Author Topic: Position Statement: (Read 6843 times)

SeanJohnson · « **on:** March 24, 2013, 10:34:40 AM »

Since a certain few members of this forum have seen fit to characterize my objective observations about the non-existence of any formal doctrinal statement against the Faith having become official policy of the SSPX (thereby contradicting the "red light" others have tried to defend on this basis), and attempted to construe this objective observation into "attacking Fr Pfeiffer," a few thoughts seem to be in order:

1) Contra factum non argumentum ("Against a fact there is no argument"): The rejected doctrinal preamble is not official SSPX policy;

2) As Michael Davies used to say, "Facts are neither obedient nor disobedient. They are simply facts." Likewise in the present debate: The fact is that there is no justification to claim a "red light" on the basis of this rejected docuмent;

3) How, then, some can construe making this observation as an attack against Fr. Pfeiffer is revealing about the deficient intellectual horsepower of those people;

4) Alternately, one is tempted to wonder about the motives of those denouncing this objectively veritable observation:

5) Do they even attend an SSPX parish?

6) If not, have they always been hostile to the SSPX, such that they WANT a red light?

7) If they WANT a red light, which means they WANT catastrophe, what does this reveal about the souls of these people who would DESIRE such a situation as would throw up the red light?

8) Has it occurred to these red-lighters that they have formed the same conclusion as the accordistas (i.e., You must leave the chapel)?

9) Interesting that both accordistas and red-lighters want internal resisters gone.

10) So far as I am aware, Fr Pfeiffer is alone in red-lighting the entire SSPX.

11) This position is not shared by Bishop Williamson, or any other resistance priest I am aware of, despite the fact that I was assured by my antagonists that Bishop Williamson was going to announce his red light 2 Eleison Comments ago.

12) Are the French 37 enemies or attackers of Fr Pfeiffer?

13) At the end of the day, I think some people just have an axe to grind, and they end up grinding it on public forums.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #1 on:** March 24, 2013, 10:47:00 AM »

What I Support:

1) Support of resistance priests/bishops;

2) Attending their Masses/conferences when possible;

3) Founding a traditional seminary for the continuity of tradition in case the SSPX continues its slide;

4) Supporting SSPX priests resisting internally;

5) Withdrawing from attendance at any chapel that poses a danger to the Faith;

6) Episcopal consecrations when/if Bishop Williamson thinks it required.

What I Oppose:

1) Any practical accord with Rome while the doctrinal issues remain unresolved;

2) Red-lighting the SSPX in entirety without need to do so;

3) The continued liberalization of the SSPX even in the absence of an accord;

4) The current leadership in Menzingen, and their continued exercise in office;

5) The current leadership of the District Superiors worldwide, who seem committed to exercising/implementing the new Menzingen agenda;

wallflower · « **Reply #2 on:** March 24, 2013, 11:51:44 AM »

Quote from: Seraphim

What I Support:

1) Support of resistance priests/bishops;

2) Attending their Masses/conferences when possible;

3) Founding a traditional seminary for the continuity of tradition in case the SSPX continues its slide;

4) Supporting SSPX priests resisting internally;

5) Withdrawing from attendance at any chapel that poses a danger to the Faith;

6) Episcopal consecrations when/if Bishop Williamson thinks it required.

What I Oppose:

1) Any practical accord with Rome while the doctrinal issues remain unresolved;

2) Red-lighting the SSPX in entirety without need to do so;

3) The continued liberalization of the SSPX even in the absence of an accord;

4) The current leadership in Menzingen, and their continued exercise in office;

5) The current leadership of the District Superiors worldwide, who seem committed to exercising/implementing the new Menzingen agenda;

This is exactly my position as well. I'm glad you laid it out here because I could not have said it better, although I have been searching for the words (not for posting anywhere, just for discussions)

As much as I would not be surprised if the leaked Preamble were true, it still remains unconfirmed (as far as I know) and we have to be careful on both sides of the fence. I would never be so gullible as to believe every anti-Fellay'er has the best of intentions either. The leaked docuмents have tended to be true which is why we are inclined to believe this but it can't become any kind of main argument until it is confirmed. Otherwise we send the message to crazies that we let our defenses down and all they have to do is post something and put "leaked" in front of it and we'll run with it, even if false. That could be disastrous at most and embarrassing at least. There are enough direct and confirmed sources to draw from, we don't NEED this to know the SSPX leadership has changed its goals, even if it is an interesting aside to be aware of.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #3 on:** March 24, 2013, 11:55:22 AM »

Quote from: wallflower

Quote from: Seraphim
What I Support:

1) Support of resistance priests/bishops;

2) Attending their Masses/conferences when possible;

3) Founding a traditional seminary for the continuity of tradition in case the SSPX continues its slide;

4) Supporting SSPX priests resisting internally;

5) Withdrawing from attendance at any chapel that poses a danger to the Faith;

6) Episcopal consecrations when/if Bishop Williamson thinks it required.

What I Oppose:

1) Any practical accord with Rome while the doctrinal issues remain unresolved;

2) Red-lighting the SSPX in entirety without need to do so;

3) The continued liberalization of the SSPX even in the absence of an accord;

4) The current leadership in Menzingen, and their continued exercise in office;

5) The current leadership of the District Superiors worldwide, who seem committed to exercising/implementing the new Menzingen agenda;

This is exactly my position as well. I'm glad you laid it out here because I could not have said it better, although I have been searching for the words (not for posting anywhere, just for discussions)

As much as I would not be surprised if the leaked Preamble were true, it still remains unconfirmed (as far as I know) and we have to be careful on both sides of the fence. I would never be so gullible as to believe every anti-Fellay'er has the best of intentions either. The leaked docuмents have tended to be true which is why we are inclined to believe this but it can't become any kind of main argument until it is confirmed. Otherwise we send the message to crazies that we let our defenses down and all they have to do is post something and put "leaked" in front of it and we'll run with it, even if false. That could be disastrous at most and embarrassing at least. There are enough direct and confirmed sources to draw from, we don't NEED this to know the SSPX leadership has changed its goals.

Hello Wallflower-

Nice to find a kindred soul here once in awhile.

FYI, the leaked preamble is definitely authentic....it just ain't official SSPX policy (i.e., It was rejected).

1st Mansion Tenant · « **Reply #4 on:** March 24, 2013, 12:25:59 PM »

I am with Saraphim and Wallflower.

Stella · « **Reply #5 on:** March 24, 2013, 01:03:06 PM »

I agree with Seraphim as well.

These times are so bizarre, aren't they?

Matthew · « **Reply #6 on:** March 24, 2013, 02:27:07 PM »

I agree with all Seraphim's affirmations and rejections.

wallflower · « **Reply #7 on:** March 24, 2013, 09:25:10 PM »

Quote from: Seraphim

Hello Wallflower-

Nice to find a kindred soul here once in awhile.

FYI, the leaked preamble is definitely authentic....it just ain't official SSPX policy (i.e., It was rejected).

Oh for sure it is not the official policy. Not yet. Hopefully never.

Although, it would put an end to the games we're playing. It would draw a more visible line and we wouldn't get dizzy trying to spot the chameleon. That would be the only positive.

Machabees · « **Reply #8 on:** March 24, 2013, 11:41:16 PM »

Quote from: Seraphim

1) Contra factum non argumentum ("Against a fact there is no argument"): The rejected doctrinal preamble is not official SSPX policy;

It's not?

It's "official" when the Superiors punish severely anyone who does NOT agree with the new orientation of their new policy -That's pretty "official".

Excerpt from:

"When the salt loses its flavour..."

An Open Letter from
Fr. Hugo Ruiz Vallejo
to the Faithful of Mexico City

"...An external policy corresponds to an internal 'policy': which is to say that within the Society, each time in an increasingly obvious way, the existence of a policy of repression against anyone who does not agree with the new orientation of the Society is confirmed. Pressuring, harassing, discrediting and punishing in various different ways anyone who shows that they disagree. Many more disturbing statements and actions could be added. Like, for example, what Fr. Raphael Arizaga heard from the mouth of Bishop Fellay in a conference to seminarians at Winona, on 21st December last year: "Because I wanted to preserve the internal unity of the Society, I withdrew the docuмent in which I said 'I do not reject all of Vatican II' - which is what I really said."

http://www.therecusant.com/fr-hugoruizvallejo

hugeman · « **Reply #9 on:** March 25, 2013, 12:36:07 AM »

Quote from: Machabees

Quote from: Seraphim

1) Contra factum non argumentum ("Against a fact there is no argument"): The rejected doctrinal preamble is not official SSPX policy;

It's not?

It's "official" when the Superiors punish severely anyone who does NOT agree with the new orientation of their new policy -That's pretty "official".

Excerpt from:

"When the salt loses its flavour..."

An Open Letter from
Fr. Hugo Ruiz Vallejo
to the Faithful of Mexico City

"...An external policy corresponds to an internal 'policy': which is to say that within the Society, each time in an increasingly obvious way, the existence of a policy of repression against anyone who does not agree with the new orientation of the Society is confirmed. Pressuring, harassing, discrediting and punishing in various different ways anyone who shows that they disagree. Many more disturbing statements and actions could be added. Like, for example, what Fr. Raphael Arizaga heard from the mouth of Bishop Fellay in a conference to seminarians at Winona, on 21st December last year: "Because I wanted to preserve the internal unity of the Society, I withdrew the docuмent in which I said 'I do not reject all of Vatican II' - which is what I really said."

http://www.therecusant.com/fr-hugoruizvallejo

Typical lies spread by the spokes people of Bp Fellay and Rostand. Of Course, the declaration delivered to the vatican was the official policy of the SSPX, as viewed and represented by the usurpers in power, Rostand, Pflugger, Schmmidberger, Lorans,Craw,Nely,Fellay, leRoux, et al(Remember--they all maintained that only Fellay had the "grace of State" to deal with Rome). These people sent this answer to Rome, fully hoping, and intending , that Rome would accept it at face value, accept its promises and vows, all its representations, and reward them with a personal prelature. That's what Fellay claims "his secret advisors" in the Vatican told him! And that's why , in Adelaide, Fellay cried "the Pope deceived me!."
The trickster was deceived by the great deceiver! Imagine that! No-- what really happened, we now are pretty well aware, is that the illuminati (masonic powers) got tired of the Rat playing cat and mouse with Fellay , and told Ratzinger that he's through--- all deals are off, and deNoia and Mueller will make all decisions-- until the masonic interests get ratzinger out and replace him with someone more sure-footed in marxist, anti-Catholic theology.
SO YES, that despicable preamble is the official position of Fellay and his gang. Only a fool would believe otherwise. And, as Fellay said in Europe about his CNS comments on Religious Liberty 'I'll say whatever I have to say, to whomever I want to say it, if I think that that's what they want to hear!' ("I only said that about Religious Liberty because I knew the Americans would like to hear it").Save Our SSPX

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #10 on:** March 25, 2013, 07:21:53 AM »

Quote from: Machabees

Quote from: Seraphim

1) Contra factum non argumentum ("Against a fact there is no argument"): The rejected doctrinal preamble is not official SSPX policy;

It's not?

It's "official" when the Superiors punish severely anyone who does NOT agree with the new orientation of their new policy -That's pretty "official".

Excerpt from:

"When the salt loses its flavour..."

An Open Letter from
Fr. Hugo Ruiz Vallejo
to the Faithful of Mexico City

"...An external policy corresponds to an internal 'policy': which is to say that within the Society, each time in an increasingly obvious way, the existence of a policy of repression against anyone who does not agree with the new orientation of the Society is confirmed. Pressuring, harassing, discrediting and punishing in various different ways anyone who shows that they disagree. Many more disturbing statements and actions could be added. Like, for example, what Fr. Raphael Arizaga heard from the mouth of Bishop Fellay in a conference to seminarians at Winona, on 21st December last year: "Because I wanted to preserve the internal unity of the Society, I withdrew the docuмent in which I said 'I do not reject all of Vatican II' - which is what I really said."

http://www.therecusant.com/fr-hugoruizvallejo

Sure, if you make up your own definition of "official."

In reality, the situation described above is the textbook definition of "de facto" (i.e., common practice not established by law), and is therefore not official (i.e., de jure: official legislated policy).

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #11 on:** March 25, 2013, 07:23:08 AM »

Quote from: hugeman

Quote from: Machabees
Quote from: Seraphim

1) Contra factum non argumentum ("Against a fact there is no argument"): The rejected doctrinal preamble is not official SSPX policy;

It's not?

It's "official" when the Superiors punish severely anyone who does NOT agree with the new orientation of their new policy -That's pretty "official".

Excerpt from:

"When the salt loses its flavour..."

An Open Letter from
Fr. Hugo Ruiz Vallejo
to the Faithful of Mexico City

"...An external policy corresponds to an internal 'policy': which is to say that within the Society, each time in an increasingly obvious way, the existence of a policy of repression against anyone who does not agree with the new orientation of the Society is confirmed. Pressuring, harassing, discrediting and punishing in various different ways anyone who shows that they disagree. Many more disturbing statements and actions could be added. Like, for example, what Fr. Raphael Arizaga heard from the mouth of Bishop Fellay in a conference to seminarians at Winona, on 21st December last year: "Because I wanted to preserve the internal unity of the Society, I withdrew the docuмent in which I said 'I do not reject all of Vatican II' - which is what I really said."

http://www.therecusant.com/fr-hugoruizvallejo

Typical lies spread by the spokes people of Bp Fellay and Rostand. Of Course, the declaration delivered to the vatican was the official policy of the SSPX, as viewed and represented by the usurpers in power, Rostand, Pflugger, Schmmidberger, Lorans,Craw,Nely,Fellay, leRoux, et al(Remember--they all maintained that only Fellay had the "grace of State" to deal with Rome). These people sent this answer to Rome, fully hoping, and intending , that Rome would accept it at face value, accept its promises and vows, all its representations, and reward them with a personal prelature. That's what Fellay claims "his secret advisors" in the Vatican told him! And that's why , in Adelaide, Fellay cried "the Pope deceived me!."
The trickster was deceived by the great deceiver! Imagine that! No-- what really happened, we now are pretty well aware, is that the illuminati (masonic powers) got tired of the Rat playing cat and mouse with Fellay , and told Ratzinger that he's through--- all deals are off, and deNoia and Mueller will make all decisions-- until the masonic interests get ratzinger out and replace him with someone more sure-footed in marxist, anti-Catholic theology.
SO YES, that despicable preamble is the official position of Fellay and his gang. Only a fool would believe otherwise. And, as Fellay said in Europe about his CNS comments on Religious Liberty 'I'll say whatever I have to say, to whomever I want to say it, if I think that that's what they want to hear!' ("I only said that about Religious Liberty because I knew the Americans would like to hear it").Save Our SSPX

See previous comment

TKGS · « **Reply #12 on:** March 25, 2013, 08:29:33 AM »

Quote

Sure, if you make up your own definition of "official."

This, I think, is the crux of the problem. What precisely is the "official" position of the SSPX?

Is it the position stated on their various websites?

Is it the position described in their letter to Rome?

And which position puts a priest out of favor with the SSPX superiors and gets a priest expelled?

They all seem to be different, and the one that causes priests to be expelled seems to be the least knowable.

s2srea · « **Reply #13 on:** March 25, 2013, 09:45:26 PM »

Quote from: Seraphim

What I Support:

1) Support of resistance priests/bishops;

2) Attending their Masses/conferences when possible;

3) Founding a traditional seminary for the continuity of tradition in case the SSPX continues its slide;

4) Supporting SSPX priests resisting internally;

5) Withdrawing from attendance at any chapel that poses a danger to the Faith;

6) Episcopal consecrations when/if Bishop Williamson thinks it required.

What I Oppose:

1) Any practical accord with Rome while the doctrinal issues remain unresolved;

2) Red-lighting the SSPX in entirety without need to do so;

3) The continued liberalization of the SSPX even in the absence of an accord;

4) The current leadership in Menzingen, and their continued exercise in office;

5) The current leadership of the District Superiors worldwide, who seem committed to exercising/implementing the new Menzingen agenda;

Very much in agreement with you here Seraphim- !

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #14 on:** March 26, 2013, 02:14:25 AM »

Quote from: TKGS

Quote
Sure, if you make up your own definition of "official."

This, I think, is the crux of the problem. What precisely is the "official" position of the SSPX?

Is it the position stated on their various websites?

Is it the position described in their letter to Rome?

And which position puts a priest out of favor with the SSPX superiors and gets a priest expelled?

They all seem to be different, and the one that causes priests to be expelled seems to be the least knowable.

It all depends on what you mean by "official." Very true. So +Fellay plays you
for a fool, and you scamper up and lap-dog take it. He can change what he
means by "official" at a whim, because he's a tyrant and a demigod. Arbitrary
and capricious changes are part of the deal. It's true if he says it's true and
it's false if he says it's false, and if he changes it all around tomorrow, it will
be as he says tomorrow, regardless of what he said yesterday.

So what is "official" anyway?

This pretty much answers the question...

(I took the liberty of patching up a few typos, hugeman)

Quote from: hugeman

Quote from: Machabees
Quote from: Seraphim

1) Contra factum non argumentum ("Against a fact there is no argument"): The rejected doctrinal preamble is not official SSPX policy;

It's not?

It's "official" when the Superiors punish severely anyone who does NOT agree with the new orientation of their new policy -That's pretty "official".

Excerpt from:

"When the salt loses its flavour..."

An Open Letter from
Fr. Hugo Ruiz Vallejo
to the Faithful of Mexico City

"...An external policy corresponds to an internal 'policy': which is to say that within the Society, each time in an increasingly obvious way, the existence of a policy of repression against anyone who does not agree with the new orientation of the Society is confirmed. Pressuring, harassing, discrediting and punishing in various different ways anyone who shows that they disagree. Many more disturbing statements and actions could be added. Like, for example, what Fr. Raphael Arizaga heard from the mouth of Bishop Fellay in a conference to seminarians at Winona, on 21st December last year: "Because I wanted to preserve the internal unity of the Society, I withdrew the docuмent in which I said 'I do not reject all of Vatican II' - which is what I really said."

http://www.therecusant.com/fr-hugoruizvallejo

Typical lies spread by the spokes people of Bp Fellay and Rostand. Of Course, the declaration delivered to the Vatican was the official policy of the SSPX, as viewed and represented by the usurpers in power, Rostand, Pflugger, Schmmidberger, Lorans, Craw, Nely, Fellay, leRoux, et al (Remember--they all maintained that only Fellay had the "grace of State" to deal with Rome).

These people sent this answer to Rome, fully hoping, and intending , that Rome would accept it at face value, accept its promises and vows, all its representations, and reward them with a personal prelature.

That's what Fellay claims "his secret advisors" in the Vatican told him! And that's why, in Adelaide, Fellay cried, "the Pope deceived me!"

The trickster was deceived by the great deceiver! Imagine that! No-- what really happened, we now are pretty well aware, is that the illuminati (masonic powers) got tired of the Rat playing cat and mouse with Fellay, and told Ratzinger that he's through --- all deals are off, and deNoia and Mueller will make all decisions-- until the Masonic interests get Ratzinger out and replace him with someone more sure-footed in Marxist, anti-Catholic theology.

SO YES, that despicable preamble is the official position of Fellay and his gang. Only a fool would believe otherwise.

And, as Fellay said in Europe about his CNS comments on Religious Liberty, 'I'll say whatever I have to say, to whomever I want to say it, if I think that that's what they want to hear!' ("I only said that about Religious Liberty because I knew the Americans would like to hear it"). Save Our SSPX

Question: What is official for the SSPX?

Answer: "Official" is whatever +Fellay says it is -
and, if he changes his mind, don't you dare pay
any attention to the man behind the curtain!