Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: Charles on May 21, 2012, 02:03:35 PM
-
To those who do in fact attend SSPX Masses, but will stop if they make a deal with the Church :
- where will you attend Mass ?
- do you have a back-up plan ?
- has your priest already said he will leave the Society and things will remain the same at your chapel ?
-
To those who do in fact attend SSPX Masses, but will stop if they make a deal with the Church :
- where will you attend Mass ?
Not sure -- considering all options at this point
- do you have a back-up plan ?
No, we don't have a lot of good alternatives in our area
- has your priest already said he will leave the Society and things will remain the same at your chapel ?
No. In fact, our resident priests seem to be supporting the deal.
-
To those who do in fact attend SSPX Masses, but will stop if they make a deal with the Church :
- where will you attend Mass ?
- do you have a back-up plan ?
- has your priest already said he will leave the Society and things will remain the same at your chapel ?
Depends on what "the deal" entails and how it goes.
We have two independent chapels available.
Our priests don't even know who Krah is.
-
To those who do in fact attend SSPX Masses, but will stop if they make a deal with the Church :
- where will you attend Mass ?
- do you have a back-up plan ?
- has your priest already said he will leave the Society and things will remain the same at your chapel ?
Good question Charles!
The general plan is to identify and support validly ordained TLM priests.
The independent priest are our last line of defense against consiliar madness.
Bp. Williamson has always stated that the SSPX has no monopoly on Catholic tradition. He has praised independent priests as being courageous, without enjoying the comforts of formation that +ABL built-up in the SSPX.
Today, the SSPX's top leadership has been seduced to join the madness.
As in a chess game, they've been planning ahead to corral the majority of independent priests.
Bp. Fellay has been running an independent priest "outreach program" for the past three years. The theme is to send out SSPX priest to become "buddy-buddy" with the independents and bring them into the SSPX fold. We've seen this with independent TLM priests in California
We discovered the "why" of the "outreach program" from Bp. Fellay's Feb 2012 Winona talk. Here, he essentially stated that independent priests who do not associate themselves with the neoSSPX, will be branded schismatic and vagus.
So, God willing, we should support the independents and not allow this to
happen on our watch.
-
We discovered the "why" of the "outreach program" from Bp. Fellay's Feb 2012 Winona talk. Here, he essentially stated that independent priests who do not associate themselves with the neoSSPX, will be branded schismatic and vagus.
What abject hypocrisy.
-
The independent priest are our last line of defense against consiliar madness.
The independent priests are not the ONLY line of defense against conciliar madness.
All of the traditional groups have priests that are validly ordained. BTW, ALL of the independent priests and the trad group priests hold a sedevacantist position.
-
We discovered the "why" of the "outreach program" from Bp. Fellay's Feb 2012 Winona talk. Here, he essentially stated that independent priests who do not associate themselves with the neoSSPX, will be branded schismatic and vagus.
What abject hypocrisy.
and/or... Novus ordo cunning.
-
The independent priest are our last line of defense against consiliar madness.
The independent priests are not the ONLY line of defense against conciliar madness.
All of the traditional groups have priests that are validly ordained. BTW, ALL of the independent priests and the trad group priests hold a sedevacantist position.
Hmm... true to some extent.
What happens to the priests after their order is syncretized?
How long can they operate without participating in what Bishop Tissier describes as the "bastardized sacraments" ?
-
The independent priest are our last line of defense against consiliar madness.
The independent priests are not the ONLY line of defense against conciliar madness.
All of the traditional groups have priests that are validly ordained. BTW, ALL of the independent priests and the trad group priests hold a sedevacantist position.
First of all, both points given above are objectively false.
Secondly, We could only wish for the second point to be true, but, sadly, it is not.
-
What possible justification does the SSPX have for being independent all these years that an independent priest does not have?
Do those priests lose the right to resist Vatican II because Opus Fellay now accepts it?
Or did the SSPX never have the right to resist Vatican II?
-
The independent priest are our last line of defense against consiliar madness.
The independent priests are not the ONLY line of defense against conciliar madness.
All of the traditional groups have priests that are validly ordained. BTW, ALL of the independent priests and the trad group priests hold a sedevacantist position.
This is an absolute lie.
-
The independent priest are our last line of defense against consiliar madness.
The independent priests are not the ONLY line of defense against conciliar madness.
All of the traditional groups have priests that are validly ordained. BTW, ALL of the independent priests and the trad group priests hold a sedevacantist position.
This is an absolute lie.
:confused1:
-
referring to this statement "BTW, ALL of the independent priests and the trad group priests hold a sedevacantist position."
which is a lie.
-
referring to this statement "BTW, ALL of the independent priests and the trad group priests hold a sedevacantist position."
which is a lie.
Ah!
Agreed.
-
The SSPX priests I know are going to fight this whole sellout off. This is going to be messy! I'm sure strategies are in the making. This really SUCKs!!! Congratulations Bp. Fellay for wreaking havoc & pandemonium in the once stable SSPX! Are you happy now? Are you proud of yourself? :fryingpan:
-
All of the traditional groups have priests that are validly ordained. BTW, ALL of the independent priests and the trad group priests hold a sedevacantist position.
Are the sedevacantists even Catholic? I always thought they were more Protestant or Old Catholic. I think it would definitely be a mortal sin to go to one of their Masses (even if it's valid, since you would be publically joining schism). Just as it would be a mortal sin to go to a novus ordo or a Mass said by an Orthodox (as in Greek, Russian etc.) priest.
Independent priests are generally alright, I have know some very good ones. But I am really uncomfortable with the idea of switching around between chapels/priests simply because of likes or dislikes.
I will continue to support SSPX, whatever happens.
-
Are the sedevacantists even Catholic? I always thought they were more Protestant or Old Catholic.
"but I do not say either that one cannot say that the pope is not the pope."
What part of that don't you understand?
It's ridiculous that the indoctrinated do not scruple to use the very same arguments that Novus Ordites use against them against sedes.
-
Are the sedevacantists even Catholic? I always thought they were more Protestant or Old Catholic.
"but I do not say either that one cannot say that the pope is not the pope."
What part of that don't you understand?
It's ridiculous that the indoctrinated do not scruple to use the very same arguments that Novus Ordites use against them against sedes.
Apparently the same part you dont understand.
For an explaanation of what ABL meant by those words, please see other thread.
Oh wait, I forgot: That would threaten your position, so you will have to just keep repeating these same words to yourself like a Buddhist mantra to drown out the temptation to consider my point.
-
Oh wait, I forgot: That would threaten your position, so you will have to just keep repeating these same words to yourself like a Buddhist mantra to drown out the temptation to consider my point.
No Seraphim, it's you that responds to basic logic wiith stonewalling.
If a position is schismatic, a person cannot hold it and not be objectively schismatic. One cannot openly affirm a schismatic position without being schismatic. One cannot say the pope is no the pope.
Yet the Archbishop said that he didn't say that. If he regarded the position as schismatic, he would have to say it.
The implication is very clear.
Do you understand the contrapositive in logic?
Or did listening to too much indoctrination cause a short circuit?
Moreover he often said the position was possible, that it might be necessary to take the position.
-
"but I do not say either that one cannot say that the pope is not the pope."
What part of that don't you understand?
It's ridiculous that the indoctrinated do not scruple to use the very same arguments that Novus Ordites use against them against sedes.
ABL expelled public sedevacantists. Bishop Williamson expelled the nine.
I will take them over you any day of year, including leap days, thank you very much.
What about that conference Seraphim is talking about, where sedevacantists are very clearly called schismatic?
Afraid it might burst your bubble?
-
The independent priest are our last line of defense against consiliar madness.
The independent priests are not the ONLY line of defense against conciliar madness.
All of the traditional groups have priests that are validly ordained. BTW, ALL of the independent priests and the trad group priests hold a sedevacantist position.
No, Emerentiana.
The priest where I go is no sedevacantist, and he's an independent priest.
-
What about that conference Seraphim is talking about, where sedevacantists are very clearly called schismatic?
Calling a group of sedevacantists schismatic does not make the position schismatic. If the position were schismatic, he would say it is not permissible to say it. He would not say what he said.
Did Archbishop Lefebvre say Protestantism, Old Catholicism could be true? Yet you compare sedevacantism, something he did say could be true, to those positions, because you are in a cult bubble.
Afraid it might burst your bubble?
If the Archbishop believed certain sedes were schismatic, or even if he were inconsistent, it wouldn't change the fact he tolerated sedevacantism as something that could be true. That he didn't say one couldn't say it.
If a position is schismatic, one must not say it's possibly true. That is simple logic. Try using it.
-
ABL expelled public sedevacantists.
Proof?
-
9?
-
Are the sedevacantists even Catholic? I always thought they were more Protestant or Old Catholic.
"but I do not say either that one cannot say that the pope is not the pope."
What part of that don't you understand?
It's ridiculous that the indoctrinated do not scruple to use the very same arguments that Novus Ordites use against them against sedes.
You remind me of a Feenyite, pointing to John 3:5, and saying, "What part of that don't you understand?!?"
You need to look in the mirror.
-
Are the sedevacantists even Catholic? I always thought they were more Protestant or Old Catholic.
"but I do not say either that one cannot say that the pope is not the pope."
What part of that don't you understand?
It's ridiculous that the indoctrinated do not scruple to use the very same arguments that Novus Ordites use against them against sedes.
You remind me of a Feenyite, pointing to John 3:5, and saying, "What part of that don't you understand?!?"
You need to look in the mirror.
The comparison is a very good one. There are some people here where using logic in discussion with them somehow makes you illogical. Tele is one of these people, as are the Feeneyites. Sadly, the comparison will be lost on him for sure.
-
ABL expelled public sedevacantists.
Proof?
SSPV, among others.
-
You remind me of a Feenyite, pointing to John 3:5, and saying, "What part of that don't you understand?!?"
Completely different topics Seraphim. False analogy is another favorite of those indoctrinated by the SSPX.
You have simply evaded the issue over and over again: why did Archbishop Lefebvre say "I do not say either one cannot say the Pope is not the Pope" if the position is schismatic? If the position is schismatic he would have said: you cannot say the pope is not the Pope, that is schism.
He would not have said that the sedvacantist position is possible, he would not have said someday they might have to accept the sedevacantist position. He would not have accepted sedevacantist seminarians. He would have simply said: such a position is schismatic and unacceptable.
But ultimately, it's patently ridiculous to say the Pope has lost the Faith, to say Rome is in apostasy, to say they have quit the Church and to simultaneously say that no one can be a sede without being schismatic. It's patently absurd, and of course, it was not his position.
You need to look in the mirror.
You need to get out of the SSPX funhouse. It distorts everything because it tries to hold mutually contradictory positions.
-
The comparison is a very good one. There are some people here where using logic in discussion with them somehow makes you illogical.
lol, and your premises and deductions for that conclusion?
Tele is one of these people, as are the Feeneyites. Sadly, the comparison will be lost on him for sure.
If I say that sedes aren't schismatic, I'm a Feeneyite. Keep drinking the Kool-Aid. Perhaps your ethnicity favors that drink?
-
In the Opus Fellay funhouse you can accept Vatican II as tradition, accept 95% of Vatican II, etc, then say you're following the legacy of Archbishop Lefebvre.
If you commit yourself to making apologies for modernists saying they can't be pinned down you eventually deny the possibility of objective judgments, becoming in some respects a kind modernist yourself.
-
"but I do not say either that one cannot say that the pope is not the pope."
What part of that don't you understand?
It's ridiculous that the indoctrinated do not scruple to use the very same arguments that Novus Ordites use against them against sedes.
ABL expelled public sedevacantists. Bishop Williamson expelled the nine.
I will take them over you any day of year, including leap days, thank you very much.
I don't know what it is that has compelled people to believe they have an air of authority that is worth anything. Its not a recent phenomenon, but one that has certainly been more abundant in recent months. Its as much sickening as it is sad to see people whose very spiritual lives are are a contradiction write articles as if they somehow have a better sense of Theology then the bishops you mention above. When I say they are a contradiction, I use, for an example a sede (Tele) above who is a supposed sede, yet attends an indult mass. You'll almost always find that these are men are devoid of the sacraments. They come up with words that they try to make catchy, and repeat them endlessly (FemiTrad, OpusFellay, etc), and have a certain disdain for priests, or really any authority, in general. It gives them a sense of worth to see their invented words used by others.
They will never refer you to your father confessor, and take it upon themselves to be the giver of moral and spiritual advice. When you question or call them out, come to the most willfully-ignorant and illogical conclusions they can to try to make it seem as if you meant something you didn't, and also repeat that as often as possible. Its the type of person I avoid when making friends or establish relationships. They are not to be trusted, even if they do refer to truthful statements now and again. Even heretics do that...
-
I don't know what it is that has compelled people to believe they have an air of authority that is worth anything. Its not a recent phenomenon, but one that has certainly been more abundant in recent months. Its as much sickening as it is sad to see people whose very spiritual lives are are a contradiction write articles as if they somehow have a better sense of Theology then the bishops you mention above. When I say they are a contradiction, I use, for an example a sede (Tele) above who is a supposed sede, yet attends an indult mass. You'll almost always find that these are men are devoid of the sacraments. They come up with words that they try to make catchy, and repeat them endlessly (FemiTrad, OpusFellay, etc), and have a certain disdain for priests, or really any authority, in general. It gives them a sense of worth to see their invented words used by others.
A digression into worthless ad hominem. Do you think it is wrong to attend an indult mass if one is forbidden to attend SSPX? Does that have anything to do with my position? Or does it have to do with your defective reasoning, that you try to attack someone who is trying to fulfill his Sunday obligation, but has been smeared by people who have a cult mentality?
They will never refer you to your father confessor, and take it upon themselves to be the giver of moral and spiritual advice.
By all means, go to your father confessor. Now, have him explain how it is possible to say Rome has lost the Faith, Rome is in apostasy, that they've left the Church, to say that it may be necessary to accept the sedevacantist position, to say that you refuse to say one must not say the pope is not the pope, etc, explain how you can say all those things, and then insist that anyone who publicly accepts sedevacantism is a schismatic? You can't, but being in the Opus Fellay funhouse means never having to use logic, or to make sincere apologies or to be honest. It means when push comes to shove you play dirty.
When you question or call them out, come to the most willfully-ignorant and illogical conclusions they can to try to make it seem as if you meant something you didn't,
Uh, I think this is projection.
and also repeat that as often as possible. Its the type of person I avoid when making friends or establish relationships. They are not to be trusted, even if they do refer to truthful statements now and again. Even heretics do that...
Attempts at ostracism in lieu of making any sort of convincing remark. Typical in the Opus Fellay funhouse, but it doesn't work here on cathinfo.
You truly are obsessed.
-
The Opus Fellay funhouse is full of smoke (of Satan?) and mirrors.
One moment you say you can't accept Vatican II, the next you don't.
One moment you say no practical agreement without conversion, the next you renege on that.
One moment the Angelus is stating Cardinal Ratzinger is a prefect without Faith, the next they are calling the Pharisee Hillel and instrument of heaven.
-
All of the traditional groups have priests that are validly ordained. BTW, ALL of the independent priests and the trad group priests hold a sedevacantist position.
Are the sedevacantists even Catholic? I always thought they were more Protestant or Old Catholic. I think it would definitely be a mortal sin to go to one of their Masses (even if it's valid, since you would be publically joining schism). Just as it would be a mortal sin to go to a novus ordo or a Mass said by an Orthodox (as in Greek, Russian etc.) priest.
Independent priests are generally alright, I have know some very good ones. But I am really uncomfortable with the idea of switching around between chapels/priests simply because of likes or dislikes.
I will continue to support SSPX, whatever happens.
Whatever happens?
How does one continue to support SSPX after there is no more SSPX? For one possibility is that the SSPX would be required to change its name, in order to be "accepted" by the Roman authorities.
Of course, you could stop supporting them in the future, and when asked about your promise to continue supporting them, "whatever happens" (above) you could just say you changed your mind.
Readers of this forum and faithful Catholics worldwide are looking for something to hang on to, these days.
I don't see how making promises you don't intend to keep could be helpful.
Curiously, I have found that the only Catholics interested in what's going on in the negotiations with Rome are generally among those who attend SSPX chapels. TLM Catholics who do not attend SSPX chapels are largely uninterested, that is about 95% of them don't care about the negotiations. Even the SSPX chapel attendees seem unwilling to discuss it, but perhaps that's because their priest has been telling them not to talk about it, so they don't -- out of obedience.
The Opus Fellay funhouse is full of smoke (of Satan?) and mirrors.
One moment you say you can't accept Vatican II, the next you don't.
One moment you say no practical agreement without conversion, the next you renege on that.
One moment the Angelus is stating Cardinal Ratzinger is a prefect without Faith, the next they are calling the Pharisee Hillel and instrument of heaven.
And then there are CathInfo posters who promise they won't post on the forum anymore because it's "bad for their soul," and then start posting again because they "changed their mind."
Maybe the flip-flop Neo-SSPX example is gaining popularity?
If so, that ought to help them accept the hermeneutic of continuity and the denial of the principle of non-contradiction that has sprung from the unclean spirit of Vatican II.
-
Opus Fellay
Why are you repeatedly using this phrase like it's clever or something? Have you forgotten how to spell Bishop or His Excellecy or a +?
-
Are the sedevacantists even Catholic? I always thought they were more Protestant or Old Catholic. I think it would definitely be a mortal sin to go to one of their Masses
This is just plain nonsense.
-
I don't know what it is that has compelled people to believe they have an air of authority that is worth anything. It's not a recent phenomenon, but one that has certainly been more abundant in recent months. It's as much sickening as it is sad to see people, whose very spiritual lives are a contradiction, write articles as if they somehow have a better sense of Theology than the bishops you mention above. When I say they are a contradiction, I use, for an example a sede (Tele) above who is a supposed sede, yet attends an indult mass. You'll almost always find that these are men [who] are devoid of the sacraments. They come up with words that they try to make catchy, and repeat them endlessly (FemiTrad, OpusFellay, etc), and have a certain disdain for priests, or really any authority, in general. It gives them a sense of worth to see their invented words used by others.
Pierre Teilhard de Chardin did that. He introduced new words, and used other, Catholic words in new ways, so as to change their meaning, and took lots of pleasure in hearing others imitate him.
They will never refer you to your father confessor, and take it upon themselves to be the giver of moral and spiritual advice. When you question or call them out, come to the most willfully-ignorant and illogical conclusions they can to try to make it seem as if you meant something you didn't, and also repeat that as often as possible. Its the type of person I avoid when making friends or establish relationships. They are not to be trusted, even if they do refer to truthful statements now and again. Even heretics do that...
This is what the Protestants have been doing for nearly 500 years: presuming authority for themselves that used to be the domain of ordained priests and bishops. Their confidence in their own, individual infallibility is above that for anyone else, even their "pastor." If they don't agree with their pastor over something, they simply leave and look for another "pastor" they can agree with, and if they can't find one, they start their own "denomination," all the while, continuing to call themselves a "Christian."
Remember it goes back to Martin Luther, who announced his new doctrine of salvation by faith alone, and told anyone who asked him that he didn't care if a thousand popes disagreed with him. He even said he cared not if all the holy angels stood in opposition to his teaching, or if Saint Paul himself denounced his doctrine, he would teach it anyway. He started a new religion, and he was proud of it.
Now the Lutherans are treated with more respect in Rome than +Fellay or the SSPX are treated. Anglicans are accepted "as they are" without any need to abjure their error or make a profession of faith, to be "Catholic."
Only Apostolic Tradition is to be reprimanded. Only adherence to the Faith of our Fathers is prohibited in today's Rome. Think about it: what else fits with prophesy, that the great apostasy would come first, and then the Antichrist? I suppose this could be a dress rehearsal we see going on, but before the Antichrist can come, the great apostasy must first come, which would at worst, be Rome prohibiting the practice of the Faith.
-
Are the sedevacantists even Catholic? I always thought they were more Protestant or Old Catholic. I think it would definitely be a mortal sin to go to one of their Masses
This is just plain nonsense.
Remember that Bishop Todd Brown announced it would be a mortal sin for Catholics to kneel (instead of stand) when they return to the pew after receiving Communion.
Also, a Novus Ordo priest told my daughter in confession that going to a Canonized Traditional Latin Mass was a mortal sin.
So brainglitch is living up to his name, is all. He learns well how to short-circuit his thinking from listening to "just plain nonsense" from such clerics as these.
-
Ok I didn't realize s2srea had already addressed the Opus Fellay thing until Neil quoted it. I had clicked to the end of the thread, saw yet another use of the term and had to say something. But thanks to whoever else has already addressed it. We are tracking. Not even the other 3 bishops would encourage this type of disrespect.
-
Ok I didn't realize s2srea had already addressed the Opus Fellay thing until Neil quoted it. I had clicked to the end of the thread, saw yet another use of the term and had to say something. But thanks to whoever else has already addressed it. We are tracking. Not even the other 3 bishops would encourage this type of disrespect.
It is not a reference to Bishop Fellay but to a rump SSPX he is establishing. A cult-like prelature like Opus Dei, but focused on the personality of Bishop Fellay.
Hence: Opus Fellay.
I think it fits.
-
...Opus Fellay...
Priceless!
Opus Judei II
-
Opus Fellay
Why are you repeatedly using this phrase like it's clever or something? Have you forgotten how to spell Bishop or His Excellecy or a +?
He uses it because "Opus Fellay" rhymes with Opus judei...
(a.k.a, Opus Die).
You know, the only other Vatican II conceived prelature.
:rolleyes:
-
Catholic bishops have an inherent dignity due to their office, however, when they behave in a way that is inimical to right reason or truth, they are held to a higher standard. Catholic laymen should respect their office, but in some cases that very respect justifies public ridicule of evil vices perpetrated by a bishop.
It isn't the person of the bishop that can be attacked with such ridicule, but rather the evil of his actions.
If +Fellay doesn't like having his project called "Opus Fellay" or "Opus Fellay-ie" or whatever, perhaps he might consider being a little more open with his "negotiations" so the faithful who have trusted him don't have to worry that they trusted him in vain.
Satire can be very effective. When someone is in the wrong, holding up the wrong for public criticism isn't "disrespectful," it's only fair. For a dishonorable deed is not due any respect. If +Fellay has not committed anything dishonorable, he can simply defend himself. But he won't, because he thinks he's above all that. I believe I'm justified in saying he thinks he's above all that because everyone I know who has written letters to him asking for explanations, even PRIESTS who have had legitimate concerns over what +Fellay has said in sermons, have never received even so much as an acknowledgement of the question asked.
This is entirely different with +Williamson, who ALWAYS answers every letter. Big difference!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
After all, if he were honest and let us know that the SSPX chapels are going to be turned over to Rome wholesale, perhaps knowing in advance would give us time to go in there and start salvaging statues, tabernacles, pews, communion rails, high altars, confessionals, stained glass windows, brass fixtures, crucifixes, vigil light assemblies, Stations of the Cross, and that kind of thing. That would explain all the secrecy, so we don't have any advance notice. We can just show up one day and find the doors locked and a security guard posted to deter unauthorized entry.
-
Are the sedevacantists even Catholic? I always thought they were more Protestant or Old Catholic. I think it would definitely be a mortal sin to go to one of their Masses
This is just plain nonsense.
No, it is the truth. Not only is the position of sedevacantism schismatic (i.e. leaving the Church by refusing submission to the Pope) but it also denies both the visibility and the indefectibility of the Church, by affirming that it is possible for the Church to be without a pope and without any bishops with ordinary jurisdiction for 50 years (never happened before in the history of the Church!), and by implying that the Church can promulgate invalid sacraments, both of which is heresy.
Archbishop Lefebvre did indeed expell all public sadevacantists, because by their public affirmation of this position they had proven to be obstinate and a danger to the faithful. As for the private sedevacantists, the Archbishop understood how confusing the times were, so instead of throwing them out in the street, he recognized their good will and made an act of charity by converting them to the Truth, a few examples being Fr. Schmidberger and Fr. Morgan, both former sedevacantists, both converted by the Venerable Archbishop.
-
Catholic bishops have an inherent dignity due to their office, however, when they behave in a way that is inimical to right reason or truth, they are held to a higher standard. Catholic laymen should respect their office, but in some cases that very respect justifies public ridicule of evil vices perpetrated by a bishop.
The "public ridicule" of God's holy annointed is never justified.
If +Fellay doesn't like having his project called "Opus Fellay" or "Opus Fellay-ie" or whatever, perhaps he might consider being a little more open with his "negotiations" so the faithful who have trusted him don't have to worry that they trusted him in vain.
A bishop does not owe anything to a layman. If he chooses to keep a part of the contents of the discussion secret, that is his prerogative. You are too immersed in modern mentality. The Catholic Church is not a democracy, nor is any superior bound to reveal private discussions.
Satire can be very effective.
Yes, so can calumny. BTW, I suggest you check the etymology of the word you used.
When someone is in the wrong, holding up the wrong for public criticism isn't "disrespectful," it's only fair. For a dishonorable deed is not due any respect. If +Fellay has not committed anything dishonorable, he can simply defend himself. But he won't, because he thinks he's above all that. I believe I'm justified in saying he thinks he's above all that because everyone I know who has written letters to him asking for explanations, even PRIESTS who have had legitimate concerns over what +Fellay has said in sermons, have never received even so much as an acknowledgement of the question asked.
This is entirely different with +Williamson, who ALWAYS answers every letter. Big difference!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Not true. To prove the point, I know from personal experience that he does not answer every letter. I sent him several letters in a course of about a year. He personally answered only one, and another indirectly. I know he is busy, so he obviously cannot answer every letter. If he is too busy, don't you think Bishop Fellay is a bit busier, since he has to run an entire Society, than to answer every single letter - there are others for that.
After all, if he were honest and let us know that the SSPX chapels are going to be turned over to Rome wholesale, perhaps knowing in advance would give us time to go in there and start salvaging statues, tabernacles, pews, communion rails, high altars, confessionals, stained glass windows, brass fixtures, crucifixes, vigil light assemblies, Stations of the Cross, and that kind of thing. That would explain all the secrecy, so we don't have any advance notice. We can just show up one day and find the doors locked and a security guard posted to deter unauthorized entry.
Forgive me, but this whole post really does sound American, with the mistaken notions of "right to information" (no such thing!), "right to bash authority", "right to demand authority to explain itself to the 'People'", and now "right to 'salvage'", i.e. steal things from the churches, including consecrated objects. To suggest such things is appalling, and it is certainly not Catholic. It has the fingerprints of the impious Revolution all over it.
-
Archbishop Lefebvre very clearly said sede vacante could happen, that he wouldn't say you can't make the assertion of sede vacante.
As for all the other arguments, about visibility, the gates of Hell, etc, accepting this hierarchy is nearly impossible for anyone who wishes to claim heresy has not prevailed in the Church.
-
Are you the same "Ecclesia Militans" that was banned from Ignis for your constant arguing against sedevacantism? I thought you already had an account on here?
-
Archbishop Lefebvre very clearly said sede vacante could happen, that he wouldn't say you can't make the assertion of sede vacante.
As for all the other arguments, about visibility, the gates of Hell, etc, accepting this hierarchy is nearly impossible for anyone who wishes to claim heresy has not prevailed in the Church.
The Archbishop called the sedevacantist arguments "insane" and "schismatic" on several occasions (e.g. see the quote in Bishop Fellay's letter), for the same reasons I mentioned above.
As for your second sentence, you obviously forget that the whole SSPX accepts this hierarchy. This is and has always been the official position of the Society - that they are popes.
-
Tele, I think it's common knowledge among the worlds trads that the Archbishop mentioned it.
Heaven knows you've mentioned it enough times :laugh1:
-
Tele, I think it's common knowledge among the worlds trads that the Archbishop mentioned it.
Heaven knows you've mentioned it enough times :laugh1:
If would mention it in every single post, just to watch the dogmatic anti-sedes do their society stonewall routine.
-
Patricia Mc Keever is rather naive.
http://www.catholictruthscotland.com/blog/2012/05/sspxrome-accord-is-a-split-inevitable/#comments
Sceptic,
No, Bishop Fellay is not infallible. Neither is Bishop Williamson. But Bishop Fellay is the Superior General. Bishop Wiliamson is not. The issue about the grace of office in this context is quite simply that our presumption should be that the Superior General will not agree to anything that is harmful to the Church, whereas there is, abroad, an uncharitable suspicion of the Bishop whom Archbishop Lefebvfre described as the “principle of unity” for the Society. They choose to ignore the fact of his good will and the authority and grace of his office. You cannot sustain the argument that because others have shown signs of not living up to the grace of THEIR office, that somehow that means that we can dismiss the authority of Bishop Fellay on a “just in case” basis. There are bad apples in the police force but we still have to pull over if we’re instructed to do so by a patrol officer on the road. And no, I’m not speaking from experience!
The fear that somehow any resolution will mean that the Society is silenced is unfounded. There are plenty of examples from bishops and priests “within the walls” who have spoken out against errors – such as Archbishop Schneider on the error of Communion in the hand, Bishop Olmstead in Texas has not remained silent on the importance of kneeling for Communion, Cardinal Egan & others on dissenting priests and Cardinal Ranjith on a whole host of errors. I’ve even had a letter from a top Vatican cardinal who openly lamented the way the pope is disobeyed and he actually mentioned in passing that the media and many bishops had shamefully used the Bishop Williamson/h0Ɩ0cαųst affair to attack the Pope, even though the bishop was expressing a merely personal view on an event in history, nothing to do with the Faith. In my letter to him I hadn’t mentioned Bishop Williamson. I had asked him to use his influence with the Pope to help us get at least one good bishop in Scotand to which he replied that he did, every time he spoke with the Pope, encourage him to deal with the liberals and – moreover – that he agreed with me that there had been some very bad appointments in Scotland. So, the Society regularisation would be of great help to good bishops in the Church who may feel isolated and they, in turn, would have friends in high places to support them.
I cannot understand the fear – not to mention the hatred emanating from the sedevacantist website comments posted by Athanasius above. Bishop Fellay has taken the supernatural road, invoking Divine Providence, so I suggest we trust him and wait for the details of this papal offer.
Unless someone suggests it’s worth leaving this thread open a bit longer, I will close it down this afternoon.
-
Great post here from Dawn Marie on another forum.
http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=9541
I wonder how much backpedaling people like Fathers Celier, Pfluger, Schmidberger or Bishop Fellay etc will be doing when this Pope passes from this life into eternity and a new Pope is elected.
If the next Pope should prove to be an outright modernist who has no favor at all for Tradition and or who attacks the SSPX with full force will these men quickly change the nonsense they are promoting right now?
The ridiculous article above clearly indicates that ABL does not fit into the new direction +Fellay is trying to force the SSPX to go. Once again he tries to force the hand to fit the glove.
That is the thing. They won't back-pedal.SSPX faithful have been had.
-
Great post here from Dawn Marie on another forum.
http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=9541
I wonder how much backpedaling people like Fathers Celier, Pfluger, Schmidberger or Bishop Fellay etc will be doing when this Pope passes from this life into eternity and a new Pope is elected.
If the next Pope should prove to be an outright modernist who has no favor at all for Tradition and or who attacks the SSPX with full force will these men quickly change the nonsense they are promoting right now?
The ridiculous article above clearly indicates that ABL does not fit into the new direction +Fellay is trying to force the SSPX to go. Once again he tries to force the hand to fit the glove.
That is the thing. They won't back-pedal.SSPX faithful have been had.
See where the blind obedience got ye.Taken for a ride by Krah.
I stand corrected but did Diego state some priests don't know who Krah is? This is amazing if true. It's amazing people still gave the Society money so blindly.It beggars belief.
-
will these men quickly change the nonsense they are promoting right now?
I don't believe they will. They are at the point of no return. They have to save face but God alone will decide. They might be given the grace to see their error in what they are doing. They are walking into a trap.
It's as clear as could be as to what Bishop Fellay and others are doing yet people are so blind.
-
What disturbs me even more is ordained priests tried to disregard facts as rumours. You don't expect this from a priest. Are they so afraid of the truth that they dismiss facts as rumours?
Let's ask Clare. She stated Teleophorus was 'delusional' What does Clare think of ordained priests dismissing facts as rumours?
These people now critical of Bishop Fellay,Fr Pfluger? What else did these people expect from them? Why are they shocked now?Denial is a word worth mentioning.
-
I edited my post to maintain a spirit of charity
Of course, I don't believe a person should believe the first thing they read on the internet or in a docuмent presented to them but it is quite easy to substantiate material, and highlight the facts. To continue then to dismiss facts as "internet rumour" is disingenuous.
I accept the point made to me by a cleric. Yes, we must be careful what we read on the internet but when point (a) and point (b) can be proven, it is not rumour but fact.
Concerned faithful presented facts regarding the Menzingen lawyer. I don't believe it is credible for a Society priest not to know who Maximilian Krah is.
Granted I encountered some SSPX clerics who claimed not to be aware that there was a court case regarding sermons of the Archbishop. Is their feign of ignorance, plausible?
-
http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=6744&st=50
HOLLY: This Fr. Celier essay is truly amazing. Does the SSPX really think that most of us will have any patience with Fr. C trying to explain what ABL really meant by some of his more historic and inflammatory remarks? Is any intelligent traditional Catholic going to take Fr. C seriously as he attempts to put "They have left the Faith" into a proper context? Can we interpret "They are anti-Christs" in the light of nouveau SSPX hermeneutics? This is getting just plain laughable!
CANTATE: Prepare to cry your eyes out when you see how many fall into this pit.
It's laughable in ways how SSPX laity are getting worked up now yet there was clear warning signs.
As 'Oblationem' stated
One truth is that you/we have been limited to the spectrum of acceptable opinion. It’s our own fault by not protesting (at the time) what Bp. Fellay has said about Vatican II, and his Ideological persecution inside SSPX. We always thought he was working for our benefit, but the SSPX has metamorphosed into a vehicle of the New Order - just like the VII frog in the pot of water. If he can’t be voted out at the next Chapter, the SSPX is done for. Good priests, yes – but faulty leadership.
Some did protest but as stated "it's our own fault". Those who are pro-agreement have to acknowledge the consequences of the deal.They can't lament in five years time the consequences of a deal.
-
Hence: Opus Fellay.
I think it fits.
:laugh1:
Yes, that is clever.