Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: Matthew on November 20, 2015, 07:44:41 PM
-
The SSPX has changed in 101+ ways!
A new book by SEAN JOHNSON
The SSPX is heading for a full merger with the Modernist Rome of Vatican II, and it's already most of the way there -- formal deal or no! The facts don't lie. Countless changes, compromises, and contradictions have already occurred within the SSPX -- past tense. This isn't about what the SSPX might do; it's about what THE SSPX HAS DONE over the past 7 years. Here is a book (almost 400 pages) detailing the docuмented, hard evidence to prove this assertion. This book will convince you that the SSPX has taken a hard U-turn back to Conciliar Modernist Rome!
https://www.chantcd.com/index.php/As-We-Are-101-Compromises-Changes-Contradictions-of-an-SSPX
Sean still e-mails me, though he still doesn't post on CI for personal reasons. Sometimes he passes things on for me to post. This is one of those things:
Response to an SSPX Priest
By Sean Johnson
10/31/15
[That which follows is a response to an SSPX priest regarding a recent conversation, in which were expressed some rather disturbing opinions. Originally communicated in an email, it has been edited to preserve the priest’s anonymity, and slightly updated to allow for recent events]
Greetings Fr. Xxxxxxxx-
I reflected for two weeks before finally deciding to send you this email, but felt compelled to respond to some of the opinions you voiced in our private conversation which I found troubling.
Particularly, your comments that:
1) "Archbishop Lefebvre always wanted a deal."
2) "A deal [with Rome] is what we want."
3) "The GREC meetings were a good thing."
4) "There have been no compromises in the SSPX."
5) "Bishop Fellay won't make a bad deal."
To this list, I would add one additional cause of concern:
6) That you were unfamiliar with the SSPX branding campaign.
1) Regarding the statement that "Archbishop Lefebvre always wanted a deal."
It is certainly true that for upwards of 20 years, Archbishop Lefebvre tried to negotiate for a juridical recognition of the SSPX. But it is equally demonstrable that in 1988, after having come to the (correct) belief that the Romans had no intention of safeguarding and promoting tradition, he changed his prudential precondition for an accord. That change of position was first publicized in Fideliter (November/December, 1988) in which Archbishop Lefebvre laid out his principle regarding any deal with Rome:
"We do not have the same outlook on a reconciliation. Cardinal Ratzinger sees it as reducing us, bringing us back to Vatican II. We see it as a return of Rome to Tradition. We don’t agree; it is a dialogue of death. I can’t speak much of the future, mine is behind me, but if I live a little while, supposing that Rome calls for a renewed dialogue, then, I will put conditions. I shall not accept being in the position where I was put during the dialogue. No more.
I will place the discussion at the doctrinal level: 'Do you agree with the great encyclicals of all the popes who preceded you? Do you agree with Quanta Cura of Pius IX, Immortale Dei and Libertas of Leo XIII, Pascendi Gregis of Pius X, Quas Primas of Pius XI, Humani Generis of Pius XII? Are you in full communion with these Popes and their teachings? Do you still accept the entire Anti-Modernist Oath? Are you in favor of the social reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ? If you do not accept the doctrine of your predecessors, it is useless to talk! As long as you do not accept the correction of the Council, in consideration of the doctrine of these Popes, your predecessors, no dialogue is possible. It is useless.'" [Italics mine –SJ]
(Entire interview here: http://www.sacrificium.org/article/interview-archbishop-lefebvre)
Two years later, in the famous January/February, 1991 edition of the same Fideliter, Archbishop Lefebvre reiterrated his position regarding any deal with unconverted Rome: In response to the question, "Why not try and reach out to Rome one more time?", Archbishop Lefebvre responded:
"It is absolutely impossible in the current climate of Rome which is becoming worse. We must not delude ourselves. The principles which now guide the conciliar Church are more and more overtly contrary to Catholic doctrine."
A little later in the interview, Archbishop Lefebvre adds:
"Our true faithful, those who have understood the problem and who have precisely helped us to continue along the straight and firm path of Tradition and the Faith, were afraid of the approaches I made towards Rome. They told me it was dangerous and that I was wasting my time. Yes, of course, I hoped until the last minute that in Rome we would witness a little bit of loyalty. I cannot be blamed for not having done the maximum. So now too, to those who say to me, “You’ve got to reach an agreement with Rome,” I think I can say that I went even further than I should have."
And finally, regarding the Benedictines of La Barroux (and others) who capitulated to unconverted Rome:
"I think in any case they commit a serious mistake. They sinned seriously in acting the way they did, knowingly, and with an unreal nonchalance.
I have heard tell of some monks who intend leaving Le Barroux, saying they can no longer live in an atmosphere of lies. I wonder how they managed to stay as long as this in such an atmosphere." (Ibid)
How history repeats itself, with Menzingen and Kansas City declaring to the whole world there has been no compromise (and when a unilateral recognition comes from Rome, they will champion it all the more, hoping all the faithful miss all the compromises that have already taken place to "win" a unilateral recognition.
In any case, please note this interview of the Archbishop was only two months prior to his death (when he already knew he was terminal, and would find it all the more urgent to preach the truth before meeting his Maker).
(Entire interview available here: http://www.therecusant.com/lefebvre-1991)
Suffice it to say, that while it may be true to say Archbishop Lefebvre always wanted a deal, the preconditions for his willingness to discuss a deal changed fundamentally in 1988: A practical accord (or what is more likely today, a unilateral recognition granted after sufficient compromises have been made to convince Rome of the SSPX's newfound harmlessness) was no longer on the table. The conversion of Rome was now required. That Menzingen was willing to depart from the proven prudence of the Society's founder in such a fundamental matter was the origin and genesis of the Resistance.
2. "A deal with Rome is what we want."
That this opinion flies squarely in the face of Archbishop Lefebvre's prudential precondition for an accord (i.e., the conversion of modernist Rome back to the Catholic faith) is sufficiently demonstrated above (particularly if you click the links and read the entire interviews, which I spared you in this email, as it will be lengthy enough as is).
But it is interesting to watch the morphing of the SSPX position over time in this.
For example, go to SSPX.org, and read this 2002 conference of Bishop Fellay: http://archives.sspx.org/sspx_and_rome/sspx_update_part_1.htm
In it are contained the following nuggets:
"Well, we absolutely don’t have the impression of "being outside of the Church." I must say that very clearly. When Rome says, "Please come in!" we say, "We are sorry; we can’t." Why? - Because we are already in! We exist because of our problems of conscience. It is because we have had to face scandals - things that were impossible to accept without damaging our conscience - tat we have had to say "No!" This is why the Society of St. Pius X has been ready to receive the punishments and sanctions from Rome at several levels - first in 1975 and 1976, then 1988. Every time it has been made clear to us that if we would give in to the injunctions of Rome we would commit ѕυιcιdє, that no proposal would solve our problems of conscience, that is, to avoid any and all sacrilege."
And this precis:
"This famous "excommunication" which was supposed to be the final blow from the Roman authorities against the Archbishop has been, thanks to God, our protection. They built up a wall around us which was supposed to exclude us from the Church, but this wall has been our protection, at several levels. Firstly, as it was the final blow, they have no spare bullets to use against us. Secondly, by their own action, they have terminated any ways to influence us, to command us, or to oblige us to accept the unacceptable and this, thirdly, has given us a tremendous latitude at several levels.
At the level of saving poor souls drowning everywhere, we are free of the power of local bishops over us by virtue of the "excommunication." If you are considered "outside the Church" a bishop cannot say at the same time, "I command you to get out!"
Notice that one no longer hears Bishop Fellay talking like this. And even when he was, did he really believe his own words, or was he just being a politician, and speaking in a way he thought we expected him to speak? The question must be permitted, in light of his secret meetings with GREC, in which he was privately negotiating for a practical accord, while publicly speaking the quoted words.
And finally:
"At another level - which is also amazing - this has allowed us to speak to Rome, to give arguments, to reproach the Roman authorities in such a way that would have been absolutely impossible if we had had normal relations with these authorities. In normal circuмstances, it is always very difficult for a subordinate to make a remark to a superior, but especially about the pope, about cardinals, about Rome herself. The usual attitude of Rome is "be quiet," or "obey." It is still much like that, but now Rome is receptive to the fact that the Second Vatican Council can be discussed! This gives us some leverage."
My, what a different tune is being sung today in Menzingen (and all at a time under the worst pope in history)!
A couple years later, Bishop Fellay was still telling us:
"So when Rome comes to us with a big smile, that is their ulterior motive. That is, we grant you a place, but you must stay very quiet there and not move. So we come to them and we say, "Well, we are sorry, but there is no zoo." The Catholic Church is not a zoo. This comparison may show you how deep is the difference of vision. As long as things are at that level, it is just unthinkable that we should be able to reach a basic or fundamental agreement. It is impossible."
http://archives.sspx.org/sspx_and_rome/what_catholics_need_to_know.htm
So a deal may indeed be what Bishop Fellay wants today (and all the usual agitators: Fr. Pfluger, Fr. Nely, Fr. Simoulin, Fr. Schmisberger, et al), but it is a very different song that used to be sung in Menzingen.
What a shame, that those of us who perceive the contradictions are branded "rebels," while those who contradict themselves are attributed "graces of state" to be followed without question (just like at Vatican II).
3. "The GREC meetings were a good thing."
I must admit, Father, this was a rather shocking statement.
One sees Bishop Fellay participating in "discreet but not secret" negotiations for a practical accord, all the while telling the faithful why we can never come to a practical accord with Rome!
Certainly there is a problem of candor and integrity here.
It would seem Bishop Fellay wanted to hide any contradiction with his favoring a practical accord, against the position of Archbishop Lefebvre (which required the conversion of Rome first).
We have here what appears to be the example of a prelate seemingly speaking out of both sides of his mouth, to further his personal desire for an accord, without alienating the faithful (who have now been slow boiled for many years, and who are now liking the warm water).
I hope you will read this article from the Avrille Dominicans regarding the GREC meetings, as it will be quite an eye opener for you:
http://www.dominicansavrille.us/the-g-r-e-c/
4. "There have been no compromises in the SSPX."
A statement like that tends to leave one speechless, and seeking always to see the good in others, I can only surmise that if such a statement could be made in good faith, it could only emanate from the mistaken belief that, so long as an accord is not signed in Menzingen, there have been no compromises.
In reality, though Menzingen will try to market the idea that Rome is simply offering a unilateral recognition of its own (alleged) good will, the reality is that Rome would not even consider such a thing, had not the following compromises already been made:
1) The expulsion of Bishop Williamson;
2) Bishop Fellay's willingness to have signed the scandalous April 15 2012 Doctrinal Declaration (the very day after having been implored by the other three bishops not to);
3) The reduction of the battle for the Faith, from fighting for the integral Kingship of Christ, to simply championing the traditional Mass (a la Ecclesia Dei);
4) The refusal to distinguish any longer between the conciliar Church and the Catholic Church;
5) The congratulatory notice to the Ecclesia Dei communities' 2013 priestly ordinations featured on the SSPX Polish District website;
6) The Menzingen condemnation of Fr. Pivert's book "Our Relations with Rome" (In which Menzingen offered strident defenses of the Ecclesia Dei communities, and chastised Fr. Pivert for focusing excessively on the Kingship of Christ);
7) Bishop Fellay's CNS interview, in which he declares that religious liberty was "very limited" (and therefore implicitly acceptable);
8) The 2007 Angelus reprint of Michael Davies' "Pope John's Council," in which the SSPX publishes a book including chapters defending Dominus Iesus (and by extension Lumen Gentium), and which also contained an heretical idea of "apostolicity";
9) The branding campaign initiated by Fr. Wegner, in which the confession of the faith is lessened by refusing to preach against the errors of Vatican II and the Roman modernists, and eliminating the militancy from its periodicals and websites (per the 2007 Angelus announcement of Fr. Higgenberger);
10) The diocesan outreach initiatives of Menzingen, designed not to convert the conciliarists to Catholicism, but rather to smooth over decades of former opposition, and eliminate the awkwardness in preparation for an accord or recognition which will have you working shoulder to shoulder with the modernists;
11) Bishop Fellay's scandalous statements that "we accept 95% of Vatican II" and that Vatican II belongs to the tradition of the Church;
12) The overturning of the 2006 General Chapter Declaration, which declared no canonical recognition before the doctrinal issues were resolved (i.e., the conversion of Rome);
13) The sales pitch at that time in the Cor Unum trying to convince you (and indirectly by extension, us) that things had changed to such a degree in Rome that it demanded a new posture from the SSPX with regard to the prudential precondition (a la Fr Simoulin's "We can't be 1988ers Anymore");
14) The revelation of the GREC meetings, in which it is revealed that while Bishop Fellay was publicly explaining to us why there can never be a deal with unconverted Rome (as in his quoted statements above), privately he was working towards that very objective;
15) An extension of the Menzingen diocesan outreach program, the preposterous example of SSPX priests attending the 1st Mass of an Institute of Christ the King priest in France;
16) The US District Bursar posing for pics withan Ecclesia Dei priest at the Catholic Identity Conference in West Virginia (Can one imagine Archbishop Lefebvre attending the Mass of an ICK priest, or posing for pics with them?);
17) The attempt to usurp jurisdiction over the traditional monastic communities (e.g., as revealed in the Steffeshausen Memmorandum), that all tradition might be captured alongside the SSPX;
18) ICK priests attending Bishop Fellay’s Mass in Belgium earlier this year (Can one imagine “Msgr” Wach sending his priests to hear an Archbishop Lefebvre sermon?);
19) The SSPX participating in “tradcuмenical” conferences (contrary to their former condemnations of “tradcuмenism”);
20) Bishop Williamson banned from participating in the 2011 meeting of District Superiors in Albano, Italy and the 2012 General Chapter 7 months later (under the pretext of punishment for disobedience, but in reality to guarantee he would not obstruct the official reorientation of the SSPX, with regard to making itself open to the acceptance of a practical accord, or unilateral recognition).
All of this (and so much more) is most certainly compromise, and the SSPX would not be on the precipice of a back-door accord (i.e., they will call it a unilateral recognition, in which the SSPX did not have to compromise anything......except the 20 compromises listed above, and another 300 which could be listed in a separate article all its own), were it not for these changes already having taken place, and evincing a new attitude (which the GREC meetings show is not so new after all) in Menzingen.
5. "Bishop Fellay won't make a bad deal."
Father, how can you not recognize in such a statement the acceptance a priori of compromise, when you are admitting there could be such a thing as a "good deal" with unconverted Rome?
As Bishop Williamson once said, "What good is good paper with bad men?"
If I was the Pope, I would give the SSPX whatever terms it asked for, and then go back and calm down my modernist colleagues by recalling to them Fr. Cottier's words after his conquest of Campos:
"Reconciliation carries within itself its own internal dynamism (i.e., self-censorship) which will mature....eventually, we must expect additional steps, like concelebration." He was made a cardinal for his infidelity to tradition. Meanwhile, Bishop Rifan does indeed concelebrate the new Mass.
What blindness hides suffering this same fate from Bishop Fellay?
In fact, I think he really does not fear this course of evolution for the SSPX; I believe he has secretly been there for 20 years (and he is not alone: I know of one SSPX priest who, as a seminarian during the 1988 consecrations, would not attend them, because of issues of conscience. How long must he have waited for the SSPX to be so close to a recognition!).
There was a time before you were a priest when the SSPX clergy considered it a badge of honor not to be in communion with the conciliar errors, so long as Rome was engrossed in them, and promoting them:
For example: did you ever read this letter to Rome, signed by all the SSPX District Superiors, begging to be included in the "excommunications?"
http://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Archbishop_Lefebvre_and_the_Vatican/ Part_I/1988-07-06.htm
I sense you never knew this unbranded SSPX, but in fact it is what we were brought up on.
We were strong in the faith, and never scrupled about being outside the Church, schismatic, irregular, or any of the other phantoms you were taught are so odious (or which Fr. Simoulin trumps up to win sympathy for the not so new orientation in Menzingen; incidentally, you can see my response to him on that score here: https://plus.google.com/110235125002095218190/posts/H7bFPUqJM33).
Where Archbishop Lefebvre used to praise us for our concerns about his dealings with Rome, calling us (in the interview cited earlier) "true Faithful," and crediting us with keeping the SSPX on the straight and narrow path, neo-Menzingen condemns us as “rebels.” Yet we keep being told nothing has changed; we are just the disgruntled fringe the SSPX has always tried to shake out. But that assessment would not match the historical record I have provided in this letter.
That SSPX priests have been made oblivious to the shifting goal posts (i.e., Unconsciously drifting from supporting "no canonical recognition without first settling the doctrinal issues" [2006 General Chapter Declaration] to backing its opposite with "We have laid out six conditions to accepting an eventual practical accord" [2012 General Chapter Declaration] does not give me confidence their fidelity to tradition will last much longer, even in its diminished, compromised form.
Perhaps you can see now that given all these changes and compromises, the priests known as the Resistance are not (as you implied in our conversation) simply leaving because they are “disgruntled about their assignments,” but because they perceive the SSPX has left, or is leaving, them.
Conversely, perhaps you can see now how you (and the others who are going along with all the compromises) remind us of those priests and faithful who, little by little, gave up the integral faith after Vatican II under the pretext of false obedience, and followed the leaders to whom God had given graces of state these same leaders rejected.
As Bishop Williamson has observed, the crisis in the SSPX resembles in all aspects the crisis in the Church after Vatican II (or what he calls "Vatican 2B").
An important question to reflect upon would be to consider whether it is God, or the devil, who wants an agreement (or recognition) between the SSPX and unconverted Rome. Can we not deduce the answer by predicting the likely deleterious effects which will follow upon a recognition or accord (and which are already evident within the SSPX in the examples of compromises already consummated above)?
Can a good tree bear bad fruit?
Do you know the tale of the frog and the scorpion? The scorpion needs to get to the other side of the lake, and a frog is the only one who can make the swim, so the scorpion asks the frog to let him jump on his back. And the frog responds, "But you are a scorpion. You will sting me." To which the smiling scorpion responds, "Ridiculous: If I sting you, we will both sink and die." Convinced he had made a safe deal, the frog lets the scorpion get on his back, and when they are in the middle of the lake, the scorpion stings the frog. Shocked and dying, the frog says, "Why would you sting me? We had a deal! Now we will both die!" To which the scorpion responds, "You are a frog, and I am a scorpion. It is in my nature to sting, and I could not do otherwise."
That parable is directly relevant to any deal with unconverted Rome: There is no deal that can be made (any more than Catholics can dialogue and collaborate with communists): It is in the modernists nature to think they save you by killing you, and they have announced their intentions many times to bring you around to Conciliarism.
Archbishop Lefebvre (in the Fideliter interview quoted above, speaking about Cardinal Ratzinger’s intentions in carrying on negotiations) understood this. Menzingen either does not, or does not object to being captured and dissolved into Conciliarism.
6. Regarding your unfamiliarity with the branding campaign (i.e., By which the SSX agrees not to condemn Rome and the Roman modernists, and take a more "positive" approach to the apostolate:
I was quite surprised when you expressed your unfamiliarity with the term "branding campaign."
As much publicity and scandal as its revelation has caused, I can only surmise at this late stage, that to be unaware of this basic Resistance issue presupposes a desire to remain ignorant of it (and all the other Resistance arguments, such as those I have been recounting above).
Perhaps you think the observations of the Resistance (which ought not in the least be equated or synonymous with Fr. Pfeiffer) are of the devil?
Was not the same said of Archbishop Lefebvre after Vatican II?
Was not Rome saying of him: “By their fruits, you shall know them;” Look at the divisions within them; they have sedevacantists among them!; etc.
Along those lines, I will say only this:
That the Resistance should have arisen all over the world, so spontaneously and independently, indicates that what has become known as “the Resistance” is not a delusion based on sophisms, distortions, and exaggerations (regrettably common as those may be in a certain Resistance camp), but rather that observable deviations, scandalous statements, and the reorientation in Menzingen was perceived, then resisted, all over the world.
More than one SSPX priest has told me they have not heard about even the most basic Resistance arguments and issues, and it amazes me that there could be an internal crisis of this magnitude, but which would inspire no curiosity into its causes or merits.
Just imagine one undergoing severe financial distress, but taking no care or interest in investigating the causes!
I hope that when you watch Fr Patrick's Girouard's sermon regarding his conversation with Fr Wegner about the latter's conception and implementation the branding campaign, that you will be as scandalized as the rest of us who have become aware of it.
It is available here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKAEO1VQCTc
Conclusion:
I hope you can appreciate how difficult it was for me to discuss these issues with you.
That said, because you know that I respect you, I hope you will receive it in the same spirit of amity and truth which motivated me to send it to you.
I have no intention of drawing you into a lengthy correspondence or debate. I have said my piece, and I am done.
I have spoken about these matters with enough SSPX priests to know that you will likely agree with very little that I have said, and will feel compelled to rebut these comments. If so, please be assured that I will read what you have to say.
Finally, if there was anything in the tone or tenor of this email which came across as disrespectful, I can promise you it was not intended. Fr. Xxxxxx can tell you that I have a lamentable inability to beat around the bush, and tact has never been my strong point.
Semper idem,
Sean Johnson
-
:applause: Bravo, Sean Johnson.
-
One for the printer for sure, thank you Sean.
-
A seriously well-docuмented indictment!
It was especially galling that Bp. Fellay tried to use Our Blessed Mother for cover of his duplicity. He should never have called us to a Rosary Crusade under the false pretenses of his making no deal without Rome's conversion to the Catholic Faith.
Then there are the matters of Rothschild-Gutmann money, the Zionist admirer of Louise Ciccione, the "Saint of the Sanhedrin," expunged websites, etc.
Lie down with dogs, get up with fleas.
-
:rahrah:
Go, Sean!
-
It's too bad Sean Johnson doesn't post on CathInfo anymore, because it was a livelier discussion when he was here. Perhaps he found he was spending too much time defending what he said or something like that. I remember he had opposition.
But this OP is an example of his fine memory and solid defense of the Resistance, and it's well worth it for all CathInfo members to read it. We all have to answer questions from naysayers, not too different from this unnamed priest S.J. is answering above, and we would do well to keep a few of his points in mind just for reference.
Thank you, Matthew for posting this.
-
Man! So concise, spot on, laser pinpoint accuracy! I especially like that it was mentioned that Fr. Pfeiffer is not the Resistance. I have heard people say that the leader of the Resistance is a loose cannon, referring to Fr. Pfeiffer. It is important that it be known that his flavor of Resistance only attracts a small number. The Resistance is much larger than just Fr. Pfeiffer (although it must be recognized that he was the first to boldly sound the alarm, for which we all owe a certain gratitude).
Rest assured that Mr. Johnson's reply will be mailed and forwarded to many SSPX Priests for sure. Thank you Sean and Matthew for making this available. Also, if Fr. XXXX ever replies, please post here if possible. His answers will give insight into the mindset of current SSPX priests as well as a key on how to respond if we should get the same answers from other SSPX priests.
Thanks again and God Bless you both.
-
I've never heard that one about the frog and the scorpion, but it sure fits!
-
I've never heard that one about the frog and the scorpion, but it sure fits!
That analogy was used by Fr. Damien Fox, SSPX, in a sermon in 2012. He was immediately sent to St. Cesaire for 're-education'...
-
The feeling I get is that Society members and laity were not and are not resisters in the main. There was plenty of rhetoric but identifying the Church with modern Rome produced that general desire to go only so far in terms of disobedience. Once the Mass was freed and excommunications lifted, this desire would be followed by relief.
The letter is an excellent account of the hardliners' cause but it now must be realised it represents a minority of opinion within the Society and a silent one at that. If the majority is preparing itself for integration, it must surely mean it considers itself to be outside the Church. The righteousness of the argument with Rome has been lost because only a practical agreement is awaited. And the impetus is to get one to avoid accusations of schism. The Society may seem to have turned full circle but was it ever at war with Rome or just an expression of opposition which would fade after a generation?
The Society has mostly been devoured; only its tail is wriggling a bit. Is there anything to resist apart from the modern Roman entity that is swallowing it? I look forward to the day when tradition is freed from its principal distraction and that a real resistance will emerge in its wake.
-
Then there are the matters of Rothschild-Gutmann money, the Zionist admirer of Louise Ciccione, the "Saint of the Sanhedrin," expunged websites, etc.
Alas, not all hardliners want to talk about this interesting topic. Perhaps, because of its origin in ABL's time. But it has grown in importance and significance to finance the new 'seminary of reconciliation'. There lies the future!
-
Thank you Sean. I appreciate your clear and concise presentation of the truth.
-
One for the printer for sure, thank you Sean.
Yes, and a copy should be sent to every priest of the Society and every seminarian.
Thank you, Sean Johnson.
-
Maybe we should all print a few copies and mail them to various SSPX priests that we know.
-
Maybe we should all print a few copies and mail them to various SSPX priests that we know.
I don't think Sean Johnson would mind, if we do.
-
I've never heard that one about the frog and the scorpion, but it sure fits!
That analogy was used by Fr. Damien Fox, SSPX, in a sermon in 2012. He was immediately sent to St. Cesaire for 're-education'...
Yes, I heard the sermon. I think it was linked on the OLMC website for a time. And as I recall, it was in the same context, that is, that +Fellay won't make a bad deal. Well, you would think the frog wouldn't make a bad deal, either, no?
The frog and the scorpion is one of the Aesop's Fables (http://www.aesopfables.com/aesop4.html), a story for children.
These and other politically incorrect children's stories have been expunged from modern libraries and avoided by liberals, so that their children are deprived of a wealth of important lessons which had enriched previous generations.
-
Yes, I heard the sermon. I think it was linked on the OLMC website for a time. And as I recall, it was in the same context, that is, that +Fellay won't make a bad deal.
I'm pretty sure that Fr. Fox's point was to warn the faithful and to prepare them for the worst - that is, a deal with Rome.
-
To be noted is how strict Sean is in including only verifiable accounts. He already suggests that his list of compromises could go on and on, and that is before testimonies which can not be verified.
For example, point #16
16) The US District Bursar posing for pics withan Ecclesia Dei priest at the Catholic Identity Conference in West Virginia (Can one imagine Archbishop Lefebvre attending the Mass of an ICK priest, or posing for pics with them?);
It was reported on this site that this conference included a Mass celebrated with three priests -- FSSP, SSPX, and diocesan -- filling the roles of priest, deacon, and subdeacon. Sean inquired as to the truth of this report and received no response, so it did not make it to this list.
While I appreciate reports of both verifiable and unverifiable information, a list that includes only things which can be referenced to a source is very useful.
-
Mater, that is something I appreciate very much about this summary.
The Scorpion and the Frog is very similar to the story of The Gingerbread Man. I think of the SSPX every time I read it, which is quite often since it is a favorite around here. :)
-
This isn't the exact version we have but close enough.
The Gingerbread Man (http://www.topmarks.co.uk/stories/GingerbreadMan.aspx)
-
To be noted is how strict Sean is in including only verifiable accounts. He already suggests that his list of compromises could go on and on, and that is before testimonies which can not be verified.
For example, point #16
16) The US District Bursar posing for pics withan Ecclesia Dei priest at the Catholic Identity Conference in West Virginia (Can one imagine Archbishop Lefebvre attending the Mass of an ICK priest, or posing for pics with them?);
It was reported on this site that this conference included a Mass celebrated with three priests -- FSSP, SSPX, and diocesan -- filling the roles of priest, deacon, and subdeacon. Sean inquired as to the truth of this report and received no response, so it did not make it to this list.
While I appreciate reports of both verifiable and unverifiable information, a list that includes only things which can be referenced to a source is very useful.
As I recall that was reported in "The Remnant" by Michael Matt who spoke at that conference and who was so enthusiastic about this happening. He has long advocated the joining together of all "traditional" groups under one umbrella -- but makes no distinction between the conciliar one and the Catholic one.
-
There’s nothing new here and there’s nothing from Mr. Johnson that can’t be easily rebutted. In fact most of this has been addressed before either here or on other forums. As a simple example, take #1. Here are the words of Archbishop Lefebvre 2 years after the consecrations:
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! (Archbishop Lefebvre, Two years after the Consecrations)
And here’s Bishop Williamson’s take on this quote:
“… In other words, what if Rome offered you a sweetie-pie solution? Answer: firstly, the Romans are a long way right now from accepting any such thing, and then, let them first make us such an offer, then we’ll think about it. …” (Bishop Williamson: 6th Bristol conference on SSPX, Archbishop Lefebvre & Rome, 2’58” - 3’18”)
Now clearly if Archbishop Lefebvre had set this “pre-condition” in 1988 as Mr. Johnson alleges, he could never have entertained such an idea in 1990, yet he did and Bishop Williamson agrees that he did.
Also, concerning this so-called "pre-condition" the conversion of modernist Rome. I would ask the conversion from what to what, how is it to be judged and by whom? What are the concrete steps you want to see executed?
-
Henry, it won't be to difficult to see (no sarcasm intended here). Rome will restore the Church to her former glory by once again adhering to the infallible teachings previously established. Notably, the restoration of the True Mass, the exile of collegiality and religious liberty. The recognition of the Catholic Church as the only Church founded by Our Lord for the salvation of souls, and the condemnation of false religions...just to name a few.
When you see the Church once again upholding her sacred doctrines then you will know that such a conversion is taking place.
-
Henry, it won't be to difficult to see (no sarcasm intended here). Rome will restore the Church to her former glory by once again adhering to the infallible teachings previously established. Notably, the restoration of the True Mass, the exile of collegiality and religious liberty. The recognition of the Catholic Church as the only Church founded by Our Lord for the salvation of souls, and the condemnation of false religions...just to name a few.
When you see the Church once again upholding her sacred doctrines then you will know that such a conversion is taking place.
Ekim, thanks but what you wrote doesn’t answer my question. I want to know the practical steps required. For example, you wrote “the exile of collegiality and religious liberty”, what does this mean ‘exile’ - the repealing of Vatican II and if so by whom?
-
Yes. By the Pope.
As +Fellay use to say....VII is like a pot of soup with a pinch of poison. You can not trust that your spoonful will be safe. You must throw out the entire pot.
-
Sean wrote in with a response to Henry04's rebuttal:
It was brought to my attention that someone posting as "Henry04" claimed to rebut two items in my article:
Firstly, it is claimed that Archbishop Lefebvre's 1990 comments (during his address to priests at Econe) disprove my contention that the Archbishop changed his prudential precondition for the acceptance of a practical accord after the 1988 episcopal consecrations, to the conversion of Rome.
Secondly, it is claimed that it would be impossible (or at least too vague a criteria) to know of what any such "conversion of Rome" would consist.
I would like to offer a couple comments on these rebuttals:
1) Firstly, I find the "blind spots" quite interesting, as the entire article Henry04 quotes from stands as a giant-sized indictment of Bishop Fellay's current orientation, highlighting the blatant contradictions in policy between Archbishop Lefebvre and neo-Menzingen. One would have thought that this article would have been avoided like the plague, by one trying to demonstrate a consistency between the policy of Archbishop Lefebvre and neo-Menzingen.
I encourage all CI readers to read it in entirety here: http://archives.sspx.org/archbishop_lefebvre/two_years_after_the_consecrations.htm
2) Secondly, regarding the following quote from this article which Henry04 thinks refutes my claim that Archbishop Lefebvre refused to entertain a practical accord after 1988 (and which he also cites Bishop Williamson as supporting):
"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."
Incidentally, Fr. Daniel Themann offered this same rebuttal in private correspondence a couple years ago.
Comments:
A) Archbishop Lefebvre is clearly dismissive of the idea. Note the incredulity regarding the suggestion, indicated by the exclamation mark after the words, "let them first make us such an offer!"
B) In other words, the Archbishop is not indicating his openness to the possibility (however far-fetched it seemed at the time), but rather expressing his astonishment, contempt, and dismissal of the idea (i.e., "Well first...).
C) The correctness of this interpretation is corroborated not only by the 1988 and 1991 Fideliter quotes provided in the original post, but also from quotes within this very address Henry04 is quoting from:
In all three accounts, the Archbishop makes it plain there can be no deal with unconverted Rome (Including this one from the article cited):
"I received a few weeks ago, maybe three weeks ago, yet another telephone call from Cardinal Oddi:
'Well Excellency, is there no way to arrange things, no way [i.e., practical accord]? I replied, 'You must change, come back to Tradition. It is not a question of the liturgy, it is a question of the Faith.'"
So much for Archbishop Lefebvre's alleged willingness to accept a practical accord in 1990.
3) Regarding Henry04's second objection (i.e., that it is not possible to judge when Rome will have returned to tradition sufficiently to declare that Rome has converted):
Firstly, perhaps unwittingly, Henry04 is indicting Archbishop Lefebvre with imprudence for having set a benchmark or standard which can never be measured or ascertained.
Secondly, in all three articles (i.e., The two Fideliter articles from the original past, as well as the article cited above, which Henry04 is citing from), it is pretty clear that in Archbishop Lefebvre's estimation, the conversion of Rome entails it's movement away from the doctrines of Vatican II.
For example, in the 1988 Fideliter interview:
"If you do not accept the doctrine of your predecessors, it is useless to talk! As long as you do not accept the correction of the Council, in consideration of the doctrine of these Popes, your predecessors, no dialogue is possible. It is useless.”
And again in the 1991 Fideliter interview:
"All the false ideas of the Council continue to develop, to be reaffirmed with ever greater clarity. They are hiding less and less. It is absolutely inconceivable that we can agree to work with such a hierarchy."
And finally, in the 1990 Address to Priests cited by Henry04:
"Hence, we should have no hesitation or fear, hesitation such as, "Why should we be going on our own? After all, why not join Rome, why not join the pope?" Yes, if Rome and the Pope were in line with Tradition, if they were carrying on the work of all the Popes of the 19th and the first half of the 20th century, of course. But they themselves admit that they have set out on a new path. They themselves admit that a new era began with Vatican II. They admit that it is a new stage in the Church's life, wholly new, based on new principles. We need not argue the point.
and a couple sentences later:
"We must choose, as I said to Pope Paul VI: "We have to choose between you and the Council on one side, and your predecessors on the other; either with your predecessors who stated the Church's teaching, or with the novelties of Vatican II." (Citation above)
Therefore, for Henry04 to attempt to introduce some kind of vaguery into the question as to what constitutes "the conversion of Rome" strikes me a disingenuous, in light of the consistent post-1988 position of Archbishop Lefebvre:
When Rome corrects Vatican II in light of tradition (and not according to the bogus hermeneutic of continuity), Rome will have converted.
This was the mind of Archbishop Lefebvre, per the quotes and articles above.
So why is Menzingen departing from this path?
Because they have lost supernatural faith in the eventual restoration of the Church. This is what lies beneath all the shenanigans, and their working toward a practical accord (or more likely, a so-called "unilateral recognition" after sufficient compromise has assured Rome of the SSPX's new found harmlessness).
But in pushing the pace ahead of Providence (which only 3 1/2 years ago rejected the last attempt at a naturalist solution), a chastisement of tradition, rather than a new springtime, will be the result.
-
.
It's commendable that Sean Johnson would respond to this heckler "Henry4" and do so promptly. It's transparent that the only interest this troll has in posting on CathInfo is to cause some trouble since his two posts are only these, and he just registered yesterday.
It seems to me that trying to convince someone, who wants to defend Vatican II and Newchurch, that ABL and his Society were and justifiably so opposed to Vat.II and all its pomps and promises, is an exercise in futility. The argument can go on virtually forever.
Vatican II was not a Council of the Church because it was illegitimate from the very start.
It started wrong and its only outcome could have been no good. Everything that the Church does at an Ecuмenical Council was turned on its head there and the whole purpose of such Councils was inverted. ABL had been present and tried to set things straight but was met with enormous opposition, and his later attempts to keep the Society of St. Pius X free from the errors was, and even today is met with the same undying demonic opposition, because the devil never sleeps.
So while Mr. Johnson tries to show this rogue Henry4 why he's on the wrong track defending the deviance of +Fellay and his hand-picked cronies in Menzingen, et. al., they're not about to accept his arguments because they're already on the bad-willed Vat.II express train to oblivion.
.
-
Henry, it won't be to difficult to see (no sarcasm intended here). Rome will restore the Church to her former glory by once again adhering to the infallible teachings previously established. Notably, the restoration of the True Mass, the exile of collegiality and religious liberty. The recognition of the Catholic Church as the only Church founded by Our Lord for the salvation of souls, and the condemnation of false religions...just to name a few.
When you see the Church once again upholding her sacred doctrines then you will know that such a conversion is taking place.
Ekim, thanks but what you wrote doesn’t answer my question. I want to know the practical steps required. For example, you wrote “the exile of collegiality and religious liberty”, what does this mean ‘exile’ - the repealing of Vatican II and if so by whom?
The only hope you have, Henry4, is in Vatican II. You're putting your hope in the wrong place, though.
All of the Church's problems since 1962 are rooted right there, and Vat.II has clearly done nothing good for anyone, so why do you think it's redeemable, or your friend? It was bad from the start and since it's the root of our troubles, the only way to set things right is to get free of the bad start.
The Pope could do this but he would be met with a lot of opposition, just as ABL was met with a lot of opposition. The difference would be that ABL wasn't the Pope.
But there is an easier way. The Pope doesn't have to take on this enormous battle alone. He can invoke the far greater power of God Himself, by simply doing what God has asked of him to do, and with the powerful intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary to whom we pray repeatedly in her Rosary, it can be done. The practical steps required are simply this: do what Our Lord said should be done. As Our Lord told Sister Lucia regarding her Superior who had said she could do nothing by herself: But with God's grace, you can do everything!
.
-
.
At the start of Vat.II, ABL had been long engaged in composing an excellent schema that would serve as the starting gate for the new Council.
The liberal Modernists took that schema and threw it in the trash can. That's how they dealt with it.
Well, that worked pretty "well." So that's what we should do with their garbage a.k.a. Vatican II. If we want to start anywhere anew, it ought to be with the discarded schema, which still exists because copies were kept.
.
-
Yes. By the Pope.
As +Fellay used to say....VII is like a pot of soup with a pinch of poison. You can not trust that your spoonful will be safe. You must throw out the entire pot.
That's the short answer. Throw it out. It's garbage. That's what you do with garbage.
Entonces:
With Vat.II discarded, the Newmass has no basis, entonces se fue. Etcetera.
.
-
.
It seems to me that trying to convince someone, who wants to defend Vatican II and Newchurch, that ABL and his Society were and justifiably so opposed to Vat.II and all its pomps and promises, is an exercise in futility. The argument can go on virtually forever.
Well, when someone is prone to cherry picking quotes to support what they want rather than gauging the whole of a text, and when they are wont to turn very precise meanings into vague questions, they fit right into VII unfortunately.
-
Sean wrote in with a response to Henry04's rebuttal:
It was brought to my attention that someone posting as "Henry04" claimed to rebut two items in my article:
Firstly, it is claimed that Archbishop Lefebvre's 1990 comments (during his address to priests at Econe) disprove my contention that the Archbishop changed his prudential precondition for the acceptance of a practical accord after the 1988 episcopal consecrations, to the conversion of Rome.
Secondly, it is claimed that it would be impossible (or at least too vague a criteria) to know of what any such "conversion of Rome" would consist.
I would like to offer a couple comments on these rebuttals:
1) Firstly, I find the "blind spots" quite interesting, as the entire article Henry04 quotes from stands as a giant-sized indictment of Bishop Fellay's current orientation, highlighting the blatant contradictions in policy between Archbishop Lefebvre and neo-Menzingen. One would have thought that this article would have been avoided like the plague, by one trying to demonstrate a consistency between the policy of Archbishop Lefebvre and neo-Menzingen.
I encourage all CI readers to read it in entirety here: http://archives.sspx.org/archbishop_lefebvre/two_years_after_the_consecrations.htm
2) Secondly, regarding the following quote from this article which Henry04 thinks refutes my claim that Archbishop Lefebvre refused to entertain a practical accord after 1988 (and which he also cites Bishop Williamson as supporting):
"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."
Incidentally, Fr. Daniel Themann offered this same rebuttal in private correspondence a couple years ago.
Comments:
A) Archbishop Lefebvre is clearly dismissive of the idea. Note the incredulity regarding the suggestion, indicated by the exclamation mark after the words, "let them first make us such an offer!"
B) In other words, the Archbishop is not indicating his openness to the possibility (however far-fetched it seemed at the time), but rather expressing his astonishment, contempt, and dismissal of the idea (i.e., "Well first...).
C) The correctness of this interpretation is corroborated not only by the 1988 and 1991 Fideliter quotes provided in the original post, but also from quotes within this very address Henry04 is quoting from:
In all three accounts, the Archbishop makes it plain there can be no deal with unconverted Rome (Including this one from the article cited):
"I received a few weeks ago, maybe three weeks ago, yet another telephone call from Cardinal Oddi:
'Well Excellency, is there no way to arrange things, no way [i.e., practical accord]? I replied, 'You must change, come back to Tradition. It is not a question of the liturgy, it is a question of the Faith.'"
So much for Archbishop Lefebvre's alleged willingness to accept a practical accord in 1990.
3) Regarding Henry04's second objection (i.e., that it is not possible to judge when Rome will have returned to tradition sufficiently to declare that Rome has converted):
Firstly, perhaps unwittingly, Henry04 is indicting Archbishop Lefebvre with imprudence for having set a benchmark or standard which can never be measured or ascertained.
Secondly, in all three articles (i.e., The two Fideliter articles from the original past, as well as the article cited above, which Henry04 is citing from), it is pretty clear that in Archbishop Lefebvre's estimation, the conversion of Rome entails it's movement away from the doctrines of Vatican II.
For example, in the 1988 Fideliter interview:
"If you do not accept the doctrine of your predecessors, it is useless to talk! As long as you do not accept the correction of the Council, in consideration of the doctrine of these Popes, your predecessors, no dialogue is possible. It is useless.”
And again in the 1991 Fideliter interview:
"All the false ideas of the Council continue to develop, to be reaffirmed with ever greater clarity. They are hiding less and less. It is absolutely inconceivable that we can agree to work with such a hierarchy."
And finally, in the 1990 Address to Priests cited by Henry04:
"Hence, we should have no hesitation or fear, hesitation such as, "Why should we be going on our own? After all, why not join Rome, why not join the pope?" Yes, if Rome and the Pope were in line with Tradition, if they were carrying on the work of all the Popes of the 19th and the first half of the 20th century, of course. But they themselves admit that they have set out on a new path. They themselves admit that a new era began with Vatican II. They admit that it is a new stage in the Church's life, wholly new, based on new principles. We need not argue the point.
and a couple sentences later:
"We must choose, as I said to Pope Paul VI: "We have to choose between you and the Council on one side, and your predecessors on the other; either with your predecessors who stated the Church's teaching, or with the novelties of Vatican II." (Citation above)
Therefore, for Henry04 to attempt to introduce some kind of vaguery into the question as to what constitutes "the conversion of Rome" strikes me a disingenuous, in light of the consistent post-1988 position of Archbishop Lefebvre:
When Rome corrects Vatican II in light of tradition (and not according to the bogus hermeneutic of continuity), Rome will have converted.
This was the mind of Archbishop Lefebvre, per the quotes and articles above.
So why is Menzingen departing from this path?
Because they have lost supernatural faith in the eventual restoration of the Church. This is what lies beneath all the shenanigans, and their working toward a practical accord (or more likely, a so-called "unilateral recognition" after sufficient compromise has assured Rome of the SSPX's new found harmlessness).
But in pushing the pace ahead of Providence (which only 3 1/2 years ago rejected the last attempt at a naturalist solution), a chastisement of tradition, rather than a new springtime, will be the result.
Unfortunately Mr. Johnson writes much but addresses very little, I would suggest the "blind spots" are with him.
1) What he fails to see is this absolute pre-condition, that is, to refuse a priori any agreement with Rome, it matters not one bit how many quotes he can provide, rather, all that is required is for me provide one, single contrary quote to demonstrate the this absolute pre-condition of the Archbishop he advances is false. I have such a quote and he knows it. Further, he sets a straw-man fallacy, I never wrote the Archbishop was willing to accept a practical accord in 1990, only that he was willing to consider the hypothetical one presented to him.
What Mr. Johnson also fails to grasp is that the more quotes he produces, the stronger mine becomes since it is against this back-drop of quotes that the question was asked. In other words the seemingly unyielding comments of the Archbishop led to the question the subtext of which is your excellency, are you really saying you will not come to an agreement with Rome under any circuмstances.
It is worth pausing here to consider another quote of the Archbishop made 18 months earlier:
”I would have indeed signed a definitive accord after signing the protocol if we had had the possibility of protecting ourselves effectively against the modernism of Rome." (Fideliter 68, March 1989)
So the Archbishop had previously considered the possibility of an agreement if there was sufficient protection for the Society (viz. local Bishops etc.) and therefore understood the question being asked. The Archbishop answered the question “let them first make us such an offer!” – he would consider it, a comment he could not have made if the pre-condition was absolute. Now the mere fact that he gives reasons why Rome wouldn’t do it has no bearing on the matter, rather, the fact that he was willing to consider it amply demonstrates that the alleged pre-condition is not absolute. Case closed Mr. Johnston.
Perhaps Mr. Johnson would prefer to examine the original French text that has no exclamation mark: “On me disait hier : « Si Rome acceptait vos évêques et que vous soyez complètement exempt de la juridiction des évêques… » D’abord ils sont bien loin d’accepter une chose comme celle-là, ensuite il faudrait qu’ils nous en fassent l’offre, et je ne pense pas qu’ils y soient prêts, car le fond de la difficulté, c’est précisément de nous donner un évêque traditionaliste.”. The text will simply not stand the translation Mr. Johnston wants to give it.
Suffice to say that the Archbishop clearly entertained the idea and Mr. Johnson’s ‘interpretation’ cannot be sustained. The correct understanding is that given by Bp. Williamson “let them first make us such an offer, then we’ll think about it.”
Furthermore, one must ask would the Archbishop really have painted himself into a corner with no room to manoeuvre? It really would have gone against all his diplomatic instinct and experience. In any event his biographer, Bp. Tissier de Mallerais, didn’t think so:
Archbishop Lefebvre always sought to take advantage of favorable occasions to renew the connection with Rome and obtain the return of our canonical approbation. (Letter from January 6, 2014)
Plus there is the alleged conversation between Bp. Tissier de Mallerais and Father Jean, OFMC:
I remind Bishop Tissier that in Fideliter n°66 Archbishop Lefebvre had said: “I will set out my conditions, etc”. And Bishop Tissier answered me, I have his letter dated 11th September 2013, “He did say it, but he would not have done it”.
What Mr. Johnston wants everyone to believe is that this absolute pre-condition, which would have been incredibly profound for the Society, was never explicitly expressed by the Archbishop, or promulgated by the Superior General or written into the Society’s statues, but has to be inferred from a few docuмents while ignoring all the rest of the Archbishop’s works. This simply isn’t rational.
2) I’m not sure why Mr. Johnston considers my final paragraph as a second objection i.e. not possible to judge when Rome will have returned to tradition sufficiently to declare that Rome has converted. What I wrote was this “I would ask the conversion from what to what, how is it to be judged and by whom? What are the concrete steps you want to see executed?” I did not suggest it was not possible to ‘judge’. I asked specific questions which Mr. Johnston avoided answering.
Mr. Johnston did write the following “When Rome corrects Vatican II in light of tradition”. Well OK, but how and by whom? Allow me to elaborate.
One of the comments in this thread suggests the repeal of Vatican II by the Pope. Neil Obstat claims “The Pope could do this…”. Playing devils-advocate I’ll say that Vatican II was a valid Ecuмenical Council, legally convened, with deliberations, votes, and declarations. I claim the Pope does not have the power to repeal a Council (I’m sure everyone here would make a similar claim if Pope Francis attempted to repeal Trent). If there’s a claim that it was only a pastoral Council, I reply with it still reaffirmed existing dogmas.
So this is what I’m looking for Mr. Johnston. The practical steps that Rome will have to go through in order for you to judge that they have ‘converted’. Start with the Council docuмents, then the N.O. Mass, N.O. saints etc., what does Rome need to do? And given Unity of Faith leaves room for various opinions in those controversial questions which the Church has not finally decided, what various opinions are/are not deemed acceptable, who gets to judge? And you need to be careful or you could be requesting things (like the example in the previous paragraph) that my not be possible.
A final note, Mr. Johnston writes “Rome will have returned to tradition sufficiently”. This implies a complete conversion is not required for an agreement, only a ‘sufficient’ conversion is required. How is this to be measured?
-
A final note, Mr. Johnston writes “Rome will have returned to tradition sufficiently”. This implies a complete conversion is not required for an agreement, only a ‘sufficient’ conversion is required. How is this to be measured?
Well, to begin with they could stop participating in pro-homo events and fumigate the 'lavender mafia'. That would be an impressive starting point, I think.
Do you actually believe there has been any improvement in Rome since ABL made their conversion a necessary condition of rapprochement?
-
A final note, Mr. Johnston writes “Rome will have returned to tradition sufficiently”. This implies a complete conversion is not required for an agreement, only a ‘sufficient’ conversion is required. How is this to be measured?
I believe if you analyze +Lefebvre's actions and quotes at the time of the 1988 Protocol negotiation and the episcopal consecrations, you can determine that he had a simple test. That being, if Rome grants the SSPX Bishops, that would be sufficient to determine that She was Catholic enough. On the eve of the consecrations, according to +Tissier, he stated that he would immediately postpone the consecrations if a signed guarantee of an August '88 consecration from the Pope arrived.
Then again, when asked about his rebuke of the French Monastery for accepting a Protocol identical to his, his reply was that it was not the same in that they were not guaranteed a bishop.
-
If I follow you Henry, your argument is that no matter how many times ABL said he had realized that a purely practical agreement with unconverted Rome was not an option, that isn't what he really meant? The lack of an exclamation point in French print proves that? So all the priests and faithful who have cut their teeth on this principle for the past two decades were merely mistaken?
Do you realize that even if he had said and meant "let them make us such an offer and we will think about it" it STILL =/= "let's make this and that change to be more palatable so then they will make us such an offer"?
Why do you think ABL knew they would never make such an offer while +Fellay and others think/believe/hope/pray/prepare for the possibility? Because Rome has changed? Because the Society has changed.
-
Hey Henry, let's keep it simple. is the soup no longer poisoned?
-
If I follow you Henry, your argument is that no matter how many times ABL said he had realized that a purely practical agreement with unconverted Rome was not an option, that isn't what he really meant? The lack of an exclamation point in French print proves that? So all the priests and faithful who have cut their teeth on this principle for the past two decades were merely mistaken?
Do you realize that even if he had said and meant "let them make us such an offer and we will think about it" it STILL =/= "let's make this and that change to be more palatable so then they will make us such an offer"?
Why do you think ABL knew they would never make such an offer while +Fellay and others think/believe/hope/pray/prepare for the possibility? Because Rome has changed? Because the Society has changed.
Wallflower, no you do not follow me. This is not about Archbishop Lefebvre actually coming to an agreement with Rome, but whether or not he would have considered the one posed by the questioner (a hypothetical one). The very act of considering one – irrespective of whether or not it is dismissed – renders Mr. Johnson’s absolute pre-condition false. That is all.
-
Hey Henry, let's keep it simple. is the soup no longer poisoned?
There's more poison than ever. What do you propose to do?
-
A final note, Mr. Johnston writes “Rome will have returned to tradition sufficiently”. This implies a complete conversion is not required for an agreement, only a ‘sufficient’ conversion is required. How is this to be measured?
Well, to begin with they could stop participating in pro-homo events and fumigate the 'lavender mafia'. That would be an impressive starting point, I think.
Do you actually believe there has been any improvement in Rome since ABL made their conversion a necessary condition of rapprochement?
Has there been a time in the history of the Church where there has been no scandal? I came across a quote from Bp. Williamson which I think apt: "If, by some miracle, Pope Francis rang me up next week and said: “Your Excellency, you and I have had our divergences, but right now I am authorizing you to found a society. You go right ahead for the good of the Church." "Holy Father, can I have that in writing? Do you mind if I come to Rome and get that with your signature?" "Yes, of course." "Allright, then I’d be on the next plane to Rome. I’d be on the next plane to Rome!"
So if Bp. Williamson is still willing to deal with Pope Francis, that's fine by me too.
-
If I follow you Henry, your argument is that no matter how many times ABL said he had realized that a purely practical agreement with unconverted Rome was not an option, that isn't what he really meant? The lack of an exclamation point in French print proves that? So all the priests and faithful who have cut their teeth on this principle for the past two decades were merely mistaken?
Do you realize that even if he had said and meant "let them make us such an offer and we will think about it" it STILL =/= "let's make this and that change to be more palatable so then they will make us such an offer"?
Why do you think ABL knew they would never make such an offer while +Fellay and others think/believe/hope/pray/prepare for the possibility? Because Rome has changed? Because the Society has changed.
Wallflower, no you do not follow me. This is not about Archbishop Lefebvre actually coming to an agreement with Rome, but whether or not he would have considered the one posed by the questioner (a hypothetical one). The very act of considering one – irrespective of whether or not it is dismissed – renders Mr. Johnson’s absolute pre-condition false. That is all.
Ok that I understand. I guess I still don't see the finality of such an argument but thanks for clarifying.
-
Pray. Pray that those with the grace of state reject and condemn the poison at every turn, without compromise.
-
.
Something rather prominent is being ignored in this exchange. It was ABL's great concern, and what literature scholars call "conflict", that his resistance to the errors of Vat.II and the wayward path of Newchurch could become a real basis for him and his Society to be in schism. He wanted no part of schism. Nor did he want his Society to appear as a Parallel Church. This latter motive is why he didn't want the Superior General to be a bishop -- because it could make the Society appear to have a pope-replacement figure at the helm. (So what of +Fellay: he effectively avoided this problem by steering the Society toward Newrome thus avoiding the appearance of opposition and "Parallel Church!")
In order to avoid accusation of Parallel Church! and Schism!! ABL said certain things at certain times that may have seemed a bit out of place, and in retrospect might be taken to mean that he was some way in favor of the new Rome (post Vat.II).
ABL had a lot of forces pulling at him, and the path he took was his best shot at holding fast to the Traditions that he had received, while facing an unprecedented crisis in the Church. He recognized the problem that Vat.II was and there can be little doubt that he wanted to do something about that, but since he was not Pope and he did not have the support of other bishops, what could he do against the monster Vatican II?
It seems he did what he thought was the most prudent thing, which was to raise up new priests who would be trained to carry on the tradition ABL had received, so as to weather the great storm, for if he had attempted to do battle directly with the monster Vat.II, there was a risk of failure, a risk he was not willing to take. It would seem that his years of continual prayer gave him the fortitude to do what he did, but not the power and zeal it would have required to overturn the monster Vat.II.
There were priests who attempted to encourage him to do battle directly with Vat.II and for whatever reason he declined. But there remains solid proof of how weak the foundation under this false council always has been, and it seems to me it's just a matter of time before the winds and rains come to wash away that foundation of sand under the false council, and great shall be the fall thereof.
One of the comments in this thread suggests the repeal of Vatican II by the Pope. Neil Obstat claims “The Pope could do this…”. Playing devils-advocate I’ll say that Vatican II was a valid Ecuмenical Council, legally convened, with deliberations, votes, and declarations. I claim the Pope does not have the power to repeal a Council (I’m sure everyone here would make a similar claim if Pope Francis attempted to repeal Trent). If there’s a claim that it was only a pastoral Council, I reply with it still reaffirmed existing dogmas.
We have had exactly 20 unequivocally valid Ecuмenical Councils of the Church before 1962, ALL of which had key components in common. Trent is one of those and it is just as solid as any of the other 19.
The same cannot be said of Vatican II.
Now, a Council is not a Sacrament. However, in regards to sacraments, there are three things that must be true for the sacrament to be valid: 1) Form 2) Matter and 3) Intention. If any one of those is not present, the sacrament is invalid and does not confer sanctifying grace. That is to say, it does not enjoy the protection of the Holy Ghost.
Set aside 1) and 2) for a moment and consider 3) Intention. If you have a Mass where everything appears fine, the candles are lit and the linens are white and the altar boys kneel in reverence while the Priest raises the host, and so on -- if the Priest does NOT intend to do what the Church does in the Consecration and has no intention whatsoever to confect transubstantiation of the Eucharist, the effect will be that no Sacrament takes place, and all the faithful who line up for Holy Communion will in fact receive a wafer of bread but not the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus. Whatever graces they receive via their good will and desire is another topic, but they receive objectively nothing from the host that is placed on their tongues, other than the physical nutrients of the wafer's ingredients, wheat flour and water.
While an Ecuмenical Council is not a sacrament, still, it comes to the Church as a most prominent reality the purpose of which, like a sacrament, is to confer grace to Holy Mother Church and the faithful therein. The highest law of the Church is the salvation of souls, and both the Sacraments and the true Councils must be directed toward that end. Anything called "a sacrament" that is implemented and designed so as to take away salvation from souls is not a true Sacrament and any Council that does so is not a true Council.
There is more but this post is already too long.
.
-
Playing messenger boy some more.
Greetings Fr. Xxxxxxx-
Hope all is well with you.
I recognized your arguments instantly from our private correspondences of 2013.
As I am not able to view Cathinfo directly, I am hoping you can send me your rebuttals personally.
I'm sure you still have the address?
If not, I still have yours.
In any case, if you send them, I will be sure to address them in my book (notice of which will be released in the next 5-10 days on this website).
Semper Idem,
Sean Johnson
-
Playing messenger boy some more.
Greetings Fr. Xxxxxxx-
Hope all is well with you.
I recognized your arguments instantly from our private correspondences of 2013.
As I am not able to view Cathinfo directly, I am hoping you can send me your rebuttals personally.
I'm sure you still have the address?
If not, I still have yours.
In any case, if you send them, I will be sure to address them in my book (notice of which will be released in the next 5-10 days on this website).
Semper Idem,
Sean Johnson
Is it Fr. Laisney? That was my first instinct when I read the rebuttal.
-
… So the Archbishop had previously considered the possibility of an agreement if there was sufficient protection for the Society (viz. local Bishops etc.) and therefore understood the question being asked. The Archbishop answered the question “let them first make us such an offer!” – he would consider it, a comment he could not have made if the pre-condition was absolute. Now the mere fact that he gives reasons why Rome wouldn’t do it has no bearing on the matter, rather, the fact that he was willing to consider it amply demonstrates that the alleged pre-condition is not absolute. Case closed Mr. Johnson.
Perhaps Mr. Johnson would prefer to examine the original French text that has no exclamation mark: “On me disait hier : « Si Rome acceptait vos évêques et que vous soyez complètement exempt de la jurisdiction des évêques… » D’abord ils sont bien loin d’accepter une chose comme celle-là, ensuite il faudrait qu’ils nous en fassent l’offre, et je ne pense pas qu’ils y soient prêts, car le fond de la difficulté, c’est précisément de nous donner un évêque traditionaliste.”. The text will simply not stand the translation Mr. Johnson wants to give it.
Suffice to say that the Archbishop clearly entertained the idea and Mr. Johnson’s ‘interpretation’ cannot be sustained. The correct understanding is that given by Bp. Williamson “let them first make us such an offer, then we’ll think about it.”
Whatever may or may not be said for the character of Sean Johnson's defense, the use by Henry4 of the material (quoted above) that he offers in rebuttal is certainly a straw man. Henry's position amounts to little more than a declaration that the answer "yes" to the question "Would you, a resident of New Orleans, wear an overcoat if a snowstorm rolled in on the Fourth of July?" constitutes a repudiation of a resolve to wear short-sleeve shirts throughout the summer!
Put otherwise, what Archbishop Lefebvre might well have said—had he not been disinclined, both by nature and by long experience, to treat his interlocutors as simpletons—was that any such blank-check offer from Rome as the hypothetical one (a hypothesis that is being flogged with a vigor better applied to an object that can yield something more than howls of pain) would constitute prima facie evidence of a "sufficient conversion" of conciliar Rome to the True Faith. Hence, it would be just the sort of situation where a no-compromise resolve, even were it to be as strong as case-hardened steel, would have to yield, because the conditions under which the resolve had been formed no longer applied.
Henry's assertion that His Grace never closed his mind to the possibility, let alone the desirability, of a more or less practical deal with Rome may well be true. Not being a mind reader, I am in no position to hazard a guess, and I am full ready to grant that Henry4 may well know far more about the archbishop than I do. But his claim that the quoted response is probative of his assertion can be accepted only if one is prepared to further assert that the archbishop was given to entertaining groundless counterfactuals in the interstices of blowing soap bubbles pour s'amuser.
Frankly, I have no dog in this fight, but I am troubled when men and women who ought to know better claim probative value for data that are probative of nothing so much as their desire to win an argument—and justice be damned.
… If you have a Mass where everything appears fine, the candles are lit and the linens are white and the altar boys kneel in reverence while the Priest raises the host, and so on -- if the Priest does NOT intend to do what the Church does in the Consecration and has no intention whatsoever to confect transubstantiation of the Eucharist, the effect will be that no Sacrament takes place, and all the faithful who line up for Holy Communion will in fact receive a wafer of bread but not the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus. Whatever graces they receive via their good will and desire is another topic, but they receive objectively nothing from the host that is placed on their tongues, other than the physical nutrients of the wafer's ingredients, wheat flour and water.
Because it's plain what Neil is getting at, I take no pleasure in saying what follows, but the simple fact is that the sort of ordinary-language use of the word intention that the quoted passage employs is just not the one that orthodox theology from Aquinas down to the present day—even including such a towering modernist (i.e., unorthodox) figure as Schillebeeckx—has in mind. In the context described, "proper intention," "an intention to do as the Church does," must be assumed ipso facto by the priest's use of the words and by his performance of the prescribed liturgical actions in the manner called for by the rubrics. Any insistence that validity required one to know an intrinsically unknowable interior state was rejected by Aquinas as a condition that God in His beneficence could not impose on His Church. That is, His beloved children are entitled to have confidence in the salvific effect of the actions of those of His priests whose outward conduct comports with rubrical norms.
-
Pray. Pray that those with the grace of state reject and condemn the poison at every turn, without compromise. Something the SSPX no longer does
-
Ten years ago our SSPX priest led a Eucharistic Procession to the steps of the local Novus Ordo parish. There we had Benediction in reperation for the many sins and blasphemy s against Our Lord. (Communion in the hand, Eucharistic Ministers, slovenly dressed parishioners...). What an example for my children! What a stand for the rights of Our Lord! Now what do you hear from the SSPX in reparation?....CRICKETS!
Henry, if there is more poison in the soup than ever, why does +Fellay now say it is okay to eat? He now says Religious Liberty is very limited, and the New Mass is legitimate. He says that SSPX must not act as bulldozers. When the guard dog, the very dog who is responsible to serve, protect and defend Christ the King stops barking, it is useless.
Why has +Fellay reduced the once barking SSPX into a whimpering puppy?
-
Henry, if there is more poison than ever, why does +Fellay now say it's okay to sip the poisoned soup? why do so many SSPX priests follow along?
-
Put otherwise, what Archbishop Lefebvre might well have said—had he not been disinclined, both by nature and by long experience, to treat his interlocutors as simpletons—was that any such blank-check offer from Rome as the hypothetical one (a hypothesis that is being flogged with a vigor better applied to an object that can yield something more than howls of pain) would constitute prima facie evidence of a "sufficient conversion" of conciliar Rome to the True Faith. Hence, it would be just the sort of situation where a no-compromise resolve, even were it to be as strong as case-hardened steel, would have to yield, because the conditions under which the resolve had been formed no longer applied.
Yes, ABL makes it clear that receiving a bum deal from Rome was a sign that he could not trust them or deal with them. Until their conversion they would continually try to paralyze the Society. So in effect a "sweetie pie deal" could be a sign in and of itself of Rome's conversion, or at least a significant turn in the tide, and thus would be worthy of consideration.
It could be argued that +Fellay is simply doing the same thing. "He will not make a bad deal". IOW if he receives a sweetie pie deal he will take that as a sign of Rome's sufficient conversion. However, he has obliterated any hope of using the example with all of the internal shifts he has already made to be more appealing to Rome and the NO public. Between GREC and the many concessions already made which are crystalized in the PC image he is branding for the Society, he could never hope to argue that he holds the same take-us-as-we-are-and-we-will-know-you-have-returned-to-Tradition ground as ABL. Where ABL realized he had to stand two feet away from the precipice (the TRUE definition of prudence, I might add), +Fellay is desperately hanging over it, blowing in the wind and angling to meet them halfway as if somehow that will bring them to his side. It inspires no confidence whatsoever in his judgment and it shows that he doesn't understand (or perhaps rejects) why the Society MUST stand strong in the first place.
-
A final note, Mr. Johnston writes “Rome will have returned to tradition sufficiently”. This implies a complete conversion is not required for an agreement, only a ‘sufficient’ conversion is required. How is this to be measured?
Well, to begin with they could stop participating in pro-homo events and fumigate the 'lavender mafia'. That would be an impressive starting point, I think.
Do you actually believe there has been any improvement in Rome since ABL made their conversion a necessary condition of rapprochement?
Has there been a time in the history of the Church where there has been no scandal? I came across a quote from Bp. Williamson which I think apt: "If, by some miracle, Pope Francis rang me up next week and said: “Your Excellency, you and I have had our divergences, but right now I am authorizing you to found a society. You go right ahead for the good of the Church." "Holy Father, can I have that in writing? Do you mind if I come to Rome and get that with your signature?" "Yes, of course." "Allright, then I’d be on the next plane to Rome. I’d be on the next plane to Rome!"
So if Bp. Williamson is still willing to deal with Pope Francis, that's fine by me too.
I think you are being purposely disingenuous here. As ABL before him, +W was obviously making the point ad absurdum.
It's akin to my stating that should some handsome billionaire declare his undying love for me, I would acquiesce to the marriage. The odds of either happening in reality are ludicrous.
-
… If you have a Mass where everything appears fine, the candles are lit and the linens are white and the altar boys kneel in reverence while the Priest raises the host, and so on -- if the Priest does NOT intend to do what the Church does in the Consecration and has no intention whatsoever to confect transubstantiation of the Eucharist, the effect will be that no Sacrament takes place, and all the faithful who line up for Holy Communion will in fact receive a wafer of bread but not the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus. Whatever graces they receive via their good will and desire is another topic, but they receive objectively nothing from the host that is placed on their tongues, other than the physical nutrients of the wafer's ingredients, wheat flour and water.
Because it's plain what Neil is getting at, I take no pleasure in saying what follows, but the simple fact is that the sort of ordinary-language use of the word intention that the quoted passage employs is just not the one that orthodox theology from Aquinas down to the present day—even including such a towering modernist (i.e., unorthodox) figure as Schillebeeckx—has in mind. In the context described, "proper intention," "an intention to do as the Church does," must be assumed ipso facto by the priest's use of the words and by his performance of the prescribed liturgical actions in the manner called for by the rubrics. Any insistence that validity required one to know an intrinsically unknowable interior state was rejected by Aquinas as a condition that God in His beneficence could not impose on His Church. That is, His beloved children are entitled to have confidence in the salvific effect of the actions of those of His priests whose outward conduct comports with rubrical norms.
Like I said, there is more.
In his sermon just before the Consecration, this priest mentioned that the host represents Jesus "symbolically" and the Mass is a meal in commemoration of His life, death and resurrection. The priest said that he's not here to magically change anything, and this Mass is intended for the "pastoral care" of the assembly. Finally, he reminded everyone that God is everywhere, so certainly He is here with us today.
After this Mass, one of the attendees who had heard this sermon approached this priest and asked him if he believes the host at Mass becomes the Real Presence of Our Lord, and the priest frankly replied, "No, I do not. And neither should you. The host is bread and a mere symbol of God's presence all around us, and nothing more. The real presence you're asking about is a figment of your own imagination, quite possibly rooted in some medieval fable of mysterious other-worldly power."
There goes your "intrinsically unknowable interior state."
The point is, if the priest openly STATES that he does not intend to do at his Mass what the Church has always done at Mass, why should we think his Mass is valid? Why should we think that his Mass is the Mass of the Church? --just because it takes place in a building that says "Catholic Church" in the sign box outside?
And if he wanted to be really honest, he would have an announcement at the very beginning of Mass, before any readings or prayers in the sanctuary, a kind of introduction for everyone to hear, and he would say that he makes no pretense of confecting the Eucharist. Furthermore, he could announce that there shall be no exclusion of non-Catholics for anything --- including Communion.
After hearing such an announcement before Mass, are the listeners not apprised of what is about to take place, so as to have no doubts, and to conclude that this is not going to be a Catholic Mass, even though the sign in the box outside says "Catholic Church" in it?
P.S. Once again, "there is more..."
.
-
Playing messenger boy some more.
Greetings Fr. Xxxxxxx-
Is it Fr. Laisney? That was my first instinct when I read the rebuttal.
One upper case X followed by 6 lower case letters, looks good.
.
-
It takes very little, Neil, doesn't it, to prod you to revert to form and resume prancing about like a damn fool?
Do you seriously think that withholding essential information is a winning strategy in a discussion or argument? Or do you think that I am the only one who notices that none of the claims advanced in your churlish reply were present in your earlier comment, which had all the earmarks of a hypothetical case? Frankly, absent chapter and verse, I'm by no means sure that anything you wrote in the reply is even corroborable. Your record as a peddler of hot air could fill as many pages as War and Peace.
Even assuming that every word you've written correctly reports actual events—and that's a big assumption—I wouldn't accept your diagnosis of invalidity even if my life literally depended upon it. Substantially more evidence than hearsay is required just for a start. Then and only then might the case be presented for judgment to, at a minimum, a properly formed priest, though far, far better and more reliable would be the opinion of a sacramental theologian.
You fail to make the hurdle no matter how much the bar is lowered. In short, no one has good reason to accept that one and only one conclusion is to be drawn from your ramblings.
The bottom line is that the entirety of your commenting on this thread has been off topic and, as so often, tiresomely narcissistic. And when, oh when, are you going to stop preceding and following your irrelevancies with a three- or four-line space and a placeholding period? Do you think your comments are Rembrandts or Vermeers in need of a frame to display them at their best!?!
-
Dear claudel,
If you don't want to have a discussion, just say so. There's no need to go emotional and disrespectful like a bat out of hell.
If you can't be bothered to follow the progress of my explanation, then fine, just forget about it. The point is, I can demonstrate that Vat.II was not a true Council of the Church, and when one recognizes that fact, then all the nonsense regarding why +Fellay and his cronies are trying to make peace under the banner of a FALSE Council becomes elementary. He's fighting the wrong battle, and the Resistance has its sights set on the proper target -- surviving this crisis in the Church which is rooted in a FALSE Council.
.
-
.
I commend Sean Johnson for having the persistence and dedication to take on all these specific points along the way, because I think it's important to chronicle the wayward actions of +Fellay over the years, for the record if not for present purposes at hand.
As for me, I lose my incentive to delve into all those details when I see a pattern of behavior in the S.G. that indicates a different purpose in mind than that of the Founder, ABL. The Archbishop was not afraid to oppose the Modernism of Newrome in order to stand firm in the traditions handed down to him, whereas the current Superior has been steadily bending toward making peace with an unconverted Rome, with a litany of excuses as to why that's not objectionable.
The thing that distinguishes Newrome from pre-Conciliar Rome is Vat.II, and ABL was aware of that. But for whatever reason, ABL never came down hard on the invalidity of the false Council, per se, and I suppose he had his reasons, one of which might be that he had been there so he would be partially responsible for what had happened there.
This whole topic of answering a priest who is wont to defend the wayward actions of +Fellay skirts the problem of whether Vat.II should be recognized or abandoned. While it's true that we do not have the authority to pass judgment on what the Church has apparently accepted as an Ecuмenical Council, still, we can raise the arguments against it just as we can continue to practice the Faith intact as it was in 1955 before the excrement started to hit the air flow generator.
.
-
1). Regarding the statement that "Archbishop Lefebvre always wanted a deal."
...
Two years later, in the famous January/February, 1991 edition of the same Fideliter, Archbishop Lefebvre reiterrated his position regarding any deal with unconverted Rome: In response to the question, "Why not try and reach out to Rome one more time?", Archbishop Lefebvre responded:
"It is absolutely impossible in the current climate of Rome which is becoming worse. We must not delude ourselves. The principles which now guide the conciliar Church are more and more overtly contrary to Catholic doctrine."
What would ABL say today, 24 years later?
Are the principles which TODAY guide the conciliar Church ever more overtly contrary to Catholic doctrine, or what?
A little later in the interview, Archbishop Lefebvre adds:
"Our true faithful, those who have understood the problem and who have precisely helped us to continue along the straight and firm path of Tradition and the Faith, were afraid of the approaches I made towards Rome. They told me it was dangerous and that I was wasting my time. Yes, of course, I hoped until the last minute that in Rome we would witness a little bit of loyalty. I cannot be blamed for not having done the maximum. So now too, to those who say to me, 'You’ve got to reach an agreement with Rome,' I think I can say that I went even further than I should have."
Is +Fellay now, when Rome is sunk ever further into Modernism, trying to do what ABL wouldn't have dared to do then, when Rome had appeared to him capable of "a little bit of loyalty?"
If ABL had gone "even further than (he) should have," should +Fellay now attempt to do even MORE than that?
If ABL was convinced that he had "done the maximum," what would +Fellay do now, MORE than the maximum?
And finally, regarding the Benedictines of La Barroux (and others) who capitulated to unconverted Rome:
"I think in any case they commit a serious mistake. They sinned seriously in acting the way they did, knowingly, and with an unreal nonchalance.
I have heard tell of some monks who intend leaving Le Barroux, saying they can no longer live in an atmosphere of lies. I wonder how they managed to stay as long as this in such an atmosphere." (Ibid)
Well, +Fellay has seen to this most deliberately, by KICKING OUT Society priests who dared to follow in the Tradition that was handed down to them from the Founder.
How history repeats itself, with Menzingen and Kansas City declaring to the whole world there has been no compromise (and when a unilateral recognition comes from Rome, they will champion it all the more, hoping all the faithful miss all the compromises that have already taken place to "win" a unilateral recognition).
So you see, compromise is a reality all in the mind. This perfectly conforms to the Modernist philosophy of Immanuel Kant. He would be so proud of Menzingen and Kansas City today!
In any case, please note this interview of the Archbishop was only two months prior to his death (when he already knew he was terminal, and would find it all the more urgent to preach the truth before meeting his Maker).
(Entire interview available here: http://www.therecusant.com/lefebvre-1991)
Suffice it to say, that while it may be true to say Archbishop Lefebvre always wanted a deal, the preconditions for his willingness to discuss a deal changed fundamentally in 1988: A practical accord (or what is more likely today, a unilateral recognition granted after sufficient compromises have been made to convince Rome of the SSPX's newfound harmlessness) was no longer on the table. The conversion of Rome was now required. That Menzingen was willing to depart from the proven prudence of the Society's founder in such a fundamental matter was the origin and genesis of the Resistance.
In true Modernist fashion, Menzingen and cronies purloin the word "prudence" and proudly proclaim that is what they're practicing when they push their accordist agenda, even though it directly conflicts with the last gasp of the fading saintly Founder who sacrificed his life for this cause of his fledgling Society.
.
-
.
This back-and-forth has gone on for 53 years, ever since the beginning (not the end) of Vat.II, and there is no end in sight.
The Sean Johnsons of the world would wage battle with the Fellayist Accordistas forever and ever, amen.
There is a reason that this argument began at the start of Vat.II, and that is because the start (not the end) of Vat.II is when the war of words was initiated.
Pope John XXIII fired the opening salvo of this battle of wits with his most regrettable speech on October 11th, 1962, the Feast of the Maternity of Mary. The next thing you know, Newchurch eliminated that Feast Day, perhaps to cover up the context of this infamous diatribe of "good pope John" (he wasn't very "good" just like "good Queen Bess" wasn't really "good" either - she murdered Catholics by the thousands).
If you are not familiar with that stupid speech, you should read it because it gives us all we need to know about Vat.II before Vat.II had even happened.
.
-
Hey Henry, still waiting for your reply....
Ten years ago our SSPX priest led a Eucharistic Procession to the steps of the local Novus Ordo parish. There we had Benediction in reperation for the many sins and blasphemy s against Our Lord. (Communion in the hand, Eucharistic Ministers, slovenly dressed parishioners...). What an example for my children! What a stand for the rights of Our Lord! Now what do you hear from the SSPX in reparation?....CRICKETS!
Henry, if there is more poison in the soup than ever, why does +Fellay now say it is okay to eat? He now says Religious Liberty is very limited, and the New Mass is legitimate. He says that SSPX must not act as bulldozers. When the guard dog, the very dog who is responsible to serve, protect and defend Christ the King stops barking, it is useless.
Why has +Fellay reduced the once barking SSPX into a whimpering puppy?
-
2) "A deal [with Rome] is what we want."
That this opinion flies squarely in the face of Archbishop Lefebvre's prudential precondition for an accord (i.e., the conversion of modernist Rome back to the Catholic faith) is sufficiently demonstrated above (particularly if you click the links and read the entire interviews, which I spared you in this email, as it will be lengthy enough as is).
#1 has already been rebutted.
But what Mr. Johnson confuses here is the desire for an agreement (viz. a principle) and the prudent act of accepting (or not) an agreement. It is obvious that the Society is in an irregular status: owning various properties, sending priests into dioceses without the local ordinary’s approval, the operation of supplied jurisdiction to validate some sacraments etc. Hence a desire for regularisation within the hierarchy must be a principle, but it is prudence that dictates whether any proposal is accepted. "A deal with Rome is what we want” - not at any cost to be sure – but it is what the Society has always wanted in principle, Mr. Johnson simply doesn't understand this.
Mr. Johnson propounds some “super” pre-condition that he (wrongly) attributes to the archbishop. He does not define it in concrete terms; he cannot (for one thing he lacks the competency) we’re just given a fluffy ‘conversion of Rome’. He does not define what a ‘conversion’ is - from what to what - or even the competent authority that will make the judgment. So what we have in reality is not a ‘prudential precondition’ since it undefined and limitless, but a pre-condition which amounts to a principle of no agreement with Rome under any circuмstance; they must join us - just like the Orthodox. This is, essentially, schism. Further, if Rome is not the Catholic Church (as her ‘conversion’ is required) then the refusal of any agreement cannot be a ‘prudential precondition’ since one could never seek an agreement with a false church under any circuмstances, therefore it must be a matter of principle, and yet the Archbishop did make an agreement with this false church.
Mr. Johnson now changes direction and advances the allegation that the Society has changed, but this too is easy to disprove. It has already been shown that the Archbishop was never against a practical accord if the Society could be sufficiently protected:
”I would have indeed signed a definitive accord after signing the protocol if we had had the possibility of protecting ourselves effectively against the modernism of Rome." (Fideliter 68, March 1989)
And this ‘protection’ was always a corner stone of any agreement. A comment on this very quote before the current round of SSPX/Rome discussion began appeared in the French district monthly publication ‘Notre Dame d’Aquitaine’ (March 2006) which confirms this:
Un accord qui ne suppose aucune concession doctrinale, ni sur la Messe ni sur le Concile, n’est durable qu’avec une véritable protection à Rome et contre les évêques.
Mr. Johnson thinks 2002 to be a good year for Bp. Fellay. Well here is the bishop, or should I say a summary of a conference he gave that year at St Michael's School, England (6 May 2002) and appeared in the SSPX GB District Newsletter (‘Further Negotiations with Rome’, June/July 2002):
His Lordship then summarized the content of his meeting with Cardinal Castrillon on 29 December 2000, during which the Cardinal suggested a personal prelature for the Society (like Opus Dei). Bishop Fellay said that if the Society were to enter into such an arrangement, it would still be obliged to fight against modernism, liberalism and Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ. He also raised the recent treatment of the Society of St Peter as a reason for not trusting the Vatican, and its official policy of not attempting to convert the Old Catholics or the Orthodox.
The Bishop also gave an account of his five-minute meeting with the Pope, in which the latter expressed his happiness about the negotiations.
On his return from Rome, Bishop Fellay called a meeting with all the traditional Catholic bishops (including Bishop Rangel). It was decided that the bishops should request the lifting of the (false) excommunication, and permission for all priests, throughout the world to say the old Mass. This would remove the pretence that the old Mass had been abrogated, make it very difficult (if not impossible) to abrogate it in the future and would cause many graces to flow into the Church because of the increased celebration of the old rite. The answer from Rome to this request was that "Basically, the Pope does agree that the old Mass has never been abrogated and that all priests have the right to say it" but the request was refused because some of the older secretaries (of the Curia) "think that it would be an insult to Pope Paul VI and all the work that has been done for the new liturgy."
In this reply, Rome signaled that it was not prepared to defend the old Mass and so, Bishop Fellay decided to suspend further discussions.
…
Despite the breakdown in the discussions with Cardinal Castrillon, Cardinal Ratzinger has invited Bishop Fellay to doctrinal discussions. Although the Bishop felt that these might be more interesting, there would still be the difficulty of using words like 'truth', 'infallibility' and so on, that have come to mean different things for those in today's Vatican.
So there we have it. Over thirteen years ago the same practical agreement was on the table and Bp. Fellay was considering it and the only sticking point was the refusal of Rome to publically acknowledge that the Tridentine Mass had never been abrogated – he had secured it exclusively for the Society – but he knew that this crisis in the Church is bigger than just the Society; he wanted unrestricted use and access for all clerics and all the faithful. He refused to budge. Bravo Bishop Fellay!
So the same deal was offered in 2002, but where were all the objections then? I dare say a large chuck of those in the Resistance did not attend an SSPX chapel at that time (the editor of ‘The Recusant’ did not), but they believe themselves to be the authority on what the Society and her Superior General wanted and always wanted.
The Society always considered practical agreement put forward by Rome but she could never do this if there existed some super pre-condition; if Rome had agreed to publically state the old Mass had never been abrogated in 2002 there would have likely been an agreement.
This is more than sufficient to rebut Mr. Johnston’s 2nd point.
-
Henry4, how generous of you to pass judgment on your own ineptitude,,,,,,, uh, sorry, defense of the indefensible............................NOT.
Your unconvincing monologue goes nowhere.
Your so-called argument is full of holes.
So, it's evident you want to make a career out of this silliness. Be my guest.
.
-
Hey Henry, still waiting for your reply....
Ten years ago our SSPX priest led a Eucharistic Procession to the steps of the local Novus Ordo parish. There we had Benediction in reparation for the many sins and blasphemy s against Our Lord. (Communion in the hand, Eucharistic Ministers, slovenly dressed parishioners...) What an example for my children! What a stand for the rights of Our Lord! Now what do you hear from the SSPX in reparation?....CRICKETS!
Henry, if there is more poison in the soup than ever, why does +Fellay now say it is okay to eat? He now says Religious Liberty is very limited, and the New Mass is legitimate. He says that SSPX must not act as bulldozers. When the guard dog, the very dog who is responsible to serve, protect and defend Christ the King stops barking, it is useless.
Why has +Fellay reduced the once barking SSPX into a whimpering puppy?
Looks like H4 doesn't want any dialogue. HGHHUHA and he likes it that way.
What you see is what you get, baby. Next comes point #3..............
.
-
Perhaps my question was not clear (sarcasm). Since Henry insists that the SSPX has not changed I will try to be more specific. Ten + years ago, the SSPX would make public reparation for the very public blasphemy, scandal, and sacrilege, committed by the Novus Ordo Church. It would expose these scandals in The Angelus and on their website. They would then educate the faithful why these actions and or Prelates were a danger to the faith.
Good Henry says that there is more poison than ever. Henry, so, what is being done to sound the alarm so the faithful do not eat? What is being done to expose those "chef's" who are poisoning the soup?
When I was pursuing a vocation I contacted both Fr. Bissig FSSP, and +Williamson SSPX. I said to +Williamson "But they are approved.... they say and teach nothing against Catholic faith and morals...". He replied "The danger is not in what they say. The danger lies in what they don't say. "
Sadly, the SSPX now commits the same sins of omission...and those entrusted to their care become more diluted, complacent, and indifferent.
Mary Help of Christians... Pray for us.
-
Again.... Henry, what is the SSPX doing publicly to make reparation for the very public sins and blasphemy's committed against Our Lord in the most Blessed Sacrament? What is the SSPX doing publicly to expose and condemn those Bishops (and Pope?), who publicly teach against Catholic faith and morals?
-
Where can we get copies of Sean's new book? I am hoping it will be of good use.
-
Again.... Henry, what is the SSPX doing publicly to make reparation for the very public sins and blasphemy's committed against Our Lord in the most Blessed Sacrament? What is the SSPX doing publicly to expose and condemn those Bishops (and Pope?), who publicly teach against Catholic faith and morals?
Ok. So to be fair, many, if not all SSPX Chapels hold a Mass and all-night adoration every month on the First Friday to specifically atone for the sins committed against Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament. And +Fellay has written 2 letters since the Synod directly to and addressing Burgolio.
I would ask:
What has Fr.Pfeiffer done publicly to atone for sins against the Blessed Sacrament?
What has Fr.Zendejas done publicly to atone for sins against the Blessed Sacrament?
What has Fr.Ringrose done publicly to atone for sins against the Blessed Sacrament?
What has BP.Fauer done publicly to atone for sins against the Blessed Sacrament?
What has BP.Williamson done publicly to atone for sins against the Blessed Sacrament?
Also, I have not seen any public letters that +Williamson, +Fauer, Frs. Pfeiffer, Zendejas, Voigt, Hewko, Chazal, Ringrose have sent to the Pope condemning his teaching against faith and morals (blogs dont count).
So while we are asking how the SSPX is PUBLICLY dealing with and calling the hierarchy to atonement, we need to also ask where our Resistance is personally calling them to atonement. Youtube videos don't amount to a hill of beans unless Burgolio, Kasper, and their lot spend time on the internet searching for Resistance sermons. And I don't think any of them are members of this board.
-
BJ5,
The point was that Henry insists that the SSPX has not changed. This is not true. Ten+ years ago it was common for the SSPX Priests to hold public acts of reperation, public demonstrations, and publications boldly condemning such abuses. They no longer make such demonstrations or condemnations.
That little blurb by +Fellay that you mention was weak...a whimper. Not the "bark" that the SSPX use to have.
-
BJ5,
The point was that Henry insists that the SSPX has not changed. This is not true. Ten+ years ago it was common for the SSPX Priests to hold public acts of reperation, public demonstrations, and publications boldly condemning such abuses. They no longer make such demonstrations or condemnations.
That little blurb by +Fellay that you mention was weak...a whimper. Not the "bark" that the SSPX use to have.
My point is that we hear nary even a whimper addressed publicly to the Pope by the Resistance. I certainly get Henry's point, but lest the Resistance priests do what the SSPX used to do, it is kind of disingenuous to throw stones. To bark at the Pope from the pulpit of the Resistance chapel may play well with the choir but it does nothing to support the R&R position nor bring about a correction.
The SSPX has a long history of personally annoying the Vatican, starting with +ABL who wrote to the Vatican privately and publicly, badgered the Popes from Paul VI to JPII, visited them, chastised the Popes in person to their face, and sent Paul VI nearly into an apoplectic fit.
A Resistance priest or Bishop castigating the Pope to a gathering of the Resistance faithful in a Best Western Hotel Room in Pookipsie accomplishes next to nothing.
-
BJ5, Sounds like fodder for a new thread..."How does the Resistance Compare to the Old SSPX".
The purpose of this thread was to point out that it IS a NEO-SSPX.