Author Topic: SSPX Communique after meeting of all Superiors (Read 22453 times)

wallflower · « **Reply #60 on:** June 30, 2016, 02:16:23 PM »

Quote from: aryzia

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!

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.

Clemens Maria · « **Reply #61 on:** June 30, 2016, 02:22:11 PM »

Quote from: snowball

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

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/

Quote

Against some rash reports about an alleged “abandonment” of reconcilation efforts on the part of the SSPX (see here and here, 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!

Maria Auxiliadora · « **Reply #62 on:** June 30, 2016, 03:45:23 PM »

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

hollingsworth · « **Reply #63 on:** June 30, 2016, 04:29:29 PM »

Quote

"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.

Graham · « **Reply #64 on:** June 30, 2016, 10:35:42 PM »

Quote from: snowball

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.

Quote

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?

Quote

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.

mw2016 · « **Reply #65 on:** July 01, 2016, 11:19:21 PM »

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.

simpletruth · « **Reply #66 on:** July 01, 2016, 11:44:30 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!

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.

Meg · « **Reply #67 on:** July 02, 2016, 06:16:20 AM »

Quote from: mw2016

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?

nctradcath · « **Reply #68 on:** July 02, 2016, 08:24:05 AM »

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.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #69 on:** July 02, 2016, 08:36:43 PM »

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.

hollingsworth · « **Reply #70 on:** July 03, 2016, 12:29:12 PM »

Quote

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.

clarkaim · « **Reply #71 on:** July 03, 2016, 01:07:55 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.

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?

Meg · « **Reply #72 on:** July 03, 2016, 05:25:14 PM »

Quote from: nctradcath

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.

mw2016 · « **Reply #73 on:** July 03, 2016, 05:35:26 PM »

Quote from: Meg

Quote from: nctradcath
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.

bishopcharriere · « **Reply #74 on:** July 06, 2016, 06:00:22 PM »

Quote from: nctradcath

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"?