Author Topic: SSPX Communique after meeting of all Superiors (Read 22466 times)

Mark 79 · « **Reply #30 on:** June 29, 2016, 01:47:12 PM »

Quote from: mw2016

Quote from: Matthew
1. If he had been on truth serum, he would have added, "In the meantime, we'll keep teaching Canon Law in English (instead of Latin) and constantly cross-referencing the New 1983 Code. And we certainly won't do anything "extreme" and continue to do our best to maintain a good brand image with the public. And I still thank God we expelled +Williamson, since he is controversial and being associated with him would prevent a future deal with Rome."

Yes.

The priests in Phoenix are totally neutered - never a single word against any of Bergoglio's atrocities against the Faith. Not a single word.

Exemplars of studied ignorance and false obedience.

Matthew · « **Reply #31 on:** June 29, 2016, 01:48:14 PM »

Quote from: wallflower

Quote from: snowball
"In conclusion, dear readers, for the sake of all the good that the true Society could and should be doing for the Universal Church, by all means pray for a miracle to derail that drive towards Rome, and put any pressure you can on Superiors taking part in the end of June meeting (not yet a General Chapter, but preparing the fatal one) that they make themselves the instruments of God in the derailing of that drive."

Exactly why and how Providence is at work but not in the way +Fellay thinks it is.

That's something I find so strange about the workings of some people's minds. The avid anti-Resistance crowd sit there accepting and parroting all manner of rationalizations from certain leadership about why we have to accept a practical accord, why it would be a good thing and why now is the best time, why Abp Lefevbre would have done it etc..., but then have an I-told-you-so attitude towards the Resistance when the SSPX leadership flips again and seems (on the surface anyway) like it won't make an accord.

Do they not realize that if the SSPX does not make a purely practical accord (at least, right this second), it is no thanks to them? Their attitude does not correspond with their actions at all. If they were logical, people like this should be unhappy by a seeming return to hardline principles because just yesterday they were convinced of the necessity of a practical accord. Or they ought at least to be confused about why an accord was so strongly sold to them in the first place. It makes no sense to be crowing to the Resistance as if they had anything to do with the victory. They are blindly following persons rather than principles.

And those crowing because they thought the SSPX leadership were never aiming to make a practical accord in the first place simply haven't been following or listening to the sermons and conferences of late. There's no cure for that either.

This is one of those deep points that few people will catch.

You're absolutely right though -- most of the time they're telling us how we're virtual or practical sedevacantists (just look at the letter of +Fellay to the Three back in 2012), that we lack trust, etc.

Ok, so we should do a deal? That should be their constant line.

And then whenever the SSPX takes a step back, pretending they have the old-school position (we shouldn't do a deal, and don't plan to) then everyone gets all excited, like maybe the Resistance was wrong all along!

But what about all the propaganda coming out of Menzingen that now is a "prudent" time to make a deal with Rome? What about all the changes they've made to make themselves less extreme, and more Rome-friendly?

It's like they're content to hammer the Resistance with anything that will stick. Yesterday, it was for being too intransigent and right-wing. Too stuck in the past. Today, they hammer us for ever thinking they would compromise on Tradition. They hammer us for spreading rumors (even though they can't point out any rumors that turned out to be rumors -- they have never debunked any "rumors", though they pretend to with conferences such as, "Against the Rumors"), they hammer us for being bad Catholics who gave up on our spiritual lives, they hammer us for being Sedevacantists or outsiders/infiltrators from the get-go, they hammer us for being troublemakers. They hammer us for lack of trust in our superiors, for being disobedient, etc.

Come on, which is it? Error is many, truth is one. You should be able to pin down what the Resistance's main sin is.

But in fact, it seems more like they are using classic Freemasonic technique of "throw a lot of crap at the wall, and see what will stick." In other words, media-based character assassination and poisoning the well.

Mark 79 · « **Reply #32 on:** June 29, 2016, 01:51:00 PM »

Quote from: knish

is there any part of you that feels maybe -- just maybe -- the resistance was wrong about Bishop Fellay?

A post and a screen name fitting for a Marrano.

Matthew · « **Reply #33 on:** June 29, 2016, 01:55:09 PM »

Quote from: Mark 79

Quote from: knish
is there any part of you that feels maybe -- just maybe -- the resistance was wrong about Bishop Fellay?

A post and a screen name fitting for a Marrano.

A knish /?kn??/ or knysh is an Eastern European[1] snack food consisting of a filling covered with dough that is either baked, grilled, or deep fried.

Knishes can be purchased from street vendors in urban areas with a large Jєωιѕн population...

History [edit]
Eastern European immigrants who arrived sometime around 1900 brought knishes to North America.[3] Knish (????) is a Yiddish word that was derived from the Ukrainian knysh (????) and Polish knysz.[4][5] The first knish bakery in America was founded in New York in 1910."[6] Generally recognized as a food made popular in New York by immigrants in the early 1900s

See also [edit]
Jєωιѕн cuisine
Turnover
Yonah Shimmel's Knish Bakery

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knish

knish · « **Reply #34 on:** June 29, 2016, 01:59:18 PM »

Quote from: Mark 79

Quote from: knish
is there any part of you that feels maybe -- just maybe -- the resistance was wrong about Bishop Fellay?

A post and a screen name fitting for a Marrano.

lol. Didn't realize I'd trigger so many. Responses are awfully telling.

St Ignatius · « **Reply #35 on:** June 29, 2016, 02:00:26 PM »

Quote from: Mark 79

Quote from: knish
is there any part of you that feels maybe -- just maybe -- the resistance was wrong about Bishop Fellay?

A post and a screen name fitting for a Marrano.

I'm assuming you're referring to the old Spanish definition of the term... :scared2:

knish · « **Reply #36 on:** June 29, 2016, 02:00:32 PM »

Quote from: Matthew

Quote from: Mark 79
Quote from: knish
is there any part of you that feels maybe -- just maybe -- the resistance was wrong about Bishop Fellay?

A post and a screen name fitting for a Marrano.

A knish /?kn??/ or knysh is an Eastern European[1] snack food consisting of a filling covered with dough that is either baked, grilled, or deep fried.

Knishes can be purchased from street vendors in urban areas with a large Jєωιѕн population...

History [edit]
Eastern European immigrants who arrived sometime around 1900 brought knishes to North America.[3] Knish (????) is a Yiddish word that was derived from the Ukrainian knysh (????) and Polish knysz.[4][5] The first knish bakery in America was founded in New York in 1910."[6] Generally recognized as a food made popular in New York by immigrants in the early 1900s

See also [edit]
Jєωιѕн cuisine
Turnover
Yonah Shimmel's Knish Bakery

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knish

I've been caught.

St Ignatius · « **Reply #37 on:** June 29, 2016, 02:08:32 PM »

Well knish, it's all in your signature...

It is better that the truth be known than that scandal be covered up. - St. Augustine.

snowball · « **Reply #38 on:** June 29, 2016, 02:28:40 PM »

Quote from: St Ignatius

Quote from: snowball
Quote from: St Ignatius
Quote from: Matthew

10. Since this communique didn't mention anything substantial suggesting a move backwards towards Tradition, for example no apology was made to Bishop Williamson, I can safely say the Crisis in the SSPX continues, as does the need for the Resistance.

Or most importantly, IMO, no retraction of the declaration of 2012.

So business as usual.

What is there to retract ? Would not a retraction have to be
accompanied by a submission by Williamson ? Do you not
agree that any hierarchy should be in place within the Society,
and all participants should do as they please ?
I don't see a connection between today's communique
and the Bp. Williamson ordinations, although I await
his comments...

I'm sorry, but I have no idea what you are asking.

That the cart is not placed before the horse.
That Fellay is the Superior General of the SSPX and
has true jursdiction in matters such as ordinations
within the Society.
That respect is given on both sides, and the worst is
not always expected.

I believe 100% that a resistance is needed and necessary,
but perhaps I see its role as a watchful eye from without,
and a sometimes silent hand from within... they both act,
and when appropriate, can have desired effects.
I applaud today's communique by what it says, and am
not unthankful.

TKGS · « **Reply #39 on:** June 29, 2016, 02:39:28 PM »

Quote from: mw2016

Quote from: knish
is there any part of you that feels maybe -- just maybe -- the resistance was wrong about Bishop Fellay?

This may be the MOST absurd statement I've ever read here!

Not only was knish an anti-sedevacantist troll from the beginning (remember that he declared his sedevacantism for less than a month to see what people would say before claiming to have "repented" of his error), it turns out he’s also an anti-Resistance troll.

Perhaps those who follow the SSPX closely will keep the membership apprised of any transfers of superiors over the next six months or so now that Bishop Fellay knows which ones wouldn't support reconciliation. I'm sure he will eventually get a group of superiors who will do his bidding.

Sienna629 · « **Reply #40 on:** June 29, 2016, 02:49:21 PM »

Quote from: snowball

Quote from: St Ignatius
Quote from: Matthew

10. Since this communique didn't mention anything substantial suggesting a move backwards towards Tradition, for example no apology was made to Bishop Williamson, I can safely say the Crisis in the SSPX continues, as does the need for the Resistance.

Or most importantly, IMO, no retraction of the declaration of 2012.

So business as usual.

What is there to retract ? Would not a retraction have to be
accompanied by a submission by Williamson ? Do you not
agree that any hierarchy should be in place within the Society,
and all participants should do as they please ?
I don't see a connection between today's communique
and the Bp. Williamson ordinations, although I await
his comments...

Huh???

StonewallCatho · « **Reply #41 on:** June 29, 2016, 02:54:16 PM »

THIS IS THE EMAIL FATHER GIROUARD SENT TODAY TO HIS PARISHIONERS IN ALDERGROVE, BC:[/u]

Dear parishioners,

The latest communiqué from Menzingen, following the Superiors' meeting of June 25-28, is nothing more than window dressing to keep customers happy. See link to CathInfo:

http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/SSPX-Communiqu-after-meeting-of-all-Superiors

Indeed, this communiqué doesn't reveal any practical resolution, only "intentions". So, after three days of meeting together, this is all the Major Superiors could come up with? Is this all they have been able to achieve? Seems like a lot of money, from the sacrifices of benefactors, has been spent for nothing... (Or maybe it was paid by the Rothschild's donation from Austria?).

Remember, friends, the following: Whenever Menzingen comes up with soothing words like that, we must not forget what they have actually DONE. (I will keep it short here...):

1-The April 2012 Letters from and to the 3 Bishops show the SSPX General Council's true opinions.
2-In 2012, Bishop Fellay has sent the AFD to Rome, and has not since sent another official docuмent to Rome to repudiate it.
3-Bishop Fellay sent a letter to the Pope on June 17th, 2012, saying he would continue with all his strength to work for a recognition, and saying the only reason he cannot sign the Rome proposal of June 13th, was that too many people in the Society were not yet ready to accept it.
4-The General chapter of 2012 has abandonned the 2006 Chapter Resolution ("no practical agreement without the conversion of Rome"), which was in line with the Archbishop's latest position.
5-Since the summer of 2012, Bishop Fellay and his cronies have punished severely anybody (clergy and lay) who publicly criticized his new policy, going even as far as expelling H.E. Bishop Williamson.
6-On June 27th, 2013 the 3 remaining SSPX bishops (F, G, T) declared publicly that they would accept an unilateral recognition by Rome, even without its conversion.
7-In October 2012, Fr. Wegner, then District Superior of Canada, admitted to me, and promoted, the new branding of the Society effected by a professional firm. This branding was summarized in one sentence: "If the Society is to grow, it has to cease criticizing Rome and the VII reforms, and focus rather on the beauties of Tradition."

Dear parishioners, I think we must never lose sight of these above-mentioned FACTS. All the rest that comes from Menzingen is nothing else than lullabies intended to put people to sleep. Let us refuse these sirens' songs. Let us remain alert, strapped firmly on the boat of true fidelity to Tradition. And true fidelity can only be one that refuses any compromise with those and the things that are destroying the Church!

God bless,
Father Girouard

JmJ2cents · « **Reply #42 on:** June 29, 2016, 03:20:13 PM »

Quote from: SanAmbrosi

To me, this is clearly letting everyone know that there will be no "deal" right now. It obviously doesn't put it out of the question in the future, but I can already see here that everyone aligned with the Resistance will not be able to accept the fact that there is no deal. Back to the ol' drawing board.

Can we not take a moment to thank God for all of the prayers that helped to thwart a Reconciliation? Is this not good news for the time being? Would we have rather seen the deal go through? i think, in many cases, yes, because then we could all give a big, "I TOLD YOU SO!!!!"

Yet it didn't happen . . .

I just saw on Facebook someone call this Communique a "death blow to the Resistors."

Thoughts?

I think the important thing is the salvation of souls. If Bishop Fellay changed the conditions back to Pre 2012 in which there would be no agreement until Rome converts then most of us would see an improvement How about an apology to Bishop Williamson and restoring his place within the Society? If more souls will be saved bc for the moment sspx has declined recognition them I am happy.

RogerThat · « **Reply #43 on:** June 29, 2016, 03:37:36 PM »

None of you mentioned the most important part of this letter. The superiors have reiterated supplied jurisdiction as an essential part of their ministry and how they exercise their sacramental powers. This is a big blow to Pope Francis and others who thought that granting the Society ordinary jurisdiction would somehow force them into a cononical recognition. That's huge!

Sorry for spelling errors, I'm on my phone on a plane. Will pray for all of you as I "touch the face of God."

mw2016 · « **Reply #44 on:** June 29, 2016, 03:46:23 PM »

Quote from: Patricius

7-In October 2012, Fr. Wegner, then District Superior of Canada, admitted to me, and promoted, the new branding of the Society effected by a professional firm. This branding was summarized in one sentence: "If the Society is to grow, it has to cease criticizing Rome and the VII reforms, and focus rather on the beauties of Tradition."

This is like an arrow straight to my heart!

How horrible!!

The Society grew precisely BECAUSE of its criticisms of Rome and VII.

To now say the opposite is ѕυιcιdє!

What an evil outlook Wegner has. How is this possible? This is truly a diabolical disorientation.