing on the episcopacy is that the grace of priestly orders be continued, for the true Sacrifice of the Holy Mass be continued, and that the grace of the Sacrament of Confirmation be bestowed upon children and upon the faithful who will ask you for it.
I beseech you to remain attached in the See of Peter, in the Roman Church, mother and mistress of all the Churches in the integral Catholic Faith, expressed in the various creeds of our Catholic Faith, in the Catechism of the Council of Trent, in conformity with what you were taught in your seminary. Remain faithful in the handing down of this faith so that the Kingdom of Our Lord may come.
Finally, I beseech you to remain attached to the Priestly Society of St. Pius X, to remain profoundly united amongst yourselves, in submission to the Society's Superior General, in the Catholic Faith of all time, remembering this word of St. Paul to the Galatians:[/b] "But even if we or an angel from heaven were to teach you a different gospel from the one we have taught, let him be anathema. As we have said before, now again I say: if anyone teaches you a different gospel from what you have received, 'let him be anathema'" (Gal. 1:8-9). My dear friends, be my consolation in Christ Jesus, remain strong in the Faith, faithful to the true Sacrifice of the Mass, to the true and holy priesthood of Our Lord for the triumph and glory of Jesus in heaven and upon earth, for the salvation of souls, for the salvation of my own soul.
In the hearts of Jesus and Mary, I embrace you and bless you.
Your Father in Christ Jesus.
+ Marcel Lefèbvre
Yes, the Archbishop told the bishops to remain in submission to the Superior General. Yet it was not envisioned that Superior General would be a bishop. Of course, if the Archbishop was willing to disobey the Pope, he would surely be willing to approve of disobedience to the Superior General for grave enough reasons.
What are the main points of this letter:
1) The "Antichrists" in the Vatican are attempting the destruction of the Church. They are doing this in part through the false teaching of religious liberty. Bishop Fellay, in an interview, recently approved of the concept of religious liberty taught in Vatican II.
2) The "Antichrists" in the Vatican are persecuting the SSPX. Yes, this is going on right now. By some of the very same people involved with the persecution in 1988. Those people haven't changed. We still have Assisi and the confirmation of the liberal theses of Vatican II being approved.
3) Archbishop Lefebvre said the return would happen when the successor in the Vatican was perfectly Catholic. He told the Bishops to remain united. But Bishop Fellay has sought to take over the SSPX and has fomented divisions.
It's very clear, very very clear what is happening, what is tragic is that the cultish apologetics of the SSPX have hobbled the reasoning skills of the faithful so that this maneuver of the modernists, freemasons and Zionists might well come to fruition.
-
The basic premise must simply be this: if the canonical stucture, a recognition that is due to the SSPX as a matter of justice, does not sufficiently protect the SSPX, then it should simply be declined. If it does, then it should be accepted for the greater good of the Church.
-
The basic premise must simply be this: if the canonical stucture, a recognition that is due to the SSPX as a matter of justice, does not sufficiently protect the SSPX, then it should simply be declined. If it does, then it should be accepted for the greater good of the Church.
If it were just a matter of Benedict XVI saying "you're recognized" there wouldn't be an issue.
He could do that at any time. If he were perfectly Catholic, the sort of Pope Archbishop Lefebvre believed would be installed someday, there wouldn't be any problems.
It clearly goes far beyond recognition "without strings", as the secret "preamble" negotiations and Bishop Fellay's recent interviews demonstrate.
-
The reason people like Caminus are so supportive of Bishop Fellay and a deal with Rome is because they have a false concept of obedience. Just like the neo-cons claim we must always obey the Pope, certain SSPXers are under the mindset that they must always obey Bishop Fellay because he is the Superior General. If we can disobey Benedict, why can one not also disobey Fellay? Because he's (neo)Traditional?
I have read before why Caminus supports a "reconciliation" with Rome. I am going to attempt to debate Caminus on this in the most charitable yet serious matter possible. I invite him to respond to my points.
The following are essentially what Caminus and other pro-Bishop Fellay SSPXers believe:
1- The Society can go into Rome and help resolve the crisis in the Church
2- Archbishop LeFebvre would not have expected Rome to convert first in order to "reconcile" with them
3- Bishop Fellay is the Society's SG and must be trusted, for he is a Traditional Catholic of good will
4- There is no proof that Bishop Fellay has changed
Now, in response those four beliefs:
1- This is based more on hope and assumption rather than fact. The Society of St. Pius X has approximately 500 priests, compared to the thousands of combined Novus Ordo priests, bishops, and cardinals. Not to mention that the other three Bishops are in opposition to a deal, and in the event of a split, they would surely take some of those 500 priests with them. Given those facts, how can the Society hope to convert Rome when they are so small in size compared to Rome's numbers?
We must also recall what has happened to other Traditional groups who reconciled with Rome. The FSSP was promised a Cardinal and never received one, and Father Bisig was also removed from his position after several FSSP priests complained to Rome because Fr. Bisig wouldn't allow them to celebrate the Novus Ordo Missae. Then there is the Institute of the Good Shepard, which was originally promised that they could reject Vatican II. Now Rome has informed them that they must accept it.
Finally, how can Benedict XVI be trusted? John Vennari made an excellent point recently that, if Benedict XVI truly desires the SSPX to come in to resolve the crisis in the Church as Fr. Rostand claims, why has Benedict appointed Cardinal Levada as the head of the Vatican office to "defend the faith"? The facts, then, all sway unanimously against a deal and the arguments proposed by those who are in favor of a deal
2- Completely false. Archbishop LeFebvre did sign a deal with Rome in 1988, but quickly withdrew his signature because he did not trust Rome after they wouldn't give him an exact date for the Consecrations of the four Bishops. Furthermore, Archbishop LeFebvre stated in 1978:
If one day they shall excommunicate us because we remain faithful to these theses, we shall consider ourselves excommunicated by Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ.
3- As I stated above, if SSPXers disobey the man they regard as the Pope, why can they not disobey Bishop Fellay?
4- Also false. He has stated that he and the Society "misunderstood" much of Vatican II and that it is to be interpreted "in the light of Tradition". This is completely contrary to what he wrote in 2003, when he stated that he and the Society could not reconcile with Rome yet because Rome had not showed definitive signs of change. They still haven't, yet Fellay falls for the same traps that MANY other "conservative" Novus Ordites, semi-Trads, and even some Traditional Catholics do, in thinking that Benedict is a "friend of Tradition".
So, the conclusion is obvious: a deal in these circuмstances would be a striking departure from the mission of Archbishop LeFebvre.
-
If there are strings attached then it should be rejected. If Bishop Fellay compromises, the SSPX will continue without him.
-
The basic premise must simply be this: if the canonical stucture, a recognition that is due to the SSPX as a matter of justice, does not sufficiently protect the SSPX, then it should simply be declined. If it does, then it should be accepted for the greater good of the Church.
Caminus, the issue is very basic.
If the deal is acceptable, even necessary to accept it, then it won't be necessary for Bishop Fellay or anyone else in the SSPX to change what they are doing.
But Bishop Fellay is changing his position on Vatican II.
Therefore it's logical to conclude the "deal" is NOT as innocuous as the old rumors make it out to be.
If there is any rumor-mongering going on, it's the rumor that this deal "doesn't require anything of the SSPX". There is absolutely no evidence for that assertion.
However, you can't say there is no evidence for the contrary assertion. The evidence for the assertion "The current draft of the SSPX-Rome agreement requires substantial compromise from the SSPX" is legion.
1. How other Traditional groups are being treated today
2. Pope Benedict XVI's past history smashing and destroying Tradition
3. Bishop Fellay is whitewashing the SSPX to be more Rome-friendly
4. Bishop Fellay has changed his attitude toward Vatican II to be in line with countless other "conservatives" -- namely, that only V2's "implementation" is bad.
I'm sure other members could add to this list!
-
If there are strings attached then it should be rejected. If Bishop Fellay compromises, the SSPX will continue without him.
Caminus, this really isn't the time or the place for academic arguments.
Of course the deal involves plenty of "strings" -- so you should drop this academic argument right now. No one here is interested in hypotheticals and academic arguments.
One would have to have his head firmly planted in the sand to not see evidence that there are a legion of "strings" attached to the current SSPX-Rome agreement which is being discussed.
-
If there are strings attached then it should be rejected. If Bishop Fellay compromises, the SSPX will continue without him.
I get the impression you've been napping for the past three weeks.
-
If that is true, then he should be ejected. It's really very simple. If it is evident beyond all doubt that the SSPX will be injured, such a course of action would be demanded. I do not concede such is obvious at this point, we shall watch and pray.
-
The basic premise must simply be this: if the canonical stucture, a recognition that is due to the SSPX as a matter of justice, does not sufficiently protect the SSPX, then it should simply be declined. If it does, then it should be accepted for the greater good of the Church.
Caminus, the issue is very basic.
If the deal is acceptable, even necessary to accept it, then it won't be necessary for Bishop Fellay or anyone else in the SSPX to change what they are doing.
But Bishop Fellay is changing his position on Vatican II.
Therefore it's logical to conclude the "deal" is NOT as innocuous as the old rumors make it out to be.
If there is any rumor-mongering going on, it's the rumor that this deal "doesn't require anything of the SSPX". There is absolutely no evidence for that assertion.
However, you can't say there is no evidence for the contrary assertion. The evidence for the assertion "The current draft of the SSPX-Rome agreement requires substantial compromise from the SSPX" is legion.
1. How other Traditional groups are being treated today
2. Pope Benedict XVI's past history smashing and destroying Tradition
3. Bishop Fellay is whitewashing the SSPX to be more Rome-friendly
4. Bishop Fellay has changed his attitude toward Vatican II to be in line with countless other "conservatives" -- namely, that only V2's "implementation" is bad.
I'm sure other members could add to this list!
You also must remember that supposing Bishop Fellay accepts a faulty canonical offer, objectively speaking, if nothing actually changes at your chapel viz. the faith and its practice, you would have no grounds for "leaving" and would consequently become a schismatic for refusing communion with other Catholics, like sedevacantists. We don't determine where we attend Mass on "theoretical" grounds, but on concrete circuмstance.
-
If you had placed an "in" in front of "sanity" I would agree with you.
I'm not saying Caminus is insane, but his post certainly was. Suggesting that people here - even Matthew - are participating in calumny.
I accidentally thumbed down the quoted post and my magic undo watch isn't working. Sorry.
:sad:
-
Additionally, if one is to analyze objective reality, no attention should be paid to subjective intentions either on the part of Bishop Fellay or the Pope. When the conversation devolves into such conjecture, the waters are muddied and great confusion is caused. Remember, division is evil and if you are fomenting it in your own way, you are guilty of sin.
-
If that is true, then he should be ejected. It's really very simple. If it is evident beyond all doubt that the SSPX will be injured, such a course of action would be demanded. I do not concede such is obvious at this point, we shall watch and pray.
I do not believe that the mechanism exists to eject him. He has sole control of the assets preventing the others from going on without him.
-
Additionally, if one is to analyze objective reality, no attention should be paid to subjective intentions either on the part of Bishop Fellay or the Pope. When the conversation devolves into such conjecture, the waters are muddied and great confusion is caused. Remember, division is evil and if you are fomenting it in your own way, you are guilty of sin.
Objectively, Bishop Fellay has not been honest with us . He has acted in ways of secreting and suppressing of information so as to justify holding him as a suspicious person. It is very unfortunate, but that is the case.
For years we have had to speculate, only because so much has been deliberately withheld from almost everyone and even by Bishop Fellay's own admission, from the other three Bishops.
There was no division before Bishop Fellay altered his positions and behaviours.
Please place the sin at the doorstep of the divider. This was the source, all else is a consequence.
-
If you had placed an "in" in front of "sanity" I would agree with you.
I'm not saying Caminus is insane, but his post certainly was. Suggesting that people here - even Matthew - are participating in calumny.
I accidentally thumbed down the quoted post and my magic undo watch isn't working. Sorry.
:sad:
It's ok, jlamos. :)
-
Caminus, I'd appreciate a response to the points raised in my post:
The reason people like Caminus are so supportive of Bishop Fellay and a deal with Rome is because they have a false concept of obedience. Just like the neo-cons claim we must always obey the Pope, certain SSPXers are under the mindset that they must always obey Bishop Fellay because he is the Superior General. If we can disobey Benedict, why can one not also disobey Fellay? Because he's (neo)Traditional?
I have read before why Caminus supports a "reconciliation" with Rome. I am going to attempt to debate Caminus on this in the most charitable yet serious matter possible. I invite him to respond to my points.
The following are essentially what Caminus and other pro-Bishop Fellay SSPXers believe:
1- The Society can go into Rome and help resolve the crisis in the Church
2- Archbishop LeFebvre would not have expected Rome to convert first in order to "reconcile" with them
3- Bishop Fellay is the Society's SG and must be trusted, for he is a Traditional Catholic of good will
4- There is no proof that Bishop Fellay has changed
Now, in response those four beliefs:
1- This is based more on hope and assumption rather than fact. The Society of St. Pius X has approximately 500 priests, compared to the thousands of combined Novus Ordo priests, bishops, and cardinals. Not to mention that the other three Bishops are in opposition to a deal, and in the event of a split, they would surely take some of those 500 priests with them. Given those facts, how can the Society hope to convert Rome when they are so small in size compared to Rome's numbers?
We must also recall what has happened to other Traditional groups who reconciled with Rome. The FSSP was promised a Cardinal and never received one, and Father Bisig was also removed from his position after several FSSP priests complained to Rome because Fr. Bisig wouldn't allow them to celebrate the Novus Ordo Missae. Then there is the Institute of the Good Shepard, which was originally promised that they could reject Vatican II. Now Rome has informed them that they must accept it.
Finally, how can Benedict XVI be trusted? John Vennari made an excellent point recently that, if Benedict XVI truly desires the SSPX to come in to resolve the crisis in the Church as Fr. Rostand claims, why has Benedict appointed Cardinal Levada as the head of the Vatican office to "defend the faith"? The facts, then, all sway unanimously against a deal and the arguments proposed by those who are in favor of a deal
2- Completely false. Archbishop LeFebvre did sign a deal with Rome in 1988, but quickly withdrew his signature because he did not trust Rome after they wouldn't give him an exact date for the Consecrations of the four Bishops. Furthermore, Archbishop LeFebvre stated in 1978:
Quote:
If one day they shall excommunicate us because we remain faithful to these theses, we shall consider ourselves excommunicated by Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ.
3- As I stated above, if SSPXers disobey the man they regard as the Pope, why can they not disobey Bishop Fellay?
4- Also false. He has stated that he and the Society "misunderstood" much of Vatican II and that it is to be interpreted "in the light of Tradition". This is completely contrary to what he wrote in 2003, when he stated that he and the Society could not reconcile with Rome yet because Rome had not showed definitive signs of change. They still haven't, yet Fellay falls for the same traps that MANY other "conservative" Novus Ordites, semi-Trads, and even some Traditional Catholics do, in thinking that Benedict is a "friend of Tradition".
So, the conclusion is obvious: a deal in these circuмstances would be a striking departure from the mission of Archbishop LeFebvre.
-
You also must remember that supposing Bishop Fellay accepts a faulty canonical offer, objectively speaking, if nothing actually changes at your chapel viz. the faith and its practice, you would have no grounds for "leaving" and would consequently become a schismatic for refusing communion with other Catholics, like sedevacantists. We don't determine where we attend Mass on "theoretical" grounds, but on concrete circuмstance.
Of course I'm not going to run off just for the fun of it. Where I live, there aren't any other viable options. There's an "indult" but not a very advanced or developed one. The indult here is headed by a priest from a very small (as in, fewer than 5 members) order that is conservative in some ways but dabbles in the Charismatic movement!
But if there were a "hard liner" chapel set up and I left my current chapel to go there, there would be no sin. It would be a matter of preference where I go. The SSPX isn't the Church, remember. It's not like I'm leaving my Parish for an independent chapel (which requires a good reason) -- I'd be leaving one independent chapel for another independent chapel.