Author Topic: Rome-SSPX: Against the Rumors. Part 2 (Read 1914 times)

Maria Auxiliadora · « **on:** June 15, 2012, 12:32:59 PM »

http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2012/06/rome-sspx-against-rumors-part-2-of.html

Rome-SSPX: Against the Rumors. Part 2 of Angelus Press Interview with Fr. Arnaud Rostand
Ordinariate for Australia officially established
"Deposed" bishops
Time for prayer

+ Cor Iesu Sacratissimum, miserere nobis + + Tempus post Pentecosten + + Cor Iesu Sacratissimum, miserere nobis +
Rome-SSPX: Against the Rumors. Part 2 of Angelus Press Interview with Fr. Arnaud Rostand
Part 1 can be watched here.

From the SSPX US website:

Part 2 discusses Bishop Fellay’s interview with CNS, whether the SSPX has changed positions on a doctrinal agreement, what has changed in Rome, some objections to Bishop Fellay’s position, and more! 6-15-2012

Labels: After the talks (Holy See-SSPX), Decision 2012
Posted by Augustinus at 6/15/2012 04:32:00 PM

Maria Auxiliadora · « **Reply #1 on:** June 15, 2012, 12:44:32 PM »

Fr. Rostand:

"It would be an act of Justice to be more visibly reintegrated into the Church...It is not true to say that the union of the Church is only based on the Faith(?!)...The Church is not a democracy, the SSPX is not a democracy..."

That is painful enough! I could not listen anymore. They should just sign and go!

John Grace · « **Reply #2 on:** June 15, 2012, 12:49:03 PM »

Who believes Fr Rostand? What is he and the others going to call the new priestly society if they do indeed abandon the Society founded by the Archbishop?

Kelley · « **Reply #3 on:** June 15, 2012, 08:43:23 PM »

Quote from: John Grace

Who believes Fr Rostand? What is he and the others going to call the new priestly society if they do indeed abandon the Society founded by the Archbishop?

FSSP-Deux

John Grace · « **Reply #4 on:** June 15, 2012, 08:47:06 PM »

Quote from: Kelley

Quote from: John Grace
Who believes Fr Rostand? What is he and the others going to call the new priestly society if they do indeed abandon the Society founded by the Archbishop?

FSSP-Deux

It is they who will have left the pious union founded by Archbishop Lefebvre so will they be able to use the name SSPX?Bishop Fellay, Fr Rostand might as well join the FSSP if that is the case.Diocesan Bishops for confirmations will be the norm for this Neo SSPX.

catherineofsiena · « **Reply #5 on:** June 15, 2012, 08:47:48 PM »

Quote from: John Grace

Who believes Fr Rostand? What is he and the others going to call the new priestly society if they do indeed abandon the Society founded by the Archbishop?

So far we have -

Opus Fellay (from Tele I think)

FSSP Part 2 - The Revenge from Matthew

and

Society of Blessed John XXIII from magdalena

All fine choices IMO

JPaul · « **Reply #6 on:** June 16, 2012, 09:30:28 AM »

Alright now, I have sat through and listened to this installment of Rostican II.
I think that Fr. Rostand perhaps means well but, doesn't it seem that he is trying to convice himself of what he is saying?

Some brief comments,

1) Again, he makes the claim that the Faith is not the key element of unity in the Church. And, again i say, there cannot be unity of any kind without unity of Faith first. The other principles of union are secondary to this and one cannot relativize the unity of Faith to be the same as the others.
This is precisley the conciliar argument that we have unity primarily by clinging to the Pope and Rome proving the visibility of the Church and zoom! we have unity. The same error which declares that we can have a agreement aside from doctrinal soundness.

2)He sees signs which he offers as change. Oh yes! But compare those with the numerous signs which point to apostacy which have far outnumbered tha meager helping which he puts forth. Again, Pollyanna's vision.

3) He keeps stressing that we can be recognized without harm "if we stay as we are". We have seen the facts in evidence which say that they will not be staying as they are in such a proposed prelature. "WE" will be restriced, forbidden and controlled.

4) He answers the Faith question by repeating that "Rome now knows our position". Well, that is good however, Rome has always known our position, and Rome has always rejected that position and today in these revolving docuмent exchanges is seeking a change in our position, or no deal.
It is not our position which is important. The pressing question is what is Rome's position on doctrine? Can you tell us that it has changed? Obviously not.

5) Another serious misunderstanding, Recognition is a different matter than the doctrinal questions and the fight for the faith. The truth is that recognition is totally irrelavent and meaningless in regard to defending and restoring the Holy Catholic Faith in Roman minds and hearts, and thus in the whole Church.

There is more but , this should be enogh to waste upon propaganda 102 for today.

Kelley · « **Reply #7 on:** June 16, 2012, 09:30:24 PM »

Again, Stephen Heiner does an exceptional job debunking the now blatently calculating PR machine that is sspx.org.

In "Against the Rumors" (Orwell Edition) , Mr. Heiner precisely docuмents the recent chronology of Society doublespeak at its best.

Note:
To fully appreciate the following list, access the links provided from the sited source. (posted above)
Also, please be mindful the June 14th publication; updates are pending!

====================================================

1. March 22nd: Fr. Schmidberger mandates that a communique be read from the pulpit in all SSPX churches in Germany. It softly, gently, begins to prepare people for a "deal."

2. April 17th: Numerous sources, most well-informed, begin to reveal that there is a deal brewing.

3. April 20th: DICI issues a press-release condemning the "rumors". For those unfamiliar with PR tactics, a very quick lesson can be gleaned from the SSPX press machine: Deny everything, and label those discussing the issues unreliable "rumor-mongers." Most famously in the past, Bishop Fellay himself publicized a "rumor" in which he put forth that Benedict XVI celebrates the Traditional Mass privately. The Vatican put this down quickly and Bishop Fellay re-learned the trick of discrediting something by calling it a rumor. Of course, you'll never see a mea culpa for the misdirection in this press release, but how comically this reads almost two months later. Again, I repeat, this is from the SSPX's own official press machine (the whole piece deserves to be read, just for the sheer comic value, but the first three paragraphs will suffice to be quoted here):

For lack of reliable information about authenticated facts, the press is devising hypotheses about an imminent canonical recognition of the Society of Saint Pius X. Journalists are attempting to specify a time-frame and are striving to discern the reasons that Benedict XVI might have to grant a canonical status to the Society, despite the doctrinal differences recognized by both parties.
The German magazine Der Spiegel, in its online edition dated April 15, 2012, claims that the pope’s decision will be communicated after his birthday (April 16): “In the Vatican’s Secretariat of State—the source of several docuмents that were leaked in recent months in the so-called ‘Vatileaks’ scandal—has classified the SSPX letter as secret, and the issue is being handled with the utmost discretion. It is only to be made public following the pope’s birthday celebrations.”
Earlier that week, on April 13, the French daily newspaper Le Figaro reported on a response received by a Roman source: “Officially, the Vatican awaits the response of Bishop Bernard Fellay, the head of the Lefebvrists. As soon as it is received in Rome—‘It is a matter of days, and no longer of weeks,’ someone at the Vatican said—it will be examined ‘immediately’. If it conforms to expectations, the Holy See will very quickly announce a historic agreement….”
Notice that the entire tone frames the question as something external to the SSPX. Journalists are "devising hypotheses." There's nothing to see here, folks. All of this was dismissed. It was later revealed to all be true.

Indeed, Bishop Fellay was supposed to respond, and the time frame was correct. Even if it was off by a few days, this whole strenuous denial tactic from Menzingen was unbelievable. Those of us who knew better were not fooled. A lot of other naifs barked loudly that this was all speculation. Their barks are very, very quiet now.

4. April 20th: it is reported separately that Benedict XVI will "decide in May." In an astonishing volte-face from the Menzingen communique of a few days earlier, the German District posts a news story on its official website confirming this, even giving a date of May 20th! Against the rumors? Indeed! By confirming them!

5. May: the first pre-emptive strike against those who are "against a deal" is trotted out by one of the old guard, Fr. Michel Simoulin. Known well in Europe and by those who follow the Society closely, his "anti-88" rhetoric is irony worthy of Chaucer. Fr. Simoulin, who wrote so eloquently for the 1988 Episcopal Consecration and AGAINST a deal, is now telling everybody that was all mistaken and so much has changed. His is the first article of support blossoming forth as fruit from seeds planted at the Albano meeting. That article had been written and was waiting for the right time to be published (He would reprise this theme in June).

6. May 9th: Unsurprisingly, in the post-wikileaks world, an exchange of letters between the three other SSPX bishops and the General Council of the SSPX is revealed. Menzingen is quick to condemn the leak, citing "grave sin" but with no basis in moral theology to do so. It is not a sin to reveal a private letter, and the prose in which both of the letters is written is not just fit for bishops' correspondence, but also in the same frame/tone of correspondence of the Archbishop, a great deal of which has been made public. SSPX faithful are bewildered...is it a sin to reveal a letter concerning an exchange of ideas regarding such important things - to say nothing of the fact that the majority of the assets of the SSPX were derived at some point or another, from the contributions of the faithful?

In a tone worthy of Fox News' referring to the American President as the "Commander-in-Chief," the SSPX faithful are told that "this is not a democracy." There are a number of problems with this narrative. For one, the United States President is only the "commander-in-chief" of anyone in the US Military. That title doesn't mean anything in regards to a civilian. But it sure sounds scary! So too, laypeople were told, "this is not a democracy" (as if they are legally or morally under obedience to the Superior General: they are not) in response to the real and valid concerns of three SSPX bishops. Surely the faithful could be bullied into thinking that they were out of the loop and stupid (pay, pray, obey...people forget this movie came out in 1960), but were they now to swallow whole that three bishops were loony, and one bishop was right? That one bishop wasn't even on the Archbishop's original list to be consecrated! He had absolutely no doctrinal chops toe-to-toe with these men (all three had served as Seminary RECTORS, Bishop Fellay was never considered gifted enough to be even a short-term professor). SSPX faithful were told before that Bishop Williamson was a loon, and some bought it, but now, they had to believe that Bishop Tissier was a loon too? It was starting to be much too much for everyone.

Whatever may be the case, time has proven that this public intervention delayed a publication of an official deal by at least one month.

7. May 11th: More rumors confirmed! Fr. Alain Lorans, who has always been in charge of DICI, takes the lead on dealing with press releases. The "devising hypotheses" of the press are indeed true: a decision is expected at the end of May!

8. May 15th: Fr. Arnaud Rostand trots out his own "special letter," repeating some of the nostrums of the Menzingen response. His note, as in the Menzingen communique, fails to acknowledge that the SSPX constitutions do not really have well-planned statutes for the existence of bishops within its ranks, and also (most SSPX faithful don't know this) fails to mention that ordinarily speaking the General Council of the Society of St. Pius X consists of THE THREE OTHER BISHOPS and the Superior General and the two Assistants. Some time ago, of course, Bishop Williamson was not invited to those tea parties anymore, but only a complete ignoramus would believe that the bishops were kept out of major decisions and that things would be solely left to Bishop Fellay and two priests.

9. May 19th: My good friend Nicholas Wansbutter, who happens to be a lawyer, gets fed up with the "rumo(u)rs" trope and publishes a thorough docuмentation of facts. Nicholas, unlike myself, can give the perspective of an SSPX chapel attendee.

10. May 25th: Bishop Fellay gives an interview to CNS (Catholic News Service) in which he states what no self-respecting Traditional Catholic bishop has ever said in history: that the religious liberty of Dignitatis Humanae is "limited." This sticking point had inspired entire books by Michael Davies and the Archbishop and a pamphlet by Fr. Schmidberger. But all of that was to be tossed aside now for a one-minute soundbite. Surely this was madness. And surely people could see the path ahead...continuing to "intellectually" prepare people for a "deal."

11. May: Frs. Chazal and Pfeiffer (the latter reading a sermon written by his priest-brother, Fr. Timothy Pfeiffer), both from the normally well-controlled Asian District run by Fr. Daniel Couture, speak out publicly against a "deal." They are silenced. Fr. Chazal says it best when he says that the SSPX is now "having its own Vatican II."

12. May: Fr. Daniel Couture counters with a letter to the faithful in which he elliptically deals with the sermons of the above-named Fathers.

13. June 8th: Fr. Lorans reveals the ongoing cult of personality on DICI. The piece, in perfect Newspeak, is "The Virtual and the Real." Only what Bishop Fellay thinks and says is real. Everything else is virtual:

His answers, inspired by supernatural prudence, give an analysis of the situation rooted in reality.
How, Fr. Lorans, do we know he is inspired by "supernatural" prudence in this or any other matter? Shall we take your word for it? Surely he has the grace of state but there are no "supernatural guarantees" listed for that job. At least not in the Catechism of the Council of Trent.

14. June: Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais strikes back against a deal and against Bishop Fellay, both in a Trinity Sunday sermon and in an interview with a secular outlet (indeed, the interview confirms "rumors" denied by Menzingen and Fr. Rostand: that new priories can only be set up with the permission of a local diocesan bishop). Menzingen has not been so bold yet as to call him a "rumor-monger" and knows that at this juncture, he will not be silenced. What will he say tomorrow at ordinations in Winona? Be sure it will be reported almost immediately.

15. June: Bishop Williamson, in his Eleison Comments CCLVI, essentially calls for the faithful/clergy to depose Bishop Fellay, as the Archbishop called for people to depose Dom Gerard.

16. June: Bishop Fellay gives a sham interview to DICI, ostensibly to give a final resume of his case to the SSPX faithful before proceeding forward (as a side note, for those of us who have followed the SSPX for almost two decades now, this is all Bishop Fellay knows how to do: give briefings on "Rome." There are literally HUNDREDS of these conferences he has given over the years. It's always the same thing. But now the tone is different on the verge of a deal). Humorously, though, Bishop Fellay says:

No, I have had no information about any calendar whatsoever. There are even some who say that the pope will deal with this matter at Castel Gandolfo in July.
So let me get this straight, Your Excellency. You have no date, then you repeat a rumor. Seriously?

The very same week, James Vogel's Orwellian "Against the Rumors" interview with Fr. Rostand comes out. All of this is ongoing preparation for a deal. Those who howled when I said there would be a deal in April now are in two camps: "What's so bad about a deal?" (intellectually consistent with the Catholic notion of the Papacy: if a man is Pope, you obey, you don't negotiate) and "Ummmm" (deer in headlights, caught off guard because there was never any theological principles underlying their fight for Tradition, so now they are paralyzed).

17. Which brings us to today, June 14th, in which it is finally admitted (Menzingen has been outmaneuvered at every turn by leaks and by the Internet and has finally decided on full and complete disclosure instead of "condemning rumors.") that the framework of a deal, independent of the other three bishops is in his hand, and merely awaits Bishop Fellay's signature/objections. It is also admitted that for the first time ever, Bishop Fellay alone, not even among the SSPX's top ten theologians, is discussing theology with Cardinal Levada. The man who has never penned an article on any major doctrinal issue relating to the Council, "negotiating" with Rome on behalf of 500 priests and tens of thousands of faithful. Madness.

Domitilla · « **Reply #8 on:** June 16, 2012, 10:09:53 PM »

Kelley, thanks so much for Stephen Heiner's above timeline and analysis. Keep it coming!

As the old saying goes, Bishop Fellay has "sowed the wind and reaped the whirlwind".