Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: compline on June 29, 2016, 06:43:22 AM
-
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2016/06/important-sspx-communique-after-meeting.html#more (http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2016/06/important-sspx-communique-after-meeting.html#more)
At the conclusion of the meeting of the major superiors of the Society of Saint Pius X that was held in Switzerland, from June 25 to 28, 2016, the Superior General addressed the following communiqué:
The purpose of the Society of Saint Pius X is chiefly the formation of priests, the essential condition for the renewal of the Church and for the restoration of society.
In the great and painful confusion that currently reigns in the Church, the proclamation of Catholic doctrine requires the denunciation of errors that have made their way into it and are unfortunately encouraged by a large number of pastors, including the Pope himself.
The Society of Saint Pius X, in the present state of grave necessity which gives it the right and duty to administer spiritual aid to the souls that turn to it, does not seek primarily a canonical recognition, to which it has a right as a Catholic work. It has only one desire: faithfully to bring the light of the bi-millennial Tradition which shows the only route to follow in this age of darkness in which the cult of man replaces the worship of God, in society as in the Church.
The “restoration of all things in Christ” intended by Saint Pius X, following Saint Paul (cf. Ep.h 1:10), cannot happen without the support of a Pope who concretely favors the return to Sacred Tradition. While waiting for that blessed day, the Society of Saint Pius X intends to redouble its efforts to establish and to spread, with the means that Divine Providence gives to it, the social reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ.
The Society of Saint Pius X prays and does penance for the Pope, that he might have the strength to proclaim Catholic faith and morals in their entirety. In this way he will hasten the triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary that we earnestly desire as we approach the centennial of the apparitions in Fatima.
Bishop Bernard Fellay, Superior General of the Society of Saint Pius X
Ecône, June 29, 2016
The Feast of Saints Peter and Paul
-
Can anyone translate this?
-
It appears he is saying that a canonical recognition is not their primary goal until the pope starts doing his duty. Until then, they intend to keep doing what they've been doing. That's my take.
The “restoration of all things in Christ” intended by Saint Pius X, following Saint Paul (cf. Ep.h 1:10), cannot happen without the support of a Pope who concretely favors the return to Sacred Tradition. While waiting for that blessed day, the Society of Saint Pius X intends to redouble its efforts to establish and to spread, with the means that Divine Providence gives to it, the social reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ.
-
It sounds good on the surface. But to be honest, I think they are just being more careful since these communiques are always leaked.
Recognition is not their primary goal. -- Doesn't mean it isn't a goal.
Their primary goal is to spread the light of Tradition in society and the Church. -- They've already said they think they will spread Tradition better when recognized, since they can better convert the Church leaders and NO faithful that way. They've got a bunch of SSPX faithful now convinced of it too.
They are going to redouble their efforts with the means given them by Providence. -- Yes, I am sure it would be very "Providential" for the Pope to hand them a recognition and accept them "as is". So basically their primary goal is noble and if they have to accept recognition to redouble those efforts, then they will. (Because in their minds this won't backfire at all.)
Like I said, it sounds great on the surface but it's a lot of words, none of which are a clear and concrete return to "no practical agreement without doctrinal solution".
Were they to accept a recognition tomorrow, this communique would still all be true, according to their minds and their way of thought. The words were very carefully chosen to include the possibility of recognition while not outright saying so.
-
I agree with you wallflower. To me this reads as "The Pope and the rest of the Church won't convert until the SSPX is reconciled to Rome. Since this is Divine Providence we must accept it so that we can convert them."
My take: they voted "yes". Sneaky, word-salad announcement to follow soon. Followed by select chapel closings.
-
Good analysis, Wallflower. I don't think there's anything to add.
-
"...does not seek primarily a canonical recognition, to which it has a right as a Catholic work."
It seems this attitude is contrary to the spirit of obedience. No religious institute has a "right to a canonical recognition." Such things lie entirely within the decision, for good or ill, of the superiors. It is the superiors who have the duty, right, and authority to grant or withhold that canonical recognition at their will.
The work may have a right to exist, but the institute not so much.
-
is there any part of you that feels maybe -- just maybe -- the resistance was wrong about Bishop Fellay?
-
is there any part of you that feels maybe -- just maybe -- the resistance was wrong about Bishop Fellay?
Nope. It's due to the very fact that there is a "Resistance," that these are the head lines today. If it weren't for a bishop and a handful of priests and faithful, I truly don't believe there would be a SSPX today.
-
Bishop Fellay causes his own problems when he consistently contradicts himself and uses 'political speak' in interviews. I don't know what his intentions are, but I do know he is untrustworthy - a trait of a bad leader.
-
The Superiors have kicked to touch....
-
is there any part of you that feels maybe -- just maybe -- the resistance was wrong about Bishop Fellay?
I can only guess that +Tissier and +de Galarreta must have resisted +Fellay and assistants to their face and got enough support and +Fellay backed down somewhat. I'm not impressed with the Communique (to say the least). It is ambiguous and lacks any conviction. Totally spineless. Too little, too late!
As wallflower said, "Were they to accept a recognition tomorrow, this communique would still all be true". And they may. I just hope the two other bishops jump ship.
-
The “restoration of all things in Christ” intended by Saint Pius X, following Saint Paul (cf. Ep.h 1:10), cannot happen without the support of a Pope who concretely favors the return to Sacred Tradition. While waiting for that blessed day, the Society of Saint Pius X intends to redouble its efforts to establish and to spread, with the means that Divine Providence gives to it, the social reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ.
Reads like 'maybe with a new Pope but the recognition is off for now.'
Bistum Regensburg
June 22, 2016
The Bishop of Regensburg welcomes any initiative to overcome a schism, the rapprochement of groups separated from the Catholic Church and therefore to recover the visible unity of the Church.
The Ordinations announced for Zaitzkofen [Bavaria, Germany] on July 2, 2016, do not represent any danger presently, as the secretary of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, Archbishop Pozzo explains. It does not follow that they are canonically licit, nor an implicit recognition of the licitness of the consecration of the officiating bishop of the Society. The ordinations are only tolerated and accepted, without sanctions. This reflects a favor freely granted by the Holy See in view of a hoped-for convergence of the Society, after a period of intense reflection and examination. The criterion for the recognition of the Society is and remains the full affirmation of the authority of the Second Vatican Council and all its docuмents (religious freedom, ecuмenism etc.).
Source (http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2016/06/press-release-of-bishop-of-regensburg.html)
This statement of the bishop of Regenburg is relevant. Cardinal Mueller said as much too. The German Conciliar bishops want a full SSPX surrender to the Vatican 2 or nothing.
-
I'm surprised that some think this communique states that all negotiations are off until the Pope converts. I think it says the opposite. But I could be wrong.
-
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'm not sure what to think. On the surface it appears to be "one step back" but that is usually followed by "two steps forward". We'll have to watch and see what actions proceed from this. After all of the efforts on the part of the Superiors to sell the "must return to Rome" to the laity this seems to contradict their sales pitch.
-
Could it be possible that the recent departure of Fr. Pierre Roy, who was born and raised under the care of the "New" SSPX, been taken into consideration in reeling in personal ambitions?
-
In the great and painful confusion that currently reigns in the Church, the proclamation of Catholic doctrine requires the denunciation of errors that have made their way into it and are unfortunately encouraged by a large number of pastors, including the Pope himself.
... bi-millennial Tradition which shows the only route to follow in this age of darkness in which the cult of man replaces the worship of God, in society as in the Church.
The Society of Saint Pius X prays and does penance for the Pope, that he might have the strength to proclaim Catholic faith and morals in their entirety.
Let's see if these words hold after the conciliar authorities and publications respond to it.
-
I'm surprised that some think this communique states that all negotiations are off until the Pope converts. I think it says the opposite. But I could be wrong.
It is concerning when a statement can give rise to two completely different, arguably plausible interpretations, but I take as 'no deal for now.'
-
I just saw on Facebook someone call this Communique a "death blow to the Resistors."
Thoughts?
It won't affect the die-hard resistors but the fence sitters will use it to justify staying with the SSPX. The former have learned not to trust whatever comes from the top while the latter don't want to know.
-
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."
2. Recall that Bishop Fellay is first and foremost a politician. That includes making awesome campaign promises, and keeping his constituents happy. If he didn't say things that sounded great once in a while, he would not be a successful politician. Politicians speak out of both sides of their mouth.
3. Am I the only one that feels deja-vu with this communique? He has released "completely Trad sounding" docuмents like this several times over the past 4 years, each of which made it sounds like he was giving up on a practical accord with Rome, and that the Resistance might as well pack it in (more on this later, read on). But it's never over, unfortunately. As much as we'd like this nightmare to be over so we can all go back to our old SSPX chapels with nothing different from, say, 1995. But the quest for a Practical Accord continues, and that is the important part.
4. Why did they release this communique? Well, it should be obvious once you read a quote from Knish, "is there any part of you that feels maybe -- just maybe -- the resistance was wrong about Bishop Fellay?" and a quote on Facebook, which called this communique "a death blow to the resisters". That is precisely what we're all meant to think here. The strong minded and well-informed know better. But as for the busy, the superficial, the ignorant, and the poorly informed, they might just take the bait -- hook, line and sinker.
5. Perhaps too much backlash has arisen in Rome (or with the current Pope) to complete a Deal, and so +Fellay wants to get as much mileage out of "giving up for now" as possible. He'll turn this into a dramatic, political move of one big step taken backwards, with all the cameras rolling, so he can squeeze every bit of political juice he can out of the situation. Moreover, this is typical Bishop Fellay behavior: one step backwards, then two steps forward. He makes sure everyone pays attention to those steps backwards, while keeping the steps forward as obscure and shrouded in secrecy as possible. This gives the average Catholic in the pews the impression that he's swimming in pure Tradition.
6. Related to #3, we have to remember that the neo-SSPX continues as the neo-SSPX. They still keep a low profile, they still keep things "positive", they still do many things differently than the old SSPX. They still stand in horror at the prospect of a Bishop consecrating new Bishops for Tradition without papal approval (Does that sound like followers of +Lefebvre to you?). That is a fact. That is how the SSPX reacted to the consecrations of +Faure and +Thomas Aquinas.
7. Of course the SSPX likes Tradition (Truth) somewhat, whenever they get a chance. Remember the FSSP likes Tradition as well. But their FIRST love is Numbers. As I've said before, you can't primarily love Truth and Numbers. Either you put Truth first which will cost you some Numbers on occasion, or Numbers first which costs you some Truth on occasion. You can try to love both, but you can't give FIRST PRIORITY to both.
8. Some excerpts from this communique seem to be giving up on a deal with Rome, mentioning the current Pope in particular. But how long will Pope Francis be Pope? Especially in the current order, where papal resignations are a distinct possibility. Hasn't Pope Francis explicitly stated that resignation is an option for him? These recent post-Vatican II popes don't consider death to be the only way to set aside the Papacy. And haven't there been rumors that Pope Francis will resign in the not too distant future?
9. Also recall that this meeting was *seriously* leaked. Everyone knew about it, even the exact dates and location for the meeting. So Bishop Fellay knew everyone was watching and wondering what was going on. The Resistance drew everyone's attention to this meeting, what else was he going to do? Saying nothing wouldn't be an option, then it makes the Resistance score points, "See? They're acting like Bilderburgers having a secret meeting." Instead, +Fellay is cleverly trying to exploit all the attention cast on him, to make another ostentatious obeisance/homage to Tradition, and make the Resistance look BAD. What a politician.
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.
-
Excellent points Matthew. This communique will provide more justification for a "prayer crusade" as astutely predicted by Fr Girouard.
-
The conciliar church is interpreting today's communique
as a hard line, and I'm sure most SSPX parishoners
are, also.
for example:
http://www.ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/sspx-retreats-from-regularization-with-rome
Bishop Williamson's June 25th comments in closing
suggested he may be pleasantly surprised by today's
communique.
"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."
-
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.
-
Moreover, this is typical Bishop Fellay behavior: one step backwards, then two steps forward. He makes sure everyone pays attention to those steps backwards, while keeping the steps forward as obscure and shrouded in secrecy as possible.
Exactly! Political manuevering at it's finest.
-
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!
We are in the situation we're in PRECISELY because of Bp. Fellay's WRONG actions. His poor leadership. His bad judgment.
Bp. Fellay had a mutiny on HIS watch. He lost MANY good priests.
He has lost, and CONTINUES TO LOSE, many, many faithful.
He has taken a wrecking ball to the SSPX with his poor decisions.
Now, he makes a weak - at best! - statement that may or may not hint that the deal may or may not take place, and you think to ask if the Resistance was wrong about him??
Absurd. Utterly absurd.
-
"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.
-
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...
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
"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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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:
-
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.
(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-6DUjq1jSDrk/AAAAAAAAAAI/AAAAAAAAAIc/CG_sG1uQqzw/photo.jpg)
-
Well knish, it's all in your signature...
It is better that the truth be known than that scandal be covered up. - St. Augustine. :smirk:
-
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.
-
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.
-
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???
-
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
-
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.
-
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."
-
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.
-
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:
Precisely so!
Filthy swine crypto-Jew.
-
This communique could be interpreted as saying that Rome needs to convert. I hope that is what they mean. They should try heal their own division with Bp Williamson, somehow.
-
This communique could be interpreted as saying that Rome needs to convert. I hope that is what they mean. They should try heal their own division with Bp Williamson, somehow.
The latter can not happen without the former, same applies to my position.
I can't rely on interpretations in this case. Until there's a 180 turnaround in action, and not just in fuzzy feal good words, I can't return my loyalty to the superiors of the SSPX.
-
is there any part of you that feels maybe -- just maybe -- the resistance was wrong about Bishop Fellay?
I can only guess that +Tissier and +de Galarreta must have resisted +Fellay and assistants to their face and got enough support and +Fellay backed down somewhat. I'm not impressed with the Communique (to say the least). It is ambiguous and lacks any conviction. Totally spineless. Too little, too late!
As wallflower said, "Were they to accept a recognition tomorrow, this communique would still all be true
". And they may. I just hope the two other bishop jump ship.
You've hit the nail on the head!!!
-
Fr. Girouard's email mentions a Rothschild donation, but was it not
the Gutmanns who donated ? Here is a link to the story:
http://mauricepinay.blogspot.com/2012/11/the-rothschild-gutmann-money-behind.html
More about 2012.. as if it matters, as if the same would have
attempts at laying any attempt at reconciliation with Benedict XVI
would have occurred with Francis, despite what the SSPX said today
regarding Francis. It's 2016, not 2012.
I still have the same opinion I expressed last page.
Fr. Girouard dropped out of the SSPX voluntarily by not
talking to his superiors and refusing a transfer. I've seen
him insist that no reconciliation can take place if the SSPX
maintains, as it did in 2012 (and probably still does) that
the New Mass was "legitimately propagated".. but what
is the ultimate conclusion of his position ?
Is some future church supposed to tell all Roman Catholics
who went to Novus Ordo ceremonies and masses that
their sacraments and funerals, weddings, etc, are all
invalid ? 50 years of invalid rites ? One may believe that,
but to publicly insist that it must be believed by all Catholics
as truth is a matter that will never be accepted nor would
it bear sound fruit for our Church and Her souls.
-
This is where ambiguity leads. This article is from the Vatican Insider.
http://www.lastampa.it/2016/06/29/vaticaninsider/eng/the-vatican/traditionalist-st-pius-x-society-abandons-unification-claims-francis-spreading-errors-nSQv70JmSCuxufPP8SW0II/pagina.html
Traditionalist St. Pius X society abandons unification, claims Francis spreading errors
The group of Catholic bishops appears to have abandoned efforts to reunite with Rome. Popes have tried to repair relations over four decades. Francis had indicated a move toward unity between the wider Church and the traditionalist society with the opening of the ongoing Jubilee year of mercy last fall
29/06/2016
joshua mcelwee
rome
A traditionalist group of Catholic bishops and priests that has been separated from the wider Church for decades appears to have abandoned efforts to reunite with Rome, releasing a statement Wednesday that claims Pope Francis is encouraging the spreading of errors in Church teaching.
The Society of St. Pius X, founded by the late French Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre in 1970 mainly in opposition to the reforms of the Second Vatican Council, says now it “does not primarily seek a canonical recognition” from the Vatican for its continuing activities.
The society also says there is a “great and painful confusion that currently reigns in the Church” that “requires the denunciation of errors that have made their way into it and are unfortunately encouraged by a large number of pastors, including the Pope himself.”
The statement, released on the society’s website, seems to eliminate chances that the group might reunite with Rome. Popes have tried to repair relations over four decades.
Pope Benedict XVI made the most effort to reunite with the group, lifting the excommunications of four of their bishops in 2009. Those efforts ultimately failed when Bishop Bernard Fellay, their current superior general, rejected a doctrinal statement drafted by the Vatican for the group to sign.
Wednesday’s statement is made in Fellay’s name and comes as the global Catholic Church is celebrating the feast of Sts. Peter and Paul, the founders of the Church in Rome.
Fellay says he is making the statement following a June 25-28 meeting of the society’s superiors and gives four numbered points based on the premise that the purpose of the group “is chiefly the formation of priests, the essential condition for the renewal of the Church and for the restoration of society.”
The statement ends with a paragraph that begins: “The Society of Saint Pius X prays and does penance for the Pope, that he might have the strength to proclaim Catholic faith and morals in their entirety.”
The society’s statement comes less than three months after Francis met with Fellay for the first time at the Vatican in April.
The Pope had earlier indicated a move toward unity between the wider Church and the traditionalist society with the opening of the ongoing Jubilee year of mercy last fall.
In a September letter to the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of the New Evangelization, which is organizing the holy year on his behalf, he explained that members of the society would be granted faculties during the year to offer absolution of sins “validly and licitly” to those who approach them for confession.
In a March interview posted on the society’s website, Fellay had before said he thought Francis may consider his group as existing on the “periphery” and thus needing to be accompanied back to the Church.
Outside of the faculties granted during the Jubilee year, members of the traditionalist society are considered not to be in full communion with Rome and, in normal circuмstances, its priests and bishops cannot exercise Roman Catholic ministry.
[Joshua J. McElwee is Vatican Correspondent for the National Catholic Reporter.]
This article was originally published by the Global Sisters Report, a project of NCR, and appears here with permission.
While the new SSPX's friends at RC have their own analysis.
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2016/06/rorate-analysis-sspx-communique-on.html#more
Rorate Analysis: SSPX communiqué on relations with the Holy See
Does the communiqué of the Superior-general of the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX), released today, really mean the end of negotiations with the Holy See? Many commentators seem to think so, including respectable ones, such as Edward Pentin.
We are going to surprise you, but that is not at all what happened. The central part in the communiqué is this:
While waiting for that blessed day, the Society of Saint Pius X intends to redouble its efforts to establish and to spread, with the means that Divine Providence gives to it, the social reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ.
"...[W]ith the means that Divine Providence gives to it..." That is, the Society is ready to work (and it could not be different with any Catholic organization) with what is irresistible, the "means" given by "Divine Providence", even the most unexpected ones.
It is not a rejection or spurning of anything or anyone, but rather a realistic view of the current situation, a soothing message to concerned priests and faithful and a clear opening to whatever "means" are granted by Providence.
As all Catholics should know, Providence can bring about anything ...
-
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.
Well, that was rather gratuitous.
-
Perhaps, my assessment was wrong.
-
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.
Well, that was rather gratuitous.
Not really. The definition of an internet troll:
A person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, often for their own amusement.
-
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.
Well, that was rather gratuitous.
Not really. The definition of an internet troll:
A person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, often for their own amusement.
Which I literally didn't do. Yes, I've gone back and fourth on the sede question. My apologies! And yes, there is part of me that feels, maybe -- just maybe -- Bishop Fellay knows what he's doing. However, I do appreciate the very honest and polite responses to my claim. You've all made some very strong arguments.
-
Is Fr. Girouard inferring that accepting the "Rothschild's donation from Austria" was a huge mistake on the part of ABL? I notice that whenever this subject is brought up, so many people go into hiding.
-
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!
We are in the situation we're in PRECISELY because of Bp. Fellay's WRONG actions. His poor leadership. His bad judgment.
Bp. Fellay had a mutiny on HIS watch. He lost MANY good priests.
He has lost, and CONTINUES TO LOSE, many, many faithful.
He has taken a wrecking ball to the SSPX with his poor decisions.
Now, he makes a weak - at best! - statement that may or may not hint that the deal may or may not take place, and you think to ask if the Resistance was wrong about him??
Absurd. Utterly absurd.
Excellent post. That Bp Fellay has fumbled badly in the past is an understatement. Does anyone remember that he lost many good priests, many faithful over this very issue? The question should be: Will Bp Fellay now apologize to the priests he booted out of the SSPX and ask them to return to fight against the novelties in Rome?
-
Kind of funny-- the banner ad at the top of this page as I type is for "the last ark", and its tag line is "the anti-Christ is in the Vatican". Shows you that Google and Amazon know how to "re-brand every web page "on the fly" to suit the temperament and leanings of readers at that very moment.
And, of course, Fellay has spent thousands "re-branding " his organization so that it can be acceptable to the anti-Christs running the Vatican, the Dicasteries, the Seminaries , and the synogogues which control his fate. Indeed, Fellay has publicly stated that "Ratzinger accepts us as we are", and that Bergoglio "accepts us on the periphery ( of the Church)", and "gives us what we want."
In fact, less than a week ago the "Bishop" of Regensberg dropped his opposition to the SSPX ordinations because, he said, "they are working hard to rejoin the ( established ) Church (Rome)." Of course, Fellay is the bishop of whom the heretic, communist and pagan-loving Bergoglio said: "we can dialogue with him." Those are the same words the devil said of Eve, when he realized he couldn't trick Adam directly: "we can dialogue with her."
And, of course, all because Fellay's ( and Schmidberger's, and Rostand's, and Loran's, and Pflugger's, etc.) pride blinded them all to think they could "sneak into" the Vatican and the, like a terrorist attack, surprise all the heretics and Christ-haters, forcing them to adopt "Tradition."
Well, it will not work. The Mason's and their anti-Christian masters are firmly in control. Why else would Ratzinger have said that it's perfectly acceptable for the Jєωιѕн people to await their Messiah? This is a wholesale denial of the entire New Testament, let alone a slap in the face of Jesus Christ. Rostand's spokesman followed that up some time later by declaring that 'masonry is no longer the problem!"
So since the last shovel of dirt was thrown on the Archbishop's body in 1993, and for twenty three long years, the enemy within the SSPX has been manipulating, scheming, planning, and pursuing a "re-entry agreement" ( call it protocol, preamble, call it anything you want), they have spent significant time, effort and sums to "quiet" all opposition , and suffered the loss of over 150 priests, to now say " Acceptance by Rome is no longer a priority!" !!
The marketing and finance people are fully in charge; they see the dwindling numbers of both faithful, and, more importantly, money. The seminary project was designed for only one thing: to entice American Bushops to send their Pres-by-ter candidates there to pick up some tradition; but, the whole thing falls apart if the SSPX conspirators can't deliver to Rome the whole organization, with its cash flow. As more priests and faithful wake up and leave, the SSPX looks more and more like a has-been; an empty shell of Luke warm Catholics.
The proof will be in the pudding; if the Roman and Jєωιѕн Synogogues leaders now push through Fellay's re-excommunication, for defrauding The "holy" father and Rome; that would be a good sign-- but that won't happen, because this latest communique is not for Roman consumption (They are in on the game); it is for the consumption of the sheeple.
-
Kind of funny-- the banner ad at the top of this page as I type is for "the last ark", and its tag line is "the anti-Christ is in the Vatican". Shows you that Google and Amazon know how to "re-brand every web page "on the fly" to suit the temperament and leanings of readers at that very moment.
And, of course, Fellay has spent thousands "re-branding " his organization so that it can be acceptable to the anti-Christs running the Vatican, the Dicasteries, the Seminaries , and the synogogues which control his fate. Indeed, Fellay has publicly stated that "Ratzinger accepts us as we are", and that Bergoglio "accepts us on the periphery ( of the Church)", and "gives us what we want."
...
And, of course, all because Fellay's ( and Schmidberger's, and Rostand's, and Loran's, and Pflugger's, etc.) pride blinded them all to think they could "sneak into" the Vatican and the, like a terrorist attack, surprise all the heretics and Christ-haters, forcing them to adopt "Tradition."
Speaking of what is kind of funny --
Funny you should talk about pride, as you refer to ordained priests, bishops, and popes by their last names like so many Privates in the military...
I understand you are a sedevacantist, but that doesn't change the fact that "Fellay" is a validly consecrated bishop. And "Rostand" is a validly ordained priest.
See the evil effect of taking in a steady diet of websites like Traditio? They call every N.O. priest a "presbyter" and call the popes by their last name (no title). Now we have hugeman here doing the same for valid SSPX priests and even a bishop!
Reason #31220 why I am not a sedevacantist.
-
I just read the entire diatribe on NOW.
Feel free to skip the whole thing until the
last paragraph which says, "time will tell".
:roll-laugh1:
-
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!
We are in the situation we're in PRECISELY because of Bp. Fellay's WRONG actions. His poor leadership. His bad judgment.
Bp. Fellay had a mutiny on HIS watch. He lost MANY good priests.
He has lost, and CONTINUES TO LOSE, many, many faithful.
He has taken a wrecking ball to the SSPX with his poor decisions.
Now, he makes a weak - at best! - statement that may or may not hint that the deal may or may not take place, and you think to ask if the Resistance was wrong about him??
Absurd. Utterly absurd.
Excellent post. That Bp Fellay has fumbled badly in the past is an understatement. Does anyone remember that he lost many good priests, many faithful over this very issue? The question should be: Will Bp Fellay now apologize to the priests he booted out of the SSPX and ask them to return to fight against the novelties in Rome?
Remember that +Fellay knew and predicted he would lose priests and there might be splits and divisions. He said so in that CNS interview in 2012. He went ahead with seeking a practical accord anyway. And considering he had no problem maligning them as disobedient, closet schismatics rather than truthfully allowing that it's a deeply controversial issue (over which they must follow their well-formed consciences), I believe he simply views them as collateral damage and always planned to. If he knew ahead of time that priests strongly objecting to the new direction would be a problem, then absolutely this poisoned, damage-control response was planned as well.
Since we got a lot of words that don't really mean anything concretely or address the issue directly, my guess is that they still have the same mentalities and no apologies will be issued in the least.
He says they are waiting for a good Pope. Ok, well, aren't we all! That still doesn't tell us if they have returned to the safety of "no practical agreement without doctrinal solution". I mean, the wait for a good Pope is the whole principle behind that. When we have a good Pope who returns to tradition himself and brings back tradition himself, (i.e. doesn't pretend and flatter that the SSPX has to come save the day), then we no longer have the need for a purely practical agreement at all. Ironically, not waiting for a good Pope is the whole reason they have this mess on their hands to start with. So...are we to understand that they are going back to this?
If he were now truly closed to a purely practical accord and not just saying so for the benefit of the moment, he would not hesitate to let the actions follow the words and make amends with those who left or were booted over this issue.
But maybe they mean they are waiting for a "good" Pope who will allow them to make a practical agreement "as we are". Maybe it means they still have the exact same false illusions that a practical agreement would be a good thing, but are simply waiting for a better time.
Or maybe they just generally mean they are waiting for a good Pope, like we all are, and it has no bearing at all on the practical agreement issue. For as much as they clarified, they could have decided to sign an agreement and simply made a completely unrelated statement that they are waiting for a good Pope.
Who knows? Because with classic +Fellay ambiguity (a MASSIVE red flag on its own), he doesn't say.
Infer what you will. Lovely. They haven't changed.
-
I just read the entire diatribe on NOW.
Feel free to skip the whole thing until the
last paragraph which says, "time will tell".
:roll-laugh1:
You mean this?: http://novusordowatch.org/wire/comments-fellay-interview.htm (http://novusordowatch.org/wire/comments-fellay-interview.htm)
Apparently, it isn't true that Bishop Fellay has cut off all negotiations with the Conciliar sect: Vatican confirms SSPX has NOT closed door on reconciliation (French): http://radionotredame.net/2016/vie-de-leglise/les-lefebvristes-rejettent-la-main-tendue-du-vatican-46542/ (http://radionotredame.net/2016/vie-de-leglise/les-lefebvristes-rejettent-la-main-tendue-du-vatican-46542/)
Against some rash reports about an alleged “abandonment” of reconcilation efforts on the part of the SSPX (see here (http://www.lastampa.it/2016/06/29/vaticaninsider/eng/the-vatican/traditionalist-st-pius-x-society-abandons-unification-claims-francis-spreading-errors-nSQv70JmSCuxufPP8SW0II/pagina.html) and here (https://cruxnow.com/vatican/2016/06/29/traditionalists-spurn-deal-rome-charging-painful-confusion/), for example), a cool analysis of the communique’s text shows that Bp. Fellay has actually left all doors open [Update: Precisely this has now been confirmed by “Mgr.” Guido Pozzo at the Vatican][(cf. link to radionotredame.net above)]: He does not say that he no longer seeks reconciliation or that he rejects Francis’ concessions — he merely qualifies that recognition by Rome, to which he believes the SSPX “has a right”, is not the first priority for the Lefebvrists: “The Society of Saint Pius X … does not seek primarily a canonical recognition…” (italics added). As is the case so often, all the difference is in the adverb! At the same time, it is not surprising that this less harmonious tone should now raise people’s eyebrows, since Fellay had just announced in his June 21 interview that the SSPX never wanted to be separated from Rome. So… whatever!
-
Headline on Eponymous Flower 6/30/16:
"Shock Statement" by Bishop Fellay? -- Rome: Talks With SSPX Will Continue in the Summer
http://eponymousflower.blogspot.com/2016/06/shock-statement-by-bishop-fellay-rome.html
-
"Shock Statement" by Bishop Fellay? -- Rome: Talks With SSPX Will Continue in the Summer
IMO,Bp Fellay is what you get when you let principles drift, when you begin to vacillate and equivocate, accompanied by organizational behavior shrouded in secrecy, never in the interests, I think, of helping and supporting the faithful, mind you, but in order to shore up his own power base and to be obedient to a new set of masters, of whom the faithful are generally not aware. Safe to say, Fellay makes me sick to my stomach.
He has two constituencies to satisfy: One seeks seeks practical reconciliation with Rome. The other rejects compromise, at least at some level or other. Fellay is able to hold both constituencies at bay. To the one he holds out hope that a practical solution can be worked out with New Church. To the other he seems to represent a principled stand against error. He's as two-faced as Balaam, IMO.
-
Fr. Girouard's email mentions a Rothschild donation, but was it not
the Gutmanns who donated ? Here is a link to the story:
http://mauricepinay.blogspot.com/2012/11/the-rothschild-gutmann-money-behind.html
He is probably inferring that the Gutmann donation was ultimately a Rothschild directive.
More about 2012.. as if it matters, as if the same would have
attempts at laying any attempt at reconciliation with Benedict XVI
would have occurred with Francis, despite what the SSPX said today
regarding Francis. It's 2016, not 2012.
Could you restate that more clearly?
I still have the same opinion I expressed last page.
Fr. Girouard dropped out of the SSPX voluntarily by not
talking to his superiors and refusing a transfer. I've seen
him insist that no reconciliation can take place if the SSPX
maintains, as it did in 2012 (and probably still does) that
the New Mass was "legitimately propagated".. but what
is the ultimate conclusion of his position ?
Is some future church supposed to tell all Roman Catholics
who went to Novus Ordo ceremonies and masses that
their sacraments and funerals, weddings, etc, are all
invalid ? 50 years of invalid rites ? One may believe that,
but to publicly insist that it must be believed by all Catholics
as truth is a matter that will never be accepted nor would
it bear sound fruit for our Church and Her souls.
Well, the SSPX till 2012 held that the New Mass is, in the words of ABL, a "bastard rite," an illegitimate rite. This doesn't mean necessarily that it's invalid. The protocol ABL himself signed did not qualify the NOM as legitimate, unlike that of Bp. Fellay.
By the way, Bergoglio recently stated that the majority of today's Catholic marriages are invalid, so your supposedly unthinkable rubicon has already been crossed, by the ultimate liberal, of all people.
-
I went to The Remnant to read Michael Matt's comments on the statement, and I think I just threw up in my mouth a little.
-
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!
We are in the situation we're in PRECISELY because of Bp. Fellay's WRONG actions. His poor leadership. His bad judgment.
Bp. Fellay had a mutiny on HIS watch. He lost MANY good priests.
He has lost, and CONTINUES TO LOSE, many, many faithful.
He has taken a wrecking ball to the SSPX with his poor decisions.
Now, he makes a weak - at best! - statement that may or may not hint that the deal may or may not take place, and you think to ask if the Resistance was wrong about him??
Absurd. Utterly absurd.
:facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:
-
I went to The Remnant to read Michael Matt's comments on the statement, and I think I just threw up in my mouth a little.
I was able to post a few Resistance viewpoint posts in the comments section of that Remnant article, until the moderator told me to "give Bp. Fellay a break." Oh well. On the Vox Cantoris article on the subject, I was allowed to post a Resistance viewpoint, though. Would'da thought?
-
My problem with these traditional Catholic news sources" is the manifest lies that they tell in their articles. I find it incredibly irritating when they try to explain away the plain meaning of what a person said whether it be Frankie or Bishop Fellay. It is condescending and a lie that will have to be answered for in confession and penance or before Our Lord at judgement.
-
We shouldn't have any difficulty understanding that Bishop Fellay has learned to accept Vatican II, because he has obviously learned how to speak in the ambivalent, vague and equivocal language of "the Council." His statement is conciliar in its style. He's actively training his followers to become acclimated to the ambiguity of "the Council" docuмents, so as to weaken their resolve to remain steadfast against its ambiguity. Once that barrier is torn down, there won't be any more "resistance" left in the SSPX.
-
We shouldn't have any difficulty understanding that Bishop Fellay has learned to accept Vatican II, because he has obviously learned how to speak in the ambivalent, vague and equivocal language of "the Council." His statement is conciliar in its style. He's actively training his followers to become acclimated to the ambiguity of "the Council" docuмents, so as to weaken their resolve to remain steadfast against its ambiguity. Once that barrier is torn down, there won't be any more "resistance" left in the SSPX.
A very good observation, IMO. Fellay is a fraud, who,I firmly believe, is just another useful idiot in the hands of the Jews. The other two sspx bishops have become weak and useless.
-
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.
Right on!!
If UI had any doubts that maybe my eyes had beed covered in cynical yellow glasses and maybe this knish dood had an inkling of truth in his statement, today, within a few days of so-called "Pope" Francis' statement of the necessity for the Church to "apologize" o the degenerate ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs, our priest today,m the 7th Sunday after Pentecost, with the very clear Gospel regarding beware of Wolves in Sheep's Clothing, decides a sermon on "meditation" and "spiritual reading", no MENTION of the ELEPHANT in the room!!AAARRGHHH!!!! Why even travel down to this dangerously hood located chapel for this? If I wanted a boring sermon ignoring the beam in my own eye, couldn't I have just walked 3 blocks to my local N.O. church for this pablum. Really? Where they caught unaware of today's gospel? 26 years at this chapel and this is the first time, on this Gospel,m that they completely IGNORE this incredibly RELEVANT warning from OUR LORD HIMSELF about our current sitrep. No crisis in the SSPX/church? Don't be an idiot.
Even my very even tempered wife and my bored teenage daughter caught this one today. I almost couldn't go to communion. She wants me to look into the local Byzantine church, but would not no how to investigate. I believe our priest there is bi-ritual and thus doubtfully ordained. She thinks I should try seeinf if the SSPV would send a priest if we organized enough interest. We had "resistance" coming occasionally, but it was via Fr. Pfeiffer and ya'll know about that mess. What to do what to do. Definitely have doubts about sending the kids back to that school, for nmore reasons than just this sermon. Ideas?
-
My problem with these traditional Catholic news sources" is the manifest lies that they tell in their articles. I find it incredibly irritating when they try to explain away the plain meaning of what a person said whether it be Frankie or Bishop Fellay. It is condescending and a lie that will have to be answered for in confession and penance or before Our Lord at judgement.
I agree. It is indeed irritating for the reason you describe above. They assume that Bishop Fellay is always well-intentioned, and refuse anything that anyone says to the contrary. The Louie Verrechio blog is the same. He doesn't even want to consider the concerns of the Resistance. It falls on deaf ears when it's pointed out that the Resistance is maintaining the legacy and views of ABL, and that there are sound reasons for NOT going along with the new orientation of the SSPX leadership.
-
My problem with these traditional Catholic news sources" is the manifest lies that they tell in their articles. I find it incredibly irritating when they try to explain away the plain meaning of what a person said whether it be Frankie or Bishop Fellay. It is condescending and a lie that will have to be answered for in confession and penance or before Our Lord at judgement.
I agree. It is indeed irritating for the reason you describe above. They assume that Bishop Fellay is always well-intentioned, and refuse anything that anyone says to the contrary. The Louie Verrechio blog is the same. He doesn't even want to consider the concerns of the Resistance. It falls on deaf ears when it's pointed out that the Resistance is maintaining the legacy and views of ABL, and that there are sound reasons for NOT going along with the new orientation of the SSPX leadership.
I agree.
The Remnant has STUDIOUSLY avoided reporting on the most perverse scandals coming out of the Vatican that even the MSM has reported on, AND they have NEVER reported on the Resistance or the split in the SSPX - they just act like it doesn't exist!
That is why they lost my many years-long subscription in 2012.
-
My problem with these traditional Catholic news sources" is the manifest lies that they tell in their articles. I find it incredibly irritating when they try to explain away the plain meaning of what a person said whether it be Frankie or Bishop Fellay. It is condescending and a lie that will have to be answered for in confession and penance or before Our Lord at judgement.
Condescending... Like, maybe calling the Holy Father "Frankie"?
-
My problem with these traditional Catholic news sources" is the manifest lies that they tell in their articles. I find it incredibly irritating when they try to explain away the plain meaning of what a person said whether it be Frankie or Bishop Fellay. It is condescending and a lie that will have to be answered for in confession and penance or before Our Lord at judgement.
Condescending... Like, maybe calling the Holy Father "Frankie"?
I don't agree with this neo-SSPX stooge "bishopcharriere" about the SSPX and the Resistance, but I do agree with him on this point.
How can you talk about condescension in the same short paragraph you refer to Pope Francis as "Frankie"?
You've been reading too much Traditio. See why I don't like that site?
You give the Resistance a bad name in this matter. Superficial readers of CathInfo will pounce on your post and consider it "the average" or typical of what is found here -- even though it's almost unique because of its disrespect for the Pope.
A man who is clearly OK with the neo-SSPX (just look at his other 3 posts and his whole account) just got a thumbs up (so far) on the oldest and original Resistance forum -- because of your indiscretion here.
-
My problem with these traditional Catholic news sources" is the manifest lies that they tell in their articles. I find it incredibly irritating when they try to explain away the plain meaning of what a person said whether it be Frankie or Bishop Fellay. It is condescending and a lie that will have to be answered for in confession and penance or before Our Lord at judgement.
Condescending... Like, maybe calling the Holy Father "Frankie"?
I don't agree with this neo-SSPX stooge "bishopcharriere" about the SSPX and the Resistance, but I do agree with him on this point.
"Stooge"? Charity is hard at work in this thread.
-
"Stooge"? Charity is hard at work in this thread.
Yes, it certainly is. I am practicing the spiritual work of mercy, "Instruct the ignorant".
Charity doesn't mean you can't criticize someone. "Stooge" is hardly a swear word proving the absence of charity.
I consider you a "useful tool" of the neo-SSPX. I believe you are Catholic, I have no idea of the state of your soul, but I do know with certainty that you are wrong about the Resistance and the neo-SSPX.
I am allowed to criticize those in error on my own forum, within the bounds of Catholic charity.
-
I don't have time for hecklers and trolls.
"bishopcharriere" has been banned.
And he needs to look in the mirror regarding the "objective vs. subjective" truth issue.
Actually, here's the thing --
God hasn't revealed who is "objectively correct" about how to deal with the Crisis in the Church.
It could be the Resistance
It could be the sedevacantists
and moving on to the ones that aren't likely at all...
It could be the home aloners
It could be the Indult
But it *couldn't* be the neo-SSPX. At least they couldn't have been correct for all the years from 1970 - 2016.
Why am I so certain of that?
Because they contradict themselves! How could the neo-SSPX be the correct position, when their own position has changed over the years! They have no coherent position.
The neo-SSPX, back when it was the SSPX, defended the consecration of 4 bishops illicitly by Archbishop Lefebvre without the permission of Rome.
But today, as the neo-SSPX, they condemn the same kinds of emergency "for the sake of Tradition" episcopal consecrations, under the same circuмstances. For example, the consecrations of Bishop Faure and Bishop Thomas Aquinas.
So even if they were objectively correct today (because, for the sake of argument, we're going to assume that the Indult/approved by Rome route is "God's own choice" for what we should do in this Crisis), they were wrong from 1970 - 2012.
And here's the clincher -- since they haven't repented of their "wicked schismatic past", they wouldn't be in the right today either! You can't just jump over to the "correct" position without any announcements, penance, repentance, or restitution for your past sins/mistakes.
So even if they were objectively correct today, they are still "in the wrong" because they haven't even publicly confessed their past guilt, much less made up for it yet. On the contrary, they continue to pay half-hearted lip service to Archbishop Lefebvre and the old SSPX.
They are like Judas: Considered lousy by the Jews (for being so close to Jesus Christ) and a lousy Apostle (for betraying the Master). The SSPX is a lousy Trad group (for making so many compromises) and a lousy Indult group (for failing to criticize their own "schismatic" past).
The neo-SSPX is like a hypothetical Android tablet produced by Apple. The Android lovers hate it because it's so expensive and produced by Apple, and the Apple lovers hate it because it runs the "inferior" Android OS.
-
The neo-SSPX is like a hypothetical Android tablet produced by Apple.
Finally, language today's youth can understand.
-
The neo-SSPX is like a hypothetical Android tablet produced by Apple.
Finally, language today's youth can understand.
Pretty stinken sad, isn't it? But what's sadder is I'm beginning to understand this lingo! :tinfoil:
-
Fr. Morrison often has good moles. I hope this story is true:
Bernie Fellay, the Neo-SSPX's Clueless Superior Dictator Was Slapped down by His Remaining Regional and National Superiors Meeting at Econe, Switzerland, June 25-28, 2016
Fellay Was Forced to Pull back from His Expansionistic Desires And to State the Unthinkable (for Him) The Fact that All Traditional Catholics Clearly See That Francis-Bergoglio Is Teaching Errors And that Nothing Can Happen while the Marxist Bergoglio Remains Newpope
It happened once before when the Neo-SSPX's Superior-Dictator Bernie Fellay got too full of himself and his desire to join the anti-Catholic Newchurch of the New Order. When Fellay went too far to Newchurch under Benedict-Ratzinger's regime, the Neo-SSPX superiors met in northern Italy and gave Fellay a vote of no confidence, telling him in no uncertain terms that he had no authority from them to sell out the Neo-SSPX to Newchurch. They also demanded to see all the docuмents that he was secretly exchanging with Ratzinger, which Fellay had previously withheld from his own superiors and from the NSSPXers at large.
Now the remaining Neo-SSPX superiors (one-sixth of them have already abandoned him) meeting in Econe, Switzerland, June 25-28, 2016, have repeated their vote of no-confidence in Fellay. As a result, Fellay issued a brief communique that tried desperately to put favorable light on the matter. But make no mistake: the remaining Neo-SSPX Regional and National Superiors have once again slapped Fellay down.
It may be that one of the factors that contributed to this courageous action on the part of the Neo-SSPX Regional and National superiors was the addition of two new exemplary traditional Catholic bishops recently consecrated by the original SSPX's senior bishop, Richard Williamson. The loose association of traditional Catholic clergy known as the Traditional Resistance now has three traditional Catholic bishops: Williamson, Jean-Michel Faure and Dom Tomas Aquinas, O.S.B.
Fellay now has, in addition to himself, only two bishops remaining, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais and Alfonso de Galarreta.
Fellay's communique indicates that Fellay has been forced to pull back from his expansionistic desires and reaffirms that the central purpose of the Neo-SSPX is to ordain priests. Fellay was actually forced to do the unthinkable (for him): to state the obvious fact that all traditional Catholics already see, that Newpope Francis-Bergoglio is teaching errors. Fellay was even forced to abjure "canonical recognition" by the anti-Catholic Newchurch of the New Order. Fellay was also forced to abjure Francis-Bergoglio, when he stated that nothing can happen while the Marxist Bergoglio remains Newpope, because he is against Sacred Tradition. Thus, the Neo-SSPX must wait for better days, which at this rate may be very long in coming.
True Catholics, this slap-down of Fellay is quite remarkable. He is currently trying to pick up the pieces of his New Order ambitions, which have been smashed to smithereens by his own superiors. But Fellay, like the hated Herod Antipas, to whom Our Lord referred as "that vixen," using a play on words that alluded to Herod's ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity, is not one to give up easily his ambitions to become a Newchurch prelate, which he has harbored since at least the year 2000. There will be much more to this story. And the TRADITIO Network, as it has done now for over twenty years, will bring you the independent coverage for which it has been noted around the world since its inception in 1994 as the "First Traditional Roman Catholic Internet Site" and as the "Independent Voice of Traditional Roman Catholicism."
:popcorn:
-
But Fellay, like the hated Herod Antipas, to whom Our Lord referred as "that vixen," using a play on words that alluded to Herod's ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity, is not one to give up easily his ambitions to become a Newchurch prelate, which he has harbored since at least the year 2000.
"At least the year 2000" is an understatement. I heard him in person in 1995 say that the advent of regularization is like a "luscious plum" to him, and only later did I realize he may have been unintentionally describing the forbidden fruit of the Garden of Eden.
.
-
But Fellay, like the hated Herod Antipas, to whom Our Lord referred as "that vixen," using a play on words that alluded to Herod's ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity, is not one to give up easily his ambitions to become a Newchurch prelate, which he has harbored since at least the year 2000.
"At least the year 2000" is an understatement. I heard him in person in 1995 say that the advent of regularization is like a "luscious plum" to him, and only later did I realize he may have been unintentionally describing the forbidden fruit of the Garden of Eden.
.
Meaning he wants to eat it, but he knows that eating it will result in death??
-
The rumor I heard was that the other 2 bishops shot down Bishop Fellay's Roman compromise proposal.
That I could believe. After all, Rome isn't going to let +Fellay stay in power, much less have THREE bishops in charge of the new, regularized SSPX. In the eyes of +Fellay, if the other two bishops leave, that would be acceptable collateral damage.
The Traditio "news item" is much less believable. If we are to believe Traditio, then all is well with the SSPX! A miracle has occurred, and our prayers have been answered! It's just Bishop Fellay and a few others that have gone off course. Everyone else is 100% Archbishop Lefebvre, on board the fight for Tradition, knowing exactly why we're here and what we're doing. So give it a few months, and the four year nightmare will be completely over! Before long, I'll be back at my local SSPX chapel like nothing happened!
...yeah right.
The above rosy scenario completely contradicts all reality and everything I've experienced -- both from reports I've heard (personal e-mails, phone calls, forums, websites), as well as in person at my local chapel, and San Antonio is one of the "good" (average/conservative) ones!
But let's analyze this Traditio report objectively.
He claims the "superiors" slapped down +Fellay and his plan. But how could that be? Most of those who attended were personally chosen and placed in power by +Fellay (and his 2 right-hand men)!
Who is part of the General Chapter?
From the SSPX website:
The General Chapter is composed of 40 people designated by their “office,” that is to say, their function in the Society’s work. By office they are the standing Superior General and his two assistants, the bishops, the former superior generals, the Secretary General and the Bursar General, the district superiors, the rectors of the major seminaries, and the superiors of the autonomous houses. It also includes in its number the most senior priests who do not hold the above mentioned charges or offices in number equal to one-third of the number of members by office. These Chapter attendees are called “capitularies”.
So 30 of the members are those placed in power by +Fellay.
10 members are there based purely on their seniority, who MAY or MAY NOT be behind +Fellay in his compromising ways.
Remember, this same General Chapter kicked +Williamson to the curb a few years ago. So they're not exactly "conservative SSPX"!
-
If the district superiors were against Bp Fellay, the priests would be able to freely speak their minds without being threatened and reassigned. As it is now, warning the faithful of the dangers of a deal with Rome is not something the priests are allowed to do... see Fr. Roy's letter for proof.
I think there might have been specific details that inclined them away from Rome's offer, but I don't believe the superiors are altogether against the idea.
-
Fr. Girouard's email mentions a Rothschild donation, but was it not
the Gutmanns who donated ? Here is a link to the story:
http://mauricepinay.blogspot.com/2012/11/the-rothschild-gutmann-money-behind.html
He is probably inferring that the Gutmann donation was ultimately a Rothschild directive.
What nonsense. Mrs Gutmann was from a convert family and a supporter of Archbishop Lefebvre from the early days of the Society. Nothing to do with the Rothschilds.
-
Did +Williamson comment on this?
-
Fr. Girouard's email mentions a Rothschild donation, but was it not
the Gutmanns who donated ? Here is a link to the story:
http://mauricepinay.blogspot.com/2012/11/the-rothschild-gutmann-money-behind.html
He is probably inferring that the Gutmann donation was ultimately a Rothschild directive.
What nonsense. Mrs Gutmann was from a convert family and a supporter of Archbishop Lefebvre from the early days of the Society. Nothing to do with the Rothschilds.
The Rothschild-Gutmann Money Behind the SSPX Kosher Imperative
http://mauricepinay.blogspot.com/2012/11/the-rothschild-gutmann-money-behind.html
-
But Fellay, like the hated Herod Antipas, to whom Our Lord referred as "that vixen," using a play on words that alluded to Herod's ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity, is not one to give up easily his ambitions to become a Newchurch prelate, which he has harbored since at least the year 2000
"At least the year 2000" is an understatement. I heard him in person in 1995 say that the advent of regularization is like a "luscious plum" to him, and only later did I realize he may have been unintentionally describing the forbidden fruit of the Garden of Eden.
Meaning he wants to eat it, but he knows that eating it will result in death??
I saw him standing there and cupping his hands with his fingers pointing upwards as he slowly and deliberately said "luscious plum." What kind of imagery is that supposed to evoke in the listener if not what I'm referring to? When Eve took the forbidden fruit was she primarily thinking about the DEATH aspect, or was she swooning over the temptation being proffered, something otherwise unobtainable -- for her it was knowledge and "to be like God," but for +Fellay, the attraction is Ordinary Jurisdiction.